Leftists: speech is brutality

As long as it fails to correspond to their version and values attached to speech. Any speech. All speech.

And to think we once had a First Amendment.

Stop. Did you realize that the United States is the only major Western country that does not have an official and onerous “hate speech” criminal law on its books?

In my mind, that bespeaks much more about all of those other countries than it does about the United States.

But isn’t some speech the equivalent of brutality? Can’t much of speech be the equivalent of brutality? Let’s consult a Leftist psychology professor.

When Is Speech Violence?

by Lisa Feldmann Barrett

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?

There you go. Speech is in fact violent. With that in mind, I wonder just what kinds of speech Leftists will consider violent because, after all, the author is quite the Leftist herself? Moreover, who will make these weighty decisions?

This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”

Ah, here we go. Safe spaces. Coloring books. Safety pins, trigger warnings and microaggressions. The only things truly required at universities any more are drool cups. And sippy cups.

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Again: define “abusive.” In whose eyes? And who makes that ultimate determination?

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

Wait. Are these hateful words. Is this an advocacy of violence?

A history of violence? On whose side?

What of the loving and peaceful Diablo College professor Eric Clanton? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be actual violence committed by a Leftist on camera.

Then there is Leftist professor Kevin Allred from Montclair State University who Tweeted last Friday night, July 28th: “Trump is a fucking joke. This is all a sham. I wish someone would just shoot him outright.”

What does that sound like to you? Just a wee tinge of violent speech? Enough to nut up a snowflake? Not necessarily for, you see, it is all quite topic-dependent.

To me it sounds like the environment one customarily encounters on any given campus in the United States when any student, singly or in a group, begins speech which is conservative in nature. In this aspect Barrett makes a perfect point. But not the one she intended.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

Let me unpack the obvious here, something few people point out. Milo is or isn’t anyone’s particular cup of tea. Frankly, I enjoy his willingness to display pushback right in the revered houses of “education” so unfailingly determined to restrict speech. But the reason debate isn’t generally acquired in a Milo campus presentation is because of two aspects: 1. He thinks on his feet with remarkable rapidity, and 2. He is quick to throw facts and situations back at the commenters and questioners in the audience. Leftists don’t operate in the sphere of facts but instead of emotions.

That was pretty emotional, I’d wager. Thanks, professor. Nice advocacy of violence.

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

Then Barrett encountered a problem. She appeared on the Tucker Carlson show.

Leftists are at least nothing if not consistent. They only deign to answer questions fitting their narrative. And certainly not the questions I posed as did Tucker: define abuse and tell me who becomes the ultimate determinant of same?

Leftists would resoundingly answer in unison to the one question: government should be the determinant by way of laws restricting speech. Damn that First Amendment.

Oddly enough an article exists in New York magazine countering Barrett’s argument.

Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them

by Jesse Singal

One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them — or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent).

Agreed. Just ask snowflakes. I love that word. It’s so apropos.

So it’s weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet that’s what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined “When Is Speech Violence?” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.

Is this the same science to which Al Gore shakingly refers? The same science the Australian Weather Bureau used to cobble together false climate numbers?

This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there.

Thank you. Finally, someone points out the Captain Obvious aspects of campus speech and pretty much speech everywhere.

And that’s this. You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.

This is apparently a concept with which Leftists, snowflakes, raindrops and all makes and models of emos are stultifyingly unfamiliar.

Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. It’s simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations — in a way, it’s an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists.

Thank you. Again more shocking clarity and honesty.

Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm. 

Yes. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.

From whom does trauma occur to others? Leftists.

From whom does violence on campus occur? Leftists.

Who cannot brook or tolerate opposing viewpoints, thoughts or exposition?

Leftists.

BZ

 

Why DC has turned to shite

I’ve said it for over six months and, despite that, some elements of the media are just now beginning to catch up. And that is this.

The Demorats, the DNC, Leftists and the American Media Maggots themselves have not been able to psychologically migrate from November 8th, 2016 to November 9th, 2016.

