Northwestern Students Demand Removal Of Trustee Chair From Presidential Search Due To Trump Support

We have been discussing the rising intolerance for conservatives and Republicans on campuses around the country.  My alma mater, Northwestern University has been increasingly intolerant as a university due in large part to the failure of its president and the administration to protect free speech and diversity of viewpoints.  Now the student government has asked the university to remove the chairman of the board of trustees from a presidential search committee.  The disqualifying element for Board of Trustees Chair J. Landis Martin is that he supported former President Donald Trump as a donor.  Notably, the students emphasized that Northwestern is now so overwhelmingly liberal that even one conservative on the committee is offensive and threatening.

This was notably not some small minority of students or groups. The Daily Northwestern reported “the bill passed with 17 votes in favor and one nay vote from the NU College Republicans senator.”

The objection was due to Martin’s $30,000 donation to Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign. Student senator Jo Scaletty told the Daily Northwestern “He donated to Donald Trump who has demonstrated significant sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia.” The resolution specifically states: “Whereas, the 2020 ASG survey demonstrates that the median student at Northwestern identifies with a Left political ideology.”

So the students oppose even a committee member who represents an opposing view. It is the ultimately example of viewpoint hegemony and hostility. These students have been taught that they should actively seek to exclude opposing views and that they have a right to expect the faculty, and presidency, to reliably liberal.

To their credit, they are at least more honest than most of their faculty.  Many faculty members continue to pretend that they are not hostile to conservative or libertarian faculty candidates despite virtually purging top faculties of such colleagues. Whenever a conservative or libertarian scholar is proposed, faculty members declare that their work is not sufficiently interesting or probative — the same argument once used against liberal academics. The prejudice against conservatives (including on academic journals) is shocking and stifling but few faculty members are willing to admit that the small number of such faculty members is not a weird accident.

One recent poll shows the already small population of conservative and Republican students has been cut by roughly half. The Crimson survey covered over 76 percent of the Harvard College Class of 2024 and found that the class contained 72.4 percent who self-identify as either “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” Only 7.4 percent self-identify as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.”  Another Harvard study showed that 35 percent of conservatives felt that they could share their views on campus. As faculties continue to block the few remaining Republican and conservative faculty, there is an open shunning of such academics in publications and conferences. At the same time, conservative speakers are routinely banned or opposed in speaking on campuses. Academics have called for even more open and direct purging of universities of Republican faculty.  Others have called for banning such figures from campuses.  Blacklisting and banishments are now in vogue.

This is not the only attack on conservatives on boards recently. A University of Massachusetts Professor wrote a column alleging that universities are actually “Right-wing institutions.” He relied on the fact that many board members are CEOs or MBA holders.

What is so chilling about this resolution is that it tells the over 70 million Americans who voted for Trump that they are not welcomed at Northwestern.  Moreover, it tells conservative or libertarian alumni that they can give money to the university but they will not be tolerated in playing any role in shaping the university.

Martin received both a bachelor’s degree and a J.D. degree from Northwestern. He worked as an attorney at Kirkland & Ellis and was chief executive officer of NL Industries. He founded the private equity firm, Platte River Ventures. He was also the founding chairman of Crown Castle International Corp. These students of course do not object to being the recipients of his considerable financial support, including working out at the athletics complex that was built in part with a $15 million donation from Martin.

The ultimate responsibility for this insulting resolution is the Northwestern faculty and administration. They have created a culture where the student representatives almost unanimously declare that no Trump supporter will be tolerated in having a voice on the future university leadership.  Northwestern is now viewed by the students as committed to the maintenance of “a Left political ideology.”

 

240 thoughts on “Northwestern Students Demand Removal Of Trustee Chair From Presidential Search Due To Trump Support”

  1. Another link by Anonymous the Stupid that he doesn’t stand by. He wants everyone to prove what he doesn’t say is false. He implies, uses innuendo, deceit and lies. That is a big task since he posts 24/7.

  2. Wow. Impressive list. I had no idea Jesse Helms began as a Dem! Thanks for posting, A.

    eb

  3. “He donated to Donald Trump who has demonstrated significant sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia.”

    Those irrational people suffer from “phobia-phobia.”

  4. Northwestern University students’ and faculty’s effectively totalitarian behavior and mindset is rivaled only by their rank hypocrisy.

    No politician has a worse history of racism and sexism (and warmongering) than Joe Biden. Bet the majority supported and voted for him.

  5. BREAKING NEWS:

    Tensions Rise As G7 Attendees Accidentally Refer To Justin Trudeau Using Masculine Pronouns

  6. The trajectory of the piece is simple. Deny, deny, deny. But none of it makes sense, given how the writer is simultaneously claiming CRT is a myth while decrying white supremacy as interwoven in all institutions.

    There is a reason the same ideas are espoused in each bombshell story on the subject. There is a reason the same consulting groups are funneled tens of thousands for training. There is a reason the same terms show up nearly every time: microaggressions, implicit bias, white privilege, equity, diversity, inclusion, action civics, and so on.

    CRT is here in America, and those who support it — either openly or in practice by writing in favor of its tenets — insist it is no big deal. Nothing to see here. But CRT is not merely a “collection of words” without an underlying “concept.” Claiming as such is not only silly but naive.
    https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/15/new-york-times-op-ed-illustrates-how-the-left-employs-critical-race-theory-gaslighting/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_federalist_daily_briefing_2021_06_15&utm_term=2021-06-15

  7. There is a difference between acceptable right wing political opinions and ones that can not be tolerated. “I want lower taxes”, or “I don’t like abortion.” are acceptable right wing ideas. “I want to overthrow democracy” or “Whites should be the ruling class in the US” are not to be tolerated. Supporting Trump is also something that can not be tolerated.

