2016 Election, Candidates, Donald Trump, Elections

The Left’s war on free speech in California, college campuses and beyond


As bloody images roll in from Costa Mesa, Calif. where hard left protesters attacked supporters exiting a Donald Trump rally, the question that presents itself is, “How did things deteriorate to this point?”Trump_protest_Chicago_March_11,_2016

The respect for free speech was once sacrosanct, to the point that liberals of a bygone era would repeat the bromide, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” But as seen in Costa Mesa, one can easily conclude that the sentiment is no longer widely held on the left. If a person who supports a political viewpoint or candidate can no longer safely express their belief in public, then it is clear that the ability to speak freely is under siege, and no longer safe from the intellectual descendants of the Visigoths.

In fairness, some on the left actually believed the above quote and used it in sincerity. Some holdouts exist, like Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, exist as some of the last vestiges of the old “Freedom Left” faction, otherwise vanquished by the “Force Left”, bent on imposing their worldview on others with impunity.  This animosity toward freedom of speech and assembly did not effervesce from the grounds of a Trump rally, but from their educators and thought leaders that shelter in academia.

The war on free speech has been a cold war with hot spots that flare up from time to time. What is clear is that the hard left have been combatants, looking for their opportunity to use speech as a weapon, and as such, disarm opponents when possible.  Their lesser tactics include shaming and using arbitrary means such as Title IX to silence their opponents. When that fails or is not applicable, they escalate, using more forceful means as we see in California; they are all facets of the same thinking that enforce cultural conformity at the expense of individual liberty.

Shaming is so pervasive, that it is exercised by lowly academic administrators and Presidential Candidates alike. Lukianoff reported that at the University of California-San Diego, a satirical student newspaper published an article with obscenities and pejoratives mocking the notion of safe spaces; university administrators responded with a press release denouncing them, leading up to the student council defunding all print publications. Sounds severe?

According to Lukianoff, the Department of Justice reportedly is threatening to deny federal funding to universities that refuse to abide by the administrative guidance that derive from Title IX. This is done under the guise of protecting students from sexual harassment via instituting de facto speech codes, but without a mechanism to adjudicate the claim, the accusation is a conviction in the eyes of the government. This means  that universities are being coerced into violating the First Amendment, lest they forfeit federal funding, and taxpayers are being compelled to fund the erosion of their own rights

Elsewhere, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 2011 that she would “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those who would speak strongly against radical Islam, which she has characterized as “religious intolerance.” The inability to properly categorize radical Islam as a threat is nothing short of deadly, and the demonization of those who would do so is suicidal.

But the issue is by no means a partisan one. Numerous Republicans have quietly acquiesced as the anti-speech forces have used their politically correct cudgels to attain cultural hegemony. The Obama administration has engaged in scandalous behavior that would make Richard Nixon blush, from the IRS targeting tea party and other conservative groups to the Benghazi scandal, all things that might bring down mortal administrations. Any talk of impeachment led to unbearable levels of shaming from the President’s praetorian guard in Congress and the media, and the issues quietly faded away.

Those who believe in inalienable rights have two options: they can allow the freedom of speech to continue degrading, until a Costa Mesa like scene becomes so pervasive it takes full power that we are waiting for the Maoist struggle sessions to begin; or, we can mobilize with the remnants of the Freedom Left, and beat back the retrograde, anti-Enlightenment forces that left unchecked, would commence with their rehashed Cultural Revolution.  This cannot occur without reinvigorating Congress’ Article I capabilities, reining in the judiciary and the executive branch’s administrative state by systemically dismantling the taxpayer-funded infrastructure they use to assail our freedoms.

We currently have the option to choose our battle. As we wait, we hazard that the battle will instead be chosen for us, on ground that is less advantageous. If the country comes to look like Costa Mesa did last week and Chicago before it, our choices will not be so appealing.

This is a guest post by Dustin Howard contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.
  • Jjr74

    Title IV or no Title IV the days of political correctness are coming to an abrupt end. The other tactics the pernicious left uses are falsely accusing anyone that says no to their Kool-Aid as being a racist, a bigot, or a sexist. Thank God for the United States Constitution because in the end that will always be our political compass.

    • Robert

      If this country was run by the Constitution you would not like it. To start with you could not vote if you were not a man, and to be a man you had to own landed property, those that the bank owned their house and they were paying it off were not men. This is what started the Civil War, the South wanted Slaves counted as men and the North said no they were property. then the north conceded to South that they could count slaves as 3/5 of man for Southern Representation in the US Government. It even get worse,m the Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers that go along with it says that every person over the age of 18 have in his possession a military weapon and trained in the use of it. It also says this right will not be ABRIDGED, now when I look up the definition of abridged it basicly boils down to changed, and if that is so how can the Government say who can and can not have guns. There is limits on free speach also listed in the Federalist Papers.

      • Jjr74

        Hi Robert, the key phrase in the 2nd amendment is actually “shall not be infringed upon.”The 26th amendment explains the right to vote. Regrettably even down to the local level politics has become corrupt as hell giving “special interests” i.e. international corporations major influence. That is why it is crucial to call your state and federal representatives to voice your opinions. You have a nice day as well.

        • Robert

          I totally agree with you about the Second Amendment, so why has a state or federal Government have the right to say who can have guns and who can not. Up until 1932 if you committed a crime with a gun when you got out of prison they gave you your gun back or replaced it in some cases because your gun had been lost, Ha Ha like a special made silver plated engraved gun.
          There has been corruption in our Government since its inception, it has gotten worse or at least it has been brought to our attention more. These rich and large Corporations that donate to the politicians election campaign expect something back for their money, and get it through corrupt contracts and grants. Corporate welfare that went to 1500 was three times greater than Social welfare that went to 46 million. There is the main corruption. They just want to throw dust up so you do not see the true picture.
          HAVE A GREAT DAY

      • PaxMentis

        You really don’t understand that the constitution includes the amendments passed according to the process included within?

        • Robert

          I really do understand the Constitution and all its amendments and the federalist Papers which tells us what the founders wanted the words to mean. I have studied the Constitution in great depth. The SCOTUS when they rule on the Constitution, in my opinion in some cases they are going directly against the writings in the federalist papers. The Second Amendment and the federalist papers that go along with it spells out that everyone has a right under this Amendment to keep and carry arms, and it ends up by saying this right will not be infringed upon. I do not know what part of infringed that the legislatures does not understand. Up until 1932 when a person went to jail for committing a crime with a gun if he did not get executed he got his gun when he got out of jail. Now if the founding fathers did not want former prisoners to have weapons do you not think they would have written it in the Bill of Rights.
          HAVE A GOOD DAY


    I am continuously amazed at Liberals who openly protested against military service and protecting their family and country from potential foreign threats. In the 1960s, Liberals went so far as to escape to a foreign country to avoid national service. A young Liberal poster recently said that he owed the government and people of this country nothing but that the government did owe him a free college education, can we really be surprised at the current state of our country ? All this started in our colleges and universities that were always to some degree bastions of Liberalism where young minds were fed this Communist garbage in lieu of a real education. Jesus warned us of the implications of allowing divisions like this to continue when he said; “No city or house divided against itself will stand”.

Sign up for our FREE newsletter!

Sign up to receive daily updates, political news, action letters and additional messages from Conservative Republican News

View our Privacy Policy

Join our FREE Newsletter!