On UC Berkeley's De Facto Limitation on Free Speech

The University of California Berkeley, the self proclaimed home of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, has proven itself to be anything but that of late.  In February 2017, riots broke out to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus.  Conservative campus activist David Horowitz was forced to cancel in early April 2017 because of strictures placed upon organizers for security.

Ann Coulter was slated to speak on April 27th but UC Berkeley Administration officials cancelled Ann Coulter from speaking.  The Young Americas Foundation and Berkeley College Republicans filed suit against the University of California Berkeley and University of California system Chancellor Janet Napolitano detailing how the academicians created de facto limitations on free speech and engaged in viewpoint discrimination.

Nonetheless, organizers supposedly withdrew their invitation for Ann Coulter to speak.  There is some controversy over that because the organizers claim that the University never gave them the room or hall for the event. However, the polemicist used that premise to cancel her appearance on campus despite Ms. Coulter's prior protestations. Sadly, the heckler's veto triumphed, even though Coulter and the College Republicans was solidly within Free Speech rights.  

Even though Ann Coulter was a no-show at Berkeley, riot police still had to prepare for violence from both antifa elements and  clashing counter-protesters. 

Berkeley's reputation on free speech will again be tested later this year as Milo Yiannapoulos is attempting a grand comeback with a multi- Free Speech event on campus. 

UC Berkeley Bungles Free Speech Again

Just over a half century ago, the University of California Berkeley led the Free Speech Movement, which inspired many of the political and cultural changes that started in the 1960s.  Free Speech meant having tolerance for differing opinions and uncomfortable speech.

Today, Berkeley finds itself at the center of the AntiFa movement.  While academics, anarchists and progressive foot soldiers mou-mou the memes about free speech, their actions indicate ideological intolerance and tyranny. In February 2017, black clothed street anarchists rioted around the Berkeley campus to stop Alt-Right polemicist Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking.  


Progressives have also bragged about stopping "Radical Son" turned neoconservative David Horowitz from speaking because of burdensome security concerns and added costs to sponsors and limited the crowd.

Three groups invited Ann Coulter to speak at Berkeley on April 27, 2017.  The University Administration made all sorts of nigglesome demands, such as requiring expensive bonds for security, limiting the talk to students and even demanding that the event occur during the day.  As she was determined not to be the one to cancel, Coulter agreed to all of these "ridiculous"  demands, with the request that any rioting students be expelled.  Still Cal Berkeley Administrative offices sought to cancel the event.

Unlike Yiannopoulos and Horowitz, Ann Coulter is both an established agitating author who can make the television circuit.  So instead of just accepting Berkeley cancelling her speaking event, Coulter took to television to ridicule and challenge the imperial leftist Berkeley chancellor, vowing to go to campus anyways to speak.

After just one day of bad press, Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks backtracked,  In announcing that Coulter's speech could be rescheduled to May 2nd, Dirks wrapped himself around the rhetoric of the free speech movement, but did not specify the secure venue where the event would occur.   

This P.R. recovery move by the Berkeley Chancellor was too clever by half. In seeking to staunch the unflattering image, the date was moved to when there would be no classes held.  Moreover, because of the last minute switcheroo, additional expenses would be incurred.  In addition, Dirks did not check with the inconvenienced speaker.  For her part, Coulter claims that she is unavailable May 2nd and is going to appear anyways on April 27th. 

UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks 

UC Berkeley Chancellor Dirks was slated to resign in August, 2016 because of widespread criticism from the faculty for the way he handled a sexual misconduct claim and budgetary deficits, yet he still remained.  After besmirching Berkeley's reputation for being the bastion of the Free Speech Movement, one wonders why he still has a job. Furthermore, inquiring minds are interest on University of California Chancellor Janet Napolitano's perspective.

Second Amendment Conundrum

It is ironic that American military bases can be considered effective "Gun Free Zones", based upon a Department of Army directive 190-14  in March, 1993.  

Progressive sources are quick to deny that this was an Executive Order by President Clinton.  Surely a Commander-in-Chief whose Presidency was partially premised on moderate gun control would have no sway over their troops./sarc

Delving deeper into the weeds, there is a Department of Defense Memo from February 1992 (during the President George H.W. Bush Administration)  on the issue.  And this general ban on sidearms for non security essential personnel has survived the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama Administrations. 

Unclassified Department of Defense Regulations do not incorporate legislative history to reveal the rationale for the rule.  But considering that the rule did not apply to personnel under combat or whom would be expected to have security duties, it does hint that extra arms were considered unnecessary.

While the motives for the Navy Yard killing of twelve innocent NAVSEA personnel is up in the air two days after the fact, there are other counterexamples to this DOD "Gun Free Zone" policy. 

Makeshift Ft. Hood massacre memorial, Nov. 2009

Even though the Obama Administration persisted in classifying the Fort Dix shooting in November, 2009 to be an instance of workplace violence, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows better.  When the former Army psychologist gunned down thirteen military members while shouting "Allahu Akbar", he is not just "going postal" but engaged in a jihad.  The euphemistically entitled "War on Terror" is an asymmetric example of warfare with non-state irregulars with a world-wide battlefield. 

Consider the Fort Dix Six in 2007 when radical jihadists wanted to kill as many soldiers as possible in New Jersey.   But their convictions were on conspiracy to commit murder, not terrorism.

Then there was attack on the Little Rock Arkansas military recruiter office in 2009 when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (ne Carlos Leon Bledsoe) shot two privates killing one in his attempt to kill as many Army personnel as possible.  Oh, but he was convicted on state murder charges, not terrorism, so perhaps that doesn't count. 

The Obama Administration has been determined to deny the War on Terrorism.  Aside from the spurious classification of the Fort Hood massacre, they have bungled the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012, maintaining that it was prompted by a spontaneous protest over an obscure anti-Mohammad You-Tube video, instead of a coordinated attack on a US compound by an Al Qaeda affiliate.  Then consider former Department of Home Security Head Janet Napolitano's linguistic jihad against using the term "War on Terror" in 2009, when the government was cajoled to refer to terrorist acts as "Man Made Disasters".   

Since military personnel who are certified to carry firearms and are well trained, it would be worth reconsidering why the ban on general military personnel carrying weapons on American military bases continues.  There may be some good reasons which a civilian might not readily consider. But in the cases of the Navy Yard shooting, the Fort Hood shooting and the Little Rock shooting would likely have been mitigated by military members long before security forces quelled the shooter. 

Perhaps the military base "gun free zones" are part of a liberal understanding of the Second Amendment clause "a well regulated militia".

DHS Newspeak and National Security--Help Big Sis' Out

Mini-home malquoted doubleplusungood. Dayorder rectify goodthink for prolefeed bellyfull before Two Minute Hate.

There are times that it just seems apropos to use Newspeak from George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984 to cover the security issues in America, particularly regarding the Department of Homeland Security (Mini-home).

In the early days of the Obama Administration, Pentagon officials were warned not to refer to the Long War or the Global War on Terror but instead to bluster bureacratese “Overseas Contingency Operations”. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to avoid refering to 9/11 or terrorism but preferred such euphemisms as “Man made disasters.” The Obama Administration considered what Major Nidal Hasan in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, where 13 people were killed and 29 injured was not homegrown terrorism or domestic jihad (despite the shooter screaming “Allahu Akbar”) but was a workplace violence incident.

 Alas, this “nuanced” approach is not limited to Newspeak...

  READ MORE at the DCBarroco website.