As in: Hillary Rodham Clinton should be president and we — all of us — cannot possibly believe that the man with the dead orange cat on his head is in charge of anything at all.

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

The One Sentence That Explains Washington Dysfunction

by Matthew Continetti

The other day Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania explained why Republicans are having such trouble with health care. Speaking at a town hall during the July 4 recess, Toomey said, “I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn’t. So we didn’t expect to be in this situation.”

No kidding. I too can report that, from June 16, 2015, to November 8, 2016, the feeling among the elected officials, party functionaries, consultants, strategists, and journalists in our nation’s capital was that Donald J. Trump stood no chance of becoming president of the United States. And because the political elite held this view with such self-assurance, with all the egotism and snobbery and moral puffery and snarkiness that distinguishes itself as a class, it did not spend more than a second, if that, thinking through the possible consequences of a Trump victory.

I repeat, at the risk of being repetitive, live and direct from the Department of Redundancy Dept., what I’ve said for at least nine months. Absolutely no one was prepared for or anticipated Donald Trump to win.

“I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn’t. So we didn’t expect to be in this situation.”

Please allow me to translate EstabliHack GOP Speak for you: “we didn’t expect Donald Trump to win so we essentially prepared nothing, thinking we’d be riding on more of the standard ‘talk much/do little’ strategy so customary with Establishment Republicans.”

That also accounts, you see, for the GOP having no cogent, conservative, logical alternative to ObamaKare prepared on paper though all of the candidates swore — as did the entire GOP itself — to repeal and replace the ACA.

Just as the Demorats were convinced Hillary Clinton would clap her canky little ankles up the White House steps, so were the Republicans convinced that Meb Bushney or Lindike Grahabee would settle a derriere behind the Resolution desk.

Not so, boys and girls, not so.

Further, all the oinking DC piglets lining up at the trough on both sides of the aisle have had their muzzles occasionally pulled from the DC nipple in a most disconcerting fashion and they are anything but pleased. The man with the dead orange cat on his head has most certainly upset the proverbial apple cart and, frankly, couldn’t care less who is affected, donk or phant.

This accounts for the true underminers on both sides to have wound up and pitched their most hellish opposition to damn near everything Trump has wanted to do. Internal squabbles Inside Power don’t help, either.

Despite all of this ridiculous shite President Trump has managed to do just a bit of politicking and directing which has resulted in any number of corporations deciding to stay stateside, a nice stock market, an uptick in jobs, an accountable VA, an exquisite Supreme Court selection, a reduction in illegal immigration from Mexico, an increase in deportations, the curtains finally having been pulled back on the American Media Maggots, an improvement in military and national confidence and the wholesale elimination of any number of executive orders penned by one Barack Hussein Obama.

All in six months.

Then there’s this: the absolute stark explosion of raving moonbattery from the Demorats and Leftists.

Why stop there? Pelosi so perfectly typifies and embodies the current status of the Demorats today: disjointed, stuttering, rambling, going nowhere and accomplishing nothing yet making a loud noise doing so. The abject moonbattery is quite delicious.

To that I can only add that I’ll gladly do for the Demorats what I’ve offered to do for the American Media Maggots: pleasantly allow them to commit seppuku. I’ll cheerfully be their second as well and suggest lovingly where and how to make that second very important sword cut.

Impeachment for Trump? Hardly. All the Demorats are doing is, thankfully, unraveling and unfocusing. 2018 is starting to look better and better.

Bravo, Demorats and GOP EstabliHacks.

We see you.

BZ

 

Your dying First Amendment

Killed by Leftists, Demorats, Progressives, anarchists and, of all people, aided and abetted by the American Media Maggots.

Whose speech and freedoms will likewise be suppressed.

This used to be true. Is it now?

And even some Republicans who lack actual testosterone or estrogen.

Wait. I take that back. Too many Republicans operate on estrogen though they appear as males.

Stop. Perfect time for this video.

So why the big concern over freedom of speech? Because of past, recent and continuing incidents involving the lack of it on American college campuses. This video summarizes appropriately.

That was the view of a college professor, who accurately reflects the views on way too many American college and university campuses today. Most of these are, of course, funded by American Taxpayer cash.

