Michigan State University Sued After Refusing Space On Campus For Controversial Speaker

download-2Michigan State University is being sued after it refused to rent space on campus for white nationalist Richard Spencer to speak later this month. The rental was requested by Georgia State University student Cameron Padgett for an event on-campus at the Kellogg Hotel & Conference Center.

Michigan officials issued a statement the decision  was “due to significant concerns about public safety” after the “tragic violence” in Charlottesville, Virginia.  I have previously written about how “public safety” is now being use as a catch-all rationalization to bar some speakers (generally conservative speakers) based on the content of their speech.  By citing counterprotesters, universities hope to avoid the appearance of content based discrimination but obviously it is the content that is driving the decision.  A university simply has to cite the anger of others in barring particular speakers;

Once again, this is the triumph of the “heckler’s veto” where people are denied the ability to speak based on how others will react to their views.  In Ohio, a bill will be introduced to bar  university officials from disinviting speakers based on the fear of counterprotesters.  It should not take a law for universities to maintain protections for free speech on our campuses.  We are yielding to the mob in the form of violent groups like Antifa.


I do not know anything about Spencer beyond his reputation as a white nationalist.  It does not matter. If Michigan State University is allowing speakers to rent space, it should do so in a content neutral fashion.

What do you think?

194 thoughts on “Michigan State University Sued After Refusing Space On Campus For Controversial Speaker”

  1. Well! It’s approaching 2 hours since I asked our alt left crew to answer, Yes or No, does this person have a 1st Amendment right to speak? I’ll take your cowardice as a weasel like, “no.”

    1. You can’t be alt left and a Clinton voter. The alt left loathed Clinton. She was center right on many issues. You don’t even know what your are talking about anymore so why would anyone answer you.

  2. Not to worry–Trump has just authorized military arms sales to college campuses. It’s fine. I think they can handle the protesters!


    “In Illinois, the College of DuPage received 14 fully automatic M16 rifles. The police department in Wheaton (pop. 53,000) picked up 68 M16 and M14 rifles plus five pistols (.45 caliber). Evanston – a small community known to promote gun control ordinances – procured 20 M16 rifles.
    Paducah County, Kentucky, (pop. 25,000) received 78 M16 rifles and one mine-resistant vehicle while the Georgetown Police Department (pop. 33,000) procured 77 M16 and M14 rifles, 40 pistols (.45 caliber), and one mine-resistant vehicle.
    In California, the Cotati Police Department (pop. 7,500) received 13 M16 rifles and Del Norte County (pop. 27,000) received 25 M16 rifles. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department procured $3.6 million in surplus equipment including 768 M16 rifles.
    In Ohio, the Department of Natural Resources received 240 fully automatic M16 and M14 rifles. Why? To enforce hunting laws?
    Mine-resistant armored vehicles (49) were transferred to many small towns and counties in Florida including Baker County (pop. 27,000), Leesburg (pop. 22,400), Hallandale Beach (37,113), and Suwannee County (pop. 43,000).

    1. According to this website, the 1033 program was established by Congress ca 1991 to disburse excess DoD materiel for use in counter-drug programs; it was later expanded to include counter-terrorism measures taken on by local/state LEAs (law enforcement agencies). The states have to request inclusion in the program and must sign a memorandum of agreement in order to establish a relationship with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The DLA is not just giving this stuff out at random to unsuspecting LEAs. These are willing participants. My question is whether the materiel is actually surplus, or just designated as such so that the DoD has to order fresh supplies from the contractors. That would be an actual waste of taxpayer $$. If I had to guess, I’d say that the Indian tribe LEAS are requesting the night vision goggles so they can watch for coyotes smuggling illegals across tribal lands, or drug runners. This is apparently a big issue at the “San Miguel Gate” in AZ, outside of Tucson.


  3. We do not hear much about Second Amendment rights. We have a right to arm bears. Bring em on to Michigan State.

  4. I think that’s a tricky one, but that not attending is a more powerful message than fascist censorship. Speakers addressing an empty room will get the hint, eventually, and they just outed themselves, very few respect that particular world view. I have seen this work in my own time, the neo-nazi skin heads were about 1000 times worse 30 years ago (most of the time I am more shocked by people’s willful ignorance regarding all of the progress that has been made. Then again, none of these kids were alive for any major breakthrough, and no one has bothered to teach them. Additionally, they were parented for poop. Older administrators are just grabbing low-hanging, easily exploitable fruit, which is ironically, what the white power crowd used to do). I think people are waking up, if ever so slowly. I hope it continues.

