Will Rogers once observed that “Everything is funny, as long as it’s happening to somebody else.” No one ever personified Rogers’ rule as much as University of California, Irvine instructor Matt Goldman, who cracked everyone up this week by joking about celebrating the anniversary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk by alluding to the possible assassination of independent journalist Nick Shirley.
Today is the anniversary of the murder of Kirk. In anticipation, Goldman posted a picture of Shirley with the line “Someone can do the funniest thing just before the Kirkiversary.” It was a response to an Instagram post by the Harvard Republican Club promoting a speech by Shirley.
Goldman reportedly has long found the deaths of disfavored people to be a real knee-slapper, allegedly mocking the deaths of Henry Kissinger and others. Indeed, Goldman takes Gallows humor to a particularly dark place in American politics.
After the murder of a UnitedHealthcare CEO in 2024, Goldman allegedly posted a photo of the “Super Mario” character Luigi putting a gun to someone’s head with the statement “Let’s not pretend as if America isn’t the greatest country on earth.”
In another Instagram post, Goldman allegedly wrote, “Lmao abolish ICE. only good ICE agent is a dead one.”
Goldman also teaches at Chapman University and specializes in “social justice rhetoric and community-centered composition.”
It has become common in higher education and on campuses to laugh and even celebrate the murder of Kirk. Recently, socialist Hasan Piker led a sing-a-long with hundreds mocking his death.
Hate-spewing influencers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. Protesters regularly reenact his murder, and this week at Georgetown and the University of South Carolina students are celebrating “Kirkiversary” with “Kirk Look-a-Like” competitions.
Chapman University has expressed concern over Goldman’s hateful postings, but he is hardly unique. Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any conservative, libertarian, or Republican faculty members. According to various surveys, many departments have no Republicans. Forty percent of faculty say they would vote against any Trump supporter, regardless of academic accomplishments or publications. Recently, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) abandoned its long-standing political neutrality and endorsed radical Michigan senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
At the same time, radical faculty members on the left are common across the country and many espouse the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric.
Professors have regularly advocated “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and making other outrageous statements. A San Diego University professor celebrated the death of an Israeli soldier who was eaten by a shark.
At the University of Rhode Island, Professor Erik Loomis responded to the murder of a conservative protester by saying that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was given a promotion by the University of Rhode Island after his remarks).
Social media postings present difficult challenges for universities. These are statements often made on private sites and are not part of academic duties. Yet, universities have regularly taken action against faculty members who espouse what they view as prejudicial views based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. These faculty members rationalize or support violence targeting conservatives.
The problem is not that faculty can voice extreme political values in private postings. Those views should be protected. Likewise, the problem is not that faculty pursue far-left views in their academic work. Those views are protected by academic freedom.
The real problem is the virtual absence of any countervailing views today, after faculty have turned our universities into ideological echo chambers. There is a crushing orthodoxy on our campuses that fosters this type of extremist, violent rhetoric. For conservative students, it is common to be taught entirely by faculty who denounce their views and values.
While faculty members continually virtue signal about maintaining inclusive environments, they rarely seem concerned about the hostile environment for anyone who holds right-of-center views on campuses. A faculty member who mocks “land acknowledgments” is intolerable for many faculty, but those mocking the murder of conservatives are merely engaging in “spirited” debate.
The espousal of violent ideations or hateful views against conservatives can cross the line. Even if students are not concerned about their physical safety, they are likely concerned about their academic standing in classes taught by such hateful faculty. If a faculty member finds killing conservatives funny or justified, it is unlikely that they would welcome conservative viewpoints being expressed in classes.
The lack of consistency in dealing with what I have called “rage rhetoric” is an indictment of higher education. Imagine if a faculty member mocked the killing of minority students or Democratic activists. The response would be immediate and final.
However, the humor in killing conservatives is precisely because it is “happening to somebody else.” The most unnerving aspect of this latest controversy is not that Goldman is making jokes about assassinating conservatives, but that many in academia find it uproariously funny.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
These people like Goldman hate themselves, their lives, their appearance, their untalented, social misfits.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
― Thomas Jefferson
The Enumerated Powers of Congress in the Constitution provide no authority for them to spend one penny on education.
It is time to end all federal funding of education and make these clowns survive on their own. They need a good, hard dose of the free market to make their ideas pay, or be fired.
