Search Results

PLUM LINE‘S PAUL WALDMAN: Everybody Needs to Stop Telling Hillary Clinton to Shut Up.

You’ve seen the headlines, begging Joe Biden to just give it up and get out of our faces already. “Dems want Joe Biden to leave spotlight,” says The Hill. “Dear Joe Biden, please stop talking about 2016,” says a USA Today columnist. “Joe Biden is back. Should Democrats be worried?” asks The New Republic. “Can Joe Biden please go quietly into the night?” asks a column in Vanity Fair. A Daily News columnist begins his missive with, “Hey, Joe Biden, shut the f— up and go away already.” Folks sure do hate that guy. And all he did was give a couple of commencement speeches and an interview or two.

OK, you’ve probably guessed: Joe Biden wasn’t the subject of all those headlines. In fact, when the former vice president has made noises suggesting he still yearns to sit in the Oval Office, reporters treat it as at worst the understandable desires of a beloved uncle who may have lost a step or two, and at best a tantalizing possibility—despite the fact that Biden ran for president twice, and could barely have performed worse if he had punched out the mayors of Des Moines and Dixville Notch on national television.

No, the target of all that anger and contempt is Hillary Clinton, who has dared to be seen in public on a few occasions since last November, violating some unwritten rule that says that unsuccessful presidential candidates must never be heard from again.

Everybody? The columns cited by Waldman were either written by or were quoting Democrats and lefties. Here on the right, many of us have been encouraging Clinton to make another run at the White House in 2020 — maybe not with the best of intentions, but we certainly aren’t telling her to shut up.

So when did the Left become such a cesspit of misogyny?

SPEAKING OF “PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD,” ANDREW BOLT’S CALL TO INTIMIDATE, HUMILIATE ENEMIES OF FREE SPEECH COMES WITH REAL-LIFE INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO: “I can see the left’s headline: far right extremist loses it when the antifa guys tried to just punch a Nazi. Nothing to do with the left.”

ON THE OLD ROW PODCAST, I talk about higher education, free speech, and how the campus Greek community should “punch back twice as hard.” My part starts at 36:00.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Protesters get more than they bargain for when Andrew Bolt bashes back.

CONTROVERSIAL columnist and TV personality Andrew Bolt has “clobbered” a group of masked protesters who set upon him in Melbourne yesterday.

On his TV program last night, Bolt explained how he was about to launch a book on US President Donald Trump at a restaurant in Carlton, in the city’s inner north, when a woman asked to take a selfie with him.

Before they could take the photo, two masked protesters set upon Bolt, spraying his face and suit with what he described as “sticky liquid with glitter and dye”.

The protesters may have got more than they bargained for because Bolt quickly retaliated, punching one of the attackers repeatedly.

“Bad luck for them, of course; I don’t do running and hiding,” he told his viewers on his Sky News program The Bolt Report on Tuesday night.

The conservative columnist screened security camera footage of the altercation on his show, freezing on the faces of each of his attackers as well as a third man who filmed the ambush.

“Police are now looking for this young man, who will have a big bruise on the left side of his face and another bruise between his legs, for which I apologise, I guess, but I don’t really fight nice if I’m pushed too far.”

Good for him. Lefty violence exists mostly because violent lefties are used to operating with impunity. Don’t let them do that.

A KATHY GRIFFIN AD AGAINST JON OSSOFF IN GEORGIA: A Lesson In Punching Back.

LOS ANGELES TIMES EXPLAINER: What would California’s proposed single-payer healthcare system mean for me?

The framing — in an ostensibly “straight” news explainer — is telling:

Whether you’re insured through an employer, through Covered California or on public programs such as Medi-Cal, as long as you’ve established California residency — regardless of legal immigration status — you would be enrolled in a single plan, which the bill’s backers call the “Healthy California” plan. That would eliminate the need for employer-provided plans and other commercial options.

Michael Lighty, policy director for the California Nurses Assn., put it bluntly: “You’ll never have to deal with an insurance company again.”

Benefits would be generous, including all inpatient and outpatient care, dental and vision care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and prescription drugs. Patients would be able to see any healthcare provider of their choosing.

Older Californians on Medicare would also be wrapped into this plan. The plan envisions using all the existing federal dollars going toward Medicare and Medi-Cal beneficiaries in California in the state’s single-payer model.

But there’s a hitch: The federal government — a frequent punching bag for California Democrats at the moment — would need to grant a waiver to redirect that money.

“The question is: Will the Trump administration approve such a waiver?” Kominski said.

And:

“If you’re paying for health insurance right now through healthcare premiums and cost-sharing, you’d end up paying instead through taxes,” said Micah Weinberg, president of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. “There are some people who at the end of the day will end up paying more, others who will end up paying less.”

“Benefits would be generous.” “You’ll never have to deal with an insurance company again.” “There are some people who at the end of the day will end up paying more, others who will end up paying less.” There’s no real discussion of perverse incentives for illegal aliens and welfare cheats, the effect on the job market of a 15% payroll tax, or whether businesses could afford the proposed 2.3% tax on gross receipts.

So of course, the only real question is whether mean old President Trump would approve of such a wonderful program.

Californians are being thoroughly prepared to vote in single payer, and they just might do it.

KURT SCHLICHTER: Liberals Are Shocked To Find We’re Starting To Hate Them Right Back. “That’s not a good thing, not by any measure, but it is a real thing. Liberals have chosen to coarsen our culture. Their validation and encouragement of raw hate, their flouting of laws (Hi leakers! Hi Hillary!) and their utter refusal to accept democratic outcomes they disapprove of have consequences. What is itself so surprising is how liberals and their media rentboyz are so surprised to find that we normals are beginning to feel about them the way they feel about us – and that we’re starting to act on it. If you hate us, guess what? We’re going to start hating you right back. . . . We don’t like the new rules – I’d sure prefer a society where no one was getting attacked, having walked through the ruins of a country that took that path – but we normals didn’t choose the new rules. The left did. It gave us Ferguson, Middlebury College, Berkeley, and ‘Punch a Nazi’ – which, conveniently for the left, translates as ‘punch normals.’ And many of us have had personal experiences with this New Hate – jobs lost, hassles, and worse. Some scumbags at an anti-Trump rally attacked my friend and horribly injured his dog. His freaking dog.”

And don’t miss his new novel, Indian Country, out today.

KURT SCHLICHTER: Liberals Are Shocked To Find We’re Starting To Hate Them Right Back.

Cue the boring moralizing and sanctimonious whimpering of the femmy, bow-tied, submissive branch of conservatism whose obsolete members were shocked to find themselves left behind by the masses to whom these geeks’ sinecures were not the most important objective of the movement. This is where they sniff, “We’re better than that,” and one has to ask ,“Who’s we?” Because, by nature, people are not better than that. They are not designed to sit back and take it while they are abused, condescended to, and told by a classless ruling class that there are now two sets of rules and – guess what? –the old rules are only going to be enforced against them.

We don’t like the new rules – I’d sure prefer a society where no one was getting attacked, having walked through the ruins of a country that took that path – but we normals didn’t choose the new rules. The left did. It gave us Ferguson, Middlebury College, Berkeley, and “Punch a Nazi” – which, conveniently for the left, translates as “punch normals.” And many of us have had personal experiences with this New Hate – jobs lost, hassles, and worse. Some scumbags at an anti-Trump rally attacked my friend and horribly injured his dog. His freaking dog.

So when we start to adopt their rules, they’re shocked? Have they ever met human beings before? It’s not a surprise. It’s inevitable.

It’s also inevitable, or nearly so, that the Left won’t enjoy the end result if they continue down their path of violence.

A BOLD STATEMENT FROM JIM TREACHER: It’s Wrong To Physically Attack People For What They Say, Even If They Disagree With You.

That’s true. And Gianforte shouldn’t have body-slammed the reporter as has been reported. (And though there were some conflicting accounts, that seems to be what happened, and he’s already been charged with misdemeanor assault.) Contrary to a lot of what we’ve been hearing, it’s not okay to punch (or body-slam) your political opponents just because of what they say.

On the other hand, the sanctimonious claims that this is where “Trumpism” has led us ring rather hollow in the face of Democrats’ cheering of punching political foes, not to mention the ho-hum treatment given to more serious violence in places like Berkeley and Middlebury, where the immediate arrest and charges seen in the Gianforte case didn’t take place. (And, in Berkeley, the mayor was actually a member of the “protesters'” Facebook page, and told police to hang back during the riot).

I’d like to live in a society where people don’t punch people for what they say. But we don’t live in such a society, apparently. For noting this, I’ve been charged on Twitter with “whataboutism,” which apparently is a synonym for “pointing out hypocrisy.”

And this is a good take on the sanctimony:

But to be clear, my problem is not with people saying that body-slamming a reporter is wrong. It is. Rather it’s with the predictably hypocritical nature of the outrage. One might almost say that the political class is happy to wink at political violence, until it affects one of their own.

One of the things I really don’t like about following news and politics on a daily (hourly?) basis for so long is how cynical I’ve become about this sort of thing. I’d rather not feel this way, but it’s pretty hard to escape, given the realities.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that this mess is bad for both parties in a way. Dems have been desperate for a special-election win that will show a wave is building against Trump, but if they win here, they’ll have trouble portraying it as such given that they beat a guy who bodyslammed a reporter the day before the election. On the other hand, if the GOP wins, they’re stuck with this guy in Congress. Or they have to get him to resign, or refuse to seat him, which has problems of its own.

MORE: Although there’s been some talk of not seating him if elected I doubt that will happen. It’s pretty clearly barred by Powell v. McCormack, which says that the only thing the House can consider on seating a Representative is whether he/she meets the constitutional requirements to serve, and I doubt there are the votes in the House to do it anyway.

EVERGREEN HEADLINE: The American Left Is Talking Itself Into Violence — The recent violence that’s marked our college campuses is seeping into the rest of society, and the vast majority of it comes from the intolerant Left.

On March 18th, 1968, Bobby Kennedy told the students at Kansas State University:

As Kennedy began [to speak at Kansas State U.], his voice cracked, and those near the stage noticed his hands trembling and his right leg shaking.After praising [Al] Landon’s distinguished career, he said, “I am also glad to come to the home state of another great Kansan, who wrote, ‘If our colleges and universities do not breed men who riot, who rebel, who attack life with all their youthful vision and vigor then there is something wrong with our colleges. The more riots that come on college campuses, the better the world for tomorrow.’ ” …

At first he seemed tentative and wooden, stammering and repeating himself, too nervous to punctuate his sentences with gestures. But with each round of applause he became more animated. Soon he was pounding the lectern with his right fist, and shouting out his words.

