• A Lucid Lesson in Law Enforcement for the Left, from Chief Kathleen O’Toole.

    Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole wrote a refreshingly candid email yesterday to the Seattle City Council’s reckless socialist, Kshama Sawant. The missive was in response to Sawant’s demands O’Toole answer questions publicly about the Charleena Lyles shooting (Two white Seattle police officers were forced to shoot Lyles, a pregnant, black woman, after she reportedly attacked them with two butcher knives). 

    Well, Kshama, you asked for it: 

    “I write in short response to your [Sawant] earlier email, which reflects a disappointing level of ignorance of SPD policies and clear disdain for the investigatory process and review that SPD is court-mandated to follow,” O’Toole wrote. “Facts matter and pre-judgment of this incident by any of us would be completely irresponsible.” [emphasis mine] 

    O’Toole, a law enforcement hero of the left (until this email, anyway), delivers to Sawant a blunt and necessary lesson in Police Investigations 101. O’Toole explained, “As we are barely over a week into an investigation that typically takes upwards of 90 days, I see absolutely no benefit to airing those private, difficult, and heartfelt conversations in a public, or worse, political forum.”

    How hard is this to understand? Any critically thinking human being should appreciate that investigations with such significant, potential consequences must be done in a sober and objective manner. Sadly, political ideologues avoid critical thinking. Without amped up raw emotions feeding the far left’s narrative, their foolish assertions dissolve.

    They remind me of people who don’t want to hear the truth. They stick their fingers in their ears and jump up and down, yelling, “Woo, woo, woo!” so they can’t hear it.

    Chief O’Toole finished boldly, “I will not, however, join in any process that threatens to exploit this terrible tragedy for another’s personal or political gain.”

  • Not Ruling Out Terrorism.

    So, on my drive home today after a long walk, I heard a news broadcast of a stabbing of a police officer while on duty at Bishop International Airport in Flint, Michigan.

    As I listened to the news report, I was once again transported into Bizarro World. You know, DC Comic’s infamous “opposite” universe where up is down, forward is backward, and in is out.

    The news reporter on the FOX News radio broadcast said, “The attacker yelled, ‘God is Great,’ in Arabic [Allahu Akbar] as he stabbed the officer.”

    Next he reported this: “The FBI said it is not ruling out terrorism as a motive.”

    I…, uh…, I…, ummm…, I…, ugh!

  • Child Suspended for “Liking” Image of Toy Gun on Instagram.

    The First and Second Amendments are under heavy attack by the radical left. We see this leftist nonsense to squelch free speech and abridge gun rights every day. The following story combines constitutional attacks on the First, Second, Fourth—and probably Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against a public middle school student.

    Now, I will concede that public school officials can argue that they have no idea what to do anymore—mostly, because of other public school officials who adopt stupid policies. We critics often say, “Just use common sense.” Well, much of the problem these days is that commonsensical school officials are not allowed to apply their common sense. In fact, school districts often mandate ludicrous policies that force officials to act in direct contravention to common sense or risk losing their jobs or worse. Remember the second-grader who got “dispended” because he threw an invisible grenade to rescue the world? Still, that does not mean we should stop fighting to make sure common sense prevails.

    So, in this story on the NRA-ILA website, according to WBRC Fox 19 News in Trenton, Ohio, middle school student Zachary Bowlin got himself suspended for violating the school board’s “zero tolerance” policy. The policy prohibits, “violent, disruptive, harassing, intimidating, bullying, or any other inappropriate behavior by its students.” What heinous act did Zach commit to elicit such wrath from school superintendent Russ Fussnecker? After school one evening, at home, while perusing the Instagram social media website, Zach had the unmitigated audacity to “Like” a picture of an Airsoft gun—a toy. No, really!  

    For those unfamiliar with Airsoft guns, the name implies its function. It uses air to propel a soft projectile (the size of a pea). The guns are plastic and the projectiles (bullets) are designed not to injure participants. I know: my kids used them as toys when they were kids and I used them for training as a police officer.

    According to the article, the photo Zachary “liked” was of a “plastic gun on the table, with the caption, “Ready.” You might wonder if this social media “like” was just one facet of a multifaceted set of nefarious circumstances that created suspicion about the student. Nope. That was it; Zach “liked” a picture of a toy on social media. WBRC reported, “Superintendent Russ Fussnecker essentially admitted that the school’s reaction was based only on the picture.”