No more sinecures for incompetent fools.
So, considering Professor Goldman specializes in ‘social justice rhetoric,’ he’s really just doing his job. He’s providing a fresh perspective and demonstrating exactly how certain types of rhetoric are used in the wild.
Weirdly, Turley blames a lack of conservative and libertarian viewpoints for this rhetoric being so… distasteful? But let’s be real: the reason those viewpoints are going extinct in academia isn’t because of some grand, sinister ‘purge.’ It’s because most conservatives and libertarians realize there is actual money to be made in the private sector, rather than wasting their lives grading papers. As for the rest? Turns out the majority of students just don’t like those views, or they’re simply not interested—which is just the free market of ideas doing its thing, even if it leaves Turley crying in the corner.
NOPE
He’s a sick person.
Anyone who thinks it’s funny about the murder of another human being, is wrong.
Really? Right after a Democratic state House Speaker and her husband were brutally gunned down, high-ranking Republicans apparently looked at the double murder and thought, ‘Hey, there’s a killer meme opportunity here.’ Senator Mike Lee immediately rushed to social media to post punchlines about the assassination under the caption ‘Nightmare on Walz Street,’ while other congressmen scrambled to milk the fresh tragedy for cheap political clout and creative internet fiction.
A lot of you thought that was funny. How about Nancy Pelosi’s Husband? He was brutally attacked and nearly died after getting a hammer to the head. Those on the right mocked and made jokes about the incident. Now we have Turley clutching pearls and whining about the lack of conservatives in academia? Please.
Please keep supporting your hero here X.
Oh do more whataboutism too and make some definitive statements about all of those on the right. Oh, please do it in a way that explains how very much smarter you are than everyone. Oh and do it over and over, post after post day after day, OK? We need you to say “Everyone knows…” a LOT more too. Don’t start slipping, get a grip!
It is genuinely hilarious that pointing out blatant, well-documented right-wing hypocrisy is always labeled as ‘whataboutism.’ It must be so exhausting to watch your own team gleefully laugh at horrific violence—like hammer attacks on seniors—and then have to scramble into the comment section to play the victim when someone reminds you of it.
But hey, thanks for the encouragement! I’ll keep the receipts coming, and you keep crying in the corner.
NoX this is not pointing out hypocracy it is not even whataboutism.
The thread YOU are tying different things together is humor.
But humor is not inherently immoral.
Advocating violence is.
The “what-about” examples you provide are of Republicans making jokes at the expense of democrats
Both parties do that without running afoul of morality.
Goldman Advocated violence – Sen. Lee did not
Apples and oranges. A common thread of humour does not create some moral equivalence.
But critical thinking has never been your forte
Please return to third grade where hopefully someone will teach you the ability to tell the difference between a joke and a threat of violence badly pretending to be a joke.
Mike Lee was NOT encouraging political assassination.
He was pointing out that the mourders you feature were Left Wing nuts murdering Left Wing Nuts.
Absolutely Lee was looking for advantage from political violence.
He was looking for advantage because it was LEFT ON LEFT violence.
He was looking for advantage because it demonstrated the LEFT is violent.
He Was NOT calling for political violence.
He was poking fun at the lefts inability to prevent its own from killing each other.
No one would call poking fun of Himmler assassinating Hitler encouraging political violence.
X you are without any morality.
You are unable to make easy more distinctions.
You do not seem to grasp the difference between humor that encourages more political violence and that which pokes fun at those who engage in political violence.
Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked by another left wing nut drug addict with his brains fried.
Again there is nothing immoral about poking fun at the left for being victimizd by their own ideological failiures.
Please point out a single Republican who encouraged people to beat up Pelosi’s husband.
YOU are making the idiotic false analogy that all humor about violence is inherently encouraging violence.
Please learn some critical thinking.
This idiotically bad analogies are an embarrassment.
Humour is NOT inherently wrong.
Encouraging political violence is almost always wrong. The use of humor to do so is not relevant.
While it is in poor taste to make jokes at the expense of Charlie Kirk – that is NOT the same as encouraging further political assassinations – with or without humor.
Did Sen. Lee ask other Walz appointees to murder fellow democrats ?
No he poked fun at Democrats for an “own goal”.
Humor is not inherently moral or immoral.