Rene Carpenter watched the students in the front rows. Their faces shone, and they opened their mouths in unison, shouting, “Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!”

Hays Gorey, of Time, called the electricity between Kennedy and the K.S.U. students “real and rare” and said that ” .. John Kennedy … himself couldn’t be so passionate, and couldn’t set off such sparks.”

Kevin Rochat was close to weeping because Kennedy was so direct and honest. He kept telling himself, My God! He’s saying exactly what I’ve been thinking! ..

Kennedy concluded by saying, “Our country is in danger: not just from foreign enemies; but above all, from our own misguided policies–and what they can do to the nation that Thomas Jefferson once said was the last, great hope of mankind. There is a contest on, not for the rule of America but for the heart of America. In these next eight months we are going to decide what this country will stand for–and what kind of men we are.”

He raised his fist in the air so it resembled the revolutionary symbol on posters hanging in student rooms that year, promised “a new America,” and the hall erupted in cheers and thunderous applause.

As he started to leave, waves of students rushed the platform, knocking over chairs and raising more dust. They grabbed at him, stroking his hair and ripping his shirtsleeves. Herb Schmertz was left with a lifelong phobia of crowds. University officials opened a path to a rear exit, but Kennedy waved them off and waded into the crowd …

Or as a rather prominent far left community organizer said in various speeches to his constituents decades later, punish your enemies, If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, get in their faces, and punch back twice as hard, I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry, etc.

I THINK WE SHOULD JUST SHUT IT DOWN: Wrestling With the NFL’s Violence Problem.

Suppose you’re considering a job applicant who seems to check all the right boxes. He has the skills you’re looking for. He has accolades from experts in the field. It’s obvious that he can be of enormous help to your company. Then, in the course of your background check, you learn that he is facing accusations of sexual assault. What do you do?

If you’re an ordinary employer, you go to the next applicant on your list. If you’re the National Football League, you roll out the red carpet.

That’s at least one potential lesson from this past weekend’s NFL draft. In the first round, the Oakland Raiders drafted Gareon Conley, who has been accused of rape. In the second round, the Cincinnati Bengals selected Joe Mixon, who in a much-viewed video punches a woman so hard that she falls down unconscious. In the sixth round, the Cleveland Browns selected Caleb Brantley, who was accused of doing pretty much what Mixon did. And they are not the only drafted players who face or have faced such charges.

Of course not every accusation is true. The players might turn out to be innocent. (Well, not Mixon, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and reached a civil settlement with the victim.) But most employers would nevertheless tread warily, no matter how much talent the prospective hire might bring. Yes, there is a certain unfairness in punishing would-be employees who have been convicted of no crime. On the other hand, a business has reputation and morale to worry about.

The NFL is different.

Well, they don’t call it the National Felons’ League for nothing.

MIGHT AS WELL DEFUND HIGHER EDUCATION. IT’S FAILED. Intimidation Is the New Normal on Campus. From now on, any speaker who arouses a protest is at risk of a beating.

Punch back twice as hard.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD? White House unveils dramatic plan to overhaul tax code in major test for Trump.

White House officials are ambitious, but the path to overhauling the tax code is riddled with political land mines. Many budget experts say they believe the White House’s plan would reduce federal revenue by so much that it would grow the debt by trillions of dollars in the next decade, growing interest costs and slowing the economy.

And Trump’s advisers are looking to ax some tax breaks that are very popular in certain states, including the deduction Americans take for the state and local taxes they pay separately each year. Eliminating this deduction could save more than $1 trillion over 10 years but inflame lawmakers and governors in states that have high income tax rates.

Those high-tax states tend to vote for and be run by Democrats, and I seem to remember advice from the previous president about punishing enemies.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: It’s official: Berkeley hit with lawsuit over Coulter lecture.

The University of California, Berkeley was just slapped with a lawsuit over its mishandling of Ann Coulter’s scheduled lecture on campus.

Young America’s Foundation (YAF) and the Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) filed a suit in federal court suing the school for violating their rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection on Monday. The suit, which is available on YAF’s website, names several Berkeley administrators along with University of California President Janet Napolitano as defendants.

“Though UC Berkeley promises its students an environment that promotes free debate and the free exchange of ideas,” the suit says, “it had breached this promise through the repressive actions of University administrators and campus police, who have systematically and intentionally suppressed constitutionally-protected expression by Plaintiffs … simply because that expression may anger or offend students, UC Berkeley administrators, and/or community members who do not share Plaintiffs’ viewpoints.”

Citing the school’s adherence to its vague “high-profile speakers” policy, the suit charges Berkeley with applying the policy in a way that discriminates against conservative speakers.

Since that’s clearly true, they should have a strong case.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Student Sues College, Ex, and NYPD for Acting on Spurious Rape Claim.

ZOMBIE ON THE BATTLE FOR BERKELEY: “Antifa got their asses kicked, and were literally driven from the park and fled. Ooooooh, dearest me, right-wingers threw punches! Let us clutch our pearls! But that’s the point. People’s patience was used up. Saturday’s punches were in response to YEARS of being punched and not being allowed to fight back.”

Read the whole thing.

As David French writes at NRO in “The Battle of Berkley:”

We are now teetering on the edge of a truly terrifying incident, one trigger-pull away from a slaughter. Campus and urban progressives have a choice to make. Is this a nation of laws? If it is, then it’s time to grow a backbone, protect free speech, punish rioters, and expel those who disrupt the educational environment regardless of ideology. There should be no more sympathy or leniency for the lawless social-justice warrior than there is for the lawless neo-Nazi.

Every single time the progressive establishment ignores, minimizes, or whitewashes leftist violence, it sows the wind. Americans have watched mobs attack police and burn buildings in Baltimore, Ferguson, Charlotte, and Minneapolis. They have watched mobs riot over politics and free speech in Middlebury, Berkeley, Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Is anyone at all shocked that when the police hang back, others will step into the void? Leftists are fond of saying “violence begets violence.” If we don’t restore the rule of law, we’ll all find out just how right they are.

The Tea Party was a peaceful protest made up of plenty of middle-aged men and women who saw themselves called Nazis and racists by the Cathedral for their efforts at reforming Big Government. Trump’s core supporters are made of tougher stock – and they know the DNC-MSM’s narrative is pre-written, no matter what happens. No one can say they’re surprised at this past weekend’s news. (OK, maybe the wedgies, though.)

Earlier: “Funny, you never see these freakouts at trade schools.”

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Wrongfully Expelled Student Hauls Elite College Into Court.

JONATHAN ADLER: Thoughts on the judicial nominations mess and nuclear fallout.

How did we get here?

In my opinion, the story of judicial nominations over the past 30 years is a story of repeated, escalating retaliation. Instead of tit-for-tat, it’s been (tit+X)-for-tat. At each turn, each party has escalated as much as it thought it could get away with, tearing down norms and breaking precedents over again. Put another way, senators from both parties have acted like two kids in the back seat of a car, taking turns hitting each other, with each “punching back twice as hard.” After trading enough blows, how it started is almost irrelevant.

Different people trace the beginnings of this current cycle of retaliation to different points. In my view, it began in the mid-1980s, when Senate Democrats decided that they should do more to oppose President Ronald Reagan’s nominees because they were too ideological — a decision that was reported in The Post at the time. I explain this and discuss what happened since in this post from 2013. Whether Senate Democrats were justified in their action is irrelevant at this point, as it’s been almost all downhill since. There are no clean hands.

2013, of course, is when Reid invoked the so-called nuclear option (a.k.a. the #ReidRule).

And now Republicans are invoking it back. The big problem is that nobody trusts anybody to keep promises made when they’re out of power once they’re back in power, and they’re right not to.

But as Adler notes, this makes it easier for Presidents to pick a wider range of nominees, which is good.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Freedom Watch files ethics complaint against Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). He must recuse himself immediately. The precedent has already been set. This investigation is too important to be sullied with the involvement of members with an ethics complaint hanging over their heads.

I EAGERLY AWAIT PAUL KRUGMAN’S BRUTAL CONDEMNATION OF THIS SORT OF ELIMINATIONIST METAPHOR. Coffee shop taking heat for politically-charged loyalty cards:

A Pittsburgh coffee shop is brewing up backlash over a loyalty punch card featuring pictures of President Donald Trump and other conservatives.

Black Forge Coffee House owner Nick Miller says the satiric cards are meant to express frustration with the system and nothing more. However, critics complain the punch holes make it look like the politicos have been shot in the forehead.

The subjects include Vice President Mike Pence, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and conservative pundits Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.

Store owners say the cards aren’t meant to endorse violence.

But why should we believe them? We all know how dangerous eliminationist metaphors can be – and how racist.

BLACK BLOC TYPES ATTACK A TRUMP RALLY, things go badly for them. “The protesters wore masks and some were tackled, punched and kicked. One man who was beaten ended up jumping over a fence and running toward officers in an effort to get away from the crowd. One protester, who wore his mask on camera, said it was a dangerous situation for them to be in.”

It started when they pepper-sprayed the Trump supporters. That’s a tactic they’ve used before, but like most of the Black Bloc stuff, it’s a tactic designed for people who won’t fight back. I predict such people will become scarcer. Lots of photos here.

A supporter of President Donald Trump, center, clashes with an anti-Trump protester, bottom center, in Huntington Beach, Calif., on Saturday, March 25, 2017. Violence erupted when a march of about 2,000 Trump supporters at Bolsa Chica State Beach reached a group of about 30 counter-protesters, some of whom began spraying pepper spray, said Capt. Kevin Pearsall of the California State Parks Police. (AP photo and caption.)

THE PRICE OF BEING THE MINORITY PARTY: Dems Still Smarting Over Garland Snub on Gorsuch’s First Hearing Day.

During the opening day of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, Democrats consistently noted the GOP’s refusal to provide Garland due consideration. While several expressed their intent to keep an open mind regarding the Gorsuch nomination, several cast a shadow over his prospects because of the handling of Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., nominated by then-President Obama to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Scalia seat has been vacant for more than 13 months as a result of the Garland snub. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the former committee chairman, said the “unprecedented obstruction” by Republicans of the Garland nomination “is one of the greatest stains on the 200-year history of this committee.”

