“Living Hell”: Clemson Professor Prompts Others To Find The Home Address Of Public Letter Author

Clemson_University_Seal.svgAnother professor is under fire this week for rabidly anti-Republican views.  Clemson School of Computing Assistant Professor Bart Knijnenburg called not just Trump but all Republicans “xenophobic and racist.” He previously called all Republicans “racist scum.”  Despite his hateful and intolerant views, I still believe that he has a free speech right to express those views in social media and would oppose efforts to terminate him.  Unfortunately, such views are not uncommon among faculty. What made this story stand out is that Knijnenburg appeared to encourage others to find the home address of someone who published an open letter calling for schools to stop admitting Chinese students.  It has become a standard practice of some groups to harass and threaten people at home if they express opposing views or contradict a new orthodoxy on our campuses.

This week I testified in the Senate about the erosion of free speech and academic freedom in our universities where professors are being punished or even fired for expressing viewpoints that challenge this new orthodoxy, particularly with regard to racial and political issues.

Professors who express anti-Republican views are rarely subjected to campaigns for removal. Indeed, Change.org recently took down a petition criticizing a professor for declaring “White Lives Don’t Matter.” From a free speech perspective, it is not just the threats against expression but the bias in enforcement that is so concerning. However, that does not change the fact that Knijnenburg is expressing deeply held political and social views in stating that “anyone who still calls themselves a Republican despite all this is xenophobic and racist.”

On his Twitter account, Knijnenburg uses the common acronym “ACAB,” for “all cops are bastards” and proclaims “Burn it down.”

Screen Shot 2020-08-08 at 9.53.15 AM

Knijnenburg was previously under fire on Campus Reform for declaring on Facebook that “all Trump supporters, nay, all Republicans, are racist scum.”

What was disconcerting was a professor encouraging the harassment of people with opposing views at their homes. Knijnenburg went to Facebook to attack a man who wrote an open letter to the president of the Clemson University Board of Trustees, asking the university to “keep Chinese nationalists out of Clemson.” The letter reflects a view of various political leaders that Chinese military and intelligence operations are using students to steal data and research from American universities. Knijnenburg profanely attacks the man and then engages in others who want to get “personal” and ask where he lives.

Knijnenburg reportedly responded with “Greenwood. His name is Paul Gilbert and he was an assistant town administrator in Calhoun Falls. And then a zoning administrator in Greenwood. Now retired, I guess.” Knijnenburg later followed up with “lemme know if you find out his address.”  He later responded to other comments and said that “part of me wants to just not bother; another part of me wants to make this guy’s life a living hell.”

The involvement of an academic in seeking to harass those with opposing views is a disgrace to our profession. Universities are dedicated to the exchange of ideas and based on the faith that ultimately the more worthy or justified viewpoints will prevail. Knijnenburg does not address the merits of Gilbert’s position as an academic. (I disagree with Gilbert and those seeking to ban Chinese students in part because I believe that it is important for Chinese students to experience the freedoms in this country, including the freedom of speech). Instead of a substantive response, Knijnenburg unleashes profane and personal attacks combined with a threat to make Gilbert’s life a living hell. To many students already believe that such attacks are an acceptable substitute for debate or dialogue on our campuses.

In seeking to intimidate people with opposing views, Knijnenburg confirms that he is more of an advocate than an academic. He and these other commenters want to deter others from expressing opposing views by making Mr. Gilbert an example. While other academics are assaulted or put under police protection for trying to speak freely, Knijnenburg is spurring on the mob.

The problem with being an advocate for free speech and academic freedom is that you often must defend people who would deny both rights in others. Indeed, we often support those who want to silence others while espousing hateful views.  While Knijnenburg would “burn down” those things that annoy him, protecting his right to express such views protects us all.

However, Knijnenburg is coming close to the line of protected speech in his encouraging the harassment of other people.  We have previously discussed how some faculty have had to be placed under police protection due to such campaigns. The targeting of homes has often led to trespass and even violence. Knijnenburg’s stated desire to burn down part of society can easily be taken as a desire to burn down people who support those institutions.  When such speech turns to action, Knijnenburg may find himself beyond the protection of these rights.

288 thoughts on ““Living Hell”: Clemson Professor Prompts Others To Find The Home Address Of Public Letter Author”

  1. The faces might look different but there is no diversity of ideas in the democrat party. That is what leaders are supposed to have, diverse ideas.

  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpHykRCu-kA

    God Bless Herman Cain;

    Free and Self-Reliant American.

    His success was achieved through his hard work, sacrifice and merit.

    He sought no charity or pity.

    He endeavored mightily and enjoyed his “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Herman Cain freely pursued happiness of his own industry as a Great American.

  3. Professor Turley posited that America et al. may not sue China for deaths and damages accruing from the release of the “China Flu, 2020.”

    “Tik Tok, a Chinese corporation, is going to sue the Trump administration (i.e. United States) next week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

    – USA Today

    1. America must sue China in traffic court, if nowhere else, and arbitrarily and unilaterally deduct awards from the U.S./China debt.

      International protocols were abrogated as a consequence of China’s commencement of WWIII through its witting or unwitting release of “China Flu, 2020.”
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war.”

      – John Lyly, Euphues

  4. MENACING – THE FORGOTTEN TORT

    “part of me wants to make this guy’s life a living hell.” is an expression swollen with malice, malignancy and menace.

    It should sound well with a jury that is pondering punitive damages. That is particularly likely to be true in the context of a incantantion to doxx the victim and conjure up a mob to descend on his home to terrify him and his family.

    I said below that this may have constituted an actionable tort, an invasion of privacy.

    One might add the tort of defamation for accusing the victim of being a racist for a letter that, on its face, is not racist.

    However, I think the victim’s lawyer may also want to give some thought to the almost forgotten but still valid tort of “menacing”. Menace in the context of tort can be broad. When the Supreme Court of Mississippi considered the matter it relied on a definition of menace from the dictionary: ‘menace’ is a show of intention to inflict harm: a threatening gesture, statement, or act; threatening import, character, or aspect.” Dennis v. Travelers Insurance Company, 234 So.2d 624 (Miss. 1970).

    Assistant Professor Bart Knijnenburg’s statement coupled with his call for doxxing bleeds menace.

    If the professor’s actions were conducted at the university or by availing himself of university facilities, possibly even the mere use of the name, it could be that under respondeat superior Clemson itself could be among the defendants. I should like to see if Clemson is going to stand by the assistant professor claiming that menacing a private person is ‘free speech’ which they support so long as the menaced is a Republican, or if they are going to cut away from this corrupt albatross before they are handed an unwelcome invitation to court that they can’t refuse.

    1. I sent the link of the piece to Knijnenburg and with the following note:
      “When it comes to speech, Prof. Turley and I are in complete agreement. Please join us.”

    2. Clemson is in South Carolina. You cited Mississippi”s controlling case law defining the term “menacing”. Would it be possible to find either the definition of “menacing” in South Carolina’s criminal code or its relevant case law?

      1. Same charge can be found in the New York Penal Law (where it is a class B misdemeanor). Imagine it’s pretty common. In New York, I think you have to be physically threatening someone present in meatspace.

      2. Since the victim would want to collect money I suspect he would not need to rely on criminal law. I haven’t checked but I suspect as a tort one would find it in common or case law. Even if there were no precedent in South Carolina precedents from other jurisdictions would be persuasive.

        Also the same behavior could not result in a conviction in criminal law but could still result in liability for a tort action as a civil case. Part of the reason is that a civil case is usually proved by a preponderance of the evidence, 51%, but a criminal case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

      3. Case law from another state like Mississippi could be cited in the courts of another state, like South Carolina, as a persuasive precedent.

    3. A rock thrown through his window would teach him more than a lawsuit

      Some of these people calling for violence, need a taste of it themselves.

            1. Yeah, that might be a problem but, as usual, the reports are mixed on that. Could be having to choose between two difficult choices. Keep staying safe. The infection rates seem to be going down fairly steeply but that is no guarantee of safety. With luck a vaccine is coming though I won’t be the first to get it.

