Violence at UC-Berkeley: The Wacko Lefties Who Make Milo Even More Famous

If you think free speech is assault but assault is free speech you’re a moron of world-historical proportions.

 

finally, a sort of funny lefty sign

 

At least one of the violent lefty whackos has been identified as a Cal employee

 

Milo will return to UC-Berkeley to finish what he started

 

This mirrors my thoughts on Milo.

 

The sidebar of Berkeley's student paper today

 

Milo now has a free-speech bill in Tennessee unofficially named after him:

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/08/tennesse-free-speech-campuses-bill-named-milo/

 

Pretty clear this is not a small minority of bad apples, this is the mainstream.

 

I sort of hate it/love it.
I hate it on principle.
But to be simply pragmatic, it helps us when these people expose themselves as narrow-minded, selfish, violent bigots.

 

If you've ever been to Cal-Berkeley you'd understand they aren't the mainstream. It may be the most liberal public school in the great US of A. I blame the location but haven't deciphered whether Berkeley is the chicken or egg.

 

Here is a link to the actual articles justifying the violence. They sorta warp it into a self-defense position - a similar mentality to what the Brownshirts would have used to justify beating Jews and destroying their property.

 

I used to live in Oakland, and my dad graduated from Cal. (They don't call it Cal-Berkeley for the same reason Texas students don't their school Texas-Austin. They think their school has the right and that it's self-explanatory to refer to themselves only by the name of the state. In other words, they don't consider the other schools, even UCLA, to be their peers.) I would say this mindset is mainstream liberalism in the Bay Area - left-leaning but not crackpot. Keep in mind that the people who get elected to office like my congressman at the time, Ron Dellums, are considered to be moderates who had to make too many deals with Whitey to be reliable. Somebody like Dianne Feinstein is considered a bit of a sellout - hard Right for the Bay Area. She doesn't hate "Amerikkka" anywhere near enough and often backs Israel. However, I'd consider it outside the mainstream for most college towns.

 

I lived in the city for about 3-4 years and during that time, it seemed to me like Cal was full of business majors. Somehow climate change turned them into snowflakes

 

The city of Berkeley has formally requested the help of the FBI in handling an investigation into who was involved in violent riots at Cal

Maybe Soros will get a charge too? We can hope

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/02/07/fbi-investigating-identities-black-clad-uc-berkeley-rioters/

 

I'm actually pleasantly surprised. I figured they'd just blow it off.

 

That's fair.

It is pretty ironic that they are using "We must do what German citizens failed to do - stop the Nazis!" logic to justify destroying property and shattering windows while silencing the speech of a gay Jewish person.

 

Is Yiannopolis Jewish?

 

I have thrown alot of barbs at the ACLU over the years for turning into bedwetters while tuning their cowardly backs on their original mission.
However, it seems that they may actually be growing a backbone again

 

Ethnically he's Jewish on his mother's side. I don't think he practices any religious or cultural traditions.

 

aka, the side that counts

 

To quote Kinky Friedman, he doesn't "look Jewish, near as I can figure."

 

Milo is a priceless gift to those who can no longer stomach the dangerous hypocrisies of ultra-Libs. He's the ultimate traitor and hypocrite in their eyes.

It's sadly comparable to the death-wishing hate radical Muslims have for their own who convert to another religion.

Nothing drives a Lib more insane than being factually schooled by a flamboyant homosexual conservative who detests feminism and shreds their arguments.

Outspoken feminist mouthpieces are left bulldozed and speechless when on his panel.

I swear some are inches away from calling him a gay slur they get so pissed.

 

While I agree with this, it's never been the point with what happened at Cal.

No matter what anyone thinks of what he says, he still gets to say it (with very limited exceptions not applicable here). This is one of the principles that, even today, sets the US apart from everywhere else in the world, including Europe (where despite the fact that they think they are better and more enlightened than us, they do not have actual free speech. And never have).

This was my point about the ACLU. If you read old 1st A case law, in many of the great opinions in the area, the ACLU was representing some pretty reprehensible people.
One of my favs was when the ACLU (which has always had alot of jewish attorneys) defended the Nazis' 1st A rights to assemble in Skokie http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/432/43.html That could not have been easy for them to do, but they did it because they were not defending Nazis but a principle.

But over the years, PC-culture took over the ACLU and it abandoned its principles and core mission. Since sometime in the 90s, they have been but a mere sad shadow of their former selves. Defending PC-culture, which is what they do now, is usually completely at odds with defending individual rights as defined under the Constitution. So, the modern ACLU is at war with the prior, highly principled ACLU.

Maybe speaking up for Milo is a sign they are getting back to doing what they are supposed to be doing - which is defending civil rights.

 

Patriotic Americans, including Veterans who've suffered greatly, have for several decades had to stomach people burning American flags right in front of them and desecrating the symbol of the country and freedoms they protected with their lives.

If that's protected by the First Amendment, I'll be damned if violently silencing verbal discussions against Feminism and ultra-Lib policies is gonna be tolerated.

 

Tennessee is doing God's work

 

I decided to look into this, and I couldn't find the text of the bill. However, I found a local article that quotes it, and frankly the bill is pretty wimpy.

First, it only applies to civil liability in cases in which the driver exercises "due care," so you could still potentially be charged with a crime. Second, it doesn't apply to intentionally hitting somebody, so if the protester is blocking your vehicle, you see him, and hit the gas, the bill isn't going to help you. You can still get sued and still get charged with crime.

What the bill really sounds like is a cheap effort by a politician to felate the insurance lobby. A real bill would criminalize blocking a vehicle in the course of a protest and impose a punishment serious enough to deter doing it. Furthermore, it would protect drivers who intentionally hit protestors, so long as they give them a warning and an opportunity to get out of the way.

 

Hey, watch your language

 

This is an interesting topic. Protestors, which we have seen become violent many times, that block your auto and cause you to fear for your safety or life, should be run over if that will keep you from harm. There are some extreme examples that are exceptions, but protestors that are both acting imprudently and with bad intentions, based on the driver's independent assessment, should not be given any quarter.

 

As you might have expected, the ACLU is taking heat from lefties for supporting Milo on his free speech claim. Showing, once again, they have no principles.