I Just Graduated From College – And Never Had A Single Conservative Professor

When I arrived at the University of California, Irvine as a freshman, I was looking forward to learning from some of the best and the brightest minds in academia. I figured that as a Finance major in staunchly conservative Orange County, I would get a mix of both conservative and liberal professors from a wide variety of backgrounds and disciplines.

I wanted nothing more than a balanced education, where professors would challenge my preexisting worldview and encourage me to develop both my intellect and my character.

What I found instead was a politically correct indoctrination center masquerading as a world-class university.

After walking across the graduation stage just a few weeks ago, I can say with confidence that I never had a single conservative professor in my entire undergraduate experience. This is not simply wrong; it is antithetical to the entire purpose of higher education.

When I say indoctrination center, I mean it in a literal sense. Make no mistake, the aim of this university, and the rest of higher education around the country, is no longer to develop the mind, heart, and soul of America’s future leaders. My experience, and the experience of millions of my peers across the country, has been one of an outright assault on not just our core values, but on us as human beings.

My freshman year, my fellow students voted to ban the American flag in their offices, deeming it as “hate speech” for having been “flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism.” After international public outrage, the student government wisely reversed their decision.

One of those students who voted to ban the flag was in my African-American studies course, and received a hug and immense praise from Professor Tiffany Willoughby-Herard on the first day of class. I wish I could say that was the worst of it.

Over the next ten weeks, Professor Willoughby-Herard made no attempt to hide her openly Marxist views, referring to the United States of America as a “slave democracy,” and using taxpayer funded class time to hold moments of silence for the supposed victims of police brutality. After referring to all Republicans as having a “life problem,” and claiming that every single non-black person was “inherently racist,” I just shut up and took my B- at the end of the quarter.

When I called out UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman on this conservative persecution at a private event, he stuttered for no less than eight seconds in front of everyone, and gave me a politically correct answer about how some departments are more liberal, and some are more conservative. Ironically, Professor Willoughby-Herard frequently slandered him as “transphobic and anti-black.” It seems as if even the liberal enablers in UC Irvine’s administration have not quite realized the extent of the problem.

Professor Ana Rosas, who teaches in the Chicano/Latino studies department, spent the entire first day asking us one by one why we were taking her class on the U.S./Mexico border, and proceeded to publicly chastise dozens of students for not having politically correct enough answers. She referred to several Latino students as “not truly understanding our struggle,” essentially calling them “not Latino enough” because they were never undocumented immigrants like herself.

After she assigned us five of her own books to read, and directed us to turn in an assignment criticizing the US Border Patrol for arresting violent cartel drug traffickers, I had no choice but to drop the class.

This conservative witch hunt is certainly not limited to the humanities; it has permeated every single department of the school.

In my class on evolutionary biology, Professor Richard Symanski told us that law-abiding gun owners like me were responsible for mass shootings. I was lucky enough to have been filming the class, and caught him on tape recruiting what he deemed as “impressionable freshman” to join the gun control movement, so they could “do something about the Second Amendment.”

This taxpayer-funded professor’s comments should send chills down the spine of any person who understands the importance of our foundational constitutional rights.

These professors do not represent a tiny, extreme minority on our nation’s college campuses. Their fellow professors, students, and administrators vocally support the viewpoints of these out-of-touch zealots who hide under the facade of “education.”

Even as a Finance major, I experienced dozens of professors openly smearing conservatives and their viewpoints. Whether it is a seemingly casual comment slamming our President as an “idiot,” or a more direct assault on America’s core values, there is a culture of harrowing intolerance on these seemingly “tolerant” campuses. If this was my experience, can you imagine that of a humanities major at a school like UC Berkeley?

These fanatical viewpoints are proudly and openly supported by the administration, which simply pays lip service to the notion that there is a shred of intellectual diversity left on campus. The effects of this on our nation’s future leaders could not be worse.

Our taxpayer-funded universities have become a breeding ground for radical anti-American thought, where it is totally acceptable to shut down the free speech of another person if one deems it as “hate speech.”

When the UCI College Republicans hosted Milo Yiannopoulos last June, we had over 50 riot police from three different police departments, who barricaded our building with batons and shields to prevent violent student protesters from storming in. After we hired additional private security at our own expense to protect us from being assaulted or killed by the student mob, UC Irvine suspended our club for an entire year, even though we, along with our lawyers, complied with every administration directive before, during, and after the event.

