Missouri Student Files Complaint Against Professor Who Called for ‘Muscle’Posted: November 12, 2015 Filed under: Crime & Corruption, Education, Law & Justice, Mediasphere | Tags: Associated Press, Campus, Colorado State University, Columbia, Columbia Daily Tribune, Concealed carry in the United States, Constitutional amendment, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Lawsuit, Mental health, Missouri, University of Missouri Leave a comment
Gamer Madhani reports: The University of Missouri student who filmed assistant professor Melissa Click call for “muscle” to eject him from a protest site on campus says he has filed a complaint with police alleging simple assault.
Mark Schierbecker said that he filed the complaint with campus police late Wednesday and was waiting to hear if they would press charges against Click, an assistant professor in the university’s Department of Communication. A police department spokesman, Major Brian Weimar, confirmed the complaint had been filed.
“We are looking into this and following up,” Weimar said.
Click did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Video of a confrontation by Schierbecker on Monday showed allies of the Concerned Student 1950 movement berating another student-journalist, Tim Tai, who was trying to photograph a campsite that protesters had established on the university’s quad. At the end of the video, Schierbecker approaches Click, who calls for “muscle” to remove him from the protest area. She then appears to grab at Schierbecker’s camera. Read the rest of this entry »
Bonfire of the AcademyPosted: November 11, 2015 Filed under: Censorship, Education, Mediasphere | Tags: Activism, Berkley, Campus, Columbia, Columbia Daily Tribune, Constitutional amendment, Cornell, Far Left, Fascism, Law, Lawsuit, Liberal, Missouri, Mizzou, Politically Correct, Progressive, The Frankfurt School, Tim Wolfe, Totalitarian, Tyranny, University of Missouri, Yale Leave a comment
As liberal adults abdicate, the kids take charge on campus.
By bonfire of the academy we mean a conflict of values about the idea of a university that now threatens to undermine or destroy universities as a place of learning. Exhibit A is the ruin called the University of Missouri.
In the 1960s—at Cornell, Columbia, Berkeley and elsewhere—the self-described Student Left occupied buildings with what they often called “non-negotiable” demands. In the decades since, the academy—its leaders and faculties—by and large has accommodated many of those demands regarding appropriate academic subjects, admissions policies and what has become the aggressive and non-tolerant politics of identity and grievance.
This political trajectory arrived at its logical end this week at Missouri with the abrupt resignation of the school’s president, quickly followed by its number two official. The kids deposed them, as their liberal elders applauded either out of solidarity or cowardice.
The cause of President Tim Wolfe’s resignation is said to be his failure to address several racially charged incidents on campus and the threat by its Division One football team to boycott this weekend’s game unless he stepped down.
[Read the full text here, at WSJ]
The university’s campus, in Columbia, is not far from Ferguson, Mo. Among the charges against President Wolfe was that his response to the shooting of Michael Brown was inadequate, which is to say, he did not sufficiently take the side of the protesters or rioters. Since Ferguson, the left-wing Black Lives Matter group has come to prominence and intimidated even presidential candidates. This has been accompanied by successive claims of racial grievance against public and private institutions.
In the United States, by now the instinct of the overwhelming majority of people is to address such complaints in good faith, investigate them and remediate where necessary. Only the tiniest minority would wish to see racial grievances bleed indefinitely. Yet the kids assert that America is irredeemably racist. Read the rest of this entry »
[VIDEO] Freedom of the Press Hall of Shame: Media Professor Wants To Ban Media CoveragePosted: November 9, 2015 Filed under: Censorship, Education, Mediasphere | Tags: Campus, Columbia, Columbia Daily Tribune, Constitutional amendment, Lawsuit, Missouri, Professor, University of Missouri Leave a comment
Sean Davis writes: After desperately trying to gin up media coverage of student protests at the University of Missouri, once of the school’s media professors is now furiously trying to “muscle” the press off campus to prevent them from covering student protests that rapidly spiraled out of control Monday.
Mizzou president Timothy Wolfe announced his resignation on Monday after members of the school’s 4-5 football team announced they would boycott team activities unless the school acceded to certain demands surrounding racial equality. Unsurprisingly, Wolfe’s resignation did little to quell the mob.
On Monday afternoon, activists who had demanded Wolfe’s resignation abruptly demanded that media stop covering their activities on the public campus of the taxpayer-funded university. At the center of those demands was Melissa Click, an assistant professor of mass media within Mizzou’s communications department….(read more)
Key Paragraphs from the #AbeWarStatementPosted: August 14, 2015 Filed under: Asia, History, Japan, War Room | Tags: Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, Asia, Battle of Okinawa, Beijing, China, Chinese yuan, Constitutional amendment, Richard Lloyd Parry, Shinzō Abe, Twitter Leave a comment
Japanese http://t.co/XDr19Qt9fD and English http://t.co/PnKunhlfqy versions of #Abe‘s war statement.
— Richard Lloyd Parry (@dicklp) August 14, 2015
Richard Lloyd Parry via Twitter
Senate Democrats’ Extremism on DisplayPosted: September 11, 2014 Filed under: Law & Justice, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Bernie Sanders, Brian Schatz, Claire McCaskill, Constitutional amendment, Kay Hagan, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Sierra Club, Washington 1 Comment
George F. Will writes: Since Barry Goldwater, in accepting the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nomination, said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” Democrats have been decrying Republican “extremism.” Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in U.S. politics, real extremism — measures or movements that menace the Constitution’s architecture of ordered liberty — is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.
Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done: Amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class’s convenience is no vice.
The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November.
Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.),Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).
But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities — real extremists.
The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as “relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.” But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. Read the rest of this entry »
Stevens: Fix Second Amendment to Remove “Any Limits” on Government PowerPosted: April 21, 2014 Filed under: Law & Justice, Mediasphere, U.S. News | Tags: Constitution, Constitutional amendment, government, John Paul Stevens, Second Amendment, Stevens, Supreme Court of the United States, Tim Cavanaugh, United States Constitution 1 Comment
“…I think that’s what should be the rule, that it should be legislatures rather than judges who draw the line on what is permissible.”
For National Review Online, Tim Cavanaugh writes: Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens supports gutting the Second Amendment in order to remove any limit on government infringements on the right of self-defense.
In his new book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens — who generally favored maximum government power during his 35-year tenure on the high court — proposes, among other things, changing the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that the amendment would read, “ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms [when serving in the militia] shall not be infringed.”
[Order Justice John Paul Stevens’s book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution from Amazon]