Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Jason Whitlock’s op-ed is something celebrities, especially athletes, should read. Primarily, it calls out Nike and LeBron James. It doesn’t stop there, though. It calls out “Colin Kaepernick, Megan Rapinoe and all the social justice reformers”, too.

In the article’s second paragraph, Whitlock wrote “Demand Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, etc., bring a significant portion of their manufacturing jobs back to the United States.” In the third paragraph, Whitlock continued, writing “I don’t trust athletes and celebrities to fix the criminal justice system, community policing or other problems well outside their area of expertise.” From there, Whitlock gets into the heavy lifting of the article:

We’re making a mistake allowing athletes and celebrity influencers to set the agenda for the kind of reform and change we want to see in America. Professional athletes and Hollywood elites answer directly to their corporate overlords. They’ve lived inside an elitist bubble since they were teenagers and they don’t care to know what they don’t know. They’re paid handsomely to represent the desires of corporate America.

That’s exactly right. Anyone that thinks LeBron James or Colin Kaepernick have dealt with social justice issues on a personal level is kidding themselves.

From there, Whitlock calls out LeBron James:

LeBron James’ primary employer is Nike, not the NBA. LeBron’s shoe contract is worth more than $1 billion. Every calculated move LeBron makes related to social justice reform, from the Ahmaud Arbery tweets to the Equality T-shirts to the school his foundation partially funds to his decision to remain silent on the Hong Kong protesters, is made with Nike in mind.

Let’s get serious something straight. LeBron James isn’t a patriot. He sided with China because that’s where the shoes that he endorses are made with child labor. That isn’t my definition of a patriot.

Let’s be clear about this. Tweeting about Ahmaud Arbery while making hundreds of millions of dollars off the backs of child labor isn’t making this nation great. It’s playing a lead role in China’s propaganda fight.

Racial unrest in America leading into this presidential election cycle is good for Nike and great for Nike’s primary business market, China. Nike and China are aligned in their dislike of President Trump and his America First mantra.

This alone should be reason enough to vote for President Trump. If China is for something, we should oppose them. The Chinese Communist Party wants to eventually dominate the world. God forbid that happens. If it happens, China will censor anything it doesn’t want in public. But why would LeBron care? He’ll still be rich. He won’t have to worry about the annoying things that the little people will be burdened with obeying. This will get Whitlock virtual universal condemnation from the elitist haters:

As I have stated in previous columns, I do not vote and I have not involved myself in politics. But I will admit President Trump’s America First mantra is consistent with my values. Let me explain.

My mother was a 32-year union factory worker for AT&T’s Western Electric in Indianapolis and Kansas City. Her mother, my grandmother, was a 35-year union factory worker for General Electric’s RCA Corporation in Indianapolis. My father started as a union factory worker for Chrysler Motors in Indianapolis before owning and operating three neighborhood taverns that catered to union factory workers.

Then there’s this:

Global corporations have shipped the values taught and the opportunities provided by manufacturing labor overseas.

My dad didn’t graduate high school. My mom started working in a factory shortly after graduating high school. On the back of factory labor, they raised two sons who graduated from college, have never been in legal trouble, built professional careers and own homes. That’s the American Dream.

LeBron James won’t hesitate in selling the US out if it means extra millions in his bank account. I don’t begrudge a person for making fists full of money. I only begrudge it when he sells out the US of A.

Jason Whitlock is a patriot through and through. LeBron James never will be a patriot. LeBron is what’s wrong with America.

Despite what her Praetorian guard say, this hasn’t been a good week for the Swamp Mistress, aka Nancy Pelosi. It just got much worse. This morning, Ms. Pelosi decided that impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime without producing a single piece of proof that would be admitted in a court of law wasn’t enough. She’s decided that she’s taking the ‘full tyrant’ route by censoring House Republicans. Nothing says solemnity like a black dress and a week of censorship. Nothing says ‘I love the Constitution’ more than violating House Republicans’ First Amendment rights.

Under the current rules, members are allowed five minute speeches in the morning. The leadership on each side are allowed a full hour each at the end of the day and then each side is given two half hour slots. No floor speeches are allowed past 10 pm even if everyone has not had a chance to speak. In January, the House passed a rule that allows members only one Special Order speaking slot per week.