Advocating for violence is almost always immoral. Whether done as a bad joke or not
The idea that students, “just don’t like those views,” is patently false. Polls show many hunger for it or seek it out. I recently did some adjunct work at a community College and have friends who work in universities. Many, especially the young male students, want to hear anything that isn’t ignorant leftist propaganda.
Evidence of this is the explosion of enrollment in Classical Studies Departments despite leftist academics attacking them relentlessly.
There’s a market for traditional education. To act otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.
Wow, what an incredible scientific study. You did some adjunct work and talked to your friends, so obviously the national data must be wrong.
I hate to burst the bubble, but your ‘explosion’ in university Classics enrollment is completely made up. You’re confusing a K–12 trend with higher education, where Classics departments are actually fighting for survival amid massive budget cuts.
But sure, let’s pretend young men are treating college like an anti-woke crusade. In the real world, students are choosing majors like Computer Science and Finance because they actually want to make money after graduation. Believing they are flocking to campus departments to hide from ‘propaganda’ is peak online brainrot. If anyone has their head buried in the sand here, it’s the guy treating a couple of office-hour conversations like a Gallup poll.
Oh, He’s an “Insincere leftist” I get it now.
“The majority of students don’t like those views” because they have been admitted as students for that very reason.
X
Justice is LITERALLY individual. “social” justice is a self contradictory phrase.
Yes, it is OK to criticise people who are “doing their job” – especially if that job is utter nonsense.
But phrases like ”
specializes in “social justice rhetoric” are typical signifies of the idiocy of the left.
It is NOT the job of a college to TEACH people “social justice rhetoric” – it is their job to TEACH speech. When students end up in “the wild” otherwise known as the real world.
What they use the skill in speaking that a college has taught them is THEIR BUSINESS
Things like “speiocalizes in sociual justice rhetoric” are giant neon signs saying IYI – intellectual Yet Idiot. They are WORSE than teaching advanced underwater basket weaving.
They are signifiers of ignorance – such as the ignorace of not grasping that JUSTICE is individual. Individuals have rights – societies and groups ONLY have the rights of their members.
The reason that diversity in colleges is going extinct is because Education is funded by government and therefore is NOT subject to regulation by the free market.
There is no cost to believing absolute nonsense in college.
The mere fact that we are graduating purportedly well educated people who right out of college in majorities actually think Socialism is a good idea is absolute proof of the failure of colleges.
Socialism DOES NOT WORK – not in theory, not in practice. Even the idiotic claim of the left that past failures are do to the wrong leaders are an admission that SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK.
Any ideology that requires near perfection from those with power WILL FAIL.
YOU RANT about Trump – but the country will survive his presidency – even thrive during it. It survived Biden. While inarguably we could have done Better than under Biden or Obama, or even Trump,
we not only survived them – but we thrived during their presidencies. Often we thrived DESPITE our president.
That is an absolute requirement for a WORKING system of govenrment – that it will continue to work – even thrive when bad men are in power.
While Mao governed China the standard of living actually DECLINED.
Kruschev promised that the USSR would crush the West – yet the people of the west are far better off than those of the USSR.
Venezuela went from being the richest country in South Amerrica with the highest standard of living – to the lowest under Chavez and Madoru.
Do I need to list all the myriads of socialist failures ?
Anyone graduating from college with a favorable view of socialism has been Abysmally educated.
That is little better than colleges producing a majority of graduates that believe raping children is a good idea.
It is Irrelevant whether as you claim – the ideas of the left are somehow popular among college students and those of conservatives are not.
Increasingly antisemitism is popular in colleges – is that OK with you ?
While your claim that students are choosing left wing nut nonsense on their own is idiocy,
That argument is also garbage.
When our institutions shift from producing a FEW lunatics to normalizing vile immoral and failed garbage – it is the INSTITUTIONS that have failed.
But just to be clear – Charlie Kirk was assassinated because he threatened the left’s hedgemony in those institutions.
Because he exposed students to thinking other than the idiotic nonsense of professors teaching “social justice rhetoric”.
Because where there was real debate – those on the left failed miserably.
Because Kirk exposed our colleges as the emperor without any clothes.
Regardless, As you CONSTANTLY fail to grasp – children and adults are NOT the same.
We do not allow 4 year olds who think they can fly to jump off the rook of the garage.
We do not allow them to cut off their penises.
