I just read it when the paper came about one o'clock and thought it very lawyerly and as a consequence not helpful.

Oh no, of course not, and Obama's trashing of the economy is not designed to grow government. Why Obama is perfect, the apex of all that is great. The man who has done nothing is somehow wise on all things.

Obama supporters are deluded fools. If only Republicans had run someone who was not a lame loser. Obama is everything I expected, he did not surprise me one tad. He is the antithesis of America.

Dershowitz has well documented liberal rot ideas of what he thinks of America.

I posted the following comment over at the Wall Street Journal in response to Professor Dershowitz's misconceived column:

American Jews, including Professor Dershowitz (my excellent Criminal Law professor at Harvard Law School), were completely foolish to vote for Obama. First of all, concerning foreign policy, military matters and national security, John McCain was the vastly superior candidate, as he was and is knowledgeable and experienced in those subjects, a steady hand to guide America in what were sure to be troubled waters. Unquestionably, McCain would have, among other things, maintained traditional American support of Israel. In contrast, Obama had no knowledge and no experience with respect to foreign policy, military matters and national security. Putting such a person in the American Presidency was reckless given the problems in the world and particularly the Middle East. Secondly, it was clear enough that Obama was and is a person of the Left, and the Left's agenda includes hostility to Israel, which is why Obama would and did have people in his life who were and are rabid anti-Semites.

The core problem is that many American Jews still hold on to the destructive politics and illusions of the Left. During the election, it was not "bait and switch" on the part of Obama. It was the making of a few empty statements that would carry those who wanted to believe in Obama. At this point, Professor Dershowitz should clearly see the mistake made, but his column pathetically reads as if he really thinks that the Obama Administration will take certain steps that Professor Dershowitz notes. Perhaps Professor Dershowitz should spend some time reading David Horowitz's "Left Illusions" and pondering how intelligent people could persuade themselves to vote for someone in Obama who should have been utterly out of the question.

Alan Dershowitz is used to defending criminals. Need I say more?

One of the reasons why Dershowitz is perceived as a strong supporter of Israel is because those typically on the left are the most rabid haters of Israel, so we take what we can get. It is under this prism which one must view his support and his not so reasoned analysis.

To be sure Dershowitz wants to see Israel survive, and understands that it is the Jewish homeland. HOWEVER, despite ALL the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that a 'two state' solution will only lead to a one state solution-the destruction of Israel-Dershowitz continues to parrot its efficacy. At the same time we must be mindful that Dershowitz is not an island unto himself, as Israel's deluded, dangerous leftists are guilty of the same fantastical thinking.

Therefore, like a true, died in the wool leftist, Dershowitz sees what he wants to see. He was a strong supporter of Obama, and as of yet his rose colored glasses have not been rearranged by reality on the ground. I suspect that in short order he will have his epiphany, as soon as Obama runs interference for the mullahs once the IAF gets its green light.

Tragically, many Harvard guys (and gals) are often the last to see reality for what it often is-to the detriment of millions of citizens.

it is simple

people supported obama becasue of their own selfish desires.
obama is the anti- JFK (rememebr JFK's speech? ask not what my country can do for me....)
and i am not a big fan of JFK.

Grumbling supressor: It's because object-applied-force and acceleration occur simultaneously that we know one can not be the "result" of the other. The "imbalance" force and acceleration happen concurrently. They are, thus, one two-dimensionalitied expression. The system is free-flow, not reactive. Free-flow doesn't allow for absolute negatives or multiple infinities. It is coupling between two equal expressions.

Seriously, in the all-is-relative world of today, how do you know that the object accelerates because of the growing force, and not that the force is increasing beause the thing is accelerating, when it is a concurring event? That's right, you can't. So, not one or the other, something else. Keep listening to the genius of men, it will kill you dead.

See, Einstein understood better than most, that there are either two classes of force:Consciously applied, and Induced by field circumstance, or one true kind of force,the conscious kind, the kind where I tip a toy block one way and not the other or not at all, and the implied force that appears to be the product of the fact that a thing is accelerating. This notion is what gave him rise to consider that we stand in a difficult place from which we attempt to see, seeing from in the world, while trying to see it from outside, also, as a whole. All appears REACTIVE, I tip, the block moves,... that, IS reactive, but what of the block that just sits? Is it really held up by the table's "force"? Einstein said How do we know that the acceleration of the gravitational field coupled to the acceleration provided by the table leaves the block with no force to compel it, so it doesn't move? We don't know, but "we" are damned sure not averse to guessing! That is true relativity, decoupled from the assumption that what you see is all there is to see. You press, a thing moves. The Force, the true force was in the decision making of the thing. Everything else, as decoupled from this fictitious induced inner force must be ignored. Things move, because they are moved to their circumstance by a FORCE that is so far beyond earthman's desire to comprehend that he sees with the eyes of the dead and refuses to believe that there is something, someone out there so profound and endless that HE spans all vision of mind or soul. Science has sold its soul into hell, the hell of oblivion and nothing, and the pipers pipe and dance as the dead dance and sing at the news of God's demise. Laugh, children of hell, while there is still time,... all this is swift upon the earth, woe, woe.

The field, is in free flow, interacting as energy always follows its straightest available path, the path is shaped by the energy flowing in it. Coupled, two things 2-D, ONE reality 3-D. And with that,... boo, and poof!! Oh, and "WOE".

For anyone interested in the liberal psyche -- in figuring out what makes the leftist mind "tick" -- Alan Dershowitz is an interesting case study. Here's a guy who teaches law at Harvard. One would presume, therefore, that he is deeply committed to the scrupulous consideration of facts, the rigorous use of logic and rational thought, and the exclusion -- insofar as it's possible -- of emotion when arriving at conclusions. And one would further presume that he teaches these intellectual virtues to his students. Well, I have no idea what he teaches to his students, but it is plain that last November, he violated every one of these precepts when arriving at his choice for president. Instead, he fell in love with a candidate, let that emotion color his thinking, threw the facts, rationality, and objectivity to the wind, and voted for Obama. Indeed, he did more than that; he became a cheerleader for Obama, missing no opportunity to tout him in love-stricken terms. What strange behavior for a professor of law -- at Harvard of all places!

What this demonstrates, I suppose, is that love conquers all. A school-boy crush is sometimes enough to make a teenager stop eating, so why shouldn't a political crush make a law professor stop following the precepts of legal thinking? But there's more to it than that. Over the years, in book after book and public appearance after public appearance, Dershowitz has declared himself a lover of the State of Israel and all it stands for. Apparently, last November, his love for Barack OBama overcame his love for Israel. When the time came to choose between two loves, he made it plain where his real love lies. When push came to shove, he spurned Israel for liberalism. Dershowitz would no doubt deny this, but the truth is that he is too intelligent a man not to know that in voting for Obama he was voting against Israel. After all, many, many readers of American Thinker -- easily Dershowitz's equals in intelligence -- knew that. How could Obama not have known?

The case of Alan Dershowitz does much to answer the question so often raised in the comments printed on this website: How could so many Jews have voted against the State of Israel? The answer: their devotion to "progressive" ideas and "progressive" candidates is much deeper than their devotion to Israel and the Jewish people. If these knuckleheads had had a decent Jewish education, they'd have known that the ideals of the State of Israel are much more in accord with the ideals of our own country than are the ideals of Barack Obama. But the sad story of Jewish education will have to await another post.