    1. One of the most prominent and well known white nationalists that fits your list is Richard Spencer, but he is a leftist.

      SM

        1. That is why Spencer supported national health care, bigger government and other left-wing causes. Being a white nationalist doesn’t make one on any one side of the spectrum though historically Democrats have been white nationalists advocating slavery and racism. Today for political reasons Democrats say they no longer advocate slavery, but they do want blacks and minorities on their plantation. In fact Democrats are advocating racism today.

          Just look around you Molly. Which is more important a persons character or the color of their skin?

          I supported MLK then and now. Do you still support his words? Let’s hear your answer.

          SM

          1. It is funny how some people try to argue that the party that is openly against racism and trying to put into place polices that will help minorities is the racist party while the party that advocates racism and racist policies is somehow the non-racists. Face it: Rs are the racists and they dont hide it.

            1. Hold on Molly, You just called me dumb and then you dropped your comments about Richard Spencer when I showed why he was on the left not on the right. That should have told you that you harbor erroneous information.

              Then you forgot about the Democrat’s love affair with racism and slavery.

              You listen to talkers not doers. How much did Obama do for black people and other minorities? Nothing.

              Trump reduced their unemployment and increased their take-home pay. That is pretty good for a person you call a racist and pretty bad for (Obama) who you think cared about the minorities.

              Finally you didn’t answer the question having to do with MLK. Do you support his words or not?

              “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character.”

              Are you a racist?

              SM

              1. Now would be a good time for Allan to review the stats showing how trump inherited a falling unemployment rate from Obama since those very stats have been posted to him multiple times in response to his trying to maintain alt right rhetoric in other threads on this blog…

                But no, those stats don’t back up what he’s saying here and he probably didn’t even look at them before, blindly arguing his points as is the norm for him.

                And obviously he’s fixated on the ‘content of character’ portion of King’s speech because it’s been taken in isolation and twisted around by the likes of his heros like Tucker Carlson over on Fox.

                Interesting factoid about the “I Have a Dream” speech, which is basically poetry and the best speech in my lifetime. At a certain point King took off from the prepared speech and went totally improv and the words he spoke were completely spontaneous. In writtern recreations of the speech you can see exactly where that happened. Absolutely fascinating moment in American history and beyond depressing to.see the alt right try to kidnap this speech — but not surprising in the least to see them try. Pretty par for the course for them.

                eb

                1. “falling unemployment ”

                  More ignorance from the Bug. The numbers below are the same as .gov numbers but are easier to find. Bug, every time you have dealt with numbers you have failed. Explain how my interpretation of the numbers is wrong.

                  The spin check machines provide answers based on which answer you are looking for. What they don’t do is deal with the real numbers. What we constantly hear from the left are contrived numbers. They can never get their heads on straight when they have to look at real numbers.

                  The first ten months of Obama’s administration vs. Trump led to a drop in unemployment (U 6) under Trump almost 4 times as fast as under Obama.

                  Obama U6 2016
                  Jan: 9.9 Oct: 9.5

                  Trump U6 2017
                  Jan: 9.4 Oct: 7.9

                  Obama fell 0.4

                  Trump fell 1.5

                  Citation: http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

                2. “And obviously he’s fixated on the ‘content of character’ portion of King’s speech because it’s been taken in isolation and twisted around by the likes of his heros like Tucker Carlson over on Fox.”

                  More ignorance from the Bug. Tell us howMLK’s words were twisted by Tucker Carlson. You talk big but carry a very small pistol that shoots blanks.

                  “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

                  I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

                  I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

                  I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

                  We are all ready for you to shoot Bug. I think now is the time you ought to close your zipper.

          2. I highly doubt that you support all of MLK Jr’s words, Allan. Do you support what he wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail? How about the entirety of his Dream speech?

            1. I know I agree with this part of the speech and likely most of the rest if not all of the rest.

              “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

              I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

              I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

              I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

              Despite what you might say, I don’t believe that you believe what MLK said. You support hate, intolerance, lying. deceitfulness along with a lot of other bad things. You prove it daily advocating racism and tribalism. You sound like a Nazi in training.

          3. i see Allan never got past the point of the Dixiecrats jumping parties after the 50’s and early 60’s. Now would be a good time to read up on LBJ and the voting rights movement. Don’t just blindly accept Tucker Carlson’s version of it.

            eb

            1. Bug, since you have consistently criticized the spelling and punctuation errors, I figured I ought to help you out with your problems. The word I is always capitalized, as is the first letter of the first word of a sentence.

                1. Unfortunately, Bug, you always forget what you could have learned. I don’t mean your lack of capitalizing the “i” in your sentence above. That likely was intentional. I am talking about freedom and your involvement in the continuation of racism as an answer to problems man faced and will always meet.

                  SM

            2. Now that Bug’s grammar has been corrected he needs correction of his history.

              Tell us the names of the Dixiecrats Congressmen in office that jumped parties nationally. I think there may have been one.

              If you listened to Tucker Carlson carefully you would find that his facts are mostly accurate based on what was known. You might differ with his opinion.

              Though you and your sources were wrong (including the NYT and WaPo) Tucker maintained a correct opinion on the following.

              Covid lab-leak likelihood
              HCQ possibility of effectiveness
              Russian bounties
              Lafayette Park photo op myth
              Ukraine Hoax
              Russia Hoax
              Steele Dossier

              … and much more. You have been wrong on almost everything.