              1. Young……Thank you…..and I really believe so many of the stats are hyped. We don’t know one person here, and in Austin, who has or has had Covid.What are those odds?!

                1. I have a cousin in the Austin area who recently contracted it, felt ill for about a week, and then recovered fairly rapidly. His wife remained in the home and did not get it. A physician friend got it in March and thought she had a bad cold and kept working.. Later, at work, she tested positive for having had the disease. We know two others who have gotten it, one in California, and the other a co-worker but haven’t heard the outcome of those cases but if it had been bad we likely would have heard. It is remarkably infectious. My mask does not protect me but reduces the chance of my infecting others. Masks on other people protect me. Y’all wear masks if I’m around.

                  1. Young……we do all of the safe distancing…and wear masks always……….I just think it is weird we know NO one who has it. Glad your cousin recovered.
                    BTW Austinites never shut down their downtown hike and bike trail! Nor did they cllose the big downtown park, Auditorium Shores.
                    And of course all of the protesting that was allowed. Their mayor is a total idiot. I still can’t believe he allowed foot traffic on hike and bike trail….it’s narrow in several places. But he’s a big Biden guy.

                  2. Young, I have a fishing Buddy who has a PHD in Epidemiology.

                    He told me back in early March that the death rate would plummet in early May, and it did.

                    He also told me that wearing a mask to stop a microscopic virus is like expecting a chain link fence to stop Mosquitoes from getting into your yard.

                    Apparently, Dr. Fauci agrees:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLNBw7XCM4Q

                    Or I should say that Fauci “agreed” back in March. Then Fauci changed his tune once he was informed that he needed to get with the prescribed narrative that demands submission signaling by wearing a mask.

                    It’s a cold virus, not the Black Plague.

                    1. Rhodes……..thank you for the information…….Our family will continue to observe all the rules, but I still think something is squirrelly about some of the stats. And Fauci has not helped!!

                    2. Cindy, take note of all the conflicting opinions from all the experts. They are all guessing and many change their minds back and forth so tomorrow some will say they were right all along.

                      It’s an air transmissible virus that multiplies too fast for us to contain it. When one tests more increasing numbers will be found in the population. If one tests less less numbers of infected will be known. If a young and healthy group contracts the virus there will be very few deaths. If an older and sicker group gets the virus there will be larger numbers of deaths. Some people seem to be immune to the virus and will not catch it. That number is probably not small.

                      There are overestimates of the virus. There is a video on the net (I got the video but don’t know how to put it on the blog.) In that video anyone who dies with a positive Covid died of Covid even if the person was fine until being run over by a train. In other areas I have heard if Covid is suspected then any death is a covid death. There are financial bonsus’s that are distorting the numbers.

                      When I want to judge the number of deaths (not scientific) I subtact 25% for an overcount and then cut the remainder in half since it has been reported that about half the deaths are from nursing homes.

                      None of this matters since the virus will act like virus’s do until a vaccine is obtained which may or may not work. The rest of the stuff is medication to keep people alive and mitigation procedures that attempt to bring the R0 to less than one.

                      What I do believe is that closing the country down causes many more years lost than the virus itself and damages future generations. The best thing we can do is voluntarily isolate the old and sick. That probably would have been the best thing for us to do from the start.

              2. Young,

                There are millions of us that will resist all of these current types of vaccines, especially this Rush Job China flu Vax.
                Currently Ok state law is with our position. Cali/Ms not so much.

                And these new China Flu Vax’s is said to be unlike any in past with no idea what kinda of harm it will cause later. on.

                Dr. Wakefield Warns 300 Forced Vaccines Comin

                https://banned.video/watch?id=5f2dc0aa68370e02f2b5bcff

                Del Bigtree: Human Immune System Has a 99.74% Success Rate Against Covid-19

                180,483 views
                Jul 31, 2020

                https://banned.video/watch?id=5f249ed168370e02f2a852c7

              1. That sounds likely. Drug interactions can always pose unexpected problems. I am not sure the heart problems mentioned in the media are as valid as claimed. As soon as Trump mentioned the medicine the Dems and media would have convinced us one pill would turn us into werewolves with chest congestion if they had thought they could get away with it.

  5. Clemson School of Computing Assistant Professor Bart Knijnenburg:

    Trump [and] all Republicans [are] xenophobic and racist.

    And your point is?

    Might it be freedom of speech, thought, religion, belief, propagation, press, assembly, disassembly and every other conceivable, natural and God-given, right, freedom, privilege and immunity per the 9th Amendment?

  6. PRESIDENT CARTER DEFENDS ALL‐WHITE AREAS

    By Christopher. Lydon Special to The New York Times

    April 7, 1976

    SOUTH BEND, Ind., April 6 — Jimmy Carter said today that the Federal Government should not take the initiative to change the “ethnic purity” of some urban neighborhoods or the economic “homogeneity” of well‐to‐do suburbs.

    ‘If he wins the Presidency, the Georgia Democrat said at a news conference here, “I’m not ‐going to use the Federal Government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods.”

    Similarly, he said, “To build a high‐rise, very low‐cost housing unit in a suburban neighborhood or other neighborhoods with relatively expensive homes, I think, would not he in the best interest of the people. who live in the high‐rise or the suburbs.

    “Any exclusion of a family because of race or ethnic background I would oppose very strongly and aggressively as President,” he said. “But think it’s good to maintain the homogeneity of neighborhoods if they’ye been established that way.”

    1. and yet the federal government was shoving desegregation plans down the throats of local people at that very point in history, in the midwest. that is history

      so much for what Jimmy Carter had to say

      1. An end to the enforcement of restrictive covenants on deeds and the liquidation of the mortgage maws and their regulatory paraphenalia should have sufficed. An end to other federal interventions in real estate markets would also have been agreeable – no more tax preferences, no more financing through the VA and the Farm Credit System, no more promotions via HUD, no more regulatory schemes. As for state governments, template building and fire codes, codes governing the rubrics of the transfer of real estate, laws governing the rubrics of the landlord-tenant relations, and laws governing the discretion of local governments in regulating land use should have sufficed. As for local governments, segregating heavy industry, containing loads on public services, abatement of nuisances, and attention to the aesthetics of the streetscape should have been the concerns of land use ordinances.

        1. gee, it sounds like Absurd has a very clear idea of what good federal government would have looked like circa the mid seventies. and yet it went the way it did

          and now the level of insanity is so bad all those sorts of nuances seem quaint! and instead we defend the merits of “defunding the police” amidst and insurrection

          “racism” is the tool that must be broken. the way for it to be broken is for white people to stop caring about it whatsoever. just act normal. like them– do you think they care if we think they are reverse – racist? of course not. well, until white people are no longer cowed by this word– it all keeps falling apart

  7. When a United States Congresswoman publicly called for harassment of Trump supporters, that’s when the line in the sand needed to be drawn. It’s a little late now. I guess we’ll have to wait until we’re all rounded up and put on cattle trains to secret camps and exterminated before some liberals decide they might have gone a little too far.

    1. Are you talking about Rep. Waters calling for people to harass Trump’s Cabinet officials when they’re in public? (If not, please clarify.)
      Yeah, that’s definitely the line in the sand. Trump harassing politicians he dislikes is A-OK though.
      Trump even harasses his own former Cabinet officials, like Jeff Sessions for recusing from overseeing the Special Counsel investigation.

      1. Hardly the same thing, right? Advocating for a Face-to-Face harassment in public venues as Rep Waters clearly did is obviously different than the bloviating Trump may do in regards to certain politicians (And, said bloviating is generally reciprocated by Dem pols). At any rate, I certainly hope you can tell there’s a difference.

        1. I didn’t say that they’re the same. But I do consider both over the line. Keep in mind that Trump’s stream of verbal abuse has real effects:
          “a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 54 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault. … ABC News could not find a single criminal case filed in federal or state court where an act of violence or threat was made in the name of President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush.”
          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889

          How many acts of violence or threats were made in Rep. Waters’ name?

          1. “How many acts of violence or threats were made in Rep. Waters’ name?”

            Have you been living in a cave for the past 2 months?

