Middlebury Professor and Speaker Assaulted By Protesters In Latest Attack On Free Speech On U.S. Campuses

allisonstangeriWe have been discussing the rising intolerance and violence on college campuses, particularly against conservative speakers.  The latest such example can be found at Middlebury College where Professor Allison Stanger was assaulted by protesters and injured after she merely accompanied a controversial speaker to campus. It was a disgraceful but increasingly common scene on our campuses as students fought to prevent others from hearing opposing views or speakers.

Stanger was accompanying Charles Murray, a political scientist and author of the controversial “The Bell Curve” ( asserted that different races has different intelligence levels).  Protesters succeeded in preventing his speaking at the original location on campus and he was moved to another location for a closed circuit broadcast.  However, when Stanger, Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center after the event, they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing.

The three retreated to an administrator’s car but Burger said “The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus. At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. . . . During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck . . . She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”

There is no indication however of a single arrest or a single disciplinary action against the protesters.  The College president admitted that some of those responsible were students and yet there was no effort to punish those responsible for silencing free speech or violently attacking the speaker and faculty member.

The chilling scene at Middlebury is the result of years of erosion of free speech principles and protections at academic institutions.  Faculty have led the effort to declare certain speech to be hostile or intolerant (and thus not protected).  They have taken campuses that were once bastions of free speech and turned them into towers of intolerance.  That ignoble legacy was more than evidence in the letter from 450 alumni who denounced the visit of Murray and rejected basic notions of free speech.  The letter shows the utter ease and comfort that students and alumni now display in simply declaring certain views as unworthy of protection. There was even a subtle dig at Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway:

However, in this case we find the principle does not apply, due to not only the nature, but also the quality, of Dr. Murray’s scholarship. . . .  If Dr. Murray’s scholarship is of blatantly dreadful quality — and we hold, along with so many of his colleagues, that it is — then what is the point of “debating” his views? How, and why, does one go about arguing in good faith with a scholar whose entire intellectual premise consists of what are now being called, incredibly, “alternative facts”?

Since Dr. Murray’s views are not worth engaging on these grounds, this can hardly be called an occasion for open, rigorous academic debate. His invitation to campus, then, is not an educational opportunity, but a threat. It is a message to every woman, every person of color, every first-generation student, every poor and working-class person, every disabled person and every queer person that not only their acceptance to and presence at Middlebury, but also their safety, their agency, their humanity and even their very right to exist are all up for “debate.”

So just hearing an opposing viewpoint is now a “threat” and categorically unworthy of debate or protection.  Of course, the threat that injured Professor Stanger was quite real and came from the very individuals claiming to be victimized by his exercise of free speech.  What is interesting is the tone of the coverage of the latest violence by protesters against conservatives or libertarians on campus.  The Boston Globe had a story of liberal protesters assaulting and injuring a professor in their effort to prevent the exercise of free speech.  The newspaper entitled its article “Protesters Aggressively Confront Controversial Speaker at Middlebury College.”   “Aggressively confront”?  They first moved to block anyone hearing his views and then assaulted the author and a faculty member.

Incidents like the one at Middlebury are shocking reminders that we are raising a generation of intolerant (and at times violent) censors.  We have taught students that free speech is no longer the value that we strive to preserve but the threat to their very existence.  As a result, they have developed a sense of entitlement in the silencing of opposing voices. Indeed, they now view the fight against free speech as a noble cause. They do that by simply claiming (as they do in this letter) that opposing speakers are not really engaging in free speech at all but rather incitement or hatred or the ill-defined “microaggressions.”  It is a license to silence others and to select what speech is worthy to be heard on campus.

Middlebury insists that it was shocked by the violence on campus.  If so, it should start by expelling students who refuse to allow opposing voices to be heard and take violent action when others do not yield to their demands.  As I discussed in an earlier column, a few schools (led by the University of Chicago) have stood firm in support of free speech and against the slippery slope of censorship advocated by many academics.  It may be the single greatest and defining moment of the American academy.

It will not be easy to regain the ground lost.  University administrators are not known for their steadfast fealty to principle when facing threats of protests or condemnations as microaggressors or advocates of white privilege.  There are also academics who actively teach how speech is a threat to equality and a tool for privilege.  Few academics want to be labeled as racially insensitive or reactionary.  However, it has been the silence of most academics that has allowed this trend to grow and mutate across our campuses.

