A New Threat to Free Speech on Campus

This past fall, a student group known as “Temple University Purpose” (TUP) invited the controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders to give a speech on campus.  Wilders, one of the leading European critics of Islamism and a possible future prime minister in the Netherlands, was slated to show Fitna, his provocative documentary showing how Muslim jihadists draw their inspiration from the Koran not by distorting its message but  by taking its mandates literally. When finalizing the arrangements for Wilders’ appearance, TUP’s student leaders and Temple administrators agreed that the university would cover the necessary security costs for the event, as it does for all speakers.  But as campus leftists stepped up attacks on administrators for allowing Wilders’ appearance, the university began to look for the exit sign.  It settled on a back handed way of throttling free speech that is increasingly being employed by other schools,  USC and  UC Santa Barbara among them—forcing conservative student groups to pay costs for controversial speakers whose appearances become security problems because the campus left threatens violently to disrupt them.

When word of Wilders’ scheduled appearance was made public, Temple’s Muslim Students Association (MSA) pressured the administration to cancel the event.  Despite its pedigree as a descendant of the Muslim Brotherhood, Temple’s MSA has standing with school administrators as an ethnic grievance group.  But it was the implied threat behind their aggrieved protests about the speech that got the university’s attention—to raise hell if Wilders was allowed to appear.  Yet Temple was in a bind because it had already okayed the event.  Wilders might be controversial, but he was a figure of international stature.  However provocative his message, suddenly reversing course and subjecting it to heavy handed censorship would cast the university in a bad light.

Temple let the Dutch politician complete his presentation, though the question-and-answer session had to be cut short when a number of students shouted threats at him, forcing security men to escort him from the stage. But six weeks after the event, on December 3, TUP received an unexpected $800 invoice from Temple University – to cover the costs associated with having provided extra security personnel “to secure the room and building” for Wilders’ appearance. When TUP’s interim president Brittany Walsh reminded Temple administrators, in writing, that they had agreed to pay any extra security costs associated with Wilders’ appearance, she was stonewalled. Walsh and TUP turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the free speech rights of students.

FIRE vice president Robert Shibley was shocked by the way Temple had used the fees to cast a chill on campus free speech and also, in effect, to bankrupt TUP and make it unable to bring other conservative speakers to campus.  “In our nation,” Shirley said, “it is unconstitutional to charge a student group extra fees for security simply because a speaker’s views are controversial or don’t meet with the approval of Temple University administrators.” In a letter to Temple president Ann Weaver Hart, FIRE cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, which determined that a local government could not charge higher-than-customary fees for police protection at events simply because they were controversial – reasoning that “speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.” As a public university, Temple was bound to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision. Just last week Valerie I. Harrison, Temple’s associate university counsel, notified FIRE that the school was waiving the $800 fee for TUP, though she offered no explanation for the decision.

But Temple’s retreat does not mean that this novel means of throttling free speech has been abandoned by administrators anxious to placate campus radicals. A similar controversy arose last November at the University of Southern California (USC), when the College Republicans hosted an appearance by guest speaker David Horowitz. The group was subsequently billed $1,400, ostensibly to cover the cost of additional security that the university had unilaterally arranged for the event. Ultimately a few angry trustees were able to convince the administration to drop these extra charges, although, in a manner reminiscent of the Temple case, USC’s administrators offered no explanation as to why they had reversed course.

Now another confrontation is brewing, this time at UC Santa Barbara (UCSB), where former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove is slated to speak (and introduce his new book, Courage and Consequence) on February 25, at the invitation of the school’s College Republicans. Up to now, the projected cost of the event was expected to be $25,000, of which more than half ($12,933) would be covered by Associated Students, a nonprofit organization funded by undergraduate fees. But now, a local group known as SB Anti War, characterizing Rove as a “war criminal,” has announced that it plans to protest the event; some members have threatened to throw paint on Rove, leaving the implication that significant violence was possible if the event went forward.