It seems we got off easy with a simple club suspension. My friends at UC Berkeley had student Antifa protesters throw firebombs at the building they were in to burn it to the ground with them inside. That is now the price to pay for hosting a gay conservative immigrant at a taxpayer-funded university.

I could go on and on.

Our nation’s college campuses have become a war zone, both literally and intellectually. There is a war for the hearts, minds, and souls of my generation, and it is being waged across every campus in America. Even more importantly, this is a war for the future of our country, and the principles upon which it was founded. We will not stand for this erosion of freedom at the hands of a radical, entrenched, vile educational bureaucracy. We will not allow this cancer to metastasize any further.

My experience, and those of my brave conservative peers, will not dictate the future on America’s college campuses. There is a new movement of young campus conservatives who are standing up and fighting for what we believe in, no matter the consequences.

It’s the greatest honor of my life to have been one of them.

While my time at UC Irvine has come to an end, our collective fight for intellectual diversity and free speech in higher education will never stop. Our struggle has made this conversation mainstream, and the American people agree that these radical professors, students, and administrations are not the solution to our problem.

They are the problem.

Original Link via Independent Journal Review

This free market solution can bring internet access to millions in rural America — no taxes needed

The election of President Donald Trump underscored the immense divide between rural and urban Americans. While those in large population centers continue to gain access to better services and opportunities, rural Americans face a diametrically opposite situation. Primarily among those is a lack of basic, affordable broadband internet to tens of millions of rural Americans.

We live in an unprecedented era of digital communications, where rapid access to information at our fingertips is not simply a luxury, but a norm among urban Americans. This exponential expansion of knowledge has unleashed a veritable third industrial revolution — this time, in the digital world.

While those of us reading this piece have certainly reaped the rewards of the information revolution, 34,000,000 of our fellow Americans have been left behind.

Unlike Hillary Clinton’s campaign proposal to spend billions more tax dollars to bring broadband internet to rural areas, new technological developments have paved the way for the free market to deliver an efficient and timely solution to this critical issue.

After the federal government has wasted billions on this matter, isn’t it time we try something different?

One simple change to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules would unleash a flood of private investment into rural areas.

The secret? Use the infrastructure that’s already there.

New technologies allow internet service providers to wirelessly transmit broadband over so-called “low band” frequencies, which are often known as “TV white spaces.” These channels, which generally broadcast under 700MHz, have the potential to deliver quality and affordable internet access to millions.

The FCC previously kept these white spaces to prevent signal interference; however in today’s digital age, they are simply no longer needed. The agency adopted initial rules regulating the use of TV white spaces between low-power channels, but access to many of these channels for millions of rural Americans is still at risk.

This summer, the FCC will decide whether or not to finalize its pending proposal to preserve at least one vacant TV channel in each market, as well as their other rules governing “white space.” If the agency preserves at least three usable “white space” channels in each market, the private sector is ready to begin massive investment in internet technologies for underserved communities.

If the FCC rules against this commonsense proposal, poor Americans will continue to fall behind and lack access to modern technology. Affordable internet access in rural communities will help government to provide more efficient services, enable doctors to improve patient outcomes, and close the urban/rural divide in education.

The FCC has been more than willing to spend billions of your tax dollars to fail to provide internet access to rural Americans. As President Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

This is one of those cases.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, an appointee of President Trump, should immediately remove these onerous regulations, and continue enacting commonsense reform to improve the lives of millions of Americans. It’s not simply the logical thing to do; it’s the right thing to do.

Original Link via TheBlaze

Here’s how bad tax policy affects real people in the real world

Last month, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady outlined his vision to “go bold” with tax reform for the good of the American people. In an attempt to pass the legislation before the August recess started, Chairman Brady admitted that “there may be a need” to adopt part of former Chairman Dave Camp’s 2014 tax reform plan, which prominently features a $169,000,000,000 tax on advertising.

In 1987, Florida’s Republican Gov. Bob Martinez signed legislation which introduced a 6 percent ‘surcharge’ on advertising in an attempt to raise more tax revenue. Advertising spending declined by 12 percent overnight, which cost 50,000 workers their jobs and reduced personal income by $2,500,000,000. To add insult to injury, Florida ended up spending more money enforcing the law than they received in additional tax revenue.