 

172 thoughts on “Middlebury Professor and Speaker Assaulted By Protesters In Latest Attack On Free Speech On U.S. Campuses”

  1. mespo, not so fast about the cart before the horse. You need only look to the Left for millions of examples of successful people who have the cart before the horse.

    This is diverging but my own theory is that intelligence has everything to do with diet, less with inheritance or other arguments. When you examine the epidemic of disease in America, all having basis with faulty diet (no disease is hereditary), there’s no question that the US is by far the most cognitively challenged nation on earth. It’s no coincidence that the Left is more predisposed to restaurant meals, processed foods, convenience foods, frankenfood, substance abuse, etc. And because the Left consumes medical care at a far greater rate than the Right, accounts for why only the Left is hollering loud to preserve subsidized Obamacare — at huge expense of working, healthier conservatives.

    1. “You’re right about RICO being a major deterrent. No one should have any problem with these steps necessary to curb rioting.”

      Well sure I have a problem with legislation that scoops up non violent demonstrators and makes them liable for the acts of the violent.

      We need to make it possible for citizens to express their views openly and non violently, without fear of harm from either the government or from others who disagree.

  2. The professor who was injured should sue the college for failure to undertake reasonable security precautions. Someone twisted her neck? That gives me the chills just reading about it. These colleges aren’t going to gain control of their campuses until they start feeling a major financial impact. That means lawsuits from injured parties, loss of alumni contributions, loss of federal financial support, and no more federal student loans to any student convicted of violence.

    1. Probably only a worker’s compensation case and. No award for pain, suffering or embarrassment, Here’s an idea: sue the protestors for creating the mob mentality that foreseeably led to violence. All the kids have earning potential and mommy an ddaddy would likely pay now to keep it off precious’ credit report.

  3. Talking Heads are now outraged by conservative legislators who are proposing new laws to curb violence at demonstrations, even applying Rico statutes. Naturally, liberals see this not as an attack on violence but rather on free speech. Where was the MSM outrage when the “wants it both ways” Left passed Rico statutes against abortion protesters in the nineties?

    On a side note, the RICO statutes did stop violence against abortion doctors, almost overnight. So there’s no question whatsoever that if you apply Rico statutes to school administrators, the Left’s attack on free speech will evaporate very quickly.

      1. mespo – there is a possibility that there would be NO amendments. There were 12 original amendments offered to the states, only 10 were passed.

        1. Madison did them as an afterthought thinking they were so self-evident that they would never be needed. Thankfully, some more far-sighted New Englanders thought differently.

  4. mespo, that’s a big leap to suggest stupidity is dangerous, much less a function of inheritance and environment, What is dangerous is one’s Kool-Aid. If you had ever read “Inequality” by Christopher Jencks, you might know that his premise is that social and financial success have a lot less to do with intelligence (or even education, for that matter), far more with, among other things, connections and obsequious willingness to bend with the clan.

    1. Vinegart:
      You’ve got the horse after the cart. Social prominence, financial success and social connections start and flow from higher levels of intelligence. The better critique of The Bell Curve comes from Stephen Gould.

      1. vinegart:
        I should add Murray distinguishes the cognitive elite (higher IQ) from the affluent who may have gained wealth without the cognitive horsepower from inheritance of by sheer good fortune. While the cognitive elite tend to make more money, they’re aren’t the only ones who do.

      2. Steven Jay Gould was a palaeontologist who wrote popular science literature for Natural History and other outlets. Social statistics was not his subject.

        1. OW Holmes, Jr., dissented in New York v. Lochner (1905) with the scathing quote against radical substantive due process in employment contracts (in this case, striking down legislation which limited work hours per day to ten and per week to sixty): “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics. . . . [A] constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.”

          Apparently, an old Civil War veteran knew something about social Darwinism that passed by Spencer, Murray and Herrnstein, Ayn Rand, the Four Horsemen of the Supreme Court, and all of their fans participating in this blog.

        2. Gould was certainly a left of center thinker who sometimes let his political leanings influence his work but he was also an accomplished evolutionary biologist with experience in inherited traits. His book “The Mismeasurement of Man” does raise important challenges to “The Bell Curve” and biological determinism and fundamentally challenges the efficacy of psychological testing.

