The Need for an American National Identity By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

If it is to mean anything, it will remain Judeo-Christian, open to all.https://spectator.org/the-need-for-an-american-national-identity/

Many were elated and approved President Trump’s July speech in Warsaw, Poland acknowledging the central role Western civilization plays in defining who we are and what we believe. Our freedom and survival depend on defending it, he said. Beyond that, he celebrated Western civilization as something extraordinary: “What we’ve inherited from our ancestors has never existed to this extent before.”

A vocal few, popular in leftwing opinion circles, condemned Mr. Trump’s remarks as an affront to multiculturalism, labeling his linkage of us with Western civilization, and our pride in it, as “tribalism, white nationalism, and racism,” claiming that references to Western civilization and ancestors are code words for the above mentioned vices. For some, even the broad term Western civilization is offensive and prejudicial since, as with all definitions, it necessarily conveys something distinctive and thus circumscribed.

The question we should answer is: does a country or nation need an identity, a unique identity with salient features that distinguish it from other countries and nations? In his Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville gave a resounding affirmation, a yes, to the need for a specific identity. He wrote that a corporate entity remains what it is as long as it operates by the principles upon which it was founded. When it changes those principles, it becomes something entirely different, and the success it had, based on its original formula, becomes uncertain and imperiled. It atrophies and declines. He spoke not against periodic tinkering but warned against fundamental transformation.

According to the wise and prescient Tocqueville, we define an entity by its original principles and the values that created its success. These are the seeds that animate it and supply its people with special spirit. What, then, is America’s identity?

Some say it lies in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which grant us the liberties that enshrine our peoplehood and, on a functional level, make possible a daily life open to achievement, aspirations, and human potential. Our way of life and the blessings that have come to us depend on everyone living within this Constitutional framework and by precluding its replacement or abridgement with another set of laws claiming to be a “higher morality” or temporarily more important, or by enacting waivers or special accommodation in the name of multiculturalism.

There are those today wishing to sideline the Constitution and our historic way of life by invalidating the men, and thus the ideas, behind it. Using charges of racism as the singular and only important lens in which to judge a person’s value, they nullify the totality, the overwhelming contributions, and extraordinary sacrifices of great men and women of a different era. Meanwhile, they grant themselves unassailable superiority and rigid final judgment simply because of their claims to victimhood or for espousing one of the many isms in today’s pantheon for self-righteous virtue signaling. A nation’s historic identity is being replaced by identity politics, culminating frequently in automatic indictment of historical figures simply because their race or moral values are now out of fashion.

There are those in America wishing to define us strictly as a nation of tolerance and inclusivity, this deification resulting often, as in Europe, in tolerating the intolerable and including everyone and everything to the point of endangering those in society not ensconced within rarified and protective gates. They think the best identity is no identity. But this vacuum and void, as witnessed in Europe, allows for other assertive or aggressive identities and mores to creep within and replace, zone by zone; for surely, strong and energized identities will replace the mushy identity of No Identity.

Battle of the Sexes: Billie Jean King Sings, ‘I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore’ By Kyle Smith

The directors of the new movie don’t seem to realize that Bobby Riggs is the one viewers want to hang out with.

‘Billie Jean for President” reads the placard hoisted by an excitable fan at the climactic moment of Battle of the Sexes. Subtle! The story of an epic showdown between a feminist and a troglodyte is for Hollywood an unmissable opportunity to restage the 2016 election as a 1973 tennis match, the big attraction being that this time the woman wins.

Except the movie undermines its own point by not understanding who the real underdog is, nor why he’s ever so much more appealing than the dull, grinding standard-bearer for female equality. If this movie had an anthem, it would be “I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore.”

Bobby Riggs (played as pathetically needy by Steve Carell) is in 1973 a 55-year-old clubhouse hustler having problems with his rich wife (Elisabeth Shue), who throws him out of the house because of his gambling addiction. When a Rolls-Royce turns up in the driveway and he sheepishly admits he won it in a bet, she calls it the last straw. How dare he ruin her life by winning luxury automobiles? He’s the kind of guy who attends a Gamblers’ Anonymous meeting and urges the other attendees not to quit betting but to quit losing. There’s a difference, he explains, between gamblers and hustlers. It’s a glorious moment, sort of the country club version of General Patton telling the men that the goal isn’t to die for their country — it’s to make the other dumb sonofabitch die for his.