Pelosi not only shut down end-of-the-day special order speeches, on Thursday, she also cancelled the five minute speaking slots in the morning, effectively barring the Minority from speaking out against the biased and unfair impeachment process after the vote.

Saying that this has Louie Gohmert fired up is understatement:

According to the rules, the Minority is supposed to be allowed to have their own witness hearing before an impeachment vote, but Chairman Nadler (D-NY) denied them that right. Gohmert said that the majority could have voted to change the rules, but they didn’t even bother to do that much. They just straight-out violated the rules in their haste to impeach the president.

Gohmert also said he was going to point out the hypocrisy of Democrats who have been claiming that the rushed process was warranted because “time was of the essence.” If impeaching the president was such an urgent matter, why isn’t the Speaker sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Gohmert wanted to ask on the House floor.

Democrats don’t have an answer for Rep. Gohmert’s questions. That’s proof that the Democrats’ impeachment wasn’t fair, wasn’t thorough and didn’t meet the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment.

Rep. Gohmert was already fired up after this:

At times yesterday, Jerry Nadler tried needling Republicans. Mr. Nadler isn’t bright enough to win that fight. He got excoriated multiple times by Rep. Doug Collins, the Republicans’ floor manager yesterday, and by other Republicans, including Mr. Gohmert.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again. This wasn’t a fair fight despite the fact that the Democrats tilted the rules in their favor. Republicans proved themselves to be people of gravitas. Democrats proved themselves to be intellectual lightweights incapable of sustaining a coherent fight. Here’s one of the Republicans with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

It’s apparent that the City Council doesn’t value transparency. They talk a good game but their words are empty at best. First, the City Council changed the rules governing the open forum section of the meeting. Instead of letting a maximum of 5 people speak up to 3 minutes each on the topic of their choosing at the end of the meeting, the City Council changed the rules to adjourn the meeting first, then host the open forum after the cameras have been turned off.

Citizens were told that they wanted to do that to protect people who didn’t want to speak in front of the cameras. That’s total BS. That’s been part of the full meeting for years. Those citizens know that they’re being videotaped. From the times that I’ve spoken during that segment, I’ve never seen anyone who looked uncomfortable. Frankly, there aren’t that many people watching the City Council meetings so it isn’t like these citizens have reason to be frightened. That doesn’t mean that the things discussed during this part of the meeting are insignificant. It’s just that the viewing audience was that big.

Next, censuring a person doesn’t mean a thing. It has the impact of a resolution. It’s totally non-binding. Why should city councilpeople get upset when they’re criticized for the votes they’ve made? If you can’t stand the heat, don’t visit the kitchen.

I contacted Councilman Hontos to see if he’d like to make a statement for this post. He graciously accepted the invitation. Here’s his statement, published verbatim and without editing of any sort:

I pride myself as being a respectful, engaged council member who listens.
I am disappointed at the Council’s decision, which says more about it than me.
Providing factual information to the public about the Council’s decisions to the media is not a violation.
A Council is not a corporate board, America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas.
Our City faces many important issues, jobs, housing, diversity. The Council should stay focused on these issues and not distractions.
Furthermore, the first amendment gives everyone the freedom of speech. Just as our Supreme Court makes a ruling usually a dissenting opinion is written and published.
I will continue to represent the constituents of St. Cloud as I have been doing for 18 years. I want to thank all the positive feedback I have received. The people elected me for almost two decades now to ask the hard questions and to tackle tough issues.
George Hontos

Councilman Hontos is right. The Council’s decision says more about them than it says about him. What it says about them isn’t flattering, in my opinion.

Councilman Hontos is also right in stating that “America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas.” The day our elected people can’t stand transparency and vigorous, substantive debate is the day we’d need a major overhaul of our government. Hopefully, that won’t be required. This paragraph frightens me a little:

Conway cited rule No. 6, which states council members “respect the majority vote of the council, and do not undermine or sabotage implementation of ordinances, policies and rules passed by the majority.”

If that’s the total content of Rule # 6, then that rule needs to be eliminated. That sounds more like a speech code for collegiate snowflakes on campus. If one of the councilmembers disagrees with someone, then that councilmember should have the right to express that disagreement in any forum whatsoever. If the council has made a mistake and the individual highlights that mistake, then the individual councilmember has done the city a favor. (Yes, that means that the majority is sometimes wrong.)