“This was an extraordinary blockade and one backed by then-candidate Donald Trump,” Leahy said. “Committee Republicans met behind closed doors and declared that they would surrender the independence of this committee to do the majority leader’s bidding, and they ignored the Constitution in the process.”

If Senate Democrats need a reminder about what it means to be the minority, perhaps employing the Reid Option would do the trick.

UPDATE: Commenter Jukin writes, “If the donks are pissed at the republicans using the ‘Biden Rule’ they will absolutely livid when the republicans use the ‘Reid Rule.’

“Leftists hate, more than usual, when we use their tactics against them.”

Punch back twice as hard, the wise man once said.

LE PEN IS NOT MIGHTIER AFTER ALL: Macron on Top After First Presidential Debate of French Race.

Emmanuel Macron, a 39-year-old running for office for the first time, parried attacks from both ends of the political spectrum as he navigated questions on the economy, terrorism and immigration.

Voters are still getting to know Macron who’s been in the public eye for less than three years, so the stakes were high in front of a television audience of almost 10 million. Two snap polls judged the rookie candidate, who has the backing of no established party, the most convincing and markets rose as he stopped the National Front’s Marine Le Pen from landing a knock-out punch.

“Macron managed quite well,” said Bruno Cautres, a political scientist at SciencesPo in Paris. “The challenge for him was to show that he wasn’t just the new and inexperienced one, to show he has the depth and the skills.”

The euro strengthened against most of its major peers after the debate.

Then again, this is a bad time to be making predictions about politics.

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ONCE ADVISED, GET IN THEIR FACES AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Trump goes after Snoop Dogg’s assassination video, tweeting, “Can you imagine what the outcry would be if Snoop Dog, failing career and all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama*? Jail time!”

Good for him – it was a mistake for President Bush to have waited until leaving office to comment on Kanye West’s racism and slander that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” during a Katrina fundraiser airing live on NBC. (And note that NBC’s Matt Lauer tried to argue with Bush and play gotcha games when the former president declared it “a disgusting moment.”) In contrast, if the DNC-MSM indulged Obama commenting endlessly on pop culture, there’s no reason why Trump can’t push back against the “assassination fascination” of the left.

* To be fair, Obama embraced and personally met at the White House with rappers who featured eliminatonist imagery on their album covers, just as long as the political target in question wasn’t him.

I’M GUESSING SCOTT ADAMS WOULD UNDERSTAND: What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders? A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered. . . .

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you. . . .

I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, “I kind of want to have a beer with her!” The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.

So switching genders basically allowed Democrats to see clearly.

THE DEEP STATE STRIKES BACK: House intelligence chair claims top Obama official leaking to media on Trump.

The House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes on Sunday accused Obama-era officials, who are working for President Trump until his administration is staffed up, of illegally leaking intelligence and other reports to the media in an attempt to hurt the Republican leader.

“I think there is a lot of innuendo out there that the intelligence agencies have a problem with Donald Trump. The rank and file people that are out doing jobs across the world — very difficult places — they don’t pay attention to what is going on in Washington,” the California representative told CBS “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson.

“What we have is we do have people in the last administration, people who are burrowed in, perhaps all throughout the government, who clearly are leaking to the press,” Nunes added. “And it is against the law. Major laws have been broken. If you believe the Washington Post story that said there were nine people who said this, these are nine people who broke the law.”

Start naming names and punching back twice as hard.

DO BEAR IN MIND THAT IT’S ALSO OKAY TO PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD, IN OBAMA’S MEMORABLE FORMULATION: Now It’s Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians. That Escalated Quickly. “So how’s that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it’s okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it’s okay to punch people who aren’t Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis. Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn’t punch them. You know those slippery-slope arguments people are always rolling their eyes at? Well, there’s the slippery slope for you. And we’ll be normalizing a whole lot of violence as we slide.”

You don’t want to normalize violence, lefties. You won’t like it when violence is normalized.

Related: Daily Californian: Conservative Speech Will Not Be Stifled By Violence.

THE HILL: Right set to fight back on town hall protests.

For the past three weeks, Democratic protesters have swarmed Republican town hall events across the country, booing, shouting down and trying to embarrass GOP lawmakers seeking to gut ObamaCare.

In the coming weeks, grassroots conservatives will be fighting back.

FreedomWorks, the Tea Party-aligned outside group, beginning next month will be organizing rallies and urging its nearly 6 million activists to turn out at town hall events to ensure members of Congress are also getting an earful from ObamaCare detractors.

“There will be more grassroots hand-to-hand combat than we’ve seen in Washington for a long time,” FreedomWorks President and CEO Adam Brandon said Monday during an interview in his office near the Capitol.

“The conservative [lawmakers], they need to see us out there pushing. And if they see that, they’ll be bold,” he continued. “If they don’t see grassroots there on the ground, they’ll start slipping.”

FreedomWorks will stage an ObamaCare repeal rally on Capitol Hill on March 15 with speeches from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other top conservative allies.

From there, activists will descend upon congressional offices to press lawmakers to move quickly on ObamaCare. FreedomWorks officials are rallying behind a longshot replacement bill authored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would eliminate many central elements of President Obama’s healthcare law, including the mandate that every American has coverage.

The so-called “Day of Action” will be followed by a phone-call campaign to lawmakers’ offices, plus rallies in targeted congressional districts across the country.

Punch back twice as hard, as our Lightworker former president said.

WELL, SOCIOLOGISTS. A Sociologist’s View Of Free Speech.

That Katherine Cross’ last post was “Why Punching Nazis Is Not Only Ethical, But Imperative” shouldn’t put you off of reading what this sociologist, transfeminist, has to say about free speech. After all, who better to explain the Constitution?

Cross’ post takes liberals to task for ruining free speech by supporting it as a principle rather than a weapon to be used for, and against, evil. . . .

The problem for us is that impressionable people will not be put off by the obvious social justice dog whistles, the devolvement into tropes and logical fallacies, the flagrant mischaracterizations. Hold on to your brain cells, because this is a ride that needs to be taken to appreciate why people will take to the streets, engage in violence, all the while believing that they are the fighters for justice. They mean well, but this is the tripe they’re fed. And they like it.

Punch back twice as hard, as our Lightworker former president said.

YOUNG PIONEERS: Socialist Student Group Teaches How to Beat Up Trump’s ‘Fascists’

A wise man once said something about punching back twice as hard.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: GOP Uses Schumer’s Words Against Him:

Senate Democrats are in a rough spot.

It’s embarrassing enough that they have to fight Neil Gorsuch, a Supreme Court nominee whom they once unanimously supported. But now they must defend a position they spent all of last year blasting as indefensible.

Now Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has the unfortunate task of explaining his double standard. Somehow, he must show why leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant was wrong for Republicans but suddenly right for Democrats. It’s a tough job.

And Republicans aren’t making it any easier. They’ve launched a new supercut video of Democrat statements, interviews, and speeches protesting the way Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., treated Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

It’s a good primer on the strategic dangers of invoking principle in defense of naked politics.

Here’s the video:

IT’S JUST CALLED FASCISM: Beware The Rise Of Left-Wing Authoritarianism.

There were punches thrown, limos set ablaze, and windows smashed amid violent protests in D.C. the day of President Trump’s inauguration. But in Seattle the fury led to a shooting, as leftist radicals tried to shut down a speech by Breitbart.com tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos. A 34-year-old man suffered what sources described as a “life-threatening” gunshot wound to the abdomen. He was taken to Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center in critical condition.

A suspect has been arrested, but police have yet to say anything about his background or the context of the shooting. (Early reports described the shooter as a 50-year-old Asian male.) The bloodshed occurred when crowds that had been protesting Trump converged on the University of Washington campus to redirect their rage at Yiannopolous. A heavy police presence ensured that the speaking event went ahead, as protests continued outside. Yiannopolous interrupted his talk when word of the shooting broke. Then he resumed, saying, “If we don’t continue, they have won.”

Whether the shooting was politically motivated or simply a spontaneous act inspired by the charged atmosphere of the protests, the radicals who have created these conditions should pause to think about blowback. Sensible progressives and middle-of-the-road liberals should also ask themselves some tough questions about whether they oppose political violence and censorship half as much as they abjure Trump. If they do, they should be even more quick than conservatives to condemn what has been happening from D.C. to Seattle.

There is an obvious irony in the use of brownshirt tactics by people who think of themselves as “anti-fascist.”

Oh, it’s more than ironic. But yeah.

screen-shot-2017-01-21-at-9-02-13-am

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: So I just got this letter from Trump’s transition team:

On January 16, 2017, CNN broadcast a story by Manu Raju, titled “First on CNN: Trump’s Cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it”, which omitted facts and drew conclusions in an effort to attack President-Elect Donald Trump’s designee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price.

The facts were available to CNN through House Financial Disclosure Filings. Dr. Price’s position on the Comprehensive Joint Replacement demonstration, which date back to fall 2015, is also a matter of public record.

The facts are:

• Dr. Tom Price has a diversified portfolio with Morgan Stanley in a broker-directed account. The portfolio includes both health care and non-health care related stocks.
• Dr. Price’s Morgan Stanley financial advisor designed his portfolio and directed all trades in the account. Pursuant to the arrangement with Morgan Stanley, the financial advisor, and not Dr. Price, has the discretion to decide which securities to buy and sell in his account.
• Dr. Price’s financial advisor periodically rebalances his portfolio to ensure proper diversification. On March 17, 2016, Morgan Stanley undertook a comprehensive rebalancing of Dr. Price’s portfolio. In the course of that rebalancing, the advisor purchased 26 shares of Zimmer Biomet, worth $2,697.74, on behalf of Dr. Price.
• Dr. Price learned of the purchase of Zimmer Biomet on April 4, 2016, when his financial advisor sent him a list of trades to be disclosed on his House Periodic Transaction Report (PTR).
• Dr. Price submitted the PTR reflecting the March trades on April 15, 2016.
• Dr. Price began work on his legislative effort to delay the comprehensive joint replacement demonstration project in 2015 in order to preserve treatment options for patients. He sent a Dear Colleague letter regarding this effort on September 21, 2015.

The Presidential Transition Team requests that CNN retract this blatantly false story.

Here’s more from The Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Law professor gets a traffic-camera ticket. Hilarity ensues.

I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one. “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”

Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.” This surprised both of us. It also surprised the judge, who looked up from his desk for the first time. A police officer had just testified under oath that he perjured himself in service to a city government and a mysterious, far-away corporation whose officers probably earn many times his salary.

The city then rested its case. I renewed my motion to dismiss, which the judge immediately granted.