All that is mere background, though. In the foreground is Billie Jean King (a rabbity, withdrawn Emma Stone). Depending on the moment, she’s either the best or second-best female tennis player in the world, but the boys at the United States Lawn Tennis Association won’t pay her on par with the male players. They argue that women’s tennis is simply worth less in the marketplace. King huffs out the door and forms the Women’s Tennis Association along with a pushy promoter (Sarah Silverman, who tries hard for laughs that don’t quite materialize). The righteousness of their cause is somewhat muddled by their dependence on a sponsor selling a brand of women’s cigarettes that touted smoking as a dieting aid. Younger readers will not recall this, but there was once an era when it was considered unladylike to smoke. Feminists rejoiced when they broke down this barrier. You’ve come a long way, baby. Celebrate by giving yourself cancer.

King meanwhile strikes up a flirtation with a vixenish hairdresser (Andrea Riseborough), which is inconvenient because she has a husband. (His name is Larry King. Not the former CNN host and legendary USA Today columnist.) Her sexuality is presented as very dicey and dangerous stuff, but since we in 2016 know the outcome of her coming out — nobody much cared — there isn’t a lot of dramatic mileage here. This isn’t The Imitation Game. Gradually America learned King was gay, and America shrugged.

As if to present a Big Top version of her struggle for equality, Riggs starts making a nationwide spectacle of his boast that he could beat any woman in tennis, even giving himself the title “male chauvinist pig.” Long before Trump vs. Megyn Kelly, he becomes America’s favorite sexist troll, making such a ruckus that huge prize money flocks to his proposed matches. Then he goes out and beats Margaret Court, the top-ranked ladies’ tennis player at the moment. Not only does he beat her, he demolishes her, 6–2, 6–1.

Trump’s Successful U.N. Speech It had both striking rhetoric and a sound argument. By Elliott Abrams

In his speech to the United Nations, President Trump very successfully met the political and intellectual challenge he faced. He reminded the delegates that the United Nations was never meant to be a gigantic bureaucracy that would steadily become a world government. Rather, he said, it is an association of sovereign states whose strength depends “on the independent strength of its members.” Its success, he argued, depends on their success at governing well as “strong, sovereign, and independent nations.”

Trump cleverly turned patriotism — love of one’s own country, and what he called the necessary basis for sacrifice and “all that is best in the human spirit” — into the basis for international cooperation to solve problems that nations must face together. “The true question,” he said, is “are we still patriots?” If we are, we can work together for “a future of dignity and peace for the people of this wonderful Earth.” This was a useful, principled, and accurate reminder that the nation-state (a term he used) remains the key to world politics, and that successful nation-states will be the key to addressing the world’s challenges.

The speech added to this line of thinking several Trumpian touches that must be applauded — and others that served at least to wake up his audience. He said, for example, that “the problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.” That has to count as one of the nicest lines ever delivered in that General Assembly chamber. He noted that “major portions of the world are in conflict, and some in fact are going to hell.” One assumes he added the latter phrase to the written text — and it was pure Trump. He carefully distinguished between the vicious and corrupt regime in Iran, “whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos,” and “the good people of Iran,” adding that “Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most” after only “the vast military power of the United States.” On North Korea, he delivered the line that may be the most quoted: He said of Kim Jong-un that “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission” and told the delegates that if Kim attacks the United States, “we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

What did Trump not talk about? The Israeli–Palestinian conflict. At times that problem was the central item in President Obama’s speeches to the U.N., so its absence in Trump’s first address to the General Assembly was very striking. He wants to get a deal done, as he reiterated when meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but he realizes that the conflict is not central to world politics or even to stability and peace in the Middle East. So it had no place in this text.

Trump’s criticism of the United Nations was clear, hitting everything from the hypocrisy of allowing tyrannical regimes to serve as members of the Human Rights Council to its bloated bureaucracy, but every criticism was combined with a call for improvement and a pledge of cooperation. He held out the picture of a better U.N. able to confront and solve many of the world’s problems.