  5. Once again the intolerant left prevents denounces diversity (of thought). The reason this keeps happening is found in the following part of the article: “There is no indication however of a single arrest or a single disciplinary action against the protesters. The College president admitted that some of those responsible were students and yet there was no effort to punish those responsible for silencing free speech or violently attacking the speaker and faculty member.” To prevent this, there should be mass arrests and mass numbers of students expelled from school, not this response from the milquetoast College president.

    1. Mark – I think the college president should act like it was a fake rape attack and close down all the fraternities.

  6. As I have always said, it will be the alumi who decide the issue, not 450 who signed a petition. The ones who are planning to build the new library, etc. will make the difference. Just like the alumni decide when the football coach goes.

  7. I’ve left a phone message and have written an eMail to Middlebury. If I had a son or daughter attending this campus, I would be in my car today to remove them from this joke of a University. Here’s MY FREE SPEECH: This is NOT a school but a Communist Campus. PERIOD!

  8. I noticed from the video the majority of them wearing black shirts as if they were taking a page from the Nazi Brown shirts. They seem to be getting more violent as well. I recall some old film of the Nazi’s and their supporters gathering people usually Jews and anyone who opposed their views in town squares. Once gathered they would commence beating them to death with axes, clubs and crowbars. One of the victims stands out in my mind with outstretched hands pleading “why” and then struck in the head falling to the ground and beaten to death. Seems like we maybe drawing closer to one of their victims being seriously injured or worse.

    I wonder when we’ll hit the tipping point when those who oppose these “Black Shirts” and their criminal conduct fight back? Since the Presidential election the Dems and their supporters have proven that they are a violent and dangerous political organization. They are obviously bent on how did Obama put it “fundamentally transform the United States” or how his wife put it “we are going to have to change our traditions, our history; we going to have to move into a different place as a nation”.

  9. Where do these neo Nazi Brown Shirt thugs wannabes come from? Obviously it’ s campus influence and the universities are without doubt culpable for no controlling their environment. Do they have the college book store staked out looking for those who buy copies of certain writing such as the Constitution? Are these thugs on student loans from the government? That should end immediately. How abot a pan campus raid and inspection for swastika style momentos and insignia? Finger print them charge them eject and expel them or lose all federal funding PS the stadiums make reall good holding pens. Concertina Wire the entrances an exits and make it a dumping ground. Let them learn first hand what they preach is really like.

    1. Middlebury is an extremely affluent private university, none of those rules apply. Where do these thugs come from? In this instance, they come from some of the most privileged and elite families on earth, for the most part.

      1. It’s not a research university. It’s a liberal arts college. It’s not a haven for ‘the most privileged and elite families on Earth’. About 14% of each age cohort will enroll in private colleges, and their tuition is only weakly related to selectivity or cachet. You’ll likely find children from wealthy families there, but for the most part, their clientele consist of the children of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie. The lawyers, the college teachers, the physicians and surgeons, corporate middle management, &c.

        1. “@James: they come from some of the most privileged and elite families on earth, for the most part. …

          …@DSS: for the most part, their clientele consist of the children of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie. The lawyers, the college teachers, the physicians and surgeons, corporate middle management”

          I would love to see these two describe an elephant.

          For those who are unfamiliar with Middleberry, it is one of the little Ivies.

  10. “Since Dr. Murray’s views are not worth engaging on these grounds, this can hardly be called an occasion for open, rigorous academic debate. His invitation to campus, then, is not an educational opportunity, but a threat. ”

    The more dangerous the threat, the more necessary to illuminate with rigorous academic standards to reveal the illogical arguments and false data.

    Murray’s view will be heard. The only question is whether others who disagree with Murray will be present to rebut his arguments.

    Those who prevent Murray from speaking on campus assure that when he does speak, there will be no one present to point out the deficiencies in his presentation. Those who prevent Murray from speaking on campus assure that those who hear Murray will not have the benefit of hearing the alternate view.

    We may disagree with Murray. But we are much safer when the Murray’s of the world are speaking their piece in the open where we can know them, express our objections, and show their deficiencies.

  11. I work on a college campus and I am increasingly creeped out by just how many of my co-workers lean far left and probably support actions of this sort. I can think of one who complained about the university having riot police on campus when Milo Yiannopoulos spoke. This, after some groups promised to shut down his speech.

    I see more and more “hate speech isn’t free speech” and extreme open borders rhetoric, on posters. Not sure this is actually very representative of a majority on campus, however.

    The assault on classical liberal values regarding free expression has contributed to making me more leery of immigrants from places where such values don’t have deep roots.

