Stop federal funding for universities and police that tolerate left-wing violence

When I first saw the video of the Berkeley riots from this past weekend, I thought to myself, well, it’s good that those on the Political Right are fighting back. After a few minutes, though, I realized that unless the police and the courts stop this, someone will eventually get killed.

It’s hard to blame folks on the Right for showing up prepared for a fight, especially in radical whack-a-doodle Berkeley. The authorities there – if you can even call them that — seldom do anything about the Lefties who engage in violence. Indeed, the police in Moscow-by-the-Bay are always ready to accommodate the Leftists.

This from the “Event Planning Checklist” portion of the Berkeley Police Department’s website shows police offering to perform “symbolic arrests”: (See Below)

That sentiment is also reflected in what the Berkeley police did when the fighting broke out on Saturday, namely standing idly by.

The administration at UC Berkeley is also useless.

Granted, these pencil-pushing pinkos can’t stop what happens off-campus like Saturday’s riot. But they don’t actually do much when it happens on campus, as was the case when left-wing thugs shut down Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech there in February.

In its feckless press release following the Milo debacle, the administration claimed that, “The University and the UCPD went to extraordinary lengths to plan for this event and put the appropriate resources in place in order to maintain security.”

And they’ve since learned how to improve their security: Just cancel such events.

As David French noted a few days ago, this has all become a farce:

If the media accurately and comprehensively reported on leftist mob violence, it would see that a pattern has emerged: On campus and in the streets, a violent or menacing core seizes the ground it wants, blocks access to buildings, and shuts down the speech or events it seeks to suppress. This violent core is often surrounded and protected by a larger group of ostensibly “peaceful” protesters who sometimes cheer aggression wildly and then provide cover for the rioters, who melt back into the crowd. After the riot, the polite progressives condemn the violence, urge that it not distract from the alleged rightness of the underlying cause, and then do virtually nothing to enforce the law and punish the offenders.

Congress can fix the problem by enacting a law so that any college or university where an exchange of ideas is canceled because of inadequate security loses a year’s worth of federal funding. That means all funding, including money for students such as Pell Grants. Ditto for police departments that do not enforce the law.


Continued below...

Views: 63

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Howard Dean Suggests The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Ann Coulter

Read more:

Was he screaming when he said that?

too too tolerant.

funding/subsidizing universities which openly, proudly and aggressively indoctrinate anti-originalist constitutional 'progressive' ideology makes no sense at all. ALL the Ivy League universities fit that criteria and recent news says they also get YUUUGE amounts of money from fed/gov.   HOW IS THAT SANE?

...and the worst of them is Harvard, which is on most fed/gov politicians' resume'.   The word Harvard should be a pejorative, and a disqualifier on a resume' -- not the near prerequisite that it is.

Frank where do you find all these great graphics!!! LOL

Willie Brown (Adelle Nazarian / Breitbart News)

Willie Brown: Free Speech Is ‘Being Buried in Berkeley’

Willie Brown, the first African-American mayor of San Francisco, has used his latest San Francisco Chronicle column to condemn liberal intolerance at the University of California, Berkeley towards conservative speakers as the reversal of that campus’s free speech legacy.

The context for Brown’s criticism is the decision by UC Berkeley not to allow conservative author Ann Coulter to speak on campus. That decision was reversed, but the university insisted that Coulter speak at a designated date and time, when classes were not in session or when few students were likely to attend, in order to minimize the risk of violent protests.

In 1964, Berkeley was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, which demanded the right to advocate for any political cause on campus, with or without the approval of the administration. The movement broke open dialogue on campuses nationwide, and inspired a generation of activists to join protests against the Vietnam War and other causes.

Brown notes an odd irony — present at many other campuses today, as well — where the students are demanding an end to free expression, the very right that their parents’ generation marched to protect and expand.

He writes:

When the Free Speech Movement got rolling at UC Berkeley in the 1960s, the whole point was winning the right to speak out about civil rights, sex, the Vietnam War or anything else on your mind.

It was youth versus “the man.”

Now it’s youth demanding the shutdown, and the man expressing outrage at the death of free speech.

And the cops being sent in to protect it.

How’s that for a reversal?

March for (Political) Science: Earth Day rally doubles as latest anti-Trump protest

Framed as a defense of scientific inquiry, the Earth Day march offered a lesson in political science as speakers urged thousands of rain-soaked attendees to fight President Trump’s “anti-science” agenda by advocating more federal funding for research.

NEW VIDEO of Antifa Member and Professor Eric Clanton Beating Trump Supporters with BIKE LOCK!… Where Is the Media???

Where is the mainstream media?

The list includes:

* New York Times
* Washington Post
* Politico

A Trump supporter got his head cracked open with a bike lock at a rally for the president and the media totally ignored the story and ignored that a leftist professor is the assailant.