            What an ignorant question?

            1. Rhodes, you can have any opinion you want about whether it’s an ignorant question, but you haven’t answered the question, and my guess is that you don’t know. I invite you to prove me wrong. Be sure to provide evidence that the “acts of violence or threats were made in Rep. Waters’ name,” just like the ABC News story provided evidence of acts of violence or threats made in Trump’s name.

              1. More bull. If one doesn’t look, one doesn’t find. democrats are always data mining the internet for stories of this nature so that they can post more BS that is meaningless. That is the nature of the left, something that you seem to roll in.

                However, all we have to do is look at democrat rallies with signs of Kill Bush or a decapitated head of Trump. When one talks about threats just look at the FBI Russia hoax.

                Where is the present violence coming threatening the public. Look around and take note of all the destruction and deaths. It’s known as Democrats Gone Wild.

      2. You keep making apples and oranges comparisons.

        No one cares much about what Politicians say about each other from their bully pulpits.

        But it is radically different when you call on other to seek out anyone – at their homes, or outside of their roles withing government and harass them, or when you do so yourself – that is wrong.

        Either you beleive there is an actual right to priviacy – or you do not.

        If you beleive in a right to privacy then you will not seek people out at their homes, or when they are dining, or shopping.

  8. Covid vs Smoking. The death toll for suicide smoking is 485,000 a year. The news media spends 90 percent of their time yakking about Covid. On break many are working their own suicides by smoking. And affecting others.

  9. Sad it’s come to this but I’ll warn you one time and I’ll film it for evidence like everyone else does and when you come on my property to harm me I will defend myself plain and simple so this could get bad fast. Plus now people know who he is and where to find him with all the crazy people who don’t mind shooting up a school I’d be scared.

  10. DAVID BROOKS ASKS “WHERE DO REPUBLICANS GO FROM HERE?”

    New York Times Columnist David Brooks wrote a column that was published yesterday evening. In the column Brooks covers various scenarios of ‘where’ the GOP might go in a post-Trump era. Among the Reader Comments was this piece from Troy Graham of Philadelphia:

    Troy Graham
    Philadelphia
    Aug. 7
    Times Pick
    Before Trump, class-based ethnic nationalism – and racism – were not locked away in the basement of the American right. They have long lived comfortably in a much more central room of the house. Reagan may have been the intellectual founder of the modern GOP, but the cynical and racist southern strategy was the party’s modern day electoral foundation. Let’s remember: Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were GOP standard-bearers until 2003, and even a Connecticut WASP like George H.W. Bush could not have been elected without the Willie Horton ad. Trump and Bannon were not innovators, not the first Republicans to play to white fear and resentment. (Even the saintly Reagan employed the “welfare queen” as a political bludgeon). The only difference with Trump and Bannon? They were shameless enough to dispense with any pretense, any call to our better angels, and they appealed directly to the dark heart of the white electorate.

    I appreciate what Brooks is trying to do – save what was once honorable about conservatism and create an intellectual future for the GOP. But this column is like discussing what color to paint your house when your house is on fire. And if racists like Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson are going to have any say in the future GOP, I say let the house burn to the ground.

    34 Replies3107 RecommendShare

    From Reader Comments: “Where Do Republicans Go From Here?”

    The New York Times, 8/7/20

    1. Good thing Troy didn’t dig into the historical record of the Democratic party. He’d really find some racism there.

        1. That is correct – NOW there is no evidence of systemic racism in this country.

          If you are a poor white – your future is indistinguishable from your black neighbor.

          If you are a middle class white – your future is no different from your black neighbor.

          Whoever you are your future is not determined by the color of your skin, but by factors in your own control
          Finish high school. Do not become a criminal. Get a job – any job, Come to work on time, Done not have kids until you are married, do not get married until you can afford to start a family.

          Do these and white or black your future is bright.

          That is america today. Most of us live in.

        2. Seth- You are funny. When you folks talk of reparations slavery was almost yesterday. When we mention Democrats+Slaves it is suddenly a long, long time ago and in a universe far away.

      1. Good thing Troy didn’t dig into the historical record of the Democratic party. He’d really find some racism there.”
        ****
        Lorenzo what’s racist about owning black slaves. Not long ago [yesterday according to liberals] all the best Democrats owned slaves.

      2. Worth remembering that the KKK was created by a Confederate general and its ranks were filled almost entirely with Democrats up until the present days.

        1. Nathan Bedford Forrest, was an interesting character., he was a slaver and in today’s dollars, he was fabulously rich

          And yet, he volunteered to be an enlisted soldier. Imagine any richy rich centimillionaire today volunteering for service!

          He outfitted his own troop, and became one of the most innovative and successful cavalry officers and tacticians of the war.

          he is reknowned for his tactical genius and his own physical courage in battle. that was all before the war. today, people do not much value such things, but i do.,

          today they only talk about fort pillow and the kuklos. but he had a very interesting biography.

          For my part, I m not going to demean his memory, everybody else will pick up the slack for me, I am sure.

    2. Seth;

      While your premise and that of the article is false – that is irrelevant.

      You do not seem to grasp that even if you are have successfully redefined racism such that the majority of americans are racists.
      That does not undermine the GOP.

      Most americans do not think they are racist. – but they hold views that are being called racist by you when expressed by Trump.

      Where do republicans go from here ? They do not need to go anywhere.

      Outside of a few Neo-Cons and David Brooks types who have been infected by living lose to leftists. Most republicans are as comfortable as ever.

      Contra your claims – republicans ARE actually doing better with minorities. Major republican issues are resonating – with minorities and with many americans.

      If you want to go into the election arguing to close the schools, shutdown the economy, kill off charter schools, defund the police, …..
      GO AHEAD – Republicans would be happy to face a democratic party that is open about its positions.

    3. Lets remember that Strom Thurmond was a democrat before he was a republican.

      Lets remember that Sen Robert Byrd – the longest serving senator in US history, was a democrat and an Exahlted Cyclops in the KKK.
      Serving through 2010.

      Bush won the 1988 election with 406 electoral votes. The election was not even close – one advertisement did not change the outcome of the election.

      You can like or hate Bannon, but his ideology is economic populism, not racism – he is perfectly willing to sell it to you regardless of race.

      1. I despise today’s Democrat leadership but do you not ever tire of trotting out Nathan bedford Forrest, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd?

        They all had in common, a sense of leadership for those who they understood to be their own people. Yes, white southernors.

        If we can honor “john lewis” or martin king for leading their constituencies– black southernors, basically, then I think we could be fair and say maybe white southern leaders had a constituency too.

        Oh, we can’t do that? seems unfair to me!

        So: if you white guys want to urinate all over socalled racist Democrats like these 3 guys, go ahead, but I wont join you.

        Hey why not toss Wallace in there too? I think George Wallace lead his own constituency too.

        We should wish to have leaders as bold as NBF, Strom, Byrd, and Wallace. They actually wanted their constituencies to survive and prosper.

        Are we supposed to wish for leaders who will throw us under the bus?

    4. The left spends it time selling divison, and shame,

      And keep up the nonsense of calling everyone you disagree with a racist. You will ensure Republican domination forever.

      You have jumped the shark.

      You have gone beyond calling the police racist, to calling the nation racist.

      Go for it, see how far that gets you.

      1. Division is working pretty well for them. A guy who professors liberterianism worships social atomization and thinks it’s a good thing.

        Don’t tell me on the one hand the individual is a god, and then on the other hand that “division” as a strategy is ineffective. You live and breathe division if you’re a liberterian

  11. Jonathan: If you think professor Knijnenburg’s “harassment” of Mr. Gilbert is worthy of an entire post because it is “coming close to the line of protected speech” you ought to consider what has happened to students at North Paulding High School in Dallas, Georgia.

    Following the instructions from Donald Trump last month Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp ordered public schools to reopen and make face masks optional. When the Mayor of Atlanta imposed more restrictive pandemic restrictions, including the wearing of face masks, the Governor sued her. That’s how adamant Kemp is that wearing a face mask is about “personal choice”.