  5. You either have the freedom to say unpleasant things in public or you don’t. The Constitution says you do and doesn’t give a heckler’s veto exception. If you have to call out the East Lansing Police Department, the Michigan National Guard, the Guardian Angels and the Boy Scouts to protect this guy, you do it because that’s what a brave, free society does. What MSU did is what a coward does if you’re keeping score at home. They should stop singing the National Anthem at football games in Spartan Stadium to avoid the inevitable chuckles and guffaws when they get to the “land of the free and the home of the brave part.

    Exactly when did our college administrators get to be such weenies?

    1. When coddled, upper middle class, liberal, baby boomers became college administrators. That would have started in 70’s and seems to be peaking right now.

      1. Where’s John Silber when you need him. Like Howie Carr says “They’re not making Democrats, or college presidents, like John Silber anymore.” More is the pity.

        1. Loved Silber! I had a cousin going to BU when he was President. His parents both went there, married there, working their way through school waiting tables. They will soon probably scrub Silber’s name from their history. mespo, my old man saw this coming back in the 60’s/70’s. He said his party was losing its mind and its base back then!!

      2. I doubt college administrators have ever been predominantly drawn from people who had wage-earner backgrounds (though, to be sure, bourgeois life was more anxious and less comfortable a century ago than it is today, quite apart from the effects of the Depression and the World Wars). The trouble with ascribing this to ‘baby boomers’ (i.e. bourgeois college-educated types born after 1938 but before 1958) is that north of 60% of them have now retired and the rest are due to clear out in a half-dozen years or so. It’s a reasonable wager that 1/2 the tenured faculty now are those born after 1965. Gen X has failed to clean up higher ed. If anything, they’ve made it worse.

        1. Firstly, the most accepted criteria for baby boomers is being born 1946-64. I have never seen 1938-58. It doesn’t make sense since the “boom” refers to the GI’s returning from WW2 starting the boom. So, the baby boomers born in the late 50’s/early 60’s are now running the show. You are correct it is not typical for blue collar children to choose the academic admin track. They have too much common sense for that.

          1. “not typical for blue collar children to choose the academic admin track.” Well it is easy money for little work. Not to be chosen if you actually want to live a meaningful life. Is that what you meant by common sense?

          2. Firstly, the most accepted criteria for baby boomers is being born 1946-64. I have never seen 1938-58. It doesn’t make sense since the “boom” refers to the GI’s returning from WW2 starting the boom. So, the baby boomers born in the late 50’s/early 60’s are now running the show. You are correct it is not typical for blue collar children to choose the academic admin track. They have too much common sense for that.

            The nadir of annual live births was in 1936 and the peak was in 1957 (live births then declined from 1957 to 1976 before increasing again). The use of 1964 as a terminal point is arbitrary; it’s just the last year that live births exceeded 4 million. The use of 1946 is less arbitrary because there was an abrupt year over year increase in live births from 1945 to 1946 (to the tune of about 20%).

            If you’re looking at punctuation marks in terms of experiences and behavior, the cohorts of late-1930s would be one. You see one which is quite consequential: the abrupt increase in the propensity to file divorce suits. You see another which is less so but interesting: changes in popular music preferences.

            The other terminal point can be put various places but somewhere around 1960 is a passable compromise. Indices of social pathology and behavioral inflection points can be traced to various cohorts born between about 1950 and 1990.

            1. Desperate, You still got the chip on your shoulder. You’re wrong. Just deal w/ it.

    2. Weenies is a good word. We are talking Armour Hotdogs here not human weenies. These weenies need to be grilled.

    3. “Exactly when did our college administrators get to be such weenies?”

      My earliest recollection of a major university caving in was Columbia in 1968. The President of the university fought for several months even using the police and then caved. I wonder what things would look like if he had expelled all the students that refused to stop disrupting the campus and closed the campus to non-students without permission to be there.

      I think Eisenhower was the previous President of the university and resigned when he became President of the US.