    Let’s look at the bright side: Zach is getting a civics lesson, thanks to his overreacting, overreaching school officials: One, his First Amendment rights were violated when the district punished him for expressing his point of view. He let people know he liked a picture (it could be argued that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were also violated when he was suspended without due process). Two, the Second Amendment was effectively violated, being tarnished when a toy facsimile of a firearm became the focal point of Zachary’s discipline.

    Now, for constitutional violation number three: The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures. According to the article, “The next morning, Zachary told a WBRC reporter, school officials, ‘called me down… patted me down and checked me for weapons, then they told me I was getting expelled or suspended or whatever.’” Where was the warrant? Where was the probable cause? Where was the reasonable suspicion? (Where is the ACLU?) And, finally, where was the common sense?

  • Seattle’s Leftist Lunatic Luminaries

    I’m wrong because I think laws should be followed? I’m wrong because I believe cops, local, state, and federal, should assist each other? I’m wrong because I recognize the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration? How did I end up on the “wrong” side? It seems that my point of view is simple common sense: Follow the law or change it. If you enter someone else’ country without permission, you have broken the law. Adhering to this common sense just makes sense. Just ask all the Americans who’ve been injured or died because of an illegal alien’s criminal actions. What’s an even greater question? How has the left been so successful in folding reality inside out? Why do so many of us let them win?

    The City of Seattle is and has been one of the nation’s best examples of this lunacy. I’ll name two local luminaries of the lunatic left: Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant. If a political issue is ludicrous, absurd, hypocritical, or mind-twistingly silly, they’ll likely be found behind it. Mayor Murray, shrouded in a recent controversy, proudly refuses to cooperate with federal immigration law while insane Counsilwoman Sawant is encouraging leftist radicals to block freeways and airports. Why not? According to this “new normal,” we need only follow laws we agree with, right?

    In an article in, Jacobin Magazine, a socialist publication, Sawant encouraged “non-violent civil disobedience,” disrupting infrastructure by taking over freeways and airports. Okay, let’s say we agree these actions are ostensibly “non-violent.” What if we replace non-violent with depraved indifference? How can you claim a “right” that interferes with another persons true rights? In this case, to go to work, school, home to their families, or get to a hospital ER. Think about the people who call the police or fire departments for criminal, fire, rescue, or medical emergencies? Does she care about the person who’s being robbed, whose house is being burglarized, or who’s having a heart attack? Well, the Washington State Patrol does. It has described her comments as, “irresponsible” and “reckless.” I agree.

    Regarding Murray’s municipal resistance movement, retaining sanctuary city status, the mayor said, “Seattle has always been a welcoming city.” (Not for conservatives, Mr. Mayor). According to His Honor, welcoming people who intentionally entered our country illegally, stepping ahead of all those legal immigrants who are doing it the right way, amounts to some sort of warped, northwest hospitality? Does that mean I’m not a welcoming homeowner because I lock my doors and turn on my house alarm? Do you think Mayor Murray locks his house and car doors or sets his alarms? Oh wait, not only does he do that, but he also has a highly trained police officer, bodyguard to protect him. That seems so—what’s the word—unwelcoming.

    We have gotten to where sitting Seattle politicians are routinely disregarding laws, preventing their cops from enforcing certain laws, or are calling for people to break laws the city administration doesn’t like? Remember, these are the people we elect to make the laws. If politicians don’t like the laws, they are empowered to change them, not free to violate or flaunt them. If local politicians refuse to respect state or national laws, then why should any of us follow any law with which we disagree? Laws are only as effective as the civil society that respects them.

    Is it any wonder that those on the political right and in the middle shake their heads, bewildered at city officials adopting policies intended to violate duly enacted laws? I was a Seattle cop for over two decades. Think there were any laws, policies, or assignments I didn’t like but still had to enforce, adhere to, or complete as ordered? Of course there were. Several years ago, I was assigned to a protection detail for Governor Christine Gregoire. Not only did she and I disagree on nearly everything political, I believed she obtained the office under well-documented, highly dubious circumstances. Yet, I was polite, respectful, shook her hand, and did my duty. I did not “resist.”