    1. Expelling and imprisoning is far kinder than … 🔻
      acid cleansing or …🔻
      Q♥️☠️ beheading ☠️Q♥️

  12. “Stanger was accompanying Charles Murray, a political scientist and author of the controversial “The Bell Curve” ( asserted that different races has different intelligence levels).”
    ***********
    The central thesis of the book is that innate intelligence is a good predictor of future success. Murray never asserted that race was the precipitating factor but merely that inherited intelligence plus environment factors does lead to valid predictions about future financial and social success. In other words, stupid is dangerous. No argument from me on that point.

    1. Three questions:
      1. Is “inherited intelligence” a thing?
      2. Do “environmental factors” include the effects of discrimination including redlining, mass incarceration, and disparity in education access (I’m talking historically for those who will say wrongly that these things are no longer a factor in present day environments)
      3. Is there any type of free speech that should be prohibited from colleges and universities (i.e ISIS recruiter, Ku Klux Klan)?

      BTW, I disagree with the violence. Am curious about who extended the “invitation” and their motives?

      1. 1. Yes. Lots of support for a genetic component. Read the book.
        2. Murray talks about many environmental factors like support for education, illegitimacy, crime , poverty and other factors some of which are external to a community and some of which are the product of internal values. Read the book.
        3. All speech should be permitted. I once attended a lecture where. White supremacist debated a black supremacist and it was the best debate I ever heard. Both made legitimate arguments and didn’t shout each other down. You’d never get that opportunity today.

        The Bell Curve is seriously scholarship and not some polemic.

        1. I’ve read the book although it was a lot closer to when it was written in 1994 than the present. I didn’t then have such an impression that it was “serious scholarship” although that didn’t mean there weren’t many true things and statistics. I disagreed very much with his conclusions.

          I don’t think all speech is appropriate for any forum. Would we let pedophiles speak at elementary schools? Protests are speech too although violence is always unwarranted.

          1. Well, pedophiles would have very little of interest for children so that would be silly. Letting the KKK speak is no problem. David Dukes spoke at college campuses without incident. As for ISIS recruitment, that would be illegal and couldn’t be allowed. With very few exceptions, free speech should be the default position. And I see no need for rebuttals on the same dais. That can come later.

            1. When David Dukes as a candidate for the US Senate was part of a debate at a black college it was kind of a thing. The debate took place in a room with no audience and was heavily protested by students and alumni who didn’t want him there. There were clashes between protesters and police. “Letting the KKK speak is no problem: certainly depends on one’s viewpoint.
              It wouldn’t be silly to exclude pedophiles because children wouldn’t be interested. I imagine some would. It would be silly for many other reasons and I would expect that someone would say no.

              1. I think I remember Dukes speaking at LSU without incident. As for pedophiles speaking to kids, I can imagine a setting where a discussion about ways of avoiding the grooming of kids by criminal pedophiles might be helpful within certain parameters. So, yes, you’re right it could be a extension of free speech.

          2. Again, we very seldom have outside speakers at an elementary school and (in a sane world) sex isn’t a part of the curriculum at an elementary school. In any case, having a paedophile give a talk at an elementary school would be a component of a common crime (e.g. endangering the welfare of a child).

        2. No, a heritable component, not a genetic component. Psychometric tests assess phenotypes.

          Keep in mind that Richard Herrnstein was a tests-and-measurements psychologist (as is Richard Lynn). When what you’ve got is a hammer, lots of stuff looks like nails. (Though this is perhaps more apt assessing Lynn’s general audience writing than in assessing Herrnstein’s).

      2. enigmainblackcom – since we get our intelligence from our parents, then yes, it is inherited. Are their environmental components? Good question. Some studies have shown that the oldest child in the family has the highest IQ and it goes down from there. The baby gets the least. And in my family of 6 that is pretty much true.

        I can say I worked with a man who had a fourth grade education and could do advanced trig in his head, but could not read trig tables. He could not read the daily paper. His parents had to put him to work in the fifth grade and he never went back. He was both smart and talented, but not educated.

        1. Do we get intelligence from our parents or is it likely that “intelligent” parents are able to provide a greater emphasis on learning and better environment to do so?