The New York Times reported that Gov. Martinez “suffered political embarrassment in his first year in office by having to shift from ardent support of the tax to advocating its repeal.” After vocal public outrage, the Florida state legislature sensibly repealed the bill within six months of its passing. Ultimately, this free speech tax cost Gov. Martinez his re-election to Democrat Lawton Chiles, who won by a landslide 13-point margin.

While many House Republicans claim to support all forms of free speech, their new proposal to tax commercial advertising represents a crushing blow to not just free speech rights, but also to America’s economic future.

Currently, business owners can deduct their advertising costs like any regular business expense. The proposed legislation would force business owners to amortize 50 percent of their advertising spending over 10 years, which would raise federal revenues by $169,000,000,000.

According to a recent study from IHS Global, advertising is an industry that supports over 20,000,000 American jobs, with the total impact of representing 19 percent of American GDP. Every direct job in advertising supports another 34 jobs across America, while every dollar spent on advertising yields $19 of economic output.

While there is no doubt that this tax would decimate an industry responsible for much of America’s economic growth, it is even more alarming that a GOP-led Congress would even entertain the idea of further restricting free speech.

In 1945, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Thomas v. Collins, which overturned a Texas statute that allowed the state to regulate and control commercial speech. The court argued that “any attempt to restrict those liberties must be justified by clear public interest,” which set the precedent for First Amendment protection of all forms of speech, including commercial speech.

The 1973 ruling in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona reinforced the earlier decision, with the Warren court arguing that Arizona had violated the First and 14th Amendments in restricting commercial free speech. The court went a step further and asserted that commercial advertising “performs an indispensable role in the allocation of resources in a free enterprise system.”

While there is no de jure provision in this legislation to directly limit the speech of advertisers, a $169,000,000,000 tax coming out of the pockets of business owners is a de facto restriction of their First Amendment rights.

This is not just wrong. It is a blatant violation of everything the Republican Party claims to stand for.

The American people deserve fair and comprehensive tax reform, rather than a bill that would kill jobs and further restrict the rights of free speech. If Congressional Republicans truly want to put America First, they would be wise to avoid this short-sighted and foolish measure.

Original Link via TheBlaze

Why President Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Deal

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would put “America First” in the international stage. In November, tens of millions of Americans voted to end the policies of President Obama, which many felt put the interests of the world ahead of their own. President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord doesn’t simply fulfill a major campaign promise; it represents America’s first bold step toward putting the American people first.

Despite the doom and gloom rhetoric from radical environmentalists, the accord would have done almost nothing to prevent any warming. Researchers at MIT stated that the Paris Accord would only reduce temperature rise by 0.2 degrees by 2100, even if every single country in the agreement abided perfectly by the rules.

In 1997, the United Nations organised member countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which aimed to curb global emissions to significantly below 1990 levels. In that time period, global emissions rose by more than 35%.

As we saw with the Kyoto Protocol, even industrialised countries have been largely unable to abide by the agreement. Only a few years after the treaty took effect, Canada announced it would withdraw from the protocol, citing their inability to meet agreed upon emissions targets, and desire to avoid the associated $14B fine. Other countries like Russia also decided to not fulfil their obligations, effectively removing them from participating in the agreement.

According to the United Nations, only 77 of the 193 original signers have ratified the Doha Amendment, which sets emissions targets for 2013-2020. To become international law, 144 countries will need to sign the agreement, which sets emissions standards for less than three more years.

Ironically, Japan, the country where the treaty was initially adopted, announced in 2011 that they would not accept new Kyoto regulations going forward.

A few years after the United States Senate rejected the treaty on a unanimous 95-0 vote, President Bush announced he would refuse to move forward with the Kyoto Protocol, calling it an agreement that would “harm our economy and hurt our workers.” President Bush rightly believed that ratifying the treaty would have little impact on the environment, and would do more harm than good to the United States.

Sixteen years later, President Trump told the American people that the Paris Climate Accord would do more harm than good to the American worker.

He’s right.

According to economist Stephen Moore, since 2005, the United States’ CO2 emissions have decreased by 10%, despite never having ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Another recent study by Heritage highlights the massive benefits of the energy revolution, which has created hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs, lowered energy prices significantly for working families, and increased tax revenues, all while significantly lowering our emissions.