        1. Mespo, that is why Columbia came to mind when considering when the weenie generation of college administrators began. By 1970 I believe such protests were in and that is when we had the Kent shooting.

  6. You see, this is not about race, sex, etc. This is about FASCISM. Milo is a gay man who has sex ONLY w/ black men. And, he receives the same treatment. This is about DESTROYING the Constitution.

      1. Did you just screw up your narrative “Ken”? I thought you and your other sock puppet manifestations actually supported gay rights and interracial relationships. Now, you label individuals who espouse these lifestyles as perverts. Oh they are perverts if they are gay and also commit the crime of having a different opinion than you profess. You are a hypocrite but not unlike many, unfortunately. When it comes down to it, your true beliefs and character shows when you find a dislike for someone. Then (to use your favorite words) your own bigotry and racism sprouts forth. All the while you castigate others for being racists or bigots by default just because they voted for a particular person, reside in a particular state, or are born among a particular race yet as soon as a person you dislike is mentioned he is fair game to be labeled a pervert.

        Now that you’ve successfully demonstrated the content of your character, you might as well take this opportunity to assume another identity.

        1. Don’t confuse Milo’s associations with pedophilia with gay rights or civil rights, Mr narrator.

            1. Really I think you should ban me for repeating the fact that many organizations have disassocited themselves from Milo because of his favorable remarks about pedophiles. Breitbart is included in that list, bud. And yes I do think pedophiles are pervs and much much worse.

              1. He didn’t make favorable remarks about paedophiles. His remarks were about pederasty (for the most part, with an aside about male-female early-teen sex).

                The improvisational quality of moral statements by progtrash never ceases to amaze.

                  1. I think Alex Pareene has attended CPAC, but I doubt you have many people in attendance who’ve made it a point to trash any ethnic of personal modesty or chastity – unlike you, for whom a now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t ethic is useful when you have a subcultural enemy in your sights.

        2. Darren Smith – Man of the Year!

          “Sock Puppet”

          That’s what I’m talkin’ about!

          It’s a psychosis not an embarrassment.

          Sock puppet in a nutshell…

          To wit,

          “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”

          Individuals with this disorder exhibit a lack of ability to empathize with others and an inflated sense of self-importance.


          The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

          People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection.

    1. Wait, Nick, the Constitution says,

      “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,…to…provide for…general Welfare of the United States;…” that excludes individual Welfare,


      “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation…” and James Madison defined “private property” as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual,”


      “The Congress shall have the Power to…regulate Commerce…among the several states,…” meaning that “the decision not to buy insurance is an economic one that affects interstate commerce in various ways and Obamacare would, for the first time ever, permit laws commanding people to engage in economic activity,” therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates the “Commerce Clause.”

      The Constitution was destroyed a long time ago. The entire welfare state comprised of redistribution and social engineering is unconstitutional. Great examples are the extant, voluminous and ubiquitous “redistribution of wealth” as unconstitutional taxation for “indivdual welfare” and the eminently unconstitutional Obamacare which illicitly forces citizens to purchase a commercial product.

      1. What is your point frankly? I dont’ think the title was what the discussion was about. I am not defending or attacking Milo, rather I am trying to get your point. Did you understand the distinction between pedophilia and what Milo seemed to have been talking about?

        Do you know what sexual attraction to prepubescent children is called? Pedophilia (Take note of the adjective). What is it called when the child has already reached puberty? Pederasty?

        Your complaint might have to do with the laws covering sexual relationships between adults and minors.

  7. Let’s assume, for the sake of this post, that Richard Spencer is a racist, Nazi as some of the alt left antifa loving people are saying. None of these alt left antifa loving/enabling commenters have opined on whether his 1st Amendment rights should be suspended because of his views. Or, are they using they joining the lying, fascist “safety” pretext. frankly/SWM, Benson, Ken Doll, etc. Just a forthright answer. Should he be allowed to speak or not. The spotlight is on all you. Simple answer, “Yes” or “No”

    1. None of these alt left antifa loving/enabling commenters have opined on whether his 1st Amendment rights should be suspended because of his views.

      Benson and Groen are too canny to give you a straight answer, Jill is lost in the distractions that the psychotropics she’s taking generate, IB is actually a spambot, and the rest of them don’t understand the question.