              1. Endlessly entertained that you post evidence of your ‘being right’ with incidents that are, in a word, wrong. But that’s why I love this place, Allan.

                eb

                1. Bug, if you believe anything I say is factually wrong, correct it. That is the rub, isn’t it? You don’t rely on facts, so it is impossible for you to make corrections. Instead, you draw your conclusions and then create your facts.

                  That is not smart.

                  SM

                  1. The points you cited are not right, Allan, so it’s impossible to treat them with any degree of seriousness.

                    -lab leak possibility with Covid is indeed possible, but not likely
                    -HCQ is not regarded any more highly with Covid treatment than it was before.
                    -Russian bounties haven’t been disproven.
                    -the Lafeyette photo op situation is not a myth.
                    -the “Ukraine Hoax” was in reality an American president illegaly extorting a foreign government for help in a domestic election and that president was impeached for it.
                    -the “Russia Hoax” was in reality the trump campaign illegaly sharing internal polling data with Russian intelligence such that they could target most effectively their disinformation campaign in the ’16 election.
                    -the Steele Dossier was never debunked. Yes parts of it might not have been accurate, but parts of it have been totally upheld. And it wasn’t what kicked things off in the Mueller Report. A staffer popping off in a bar did, though.

                    This is all readily available information.

                    eb

                    1. “-lab leak possibility with Covid is indeed possible, but not likely”

                      The science so far demonstrates a Covid lab-leak to be the most likely of all scenarios. Your previous answer was wrong when you said there was no leak.

                      “-HCQ is not regarded any more highly with Covid treatment than it was before.”

                      It is less dangerous and has the same potential benefits as many drugs that were, and are, still being investigated today. You were against its investigation. You were wrong.

                      “-Russian bounties haven’t been disproven.”

                      You are wrong again. You just haven’t been sent new talking points from the left.

                      “-the Lafeyette photo op situation is not a myth.”

                      Wrong again. The IG debunked your prior leftist talking points. Law enforcement had “begun implementing the operational plan” to clear the park “several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park.”

                      “-the “Ukraine Hoax” was in reality an American president illegaly extorting a foreign government for help in a domestic election and that president was impeached for it.”

                      But the evidence shows that not to be true. You are wrong again and have no facts to back your case up. There could be a case against Biden. That is on tape along with testimony and FBI investigations that included following the money.

                      “-the “Russia Hoax” was in reality the trump campaign illegaly sharing internal polling data with Russian intelligence such that they could target most effectively their disinformation campaign in the ’16 election.”

                      Wrong again. It is not illegal to share internal polling data. Show us the law that says it is illegal. That wasn’t even done under the auspices of President Trump.

                      “-the Steele Dossier was never debunked. Yes parts of it might not have been accurate, but parts of it have been totally upheld. And it wasn’t what kicked things off in the Mueller Report. A staffer popping off in a bar did, though.”

                      You are wrong again. FBI papers and other information released both before and after the Muller report proved the Steele Dossier to be made up. Even the NYT wouldn’t publish it. It seems they recognized it was false but jumped on the bandwagon after Buzzfeed published it.

                      “This is all readily available information.”

                      Unfortunately, you haven’t read it. You remain ignorant, repeating things that have been debunked. Your factual knowledge is abysmal. Your critical thinking skills are non-existent.

                    2. You are indeed a five tool player in the realm of gullibility, Allan.

                      Just off the top of my head…

                      -it is indeed illegal to share internal polling data with foreign intelligence. And since it was done by Trump’s campaign manager it’s probably even worse if Trump himself *didn’t* know about it.
                      -Even if a virus was lab generated, the probability of it slipping beyond extremely strict quarantine prodedures for lab techs is very, very slim.
                      -the evidence shows trump extorted the Ukraine president and that’s why he was impeached.
                      -Dream on about HCQ, that train left the station months ago. To dredge it up to just to protect the ego of trump is laughable.
                      -trump decides to do photo op of him holding up a bible in front of a church and surprise, surprise! tear gas, rubber bullets and batons. Wonder why that happened???
                      -As i mentioned previously, the Steele dossier was off on a couple of points. Right on some others. And please, does anyone really doubt that trump hired Russian hookers to pee in a bed that Obama had slept in? I mean come on, this is the kind of planning trump is actually adept at.

                      eb

                    3. “You are indeed a five tool player in the realm of gullibility, Allan.
                      Just off the top of my head…”

                      There isn’t much up there, so my expectations are low.

                      “-it is indeed illegal to share internal polling data with foreign intelligence. And since it was done by Trump’s campaign manager it’s probably even worse if Trump himself *didn’t* know about it.”

                      Wrong.

                      -Even if a virus was lab generated, the probability of it slipping beyond extremely strict quarantine prodedures for lab techs is very, very slim.

                      Wrong and Made up by you. Leaks from that very lab occurred before. You don’t know what you are talking about.

                      “-the evidence shows trump extorted the Ukraine president and that’s why he was impeached.”

                      Wrong, and even those testifying against Trump didn’t provide the entire story.

                      “-Dream on about HCQ, that train left the station months ago. To dredge it up to just to protect the ego of trump is laughable.
                      -trump decides to do photo op of him holding up a bible in front of a church and surprise, surprise! tear gas, rubber bullets and batons. Wonder why that happened???”

                      Wrong. Check the literature. Here are two recent studies. There are loads of older ones.

                      Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19: a multi-center observational study

                      Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic

                      Studies have been mixed, but other countries found benefit. One should not rule out a potential drug for political benefits, which the left did. I don’t know one way or the other but killing a potential drug when nothing else was available was ‘criminal.’