If Councilman Hontos runs for re-election, he’ll have my vote. Councilman Hontos is one of 3 at-large councilmembers that represent the entire city. Now that Councilman Johnson has left the Council, the need for someone that “ask[s] the hard questions and … tackle[s] tough issues” is needed now more than ever.

In conclusion, I’ll simply state that it’s my opinion that the only reason for putting in a rule like that is to protect spineless councilmembers. It isn’t to keep confidential information confidential.

Just when you thought that the loony left couldn’t get loonier, up pops articles like this one. Transylvania University’s Young Americans for Freedom were approached by “Transylvania University Vice President for Enrollment and Student Life Holly Sheilley and Dean of Students Michael Covert” because they set up a table “to get students to sign a petition in support of the university adopting the Chicago Statement, upheld as the golden standard by many free speech activists, Sheilley approached them and told them to leave.”

Transylvania University isn’t in the business of treating each individual the same:

As heard in the audio recordings, Drury alleges that although he, Jacob Burnam, and Lucas Reed were shut down within minutes, the Young Democratic Socialists of America chapter tabled in the same area the day before for more than an hour.

“I emailed the first time I tabled and I was like, ‘hey do I need to fill out any forms or anything’ and they’re like, ‘no, just grab a table and set up,” one of the YDSA students who tabled Wednesday told Drury, according to an audio recording obtained by Campus Reform. “And then this time, I didn’t even email anyone. I just found a table and set up.”

This is what intellectual midgets sound like:

On Thursday, as Drury, Burnam, and Reed were there tabling, trying to get students to sign a petition in support of the university adopting the Chicago Statement, upheld as the golden standard by many free speech activists, Sheilly approached them and told them to leave.

“I really need y’all to pick up your stuff and go through the process,” Sheilly told the students, according to the audio recording.

When the three men asked Sheilly what the punishment would be for not leaving the area, the vice president for enrollment and student life said, “I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not the dean of students.” Drury, Burnam, and Reed then asked Sheilly about why the YDSA students were allowed to table there the day before for over an hour without anyone asking them to leave.

“I don’t know. I wasn’t here yesterday. I didn’t pass by here, I don’t guess. I mean, I’m telling you the truth. I didn’t see them. [Dean of Students] Covert says he didn’t see them,” Sheilly said.

This administrator should be fired immediately. She clearly doesn’t believe in the principle of equal justice under the law. It’s apparent that she’s ok with censorship, though. What a sad day in academia.

This article is proof that Keith Ellison hates the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. It’s also proof that he’s unfit to be Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer, aka state Attorney General.

The article notes that Ellison is “demanding that Amazon censor books and other materials produced by organizations listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.” That’s a frightening insight into Ellison’s thinking on multiple levels. First, it’s disturbing that the man who wants to be Minnesota’s attorney general thinks that censorship is a foundational constitutional principle. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment except if it incites violence. It doesn’t make much sense to have an attorney general who hates constitutionally protected civil rights.

Next. it’s disturbing, though not surprising, that Ellison thinks that the SPLC is a reputable arbiter of right and wrong. Here’s a couple snippets from Ellison’s censorship letter:

Click to enlarge.

Later in the letter is something that’s definitely chilling:

As stated earlier, Amazon has a strict policy against hateful and racist products on its platform. The availability of all the material listed in the aforementioned report indicates to me that either Amazon is willfully refusing to enforce its own policies against the sale of racist products or its sheer size make it impossible for the company to police itself. In either event, Amazon must immediately cease doing business with groups that promote racist violence.

It’s apparent that Ellison hasn’t hesitated in using his official capabilities to intimidate companies into outright censorship.

Any legal eagle that’s anti-civil rights is disqualified to be Minnesota’s attorney general.

Last night, the St. Cloud City Council disgraced itself by silencing a citizen. Specifically, Councilman John Libert, who is up for re-election this year, objected to Councilman Jeff Johnson recognizing a speaker. If you read my article last night, you know that the speaker Councilman Johnson wanted to recognize is John Palmer, a retired professor at St. Cloud State. Dr. Palmer holds the title of Professor Emeritus.