Vindication! Well, sort of. When I tried to recover my doubled appeal bond, I was told that the clerk was not authorized to give me my money. Naturally, the law contains no procedure for return of the bond and imposes on the court no duty to return it. I was advised to write a motion. Weeks later, when the court still had not ruled on my motion, I was told I could file a motion asking for a ruling on my earlier motion. Bowing to absurdity, I did so. Still nothing has happened now several months later.

Why This Matters

Traffic camera laws are popular in part because they appeal to a law-and-order impulse. If we are going to stop those nefarious evildoers who jeopardize the health of the republic by sliding through yellow lights when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones, then we need a way around such pesky impediments as a lack of eyewitnesses.

Yet traffic cameras do not always produce probable cause that a particular person has committed a crime. To get around this “problem” (as a certain law-and-order president-elect might call it), several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process.

It’s all about money.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Trump rips John Lewis: Worry about your ‘crime infested’ district. “Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk – no action or results. Sad!”

ALL THIS AND WORLD WAR II:

Anne Frank’s stepsister compares Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.

—Headline, CNN.com, January 27, 2016.

Anne Frank Center: Trump’s ‘Nazi’ quip insults Holocaust survivors.

—Headline, Yahoo News, yesterday.

Well yes, it does. But so did all of the Godwin-violating insults from the left last year comparing Trump to Hitler, which culminated nearly 75 years’ worth of such tactics by Democrats, beginning with FDR and Harry Truman. It’s not surprising that finally, as Scott Adams wrote yesterday on Trump’s “Nazi quip,” “The Master Persuader Scrambles the Frame.”

You can almost hear the left saying it: How dare the president-elect call us Nazis — only we’re allowed to call the other side Nazis! Evidently, they believed that their scorched earth tactics, so effective against first Hillary and then McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, would have been sufficient against Trump, and then conveniently forgotten afterwards, until needed for the next presidential election, and in the interim, Democrats would go back to pretending they’re obsessed with fairness, civility, tolerance, and unicorn flatulence. Or if Trump somehow managed to win, he’d play by Marquess of Queensberry rules in DC. Something tells me that his memory won’t be very short, and that he’ll act like a Democrat himself when it comes to getting in his enemies’ faces and punching back twice as a hard, to paraphrase a famous community organizer.

This isn’t a political culture — or media “overculture” — that I wanted to see, but it’s one that the left created and wrote the rules for long ago; and thus, to coin a phrase, chose their eventual destructor.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Student Cleared of Rape Sues University, Accuser:

The case against him was dismissed in September 2016 in Monroe Superior Court because of insufficient evidence.

This week, Farrer filed the federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court here, saying he was defamed and was a victim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also alleges his constitutional rights were violated.

“IU engaged in a gender-biased investigation of Farrer, which culminated in Farrer’s unlawful expulsion from IU,” his complaint states, adding that he was not afforded due process.

Named defendants include his accuser, Indiana University, the school’s assistant director, associate dean of students, deputy Title IX director, Title IX deputy investigator and other school staff.

The Indianapolis Star and USA TODAY typically do not name people who are or may have been victims of sexual assault. Farrer and his accuser were not immediately available for comment.

The 76-page complaint states that the defendants violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 “by creating a gender biased, hostile environment against males, like Farrer, based in part on IU’s pattern and practice of disciplining male students who accept physical contact initiated by female students but failing to discipline female students who engage in the same conduct.”

He alleges that male students are not provided due process in sexual-assault investigations. He said the rape allegations against him were taken as truth from the outset, adding that the university didn’t want to embarrass the accuser or receive negative publicity.

How’s that working out for them?

EVEN THE WAPO IS AGHAST AT OBAMA’S PARTING FUCK-YOU TO ISRAEL: The Obama administration fires a dangerous parting shot. “Israeli officials charged that the abstention represented a vindictive parting shot by Mr. Obama at Mr. Netanyahu, with whom he has feuded more bitterly than he did with most U.S. adversaries.”

Related: Obama’s Anti-Israel Tantrum: The U.N. resolution is a defining act of Obama’s Presidency. “It defines this President’s extraordinary ability to transform matters of public policy into personal pique at adversaries. And it defines the reality of the international left’s implacable opposition to the Israeli state.”

Meanwhile we’re supposed to worry about Trump. Plus: “For Donald Trump, meet your State Department. This is what State’s permanent bureaucrats believe, this is what they want, and Barack Obama delivered it to them.”

And look at the pic of Samantha Power accompanying the Post piece. The failure, and resulting bitterness, of the last eight years are written all over her.

UPDATE: Richard Fernandez on Facebook:

The most instructive thing about Obama’s Security Council abstention is he didn’t have the guts to do it earlier, when he stood to lose something by doing it. Only after he calculated there was nothing more to squeeze from that particular quarter did he run up the Jolly Roger. Had it cost him it would have meant something, even as a gesture.

But even more interesting was his willingness to damage the Democratic party who he’s leaving with political bill, not to mention the fact that the policy his abstention represents makes little sense.

Israel is likely to emerge as a linchpin in the region, after Obama’s power vacuum bomb reduces the nearby countries to waste. If Turkey and Iran fall apart, which is not inconceivable, then Obama will have antagonized the last man standing.

It was bad timing and pointless, like a punch thrown by a fighter lying on the canvas — at the referee. That would leave his legacy a consistently dysfunctional whole: conceived in delusion, executed in incompetence.

Yeah, that’ pretty much covers it. Though “executed in incompetence and spite” would be more accurate still.

MORE: Andrew McCarthy: Barack Obama’s Betrayal of Israel is a Black Day for American Diplomacy. “It is a disgraceful legacy of Barack Obama that his obsession over settlements and antipathy toward Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu — traits he shares with his old radical comrade, Rashid Khalidi — have made the already dim prospects for peace far more remote. . . . Israel did not set out to conquer the disputed territory. The Jewish state took it fair and square when they won the defensive war against enemies that sought Israel’s destruction. Thus the unending pattern that the United States and Western European powers cravenly refuse to address: Islamic factions and nations are free to reserve the right to eradicate Israel, but Israel must pretend the aggression never happened and the continuing threat does not exist.”

Plus: “That, alas, is Obama’s real legacy: There are no good-faith disputes with him; you either agree with him or you are an outlaw.”

And that’s the irony. Trump, who’s about making deals, is cast as the authoritarian. Obama, who demands submission, is not.

Related: Flashback 2009: The Turn Against Israel.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Prof prevails in FOIA fight for race-based admissions data: An extended legal battle between the University of Arkansas and one its law professors has come to a close after the school agreed to let him study the effects of race-based admissions policies. Prof. Robert Steinbuch also faced retaliation from colleagues, who complained that his research was “distressing” to students because it suggested that lower admissions standards result in lower bar-passage rates. Which, of course, they do.

And this illustrates that, as an administrator, it’s a really bad idea to pick a fight with a tenured professor. The Dean at UALR is stepping down, but Steinbuch’s still there. Sure, as a conservative he’s outnumbered on the faculty. But that doesn’t limit what he can do.

Back when I was a very new law professor and was briefly dating a secretary from another college, I remember she said that was the real power of tenure: You can’t get rid of them, and if they decide to make a hobby out of making your life miserable, well, they have a fair amount of free time to devote to it. . . .

REPORT: Trump names David Friedman his ambassador to Israel.

Here’s a profile of Friedman last month in Haaretz:

Friedman has, on various occasions during the campaign, been asked to respond to charges of anti-Semitism among Trump supporters. He has largely dismissed these allegations, insisting that hatred of Jews is far more prevalent among the Left.

Friedman delivered a particularly scathing attack on The New York Times, after a tape recently surfaced in which Trump was caught boasting about sexually assaulting women. “The New York Times ran with the story with all the journalistic integrity of the worst gossip rag,” Friedman wrote in a column in The Jerusalem Post. “If only the Times had reported on the Nazi death camps with the same fervor as its failed last-minute attempt to conjure up alleged victims of Donald Trump, imagine how many lives could have been saved.”  

Ouch. But as a wise community organizer is wont to say, get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.

YET ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MY REVOLVING-DOOR SURTAX: Harry Reid Boasts About Not Going Back to Nevada.

Residency issues knocked out a handful of Harry Reid’s colleagues over the years, but the outgoing Senate Democratic leader didn’t even pretend that he got back to his home state of Nevada on a regular basis.

“It’s amazing what I have not done,” said Reid in the recent cover story for GW Magazine. “I don’t go home every week. I never have, even when I was in the House. I don’t like banquets, parades.”

Reid has never been known to pull rhetorical punches, so his comments aren’t a complete surprise. But they are remarkable, considering how multiple senators during Reid’s three decades in Congress lost re-election, at least in part, because they were portrayed as having “gone Washington” and not spent enough time in their home states. . . .

In 2010, Reid called attacks on his residency “embarrassing” and called Searchlight (population: 539) home as Republicans highlighted his condo in Washington’s Ritz-Carlton.

Amazing that he could afford to live in the Ritz-Carlton as a public servant.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD IN MEXICO:

Vigilantes in a Mexican village have seized the mother of a local gang leader and proposed swapping her for a kidnap victim taken on Monday.

After seizing alleged collaborators of the gang, including the mother of the leader “El Tequilero”, the locals have recorded video messages for the gang.

“In return for my husband’s life, I will deliver your mother,” says the kidnap victim’s wife in one video, which has been broadcast on local TV.

Read the entire article.

This BBC report uses “vigilantes” to describe villagers and townspeople who take up arms to defend themselves and communities against drug gangs. “Vigilantes” is the term preferred by the Mexican government. Many villagers prefer other descriptions like local defense force, community defense force or volunteer community militia.

RACE AND ADMISSIONS IN ARKANSAS: UALR LawProf Robert Steinbuch writes:

I recently sued my law school (the UALR-Bowen School of Law) to get access to admissions and bar-passage data. I wasn’t planning on doing that, but it became necessary after the administration refused my Freedom of Information Act request about these matters. After I filed suit, the school gave me the data I wanted.

When I examined that data, I discovered a set of uncomfortable facts that was difficult to reconcile with the narrative that my law school had presented. Litigation produces results, even though I had hoped (like all potential plaintiffs) to avoid its time and expense.