    According to the attitude of today’s left, would I be expected to protect a politician with whom I disagree? I shouldn’t enforce laws I don’t agree with? I should—oh, what’s the leftist term—resist leaders they don’t like (Trump) and laws (immigration) they don’t agree with? How many Secret Service agents who protected President Obama agreed with him politically? I’d venture a tiny percentage. Yet, agents did their jobs. They honored their commitment to duty. They got the president safely through eight years in office—as was right and very American.

    On the subject, how many of you think today’s left would support a Secret Service officer who refused to protect Republican President Trump? Why not? They lauded acting Attorney General Sally Yates for countermanding a presidential order–you know, like happens in third-world dictatorships. As for such an insubordinate, if not treasonous, agent, they’d probably put him or her in charge of the DNC. On the other hand, how many of you think today’s left would have condemned me, and called for my firing, if I’d have refused to protect Democrat Governor Gregoire? Yeah, me too.    

  • Seattle’s Bogus Police Consent Decree will Finally Get an Honest Review.

    Leftist news bias–old news, but so true.

    Attorney General Jeff Session recently commented on the eight-year proliferation of federal investigations into local policing. The local news reporter didn’t mention Seattle’s consent decree was controversial, and the DOJ refused to release its methodology. They only reported the flawed DOJ findings.

    Criminal Justice Professor Matthew J. Hickman

    Inexplicably, in 2012, Seattle ignored Seattle U. Professor Hickman’s more comprehensive study, which prompted him, in the Seattle Times, to write, Seattle should, “Call the DOJ’s bluff and demand an apology.” 

    Law enforcement tactics.

    Leftists against law enforcement believe police tactics are wrong just because they don’t like them. Police tactics don’t look good on TV—imagine that!

    Police critics also deems officers “wrong” even if what they did was “right” when they were taught.

    All officers colored with broad liberal brush.

    With their expanding definition, all officers are racist even in incidents when officers violated no policy and broke no laws. In Ferguson, Officer Darren Wilson acted properly, but, the “broad liberal brush” assures Wilson will likely never be a cop again. Where was his Department of Justice? 

    Jeff Sessions replaces anti-cop zealots.

    An Associated Press (AP) article on Foxnews.com reports, Sessions “…has expressed concerns that lengthy investigations of a police department can malign an entire agency.”

    “Public trust?” What a joke!

    The AP reports, “Both the Baltimore Police Department and Mayor Catherine Pugh said a delay would threaten public trust in the process.” What “public?” BLM, supporters, and other cop-haters? The mayor added, “We believe there are reforms needed.” But, whose “reforms?”

    Political whims guide “reforms.”

    The left continues to talk about police “reforms,” but these are not dictated by law enforcement necessity but by political whim—by people who know nothing about good law enforcement. “Reform” often comes in the form of leftist political indoctrination disguised as police training.

    Holder’s DOJ always finds fault with cops—always.

    Former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy offered this formulation in a Newsmax.com article titled, “Ex-US Prosecutor: Holder Racially Biased Against Police:” “McCarthy cited a string of federal civil-rights investigations into some 20 police departments, including Ferguson, Missouri’s, which he said the Justice Department has approached with a presumption of racial guilt.”

    The left’s double-standard is standard practice.

    Procedures exist to modify consent decrees such as Seattle’s. But, Jonathan Smith, an Obama administration attorney says, “… most judges would not be sympathetic to amend an agreement for purely political reasons…” That is literally incredible when you consider the Obama administration inflicted its consent decrees for “purely political reasons.”

    Simple Logic.

    Jeff Sessions said, “It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies.”

    Is that so hard to understand?

  • Seattle’s Anti-Second Amendment City Government: Once again, the ends justify the means and Seattle’s commitment to government transparency is a joke.

    Yet another example of the left’s lack of government transparency and ends-justify-the-means tactics has oozed out of the liberal cauldron of the farcical but hazardous to liberty Seattle city government. An article, “Seattle Gun Tax Fails to Generate Projected Revenue, Succeeds in Burdening Rights,” (NRA-ILA, March 24, 2017), published by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action provides further evidence that, in 2015, Seattle city government proposed a targeted tax on Seattle’s few remaining gun dealerships. Proposed as a so-called “sin tax” because, as Councilman Tim Burgess put it, “It’s time for the gun industry to help defray” the costs of criminal gun violence. What it was, was a poorly veiled attempt to eradicate gun shops in Seattle.