Last night, a faithful reader of LFR sent me a copy of the changing rules of order for the City Council. Saying that they reflect an autocratic mindset sounds over-the-top. The history and the detailed rules say something else. For instance, Rule No. 16 of the City Council Rules of Order “through August 2017” said “Recognition of Speakers a) Any member may recognize any person for the purpose of addressing the Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present.”

By the Dec. 11, 2017 Study Session, Rule 16 had morphed into “Recognition of Speakers: a) Any member, at a regular council meeting, may recognize any person for the purpose of providing testimony or addressing the Council on a specific agenda item being considered by Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present. Such recognition may also be extended at council study sessions with the consent of the majority of members present.”

Last night, a different rule was in place:

Recognition of Speakers: a) Any member, at a regular council meeting, including study sessions, may recognize any person, without objection, for the purpose of providing testimony or addressing the Council on a specific agenda item being considered by Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present.

The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Dr. Palmer had the right to “petition the Government” and address their grievances. Had this happened in August, Dr. Palmer would have had the right to address the Council, though I suspect that Council President Lewis still would have improperly shut him down. She, along with the other ostriches, haven’t hesitated in restricting citizens’ speech rights if it’s speech they don’t agree with. What’s most infuriating is the fact that the rules that were in place last night weren’t approved by the City Council nor were they voted on in this form.

Think about that. Dr. Palmer was silenced by the city council president after she agreed with one of the city councilmembers who cited a rule that wasn’t voted on and that’s likely unconstitutional. Such reckless regard for the rules lead to anarchy like we saw last night. This is what that looked like last night:

Compare the St. Cloud City Council’s behavior with the behavior in this article:

“I feel like justice was finally served,” said Robin Hensel, whose refusal to move her chair at a 2013 Little Falls City Council meeting was at the heart of the court’s decision. Hensel, a grandmother and peace activist who frequently protests at Camp Ripley, said she never thought she would actually get charged when she moved a folding chair to the open space between the public galley and the City Council’s dais.

This is the major takeaway from that incident:

In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with Hensel, saying: “The statute is broad and ambiguous, prohibiting any conduct or speech that ‘disturbs an assembly or meeting,’ whether expressive or not. An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech.”

The Founding Fathers, aka the men who wrote the Constitution, wanted more speech, not less. They didn’t want speech being oppressed. They rebelled against that in their Declaration of Independence.

When Carol Lewis and John Libert silenced a retired professor, they trampled on a citizen’s right to free speech. What’s most alarming is that they silenced a man even though they didn’t know what he was about to say. It’s time to fire these autocrats the next time they’re up for re-election. It’s time to fire them because they’re autocrats, not constitutionalists.

Finally, Mayor Kleis bears some responsibility, too. As Dr. Palmer highlighted in the comments last night, Mayor Kleis didn’t fight against the constitutional missteps that happened last night. That can’t happen again. There’s never a time when the Constitution shouldn’t be defended. Last night, Mayor Kleis missed an opportunity to defend the Constitution.

Technorati: , , , , ,

The city of Cambridge, MA, has a fight on its hands, thanks to their attempt to silence one of Elizabeth Warren’s opponents. Shiva Ayyadurai is suing the city because “Ayyadurai called the city’s order to remove the signs ‘a political vendetta by city officials who are supporters of Elizabeth Warren.'”

The lawsuit comes after Cambridge’s building inspector said there were a ‘series of anonymous complaints’ about the signs. Branden Vigneault, the inspector, said the signs were posted without permits and violated a zoning ordinance. Ayyadurai faces $300 for each day the signs don’t come down as well as potential legal action. But Ayyadurai said the signs are not going anywhere and tried to make it a matter of free speech.

First and foremost, the fines are likely unenforceable because they violate the First Amendment. Cities, counties and townships have been attempting to silence political speech through ordinances like this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled these impediments unconstitutional because they’re thinly-veiled attempts at censorship.

What touched off this firestorm is this advertising:

Elizabeth Warren frequently complains about how life is rigged against the common man. How isn’t this rigging the system against her opponent? Then again, doesn’t Warren really mean that life isn’t rigged enough to her preference?

This is an attempt at censorship to save Sen. Warren some embarrassment for making dishonest statements. Pocahontas shouldn’t be protected against prior foolish decisions.