As a lawyer and law professor, I understand the value of the American dispute resolution system, i.e., courts. I’ve done what I teach my students: I’ve used courts to pursue justice. As I was pursuing my lawsuit and chasing the data, I was challenged by my colleagues (which was o.k.) and attacked by them (which was not o.k.); I added retaliation claims to my lawsuit; and I published a law-journal article in which my PhD-in-statistics coauthor and I confirmed that the UALR law school had admitted some minorities with significantly lower incoming metrics, which corresponded with significantly worse bar-passage rates. Since then, I have been appointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’s Arkansas Advisory Committee.

Punch back twice as hard.

LAWYER UP AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Attorney Shawn Steel: Professor wanted to identify, humiliate & shame students who voted for Trump…she’s a bully.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, TRUMP MELTDOWN EDITION: Babson backs off; apology sought.

The lawyer for one of two Babson College students investigated on unsubstantiated racism allegations stemming from their celebration of Donald Trump’s election is demanding an apology and threatening a defamation lawsuit after the school lifted its campus ban on the pair yesterday.

Babson Dean of Students Lawrence Ward informed students Parker Rand-Ricciardi and Edward Tomasso by letter yesterday that the school is “removing any interim restrictions on your access to campus.” The letter cites the “formal conclusion of the investigation phase of the College’s Community Standards process” as the reason for the lifting of a ban imposed shortly after the Nov. 9 incident.

Rand-Ricciardi and Tomasso were accused in social media posts of shouting racial and homophobic slurs while driving in a Chevy Silverado flying a Trump flag through the Wellesley College campus on the day after the election, which were unsupported by Babson’s investigation, according to a letter by Rand-Ricciardi’s lawyer.

Attorney Jeffrey Robbins wrote to Babson’s lawyers yesterday saying the college’s handling of the incident “badly defamed” his client, and that Babson is “liable to Parker for the tort of defamation and, it would appear, for violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights statute under the common law, for the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

Robbins is calling for the college to retract statements its officials made impugning the pair, offer a public apology and withdraw internal charges of harassment and disorderly conduct.

Robbins’ letter cites excerpts from Babson and Wellesley campus police reviews that found the pair yelled only “Trump 2016” and “Make America Great Again” from a truck they drove onto the Wellesley campus, but no witnesses corroborated the claims that they spit at two students, uttered slurs or purposefully drove to a building popular with black students.

Um, “purposefully drove to a building popular with black students?” Anyway, note the lesson here: Lawyer up, and punch back twice as hard. Also, the parents must be wondering why they sent their sons to Babson if this is the kind of treatment they face. Because you know the school would have given women or minorities the benefit of the doubt.

Alumni, parents, and students need to push back against this sort of behavior — as does the Department of Education once the Trump Administration is in place.

Annual cost of attending Babson College: $58,692.

Related: Trend seen in colleges muzzling political speech.

“We see over and over campuses doing a terrible job of investigating supposed offenses, and we also repeatedly see them investigating things that don’t sound like offenses at all,” said Robert L. Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates for free-speech rights and due process for students accused by colleges of civil rights violations.

FIRE has successfully advocated for students at odds with campus disciplinary boards, including helping a Texas student sue and reach a settlement with Blinn College this year after she was told she needed special permission to display a gun rights sign and collect signatures for her student group on campus.

“I think they are concerned about the school’s public relations,” Shibley said about overzealous college administrators. “I think they are concerned about looking like they care about all of their students. Which is good, but that also means they have to care about the students who are being accused. That doesn’t go in only one direction.”

You know, if you’re looking for a year-end charitable donation, donating to FIRE is a good idea.

CAMPUS TRUMP SUPPORTERS PUNCHING BACK AGAINST BIAS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS:

Conservative students who voted for Mr. Trump say that even though their candidate won, their views are not respected. Some are adopting the language of the left, saying they need a “safe space” to express their opinions — a twist resented by left-leaning protesters.

Administrators are struggling to maintain a balance between political factions. But some college presidents have entered the fray with statements that seem more sympathetic to the left, in some cases provoking a backlash. . . .

For conservative students like Ms. Deletka, the messages from university officials, seemingly assuming that everyone on campus was upset about the election result, were particularly offensive. . . .

Ms. Delekta described how she had been offended when a classmate wondered why as a “white female,” she had not voted for Hillary Clinton. She resented what she saw as identity politics on campus.

“My identity is so much more than my race and my gender,” Ms. Delekta said. “We’re all so much more similar than we think.”

She was able to separate Mr. Trump’s policies from his personal attitudes toward women, she said later. “I’m not electing a grandpa or a babysitter,” Ms. Delekta said.

Ibtihal Makki, a self-confident senior in a pink hijab who is studying biopsychology and neuroscience and is chairwoman of a student government diversity committee, objected to conservatives on campus saying they needed safe spaces to express their views.

Of course she did. And it looks like I was ahead of the curve here. And Pres. Mark Schlissel’s really blown it at Michigan.

And students should be punching back. Despite all the talk about “diversity” and “inclusion,” many campuses — Michigan clearly among them — are marginalizing and “othering” Trump supporters and conservative/libertarian students in general.

But conservative/libertarian students are members of the “university community” too and deserve to be treated with respect, and to have their political views treated as legitimate. Students should demand this from administrators, and alumni, parents, and legislators should demand it from universities.

MEGAN MCARDLE: The Left’s Doomed Effort to Coerce the Right.

Over the last few years, as controversies have erupted over the rights of cake bakers and pizza places to refuse to cater gay weddings, the rights of nuns to refuse to provide insurance that covers birth control, the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions, and the rights of Christian schools to teach (and require students and teachers to practice) traditional Christian morality, some Christians have begun to feel that their communities are under existential threat.

The response from the left has (mostly) been that this is so much whining, clinging to a victimhood belied by Christians’ social power and majority status. No one, they have been assured, wants to touch their freedom to worship, but when they enter the commercial realm, they have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, whatever their private beliefs.

What happened to the Gaines family makes that feel like a false assurance. Buzzfeed had no evidence that the Gaines family was discriminating. (It is true that they have not featured any gay couples on their show, but they live in Waco, Texas; how many gay couples had applied?) They had not, as Mozilla’s Brendan Eich did, donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign. The entire substance of the article is: “They attend a church where the pastor espouses something I find reprehensible.”

What message does this send? “Sure, the government won’t actually shut your church down. But the left will use its positions of institutional power to try to hound anyone who attends that church from public life. You can believe whatever you want — but if we catch you, or if we even catch you in proximity to people who believe it, we will threaten your livelihood.”

Punch back twice as hard, as a famous man once said.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Shot: Emory Reviews ‘Sanctuary Campus’ Petition; Assesses Options. “In Georgia, local officials are required by law to prove their compliance with federal detention requests — no city in the state can be designated a sanctuary city, including Atlanta.”

Chaser: Emory could lose state funding if it declares a ‘sanctuary campus’ to shield immigrants.

A powerful Republican lawmaker aims to cut off state funding to Emory University and any other higher education institution that declares it will defy President-elect Donald Trump if he tries to deport immigrants who are illegally in the U.S.

State Rep. Earl Ehrhart plans to introduce legislation to block colleges from receiving state funds if they aren’t complying with state and federal law in response to the report last week that Emory was weighing whether to declare the school a “sanctuary campus.”

“Private institutions can do what they want, but there are consequences to actions. And it can’t be an option to choose not to follow state and federal laws,” said Ehrhart of Powder Springs, who is chairman of the House’s higher education financing subcommittee.

“There’s a raft of state taxpayer dollars for private institutions,” he said, “and I’m very sanguine about being able to pass a piece of legislation that says if you’re picking and choosing which laws you’re going to follow, state dollars aren’t going to follow.”

Emory University President Claire Sterk wrote in a letter to students last week that administrators are reviewing their request “for a sanctuary campus and ways to protect all members of the Emory community” and said the school would continue to support students, known as “Dreamers,” who were granted a temporary reprieve from the threat of deportation by an executive order from President Barack Obama.

I suppose there’s nothing stopping states from lifting state tax-exempt status from institutions that defy the law.

Look for state legislators to start providing more adult supervision for higher education institutions, both public and private. Those institutions used to be shielded by prestige, but there’s a lot less of that now.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Football fans boo Castro supporters.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: UNH Won’t Punish Harambe Protester, Will Investigate Women’s Studies Program Instead. “According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Women’s Studies professors who penned an ‘open letter’ to school officials asking for the Harambe-centric investigation, have engaged in several months of unauthorized electioneering. . . . New Hampshire state law prohibits the use of university funds to participate in political activities, and UNH is already conferring with legal counsel.”

“WHAT A PACK OF SORE LOSERS:” Kellyanne Conway Blasts Clinton Campaign For Joining Recount. Punch back twice as hard: Demand recounts in states Hillary carried. Wear them out and make them spread money and lawyers across as many states as possible, instead of focusing on the ones they can rig.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Trump Supporters Found ‘Hamilton’ Star’s Old Tweets & Voting Record — And Are Having a Field Day.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: University of Virginia Law Professor Robert Turner Defends Jefferson’s Legacy at Jefferson’s University. “Perhaps the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society would be willing to organize and host such a debate — I’ll be happy to take on the three most prominent champions of censorship, so long as I get equal time and adequate rebuttal time.” Only 3-1 odds? They don’t stand a chance. Always outnumbered, never out-gunned.

Related: Yes, You’re Right, Colleges Are Liberal Bubbles. Here’s the Data. It’s a “higher education bubble” in more ways than one.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Breitbart News planning lawsuit against ‘major media company.’

“Breitbart News Network, a pro-America, conservative website, is preparing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a major media company for its baseless and defamatory claim that Breitbart News is a ‘white nationalist website,’” the statement reads.

“Breitbart News cannot allow such vicious racial lies to go unchallenged, especially by cynical, politically-motivated competitors seeking to diminish its 42 million monthly readers and its number one in the world political Facebook page. Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms. Always has, always will,” the statement continues.

“The diversity of the company’s news coverage and its staff continue to embody Andrew Breitbart’s colorblind, distinctly American commitment to ‘E pluribus unum’—out of many, one.”

Well, to be fair, nowadays support of colorblindness and a melting-pot mentality counts as racism.

OBAMA SAYS REPEALING OBAMACARE IS THE GOP’S HOLY GRAIL, AN ARTICLE OF FAITH: Such snitty and condescending phrasing, Barack, especially from a fellow who will go down as one of America’s most incompetent and politically-tone deaf presidents. Look Barack, elections have consequences, Barack…Oh wait…I believe you said that, didn’t you, sir?…How ironic. In retrospect brutally ironic. You will hear that phrase often, sir, as well as “get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.” You said something like that as well…OK, in your face…Get this: Of course the Republicans will repeal ObamaCare, and they darn well should. ObamaCare’s chickens have come home to roost.