    North Paulding was one school that followed the Governor’s order. On the first day of school many students became alarmed because most students were not wearing face masks. So alarmed that some took photos of a crowded school hallway showing few wearing masks. They they circulated the photos on social media –prompting a nationwide debate over the failure of schools to protect students from COVID-19. So how did the school respond? One student has been suspended for posting the photos. And Principal Gabe Carmona has threatened all students that there would be “consequences” for any student taking photos or making videos in violation of school policy. Principal Carmona was obviously more concerned by the bad optics the photos revealed than the health and safety of his students! Since the first day of school a number of students, including members of the football team, have come down with the virus–threatening other school students and their families.

    Now when high school administrators suspend or threaten students for exercising their first amendment rights that’s bad enough. But when Donald Trump, Governor Kemp and Principal Carmona reopen public schools without requiring all students to wear face masks that’s criminal negligence. This goes way beyond anything you allege professor Knijenburg has done!

      1. How so ? The free speech rights of students are pretty limited.

        Near certain photographing other students without permission is within the powers of the administration to limit.

        Further while there is a free speech right for adults to say stupid things – such as that students are in great danger from re-opening.

        Mostly what I see is idiot students being used as tools by the left.

    1. Set up your own blog and you can comment on what you prefer to comment on and be as tendentious as you care to be.

      1. I have found myself coughing in my car, post grocery store visit, bc I am being suffocated by the mask, a KN95, that is.

        I try to do the shopping late at night when it is cooler outside. In the middle of the day, the mask can be miserable.

    2. Morse v. Frederick and myriads of other cases.

      The free speech rights of schools students are extremely limited.

      I am not happy with those decisions, While public school students do not and should have have the same free speech rights as independent adults, I would still support free most free speech for students.

      Regardless you claim that this was about health – but it isnt. There is an enormous body of evidence that C19 is 1/5 as dangerous for School Students as the flu from various sources including the CDC.

      You have decided to wage holy war over school reopening. Making the bogus claim that it is somehow a moral or health issue.

      You are free to make that argument. You are not free to assume it is a fact or that everyone agrees.

    3. “Now when high school administrators suspend or threaten students for exercising their first amendment rights”

      High School students 1st Amendment rights cease to exist when they walk through the door of the school.

      Kemp is the Governor of the State of Georgia . Bottoms is the Mayor of Atlanta. So she doesn’t rank, and as she clearly demonstrated the night of May 29th, she’s a sociopath who only cares about herself.

      You know nothing worth knowing, Dennis.

      1. Rhodes,
        “High School students 1st Amendment rights cease to exist when they walk through the door of the school.”

        You are mistaken. Tinker vs. Des Moines.

        That said, I disagree with the students posting pictures of ‘offending’ students who weren’t wearing masks. That’s a bullying tactic.

        I also do find it rather concerning that Dennis seems to want Donald Trump, Governor Kemp and Principal Carmona to order people around, though.

        1. Prairie Rose, you say “I also do find it rather concerning that Dennis seems to want Donald Trump, Governor Kemp and Principal Carmona to order people around, though.”

          Seems to me that if it’s acceptable to require people to wear clothes that cover their genitals in public on an ongoing basis, it’s acceptable to require people to wear masks that cover their mouth and nose in public during a pandemic.
          Do you object to laws against public nudity, and do you consider that ordering people around?

          For that matter, do you object to school clothing regulations?

          Rhodes, it’s ironic that you falsely claim “High School students 1st Amendment rights cease to exist when they walk through the door of the school” and then tell Dennis “You know nothing worth knowing, Dennis.”

          1. Committ – I have been in classrooms where you have NO free speech and others where it is ALL free speech. Personally, I like school uniforms. It gets rid of the gang colors.

            1. students absolutely should wear uniforms. that’s an no brainer. it’s americans however who always stand in the way, individualism is an idol for these people. self expression is a form of cult worship. it’s pathetic. and it’s mostly just a consequence of advertising agencies who brainwashed people to think that way so they would buy more stupid clothes. gosh some things are so simple and yet so pathetically awry in the this country, it s truly amazing

              1. it’s americans however who always stand in the way, individualism is an idol for these people.

                No, they don’t. It’s some pest willing to be used as a straw plaintiff, who then are mollycoddled by courts. Everything the judiciary touches is made the worse for it.

                1. the judiciary has drank deeply from the poisoned chalice of individualism.

                  every lawsuit the ACLU has ever filed was premised on “individual rights” at the expense of some modest community exercise

                  if we valued the community and its cultural forms and norms MORE, and “individual rights’ LESS, we would not be in this pickle

                2. I’m going to propose that this is very much an AMERICAN problem going all the way back to The Declaration of Independence.

                  It suggests that all these “individual rights” complaints were so much more important than the community which was represented by the Crown and the Commonwealth of Subjects. Was this really worth it? I wonder

                  We are taught as Americans, that English system of constitutional monarchy was so awful and ours is so much better because we always elevate the “individual”

                  and yet now we have to pay as a group the price for Massa Tom who didn’t count slaves as individuals in his lofty talk, and all their great great grandchildren are here angry and mucking things up because of lofty talk that Massa Tom used to denounce the Crown, so he and George from Virginia and the rest of their clique could be the new aristocrats.

                  Well. I guess this is the revolution eating its own. Maybe 220 years later, which is a long spell as governments are concerned, but I fail to see how a country that literally worships individualism in the way that Americans do, is ever going to be able to come together sufficienty as a community to do what must be done. Somebody will always have a dissenting opinion that must be heard; some small niche will always be serviced; every good thing will be put on hold for every bad one; complaints are ever more valuable than commitments; selfishness is valorized at every turn; it is mess of disordered license and ordered liberty is a thing of the past.

                  Well, there’s an old saying: we will hang together, or we will surely hang apart

              2. Mr Kurtz – school uniforms make everyone equal in the classroom. No one has better clothes than anyone else. They solve so many problems.

        2. Prairie, maybe I haven’t seen the right videos, but the one I saw showed students walking away from the camera, and therefore their identity obscured, or at least most of them. Technically this could still be a violation of the other students rights, but so will killing them, their teachers, or their grandparents.

          I am all in favor of ordering people around for the benefit of the nation’s health in a national – make that international – emergency. I don;t think you would have fared well here during WWII if this small sacrifice is too much for you. Suck it up. No one’s trying to make you wear a mask for the rest of your existence and your right to party will be restored eventually. The only principal at stake here is the mindless conspiracy promulgation and paranoia among certain citizens.

    4. North Paulding High has now reported 9 cases of COVID-19 among students and staff who were at the school last week: https://www.ajc.com/education/9-cases-of-covid-19-reported-at-north-paulding-high-school/OWH6MN7DZ5A2XDQMXX337AQEWI/
      Given the crowded hallways and lack of masks, odds are that additional students/staff will become sick.

      The students who were suspended have had their suspensions rescinded and expunged, and the Paulding County School Superintendent is investigating the principal’s threat: https://www.ajc.com/education/paulding-family-pushes-back-on-school-suspension-over-crowded-hall-photo/2XTUNBDA2NDF7I2RHFLXR2MR4M/

      I appreciate that Hannah Watters’ “response channeled civil rights legend John Lewis: ‘I’d like to say that this is some good and necessary trouble, so I don’t regret posting this because it needed to be said.’”

      The principal should be required to read Tinker v. Des Moines, the SCOTUS ruling that notes that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” “Students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution. … They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.”
      And Keyishian v. Board of Regents:
      “The Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues, (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection.”

      Now, Justice Fortas also noted that “conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.” Clearly taking a photo in the hallway doesn’t disrupt classwork. Does it invade the rights of other students? I doubt it, but that’s for a court to determine. The school’s policy says “Students shall not use audio or visual recording devices without the permission of a school administrator,” and I suspect that that’s unconstitutionally broad.

  12. Typical bigotry and threatening behavior found on college campuses across America.

    I hope I can find a safe, unbiased college with rigorous, challenging intellectual study by the time my kiddo is college-aged. Seems like it’s a unicorn at this point.