When I read this article, it confirmed that our schools have failed us. Here’s what happened:

New Prague High School senior Andy Dalsin held a poster during the protest which said “Gun Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.” Principal Lonnie Seifert was having none of it, however. Seifert even threatened Dalsin with being hauled away by the police if he didn’t comply.

That’s just the start of it. Things quickly devolved:

Seifert claims he was just going by district policy, according to KSTP-5. In a statement, the district said “such items [as Dalsin’s] must be submitted to and reviewed by school administration at least 24 hours in advance.”

That’s an unenforceable policy because the First Amendment protects such speech. In fact, when the Supreme Court gutted McCain-Feingold, part of the reason for SCOTUS striking it down was because the bill told people when they could and couldn’t run advertising against candidates. This isn’t exactly on point but it’s close.

First, who gave Principal Seifert the constitutional authority to accept or reject communications of any sort? Next, why is expressing a contrarian opinion on another of our civil rights unacceptable? Didn’t the Founding Fathers put the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights to protect contrarian communications? I’ve said this before but I’ll repeat it again — there’s no need to protect non-controversial speech because everyone agrees with it. Finally, the First Amendment implicitly states that nobody in government has the authority to accept or reject student communications.

Further, Dailywire.com added to the story saying:

The video was first posted to Facebook by Kenny MacDonald, a student at New Prague High School in New Prague, Minnesota. The short video does not show what took place before or after the principal singled-out the student. In the post, MacDonald provided the following account of what took place:

Kids at our school today walked out, in honor of the 17 students killed in Florida. Students held signs that said, “Arm our teachers” they had two signs. A student walked out without saying a word peacefully put up his sign which said “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” he was escorted off the property by our principal and threatened to be put into a police car. This violates the first amendment and makes me sick that they can do whatever they want. Please make this go viral

It went viral alright:

Within a few hours, the video had already been viewed nearly 300,000 times, shared over 17,000 times, and received thousands of comments from people who expressed anger and disgust over the suppression of free speech and political indoctrination at public schools.

Then there’s this:

It’s appalling to read that “New Prague Area Schools fully respects and recognizes that students have free speech rights. Those rights, however, are to be balanced against the District’s responsibility to maintain a school environment focused on education.”

New Prague Area Schools obviously doesn’t respect students’ free speech rights because it threatened a student if he didn’t remove his sign. Further, a student’s First Amendment rights aren’t “balanced against the District’s responsibility to maintain a school environment focused on education.” A student’s First Amendment rights are to be balanced against the constitutional tests established by the Supreme Court. In literally hundreds of cases, the Supreme Court (and other appellate courts) have ruled against restrictions placed on people by city governments and school districts.

Finally, it’s frightening that a high school principal has such a flimsy understanding of the First Amendment. The School Board should order him to take an online class on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from Hillsdale College. Principal Seifert’s understanding of the Constitution is embarrassing.

Technorati: , , , ,

It’s been well-reported that the Edina Public Schools have implemented an indoctrination agenda. This Strib hit piece attempts to discredit those reports.

According to the Strib’s hit piece, “many parents and school board members dismissed the piece for providing little context and cherry-picking data.” That’s nonsense. Dictionary.com’s definition for cherrypicking is “to select with great care.” That isn’t what’s happening. Conservative students have testified in front of legislative committees. One of those students, Tatum Buyse, said during her testimony “The environment at school is so political. Everything is viewed as comparing white versus black when all I want to do is be a high-schooler.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. This article tells the story of Edina High School’s hostility towards conservatives:

Last month, some students sat in protest during the playing of taps and the national anthem in a Veterans Day assembly, the lawsuit says. Members of the Young Conservatives Club were outraged and took to Twitter to express that, according to a statement by the students who filed suit.

Members of the club also sent private chat messages among themselves that contained disparaging remarks about other students, including Somali-Americans. Those were made public in a YouTube video from an Edina High “anti-fascist” group, which demanded an apology. Afterward, school leaders revoked the Young Conservatives Club’s status as a school-sponsored organization, said attorney Erick Kaardal, who’s representing the students: Nick Spades, Elizabeth Ebner, Jazmine Edmond, Tatum Buyse and Ana Doval.

I’d argue that it’s difficult to “select with great care” episodes that apparently happen with great frequency. Further, I’d love hearing the Edina Public School’s explanation for revoking the Young Conservatives Club’s status as a school-sponsored organization. BTW, that’s a lawsuit EPS will lose.

