The beatings will continue until free speech is dead. See the latest Branco Cartoon and pass it along.
The beatings will continue until free speech is dead. See the latest Branco Cartoon and pass it along.
In 1964, students at the University of California, Berkeley joined together to fight for their right to free speech.
Last night, a group of over 1,500 protestors showed up on that same campus to shut down a speaker with whom they disagreed, and about 150 of them started a riot.
Clearly, the culture of tolerance on college campuses has changed quite a bit since 1964.
Last night, Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos stopped by the UC Berkeley campus on his college tour to talk about the importance of free speech, yet was met with shocking hostility that led to violence.
He is well known for criticizing the “social justice left” in a very provocative manner that elicits a strong response from the campuses he visits. He is no stranger to disruptive protests outside his events.
However, the new violent nature of these protests prompts a discussion over whether or not the school should be a recipient of federal funds.
Videos have surfaced of a crowd of protestors beating a man unconscious and lighting a massive fire, which led to the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’ speaking engagement by the university.
Yet as of last night, campus police remained minimally involved in containing the riots, with the police chief saying she was not aware of any arrests made.
This soft response seems odd in light of UC Berkeley’s statement this morning, which affirmed the importance of free speech:
Campus officials [said] that they regret that the threats and unlawful actions of a few have interfered with the exercise of First Amendment rights on a campus that is proud of its history and legacy as the home of the Free Speech Movement.
If UC Berkeley is so dedicated to protecting Yiannopoulos’ free speech, why the weak response?
The riots were violent enough to elicit a response from President Donald Trump, who tweeted out, “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?”
Indeed, American taxpayers should be well aware of where their money is going.
UC Berkeley is a public institution that receives federal dollars, yet it appears to allow violence, censorship, and holds contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.
UC Berkeley is a public institution that receives federal dollars.
Yet on Jan. 26, the university’s chancellor issued a statement saying that Yiannopoulos had “been widely and rightly condemned for engaging in hate speech” and added that “Mr. Yiannopoulos’s opinions and behavior can elicit strong reactions and his attacks can be extremely hurtful and disturbing.”
Hardly impartial statements.
This is not the first time lawmakers have called for federal funds to be withheld from Berkeley, California.
In 2008, Heritage Foundation President and former Sen. Jim DeMint called for federal funding to be revoked from the city after the Berkeley City Council voted to remove a Marine Corps recruiting center from the city.
As DeMint said, “The First Amendment gives the city of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money.”
No city and no university campus should turn a blind eye to the rule of law in order to promote their political agendas. Indeed, the acceptance of federal funds should require an adherence to the basic rights guaranteed Americans in the Constitution—and that includes the First Amendment.
The threats to freedom of speech on college campuses are disturbing and warrant a response.
On Tuesday, Stanley Kurtz along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of the Goldwater Institute presented model state legislation at The Heritage Foundation to combat censorship and restriction of free speech on college campuses, which is intended to silence any dissenting views on political and social issues.
If adopted, this state-level legislation would require universities to open their doors to all invited speakers and reaffirm their commitment to free speech.
This is an important first step in restoring respect for constitutional rights in our university systems, something that is essential to preserving the free flow and vigorous debate of ideas that is fundamental to thriving academic institutions.
On the federal level, lawmakers should consider policies that limit federal subsidies to institutions that are hostile to free speech and who allow violence, threats, and intimidation of speakers and students to occur without consequence.
Taxpayers, who are already on the hook for $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loan debt should not continue to provide funding for universities that do not offer First Amendment protections to their students and guests.
Hopefully, such legislative responses will restore our universities to being places of thoughtful debate, where opposing views are met with respect and civil debate, rather than riots.
Controversial Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolous was scheduled to speak at the University of California, Berkeley on Wednesday, but his speech was forcibly canceled when a group of violent liberals set the campus on fire in protest.
The university said fires were set, including one caused by a firebomb that ignited a generator-powered spotlight, and commercial-grade fireworks were thrown at police. NBC Bay Area showed a group of people grab a metal barricade and smash it against a door.
“The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest,” UC Berkeley said in a statement. Some people were attacked and police treated six people for injuries, the university said.
The campus was put on lockdown and students were told to shelter in place. Among the violence that occurred: a young woman was pepper-sprayed in the face during a live TV interview; a Trump supporter was beaten unconscious with steel pipes; people were attacked in their cars; and liberals shot fireworks into the speech venue in hopes of setting the building on fire.
Berkeley College Republicans invited Yiannopolous to speak in order to combat a liberal “groupthink phenomenon” that has taken hold of the university. After the speech was canceled, the group released a disheartening statement:
“The Free Speech Movement is dead. Today, the Berkeley College Republicans’ constitutional right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs seeking to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos’ tour.”
As it’s been proven time and time again, liberals only value free speech when it conforms to their ideology.
Canadians are stereotyped as being overly polite, but that was far from the case at a Women’s March in Edmonton, Alberta over the weekend.
Sheila Gunn Reid, the Alberta bureau chief of conservative media site Rebel Media, was filming the march when a liberal man with a comically oversized lip ring punched her in the face.
Even more ridiculous, the feminists at the march blamed Reid for the man’s actions:
“Go away. Get out of my [expletive] face. I will break your camera,” the man says before taking a swing in the direction of the camera.
“You don’t have the right to film me,” he says, backing away.
“Yeah I do, and you just hit me in the face,” Ms. Reid responds.
Other marchers at the women’s rally step in to de-escalate the conflict.
“No, don’t tell me to calm down. That guy hit me in the face,” Ms. Reid tells intervening protesters.
“You’re part of the problem, not the solution,” one marcher says to the woman who was punched in the face.
“Yeah, I’m the problem, you victim-blamer,” Ms. Reid says. “That guy just hit me in the face.”
The incident was captured on video (foul language warning):
There is some good news, however: the man was identified and charged with assault.
It seems the bumbling Central Intelligence Agency, which recently leaked its “assessment” that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had been hacked by evil Russian boss Vlad Putin, neglected to do even a minimum of leg work around their explosive claim.
Because if they had, they might have found out that the leaks from Hillary’s doomed campaign were internal not Russian.
Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.
He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”
Despite the fact that Murray’s assertions exactly match the claims put forward by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange during the campaign, the CIA and other intelligence offices run by President Obama have tried to blame the hacks on Russia.
Now, these agencies are being called on to the carpet by Congress but while they were willing to run their mouths at length to the Washington Post and the New York Times, they have clammed up when it comes to testifying before Congress:
Meanwhile on Wednesday, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had to cancel a closed-door classified briefing on the issue of suspected Russian interference after U.S. intelligence agencies refused to cooperate.
Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican and committee chairman, requested that the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency provide witnesses, in part in response to reports last week in The Washington Post and The New York Times that intelligence agencies think the Kremlin deliberately tried to push the election to Mr. Trump, something not supported by postelection testimony to the panel.
But according to Fox News, “agencies refused to provide representatives for the session.”
“It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign,” Mr. Nunes said in a statement. “The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.”
It looks increasingly likely that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have manufactured the entire Russia-influenced-the-election story out of whole cloth. They were assisted in their endeavor by a compliant news media and by a politicized intelligence network.