According to Ryan McNicholas, the College Republicans’ event coordinator, the protest being organized by the left has caused security costs for Rove’s appearance to skyrocket. “Because of protester threatens to throw paint on Rove,” he says, “we have had to redirect more of the funds we received into security costs…. It’s costing us somewhere around $900 an hour to have all the Campus Security Officers and UCPD officers necessary to secure the area. And it’s absolutely ridiculous to force a small organization, like College Republicans, to foot that bill.”

In addition to its plans to demonstrate against Rove’s appearance, SB Anti War has been collecting signatures in an effort to rescind the funding that Associated Students has pledged for the event. The vice president of Associated Students, Chris Wendle, says the original decision to fund the Rove event was unrelated to latter’s character or political persuasion. Rather, it was in accordance with the legal code of even handedness that governs Associated Students. “We have to follow the rules,” Wendle explains. “We’re not going to debate the political opinion of an event, regardless of whether or not it’s Karl Rove. Basically, our decision to provide funding was objective.”

It remains to be seen whether the UCSB College Republicans, like Temple University Purpose and the USC College Republicans before them, will be able to fight off a campus left and its enablers in the administration trying asphyxiate their first amendment rights by a technique morally akin to the poll tax in the Jim Crow South.  But even if they do, the era of fees and assessments to keep conservative groups from bringing another point of view onto the monochromatic university is upon us.

  • davarino

    And I thought the left was all about free speech. They cant tolerate diverse opinions.

    • Democracy First

      More significantly, left wing speakers, even communists, and Islamists, are never threatened or shouted down. They do not require extra security. Unlike mainstream conservatives, like Rove, or democracy/rights/western civilization defending Horowitz (who is admittedly polemical).

      Conclusion: the left tends towards fascism: try to speak against my beliefs and I'll shout you down.

    • Danny

      if you actually went to temple, you would realize that this is a complete mischaracterization of what is going on. a few muslims threatened to disrupt the speech….that was all that happened

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/johncarens johncarens

    Geert Wilders is emblematic of what is organically wrong with the latest, up-to-the-minute brand of radical ideological leftism in the Western Academy; it has been germinating and growing for 40 years. Sadly, it is now normalized by the election of Barack Obama and his coreligionists., and thus, the academicians are lately unleashed to advance this murderous ideology in full-throttle mode.

    Wilders, in another era not so long ago, would have been hailed by the left as a champion of human rights. In especial, he fears the cultural straight-jacket (forgive the pun) that the Islamic Radicalization of his country will do to its aggressive Gay Community. The Low Countries have for a couple generations been the epicenter of flamboyant Gay and Drug Counterculture, and Wilders recognizes the clash of life-styles (Islamism and Liberteenism) is an explosive tinderbox in the making. This would seem a made-to-order "cause celeb" for the academic left in the West. But just the opposite has happened. Why?

    Because the extreme radical left has hijacked the academy. And if there is one thing they do not countenance is anything that smacks of distinct, local cultures. They view them as somehow parochial and backward (-just look at what these same folks have done to the Tea Party folks here in America). These radicals seem to embrace a form of the "ruralization" of Pol Pot, writ large, across vast swaths of the West, where all individualism is wiped out in the name of some weird, dystopian vision of a multi-culture, unicultural world. Never mind that this is incoherent. Never mind that, eventually, the Islamists will come after the women-folk, too, and then the musicians, then whoever is left, including THEM.

    But, more disturbing, is how much violence the radicalized Academy in the West allows to happen inside its own physical plant. In the old days, the various administrations would have expelled everyone and anyone who threatened violent protest, let alone SEND A BILL to those that were the victims of the threats. This is lunacy, this is madness.

    But, this is also the extreme Radicalized Left. Parents, send your kids to Hillsdale.