    At least, if the council members admitted that eliminating gun shops within the city limits was their objective, one could respect the political honesty. However, honesty and the left rarely mix. 

    In 2016, I wrote a blog about Seattle gun shop owner Sergey Solyanik. He implored Seattle’s city council members not to enact a tax that would ruin his livelihood and possibly cause him to move his business out of the city (he did relocate from the city). He said, “the data that has been submitted by the proponents [of the tax] is completely fake.”

    The Council didn’t care. After all, Solyanik doesn’t think like they do. That doesn’t make him a political opponent; it doesn’t even make him wrong. It makes him evil. So, he should suffer. The Seattle City Council which voted unanimously for the tax had an end to achieve and this illegal tax was their means.

    Poor Mr. Solyanik was in their way—and, he dared to assert his rights. So, it was necessary that he be crushed under the Council’s jackboots—or Birkenstocks. I mean, why not? Even if the courts eventually declare the tax illegal, which, if you read the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, Washington State Constitution’s Article I § 24, and the state’s preemption statutes, they must, the Council will have achieved its goal: No gun shops in Seattle (I’ll say it again: drug dealers, addicts, and gangsters get more respect in Seattle than law-abiding gun owners and gun dealers do).

    In promoting this anti-gun tax, City Councilman Tim Burgess endorsed ludicrous revenue projections of between $300,000 and $500,000 per year [i.e. “fake data”], which would go to “anti-gun” research at Harborview Medical Center.

    Now, let’s peek at the City’s alleged commitment to government transparency: The City refuses to release the total tax collected. Despite record national and state gun sales, “Burgess confessed, ‘tax payments received by the City were less than $200,000.” Seattle won’t disclose the amount, citing a nonsensical notion of protecting taxpayer confidentiality. By releasing the total amount of tax collected? They must believe Seattleites are stupid. More likely, Seattle’s lefty liberal population doesn’t care when the City Council abridges other people’s rights, provided the government does not violate “their” rights. So, why should the Council worry about government transparency?

    So, revenues fell far short of that projected half-million dollars. In fact, it was less than $200,000. Talk about vague, less than 200K could be anywhere from $199,999 to one cent. I’ll concede it’s probably more than a penny, but how much less than two hundred grand?

    Whatever the results of future court rulings, liberal Seattle government accomplished its goal. It’s unlikely the court decisions will make any injured party (gun dealers) whole. Only by suffering a financial sanction will liberal cities such as Seattle ever cease their destructive drive to turn their citizens and business owners into game pieces on their own social-justice, utopian Monopoly Board. The only way that would occur, and the only way to prevent the City from attempting such nonsense again, is for Solyanik and other victims to sue Seattle’s socialistic ass off. I hope they can. I hope they do! 

  • For Radical Leftists, Anti-racist = Anti-police

    The Left is adept at Orwellian manipulation of language. For example, they’ll tell you they are not “anti-police.” Then they’ll use euphemisms: “anti-police abuse,” “anti-excessive force,” etc.

    Well, in a rare act of honesty and a rage against the adage, “it’s better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak (write) and remove all doubt,” the title of this article proclaims a true belief: Defunding Police—How Antiracist Organizers got Seattle to Listen (Unlike leftists, I’m not going to throw a tantrum or a riot in an un-American attempt to keep you from hearing a message with which I disagree. Please, read it—no, really; you have got to read this crap). It’s important to remain aware of their destructive social message and how radical leftist politicians aid in their successes to the detriment of a free society.

    Antiracist? Not anti-police? Using “anti-police” would have been more honest.

    So, in the radical left’s world, Anti-racist = Anti-police.

    The only thing surprising about this equation is the lack of obfuscation—which is almost refreshing. Like Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, at least this publication, almost, says what it means: being against the police is the same as being against racists because the police are racist. I suppose I could be accused of putting words in their mouths, but how could anyone arrive at contrary conclusion? 