Your First Amendment freedoms are at stake.

Further, your overall American freedoms are also at stake which, of course, is what makes this nation more exceptional than most any other.

What other nation has this:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Leftists and Demorats will tell you our nation is evil on its face and is everything but exceptional.

But where do Leftists or Demorats actually mention freedom? Where is it that they wish to add to your freedoms in any fashion, instead of removing them? Removing them and then occasionally selling them back to you at a massive profit? Come on, Al Gore only wants $15 trillion of your taxpayer dollars.

Those freedoms buttressed and solidified by the sacrifice of 419,000 US soldiers and civilians in WWII. Yet what passes for state-of-the-art thought on US freedom of speech today by a politician — a Demorat politician mind you — is this.

He couldn’t be more wrong. The First Amendment exists not to protect pablum speech, but specifically challenging speech.

First, let’s be honest: there is no real definition for “hate speech.” It, like pornography, is in the eye of the beholder. The unsaid crux of the biscuit is, naturally: just who determines “hate speech”? That is the key.

Courts have ruled that the First doesn’t protect outright threats, speech that would tend to provoke a personal fight, and child pornography. “Hate speech” is not included as an exception.

KKK speech is protected. Symbols, like a burning cross, are protected. The Westboro Baptist Church is protected.

An interesting point from Politifact:

The Supreme Court has established a general principle that a government administrator can’t decide to charge a group a higher fee for event security based on anticipated public reaction to the content of the event, and a lower court found that this applies to colleges, too. So if Berkeley is basing its security decisions on what it expects Coulter to say, that could pose a problem.

We heard what one professor thinks of free speech. Another example of what passes for state-of-the-art thought on US freedom of speech today by “educators” is this, from the NYTimes.com:

What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

by Ulrich Baer

Widespread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable and entitled “snowflakes” fail to acknowledge the philosophical work that was carried out, especially in the 1980s and ’90s, to legitimate experience — especially traumatic experience — which had been dismissed for decades as unreliable, untrustworthy and inaccessible to understanding.

Translated: the surfeit of emotional, sensitive snowflakes are in fact traumatized by certain speech. Their horror should not be delegitimized.

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

Translated: censorship isn’t really the removal of free speech; it’s a guarantee not to offend. Offense is a much worse condition than that of the removal of speech itself. Restricted speech is a “public good.”

But listen to this.

In such cases (“when those views invalidate the humanity of some people”) there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.

Perfect. Who needs actual speech? In public? Just go to the internet. Meanwhile, we as Leftists will keep our politically-correct stranglehold on what it is you can hear and read.

The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to overestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation’s oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth.

Again, Leftists proving there is no real “good” or “bad.” There are simply events that occur on a sliding scale created of their own highly-informed thinking.

We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.

You see? A “sophisticated understanding.” This is akin to saying that because some poor people cannot actually afford to go out and purchase a firearm, we need to eliminate the Second Amendment.

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.

Uh, yes it is. You lie. The exceptions are delineated above as determined in US courts.

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.

Now it gets grotty. At first blush the paragraph above is nothing but mush. I provide this accurate translation for you: if only one of a delineated set of protected species are offended, even in the slightest, that speech is deemed hateful.

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.

Translated: speech is now hateful when you question someone.

Here is a sentence that doesn’t even warrant reproducing in its entirety.

Unlike today’s somewhat reflexive defenders of free speech.  .  .

“Reflexive defenders of free speech.” In times past that was considered a positive feature, a wonderful attribute. Now, according to “educators,” that’s a glitch, a quirk, a serious problem requiring repair.

What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse.

Please tell me, ladies and gentlemen, where the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse are being quashed? Examples please. Be specific.

We should thank the student protestors, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other “overly sensitive” souls for keeping watch over the soul of our republic.

Of course. Thanks, Berkeley and other US universities, for rioting and burning and blockading and threatening so that opposing views cannot be remotely considered on campus. They really are “closed campuses” with regard to alternate views, theories and speech. Closed. Walled off. It is truly suppression by violence. On the part of Leftists.