The Paris Accord was not just a veritable death sentence for American jobs. Its strict regulations would have stalled much needed progress on developing clean fuel technologies, which represents the best hope for actionable progress. America’s innovations in clean coal, fracking, and other new technologies represents the future of clean, affordable, global energy, not some unenforceable international resolution.

On November 8, 2016, I did not cast my ballot for Donald Trump, instead opting to select who I felt was a more conservative alternative. While I still maintain some of my original criticisms of the president in certain areas, Trump’s decision to prioritise the American people, despite false and widespread international outrage against his decision, was nothing less than commendable.

According to the Heritage Foundation, a think tank based in Washington DC, the Paris Agreement would have cost the American economy $2.5 trillion dollars by 2035, with a total loss of income of $20,000 for a family of four over the same time period. Household electricity costs would have risen 13-20% more, while nearly 3,000,000 American workers would have lost their jobs.

This agreement would have disproportionately affected the poorest Americans, with no meaningful progress made towards reducing warming. Unlike the Kyoto Treaty, the Paris Accord is just such, an accord. It is not enforceable, and will do nothing to stop the worst polluters.

President Trump’s decision to not sign the Paris Accord was not a retreat from global American leadership; it was a reassertion of it. While leaders of so many countries around the world fail to meet their international obligations, America has forged ahead with a bold vision for energy leadership across the globe. Spreading innovative American energy technology and progress across the globe is the best way to lift up the world’s poor, not token aid payments and unenforceable international agreements.

If we really value people over politics, then President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Accord was the best decision for not just the American people, but for all people.

Original Link via Euronews

The free market is bringing down costs in this area of health care; lobbyists are fighting back

Telemedicine, the remote diagnosis and treatment of patients through telecommunications technology, represents the best hope for access to affordable health care worldwide. New groundbreaking technologies, which allow consumers to receive a remote eye exam and refill their eye prescription from the comfort of their home, are the beginning of a new era in health care innovation.

In typical fashion, big government lobbyists, led by the American Optometric Association (AOA) and Johnson & Johnson, have spent millions of dollars trying to defeat these measures in states like South Carolina, New Mexico, and Nevada, all of which have been quite unsuccessful.

In South Carolina, Governor Nikki Haley vetoed a bill that would have prohibited most uses of ocular telemedicine, saying, “it uses health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry … putting us on the leading edge of protectionism, not innovation.” In Nevada, although lobbyists were originally successful in having Assemblywoman Jill Tolles peddle their legislative wishes, Tolles quickly caught on to their true intentions and pulled the anti-innovation bill from consideration.

In New Mexico, the AOA pestered the state’s legislature until they found two cooperative individuals — Democratic Reps. Deborah Armstrong and Sheryl Williams-Stapleton — willing to put forth a bill that would ban ocular telemedicine in the state. The two bureaucrats went a step further, introducing a bill that would send doctors to jail who use this technology to help their patients.

Why you may ask?

The sole argument against the use of ocular telehealth is that this technology is not safe — a face-to-face encounter is needed from a health and safety standpoint. This is a lie, as even those who use this technology need to go to the eye doctor once every two years for a comprehensive eye exam (ironically, that’s all the AOA recommends, too). They just don’t need to be required to go to the eye doctor every single time a lens refill is needed.

The real reason the AOA and Johnson and Johnson want to put physicians in prison is because it undermines their entire business model, which relies on selling overpriced eyewear to consumers that they often don’t need. Eyeglasses, which frequently cost consumers hundreds of dollars if purchased straight from the eye care professional, can be had for a fraction of the cost if bought outside their offices.

For these reasons and more, the New Mexico bill failed to go into effect; it was quickly vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez.

Last week, the AOA and Johnson & Johnson continued their losing streak in the state of Connecticut, where the legislature passed a bill that allows for online contact prescription renewal throughout the state. Legislators in Connecticut supported the measure because it dramatically lowers costs for consumers and spreads affordable health care access to historically underserved communities.

Other states such as Virginia have passed similar bills, while many more are looking at the possibility of following their lead. After vetoing the bill that would send doctors to jail, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez told reporters, “We should explore new technologies and opportunities to expand the availability of services, not prohibit them.”

She’s right.