                      “-As i mentioned previously, the Steele dossier was off on a couple of points. Right on some others. And please, does anyone really doubt that trump hired Russian hookers to pee in a bed that Obama had slept in? I mean come on, this is the kind of planning trump is actually adept at”

                      Wrong. Let’s hear your evidence.

                      You are wrong on almost everything you say here and before. Fortunately, you didn’t cover all the points made because you would have been wrong there as well.

                      SM

              2. And when we speak of Dixiecrats, what we’re really speaking about is the beginnings of Nixon’s Southern Strategy, of which the logical extension is Trumpism. True enough, a whole lot of the Congress and Senate didn’t up and switch parties (although Strom Thurmond is the kind of the poster boy for those who did), the main reason for this is the Southern segragationists didn’t want to give up seniority by shifting affiliation that far into their careers…here’s a basic primer of how the Southern Strategy took root (since you’re clearly in need of it)…

                https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

                eb

                1. Bug, you put a time and persons in your response, yet you were wrong. Now you are saying something different, but once again, you have poorly defined your argument and left out a lot of needed content. Instead, you used big phrases that I cannot assume you understand.

                  SM

      1. Antifa was basically founded to protest Spenser speeches at colleges and universities. They were largely successful because it stopped him from speaking there. So no, Spenser is not a leftist.

        eb

        1. “Antifa was basically founded to protest Spenser speeches “

          Actually, the history of Antifa starts before Spencer was born.

          The logic of the Bug is that Antifa protested against Spencer. Therefore, “Spenser is not a leftist.”

          This demonstrates a terrible lack of logic with an equal lack of knowledge. Spencer stands for national Health insurance, bigger government and loads of leftist things, but he is not a leftist.

          With such knowledge and logic, I wonder why you are on this particular blog?

          SM

          1. I often wonder this, Allan. Ostensibly it’s to inform people such as yourself who are so obviously short on critical thinking skills and are subject to the lies of the alt right. That’s the angel on my shoulder. The devil on my shoulder would have me tweak those, again such as yourself,, who are so threatened by a wider world view than their own who immediately resort to public insult as it’s their only defense to having their views challenged. I’d love to say I’m one hundred percent free of that motivation…, but the truth is, getting you to froth at the mouth, is just kind of fun…

            On another level, I find this blog sort of a wikipedia for the alt right…, I don’t have to watch hours of Sean, Tucker and Laura to get a sense of what they’re saying on their shows because it’s instantly repeated the next day as talking point on this blog. It’s completely predictable. So I have to thank you and all the commenters on the right for that I suppose.

            Mostly though, I’m fascinated by Turley and the machinations he jumps through to justify to himself, and the world, the rationalizations he uses to be a trumper for pay. On the one hand, it’s slightly infurating. On the other it’s got a sort Greek tragedy built in. And along the same lines, I’m fascinated by what happens when societies slip into witch burning mentality, which I’ve clearly seen play out on the right even pre-dating trump. It’s equally entertaining, frustrating, infuriatiing and bizarre…, but David Lynch has always been a favorite auteur director for me, so on some strange level it fits.

            How about you, Allan? What are your motivations for being on this blog? I get the sense you’re someone who gets a lot of negative feedback from the world in general and the prospect of coming here let’s you fight back against it in relative anonymity? It’s pretty plain to see you have some rather weighty learning disabilities and have problems reading and comprehending…, does this place sort of log line out the information you’re partial to so it’s more easily assimilable and understandable? Is it like Cheers…, the neighborhood bar you can come to where everyone knows your name?

            eb

            1. Bug, your response is such a wordy one with so little content littered with grammatical errors that most reasonable people are probably embarrassed for you. You enter the realm of critical thinking only when accusing others of not doing so. If you have something to say, say it. My responses are factual and provable, but you are embarrassed that you cannot provide the same. That leads you to respond in a looney way with junk.

              SM

                1. “You asked a question, Allan. I answered it.”

                  You didn’t. You also didn’t correct your facts or your logic.

                  SM

                  1. I guess at some point my “facts and logic” have to come to grips with the impossibility of having a discussion with you. So you may be right on that account.

                    eb

                    1. Unfortunately Bug, you have no fact, no logic and no critical thinking skills.

                    2. Well, you seem to hold yourself up as the paradigm of logic, Allan. A laughable prospect on the one hand, truly sad on another.

                      This much i do have respect for — you regularly have your butt handed to you in debate on this blog. And yet you still keep coming back for more. Much more likely that ignorance is bliss, however a determination to keep showing up despite the pounding you take day in day out is laudable on some level.

                      eb

                    3. Bug, one thing we can count on you for. You lack critical thinking skills but make up for it with tall meaningless stories and a lot of misinformation.

                      That is demonstrated by your inability to debate any of the things under discussion.

    2. Have you ever heard of the American Founders, the American Revolution or the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

      What, exactly, do you celebrate on the 4th of July, the Communist Manifesto?

      America is a restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one man, one vote democracy – turnout was 11.6% in 1788 when only male Europeans with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres could vote.

      The vote is actually moot because the Constitution and Bill of Rights prohibit taxation for redistribution of wealth and social engineering, denying parasites any opportunity to vote for evermore benefits, entitlements and various and sundry other “free stuff” from other people’s money.

      Democracy has been of the restricted-vote variety since inception in Greece.
      ____________________________________________________________

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

      – Alexander Tytler
      ______________

      “[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin
      ___________

      “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

      – Alexis de Tocqueville
      _________________

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776
      _____________________________

      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.

      Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

      Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
      _______________________________________________________

      P.S. The Civil War was unconstitutional, Lincoln should have been impeached, convicted and penalized in capital fashion for treason, the slaves must have been deported by law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, upon the issuance of the emancipation proclamation, and the “Reconstruction Amendments” were and remain unconstitutional and improperly ratified under the duress of brutal, post-war military occupation (i.e. total war and tyrannical oppression are not mandated parts of the amendment process in the Constitution).
      ________________________________________________________________________________________

      “If you’re half right, you’re half wrong.

      If you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.”

      – Anonymous

      1. To say the US Constitution was for freedom is absurd given it allowed for slavery. Oh ya, you don’t think black people are people.

        1. Upon issuance of the emancipation proclamation, the freed slaves must have been deported as illegal aliens per the Naturalization Act of 1802.

          The righteously indignant slaves should have heeded the Egyptian lesson wherein the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.

        2. Your understanding is what’s absurd. It’s as shallow an understanding as possible, assuming you actually read it.

          The most obvious question a critical-thinker should ask is why would the same men that endorsed the DoI push a constitution that didn’t deliver on that vision?

          Hint: the 3/5’s compromise wasn’t made as an agreement that slaves were not created as equals to whites.

    3. Molly, it is Democrats who want to overthrow Democracy. That was what the last four years of Democrats’ Russiagate lie were all about: an attempt to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the results of election 2016. Democrats also rigged the Democratic primaries in 2016 and 2020. Democrats were able to pull off election 2020 by using the Covid pandemic to ram through absentee balloting changes that would never have been accepted under normal conditions. Big Tech—particularly FB—contributed millions to manipulating elections procedures.

      No one has ever said, “Whites should be the ruling class in the US,” (except perhaps Joe Biden or some of the racists he eulogized).

    4. And imbeciles like MollyG and Biden/Harris should not be tolerated, yet lunatic liberals do…

  8. A brief list of some conservative colleges where Republican students should not expect harassment:

    https://www.collegevaluesonline.com/features/colleges-young-republicans/

    Parents, do your homework. Universities that used to be conservative or non biased might change. Don’t throw your hard earned money away on a propaganda madrassa who will brainwash your kid to despise you and the entire country, or think a girls’ bike tour of Afghanistan is a great idea because of cultural relativism. Don’t rely on the cache of a university’s name.

      1. Creekan – you got me. I meant to refer to cachet, not a cache of food hidden under a pile of rocks. I don’t edit my posts as often as I should.

  9. We have a version of the CCP’s Social Credit System here in the US. There is a Leftist propaganda machine, composed of the public education system, universities, Hollywood, most of the news media, social media, and internet search engines that would have been the envy of Stalin. We don’t need special badges or armbands to identify people in good standing with the Democrat Hegemony. The Leftist Social Media cooperate with activists, who inform on those who won’t toe the official party line.

    In the Jim Crow South, the KKK threatened blacks that they’d better vote Democrat if they knew what’s good for them. Today, Democrats insult black conservatives with racial slurs, with impunity. They keep blacklists on conservatives, Libertarians, or Democrat dissenters to cancel or impoverish. They try to drive conservative business owners, including minorities, out of business. Even supporters who stand in their way may be ruined. Just ask the black business owners destroyed by BLM riots. Minority business owners can’t survive George Floyd Square or CHOP.

    It is Democrats who judge everyone based on race, yet they call conservatives racist without a shred of irony.

    I got my degree years ago, yet already the professors in the arts and soft sciences were firmly Democrat, and they brought their politics to the classroom. The Greek System was already getting in trouble for the themes of their parties. My degree was in the sciences, where the professors barely made eye contact or looked away from the whiteboard, let alone comment on social justice. However, I remember we were expected to be adult enough to talk about tough issues, whether it was transcendentalism, Apartheid, or O-chem. A snowflake would have been pitied.

    1. You say you have a “degree”? Really? In what area of study? What institution? Sincerely, I don’t believe you, Karen, because your posts are those of someone who doesn’t have a university education (at least not any university I’ve ever heard of). But hey, you got to use the word “hegemony” again, and you STILL don’t know what it really means.

  10. I have ‘splained to you before. And I shall ‘splain to you again. There are no longer such things as high schools, colleges, or universities. Those names are no longer meaningful and, in fact, when they are used, they perpetuate the lie that they are “educational” institutions, when they are nothing of the kind any longer. These institutions have been usurped by Leftists and are now properly and accurately called “Leftist Indoctrination Entities” or “LIEs.” The Northwestern LIE used to have not only a great law school, but a great business school, a great school of journalism, and a great school of the arts. But now, former Northwestern student Charlton Heston is rolling over in his grave. It’s a shame. Great reputations take years to build and sustain. But they can be destroyed overnight. That is what the Leftists have done. Now, only lies come from the Northwestern LIE.

  11. No, Turley, trying to equate Trumpism with conservatism won’t fly. Trump is a failed businessman, reality TV performer who created the false image of a self-made billionaire. He is a chronic, habitual liar, a serial marital cheater, a serial bankrupter of businesses, a malignant narcissist, and all of the other things identified by those who opposed the nomination of a Trump supporter as President of Northwestern University. Anyone who supports Trump has no business trying to helm a prestigious institution like Northwestern University, and that’s not trying to squelch valid opposing viewpoints. There is nothing valid about Donald J. Trump or his “viewpoints”. Colleges and universities teach values inconsistent with Trumpism and its racism, White superiority, xenophobia, trans and homophobia, misogyny, mendacity and arrogant, glory-seeking swagger.