DAVID BROOKS: “Sociologically, this campaign has been an education in how societies come apart.” “Any decent society rests on codes of etiquette and a shared moral ecology to make cooperation possible, to prevent economic and political life from descending into a savage war of all against all. But this year Donald Trump has decimated the codes of basic decency without paying a price.”

FLASHBACK: How David Brooks Created Donald Trump.

Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.

The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement. . . .

Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared “I’m not a fan of this movement.” After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.

So now we have Trump instead, who tells people to punch counterprotesters instead of picking up their trash.

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.

He doesn’t seem to have learned much. Also, “decimated,” which means “reduced by a tenth,” is not a synonym for “devastated.” I rather doubt that Brooks means that Trump has reduced basic decency by 10%. Amazing that that got by an editor.

And really, you backed Hillary Clinton and you’re talking about basic decency? Really?

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE. Mark Steyn on a college president inventing the hate crime of racial facials:

Disciplined? For what? [Beverly Kopper, President of the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater] blamed the students for ‘failing to think about the implications’ – of having a facial. Because we live in a world where a facial is one step away from a minstrel show.

I’m an effete nancy-boy, and I get a facial from time to time, because I want my skin to look good for brutal close-ups on nights like this, and it’s well known that ‘Can I get a seaweed wrap?’ is code for ‘I’m a big redneck southern bigot who wants to look good under my Klan hood’. If you go to any luxury spa in Sydney right now and kick open the door there’ll be whole roomfuls of people covered in algae coconut moisturizing exfoliant capering around going ‘Oh, my darling little mammy, down in Alabammy…’

Sometimes a society becomes too stupid to survive. What this college president, Beverly Kopper, means when she says these students ‘failed to think about the implications’ of their racist exfoliating is that professional grievance mongers like her have so incentivized the taking of offence that there are now far more people who need to be offended than the number of people willing to offend them: Demand far outstrips supply. So in ten years’ time these two students will be applying for jobs and their potential employer will Google them and the first 200 pages that come up will be about how racey-racey-racist they are.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Kathy Shaidle.)

SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT: Woman Backtracks on Assault Claim After O’Keefe Video. “A woman who accused a Donald Trump supporter of punching her outside a Trump rally in North Carolina is backtracking after James O’Keefe and Project Veritas released video showing Democrat operatives claiming she was a trained activist. 69-year-old Shirley Teter of Asheville now says it is possible that 73-year-old Richard L. Campbell merely touched her accidentally, as his attorney had claimed all along.”

How about that.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Donald Trump just retweeted Juanita Broaddrick calling Bill Clinton a rapist. All bets are now off.

THE POLITICS OF DISSOCIATION: Matthew Continetti explains “Why populism, nationalism, and tribalism will outlast Trump and Clinton:”

This is a moment of dissociation—of unbundling, fracture, disaggregation, dispersal. But the disconnectedness is not merely social. It is also political—a separation of the citizenry from the governments founded in their name. They are meant to have representation, to be heard, to exercise control. What they have found instead is that ostensibly democratic governments sometimes treat their populations not as citizens but as irritants.

Read the whole thing. As the late Kenneth Minogue wrote in the New Criterion in the summer of 2010:

My concern with democracy is highly specific. It begins in observing the remarkable fact that, while democracy means a government accountable to the electorate, our rulers now make us accountable to them. Most Western governments hate me smoking, or eating the wrong kind of food, or hunting foxes, or drinking too much, and these are merely the surface disapprovals, the ones that provoke legislation or public campaigns. We also borrow too much money for our personal pleasures, and many of us are very bad parents. Ministers of state have been known to instruct us in elementary matters, such as the importance of reading stories to our children. Again, many of us have unsound views about people of other races, cultures, or religions, and the distribution of our friends does not always correspond, as governments think that it ought, to the cultural diversity of our society. We must face up to the grim fact that the rulers we elect are losing patience with us.

Facing up is fine – but eventually, the anointed shouldn’t be entirely surprised if and when voters discover the advice proffered by a relatively unknown community advisor to his constituents, and begin to get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: This University of Michigan Kid Selected ‘His Majesty’ as Personal Pronoun.

Nothing like illustrating absurdity by being absurd, to coin a phrase.

UPDATE: All hail His Majesty Grant Strobl.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Judge rules in favor of Brown University student suspended for sexual assault.

Brown University will have to re-adjudicate a years-old campus sexual assault accusation after a judge determined the school suspended him after improperly investigating the accusations against him. . . .

His accuser waited a year to accuse Doe of sexual assault, and during that time, Brown’s policy on what constitutes sexual assault changed. Doe was adjudicated under the new, more restrictive, policy, which didn’t exist when the encounter took place. During the investigation, his accuser provided the investigator with text messages between her and Doe that occurred before the encounter. When Doe was questioned, he provided text messages that occurred after the encounter — in which his accuser claimed she was “more excited to see you finally! Haha” — and some texts that the accuser had not provided from before the encounter.

Doe was suspended and subsequently sued. Judge William E. Smith, in his 84-page decision, vacated Brown’s ruling. He did not adjudicate the accusation himself, and did not give any indication whether he felt the accusation was baseless. He merely stated that Brown’s decision to try Doe under a policy that didn’t exist when the alleged sexual assault occurred was improper.

“When combined with other errors set forth herein, it is clear that Doe’s contract rights were violated,” Smith wrote.

Smith was concerned about a lot of the decisions Brown made during the investigation, including not asking for more texts between the accuser and one of her friends, whom Doe believed she conspired with to fabricate accusations against him. A Brown administrator initially included Doe’s claim, but abandoned it and failed to ask for additional text messages that might have proven Doe correct. This, Smith wrote, was a violation of Doe’s rights under Brown policy.

Smith was also concerned that a Brown administrator “did not consider any of the post-encounter evidence in reaching her determination that Doe was responsible.” The accuser had made additional sexual comments to Doe and had said she was “excited” to see him again. The Brown administrator said the training she received from Brown precluded her from including potentially exculpatory evidence, like those texts, because they occurred after the encounter.

Related: Lawyer takes down unfair campus sexual assault processes. It’s about Robert Shibley’s book, Twisting Title IX.

CLAIM: Trump’s old debate tricks won’t work on Clinton.

He entered each debate with a game plan and flawlessly executed it. By the time the debates began, for instance, Trump was at the top of national and battleground Republican polls. So he was able to consistently tout his polling strength while needling opponents such as Jeb Bush and Rand Paul. Trump never missed an opportunity to remind the audience he was the only candidate self-funding his campaign. He claimed vast wealth and said it ensured he was not beholden to special interests. He attacked other candidates on stage for accepting his personal donations, which he said were accompanied by leverage and return favors. And he railed against the corrupting influence of super PACs, including the one supporting Bush that raised more than $100 million.

Trump also would constantly tussle with debate moderators in order to curry favor from the audience. This started in Cleveland when Fox News’ Megyn Kelly confronted him with insulting remarks he had made about women, extended to the CNBC debate in Boulder, and culminated in Houston with his dressing-down of Salem Radio’s Hugh Hewitt, who had pressed him on his failure to release tax returns. Finally, Trump was a debate chameleon who receded from the spotlight at crucial moments for extended periods of time. He never participated in a debate with fewer than four candidates, and he never spoke longer than 30 minutes.

These tactics that worked so well for him in the primaries will be difficult to replicate in his trio of upcoming debates against Clinton.

I think Aaron Kall might be conflating Trump’s points from the primary debates with Trump’s style. The issues changed from forum to forum, question to question, but his style remained essentially Trump throughout — dialed down for more serious issues, dialed back up whenever he could, but always Trump. And voters respond to Trump’s take-no-guff style at least as much as they do to whatever the topic-of-the-moment might have been during the dozen or so GOP debates.

Trump also had the benefit of honing his skills and his style against 16 hungry GOP competitors. Hillary Clinton had only Bernie Sanders (who pulled his best punches) to square off against, plus a couple of other contenders so milquetoast that I can’t remember their names at this early hour without consulting Google first.

The last time Clinton had to square off against someone with so much style, it was eight years ago and his name was Barack Obama. And Clinton doesn’t seem to have the strength or health she enjoyed back then.

In either case, we’ll find out tonight, and of course I’ll be drunkblogging the debate at the PJMedia home page.

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ONCE SAID, PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: 9/11 Families Protest Obama Veto Threat of Bill That Would Allow Saudi Suit.

SUIT FILED AGAINST BLACK LIVES MATTERS BY DALLAS COP FOR INCITING ANTI-POLICE VIOLENCE.

As a wise community organizer once instructed, punch back twice as hard. Why should lawfare be the exclusive province of the punitive left?

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Katie Couric Sued for $12 Million For Defamation In Anti-Gun Documentary.

THIS ISN’T THE 21st CENTURY I WAS PROMISED. LGBT Meltdown: Trans ‘Community’ Angry Gay Man Will Play Trans Woman.

Related:

hillary_sexual_healing_9-1-16-1

 

BLUE STATE UPDATE: Massachusetts AG Maura Healey shoots Dems 
in foot with gun grab.

In July, Healey announced a ban on so-called “copycat” assault weapon models. The so-called “Massachusetts legal” guns were modified to comply with the state assault weapons ban — with no collapsible stocks, high-capacity magazines or other banned features — but they still look like the AR-15 and AK-47, and Healey said that is impermissible. Other semi-automatic rifles that perform the same, but don’t have a military appearance, are still legally sold in Massachusetts gun shops.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle blasted Healey’s move as a confusing overreach meant to pump up Healey’s political profile.

Related: Rolling rally protests AG Maura Healey’s ‘abuse of authority’ on 2nd Amendment. Punch back twice as hard, as a famous man says.

SIX PROBLEMS WITH MEDIA’S HYSTERICAL REACTION TO TRUMP’S ISIS COMMENTS, including:

Listen, Trump might be an effective communicator with his core audience, but others have trouble understanding him. His speaking style couldn’t be more removed from the anodyne and cautious political rhetoric of our era. This can be a challenge for political journalists in particular. His sentences run on into paragraphs. He avoids specificity or contradicts himself when he doesn’t. His sentences trail into other sentences before they finish. He doesn’t play the usual games that the media are used to. It’s frustrating.