Johnson and Johnson and the AOA’s anti-consumer crusade is no better than the taxi cab lobby’s persecution of Uber, which has reduced drunk driving deaths more than any government-funded program could. This is another textbook example of crony capitalists who are trying to use our government for their financial gain to the detriment of the average American.

New technology in ocular telemedicine and beyond represents the best hope for expanded and more affordable health care in America, not another government program that reduces access and affordability. The free market is the catalyst for the real health care revolution in America.

Original Link via TheBlaze

The American Consumer Wins By Dismantling Dodd-Frank

On May 4th, the House Financial Services Committee advanced The Financial CHOICE Act, a bill by Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), which eliminates price fixing and repeals anti-consumer measures in Dodd-Frank. The legislation eliminates the Durbin Amendment, which has saved big retailers nearly $42,000,000,000 since its passage in 2010, with a significant amount coming from low-income households. Hensarling’s bill is a step in the right direction to protect American consumers and small businesses from higher prices and onerous government regulations.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), who introduced the amendment just after the height of the financial crisis in 2010, boasted in an official Senate statement that his bill would give “customers a real chance in the fight against the outrageously high ‘swipe fees’ charged by Visa and MasterCard.”

“By requiring debit card fees to be reasonable, and by cleaning up Visa’s and MasterCard’s worst abuses, small businesses and their customers will be able to keep more of their own money,” Durbin continued, before claiming that his legislation would “restore common sense and fairness to this broken system.”

In the seven years since the amendment’s passage, Durbin’s pet project has wreaked havoc on the American consumer. According to a study by George Mason University, retail prices did not drop after the Durbin Amendment was introduced; instead, it has cost low-income and minority consumers over $8,000,000,000 annually in additional fees.

The Durbin Amendment imposed government price controls on “interchange fees,” which are the fees banks charge retailers for debit and credit card transactions. His amendment was backed by large retail lobbyists, who profited from the reduced retail fees at the expense of banks. After Dodd Frank’s passage, banks passed those costs along to consumers by raising ATM fees, penalties, and more.

According to the Federal Reserve, “few merchants” reduced prices, while a “sizable fraction” increased prices or eliminated the use of debit cards altogether. Since Durbin’s amendment was signed into law, it has caused over 1,000,000 mostly low-income Americans to lose access to their bank accounts and other vital banking and financial services. Durbin’s power grab on the American consumer was based on nothing but lies, and has hurt the very people it was designed to help.

Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC) spoke on the House floor last week to slam the Durbin Amendment as a “violation of a core free-market principle,” arguing “government should not be telling people what they can or can’t charge.” Budd, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, told members, “there’s six to eight billion dollars per year at play here,” before warning members that “a vote to keep the Durbin Amendment is a vote that rests on the idea that members are sure that there is price fixing in the debit card market.”

Rep. Jeb Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act is a critical step to restoring the free market system to the benefit of consumers, and makes good on President Trump’s promise to the American people to dismantle this anti-consumer law.

Original Link via DailyWire

Free speech is alive again because of UC Berkeley

When UC Berkeley administrators caused the cancelation of Ann Coulter’s lecture amid threats of violence, many claimed that this was the end of free speech on our nation’s college campuses. While this event represents a tragic low for First Amendment rights, the international outrage surrounding this incident has ignited a Second Free Speech Movement on America’s college campuses.

This time, it’s led by conservatives.

While academia has been notoriously liberal for decades, the ivory tower has recently taken a further leftward turn as a result of the social justice culture. Unlike liberals such as Mario Savio, who led the campus free speech movement in the 1960s, today’s liberal students and administrators work to shut down any idea they disagree with under the guise of “tolerance.”

As a campus activist who brought Milo Yiannopoulos, David Horowitz, and other speakers to my school, I have experienced the left’s hostility first hand, both from students, and from UC Irvine’s administrators.

UC Irvine administrators did everything in their power to prevent us from bringing Milo to campus and only consented after dozens of riot police from multiple departments agreed to surround the school. After the event drew over 1,000 people for a mere 200 seats, UC Irvine administrators banned the College Republicans from meeting on campus and only rescinded our punishment after massive public outrage. The students who violently tried to shut down our event went unpunished.

If schools like UC Berkeley would rather let masked rioters loot the campus and set it on fire than allow a mainstream conservative like Ann Coulter speak on campus, how can they expect the American public to believe them when they claim to stand up for free speech?