    • steven

      the left has infiltrated the right it is getting hard to tell who is who three books I have read that has opened my eyes are Infidel America alone and liberal fascism. and if you do some research on the illumanati you will see that liberal fascism =liberelazation=illumanati,it all fits like two gears meshing. we have a problem when any one we vote for is one and all of these. the only way to fire them is to not vote for any one that of them that are any or all of the above. regardless of the party, we need to get our partys back to good old fashioned republicans and good old fashioned democrats with no hidden agendas, that love and respect the american people and america, who will uphold and defend the constitution of the united states of america. maybe we should boycott the polls

  • Stuart (Austin, TX)

    The historical parallels followed by the Left are eerie. The "security fees" for conservative campus speakers are their poll taxes. The "connections" they are trying to draw between Joseph Andrew Stack, who flew his plane into the Echelon office building at MoPac and 183 in my hometown of Austin, Texas and the Tea Party movement is just a rehash of Hitler's use of the 1933 Reichstag fire set by communist Marinus Van der Lubbe as an excuse to wield unlimited power to snuff out communists, along with all other political opponents, and Jews, Slavs, homosexuals and clergy, too. George Santayana was right.

  • Ken

    Threats work. No responsible president (university or corporate) would want innocent lives to be lost. It is a tough call.

    However, CAN WE SIMPLY LET TERRORISTS RULE OR LIVES? At a certain point, people in free democracies will say in concert, ‘ENOUGH ALREADY!’ We will start fighting back and the terrorists will run. They cannot fight a whole society determined to stare them down.

    We have to reach that point where, when we are threatened, we as a society look straight into their eyes and say: ‘GO AHEAD…MAKE MY DAY.’

  • John C. Davidson

    If you want to know what it is like to live in a totalitarian society, just let a government agency take control of your life. If you're getting HUD asistance, they retain the right to inspect your living quarters. Neighborhood feuds usually ending by someone calling the EPA. People are encouraged to report on each other for all manner of behavior. Our school systems have a massive amount of regulations controling teachers abilities to function. Half our judges ignore the constitution, so depending on which court you happen to be in depends a lot on the outcome of a dispute.

    This sounds to me like the stories I heard about growing up concerning the way of life in the Soviet Union. It makes me wonder?

    Thank God I am old and enjoyed living in a society where I could enjoy those old comedians on television who made jokes about each other with a cigarette hanging from their mouths.

  • JanineC

    What happened to the idea that people went to University to expand their knowledge and to be educated?? It seems that these campuses are now just festering cesspools of radical nutcases to push other people around and force them to only hear THEIR propaganda. The 1960s destroyed higher education. The crazy thing is that it was not a spontaneous creation growing out of our inquisitive youth–rather it was a calculated and well-planned infiltration by the USSR and other communist operatives that created this mess. I just cannot believe that nothing has been done in over 45 years to fix this!! When are we going to demand our educational centers back?

    • Steely Irony

      Unfortunately, Janine, most North American universities stopped actuially educating people a couple of decades ago. These days, parents who are supporting/helping their kids get a university education simply HAVE to face the the facts and come up with more cash for a university education overseas. The Czech Republic and Hungary have FANTASTIC and WELL RESPECTED universities that still actually EDUCATE people. You don't get that anymore here in America.

      • John C. Davidson

        It use to be, too, that our print media exposed this situation, but they too are fully of radicals and actually embrace communism. The one factor these folks forgot is the expansion of the internet which now has more credibility than our once estemed newspapers. The trend is evolving and without government assistence, its bye, bye.

  • rob

    Why are these jihadists posing as "students" and their hateful leftwing allies not being arrested and expelled from schools for their threatening behaviour? Maybe after a couple of arrests and expulsions these cretins will learn to respect other peoples rights.