    Trump is not a “conservative” because conservatives believe in personal honesty and integrity, marital fidelity, honesty in business dealings and fiscal responsibility–i.e., pay your valid debts, don’t run up debt frivolously. None of this applies to Trump who is a sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, chronic failure of a person. His “presidency” was founded on backlash resentment to the successes of Barak Obama because of Obama’s race. He pandered to every possible prejudice, and the message took with non college educated whites who resent the successes of blacks, educated women and minorities. He keeps tearing apart this country because his massive ego cannot handle the truth of his defeat to Joe Biden. That’s not unexpected, but what IS unexpected is that he keeps attracting disciples who believe his lies. Someone like that is not qualified to run Northwestern University.

  12. Children go to college.

    Children go into the Marine Corps.

    I wonder, do they allow the children to talk back, or even talk at all, in the Marine Corps?
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Discipline should be the first lesson.
    ____________________________

    “Do one thing every day that scares you.”

    – Eleanor Roosevelt
    ________________

    We don’t want their love.

    We don’t want their respect.

    We want their fear.
    _______________

    “Children should be seen and not heard.”

    – English Proverb

    1. The U.S. Armed Forces only accepts adults, not children.
      I suspect that you’re an incel without children, George.

  13. Svelaz writes: “That’s a good point. What the student government did was only ASK. They didn’t demand or require that this donor be removed. Turley is just using this as an excuse to promote an issue that isn’t as serious as he portrays it to be.”

    You don’t remember Columbia University in the 60’s which may have been the start of this foolishness. You don’t remember the violence. You don’t think. You are ignorant of history and what you are talking about.

    1. S. Meyer, we are talking about what this student body did. Not what happened in Columbia university back in the 1968 was about issues that students rightfully were protesting about. It was about the Vietnam war, the sexual revolution, women’s, rights, etc. That is no longer how they do things. Now they have student governments to address those issues.

      The Columbia university protests were about the university’s association with secretive think tanks and plans to build a segregated gymnasium.

      The students Turley is discussing merely asked the board of trustees. Not demanded anything.

      1. Svelaz, I provided you a history lesson so you can see what happened then and how that has progressed to the present. The left has become more violent and conservative speakers are routinely attacked and threatened all over the country.

        SM

  14. We’ll soon see if these institutions of intolerance can exist solely on the charity of liberals.

  15. Democrats need to get rid of the statues because Joe Biden thought the birds were leaving ice cream for him to eat.

  16. When asked why Democrats so fiercely hate Donald Trump, they basically think he’s fascist and mean. The first is spurious, as it is impossible to have fascism with limited government. The latter is hypocritical. The Left is meaner than Chrissy Teigen towards conservatives.

    The media gasps in outrage that Chrissy Teigan suggested to a series of people that they kill themselves. She ferociously tried to drive people to suicide. Yet this rhetoric is perfectly normal towards conservatives running for office, students on campus, parents, coworkers…

    The Democrat Party lost all credibility at claims for polite discourse at the “Republicans want to throw Grandma off a cliff” bit. This was long before Kathy Griffin’s pose with the effigy of Trump’s severed head.

    The country was just used to Republicans taking the high road. Ignoring personal attacks. Shrugging off the outrageous smears. You could say anything about Republicans, even in public schools, without any effective resistance.

    Yet the Left was shocked, absolutely shocked when Republicans finally stopped taking the high road themselves with the election of pugnacious, rude, brash Donald Trump. I think tea and crumpets wasn’t going to cut it anymore. At some point, you want your candidate to fight back. Sure, he fought all the time and often crossed the line, but at least he didn’t just take it. The Left has no leg to stand on. It’s version of polite discourse has devolved to looting, rioting, and throwing a brick through the window of businesses struggling in a global pandemic.

    Universities are intolerant, dangerous places for conservative students and faculty. Parents, stop giving money to universities that will either persecute your kid based on race, gender, or politics, or brainwash them to despise you and your country.

    1. Karen: since you’ve never been to university, all of the bile you spew about universities was obtained from your alt-right media sources which have taught you to distrust education and those who are educated. The majority of Americans dislike Trump because he’s a chronic, habitual liar, someone lacking in any validity as a person: a false media personality claiming to be a self-made billionaire who depended on his Daddy to bail him out of every financial mess his lack of talent caused until Daddy got dementia and lost control of his finances. Then the bankruptcies started: 6 so far. He is all show, swagger and arrogance, seeking the US presidency for the vainglory, attention, adulation and power. He is NO patriot, and insulted genuine patriots like John McCain. He courts support from White Supremacists whom he called “fine people” even after they murdered Heather Heyer. He is morbidly obese but calls women “fat pigs”. His appearance is laughable: bad comb-over, hairpiece, spray tan, and, according to Rick Wilson, he wears Spanx. He is a serial cheater in business and in marriages, and is a proven racist: he entered into a consent decree to resolve a housing discrimination lawsuit. He brags about sexually assaulting women. He is anti-Semitic, xenophobic and racist. He pays off porn stars, but tries to speak of “family values”. He lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, someone else you’ve been taught to hate, but due to help his campaign solicited from Russian hackers, his attacks on Hillary via social media resulted in Electoral College wins in key districts. The majority of the American people never approved of him, and for this reason, he is and will always be, invalid. His fake “presidency” resulted in people dying unnecessarily, a pandemic allowed to get out of control and a successful economy crashing.

      No, Trump is not some “feisty”, “tell it like it is” fighter: that’s another lie fed to you by your alt-right media sources. He pandered to prejudices. He blamed immigrants for the border crisis instead of going after the hotel, restaurant, construction, nanny and housekeeping services and other big businesses that employ these people. Separating families and caging children to punish their parents is as ignorant as it is cruel. He didn’t “cross a line”, either: he lied all of the time. He promised a wall that Mexico would pay to build. His “America First” agenda ignored the economic reality that America is part of a world economy and is interdependent on trading partners. He and his disciples are ignorant of how international economics work: the issue isn’t whether America sells more products to some country than it sells to us. America mostly sells ideas and innovation, not widgets. What did he “fight back” against and “refuse to take” anyway? Don’t you see how the alt-right media you depend on for your ideas is lying to you?