It is our job as parents – and the job of the educators we entrust our children to to teach them the TRUTH.
It is NOT their job to teach them what they want to hear.
Students will ultimately end up in “the wild” otherwise know as the real world.
Where the nonsense that they are fed in Colleges will FAIL THEM – because it does not work.
Because fairytales are not real.
Because “social justice rhetoric” accomplishes nothing.
Naziism – fascism a form of socialism, grew in popularity in early 20th century germany.
Over time the Nazi party went from the fringe to controling more than 1/3 of the reichstag to Hitler winning a plebescite by 80% in 1938.
The popularity of Nazism does not change the FACT that it was IMMORAL – WRONG.
You seem to think it is acceptable that the majority of students graduating from college today hold views that are inarguably immoral and WRONG and that colleges not only did nothing to stop but actively encouraged, because they were popular ?
Because students badly educated in our public schools made bad choices in college somehow that makes things acceptable to you ?
John Stuart Mill pointed out that democracy was the the most totalitarian of political positions – and yet here you are embracing that.
Ideas do not work just because they are popular.
Ideas are not moral just because they are popular.
Those of you on the left CONSTANTLY rant about racism – but only when the oppressors are white and the victims are brown or preferably black.
But nary a peep about racism against Asians or antisemitism – which is just another form of racism
You are not actually opposed to racism. You just want to be able to pick who is the victim and who is the oppressor.
Professor Turley deserves credit for making a record of depraved academics like Goldman. There must be something sick in our culture that produces the proponent of such views and his audience. Maybe someday we will understand it.
Edward, the sick thing in our culture is 3 generations of Marxist professors-i.e., adults enjoying cozy institutional security, with no experience in the real world,
free to indulge in Marxian revenge fantasies and make them their basis for teaching.
Thus,
“Many on the political left are so entranced by the beauty of their visions that they cannot see the ugly reality they are creating in the real world.’
– Thomas Sowell
Dear Mr. Turley, Congresswoman Maxine Waters encouraged the physical attacks toward Republicans years ago during the Bush administration. No one in the Democratic Party nor the media called her out on this. It has only become worse as time goes on. Democrats look at their party with a religious fervor. Now they are attacking Mr. Shirley and making threats to kill him as well. The truth about the fraud in the various states will continue with or without the soft-spoken Mr. Shirley.
So, what’s the actual crisis here? It seems Professor Turley is just having a public meltdown because people are exercising their right to dark humor and personal views without a token conservative or libertarian around to ruin the vibe.
Beneath all that academic pearl-clutching, it’s pretty obvious Turley secretly wants to punish people for their rhetoric. He won’t explicitly say it, but the subtext practically screams that he wishes these people could be dragged before a tribunal for the crime of being disrespectful. Because, you know, people on the right famously never engage in mockery. Truly shocking.
Look, Charlie Kirk’s death was mocked ruthlessly. Sure, it’s protected speech and perfectly legal, which doesn’t change the fact that it’s sometimes distasteful or just plain mean. I might not endorse the absolute most unhinged versions of the mockery, but as Turley himself accidentally highlights, some of it is genuinely top-tier dark comedy.
I mean, come on: ‘Kirkaversary’? That’s just plain hilarious, even if it lands you a first-class ticket to hell.
This is NOT sick humor. It is just sick. X you need professional help.
Estovir, you need help for posing as ‘Allie’.
Oh, it’s humor alright. Did you know there’s an actual ‘Deadpool’ list online? It’s a literal website where people openly gamble on when and how certain celebrities and public figures will finally kick the bucket.
Look, I condemned Charlie Kirk’s death the day it happened. It was shocking and tragic. Sure, some people immediately threw a party and mocked it online, and plenty of them got fired or disciplined for doing so. But a lot of them dragged their employers to court, successfully defended their First Amendment right, won their jobs back, and went on their merry, toxic ways.
At the end of the day, some of the jokes surrounding his death are genuinely hilarious—assuming you possess a beautifully warped, morbid sense of humor. And hey, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a good laugh at the expense of the deceased if you’re into that kind of thing.
So what does justice look like to you in this case?
Isaiah 5:20-24
If you actually read Isaiah 5:20–24, it’s a criticism of corrupt societal leaders who take bribes and deprive the innocent of justice—not a divine mandate against dark comedy. Trying to turn a biblical warning about systemic corruption into a lecture on internet edge-lords making ‘Kirkaversary’ memes is crazy. You can think a joke is distasteful without pretending it’s a sign of the apocalypse.