    1. Usually I would say that your student would be somewhat shielded from these clowns if they stay away from Humanities and much of the Social Sciences, but this guy was in the School of Computing so the virus appears to be spreading in new directions.

    2. I wish we could afford Hillsdale. I’m with you on this, Karen. Wanna start a college? It may come to that–Common Sense U, Sanity U? 🙂

    3. Say away from Ivy’s and prestigious colleges.

      FIRE ranks colleges on free speech – that is a good choice.

  13. You have to wonder/consider if these violent individuals, like this professor and antifa, are not demented lgb people, and if so why that’s the case.

  14. Bye, bye! Miss American pie.
    Drove my Chevy to the levy but the levee was dry!
    Good ol boys drinking whiskey and rye..
    Singing: This will be the day that I dye!

    Oh. Dye my coat and underwear.
    Vote for Trump and you don’t care.

    1. “Everywhere is freaks and hairies
      Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
      Tax the rich, feed the poor
      ‘Til there are no rich no more?”

      I’d Love To Change The World
      Ten Years After, 1971
      _________________

      The parasites, centuries of parasites, come for “free stuff” and destroy the country in the process. Whatever will the parasites do when the country and the “free stuff” are all gone? Look for a new host. Who the —- let them in? One thing is for sure, because the fertility rate of actual Americans is in a “death spiral,” there won’t be enough actual Americans to matter.

  15. “Knijnenburg is coming close to the line of protected speech …”???? JT, if you don’t think he stepped way over the line, how can I trust you to be a defender of free speech with civility?

    I am beginning to question just how committed you are to civility. If you allow a wide berth into ad-hominem, militant attacks such as doxing and demonstrations at a perceived opponent’s home, there will be nothing left to defend because the militants will unleash a reign of self-censorship-terror.

    Try to define the line.

    Knijnenburg’s extremist, incivil, intolerant, fascistic tactics MUST BE COUNTERED with all due diligence.

    If he isn’t fired for his coaching students to pester a citizen at his/her home, we can just expect this to become commonplace, and further destroy civility and meritocratic debate.

    It’s a tough-as-nails assignment.

  16. “I still believe that he has a free speech right to express those views in social media and would oppose efforts to terminate him.”
    Sure, I too believe in free speech.
    But like the rad left, let’s mount a CANCEL against this di9khead? Isn’t that exactly what he and they would do if the shoe were on the other foot? Hmmmm
    Get real here. You might want it both ways, but you don’t always get what you want.

  17. I oppose threatening people’s physical safety, whether it’s Mr. Gilbert or Christine Blasey Ford. It’s bad for the person who’s threatened and for society as a whole.

    Trump is “xenophobic and racist,” and anyone who supports him is OK with that (and a subset are themselves racist and xenophobic). But one can call Trump and his supporters out on this without threatening them or trying to dox people.

    1. I oppose threatening people’s physical safety, whether it’s Mr. Gilbert or Christine Blasey Ford.

      Look, squirrel.

      Trump is “xenophobic and racist,” and anyone who supports him is OK with that (and a subset are themselves racist and xenophobic).

      Which is sorosphere talking points code for ‘wants to enforce the immigration laws’

      1. Wow, TIA, how truly sad that your response to my saying “I oppose threatening people’s physical safety, whether it’s Mr. Gilbert or Christine Blasey Ford” is “Look, squirrel.”

        You could join me in opposing threats to people’s physical safety, regardless of their political views.

        Or do you only oppose threats to the safety of conservatives?

        “Which is sorosphere talking points code for ‘wants to enforce the immigration laws’”

        Bulls*t.

        When Trump talks about a native-born American judge as “Mexican,” he is not talking about enforcing immigration laws.

        When Trump tells four American Congressowomen of color — three of whom are native-born Americans — that it’s “So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he’s not talking about enforcing immigration laws.

        Even Republicans called him out on the latter (e.g., Will Hurd said Trump’s tweets were “racist, and xenophobic” and “unbecoming of the leader of the free world,” and John Kasich said that Trump’s tweets were “deplorable”).

        Apparently you cannot admit that Trump is a racist and a xenophobe (and for that matter, Trump is a bigot in other ways, including an Islamophobe and a sexist). That’s denial on your part.

        1. TIA has similar anger management problems to his soulmate Mespo and clearly does not like humans. The feeling is mutual.

        2. CommittoHonestDiscussion:

          Racism is one of the most terrible character flaws out there. Irresponsibly, falsely accusing anyone of being a racist, let alone over $100 million people, is an evil thing to do. It’s like calling an innocent person a pedophile, murderer, or rapist.

          Yet you are so ignorant of this flaw in your reasoning and your own character, that you blast this bigotry in public, as if it were virtuous. Let me assure you, it is not.

          1. Karen,

            I didn’t call “over $100 [sic] million people” racist.

            I said “Trump is ‘xenophobic and racist.'”
            I said “anyone who supports him is OK with that” — that is, his supporters are OK with Trump being “xenophobic and racist.”
            And I said “a subset [of his supporters] are themselves racist and xenophobic.” It should be extremely clear from that that I’m *not* calling all of Trump’s supporters racist, only a subset — a subset whose size isn’t specified, as I don’t know the size. In no way did I suggest that the size of this group is “100 million.” I hope you’d agree that some of Trump’s supporters ARE racist. For example, the white supremacists who support Trump are racist. The rest of Trump’s supporters aren’t themselves racist, but they’re OK with Trump being racist, since they support him.

            Do you now understand how you misinterpreted what I wrote?
            If so, I invite you to retract your last sentence.

            1. Committ – I reject your supposition that Trump is both a xenophobe and racist. Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              1. Paul, I already provided some evidence here: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/08/living-hell-clemson-professor-under-fire-after-prompting-others-to-find-the-home-address-of-critic/comment-page-2/#comment-1987957 and I’ll provide more right after you provide the evidence that I’d asked you for in other columns and that you refused to provide. I’m not going to play your preferred game where you demand that I prove my claims while being unwilling to prove your own claims. If you reject my opinion, fine. Frankly, I doubt that there’s any evidence I could provide that would convince you. Am I wrong about that? If so, state what kind of evidence you’re waiting for.

                  1. Rep. Will Hurd, the sole black Republican in the House, disagrees with you, saying “I think those tweets are racist and xenophobic.”
                    Sen. Tim Scott, the sole black Republican in the Senate said “the President interjected with unacceptable personal attacks and racially offensive language.”

                    You have a different opinion than they do.

                    Again: state what kind of evidence you’re waiting for.

                    1. Committ – neither of those two gentlemen speak for the world at large or get to define racism and xenophobia. It is their opinion and should be considered, but not the only opinions that should be considered.

                    2. Paul, I agree that “neither of those two gentlemen speak for the world at large or get to define racism and xenophobia.” I didn’t claim that they do.

                      You don’t “speak for the world at large or get to define racism and xenophobia” either (nor do I).

                      Again: state what kind of evidence you’re waiting for.

                    3. As I said: I’ll provide more right after you provide the evidence that I’d asked you for in other columns and that you refused to provide. I’m not going to play your preferred game where you demand that I prove my claims while being unwilling to prove your own claims.

            2. CommitToHonestDiscussion:

              Thank you for the clarification. Wrongfully accusing someone of supporting racism and xenophobia is an evil thing to do.

              Trump is not a xenophobe, as he supports legal immigration. He is not racist, as most of that legal immigration comes from non-Caucasian countries.

              If every Asian, Latino, and African brilliant and/or wealthy person wanted to immigrate to the US, Trump would probably host a reception at his golf club.

              Before Trump had political aspirations, he used to give minorities, and female minorities, access to top management positions that were unavailable in other major corporations. I recall a woman executive was interviewed who discussed how Trump didn’t care what color or gender she was. He only cared if she could do the job. That was at the time that the glass ceiling was 8 feet thick.