Here is what Judge Andrew Napolitano said of this specific editorial.

Light to make the cockroaches scatter.

You know you have a serious problem when even Bill Maher skewers Leftists blocking free speech.

That’s an individual on a TV show. What happens when you have a mammoth tech giant like Google censoring from within? From DCClothesline.com:

Google’s Schmidt: “We’re Not Arguing For Censorship, We’re Arguing Just Take It Off The Page”

by Chris Menahan

Google is not going to “censor” their search results, they’re just going to take search results “off [their] page” to “essentially have you not see it.”

Say what?

In a video from March 23 that’s just now going viral, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was asked by Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo how they plan to deal with extremist content. Eric Schmidt responded by mixing in “fake news” with “extremist things” and suggested their computer algorithms will determine what’s true:

“My own view on most of this sort of extremist things as well as fake news in general is that it’s essentially a ranking problem. We’re very good at detecting what’s the most relevant and what’s the least relevant. It should be possible for computers to detect malicious, misleading and incorrect information and essentially have you not see it. We’re not arguing for censorship, we’re arguing just take it off the page, put it somewhere else.”

Read that again. “We’re not arguing for censorship, we’re arguing just take it off the page, put it somewhere else.”

And this isn’t censorship how? You’re taking it off the page. Where “else” are you putting it?

You see, of course, just who makes this determination of censorship or hate speech, yes? Me? No. You? No. Leftists.

As far as Leftists are concerned, it is precisely your freedoms that put the world in its predicament today.

It is your freedom of speech that suppresses any number of individuals and makes them feel less a person. It is your Second Amendment that stacks bodies like cordwood and forces young black males to kill each other in large urban venues. It is your ability to drive where you want when you want that has polluted our skies and clogged our cities. It is your ability to eat what you want that has resulted in obese young people and poor people. It is your freedom to manufacture goods and create a mighty industrial base that has resulted in competition globally, which is a terrible idea and rife with pollution, greed, capitalism and consumerism. It is your freedom to regulate borders which has resulted in people unable to enter the US and partake of the Free Cheese available within. It is your freedom to be independent and sovereign which has closed off globalism and failed to consolidate power into a smaller, brighter, more enlightened band of clear-thinking individuals. It is the freedom to embrace religion which creates societal judgments which conflict with secularism. Islam not included.

When you have no Second Amendment, you have no First Amendment. When you have no First Amendment you have no freedom whatsoever.

As Europe is in a terrible cultural war with globalism and sovereignty, so is the United States.

“Hate speech”? I think you know who determines that and why.

Power. Control.

BZ

 

Berkeley riots: how many arrests from local cops?

As a result of the riots on the UC Berkeley, California campus Wednesday night, were there hundreds of resulting arrests? Fifty arrests? Thirty arrests? Ten arrests? Five arrests? How about this: one arrest. Few news outlets are even asking if there were arrests. Most news organizations are mentioning — purposely I submit — nothing about arrests. How do I know there was only one arrest? Because I telephoned the Alameda County jail and other associated numbers on Thursday and finally found a rushed bureaucrat who gave me that statistic. This was later confirmed on Friday by the American Media Maggots, or AMM. One arrest.

What about this from CampusReform.org? Paid cops who couldn’t perform their jobs.

We paid over $6,000 for over 100 police officers to ensure our constitutional right to free speech—as well as Milo Yiannopoulos—were protected, but all this was for naught.

Again: my opinion, I do not know this for a fact, but I go by what I term the “logical extension” and past history — I’ll wager the UC Berkeley campus police got a phone call from a “university administrator” (Janet Napolitano?) to its chief and the message was relayed from there to the watch commander, the Lieutenant then to the various Sergeants in the organization: stand down. Yes, there were riot-clad police present. But they stood by. I suspect Berkeley PD also received a telephone call and likewise stood down but eventually someone had to do their job and provide a token arrest.

One arrest. After hundreds of protesters rioted, lighted fires, burned trees and property, smashed windows. Sounds like a good idea to just stand by and watch the fun, eh wot? That’s how your local bay area law enforcement values the property and civil rights of taxpayers.