  • coyote3

    Unfortunately, the concept of the "poll tax" is alive and well in the United States. Right now, as we sit here, practically every state, illegally charges people for license/permit to carry a firearms (most often a handgun). Even if the state is required to issue the license/permit (whatever they want to call it) they still charge the fee. No payment, no license/permit. This is as blatantly illegal was the "poll tax", which was struck down on free speech grounds. It is a fee to exercise a right, which is both a first and second amendment right.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

      Part 1:
      So you have read every states constitution that you cite? I live in a state who's constitution is being violated but the legislature is about to correct that. Suffice it to say that the minutes of the convention which formed our states constituion reflects a vote which vetoed the need for a license to carry concealed and it also voted down the legislatures ability to amend the State Constitution on this issue. It was left only up to a vote of and by the people. Our Constitution states:Article 2, Section 26. Bearing arms:
      Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Yet we too have tohave a fee and course before we get a "concealed carry" license.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

      Part 2:
      We are about to correct that with a law which makes it legal to carry concealed as long as you are not a prohibited person. This is better but I wish they would just repeal all laws and void all court cases which have "impaired" our right to carry. This would send a great signal that they intend to follow the Constitution and the intent of those who wrote and approved it.

      I asked my first question because in any discussion broad and un substantiated anecdotal statements should be avoided. We need to deal with facts not with the afformentioned claims.

      • coyote3

        That's fine, no I haven't read every state constitution, and if your state is doing this fine. Unfortunately, what I said still stands. Practically every state ignores both the federal and their own constitutions, and restricts this right even where they issue the licenses/permits. Most all of them charge a fee for it. If your state is correcting this situation, w/o a charge then that is great.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

      The Supreme Court in the Keller decision indicated that charging for permits was not and I repeat not a violation of the Second Ammendment, unless it prevents individuals from obtaining the license by the fee being unable to be paid by the average citizen. So you can stick by your statement if you like but it is not accurate in that it is not illegal Constitutioanally to charge a permit fee. Justice Thomas, as an originalist jurist disagrees as do I.

      • coyote3

        What you cited was that the Supreme Court "indicated" that charging for permits was not "per se" unconstitutional. They also said a lot of other things regarding local restrictions. Those parts of the opinion were not something that were a part of the actual decision. The only question "asked" and "answered" was the issue of the D.C. "ban". Those part of the opinion not necessary to the decision are "dicta", and not binding precedent, i.e., they were not necessary to rule on the constitutionality of the "ban". Therefore, there was no "ruling" on the constitutionality of charging for permits/licenses, that issue was not before the court.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

          Part 1:
          Dicta gives an indication of the way an issue will be handled even though it is of no legal impact at the time of its writing; i.e. a ruling! So what you have stated is correct about dicta.

          You admit not reading every state constitution but still say, "Practically every state ignores both the federal and their own constitutions, and restricts this right even where they issue the licenses/permits. " Show me the money (STATISTICS)" you make whole cloth from nothing.

          • coyote3

            I have no obligation to "show" you anything. If you knew anything about it, you would know that charging for licenses/permits will not be found in state constitutions, but rather statutes authorizing those fees. Most all states which "issue" licenses/permits do charge, in some fashion, for them. I am not going to look up each state statute for you.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

            Where does statutory authority come from genius….. the constitutions! If it denies an issue to be regulated then there is no statute which would be upheld.

            You do not see the disconnect between making a blanket staement about the states and your obligation in a dialog to provide support. Of course not!

          • Chili Dogg

            kwg1, I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that every statue is automatically constitutional? If so, that makes no sense, as many statutues have been struck down as unconstitutional. If not, then you have to admit there are statutes that are not constitutional and that some of the statutes restricting gun ownership or requiring fees for carry permits might be unconstitutional.

          • kwg1

            I am saying that a regulation which lawfully passed in a state which has the effect of denying a state or Federal Constitutionally guaranteed right will ultimately fail Constitutional muster in both state and federal courts. Although it was not a "Holding" in the Heller decision the court indicated (majotity opinion) this very position of regulations being made so draconian that they have the same effect as denying a Constitutionally protected right! I hope this helps.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

          Part 3:

          The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

      "Poll Tax" Free speech how and where? The Voting Rights Act was not a free speech issue it was a discrimination issue. What was decided was that when a state held a vote you could not discriminate, which a tax on some and not others did when it was used to be able to vote or not to vote. There is no right to vote like there is a right to bear arms under our Constitution. Look for it, when you find it let me know. The right to vote that is in our Constitution.