    Police equating to racist, of course, is insulting to cops, but the Left doesn’t like the police. Remember, they aren’t simply opponents who are fed up and have finally gotten up off the couch to protest tyranny; they are the enemies of a civil society. They just hate cops. That seems clear. They fight for policies that put police officers at higher risk because they have no respect for what cops do. They don’t care about police officers most of whom are among the finest citizens of any community. The cop-hater’s warped equation also insults people who think critically rather than ideologically. People who come to conclusions based on empirical facts rather than selecting “facts” that conform to a predetermined, ideological narrative.

    Still, I hesitate to bring attention to such ignorance. But, the sad thing is, political leaders, such as the leftist collective running (ruining) Seattle gives racialist groups such as BLM and BTB (Block the Bunker) far more clout than their destructive ideas deserve. The radical left may riot to shut down their opponent’s right speak, but we truly need to listen to what the Left says, so we can oppose their ideas more effectively. Oppose their collectivist, Utopian myth whenever possible.   

  • Illegal Immigrants: All Lawbreakers Reluctant to Cooperate with Police

    My head hurts—again!

    On a recent news analysis program, a local politician, I think from upstate New York (doesn’t matter; it’s a cookie-cutter, leftist trope), repeated the threadbare, Democrat talking point that illegal immigrants won’t report crimes to police if they’re afraid of being deported. That may be true, but the issue deserves critical thinking to better understand it.

    This politician cited there are “many examples of illegals not reporting crime due to fear of deportation” but listed none. He also said where jurisdictions have a policy of not assisting the federal government with enforcing immigration law, crime goes down. REALLY? WHERE? Certainly, not in sanctuary city Chicago. Again, he mentioned no examples—not one.

    Is he arguing, where the law goes unenforced, crime goes down? Well, having completed a career in law enforcement, I must ask, why do we have any laws? By his logic, get rid of all the laws, and there will be no crime. You know, when I think about it, there is a sick logic here. If murder is not illegal, police won’t be arresting any murderers. This could extend to all crimes, right? Legalize EVERYTHING!  

    As much as I scoff at this notion, mostly because it’s so scoff-worthy, there is merit to the argument that people in the country illegally will resist reporting crime. However, this is a waste of fear for illegals. Otherwise law-abiding, border trespassers have no idea just how safe they are from their local constabulary. Forget the municipal edicts, such as in Seattle, where cops are prohibited from even asking a person about their immigration status. When cops take reports from crime victims, they are interested in the crime, the criminal, and the apprehending of that criminal for that crime.

    In my over two decades on the streets I can’t recall even once asking a victim, or a suspect for that matter, about their immigration status. It never came up. In fact, to those who exhibit, through words or actions, obvious anxiety about their immigration status, cops are much more likely to say, “Don’t worry; we’re not here for that.” Then officers investigate the crime as they investigate any other reported crime.

    Again, those who’ve entered the USA illegally might be hesitant to report crime due to their illegal immigration status. Proponents of this argument have a point. I mean, people wanted for other crimes, murder, bank robbery, rape, assault, fraud, and theft aren’t too interested in reporting crime for the same reason. Okay, entering the country illegally is not a felony, not even a misdemeanor, just a civil infraction (which blows my mind, by the way. Just driving a car with an altered temporary trip permit is a gross misdemeanor, but I digress). So, let’s stay within the civil infraction realm: People with outstanding arrest warrants for failure to respond to civil infractions—traffic tickets, etc.—also might not want to report crimes, either. Right?

    And stop with the berating a criminal justice system that would separate a parent who crossed the border illegally (a violation of federal law) from an American-born child. It happens everyday. Do you think crimes are committed only by childless people? Of course not. Many criminals have children and we don’t see marching in the streets because the mother who wrote fraudulent checks is being “separated” from her children, having been sentenced to eighteen months in prison. What about the dad who was convicted of burglary and will be separated from his children for three years. Guess he should have thought about that, eh? Again, it happens all the time.

    I understand there are nuances here because the crime is considered a minor one. But there’s another part of the problem. Can anyone imagine attempting illegally to cross the border of Russia, China, or even Mexico and not believing you’d be in a great deal of trouble if caught? I can’t. Why should our country be any different. Just because everyone wants to come here. Well, no kidding. But what makes our country so attractive will gradually dissipate if our borders are left wide open. Why is this not common sense? How nice would your house be to live in if you allowed anyone who wanted to (because you have a warm and inviting home) to move in? Not very, comes to mind.