          1. enigmainblackcom – intelligent parents are quite capable of having intellectually substandard children. And, less intelligent parents are quite capable of having more intelligent children. 🙂

        2. enigmainblackcom – since we get our intelligence from our parents, then yes, it is inherited. Are their environmental components? Good question. Some studies have shown that the oldest child in the family has the highest IQ and it goes down from there. The baby gets the least. And in my family of 6 that is pretty much true.

          No, the contention is that some portion of the variation in intelligence (enumerated by the coefficient of determination, or R-squared) is attributable to heritable factors. The same contentions have been made re personality traits. Keep in mind that they’re not measuring anything directly. These are synthetic variables manufactured by psychologists. Hereditarians like Herrnsten, Gottfriedson, and Burt have contended that 75% to 80% of the psychometric measure is attributable to heritable factors. Keep in mind that the sources of variation between individuals are not necessarily the sources of variation between collectivities and that there are anomalies. here. Richard Lynn contends that median IQ for Africans is about 70. Well, the ancestry of American blacks is > 80% West African, but black American IQs are closer to white American IQs than they are to Lynn’s supposed African IQs.

      3. “3. Is there any type of free speech that should be prohibited from colleges and universities (i.e ISIS recruiter, Ku Klux Klan)?”

        The more dangerous the speech the more important that we get the speech into a public arena so that we can engage it and refute it.

        When you prevent dangerous speech in public places, you assure the speech takes place in the dark, hidden places where there will be no one to refute the fallacies.

          1. I am not sure I agree with those restrictions.

            In any case, my recollection is those restrictions are based on crowd control and public safety – not content.

            That is a crucial point. To the best of my knowledge, the restrictions you mention are specifically not based on content.

        1. ISIS recruiters are engaged in criminal solicitation and (often) sedition. These are common crimes. The KKK is a generic term for a mess of corporate bodies whose total membership does not exceed 3,000. No one’s injured by one of these clowns trying to hold a recruitment meeting on campus. Keep in mind, lynching was at its peak in the South ca. 1893, when there was no KKK. During the heydey of the 2d incarnation of the KKK (ca. 1923), lynching was declining in frequency in the Southern United States and declining quite rapidly (from 50 a year ca. 1920 to 15 a year ca. 1935). Local klaverns were responsible for about 16 homicides between 1953 and 1982, and none since. The scale and tempo suggests more the Quebec Liberation Front than a vigorous terrorist organization.

          1. ” Local klaverns were responsible for about 16 homicides between 1953 and 1982″

            I am not sure that lynch rates, or homicide rates in general, should be taken as a measure of the threat posed by an organization. Surely, cross burnings, house burnings, beatings, voter intimidation and other act of violence, while difficult to reduce to a statistical metric, are all related to the threat posed by an organization.

            Further, you simple statement of trends in lynching tell us nothing about other factors that might be related to the changes in trend; for example action by the FBI and other law enforcement organizations.

            Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out the Klan’s responsibility for 16 murders and compelling evidence that the Klan is an on going criminal enterprise.

            1. The FBI prior to 1924 was a small and fairly crooked gumshoe for the attorney-general (founded in 1908). They weren’t accomplishing much of anything. Well into the 1930s, their status as a federal agency tied their hands much more than it did today. By way of example, the FBI set observers in 1937 to public hearings on the Hindenburg disaster. The tripwires necessary to undertake a federal investigation weren’t hit and they could not participate. As late as 1959, the FBI director maintained that the Cosa Nostra was not a criminal conspiracy which merited or justified federal intervention.

              The decline in lynching dates from about 1893, there were only a scatter after 1946 and none at all after 1959. The FBI had almost nothing to do with this social phenomena.

              There was no ‘the Klan’ in 1953 or 1982 or anytime in between or any time since. The second incarnation of the Klan dissolved in 1944. It was refounded in 1946, but broke apart into an array of organizations in 1949. As of 1983, there were three ‘national’ organizations, 7 or 8 skeletal state organizations, and several dozen stand-alone local Klaverns. The Anti-Defamation League adhered to the view that about 80% of the sum of memberships was to be found in the ‘national’ trio. That year, Bill Wilkinson’s organization was forced to file for bankruptcy and reveal some intramural documentation. The ADL had estimated his membership at 3,000. It was actually 1,800. The Anti-Defamation League’s estimates at that time that if you added the memberships of all Klans, it would total about 8,500. The bankruptcy filings indicated that was a sore exaggeration. The FBI’s count ca. 1975 was a sum of 2,200 members. Similar counts undertaken 20 years later revealed similar numbers.