      • coyote3

        Actually, the Harper decision by the Supreme Court ruled poll taxes unconstitutional. It was a discrimination case, but all voting is a form of speech. You are correct, the right to vote is not "in" our constitution. There are no "rights" contained in the constitution. It does not give the right to bear arms, nor the right to vote. It merely says that the government may not "infringe" on rights.

        As for the state's ability to regulate firearms, the Heller decision did say, also, in its dicta that a state might restrict them, but did not say what those restrictions could be. Those will be cases for another day. No doubt some restrictions will be upheld, but we have no idea what those will be and each one will be challenged. Indeed, there is plenty of authority that the state's only ability to restrict firearms would be if a person is disenfranchised, i.e., convicted felon under state law. Even in those cases there are movements out there, which have gained some traction to enfranchise convicted felons.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

          That is funny because the case you cite was handed down in 1966 and the Amendment was passed in 1964. What the JOSC did is partially shown here: Under democratizing pressures demanding universal white male suffrage in the early nineteenth century, poll tax requirements dramatically declined. But Southern states resurrected their use as one of many ways to limit black political participation in the late nineteenth century. In Breedlove v. Suttles (1937), Justice Pierce Butler for a unanimous Court upheld state poll taxes as valid state controls over elections. Congressmen routinely proposed constitutional amendments to ban poll taxes in federal elections but none passed Congress until 1962, when only four states still retained the tax. The states ratified this amendment in 1964. In 1966, the Supreme Court declared state poll tax requirements for voting in state elections unconstitutional in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, overruling Breedlove. This decision, based on the Equal Protection Clause, cleared the way for greater federal judicial oversight of suspect state action inhibiting the franchise. Poll taxes disappeared in the late 1960s and currently no such burden exists upon the citizens' right to vote.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

          The Court did state some ways to regulate without discussion even though it did not list all, just like the Constitution does not enumerate the powers left to the people only those delegated to the Fed. The Court specifically said what one type of restriction was ONE OF THOSE which will not be tolerated: "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

          As for restoring gun rights to felon's it is an issue of cas by cas in many but not all states and Federally some felons can never carry legally under Federal Law no matter what dispensation they get.

  • trodaball

    Conservative, Jewish, Christian and other concerned students, parents and citizens have to start agressively pressuring these indoctrination institutions or they will become more and more dangerous. We simply have to fight the death-cult barbarians by stopping them through direct overwelming volume of personnel and pounding away at the administrations to rid themselves of these groups. Public shame through media exposure also has a way of making campuses shape up. Without widespread pressure things will be ugly.

  • http://www.drudgereport.com jimbo ellis

    libs are pieces of garbage

  • Len Powder

    Like the madrassas in Pakistan which radicalize Muslims into Jihadism, our universities are madrassas (and have been for a long time) radicalizing students into the Leftist dogma and agenda. I witnessed it personally in my university. The indoctrination has only intensified over the years. The universities are producing America-hating cloans, mindless, incapable of critical or independent thought, drones that follow demagogues and tyrants. The radicals and extremists are intimidating the weak and cowardly administrators, gutless, useless academics, into denying constitutional rights. It is people like them that allowed Hitler and Stalin to come to power in their day. It is people like them that will make tyranny a reality in this country.

  • Dennis Hulse

    Is there such a word as 'sedition' in the American English language? You should be holding those Islamic rabblerousers accountable for seditous activities both from inside and outside those mosques under the criminal or appropriate legal code of the American states or nation. Convictions then result in withdrawal of privilages like social security benefits or residencies, visas, citizenships etc. Surely civil disobedience is not a benefit of free speech. It is time to get real folks. …conderned Aussie down under.