X is also a biblical scholar, not just a typer-into-ai.
george
right to dark humor
_______________________
Something folks on the left enjoy doing.
Sick!
Those on the right love it. They do it all the time. Including you.
oh so you love it too! So in your mind that means we have something in common.
Let’s hear all about it!
I doubt our founding fathers envisioned protection of the abhorrent speech you find hilarious. Might seem funny to a third world despot, but not here amongst civilized people.
Calvin, The founders explicitly designed free speech to protect abhorrent, offensive, and controversial ideas—because polite, civilized speech never needs a constitutional shield.
Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason deeply scandalized and offended religious believers across the country. Benjamin Franklin routinely published satirical, highly offensive essays under fake names. They knew exactly how dirty political speech could get, which is why Benjamin Franklin famously warned that anyone trying to overthrow a nation’s liberty must start by subduing free speech.
Claiming that protecting offensive speech is the mark of a ‘third world despot’ is the exact opposite of reality. A despot is someone who arrests you the second you make an offensive joke about a political figure. Trump went after late night hosts exactly because they were making fun of him. He wanted them punished for the mockery they were heaping on him. Turley barely eked out a condemnation. Perhaps you should re-read our founders views and re-learn what they really meant.
Show us some actual examples that the founders used while making fun of a fellow patriots cowardly assassination. We have seen countless people spouting off on Charlie Kirk, show us all the evidence that our founders believed it was just fine to engage in that type of hateful rhetoric.
No one is having a melt down george, but using some common sense on the left would be nice.
The left is STILL cheering the murder of Mr Kirk
So? Common sense tells us it is sometimes ok to make fun of the dead. Kirk isn’t immune. Plus….how would it hurt his feelings? He’s dead.
punish people for their rhetoric? like murdering Charlie? Is that the punishment you speak of? Or was that the punchline of some dark joke?
“I might not endorse the absolute most unhinged versions of the mockery”.
So glad for your possible non-endorsement of the absolute most unhinged, but it begs the question; Which MIGHT you endorse if not absolutely most unhinged (in your best estimation of unhinged absolutely). So absolutely least unhinged has your endorsment? so a little unhinged is endorsed?
It would seem as though these people are seeking war against the right. I believe we should give them one. If they continue to push the bear eventually the bear will wake up. The right will quickly eradicate the left.
ICE, Please come to Providence and deport the 1300 ‘extra’ citizens that voted my city into communism.
These violence touting leftists are stupid and unmoored from reality. At some point the violence they are calling for will come back at them and they will be like deer in the headlights.
“Everybody has plans until they get hit for the first time.”
— Iron Mike Tyson
The revenge of the enraged theater kids
Goldman is evil: ergo, he must be a Democrat.
These are the monsters of the left. John Wilkes Booth is their poster child, not just a one-off.
Poster child? Um… thinking yours is Trump?
actually yes, but since WE are all individuals and don’t idenify as a group (cause that’s crazy), Trump is just our current poster child. That’s kinda why he’s president (I just voted for him to troll you). AND we actually have put him on posters cause he’s so frickin boss. Not that stupid raised fist of fury you guys put on all your stupid red posters.
Right now, YOUR poster child is Hasan Piker, how’s that working out for you?
TDS got your tongue?
Mind boggling! How can Nick Shirley be seen as anything other than an Independent journalist exposing fraud and corruption? This is like the Mafia putting out a hit on Elliott Ness for exposing their racket. Actually, this is worse as these filthy scum are stealing every single taxpayers money. Money intended to help those truly poor and needy families.
Lock them up for life!
Independent journalist = propagandist.
Telling the truth about people stealing our tax money.
No wonder the left is mad. Just maybe the are getting the piece of the action.
DustOff,
It is rather telling when MSM has a meltdown when someone does their jobs for them by exposing fraud. Used to be what the MSM would look for to win awards and to further their careers as serious, investigative journalists.
What do we have now? The NYT WaPo and the Russiagate hoax.
I never liked social media and have not participated in at least 6 years. It, as does texting removes the one on one communication with others. You cannot get the facial expressions nor speech subtleties through texting or short posts. It does however offer anonymity so people can espouse what ever they want and for the most part face no counter thoughts nor responsibility. Thus, in my opinion, the rise of the obnoxious.