So the media immediately decided Trump was claiming that Obama had literally incorporated ISIS a few years back. And they treated this literal claim as a fact that needed to be debunked.

Related: Hyperliteral media wasn’t prepared to handle sarcasm from a candidate – or at least from a Republican candidate.

Plus a video rewind: Chris Matthews Said Cheney ‘Created al-Qaeda,’ ‘Created ISIS.’

 

trump_angy_msm_reporters_banner_8-9-16-1

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IS WONT TO SAY, PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Calif. Religious Leaders Stand Up, Dem Lawmaker Backs Down on Campus LGBT Rights.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Secret Deal Among AGs to Prosecute Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Challenged in Court. It’s a conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights.

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ONCE SAID, GET IN THEIR FACES AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Milo Files Legal Claim to Get Twitter to Release Data About His Banishment from the Network.

YEP:

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 6.53.06 PM

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 6.52.15 PM

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 6.52.27 PM

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 6.52.40 PM

FLASHBACK: As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap:

Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.

The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement. Unlike Brooks, I actually ventured out to “intermingle” with Tea Partiers at various events that I covered for PJTV.com, contributing commentary to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner. As I reported from one event in Nashville, “Pundits claim the tea partiers are angry — and they are — but the most striking thing about the atmosphere in Nashville was how cheerful everyone seemed to be. I spoke with dozens of people, and the responses were surprisingly similar. Hardly any had ever been involved in politics before. Having gotten started, they were finding it to be not just worthwhile, but actually fun. Laughter rang out frequently, and when new-media mogul Andrew Breitbart held forth on a TV interview, a crowd gathered and broke into spontaneous applause. A year ago (2009), many told me, they were depressed about the future of America. Watching television pundits talk about President Obama’s transformative plans for big government, they felt alone, isolated and helpless. That changed when protests, organized by bloggers, met Mr. Obama a year ago in Denver, Colo., Mesa, Ariz., and Seattle, Wash. Then came CNBC talker Rick Santelli’s famous on-air rant on Feb. 19, 2009, which gave the tea-party movement its name. Tea partiers are still angry at federal deficits, at Washington’s habit of rewarding failure with handouts and punishing success with taxes and regulation, and the general incompetence that has marked the first year of the Obama presidency. But they’re no longer depressed.”

One of the most famous things about the Tea Partiers was that — as befits a relentlessly bourgeois protest movement — they left things cleaner than they found them. Rich Lowry reported from Washington, DC: “Just as stunning as the tableaux of the massive throngs lining the reflecting pool were the images of the spotless grounds afterward. If someone had told attendees they were expected to mow the grass before they left, surely some of them would have hitched flatbed trailers to their vehicles for the trip to Washington and gladly brought mowers along with them. This was the revolt of the bourgeois, of the responsible, of the orderly, of people profoundly at peace with the traditional mores of American society. . . .

Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared “I’m not a fan of this movement.” After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.

So now we have Trump instead, who tells people to punch counterprotesters instead of picking up their trash.

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.

Also:

People who are unhappy with the things Trump is saying need to understand that he’s only getting so much traction because he’s filling a void. If the responsible people would talk about these issues, and take action, Trump wouldn’t take up so much space.

And there’s a lesson for our ruling class there: Calling Trump a fascist is a bit much (fascism, as Tom Wolfe once reported, is forever descending upon the United States, but somehow it always lands on Europe), but movements like fascism and communism get their start because the mechanisms of liberal democracy seem weak and ineffectual and dishonest. If you don’t want Trump — or, perhaps, some post-Trump figure who really is a fascist — to dominate things, you need to stop being weak and ineffectual and dishonest. . . .

Likewise, it’s a bit hard to take people seriously about Trump’s threat to civil liberties when President Obama was just endorsing an unconstitutional gun ban, when his attorney general was threatening to prosecute people for anti-Muslim speech (a threat later walked back, thankfully) and when universities and political leaders around the country are making clear their belief that free speech is obsolete.

Hearing that Yale professor Erika Christakis won’t be teaching at Yale because of the abuse she received over a respectful but non-PC email, former DNC chair Howard Dean tweeted: “Free speech is good. Respecting others is better.” To his credit, CNN’s Jake Tapper responded: “Of course only one of them is enshrined in the Constitution.”

But Twitter humorist IowaHawk had the last word: ”With the exception of POTUS, the Atty General, both leading presidential candidates, the media, and universities, Americans love free speech.”

If you wish to hold fascism, or even just Trumpism, at bay, then we need elites who are trustworthy, who can be counted on to protect the country, and who respect the Constitution even when it gets in the way of doing something they want to do. By failing to live up to these standards, they have chosen their “Destructor.” Let’s hope that they haven’t chosen ours, as well.

Okay, I have to admit, so far it’s not looking great.

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WOULD SAY, GET IN THEIR FACES, AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: “At one point the Trump supporters led by black conservative Ali Akbar confronted the leftist mob chanting, ‘Where are the blacks?’ and ‘Where are the gays?’”

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Court Orders Chicago to Pay NRA $1 Million in Legal Fees.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD? Ryan formally urges Clapper to block Clinton from classified briefings.

It’s a start:

Ryan, in a letter to Clapper, said he wants Clinton prohibited from receiving classified information “for the duration of her candidacy for president.”

“There is no legal requirement for you to provide Secretary Clinton with classified information, and it would send the wrong signal to all those charged with safeguarding our nation’s secrets if you choose to provide her access to this information despite the FBI’s findings,” Ryan wrote.

A letter won’t do. If the GOP were smart (I know, I know) Ryan’s idea would be a party talking point during every press appearance. The Democrats are great at this kind of messaging; the GOP, not so much.

DOES THAT INCLUDE GETTING IN THEIR FACES, PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD, OR BRINGING GUNS TO KNIFE FIGHTS? Labor Secretary Rallies Latinos: ‘Cause Good Trouble’ for Immigration Reform.

JOHN SCHINDLER: Moscow Rules of Espionage Go Global—If You Think It’s KGB, It Is.

“Punching back twice as hard” would send Putin a valuable message, but Obama reserves that rule strictly for America’s real enemies, like Republicans.

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ADVISED HIS CONSTITUENTS, GET IN YOUR OPPONENTS’ FACES AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: “Vote Properly, You Virulent Racist!” As Dale Franks writes, “The Elites are about to learn that the rubes and hayseeds in flyover country don’t like them.”

AS THE MAN BILL GATES SUPPORTS WOULD SAY, PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Woman Sues Microsoft for Windows 10 Upgrade, Wins $10 Grand.

If you’d like to avoid accidentally updating to Windows 10, these steps worked for me.

OF COURSE, THE REAL MISSION WAS TO PUT THE STATE IN THE HANDS OF A HILLARY CRONY BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION, SO OVERALL THE PROSECUTION WAS STILL A SUCCESS: Supreme Court vacates Bob McDonnell’s convictions; says concern was not with ‘tawdry tales’ but with government’s ‘boundless interpretation’ of bribery law.

Like the lawfare against Tom Delay and Rick Perry. The GOP needs to punch back twice as hard on this stuff if it wants to win.

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ONCE SAID, PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: ‘Fraud’: Women Claimed Anti-Muslim Discrimination at Restaurant — Now the Legal Tables Have Turned.

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ONCE SAID, PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: House GOP Pressures Dem. State AGs To Drop Attack On Climate Skeptics.

CALL ME OLD FASHIONED, BUT I STILL THINK MOABs and B-52s ARE A BIT MORE EFFECTIVE: Loretta Lynch: Our most effective response to terror is compassion, unity, and love.

Note the disparity: Obama’s response to Americans he disagrees with? “Get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.” His attorney general’s response to the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11? Peace, love and sunshine, which speaks volumes with who the White House believes it’s really at war with. Or as I wrote in 2009, “Roll Over Von Clausewitz.”

For years, people have debated what the response would have been if Al Gore or Obama had been president on 9/11. Now we know.

UPDATE: Great catch by the Media Research Center today: “2014: Obama Blasts Censorship, Says Some People ‘Need to be Offended’…But, not radical Islamists, apparently.”

As Roger Simon asks today, “Who Are the Real Islamophobes?”

AS A WISE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ONCE SAID, GET IN THEIR FACES AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: The GOP Strikes Back Against Climate Change Fascism.

Faster, please.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Former UVA Student Challenges Unlawful Sexual Misconduct Mandate in Federal Lawsuit.

MICKEY KAUS: “My theory: MSM terrified Orlando attack will produce Trump lead. All hands on deck. Old rules No Longer Apply. We’ll show him.”

He’s very likely right, but I’m not sure about the “old rules apply” part, as the MSM pounding Trump is simply a continuation of a long playbook.

During the height of the MSM’s zaniest conspiracy theory dissembling during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Mickey wrote, “Previously, [the media] couldn’t grouse about the Iraq War without seeming defeatist (and anti-liberationist and maybe even selfishly isolationist). Even the Clintons never figured a way out of that trap…Katrina gives [the MSM] a way to talk about Iraq without talking about Iraq. No wonder Gwen Ifill smiles the ‘inner smile.’”

Such demagoguery produced results, as Bryan Preston wrote in November of 2006 at Hot Air. “What cost the GOP its majorities in Congress and statehouses?… The GOP’s fortunes fatally cratered in the Fall of 2005, and were recovering ever since minus a couple of blips this year. What happened in the Fall of ‘05? Katrina. That storm turned out to be the hurricane that changed history:”

There’s a lesson in all of this, that’s an old one but an important one to remember: Demagoguery wins, and more so when it comes in the middle of a horrific disaster. Also, lies do indeed travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. By the time the story of New Orleans buses surfaced (only to be buried by the AP and ignored by the national media), the disaster had been framed as a Bush failure and the damage was already done. The media’s later mea culpa did nothing to change the basic narrative that already had a life of its own.

Years later, DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile would later confess, “Bush came through on Katrina,” but as a wise future mayor would advise in the fall of 2008, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

And speaking of 2008, it was that year that the media went all-in to elect Obama, ceding their pose as “objective” journalists in order to consummate their “Slobbering Love Affair” with the man they made president, to borrow from Bernie Goldberg’s classic title.

But it’s always been just a pose. On Tuesday, CBS Late Show host Stephen Colbert “slammed Donald Trump on Tuesday’s episode of The Late Show, drawing a swastika to explain the presumed Republican presidential nominee’s response to the Orlando, Florida mass shooting on Sunday,” Entertainment Weekly notes.