              I don’t think Trump is racist. I think he harshly criticizes if something isn’t run well, including corrupt, third world countries. He is concerned about the economic, jobs, and housing burden of unlimited illegal immigration. He also wanted pointed out the obvious, that our immigration flow is heavily weighted towards unskilled laborers who will need benefits support immediately. Those are financial considerations. I always want us to offer immigration opportunities to good, hardworking people, especially if they are poor and will have a better life here. I also think that responsible immigration policy would be adjusted annually, to keep the numbers manageable, matching immigration quantity with housing and jobs availability, and not overburdening benefits infrastructure.

              As for calling countries s^&(^^holes…that’s a pretty common remark. Skid Row in CA has been called a sT*(&^&hole so many times you can probably hear it from space. CA is often called a s^^hole, often on signs on the backs of moving trucks leaving the state while whistling joyously. Many countries are corrupt, endlessly fighting, and filled with trash. In Belize, it is culturally acceptable to throw your trash on the ground. So the locals throw their trash on the ground. The government tries its best to keep the tourist areas picked up, but wherever they are too overwhelmed to get to…it’s dirtier than a public latrine in high summer. My friend went on a Christian trip to bring school supplies and other necessities to Uganda. The photos she sent back were heartbreaking. Abject poverty, trash everywhere.

              I would never go up to a homeless person on Skid Row, and say, to his face, “Hey you! You live in a Sh(*^&*(^&hole!” That would be incredibly rude. But I hear that comment in private from friends all the time. None of us monitor our private conversations like we do a public speech. As long as someone isn’t plotting something illegal, I really can’t judge anyone on what they say in private. It’s what they do that matters.

              As for his comments about going back to fix their countries of origin, here is my take. A socioeconomic system drove them out as refugees. The US became a safe harbor, and they prospered in our capitalist country. Yet, they learned nothing, and sought to change their new country to emulate some of the very aspects of their original country that drove them out. That could turn all of us into refugees. That’s incredibly ignorant. I would have said that they should visit their original countries with fresh eyes, and perhaps try to understand where they went wrong, because they appear to be trying to emulate their failed policies here. Then, come back and compare the two. But, Trump is never going to call me, asking how he should word his next Tweet. Pity.

              Trump was rejecting their socioeconomic, socialist agenda, not their skin color.

              1. Karen,

                I accept that you believe what you wrote. But that doesn’t make it *true*.

                For example, you say “As for his comments about going back to fix their countries of origin, here is my take. A socioeconomic system drove them out as refugees.” As I pointed out earlier, 3 of the 4 Congresswormen of color he said this to are native-born Americans. They did not come to the U.S. as refugees. They were born here. His claim that they “originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all),” is a claim about the U.S., as they originally came from the U.S., just like Trump himself. Him telling them to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” is a claim about the U.S.

                Except that you and I both know that he didn’t mean either one of those to be claims about the U.S. He meant them as claims about foreign countries — the countries of origin for their extended families from before they were born, generations ago for a couple of them. If someone asks Trump where he’s from, does he say “Germany” or does he say “the U.S.”? If he judges himself to be from the U.S., should he not judge them the same way? Why would he suggest that 4 women of color are originally from other countries, when 3 of them are native-born? Do you think he’d say that to 4 white women where 3 of them were native-born?

                And why are *you* talking about all of them as if they all came here as refugees? Do you even know what the countries of origin for their extended families are for all of them, and how many generations back? I only know for 2 of the 4. When you say “they should visit their original countries with fresh eyes,” what countries are you talking about? Do you consider Germany to be Trump’s “original country”? (I don’t. I consider it his grandfather’s original country, but I’d say that Trump’s original country is the U.S.) Are you suggesting that AOC go look at Spain with fresh eyes?

                You say “Trump was rejecting their socioeconomic, socialist agenda, not their skin color.” And I say “bullsh*t.” Name even one white person with a similar political agenda that Trump has said this to. Did he say it to Bernie Sanders? No. Did he say it to Elizabeth Warren? No. Did he say it to Katie Porter or Jamie Raskin or Eric Swalwell? No. I haven’t heard him say it to a single white person. Have you? If he did and I missed it, I’d love to learn who it was.

          2. Racism is one of the most terrible character flaws out there.

            No it isn’t. Get a grip, woman.

    2. Commit
      Rather than blindly repeat the same ol’e BS of xenophobic and racist, you don’t you ask the blacks and Mexicans to see if they think Trump is as you describe? Because it isn’t for you to be of that opinion, because you are a WHITEY (white elitist, white trash, etc, etc) and have never experienced the kind of racism that the Dem’s host upon the Blacks – just for their vote, then ignore them for 3 years!
      Just look at how many blacks have left the Dem party to show just how racist they think THEY THINK THE DEM’S ARE AGAINST THEM? You just can’t pave over the object racism of Biden, selling the Blacks short – either.
      You lose. No matter your reply, you lose.

      1. delmaracer:

        I’m not “blindly repeat[ing]” anything.

        How about you deal honestly with what I actually said?

        “you don’t you ask the blacks and Mexicans to see if they think Trump is as you describe?”

        Hmm. Are you referring to American Latinos when you say “Mexicans”? You do understand that the Latinx people in the U.S. have diverse ancestry, right? And I can state **my own** views about Trump’s racism and xenophobia without asking anyone else.

        But for the record, half the country thinks Trump is racist, considerably more than than are convinced that he’s not racist (as a sizable fraction is unsure): https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/1k48xabxox/20200714_yahoo_coronavirus_toplines.pdf
        If you want it broken out by race and ethnicity, you can look that up too. For example, here’s one from earlier this year that over 80% of Blacks in the U.S. think Trump is racist: https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-african-american-voters-poll-racist-59f7adcf-776e-4ef1-bfd6-ff3b04ded233.html
        Since we’re limited to two links per comment, I’ll let you look up the rest yourself.

        1. There are plenty of prominent Black leaders who support Trump AND do not believe he is racist. Perhaps you should argue with them.

          1. Lorenzo,
            When I see you choosing to “argue with” “prominent Black leaders” who don’t “support Trump” AND do “believe he is racist,” then I’ll take my lead from you. Until then, I see no reason to accept standards that you seem uninterested in applying to yourself.

            1. CommitToHonestDiscussion:

              If you want to understand that there is a reason other than racism and xenophobia, then you talk to blacks, Asians, and Latinos who voted for Trump.

              If you want an echo chamber, then you talk to people who didn’t vote for Trump, and couldn’t possibly give you a truthful answer as to the motivation for doing so.

              How sincere is your quest for honest discussion?

              1. For goodness sake, Karen, I’m discussing things with Trump supporters HERE.
                Do you seriously consider this site to be a liberal “echo chamber”?!?

                I’m attacked here daily for my views. I even have to deal with people like Allan who follow me around posting disgusting claims like this: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/23/protesters-topple-bust-of-george-washington-at-george-washington-university/comment-page-1/#comment-1969754 and this: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/07/got-god-trump-claims-biden-opposes-god/comment-page-2/#comment-1987740

                My desire for honest discussion is quite sincere. If you think I’ve said something false, just quote it and provide evidence that it’s false, and if you’re correct, I’d be happy to retract my mistake.

                As an aside, Lorenzo’s comment was that I “should argue with” “prominent Black leaders who support Trump AND do not believe he is racist” (emphasis added). Lorenzo didn’t suggest that I should argue with common people of all races and ethnicities who have views that are different than mine — that something I already do. Just where do you think I’d find “prominent Black leaders” who are also Trump supporters and who also want to spend time arguing online with someone they don’t know?

                1. ” I even have to deal with people like Allan… ”

                  CTHD you keep adding my name to your complaints. WE know what you have to say. Trump is a racist. The problem is that you are a liar. Trump is not a racist but you might be. It seems you prefer blacks to be on the democrat plantation where you can use blacks to do the dirty work while you keep your hands clean. You want to steal votes. Solution ID is bad because black people can’t get any form of ID. You are calling them stupid while at the same time trying to blame black people for your criminal attempts. That shows what type of horrid person you are.

                2. Commit, you are just another guilty dog barking first, and loudest.

                  Why do you feel so guilty about black people?

                  What did you do, or not do?

                  I have no guilt. That’s because I treat all people the way I would want to be treated.

                  It’s what is known as “The Golden Rule”.