  • badaboo

    Dont just blame the libs and lefties , what the hell is the right doing ? Other than the blogoshere , you simply dont hear about these things in the general publics perspective .
    Where's the protests ? where's any mobilization decrying this ? where's the shouting and screaming ???
    WHAT ABOUT , the students themselves ??? Does ANYONE believe that they are ALL "lefties " ???

    All this didn';t start yesterday , it's been ongoing for several years …..where's the outrage , where 's all the self righteous indignation , which there seems to be no shortage of in this country ?

    Or has that become "selective " too ??

  • Ann DeLaura

    I have an idea. When extra security is needed because of protesters, bill them for it. This is fair because if conservative students, or groups want to protest Left wing speakers they would be charged for the extra protection. Wanna bet which groups will find it too costly to cause rouble?

    • John C. Davidson

      Ann, they'll just yell for the fgovernment to bail them out. They can't stand on their own principles: To them, freedom only works one way.

    • badaboo

      Insterad of degenerating the issue down to the same old level of Lefty /Righty , how about just a little bit of creative thought [if that's possible ] , You know , like instead of polarizing an issue that has everything to do with ALL of us , hows about rousting all those conservative kids into attending these venues AND SHOUTING DOWN THE SHOUTERS , or how about organizing noisey protest sat the muslim student unions , or even attending THEIR venues and disrupting them in the same ways???

      Can't you think of anything above the petty nitpicking statement that you just made ?

      And NO , I don't " wanna bet " who would do this or that , YOU BWANNA KNOW WHY ? Because it's NON-PRODUCTIVE and CHILDISH , not to mention MEANINGLESS in dealing with this problem .
      Try taking off your partisan hat , just for one bloody second . K ?

    • coyote3

      That is about as illegal as you can get, charging extra because some protest is "controversial" either way.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

    During the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the college I attended decided to hold a Pro-America Rally. All students were expected to attend, under penalty of expulsion. There was a large and vocal Iranian student population, at the school. They were at the rally, but they weren't happy about it.

    I was picked to sing the National Anthem, and I chose the verse that contained the words: "Then conquer we must, when our cause, it is just. And this be our motto, in God is our trust …". During the singing of the Anthem, the Iranian students started walking out, and the college President stopped me and shouted at the students:

    "If you walk out of here, you will be expelled. Then, I will personally see to it that you're on a plane to Teheran, within a week."

    They weren't happy, to say the least, but they came back to their seats. Then, the President ordered them to stand in respect for the National Anthem of their host country. If eyes could kill …

    Where are educators like this, today? Where have they gone?

    I can answer that question. If you show the slightest signs of patriotism or conservatism in academia, today, you will never gain tenure, much less become the president of a college. The Left has a stranglehold on our colleges and universities, and they are using this power purposely, in a blatant attempt to destroy our country.

    When can't allow them to succeed …

  • badaboo

    No , YOU ARE WRONG Stephen_Brody , APATHY has a stranglehold on todays kids , any thing that inconveniences their schedule . Your statement while a bit more sophisticated is nonetheless just as pathetically as nitpicking and petty as Anna's .

    Unfortunately , there is far too much ignorance on the part of so-called "patriots " who would rather shadow box with the left , than stand-up , with some or much personal agaionst the TRUE enemir4es of this country .
    There is no "blatant attempt to destroy our country " by those YOU allege , there is only your own partisan bias and paranoia …go join the John Birch Society …oh wait , they're partial sponsors of the CPAC Convention going on .