[As an aside, remember that it is Janet Napolitano who stated in January that she would continue to defy immigration laws by making the UC system “sanctuary campuses.” Milo Yiannopoulos was planning to use his Wednesday UC Berkeley speech to call for the withdrawal of federal funds from sanctuary campuses, such as UC Berkeley.

Free speech on UC campuses any more? Surely you jest. No such thing. Not there, and not on major campuses nationally.

Would you be shocked to know it is a UC Berkeley “researcher” who states the police always provoke violence at protests anyway? It’s never the protesters fault, you see.

Further, SFPD, the San Francisco Police Department, now says it won’t be coordinating any more with the FBI. From Breitbart.com:

Rebel San Francisco P.D. Cuts Ties with FBI on Counterterrorism

by AWR Hawkins

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is ending its coorperation with FBI counterterrorism efforts as part of the city’s larger rejection of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

On January 31, Breitbart News reported that San Francisco Police Chief William Scott, Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, and Mayor Ed Lee sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security informing them that city would not comply with the order.

The SFPD is now cutting ties with the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), because it would couple SFPD officers with federal agents in carrying out the requirements of the immigration order.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the JTTF was formed in 2007,  “when the police force entered into an agreement with the FBI that authorized intelligence-gathering by San Francisco officers of people engaged in First Amendment activities such as religious services, protests and political assemblies.”

Opponent of Trump’s order — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding operation –sent a letter to the San Francisco officials in January, asking them to adhere to “city and state rules” when working with the federal government.

So SFPD did. Not shocking, since I’ve already written about the SFPD being gutless cowards.

Political correctness has now officially infiltrated our police departments, most certainly on the Left Coast and in Fornicalia. As a retired law enforcement officer of 41 years I am disgusted and sickened. The non-actions of the two “involved” law enforcement agencies is reprehensible. They dishonor their badges and their oaths. I am now actually beginning to wonder: can you truly count on Fornicalia law enforcement having the backs of taxpayers?

Anarchy is not unheard-of at the UC Berkeley campus, of course. Let’s hearken back to 1969 under then-Governor Ronald Reagan. One rioter was killed and a police officer was stabbed in the chest with a knife.

As a result of the riots in Berkeley this past Wednesday night, damage is estimated at $100,000 or more, to also include a damaged Starbucks shop which, honestly, I find highly ironical since Starbucks is a backer of most any half-cocked Leftist scheme and swears it will hire 10,000 refugees for its stores — instead of, for example, homeless veterans who oddly enough happen to desperately need jobs themselves.

For further illustration, here is an NYU professor — as she readily admits — going frothingly berserk in front of NYPD officers at a Gavin McInnes event at NYU. McInnes is a Libertarian and co-founder of VICE, a lovely little Leftist news organization that recently emerged with its own news channel on cable. Apparently the Antifa** rioters and protesters utterly failed to realize the background of McInnes. And these are supposed to be the “best and brightest” young persons in the country? FAIL.

From Breitbart.com, concerning the McInnes speech at NYU.

Four Arrested at Gavin McInnes Event as Antifa Protesters Become Violent

by Charlie Nash

Four people were arrested at a New York University event where libertarian commentator and VICE co-founder Gavin McInnes delivered a speech, after “anti-fascist” protesters started to become violent and throw punches.

Following a fight, which started after protesters started to assault McInnes as he entered the venue and ended in a stolen Make America Great Again hat being set on fire, protesters followed McInnes into the venue and attempted to disrupt his show with chants.

“The NYU Anti-Fascists organized the event on Facebook titled ‘Disrupt Gavin McInnes at NYU’,” reported Pix 11, however unlike the riot that anti-fascists started during Breitbart Senior Editor MILO’s show at UC Berkeley on Wednesday, New York police intervened and managed to prevent a large-scale incident from taking place.

Protesters made chants of “get out of here you Nazi scum,” at McInnes, and “hurled expletives at police,” and others who attempted to either enter the venue or keep students and attendees safe.