                  It’s not the Black Rule, or the White Rule, or the Republican Rule or the Democrat Rule.

                  1. I’ve known liberals who felt actual guilt. They’re constitutionally unaggressive, so you won’t see much of them in online fora; the ones you will see are females given to OTOHOTO discourse.

                    Again, liberal discourse on these matters is, in the vast majority of instances, self-aggrandizing. It has no integrity and no value and merits no respect.

              1. LorenzoValla – didn’t Trump win all sorts of awards and honors for his diversity and anti-racism, before he decided to come down that elevator and suddenly become the world’s greatest racist?

              2. Again, Lorenzo, you told me “Perhaps you should argue with them.”
                You can say that you “would [be] happy” to do it, but if you’re not already doing it, then you are not yet modeling what you called on me to do.
                What are you waiting for?

                1. Obviously, I was suggesting that YOU take YOUR argument about Trump’s so-called racism to black people that think otherwise. That, instead of just declaring he’s a racist without actually considering what the targets of his so-called racism actually think.

                  1. Lorenzo, your claim was that I “should argue with” “prominent Black leaders who support Trump AND do not believe he is racist” (emphasis added), not “black people that think otherwise” in general. You’re moving the goalposts.

                    And now you’re assuming that I’m “just declaring he’s a racist without actually considering what the targets of his so-called racism actually think.” Your assumption is wrong. No only do I sometimes have conversations with average Black people who support Trump (though most Black people I talk with oppose Trump), but I also encounter ideas by reading and listening to some “prominent Black leaders” who support Trump and are interviewed or write columns. Clearly I’m not arguing with them, though, just listening/reading.

                    1. Paul, I assume you only mean Black *Republican* leaders.

                      For goodness sake, I just quoted two: Rep. Hurd and Sen. Scott.

                      But there are plenty of others I’ve listened to or read writings of, including Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, Mia Love, Alveda King, and Ward Connerly. I’ll sometimes listen briefly to people like Candace Owens, but find her quite dishonest (like Kayleigh McEnany, who I also listen to at times).

                      I’ve also read historic work by black Republicans, like Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells, but I doubt that’s who you have in mind. And I listen to or read Black leaders who aren’t Republicans.

                    2. Committ – not to be harsh but Colin Powell does not support Trump, Tell me how you find Candance Owens dishonest. Then you can tell me how you find Kayleigh McEnany dishonest.

                    3. Paul, you only said “name five black leaders you listen to or read.” If I assumed incorrectly that you wanted Republicans and you actually wanted Trump supporters, you should have said.

                      As for your new request, no, not until you provide the references that I asked you for earlier. You make a lot of demands, but you fulfill next to none yourself.

            1. You can start with Larry Elder and Candace Owens. From there, you’ll find plenty more. But only if you make the effort.

              1. Lorenzo, few, if any, Blacks know who Candice Owens is. Owens is only known to Fox News viewers; a nearly all-White crowd. And I challenge you to tell me what her day job is.

                1. Thanks for making my point – she isn’t interviewed or given a voice on what is suppose to the be the neutral media.

                2. Candace is a very bright woman who has more ability in her little finger than you have ever had in your entire life. She is not intimidated and has started movements. She was a democrat until she found out what type of person you and your fellow democrats are.

                  If you want to know listen to the video or read the transcript. Pieces of garbage including WaPo tried to intimidate her and she figured out real quick what type of fascists she was dealing with. You guys pushed her to the other side. She has a spine, something you and your ilk lack.

                3. “Owens is only known to Fox News viewers”

                  Not true. i may have seen her on Fox once but I have seen her in person a number of times.

                4. Seth……….Candace’s day and night job is working for the nonprofit Blexit, which she co-founded..
                  She also wiped the floor with Nadler at that House hearing last year. Beautiful!

              2. Owens was a liberal flame thrower a few short years ago, and then discovered where the money was.

                I’d be happy to debate them. I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.

                1. Book, Lorenzo thinks mainstream media owes Owens more coverage. Like she’s somehow entitled to it. And Paul tells us Owens is doing a show for “Prager U” whatever that is. Yet Owens has never held any office or government posts.

                  1. Peter – what is your job that we should listen to your dulcet tones? Have you held elective office? Has Don Lemon held elective office? Has Fredo Cuomo held elective office?

                    1. Paul, I am honestly not familiar with Don Lemon or Fredo Cuomo. I don’t have cable, never have.

                      But it’s important to establish where political pundits are coming from. Professor Turley, for instance, has solid credentials in terms of education and achievements.

                      But Candace Owens is essentially a paid spokesperson. She looks like a model and sounds intelligent. But ‘what’ are her credentials in terms of American politics? Why should her opinion matter? What following has she among African Americans?

                      Conservatives loves to hate the New York Times and Washington Post. Plus PBS, NPR, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Magazine, The L.A. Times, etc, etc.

                      Yet pundits who rise through the ranks of legacy sources are serious writers with connections. That’s why their opinions matter on Sunday Morning Shows and public affairs programs.

                      There are also pundits who started in politics as an aide or office holder. Chris Christie is insightful on ABC’s “This Week”. Host George Stephanopoulos is another example; a onetime Clinton Aide.

                      So one can see, by comparison, Candice Owens is only a paid spokesperson. She’s like a trade show star selling a product.

                    2. Peter – George Stephanopoulous still gets his marching orders from the DNC. Candace has acted as a pundit in the US and Australia.

                  2. You are putting words in my mouth, which makes you dishonest. The neutral media has a RESPONSIBILITY to cover multiple points of view. That is not an entitlement for OWENS.

                    That she hasn’t held office or held a gov’t job is a big plus for many people.

                2. Owens was brought up as a democrat just like Thomas Sowell was a Marxist. It sometimes takes time to see the BS from the left but she realized things didn’t add up and the leftist positions couldn’t be defended. She was threatened and the Wapo decided to help do her in so I think her wake up call came earlier than it might have. She is a talented lady who could rise in any company she worked for.

                  I don’t know how much experience she had in the front because I think she was more in a management position.

                3. Book: “I’d be happy to debate them. I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.”

                  Yeah, why would they bother with a sardine?

            2. David Rubin characterizes himself as a liberal in the traditional sense of liberal in the Democratic party, but he used to consider himself to be a progressive. That all changed for him beginning around the 23 minute mark in his discussion with Larry Elder about racism.

              Rubin changed his mind because he was willing to listen rather than argue. He has since referred to this discussion many times as an important moment in his life.

        2. CommitToHonestDiscussion:

          Roughly 80% of blacks have been raised to believe it is expected of their race to vote Democrats. Democrats call conservative blacks horrifying racist slurs, yet many blacks still vote Democrat. Imagine that, voting for a party that calls your race slurs, threatens them, harasses them, and otherwise pressures them to hold a certain set of beliefs. It is appallingly racist to pressure a black person to think, speak, or vote in any way whatsoever. But it’s gotten to the point that it’s become part of the Democratic culture.

          If you believe that all Trump voters are xenophobic and racist, then what do you call conservative, Republican blacks, Asians, and Latinos?

          1. Karen, Blacks are a major component of the Democratic party. It’s ‘their’ party to a very large extent.

            Yet you talk like Blacks are migrating birds just ‘roosting’ under the Democratic banner. As though they are likely to all fly off at some point; back to their ‘natural’ home in the GOP. ..Not..!

            1. It’s really the other way around. The Democratic party presumes to own the black vote and expect them to fall in line during elections.

              Blexit is a recent political movement where black people are exiting the Democratic party, usually after a realization that they never had been taught to consider other political options for improving their lives, families, and communities.

              https://blexitfoundation.org/

                1. Good thing you didn’t actually investigate it because now you don’t have any information challenge your opinions. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

                    1. You didn’t ask for vital information. When pushed, you always resort to these types of games.

                      You are a troll.

              1. Young, you don’t get it. Blacks are partners in the Democratic party. They essentially own a significant share of it. But Republicans want to believe that Blacks are like a bar crowd that will eventually move on.

                1. “Young, you don’t get it. Blacks are partners in the Democratic party. They essentially own a significant share of it.”
                  Then they should demand their money back.