The old rules at CBS certainly apply here — comparing the Republican nominee to a Nazi has a long and storied pedigree at the “Tiffany Network.” Just ask the ghosts of Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr, who dished out the same treatment – on the CBS Evening News no less, not the network’s late night gab fest and comedy show – to Barry Goldwater in 1964.

There’s no doubt the media viscerally loathes Trump — in large part because Trump isn’t afraid to get in their faces and punch back twice as a hard, as a wise community organizer would advise. But they’d be battering any presidential candidate with an (R) after his name right around this time. The old rules are very much in force.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: President Obama Made A Stupid Comment on Gun Control, See One Pundit’s Epic Response.

“SOD OFF, SWAMPY” ON STEROIDS: Global Warming Skeptic Responds To Massachusetts AG’s Subpoena.

Alex Epstein had a terse response to a subpoena sent by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Wednesday.

Healey demanded the oil giant ExxonMobil hand over 40 years of documents, including information pertaining to the company’s dealings with about a dozen think tanks and trade associations, which have been targeted by environmental groups for opposing left-wing global warming policies.

Healey’s subpoena targeted the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank founded by Epstein. Epstein wasn’t exactly happy about being targeted for disagreeing with Healey on global warming, so he sent the AG’s office the following response:

FASCIST

Punch back twice as hard, the wise man once said.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Milo Yiannopoulos Slams Twitter For Being ‘Sharia-Compliant,’ Credits Drudge With Reinstatement.

Milo Yiannopoulos has hit out at Twitter after they suspended his account earlier today, accusing the social networking service of being “Sharia-compliant” and in financial freefall.

In a press conference at Ground Zero Orlando, delivering a truncated speech following Sunday’s mass shooting — one he was supposed to give on Muslims and gays at the University of Central Florida (UCF), which was canceled by campus police — Yiannopoulos said Muslim campaigners were responsible for him briefly thrown off Twitter this morning.

Milo told a lively crowd that influential news aggregation site The Drudge Report linking to Heat Street’s article on him directly resulted in him being re-instated on Twitter. He said: “My Twitter account was suspended as a result of a campaign by Muslim tweeters. It has been re-instated because the Drudge Report put my picture on the front page with a gigantic headline- thank you Matt Drudge- saying ‘Twitter tells Milo to go to hell!’ . . .

Milo also slammed the decision of campus police to postpone his talk at UCF which was scheduled for Tuesday. He said: “What they couldn’t do is spare 6 or 8 officers to let a gay man say what the media won’t tell you, say what politicians won’t say, say what your celebrities are too f**king dumb to realize which is that this is not radical Islam, it is not terrorists forcing Obama to say radical Islam is only 25% of the war…the rest of the battle is being honest about about the challenges you face in this country.”

Twitter is looking shadier all the time.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Jack Montague Sues Yale Over Sex Assault Expulsion:

The night of the alleged sexual assault, the accuser “willingly accompanied Montague to his bedroom, removed her clothing as he removed his, got into his bed, and engaged in consensual sexual conduct,” according to the lawsuit. The accuser then claimed the “intercourse that followed the consensual sexual foreplay was nonconsensual.”

Even Yale’s own report on the investigation appeared to suggest Montague was right to believe he had consent. For instance, the accuser said she told Montague the she wanted to “hook up but not have sex” but admitted to the panel she didn’t believe he heard her. Based on the accuser’s other actions — which were all similar to what she had done in previous consensual sexual encounters — would give the impression Montague reasonably believed he had consent.

Yet Yale still expelled him, after apparently encouraging the accuser to tell her story. See, it wasn’t the accuser who came forward in this case, it was her friend, who told Yale’s Title IX coordinator in an unrelated conversation that the eventual accuser had a “bad experience.” The Title IX coordinator and the friend then worked to get the accuser to come forward.

After the accuser talked to the Title IX coordinator, she began reinterpreting her encounter with Montague. She started thinking he was dangerous and that she needed to save the rest of the students at Yale from him.

From the beginning, Yale appears to have misled the accuser into believing Montague had a history of sexual misconduct.

Bright college years, rife with official dishonesty and oppression.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Finally, Greenpeace Faces a Resolute Opponent.

DAN RATHER ON TRUMP: ‘DRUMBEATS OF THREATENING VIOLENCE.’

Rather damaged his credibility twice by attacking two comparatively genteel presidents named Bush. In attempting to twist the events of the smear that finished off his career as a Big Three anchorman, last year, Rather was happy to be portrayed in the unintentionally camp “Truth” by a waxworks Robert Redford, whose previous film praised the actual violence of the Weathermen terrorists.

Appearing on Good Morning America in to plug The Company You Keep in 2013, after gushing over how “empathetic” he was about the Pentagon-bombing Weathermen, “because I believed it was time for a change,” George Stephanopoulos tried to throw his fellow leftist Democrat a lifeline, and asked Redford, “Even when you read about bombings?” Redford immediately replied, “All of it. I knew that it was extreme and I guess movements have to be extreme to some degree.”

In his retirement at Mark Cuban’s HD-NET channel, Rather was happy to praise a man whose motto is “get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.”  (And of course, Obama began his political career in the living room of former Weatherman Bill Ayers.)

With that sort of “Company You Keep,” it seems a bit too late to for Rather to be hearing aura of penumbras of drumbeats of threatened violence. But when it comes to whom Dan approves of as presidential candidates, choose the form of your destructor.

cruz_kasich_ghostbusters_article_banner_4-18-16-1

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, POLITICAL AUTOPHAGY EDITION: More professors subjected to Title IX investigations.

This week brought news of two more college professors who faced Title IX investigations for allegedly sexually harassing a student and an executive assistant. Both learned the hard way that due process is no longer allowed on college campuses, even for professors and administrators.

First we learned of Oberlin theatre and dance professor Roger Copeland, who was subjected to a brief Title IX investigation (which was dropped) because he spoke sharply to a female student. That’s it. That’s all he did, but because Copeland is a male and the student was a female (and no man can ever criticize a woman these days) Oberlin considered, however briefly, that the situation might have been caused by sexism.

Even though the Title IX investigation was dropped, Copeland was still investigated for hurting the student’s feelings. He was allegedly told by an administrator that it didn’t matter if witnesses could say the alleged verbal abuse didn’t happen the way the accusing student described, because “what matters is that the student felt unsafe.”

This opens the door for a whole new set of accusations against professors and other administrators, as any student who gets verbally reprimanded can claim abuse, thanks to the federal government’s dumbing down of what constitutes a “hostile environment.” Conduct need no longer be “pervasive” or even ongoing, a single incident, involving a particularly sensitive student, is enough to ensnare a professor in a due process-free investigation.

Copeland hired a lawyer (a right most students across the country are denied or can’t afford) and was told by the university that if he didn’t meet with them without his attorney present, they would bring him before the Professional Conduct Review Committee. Copeland and his attorney told them to go for it (I’d like to imagine they were laughing), and they never heard back from the administration.

We also learned this week about University of California Berkeley law professor Sujit Choudhry, who essentially faced double jeopardy for his alleged offense because UC President Janet Napolitano was facing criticism. Choudhry was accused of hugging his female executive assistant and kissing her on the cheek. The assistant, Tyann Sorrell, told administrators that Choudhry hugged and kissed her in this manner “five to six times a day.”

She apparently never told Choudhry she was uncomfortable by his actions, which he said he only did once or twice a week to show support. When Sorrell finally did mention the conduct to Choudry — after she complained to the school and had an investigation launched — she told him in an email: “I know you do not mean anything by [your actions] other than, perhaps a warm and friendly greeting.”

She gave the school the names of two witnesses, who backed up Choudhry’s version of events that the hugging and kissing was rare.

No matter, the school sanctioned Choudry by cutting his pay 10 percent for the year, forcing him to pay out of pocket for workplace coaching, writing an apology to Sorrell and constantly having those who investigated him looking over his shoulder.

Lesson: Lawyer up, and punch back twice as hard.

ROD DREHER: Re-Tribalizing America. “Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos are provocateurs, no question. But they are proving something important about the militant left: that it is often racist against whites, and has no intention of allowing any opinions other than its own to be voiced in the public square. And whether in the streets or in a university lecture hall, it will use violence to impose its will. . . . Trump is a vulgar, crass, alpha-male brute. But he doesn’t care what SJWs and liberals say about him. He fights, and sometimes fights as dirty as they do. That’s not nothing. White liberal middle-class society and many bourgeois conservatives have demonized within themselves, collectively and individually, the instinct that would have given them the strength to fight civilization’s enemies on the Left and on the Right.”

Punch back twice as hard, as another provocateur once said.

THIS IS WHO THEY ARE, THIS IS WHAT THEY DO: The Left’s drive to push conservatives out of education reform.

As a famous man said, punch back twice as hard. But this pushback was foretold, and it will ultimately fail.

THE DEPAUL ADMINISTRATION WAS SHAMEFUL: Milo Mayhem: Activists Storm Stage, Threaten Milo at DePaul Event. “Milo Yiannopoulos’ event at DePaul University had to be cut short Tuesday night after protesters stormed the stage, blew whistles, grabbed the microphone out of the interviewer’s hand, and threatened to punch Yiannopoulos in the face. Yiannopoulos attempted to continue the event, but protesters refused to leave the stage and the group of security guards (which DePaul forced both the organisers and Breitbart to pay for) refused to intervene.”

More Trump voters are created every time this happens. Lots of video at the link. But note this: “After an extended period of time, the crowd started to chant ‘Do your job’ at security, who remained at the back of the venue for the entire event. When security refused to intervene, Yiannopoulos posed for pictures with fans in the audience, and ordered the crowd to follow him to the college president’s office.”

SUCKER PUNCH ALERT: Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising is so full of “Progressive” sucker punches, Christian Toto dubs it “MSNBC: The Movie.”

Though that headline sounds like it would make a great movie in and of itself. Too bad that no one will ever make a version of HBO’s The Late Shift, with comedy actors portraying the massive leftwing egos at MSNBC backstage bitching, Spinal Tap-style, about the catering, and insulting the cameramen and stagehands, as they pretend to be true champions of the working class. Imagine the moment where Olbermann tells the reporter about the network’s president “Phil thinks he’s my boss,” followed by the actor playing Sharpton dropping by the swank Grand Havana Room for four star dinner and a Davidoff. Now that would be fun to watch.

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Think Tank Seeks Damages Over ‘Unlawful’ Climate Subpoena.