      “The Left” also doesn’t throw rocks or incite riots, either. That’s what Trump does.

      1. “Karen: since you’ve never been to university, all of the bile you spew about universities was obtained”

        Natacha, I don’t know if Karen finished high school or has advanced degrees, but she writes and thinks like a very educated person. You have been schooled, but you do not sound educated.

        1. Karen writes and sounds like an alt-right media disciple. She has a bilious hatred of Democrats, and tries to claim that every protest that turned violent was fomented and approved by Democrats, which is a lie. She repeats the swill she heard last night on her alt-right media, which I know to be the case because I tune in sometimes just to see what slop they are serving the faithful. Her grasp on facts is non-existent, which is a true hallmark of a Trump disciple–immunity to facts. She tries to throw around big words and references to contemporary film and literature that she really doesn’t understand, thinking it makes her appear informed and sophisticated. Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect.

  17. This is why I oppose student loan debt relief. Too many college students are not there to prepare for a career, but to promote extreme political ideologies. The taxpayers receive no benefit from the time these students spend in college; they have gained nothing of value to contribute to society. I’m okay with limited student loan debt relief for those who spent their college years becoming nurses, engineers, computer techs, accountants and so forth, but the liberal leftists can repay their loans from their post-college barista salaries.

  18. College used to be the place to go to expand ones horizons, be exposed to other ideas, to enrich oneself in education.

    Now, it looks more and more like Mao’s Culture Revolution.

    If I had a child in high school, I would advise them to go into a trade skill.

    If I owned a business, I would question the value of a degree from universities like these. Be more inclined to higher a bright high school grad and teach them the ropes from a on the ground level.

    1. Upstatefarmer,

      “ College used to be the place to go to expand ones horizons, be exposed to other ideas, to enrich oneself in education.”

      That’s still the case. Students ARE being exposed to different ideas and expanding their horizons. What conservatives are are complaining is that their ideas are not being accepted or ignored. College IS about being exposed to those ideas and they are, even conservative ones. They are not expected to accept them or even listen to them. Conservatives are allowed to speak and state their ideas. Nothing stops them. What they think is that their ideas require that others listen to them or accept them.

      Nobody has a constitutional right to have their idea heard. You can speak of your ideas freely. What you’re not protected from is the consequences of expressing them. Nobody is required to listen to you. That’s what conservatives have trouble understanding. Your free speech rights are not a mandate for others to listen to what you have do say.

        1. Conservatives think free speech involves the expectation that they be heard. That the audience they seek to speak to acknowledge their views.

          The constitution doesn’t require anyone to acknowledge their views. Freedom of speech is not a right that requires others to listen or accept what is net said.

          1. Conservatives think free speech involves the expectation that they be heard.

            Bullsh!t! This is not complicated. Conservatives believe free speech is the natural right for everyone equally to express themselves in various forms without being forcibly silenced. Conservatives do not believe there is right to expect others to listen, acknowledge or accept the expressed views.

            1. Olly,

              “ Bullsh!t! This is not complicated. Conservatives believe free speech is the natural right for everyone equally to express themselves in various forms without being forcibly silenced. Conservatives do not believe there is right to expect others to listen, acknowledge or accept the expressed views.”

              Nope. Conservatives do complain that they are being censored or prevented from expressing their views. That’s not true. They are upset because their perception of free speech involves the recognition of what they are trying to say. Because they are not being acknowledged or are being ignored or are being criticized suddenly they are being denied their free speech rights.

              The very reason why there is such opposition or criticism isn’t necessary because they are being prevented from speaking. They ALREADY MADE THEIR VIEWS KNOWN. The fact that they are being opposed or criticized is because they freely expressed their positions. They already exercised their right. Nothing stopped them. Their freedom of speech has always been intact.

              None were forcibly silenced. They were met with opposition, meaning others exercised their own free speech rights to express opposition to their ideas or views. Opposition is not censorship. Criticism is not silencing free speech. Yet conservatives seem to play the victim card over the consequences of their own speech. Nobody is protected from the consequences of exercising their free speech rights. Conservatives seem to chafe at the notion that they are not responsible for the consequences of expressing their views or positions on an issue.

              1. Svelaz,
                Nope. Your Leftist interpretation of what conservatives believe is soundly rejected. I’m conservative. I gave you my conservative definition of what the first amendment means. You could have; 1. agreed that’s a good understanding. 2. identified why that’s not a good definition. 3. given a definition of what the first amendment means to you.

                As a matter of fact, points 2 and 3 are missing from you. Why is that? In my experience dealing with Leftists, they don’t like getting pinned down on definitions.

              2. Svelaz, you make things up. You accuse everyone else of not knowing what they are talking about but you are the one who is unable to deal with facts.

                You ran away from the CRT discussion after you threw a bomb. Deal with it now. I will repost one of my responses at the time.

                A Partial Explanation of CRT: (Svelaz said: “it is very obvious you have not read or even researched CRT. )

                “reality that out history is rife with racism”

                That is a chronic problem worldwide, but again, you cannot define CRT or tell us how it gets rid of racism.

                Is equity your answer? Let’s start everyone on a different place in the race track, so they all finish equally? That sounds pretty stupid.