      1. LOL! Desperate, this thread is one of the most edifying in my 5 years here, These coward, weasel, alt left won’t even answer the simple yes or no question. “Should this man be allowed to speak.” Absent their answers, by default they are saying “NO” They don’t believe in the 1st Amendment. And, we did learn Ken Doll is a racist, homophobe. That was quite edifying

    2. Nick, I’m sorry you’ve had to wait so long. I’ve been busy wrangling with Allan as usual.

      Does Richard Spencer have a right to speak at Michigan State University?

      Yes. He does. The public safety argument is equivalent to prior restraint even when a public institution subordinate to the government asserts that excuse for censorship. Unless they’re strapped for cash and The State of Michigan won’t pay for security. Maybe The State is short of funds, to boot.

      As I’m sure you know, I can’t give simple one word answers. So maybe you were hoping for some other lefty to reply. Either way, the answer is still yes. And don’t even think about kicking me out of the lefty club. Only another lefty can do that.

      1. “Nick, I’m sorry you’ve had to wait so long. I’ve been busy wrangling with Allan as usual.”

        What you call wrangling Diane is throwing mud. Unfortuanately the mud you throw lands on your own face.

        However, in this instance you stood on the right side of the Constitution. Richard Sencer has a right to speak at MSU.

      2. Unless they’re strapped for cash and The State of Michigan won’t pay for security. Maybe The State is short of funds, to boot.

        Without a doubt they have the funds. It would mean, at worst paying overtime to their usual corps of security guards or hiring a security contractor for one evening’s work. Look at what happened at Berkeley and at Charolottesville. The police were all on the clock. They just weren’t doing any work.

      3. Diane, Thanks for your answer and vote. The others voted “no” in absentia.

  8. Michigan loses because strict enforcement of security rules are very effective in preventing violence in an enclosed space. This no Charlottesville situation. Courts can see through the “public safety” crap when it’s clear this is pure censorship by a cowardly school administration.

  9. So if Spencer went there to debate someone with opposing views would the university still reject him?
    At some point a well known left leaning speaker is going to want to debate these guys and they won’t be able to without the university looking like complete hippocrits and effectively curtailing opposition speech.
    Can’t people play this out a couple yards down the field?

  10. It’s funny what you can learn if you actually listen to someone. For example, I heard Richard Spencer say in the video below, after talking about race and immigration for three minutes, “Now, in a lot of other things I think that we should adopt the Bernie Sanders platform, to be honest. And I mean that absolutely seriously.”

    Listen to him directly. Don’t rely on others to describe him. Aside from his views about race and immigration, he wants the same things issac, Natacha, Bettykath, and JT himself want: an almost religious devotion to environmental zealotry, more trains, “free” college, Medicare for all.

    He’s a leftist. Calling himself “Alt-Right” is just as fraudulent as calling abortion “women’s health” or using female pronouns to describe a man who puts on lipstick, stilettos, and a dress. Perversions of language that defy objective reality.

    Start playing just after the 3:00 mark to hear him say he wants to adopt Bernie’s wishlist.

  11. Universities and other venues are getting antsy about allowing those whose speech runs in the direction of anti-minority, and whose supporters show up armed. While Spencer’s talk could be about dark chocolate covered lobster recipes, the odds that his speech would be darker yet makes the venue so wary that he’s barred.
    They also don’t want to give him gravitas by tying their name with his.
    Recently, our mens’ book club (now 125 years old) did the same with a speaker invited by an extremely conservative member, and for the same reason.

  12. Fascinating hat one could make a statement such as “We are yielding to the mob in the form of violent groups like Antifa” regarding a relatively newer group – but yet for a long term hate filled Nazi/white supremacist (Spencer, etc….) who promotes violence then state “I do not know anything about Spencer beyond his reputation as a white nationalist”

    LOL – like most white supremacists, our host conveniently never knows details about their hate filled, violence promoting standard bearers.

    I may not agree with Antifa’s seeming policy that police can not be relied upon to protect anti-Nazi’s, transgender, etc…… and thus must put defense into their own hands. However, our hosts weak attempt to equate the two is moronic, scary and reminiscent of Germany in the 1930’s. Could your hate group buddies friends be planning to burn a national monument with the attempt to blame others? Is that the basis for your stupid beyond belief comparison?