From our earlier post:

Diablo Valley College professor Eric Clanton has been unmasked by a group of online free speech advocates. Utilizing the concept of crowdsourcing, /pol/, a message board hosted on 4Chan, was able to figure out who exactly assaulted a pro-1st Amendment demonstrator . .


I would love to kick this guy's skinny ass. Seriously!

Trump Derangement Syndrome vs. Trump results

Nearly 100 days into the Trump Administration, you would think that the anti-anything-Trump movement would at least start to fade. Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, it has gotten worse.

Look at the staged protests at town hall meetings held by members of Congress during their two-week recess. Hundreds of people showed up to protest anything Trump, and the member of Congress for supporting President Trump. The member’s supporters probably thought it would be a walk in the park, since most of them approve of the direction in which President Trump and Congress are headed.

The Media Research Center just released a report that showed the liberal media coverage (ABC, CBS and NBC) of President Trump and his administration was 89 percent negative since he was sworn in as president. The positive results achieved in such a short period of time as president simply do not support the negative coverage.

Consider the following!

  • A positive tone from the top
  • A business-friendly administration (less regs and taxes)
  • Massive regulatory suspension and rollbacks (11 Congressional Review Act orders signed)
  • Freeze on hiring except for the military
  • National debt already down over $100 billion
  • Judge Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court
  • March job creation the highest since 2011
  • Weekly jobless claims the lowest in eight years
  • Stock market optimism set a new record
  • Investing more in rebuilding our military
  • Enforcing our immigration laws
  • Illegals crossing the southern border down 70 percent since December
  • Message to ISIS: “Can you hear me now?”
  • Message to Russia: “You are not our friend”
  • Message to China: “Yes, we can work together”
  • Message to North Korea: “Don’t start something you can’t finish”

Legislative accomplishments require more time as I explained in an earlier commentary, but here are three big items that are positively making their way through Congress:

  • Repeal and replace Obamacare
  • Cut taxes, restructure and simplify the tax code
  • Rebuild our military

Writing in the Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria first coined the term Trump Derangement Syndrome. Now that I have given him credit, I will ride this description like a race horse!

There is no other way besides TDS to describe the persistent protests, which Hillary Clinton has encouraged, the Democrat resistance in Congress, and the constant negative reporting by the liberal media. In essence, TDS is:

  • Denial that Donald Trump is president
  • False, fake, deceptive and negative media narratives
  • Ignoring the positive results happening with a Trump presidency

For Anti-Free Speech Prof, We’re Just Bricks in the Wall
By J. Robert Smith

NYU prof Ulrich Baer recently penned a soft-sell piece for the New York Times advocating censorship. Baer would never claim his take is anti-free speech. The guy -- or is he a transgender[i]; we shouldn’t assume, huh? – is good at what left-wing college profs do: shill for leftist radicalism with measured words. Layer in probing research, analysis, and philosophic musings from obscure academics, and Baer’s radicalism gives the appearance of sober thought and conclusions arrived at judiciously.

Baer, whose NYU bio photo makes him look like a recent puberty grad[ii] - or one of the Cowsills, given his mop-top – is only suggesting that in, oh, politics, “the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.” Elbowing your way into the arena is just so… brutish and passé. Delicate sensibilities merit kid-glove treatment – despite young Master Baer’s counterclaim that feelings really aren’t the issue. Nowadays, “otherness” just isn’t up to the rough and tumble associated with 1st Amendment rights.

Unless you’re a spoiled brat left-wing street thug converging on Berkeley, there to harass Ann Coulter, destroy property, and assault anyone who looks normal. Check that. Harassment, property destruction, and assault have nothing to do with free speech. But aren’t those actions an attempt to “accommodate those who previously had no standing.” Leftist movements always have their muscle to help boost “standing.” Ain’t that how the Cheka started?

Berkley’s brats will be permitted to romp through the streets of said community with near impunity – if we read the city’s new mayor correctly. Even Berkley’s cops are worried.

Reports Fox News:

Jesse Arreguin, the 32-year-old newly elected mayor facing his first major test in running a large city. Arreguin has been accused of supporting left-wing violence because he is a member of the Facebook group of By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN, a far left group that has incited violent protests across the country.

Arreguin, who resembles a fatter Latino version of Jonah Hill[iii], swears he was only following the two legit hate groups to monitor their activities. But, hey, Berkeley + By Any Means Necessary + BAMN = Suspicious.

When leftist bad boys sentient beings and bad girls sentient beings are bingeing on hate and working their candy arses off to shutdown Coulter’s speech and waylay passersby, what say Herr/Frau Baer, who serves as NYU’s Provost for Faculty, Arts, Humanities, & Diversity? Will Berkeley mob thuggishness compel him to publicly decry the perpetrators?