This tends to prove, as I pointed out above, that NYPD is primarily a professional law enforcement organization which knows how to conduct itself and keep people safe, setting up skirmish lines and making arrests, plural — as opposed to the UC Berkeley Police and the city of Berkeley Police Department, who have proven themselves to be nothing more than the timorous law un-enforcement arm of Leftist regimes and jurisdictions in Fornicalia. With purpose. Dancing at the ends of strings pulled by their Leftist Masters.

This will be the “new normal” around the nation. Free speech is moribund, and Leftists, anarchists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots all want it so.

Again I say, laughingly — because Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots are turning out to be such complicit, spittle-frothing boobs — please keep it all up.

Day by day you are doing three things: 1) Proving your further irrelevance; 2) Ensuring President Trump will be in place until 2024, and 3) Allowing the GOP to keep both the House and the Senate following mid-terms in two years.

You blubbering, simpering cretins.

All my love,

BZ

P.S.

**    “Antifa” is the name for “anti-fascists,” a loose collection of motley anarchist mongrels wearing black clothing and masks, too cowardly to allow themselves to be seen as, now, everyone has a camera and makes video at every event in the nation.

 

 

Burn, Berserkeley, burn

This past Wednesday night, Leftists thought it would be a wonderful idea to burn a good portion of the People’s Republic of UC Berserkeley in Fornicalia, because they disagreed with the appearance of a gay British/Greek “cultural libertarian” and “free speech fundamentalist” by the name of Milo Yiannopoulos, who is also a senior editor at Breitbart News. He is an unabashed critic of political correctness, Social Justice Warriors and third-wave feminism.

In order to place Milo in context, let’s watch a compendium of his presentations at various venues within the past few years.

It becomes difficult to assail a gay Greek/British young man who thinks on his feet as rapidly as Milo and who is more than an intellectual match for Leftists arrayed against him, which are legion.

Now that you’ve seen and heard him, you likely have a greater facile grasp of what occurred on the UC Berserkeley campus Wednesday night and, further, why it happened.

That is this: Leftists cannot abide the truth. They cannot abide dissent. They obviously cannot abide views opposite their own because they are simply and plainly unequipped to deal with cogent arguments predicated but upon facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion and common sense.

And thusly the once-heralded bastion of “free speech,” Berkeley, California, has now been confirmed as the center of oppressed speech and violent rioting now embodied in the People’s Republic of UC Berserkeley.

UPDATE 18: ANTIFA and Bay Area Socialists named as organizing groups of riot.

CNN is referring to these incident as protests. Let me be clear, these are not protests, they are riots. These actions will cost the taxpayers in California many millions of dollars whether it is through the UC system, the City of Berkeley or Alameda County in the east bay. People will pay. And only the producers — California taxpayers — will bleed. The hosts bleed whilst the parasites are emboldened.

And now, from YahooNews.com:

Trump threatens UC Berkeley funds over Breitbart protests

Los Angeles (AFP) – US President Donald Trump threatened Thursday to withdraw federal funds from UC Berkeley after violent overnight protests against a planned appearance by a controversial editor of conservative news website Breitbart.

Hundreds of students and other protesters chanting “shut him down” smashed windows at the University of California campus, set wooden pallets on fire and threw fireworks and rocks as police in full riot gear responded with tear gas.

I believe the above graphic says all you need to know about Berserkeley, Fornicalia.

The university was placed on lockdown as the sold-out appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative firebrand, was canceled Wednesday evening.

“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday.

About half of research at Berkeley is funded by the federal government, according to the university website. Berkeley however has been struggling in the past years with budget shortfalls and spending deficits.

I say: keep it up Leftists and anarchists. Keep it up, Demorats. Sooner or later the public is going to tire of your antics and call you on them. Or worse, you will push to the point where pushback may, sadly, take some sort of revolutionary form. You won’t enjoy it, no one will enjoy it

Sadly, this is what passes for accepted and “understandable” Leftist behavior these days. Leftists, like Muslims, are in a state of perpetual rage — and that is condoned

BZ