    Far as I can see all this Rigfhty B.S. going on , is a waste of energy fighting their own country men , while the REAL enem's knife draws closer to their THROATS ….Oh did I leave the Lefyty morons out , screw them too . They're doing the same damn thing .
    Go do your homework on the Muslim Brotherhood , then investiagte WHO is connected to them , then you actually be able to recognize your ENEMY .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/imnokuffar imnokuffar

    Nothing suprises me anymore. The Left and the Muslims have entered into an unholy alliance. The same thing is happening all over Europe despite the blatant actions of the Muslims to undermine everything that the west stands for. The left thinks it has the same aims as the Muslims and in some ways they do – the total destruction of the west and its ideologies. However the two part company on all sorts of other issues and when these stupid lefties have served thier purpose they two will feel the sword of Allah. Civil war is brewing all over the continent and only the nationalist movements of Europe are prepared to spell out the consequences of unfettered Muslim immigration and to actively oppose it. For this we are called "fascists". But the real fascists are those who roll over and play dead or enthusiastically welcome the PC Multicult agenda. Make no mistake within 5 years or sooner the baloon will go up.

  • eyes wide open

    It's all fine and well to make such statements , but you should give yourself pause and think about what a hit Ron paul is with the "righties " , and how Baker one of papa Bush' boys is a foreign agent for the Saudis , and how GW was about to sell Port Terminals to an Arab entity , but only the push b ack from regular Amewricans PREVENTED that sale , btw from both the left and right . And it is not JUST the left , that is allowing the Saudis to throw their money around contibuting countless millions to our own Universities and paying for wretchedly racist schoolbooks for v"muslim-American schools . .
    Nothing surprises you anymore ? Well I can guarantee that you would be surprised at just what the two previous Republican Admins have a;llowed regarding muslims of very questionable stripe to gain positions in our Governments security and intelligence agencies .Those FBI personell that were observed giving high fives on 9/11 made it to the FBI under Bush , as well as the Ft.Hood shooter , who was bursting with signs of jihad , but only to explode with the slaughter of 13 of our servicemen on Obama's watch , but got his start well before in the Bush years .

  • eyes wide open

    Obama bowed to a Saudi Prince , while Bush jr. invited one to his ranch and held hands with Him. In the early Admin of Bush jr , the FBI ignored warnings [ about 72 from one agent ] regarding arab /muslims taking flying lessons , and specifically Moussaoui , in addition the FBI also ignored warnings of it's top NY Agent and top FBI expert on Al Queda , who latere died on 9/11 in the WTC ,AFTER he had been virtually drummed out of the FBI .And the ONLY flight allowed after the WTC attack ? A Saudi jetliner with Saudis on board headsed back to their country .
    So before accusing "lefties " of sharing the same agenda as our enemy the muslims , before accusing them of selling out Israel , and all nthose things that you calim "they will do " [ but actually haven't at this point ], just remember , CPAC is putting bRon Paul on a pedestal , and while bhe shares the right's rant on big government and the Federal Reserve , he is against any involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq , and is totally against any support for Israel . And before you rant about facists , remember who supporting CPAC -OPENLY – The John Birch society .

  • http://allbalifurniture.com johnhendrick27

    Thanks for your news.It's very interesting.Thanks so much.

    Bali Teak Furniture

    • eyes wide open

      you're very welcome john , didn't think you needed reminding . good luck with your sales pitch .

  • Jatras

    It is unquestionable that due to the fucking cowardice of the fucking complacent American people, America is in deep fucking trouble.

    But they had the fucking balls to fucking support the Kosovars.

    • badaboo

      you bet , and it actually worse than it seems .

  • Jatras

    Yes, it fucking is, genius.


  • http://garyfouse.blogspot.com gary fouse

    Interesting point. At the UCI event, we had to go through magnotometers. I have never seen them needed at MSU events.

    Gary Fouse
    adj teacher

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

    Part 2:
    Here is some indication from the opinion you might have missed which supports licensing and describes as in valid any law which effectively makes the Second Amendment null and void: "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

  • Robert

    How about UC Santa Barbara bills SB Anti War for all the extra security costs made necessary by SB Anti War's actions and the threats its members made? Make those who are responsible for the extra security being necessary pay for the damages. Similarly, bill the MSA at Temple University for the costs of extra security made necessary by their actions and threats. We ought to see a really swift end to that kind of B.S. if universities were to make those responsible for causing extra security to be necessary to pay for it.