                2. There are a number of blacks in the democrat party that others bow to and kiss the ring. If only those blacks would concentrate on the one’s they supposedly represent then maybe blacks would have a reason to be democrats. Unfortuantely many of them are out for themselves and that is why despite having a black president with a democrat House and Senate very little was done that actually helped blacks.

                1. There are many ways of owning people. Democrats have figured out ways to own blacks without ever having to deal with normal working class blacks. That you don’t recognize this demonstrates your total lack of knowledge.

          2. “Imagine that, voting for a party that calls your race slurs, threatens them, harasses them, and otherwise pressures them to hold a certain set of beliefs.”

            Karen, consider these two sets:
            A = {Democrats who call Blacks “slurs, threatens them, harasses them, and otherwise pressures them to hold a certain set of beliefs”}
            B = {Republicans who call Blacks “slurs, threatens them, harasses them, and otherwise pressures them to hold a certain set of beliefs”}

            Which set do you think is bigger, A or B?

            “If you believe that all Trump voters are xenophobic and racist …”

            I don’t believe that, so your “if” condition is false. I never suggested that I believe that. Again, what I said is that Trump is racist and xenophobic, and a subset of his supporters is as well (e.g., his white supremacist supporters are). The rest of his supporters are not themselves racist and xenophobic, but they still support Trump even though HE is racist and xenophobic.

            “what do you call conservative, Republican blacks, Asians, and Latinos?”

            I call them conservative Republican blacks, Asians, and Latinos. Why?

            1. It is increasingly self evident that the left looks down on minorities.

              As to republicans slurring minorities – some examples please ?

              Calling MS-13 rapists and thugs is not slurring minorities – and most people get that.

              Calling people racist – does not make them racist – and most people get that.

              1. John, no it doesn’t. In fact most Americans of all but extreme sorts are less racist than they were in the recent past. This is a function of more racial mixing, especially among the young, but also at work, neighborhoods and culturally.

                If you’re looking for examples of “Republicans slurring minorities”, you can start here and read comments by Young, antonio, Cindy, and (now fortunately disappeared) squeaky.

                Calling MS13 rapists and thugs is not slurring minorities – we agree, and MS-13 is much worse than those adjectives. Implying they are representative of immigrants, when in fact that group has a lower violent crime rates than native Americans, is slurring that minority. So is saying “They (presumably Mexico and central America) don’t send us their best” is as well. The President is a savvy enough propagandist to know how to skirt his desired message without appearing to actually say them. You get that, right? It is one of his few skills that he presumably learned as a reality TV character.

                1. Anon – to your dismay, the delightful Squeeky will be back. She is probably working hard on a project for Penelope Dreadful. MS-13 ARE rapists and thugs. That is what they do for a living. No one thinks that all people coming up from Central and South America are rapist and thugs. Just some. And I am sorry that one of the skills you haven’t learned is critical thinking.

                  1. Paul, I am fully aware of how bad MS-13 is and said so in my post. Before Trump was a candidate for anything, someone close to me successfully lead a prosecution of MS-13 in a major US city and he told me all wanted to hear about them then or since. The one proving once again his lack of critical thinking is you.

                    1. Actually, this just proves that you are well informed AND still stupid.

                      It is quite typical to accuse not just Trump but anyone the left does not like of Racism, merely for stating facts the left does not like.

            2. A = {Democrats who call Blacks “slurs, threatens them, harasses them, and otherwise pressures them to hold a certain set of beliefs”}
              B = {Republicans who call Blacks “slurs, threatens them, harasses them, and otherwise pressures them to hold a certain set of beliefs”}

              Which set do you think is bigger, A or B?

              —–
              A.

              What’s your point?

              1. Lorenzo, I was asking Karen, as should be clear from my saying “Karen, consider these two sets: …”

                But since you’ve answered, how did you determine the size of each set in order to figure out which is larger?

                1. “But since you’ve answered, how did you determine the size of each set in order to figure out which is larger?”

                  By counting. There are millions of leftists who do not think blacks are capable of running their own lives.
                  That is clear racism.

                2. I came to that conclusion based on how often race is brought up by the parties. The left is the side always talking about race, not the right. And when black people disagree that racism is a problem or identify as a conservative, they are treated with terrible racist slurs by some other blacks on the left.

                  1. Lorenzo, I didn’t ask Karen “how often race is brought up by the parties.”
                    I asked how often each group “call[s] Blacks ‘slurs, threatens them, harasses them, and otherwise pressures them to hold a certain set of beliefs’”
                    So don’t move the goalposts.

                    And what you’ve said in response is that you’re using a personal convenience sample.

                    Do you read the comments that George posts here, Lorenzo? Do you consider any of what he writes to be racist?

            3. ““If you believe that all Trump voters are xenophobic and racist …”

              I don’t believe that, so your “if” condition is false. I never suggested that I believe that. Again, what I said is that Trump is racist and xenophobic, and a subset of his supporters is as well (e.g., his white supremacist supporters are). The rest of his supporters are not themselves racist and xenophobic, but they still support Trump even though HE is racist and xenophobic.”

              CTHD – the problem is that you are not credible. ‘

              There is no daylight between the reasons you think Trump is xenophobic and racist – and not just Trump voters – but the majority of americans.

              Even NPR finds that the majority of americans want illegal immigrations radically reduced.

              I am not a supporter of Trump’s muscular trade policies – but most americans are.

              You do not seem to grasp that when you call Trump racist and Xenophobic is it not some small subset, it is not “white supremecists”, it is the vast majority of his supporters – as well as lots of people who are not his supporters that you are accusing of racism and xenophobia.

              It is disingenuous – even deceiptful to pretend that the reasons that you think Trump is racist and xenophobic are limited to Trump and a handful of white supremecists.

              You are slurring the majority of americans – and they know it.

              1. John, that’s sloppy reasoning. CTHD did not criticize Trump for trying to limit illegal immigration and the previous Democratic administration had that greater goal as well. However, it did not denigrate the character of those who were here, their country of origin, and display hostility to an American judge because his parents were Mexican. Don’t pretend Trump has not been doing this.

                By the way, while we are at it, along with wishing to limit illegal immigration – which by the way has been at low levels since 2008 (look it up) – most Americans also favor allowing dreamers to stay and a path to citizenship for the approx 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working here now. The 2013 immigration bill – which also included money for more border security – had bi-partisan Senate support and which Obama wanted to sign, was killed in the GOP majority House under the Hastert Rule, even though there were enough votes to pass it there as well. Thank the GOP for this still unsettled issue..

      2. Delmarracer

        The so-called ‘Walkway’ movement went nowhere. So I’m not sure what you’re even referring to here. Blacks and Hispanics didn’t flee the party as you seem to imply. Democrats made strong gains in the midterm elections.

        1. The mid term results were complex – MODERATE democrats in the house did well.
          But in the senate, governer’s, and state races Republicans sis better than expected.

          Further Republican’s lost a disproportinate number of razor thin races, Had tha few of those gone the other way 2018 would have been seen radically differently.

          The polls in general are highly unreliable and self contradictory right now. National polls are showing Biden leading.
          Even state polls appear good for him.

          But the results from other polls are completely at odds with those.

          There is atleast 0ne poll showing trump with 40% support from blacks and several with over 20%. But even if Trump’s support among blacks is only 10% – democrats are in trouble.

          Trump will not win the majority of minority voters, but there are strong indications he will do better than any recent republican.

          Biden can not get elected if he does not manage near Obama’s support from Minorities.

        2. There are new and significant “walkaway” announcements all the time.

          Worse the left and democrats are losing some of the most significant thinkers of the modern era.

          It is quite easy to find people who are “leaving the left”. The do not magically become Trump supporters – though some do.

          But the left is eating itself.

    3. CommitToHonestDiscussion:

      Your remarks indicate you are bigoted against over 100 million people in the United States. It’s time to get honest with yourself.

  18. Diamond and Silk say people are becoming “woke” to Joe Biden’s fraud and they support President Trump.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    “Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

    – Joe Biden
    _________

Leave a Reply