    1. Well hello, Bill W. I’m glad I’m not the only one to notice Prof. Turley’s temporary blindness to history. Yes. There’s always a history. And if we refuse to learn from that history, then we are doomed to repeat it.

      That being said, there’s still such a thing as guilt by association. Accordingly, Spencer has a right to clarify his views on the subject of White supremacy on the odd chance that he might repudiate Fascism.

      Wait a second . . . Spencer had a role in organizing the Charlottesville Unite The Right rally; didn’t he? That means that Spencer has already failed to repudiate neo-Nazis; doesn’t it? O bother. Never mind, Bill W.

      1. Ken, Richard Spencer may be an agent of influence for The Russian Federation. His wife, Nina Kouprianova, trolls for Putin on Twitter under the alias Nina Byzantina. The whole lame-brained farrago could be a Kremlin active measure aimed at heightening political divisions in America.

          1. Another time another place you may learn to do something more elevated than pick your nose.

        1. Spencer and his wife are separated.

          Advocacy for Putin is not unusual. Have a look at Anatoly Karlin’s blogs. Putin’s an episodically abusive machine boss who has had a number of accomplishments during his tenure (e.g. presiding over an economic revival and a reduction in street crime). If you’re not in a lather about civic hygiene (and, keep in mind, half the attentive population here is fine with Lois Lerner), Putin will do. Russians do not tend to have high standards for their politicians.

    1. The only thing any American needs to know is that the Constitution holds dominion and all individuals have the full unabridged freedom of thought, speech, religion, assembly, press and every other conceivable natural and/or god-given right.

      Every individual may want to familiarize himself with laws against causing damage and/or injury.

      For your primer, you should throw in the unconstitutionality of every aspect of central planning, redistribution of wealth and social engineering, understanding that the severely limited government has no authority to tax for individual Welfare and that private property is held “in the exclusion of every other individual” precluding all redistribution and the manipulation of an American’s private business for the purposes of “affirmative action,” “quotas,” “Fair Housing” law or “Non-Discrimination” law; and since “hate” is constitutional, include the unconstitutionality of “hate crime” law.

      That should do it.

      1. George, Richard Spencer advocates the complete exclusion of non-White citizens from the political territory of The United States of America.

        Isn’t that something that we need to know, George?

        If non-White Americans own private property in the political territory of The United States, then how could they be constitutionally excluded from the country in which their private property is located without a due process of law that confiscates their property with just compensation, George?

        How much will that cost the remaining all-White taxpayers?

        And how would such confiscated property be constitutionally redistributed, George?

        1. “George, Richard Spencer advocates the complete exclusion of non-White citizens from the political territory of The United States of America.”

          From the Atlantic article: “I asked whether I, as someone who is half-Chinese but had a classical Western education, would fit within his group, and he hedged, impishly. “I’m a generous guy,” he told me. “If you truly identify with our people, I would not have any problem with that.” But there were genetic deal breakers. “A full-blooded African, no matter how wonderful he might be—I’m not sure that would really work.”

          1. Persnickety sticklerism, Allan. The exclusion of non-Whites is not “complete.” There’s an exception for non-White White-Identitarians–unless they’re full-blood Uncles Tom. You had damned well better not be supporting this Spencer character, Allan. Or else you will have to retract every last color-blind statement you ever through in Enigma In Black’s face. Capish?

            1. What are you talking about Diane. You made a very generalized statement that wasn’t completely accurate. In order not to deal with your inadequacies I quoted from the Atlantic article previously provided by another list member. I don’t know how accurate the article is, but it was interesting being written by a former classmate of Spencer’s.

              Spencer’s popularity has been created by the left and Spencer himself demonstrates some leftist tendencies, racist tendencies and dictatorial tendencies. I think he likes Nazi structure so I assume he would qualify as a fascist.

              I don’t look at race like enigma does though at times I look at need in a color blind fashion. I don’t assume that because Spencer was married to a Russian there is a Russian connection to Putin. Not every fact has to be combined with a new conclusion. That I correct a potential misconception doesn’t mean I agree with the guy.