People across the political spectrum are rightly outraged at images of UC Berkeley students burning their own school to the ground, simply because they couldn’t tolerate an opposing viewpoint. Even hard-left progressives like Bernie Sanders and Bill Maher have defended free speech rights on campus, despite strong opposition from millions of their own supporters.

While it’s appalling to see rioters destroy our nation’s college campuses, these extreme actions have shown our country what the campus Left truly stands for. Universities have become a bully pulpit for leftists to spew their ideology to impressionable students on the taxpayer’s dime.

The massive media attention surrounding this incident has been the catalyst for a Second Free Speech Movement across America’s college campuses, led by young conservatives who believe that universities should once again value the free exchange of ideas. These brave activists have started the new free speech movement on the steps of Berkeley’s Sproul Hall, just as Mario Savio did in the 1960s.

With support from conservatives across the country, we can resurrect free expression in higher education. It’s time to stand up and put an end to the silencing of conservative voices on campus.

Original Link via TheBlaze

The American left’s free speech reversal

This piece was written for a European audience

In the 1960s, activists at the University of California, Berkeley started the American free speech movement, where millions of students across the country fought for free speech rights, largely in opposition to American intervention in Vietnam.

In the United States of America, our rights to free speech are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, and more. It has been an important part of our political tradition since our founding, and is one of our most important rights as citizens.

While the vast majority of Americans support robust free speech protections, today’s college students have committed themselves to shutting down all speech they disagree with, in the name of ‘tolerance.’

Sound absurd? It’s because it is.

On American college campuses, students genuinely feel they have a right to not be exposed to ‘offensive’ speech. They demand physical ‘safe spaces’ to protect themselves from opposing views on campus, and work tirelessly to silence speakers, professors, and fellow students with whom they disagree. My generation has even been labeled ‘snowflakes’ for our seeming inability to tolerate ideas contrary to our own.

Students at Berkeley and across the country have also allied themselves with an outside group called ‘Antifa,’ which stands for ‘anti-fascist.’ Even Berkeley’s Mayor, Jesse Arreguin, is reportedly a member of the group, which commits physical violence against their political opponents. Conservative groups have argued the group really stands for ‘Anti-First Amendment,’ due to their violent anarcho-communist platform.

Antifa orchestrated the riots that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech at UC Berkeley, and has threatened to do the same to conservative commentator Ann Coulter, a media personality known for defending Donald Trump. Groups organising the talk have threatened to sue after the school cancelled Coulter’s talk, citing security concerns from student protesters.

This culture of intolerance is not limited to the student body. In fact, school administrations actively encourage this behavior by their support of students’ imaginary right to not be offended. In an era of ‘social justice,’ any idea that diverts from that worldview is immediately labeled ‘racist’ or ‘sexist,’ and therefore must be suppressed and marginalised.

The natural result of this situation is a culture hostile to the very idea of higher education. The university is supposed to be a place where young adults have their ideas challenged, and accept that others may disagree with them, and even hold entirely different outlooks on life. Instead, the university has become a place for so-called ‘social justice warriors’ to promote their narrow worldview to others who already agree with them.

Where is the value in that?

This phenomenon is not limited to America’s college campuses. Outside left-wing groups like Antifa and others also riot and protest to advance their movement, and have been particularly vocal in their opposition to Donald Trump. They argue that any trace of intolerance must be wiped out at all costs, even resorting to violence, looting, and rioting to further their anarcho-communist worldview.

As Noam Chomsky famously said, “Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

Across the United States, left-wing activists are claiming that ‘free speech is hate speech,’ and calling for the outright censoring of any political view that contradicts their own. This is a new low in the American political tradition by any standard.

A campus climate that claims to advocate ‘tolerance’ has everything but that. If we really value free speech and the free exchange of ideas, we must tolerate diversity of thought above all.

Original Link via Euronews

University Of Arkansas To Students: Calling Millennials ‘Lazy’ Is ‘Biased’

The University of Arkansas has recently published a “tip sheet” on inclusive writing encouraging students to avoid describing millennials as “lazy” because it “shows bias by insulting an entire demographic rather than seeking to understand that demographic.” According to school administrators, my generation just has “a different idea of the value of work than other generations.” This politically correct euphemism is not a way to be more tolerant, it is just the latest result of relativism on our nation’s college campuses.