    Let’s use common sense and give our cops a break. I can understand the resistance to the federal government inserting itself into local affairs–they do it too often, and often at the request of the left. But, that’s just it; immigration is not a local affair. United States immigration policy and control is primarily a federal responsibility.

  • Not Everyone Gets a Trophy.

    The leftist activists’ perpetual and obnoxious attempts to impersonate the Tea Party movement bring something to mind. I wonder if the left’s inability to accept an election result stems from the recent decades-long phenomenon hammered into our kid’s psyche: Everyone-gets-a-trophy

    The problem for the left is in an election you must keep score: Whoever wins the most electoral votes becomes president—gets the trophy. There is no trophy for second place. The left didn’t get a trophy, but, it seems, they still feel they deserve one. But, like Democrat President Obama told Republican Senator McCain, “The election’s over.” In that quip, President Obama told us, elections have consequences, losing has consequences. He may have been arrogant, but he was right.

    The left is throwing one big, I’m-taking-my-ball-and-going-home, tantrum. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, for example, doesn’t seem interested in participating as a part of a loyal opposition. She employs vicious hyperbole and irresponsible disengagement, preferring to not even work with the President. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so damaging to the political and social health of our great nation. 

    Democrat leaders want you to believe the leftist malcontents, engaging in violence during demonstration after demonstration, are a minority. That’s true. However, if the Democrats continue to recognize these groups officially despite their violence and disrespect for the First Amendment rights of others, and if the mainstream media continue to project this leftist minority as ordinary citizens who finally got fed up, got up off the couch, and hit the streets to protest some catchall oppression, then this minority of violent agitators, and the so-called “peaceful demonstrators” who provide them cover, will be viewed as more influential and legitimate than they merit. 

    The current administration hasn’t had time to create anything—to do anything–to cause any reasonable person to be “fed up.” To this date, President Trump’s cabinet hasn’t been fully staffed due to Senate Democrat delays.

    Why is the left so upset? What significant thing has the Republican administration done to them, other than win an election? Nothing. Could it be they’re angry they lost and didn’t get a trophy?

  • If Milo Yiannopoulos was Looking for Freedom of Speech, Why Would he Look for it on America’s College Campuses?

    A lot of folks on the political right, in a sincere but misplaced attempt to understand their political opponents, make excuses for their bad (sometimes criminal) behavior.

    “They just don’t understand.”

    “If they only stopped to think about their position…”

    “They don’t know what they’re doing?”

    Sadly, yes they do.

    Last night at the University of California Berkeley we saw the disgraceful behavior of ant-democratic, anti-free speech, anti-American radicals infringing on conservative/libertarian writer, Milo Yiannopoulos,’ First Amendment rights–destroying property and abridging the rights of those who came to hear him speak.

    These people (term applied loosely) are not mere political opponents the leftist media would have us believe. These are militant malcontents who know exactly what they’re doing: attempting to use violence to disrupt our civilized, democratic republic. One sign read, “Be Ungovernable.”  

    Think about it. Conservatives and libertarians often point out that the left needs the right because without the productivity of the right the left would have nothing to redistribute. Conversely, the constitutionalist right does not need the leftist activists, especially the radical left because they contribute nothing. The radicals don’t produce; they consume. These violent lefties don’t create, they destroy. And yet the national media put them forth as rank-and-file Democrats.

    As a retired police officer my heart went out to those Berkley officers obviously restricted from acting appropriately. They were complying with the incompetent direction of political leaders who cling to some romantic notion of the protest culture a la 1960’s. Tacitly or overtly, they allow left-wing crybabies to crush an invited campus guest’s civil liberties and then blame the guest rather than those who infringe on constitutional rights and destroy property.

    Here’s the leftist equation:

    Free speech does not include Hate speech.

    What is hate speech?

    Whatever the left says it is.

    The left blames Yiannopoulos for the threats, violence, and destruction by referring to him as controversial, radical, and divisive; inflammatory, provocative, and of using “hate-speech.” Isn’t this like blaming the rape victim rather than the rapist for being sexually assaulted?

    All of this occurring at the birthplace of America’s campus Free-Speech Movement made famous at Berkeley half-century ago. Many leaders of America’s college campuses have become despicable in the eyes of liberty. It seems Berkeley is now in contention to be the birthplace of the Restricted Speech Movement.