              The United Klans of America (one of the trio of ‘national’ organization) was sued by the $PLC over a political killing in 1981. All of their assets were turned over to the plaintiff at the conclusion of the suit. Their assets consisted of a quonset hut worth $51,000. The $PLC collected a seven figure sum in donations from their marks to prosecute the suit. In case you hadn’t noticed, that killing occurred 36 years ago and implicated one organization (which, FWIW, the ADL had at one time estimated included about 12% of all klavern members). The 1979 Greensboro Massacre was the work of a stand-alone local klavern that had no corporate connection to anyone else.

              These people aren’t a threat to anyone anymore, and they were much less of a threat 60 years ago than the $PLC or screen writers for TV programs like Cold Case would have you believe. You know this, I know this, the FBI knows this. But, for purposes of your own, you profess to believe otherwise.

              1. Thanks you for your brief history of Klan involvement in terrorism.

                The interested reader might want to follow up by reading more about the FBI battle against the Klan at the FBI’s web site:

                https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/april/klan2_042910/the-fbi-versus-the-klan-part-2-trouble-in-the-1920s

                It is an interesting story. Here are a couple of paragraphs that give a sense of the power and influence of the Klan:

                “Matters were getting so out of hand in the state of Louisiana that Governor John M. Parker petitioned the federal government for help. In a memo dated September 25, 1922, J. Edgar Hoover—then assistant director of the Bureau—informed Director Burns that a reporter had brought a personal letter from Parker to the Department of Justice. “The Governor has been unable to use either the mails, telegraph, or telephone because of interference by the Klan … Conditions have been brought to a head at Mer Rouge, when two white men … were done away with mysteriously,” Hoover wrote. He also said that the governor was seeking assistance because “local authorities are absolutely inactive” and because he feared judges and prosecuting attorneys had been corrupted.

                The Department responded, immediately sending four Bureau agents .. to work with the Louisiana attorney general to gather evidence of state and federal crimes. The agents soon found the bodies of the two men and pinpointed members of the vigilante mob that kidnapped and brutally murdered them. They also identified the mob’s leader—Dr. B.M. McKoin, the former mayor of Mer Rouge”

                BTW, I did say on going criminal enterprise. Well that too, but what I really meant was terrorist organization.

                The Klan clearly has political goals and a social agenda. And, as you have so carefully documented, the Klan has used violence to achieve those goals – practically a text book example of a terrorist organization.

                As for the claim ‘there is no Klan’, we should remember that that when subversive and terrorist organizations meet defeat of their main units, they break down to smaller units and sometimes adopt lone wolf tactics – in order to carry on the fight for their political and social goals. Again, practically a text book example. The Klan is nothing is not predictable.

                  1. @DSS: “Your problem isn’t reading comprehension. It’s character.”

                    Thanks for trying to put me at the center of attention, but modesty requires that I point out that I am not the most interesting or important subject in this thread.

                    My character is irrelevant to the serious questions posed by terrorist organizations like the Klan.

                    1. You talk rot. It’s pointed out in loving detail. You repeat the rot as if no one had spoken to you. You don’t play these games because you have any integrity.

                    2. @DSS: ” BFM: Thanks for trying to put me at the center of attention, but modesty requires that I point out that I am not the most interesting or important subject in this thread. My character is irrelevant to the serious questions posed by terrorist organizations like the Klan. … DSS: You talk rot. It’s pointed out in loving detail. ”

                      Hmmmm, ….. So are you saying I really am the most interesting and important subject in this thread?!?!

                      Thank you again. You must be one of my biggest fans. But you are really much too kind.

                      I think most of us can see that we face major threats from terrorist organizations both foreign such as ISIS and domestic such as the Klan and militias.

                      The questions of how to deal with those terrorist organizations while maintaining the open democratic society that so many of us value are the truly important issues we should discuss.

                      I am sure you must have some ideas of how we can protect rights such as first amendment speech and fourth amendment due process while taking strong action against ISIS, the Klan and others who would destroy us.

              2. The reason Congress fell in love with Hoover’s FBI was their uncanny knack of recovering stolen cars that crossed state lines thus triggering the bureau’s jurisdiction. The bounty on the cars from the insurance carriers aided the budget.

  13. Campus police are really only extensions of the institution’s administration and are made to follow the narrative.

    Don’t expect anything other than token attention to making arrests in this case (which will not happen).

Comments are closed.