Relativism espouses “that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.” Everything from morality, to logic, to ethics is not absolute, because it is only a result of random occurrences in anthropological history. Under the notion of relativism, anything is true as long as you think or feel that it is true.

The claim that “all truth is relative” is an absolute claim, and is thus self-defeating. Despite this, it’s one of the textbook tools of the Left, because it allows them to claim the moral high ground on almost any issue. On college campuses, liberal students and professors have used relativism to institutionalize their ideology on campus.

After using relativism to redefine what is right and wrong, the Left simply calls anyone who disagrees intolerant, and then shuns them as a moral heretic. On campus, this has created support for safe spaces, free speech restrictions, and the silencing of contrary political opinions. If relativism defines all opposed to it as morally bankrupt, it’s no wonder that school administrators are so often siding with the Left.

The University of Arkansas has decided that in their relativistic world, laziness is not a real thing. It is simply a cultural construct, with a definition that varies from generation to generation. If you don’t feel like studying for finals, you just have “a different idea of studying.” Or if you don’t feel like going to class, you just have “a different idea of learning.”

If the University of Arkansas claims that students are not lazy, and I claim that they are, we are both right under their worldview. This cannot possibly be true.

It’s quite ironic that the University of Arkansas’ motto is “Veritate Duce Progredi,” or “To Advance with Truth as our Leader.” These absurd conclusions are the logical result of a university system which believes that they have the right to selectively define what is true and false, with no regard for what is actually true.

Vero nihil verius, there is nothing truer than truth.

Original Link via DailyWire

Sorry, Salon, But Liberals Are The True ‘Moral Rot’ In America, Not Conservatives.

In a recent opinion piece targeting Speaker Paul Ryan, Chauncey DeVega, a politics staff writer at Salon, decries conservatism as “hostile to members of groups on the lower rungs of the social hierarchy” and the ultimate source of “the deep moral rot at the heart of American society.” DeVega’s baseless criticism of conservatives as elitist, biologically inferior brutes is a desperate attempt to avoid discussing his own ideology’s regressive hostility toward the poor.

Ryan, claims DeVega, “has dreamed of slashing Medicaid since his keg-party days — and that blithe hostility is widespread.” Conservatives, he claims, are biologically wired to “exhibit social dominance and bullying behavior,” with no bigger culprit than Ryan, who “has combined meanness, cruelty and callousness toward the weak and the vulnerable with gross and unapologetic hypocrisy.”

“The bad news is that conservatives’ brains cannot be modified to make them more empathetic and sympathetic toward their fellow human beings,” he writes. “Nor is the harmful messaging and narratives from the right-wing media about poor folks — and ‘the other’ more generally — likely to change in the foreseeable future.”

According to DeVega, anyone who believes in a society that values free markets, less government bureaucracy, and individual liberties is guilty of “greed and a slavish devotion to a revanchist right-wing ideology.” He compares the conservative voting block to “Pavlov’s dogs, seeking out abuse from their masters in the hope that the latter will hurt other Americans even more.”

“Conservatism is a type of motivated social cognition that by its very nature is hostile to members of groups on the lower rungs of the social hierarchy,” which is a function of its “authoritarian tendencies,” he asserts. Because conservatives want to make government smaller and more accountable to the people, DeVega declares that conservatives are conspiring “to take food, shelter and health care away from poor people.”

DeVega’s only criticism of actual conservative thought was the unevidenced claim that right-wing media outlets have maliciously suppressed information about the “success” of the New Deal and Great Society to sway the American public. If “success” is defined by prolonged unemployment and economic devastation in the first case, and the erosion of families and poor communities in the second, then they’ve both been quite successful. No just individual would support an ideology that treats society’s most vulnerable like expendable government serfs, dependent on the state for their basic provisions.

DeVega attempts to use the rest of his piece to blame conservatives for all of society’s ills, from income inequality, to moral decline, to robbing the poor of their “individuality, humanity, and dignity.” Not once does he develop a robust policy argument, instead resorting to ad hominem slanders as a substitute for supporting evidence.

DeVega’s criticism of conservatives as “the deep moral rot at the heart of American society” is a feeble attempt to ignore the reality that he represents the true moral rot. Shifting the blame onto the political right may make him feel better about his own regressive ideology, but it won’t change the facts. If America is really in decline, it’s because of people like him, not because of conservatives.

Original Link via DailyWire