The betting is no. See, Coulter, in Baer’s cozy, tenured little universe, is a purveyor of hate speech. Per Baer, if Yale can keep George C. Wallace and William Shockley off campus, because of disagreeable ideas and opinions, then shutting out Coulter -- by lefty standards, a hate speaker extraordinaire -- is grand. Besides, the great Democratic scholar Howard Dean says that putting the kibosh on “hate” speech is A-Okay. And if UC Berkley’s wimpy gender-wavering deans and administrators, along with His Fat Otherness, Hizzoner Arreguin, can’t squelch Coulter, then, perhaps, rage in the streets is suitable payback?

But let’s round back to Baer’s sophistry[iv]. He writes:

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections -- not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities -- should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

Transgenderism is progressive leftist vogue. Let’s measure transgenderism against Baer’s contention.

Verboten is the opinion that transgenders are deeply troubled men and women. Cosmetic surgery, hormone treatments, and wearing dresses or jockstraps aren’t the remedies many transgenders believed they’d be. Suicide rates among transgenders seem to bear that out. But to even suggest that’s the case discourages transgenders from “participat[ing] in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.”

First, what are “given” and “that” community? Rather murky, as is much of Baer’s screed. Is it a gathering of Catholic laymen? Congregants at a Sunday Southern Baptist service? A family dinner table gathering? An “otherness” bowling league? A college classroom, where inquiry and spirited exchange are supposed to be encouraged?

By Baer’s logic, participation is lopsided in favor of the minority or once out-group. Transgenders can make any claim and assertion “validating” their experience. Counterpoints aren’t permitted, lest the transgender is discounted, marginalizing his, her, or its participation. Don’t dare raise the possibility that at the root of transgenderism is a sad pathology.[v]

Baer wants us to believe that changed attitudes about free speech are inevitable. An out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new Geist is afoot. Generational and demographic changes are sweeping away old broad agreement that free speech needs to really be free, however odious or distancing.

Not that this emerging understanding arises from any dialectic. Dialectics are too harsh, too conflictual, and can alienate. Change comes with smothering submission. The fate of dissenters? Marginalization, loss of status, employment, and, perhaps, in good time, a reeducation camp stint. Why not? Lefties have always loved reeducating anyone with the brass to oppose their unassailable worldviews.

CONSEQUENCES: Mizzou Loses More Students, Will Shut Down 3 More Dorms

The University of Missouri has no one to blame for their current crisis but their own leadership. After the campus protests of 2016, they could have corrected course. Instead they did nothing to address the problem and now they’re paying the price.

The College Fix reported:

Mizzou enrollment plunge continues: Three more dorms shutting down next year

The public university that gave us Melissa “Muscle” Click – and announced open season on student journalists that try to cover social justice warriors – continues to suffer fallout from the November 2015 melee.

The University of Missouri is shutting down three dorms next year because of low freshman enrollment, The Maneater reports.

Technically they are being taken “offline” to see if enrollment bumps back up, and “most or all” staff will keep their jobs, Residential Life Director Frankie Minor said in an email obtained by the paper:

“Historically every year between now and August, various situations occur that result in position openings, e.g. normal attrition and voluntary staff choices, as well as unplanned academic or personal challenges,” the email said. “If necessary, we will offer alternative employment opportunities at comparable compensation to the remaining staff.”

Mizzou still has time to fix this problem but only if they want to do it. Otherwise, the university will just keep shrinking.



Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen


Breaking:  FBI Admits Comey Leaked Memos 
 That Were Classified   Material! 

The FBI turned over the Comey memos to Congress today after missing their deadline earlier in the week.

Congressional leaders threatened to impeach deep state leaders if they continued to stall on the memos.

Fired FBI Chief James Comey wrote about the memos in his book and leaked the documents to reporters last year. Congress has not yet had a chance to look at the memos — Until tonight.


Meaning Fired FBI Chief James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESS.

From the report:

From the DOJ to Congress:

Therefore, pursuant to your request, we are providing the requested memoranda in both the redacted and unredacted formats for your convenience. Consistent with your request, we are providing an unclassified version of the documents redacted to remove any classified information.

The DOJ wrote Congressional leaders this evening.

page 2

Hannity: Good news for Trump, crushing blows for the left

GOP Congressional Leaders Nunes, Gowdy And Goodlatte Release Statement On Comey Memos

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued a statement on the memos later tonight.

The House chairmen note that the memos prove that fired Director Comey never felt obstructed or threatened from his relationship with the president.

And… former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence published the statement tonight:

Today House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued the following statement:

“We have long argued former Director Comey’s self-styled memos should be in the public domain, subject to any classification redactions. These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not.

Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated. The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.

The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. While former Director Comey went to great lengths to set dining room scenes, discuss height requirements, describe the multiple times he felt complimented, and myriad other extraneous facts, he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation.

The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.

These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus. He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.

The memos show Comey was blind to biases within the FBI and had terrible judgment with respect to his deputy Andrew McCabe. On multiple occasions he, in his own words, defended the character of McCabe after President Trump questioned McCabe.

Finally, former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel, yet he took no steps to spur the appointment of Special Counsel when he had significant concerns about the objectivity of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made.”


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service