Contained in John Hinderaker’s post is this information:

This one is from a student:

The day after the election I was texting my mom to pick me up from school and she almost had to!! Every teacher was crying in class, one even told the whole class “Trump winning is worse than 9/11 and the Columbine shooting.” The amount of liberal propaganda that was pushed every single day in class this year was worse than it’s ever been–and you’re bullied by the teachers and every student if you dare speak against it.
Yeah its horrible, the teachers can absolutely do whatever they want. The administration will do nothing about it!! The day of the election every single student was in the commons chanting “F*** TRUMP” and the teachers never did anything. A LOT of people are starting to complain and my mom has some friends who are leaving the school district.

A parent describes her daughter being abused in class in an email to a school administrator:

In talking with [my daughters], it came out that yesterday in my 10th grader’s AP World class, [the teacher] called out any Trump supporters and asked them to assure the class that they weren’t racist. Both my husband and I were aghast and we felt strongly that we should say something to you. … Yesterday’s incident in her class really surprised us as it is so completely inappropriate and unprofessional. If you talk with [the teacher] about this, please don’t mention my daughter. She doesn’t want to be identified for fear of retribution.

It sounds like this retaliation is pretty widespread. It’s difficult to cherry-pick information when it’s this plentiful. Mr. Hinderaker expresses his thoughts in this presentation:

Almost 10 minutes into his presentation, Mr. Hinderaker listed a series of statements. The anti-conservative hostility was described as “pervasive.” Based on the information in the presentation, I’d consider that description indisputable. FYI- the definition of pervasive is “spread throughout.”

Please take the time to watch Mr. Hinderaker’s entire presentation. I did and I’m glad I did.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

U of M President Eric Kaler is blatantly biased against conservatives. He’s quoted as saying “We are … mindful of the fact that he is a controversial speaker and that at several places where he’s spoken, protests have objected, and we intend to ensure the event is safe for all who attend.” That’s dizzying spin and then some. Ben Shapiro isn’t controversial to anyone that’s mainstream. Period. That President Kaler thinks he’s controversial because a bunch of left wing anarchists say he’s controversial indicates that Kaler is either an intellectual lightweight or that he’s a far left sympathizer.

PS- I’m tired that academicians immediately cave the minute far left anarchists (like Antifa and Black Lives Matter) threaten to protest. The thought that Ben Shapiro is controversial is laughable.

The U of M didn’t move Elizabeth Warren’s speech when she spoke there. She’s significantly more controversial than Shapiro. That’s because conservatives cherish free speech while anarchists don’t. That’s verified in this:

He said that in a harshly critical review in The Washington Post of a new book, “Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy.” In that book, authors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic advocate what Dershowitz says amounts to a “free speech for me, but not for thee” credo favoring the left.

Further, that’s a wimp’s excuse. If the U of M won’t stand up to these anarchists/rioters, they’ll continue disrupting events. They’ll keep censoring conservatives with a publicized threat.

What’s required is for the U of M, starting with President Kaler, to grow a pair and stand up to these anarchists. Have lots of security for the event. If the anarchists get out of hand, arrest them and prosecute them to the maximum extent allowed. If some of them get convicted of felonies and it ruins their lives, so be it.

Further, these aren’t kids. They’re adults. If they won’t act like it, put them in prison and teach them that society won’t tolerate their spoiled brat behavior. But I digress.

I couldn’t put it better than this:

Wittingly or unwittingly, university administrators are often complicit in the suppression of conservative speech on campus, cloaking it in a concern for public safety.

The article continues, saying:

The University of Washington sought to charge the College Republicans group a $17,000 security fee, but was blocked from doing so by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, who held that such an exorbitant fee would effectively shut down the group’s free speech rights.

Free speech shouldn’t cost $17,000, especially when public safety wouldn’t have been an issue at all were it not for the intolerant, violent left. Pechman, a 1999 judicial appointee of President Bill Clinton, rightly vetoed what effectively would have been a heckler’s veto.

That’s fantastic. It’s time to veto the heckler’s veto. It’s time to tell these punks that they won’t get their way just because they’re threatening conservative events.

I’d love hearing President Kaler’s explanation of whether this is controversial:

The U of M (and other universities) need to grow a pair.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,