I also cannot understand the need or justification for social justice courses. If your parents practiced and taught you to treat everyone equally, then there is no need for social justice. Some would say it is needed to correct past actions that hurt individuals or classes. If you follow that line of thinking, you are just enabling and creating new classes of victims. Do we go back in history to right the wrongs 5,000 years ago? Who is a victim? How were you hurt and how should you be compensated? It is all pandering, in my opinion to make someone relevant where they otherwise would not be, without these courses and social media.
I hate to break the news to ya, but there is nothing social about social media. BTW, commenting on a blog is social media.
What happened 5,000 years ago that would need fixing?
It may not be 5000 years ago, but let’s start with having the Egyptians pay reparations to the Jews for their generations of enslaving them.
This blog is by a lawyer that is bringing specific issues he feels are important to the community that wants to hear his opinions. It is also informative from the original content and most of the comments. This blog is not a platform originally designed to rate the faces of women and has expanded to nothing more than a data collection agency that monetizes the information of the people that join.
5,000 years ago was intended as figure of speech, to make the point as to where we begin with who is a victim and deserves reparations immediately, according to the victims of today.
It’s a crock of Scat and a way to indoctrinate a bunch of young people with malleable gray matter. Social Engineering
The Chicoms even restrict how much time their kids can spend on these platforms. It’s obsessive compulsive and addictive, a form of brainwashing.
You see, wishing death on opposition has now become totally normalized. It doesn’t matter who’s doing the wishing, it has become fact in American society. The problems with opposition politics are eternal, but wishing death on another was previously reserved for the deep recesses of the mind. Perhaps, we are entering a dark period in American history.
(But it is a shame that faculty at universities are great fans of this new scholarly subject of death-wish-ology. Somebody’s gonna write a book – make all the talk shows.)
Not only American society Don. Hey maybe Olly can write the book you mentioned. Um, maybe not, he specializes in children’s books.
Why be so snarky? Ollie’s commentaries are read by many of us.
Making themselves irrelevant.
And the difference in mind set between Clancy, this hate-filled piece of human flotsam and any serial abortionist is what?
Difference, um… Clancy didn’t perform any abortions? Who’s Clancy?
The difference is this guy is claiming he ISN’T a mentally unstable murderous monster, whereas Clancy is claiming she is.
the difference is in their claims only though.
Do we need any more evidence that these people are not well? But keep pulling that blue trigger, voters. Reprehensible on an epic scale. They would not hesitate to hurt any of us, and their definition of ‘conservative’ is anyone that even slightly disagrees with them and their mushroom-headed views.
Based on many of your comments here, evidence in fact, that you also are not well. Mentally speaking of course. As for that definition of conservative, would you be inclined to say your definition of liberal is such that you would want to hurt them because of their “mushroom-headed” views? Just asking for a friend.
@Anonymous
Yawn. Go blow. Did these thirteen words at least buy you a coffee? Do you get anything for punctuation?
You aren’t a liberal either, just a moron who doesn’t actually believe in anything that wasn’t installed into their brain by someone else. Yipping dogs are less Annoyingous.
Wrong.
James has nothing wrong with liberals. Well, maybe the vote Blue no matter who liberals who enable the far illiberal leftists.
It is the far illiberal leftists that are “mushroom-headed.”
Look Man – you can’t fix Half-Wit, Self-Appointed Illuminati. This Loony Lefty, Goldman, is the same A$$ Clown that would be going Banshee if one of his MS NOW Dungcasters were to be dispatched and demanding a worldwide dragnet!
Can’t fix? Got a problem with people who also have free speech rights as Americans?
There is no use trying to reform these corrupt, antisemitic, hate filled universities. But as citizens, taxpapers, and voters we don’t have to support them. I suggest we end all tax exemptions, grants and government funded scholarships. Let those who want this sort of “education” pay full freight.
Reform? I’m guessing you MAGAots really would prefer death by public hanging. End all …got a plan for that?
I think disinfectant has always been the sure cure for a malignant infestation of dangerous diseases… Sure, why not, just fumigate the entire left and see what remains standing.
Would that also include disposing of bodies in ovens? Frau Himmler?
We do. We always have. You got a plan for our plan commie?