              1. Allan says, “That I correct a potential misconception doesn’t mean I agree with the guy.”

                The potential misconception that you corrected, Allan, is whether Richard Spencer’s America would exclude non-Whites “completely” or incompletely. The article you quoted suggests that Spencer would allow some non-Whites to stay in America if they identify with White people–otherwise they’re out.

                That is not a potential misconception that needs to be corrected. It is a persnickety sticklerism.

                Meanwhile, Spencer is still married to Nina Kouprianova, who is still trolling for Putin as Nina Byzantina and working as a translator for Alexander Dugin’s Russian-Orthodox Mysticism about Putin standing up to The Anti-Christ.

                1. Diane, it is quite important who he is willing to associate with, don’t you think so? It may not make him any less of a racist, but does provide useful information. His friend and interviewer was part Asian.

                  Married or separated the fact his wife is Russian doesn’t deserve the conclusion that Spencer is dealing with the Russians. The fact that I like Russian dressing doesn’t deserve the conclusion that I am dealing with the Riussians.

                  You make all too many black and white statements when there is a lot of gray in between. This type of loose thinking causes you to make too many mistakes. You even paraphrase people too loosely and sometimes inaccurately quote people. Finally, when it comes to proof you think opinion is solid evidence and evidence is proof.

                  I think you would do better if you were to use a bit more persnickety sticklerism in what you say.

                1. Allan, you have utterly failed to rehabilitate the supposed mischaracterization of Richard Spencer’s beliefs with the quotation you provided in which Spencer claims to be a decent guy because he would not necessarily exclude from U. S. territory the Asian-American woman who was interviewing, if she identified with White people, but would exclude full-blooded Africans from U. S. territory–even if they did identify with White people.

                  If you keep going down this road of nitpicking quibbles and captious caviling that you’ve been on ever since I first read this blog way back in July or thereabouts, then precious few people other than I will take you seriously enough to bother wrangling with you. FTR, the main reason I wrangle with you is to keep you from pestering other posters on this blog. Perhaps that strategy is flawed.

                  1. “ Allan, you have utterly failed to rehabilitate the supposed mischaracterization of Richard Spencer’s beliefs”

                    Apparently you can’t read the written word. I didn’t try to rehabilitate him, rather I used a quote to further define him based upon what he said and his former friend an Asian American said when he interviewed Spencer. The Asian American writer expressed his disdain for Spencer as have I, but he included those quotes to permit people to looker deeper into the character of the man.

                    You lose sight of any of the colors between black and white and and have hallucinatory grandiose emotions of saving people. These things and a lot of other faults makes your opinions on any subject suspect.

  13. My guess is that other white supremacists groups like Hillel International are allowed to proceed.

  14. I believe Michigan will lose this civil case. The primary defense they seem to invoke is what happened in Charlottesville. That is insufficient nexus to selectively deny free speech rights of an individual.

  15. Eliminate public universities.

    Private entities should be allowed to discriminate on any basis they chose.
    And the rest of us can protest or boycott because of their discrimination

    Given that is not going to happen – a public university that provides space to anyone, must do so for everyone on the same basis.

    It may not bar people because of their views.
    It may not bar people because they are controversial and controlling students might be difficult.

    It may not charge them for the extra cost of security, and it must protect controversial speakers.

    If we are going to have public universities, they are stuck with the same burdens as govenrment with respect to speach.

  16. Judge not. Least yee be judged. And a bee judge is likely to sting. Pin the tail on the donkey and all that. Do not go to school in Michigan.

    1. I mean. What if I showed up in my costume and tried to team up with Sintur Klaus on Xmas Day in Michigan? I would get barred. Because of my color and not my dirt from the chimney. If you do not understand what I am talking about then look up my name on Google Images.

  17. God forbid if/when a University LEO has to arrest and the DA charge a “liberal progressive” for smashing someone in the face or similar battery because someone says something that hurts their precious wittle feewings.

    University progressive logic: “Always positively order all relevant LEOs to stand down and do nothing if/when fascist (AKA “antifa” types) commit felony battery against persons practicing free speech, the foundation of a free democracy.”

    Tis practice only encourages more of the same violence, which violence they then quote to justify flushing the 1st Amendment down the toilet. And conversely, if they had zero tolerance for such violence there would eventually be less and less.

Comments are closed.