                We should be looking for equality under the law, not equity. CRT is not interested in breaking the color boundary, CRT is interested in making the color boundary more prevalent, more racist. They say that the white guy who won the race won it because of his whiteness, not his athletic ability. That, of course, is according to CRT. Therefore, to produce equity rather than equality under the law, tie a ball and chain to his sneakers.

                “Just like the Holocaust we learned about it and know why it happened because it is taught in school. CRT is no different”

                That is pure ignorance talking. What CRT is actually creating is the German equivalent of the Holocaust. It is determining the lives of people based on color and race. It is Nazism of a different sort. It is creating a mirror image of the racism seen in the racists of the past.

                CRT seeks to destroy colorblindness, individual rights, private property, school integration, freedom of speech, and meritocracy. CRT wishes to do this by replacing equality with what they consider equity.

                The above parallels the Marxist push of the 1960’s. Cheryl Harris early on wrote a paper, “Whitenes as Property” She is a critical race theorist. She proposed seizing land and wealth from rich people, suspending property rights and redistributing the land based on race.

                The Marxist type push used to be based on class. Now it is based on color. You cannot see that Svelaz because you push an ideology without knowing what it is. I am telling you what it is based on one of the foundational papers behind CRT.

                Start reading what you are talking about. You might be ignorant, but I can’t believe anyone can be as ignorant as you sound. In the end, these people see the end of capitalism and its replacement with collectivism.

      1. AS Milo ran with a Swat team out of a building under armed guard wearing a bulletproof vest he wondered why a hall filled with people that wanted to hear him speak should prevented by rioting leftists threatening lives? He was an invited guest and very popular among the young. He looked at the building put on fire by that mob and probably thought they were a bunch of Nazis feeling that maybe this was a new Kristallnacht.

        Svelaz were you the one there that supplied the matches?

        SM

      2. “Students ARE being exposed to different ideas and expanding their horizons.”

        And your evidence for that is?

        1. Sam,
          This is a great article on what is called Action Civics. This is exactly what is going on at these educational institutions.

          There is an important distinction to be drawn between responsible civic action on the one hand and what Lincoln called “mobocratic” rule on the other. In the absence of informed and reflective respect for our fundamental rights and the constitutional framework that protects them, civic action risks descent into mobocracy. This helps explain why the right to free expression is endangered at this moment in our civic life.

          Our need is not for collective action per se, but for civic action tempered by regard for the rights of others. The ability to explore contending perspectives with patience and respect, including the strength of character to hold one’s own political convictions up to scrutiny, is a virtue essential to the preservation of our republic. That is why debate in various forms has long been a practicum of civics.

          Action Civics, to the contrary, skips a step, moving uncritically to turn grievance and anger into protest and lobbying. Too often this has the effect of forestalling self-examination and dampening tolerance of alternative perspectives. Critical self-examination and thoughtful debate are easily avoided in the heat of collective political action. That is why civic education is not the same as political action per se. Civic education is instead a preparation for, and a prerequisite to, mature political life.
          https://americanmind.org/memo/action-civics-replaces-citizenship-with-partisanship/

          1. Olly, Thanks for that.

            Still waiting for the one who made that (absurd) assertion to prove it. I anticipate crickets.

            1. “Students ARE being exposed to different ideas and expanding their horizons.”

              And your evidence for that is?”

              Really? If you need evidence you’re clearly missing the forest for the trees here.

              The fact that students are inviting such speakers and other’s clearly show opposition to them are evidence that others among them ARE being exposed to different ideas ruminating around the issue at the university. You didn’t think there would be other students who had no positions on whether speakers such as Horowitz or Shapiro, or even Milo, should speak. Pure curiosity can compel many to attend and hear about what the problem is. There are groups discussing it in quads or cafeterias or even a frat party. Every one those exposes students to every viewpoint. It isn’t just the ones attending the event.

              All universities have some form of this every time a controversial individual or even happens to be at their university.

              Being a graduate myself and others who have know this is what happens.

              1. Svelaz, are you still making accusations about what others know? (you said: ” If you need evidence you’re clearly missing the forest for the trees here.”)

                Yet when you did the same to me regarding CRT I provided some answers. Here is the first of the two posts that you ran away from.

                ” CRT. Teaching CRT is no different than teaching about the Holocaust.”

                Svelaz, you can say that with certainty, yet you cannot define what CRT is, nor can you tell us how it is used. That is a sign of ignorance beyond normality. It’s a sign of a blind follower who memorizes what he is told to repeat.

                “Again, Marxism is not being taught”

                I didn’t say Marxism is being taught though in some way it is. You don’t even know what Marxism is. Yet, you tell us that item A is unrelated to item B. Another sign of ignorance from one who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

                “Right leaning think tanks are the only ones pushing this false narrative about CRT. ”

                How can you say a false narrative about CRT is being pushed when you cannot tell us what you think CRT is? The experts on CRT differ considerably in what they say. That is why you cannot define CRT, along with the fact that the experts of CRT hope you never learn.

                “The only reason they are doing that is because they don’t want any real discussion of what CRT brings up. ”

                How can anyone discuss CRT until CRT’s parameters are revealed. Again, you are demonstrating that ignorance that plagues you here and elsewhere.

                A Partial Explanation of CRT Follows.

              2. “Being a graduate myself and others who have know this is what happens.”

                Svelaz, you don’t show any evidence of being a graduate, even of high school.

                You should get a full refund with interest.

                SM

  19. It’s getting scary as hell. Have we raised a generation of intolerant, hate filled Nazi thugs? Decades ago, the young would oppose war, advocate for civil liberties, racial equality, free speech and justice.

Leave a Reply