Why Trump’s UN Speech Was a Triumph By Roger Kimball

Donald Trump on Tuesday confirmed yet again why he is the most robust president since Ronald Reagan. Following up on his brilliant speeches before a joint session of Congress in February, his speech about combating Islamic terrorism before Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, and his splendid defense of Western civilizational values in Warsaw a few months ago, Trump addressed the United Nations and articulated for the 150 delegates at that ostentatiously corrupt institution the signal lesson of successful international relations: that freedom within nations, and comity among them, is best served not by the effacement or attenuation of national sovereignty but its frank and manly embrace.https://amgreatness.com/2017/09/19/trumps-un-speech-triumph/

“Sovereignty,” indeed, was the master word of Trump’s address. The word and its cognates occur 21 times in the 4,300-word talk, centrally in conjunction with the core Trumpian ideal of “principled realism.”

“We are guided,” Trump explained, “by outcomes, not ideology. We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.”

The United Nations has in recent decades become a poster child for bureaucratic despond: corrupt, wasteful, and inefficient. It has also evolved into a megaphone for anti-American, left-wing sentiment, often hiding behind utopian world-government rhetoric.

This development, Trump reminded his listeners, is a blunt betrayal of the noble aspirations that formed the United Nations in the aftermath of World War II. Trump quoted Harry Truman, who stressed that the success of the United Nations depended on the “independent strength of its members.” The United Nations was not created to subvert national sovereignty but to help guarantee it.

One of the most refreshing things about Trump’s address—it is characteristic of his speeches—was his frankness. At the U.N., this had a positive as well as a critical side. On the positive side, I found it a breath of fresh air to hear an American president celebrate the achievements of America.

“The United States of America,” Trump said, “has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.” This is the simple truth, but I do not recall hearing such sentiments from the White House in recent years.

On the critical side, Trump was equally forthright. He affirmed his intention to battle threats to sovereignty from “the Ukraine to the South China Sea.” He roundly castigated the handful of “depraved” rogue regimes that not only terrorize their own people but threaten world peace. They violate, he noted, every principle upon which the U.N. was founded. In one the speech’s two most memorable moments, he called out the deplorable regime of Kim Jong-un in North Korea. The patience of the United States, Trump noted, is great, but it is not infinite.

If North Korea persists in its policy of nuclear blackmail, Trump explained, the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” He continued: “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.” I could almost hear tongues clucking at the New York Times and the Washington Post, as much for the contemptuous nickname as for the threat of military force. But I liked it, just as I liked his robust calling-a-spade-a-spade moment with respect to the criminal regime of Iran, one of the world’s most ostentatious enablers of terrorism.

But Trump’s comments about North Korea and Iran were not only a declaration of resolve. They were also a challenge to the United Nations, the forum in which rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea ought to be brought to heel. The United States would step up to the plate by itself if necessary. But, Trump said, it would be better if the United Nations address the outliers. “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few,” Trump said in another memorable line, “then evil will triumph.”

Anthony Bourdain “Jokes” About Poisoning President Trump The oppressive Cuban dictatorship is more to his liking. Humberto Fontova

“Anthony Bourdain, host of ‘Parts Unknown’ on liberal CNN, said last week that he would poison Donald Trump if the celebrity chef was asked to cater a peace summit between the President and Kim Jong Un….’Hemlock,’ Bourdain simply replied when asked by TMZ what he would serve Trump and the North Korean dictator.”

OK, so Bourdain was joking. Har–Har! But here’s Bourdain from interview right after Trump’s election:

“I will never eat in his (Donald Trump’s) restaurant. I have utter contempt for him, utter and complete contempt… I’m not going. I’m not going.” (Anthony Bourdain, Eater.)

Bourdain sure seems sniffish about patronizing (much less publicizing) restaurants belonging to deviants from his political worldview. OK, fine. That’s his privilege.

But what does this say about the “principled” celebrity chef’s sniveling propagandizing for restaurants owned by the racist, mass-murdering, terror-sponsoring Castro-Family-and- Military-Crony Crime-Syndicate (habitually and grotesquely mislabeled as “Cuba” by Bourdain’s employers at The Travel Channel and CNN)?

“Yes, Go to Cuba!” gushed Bourdain at the end of a show he did from Cuba in 2011. So let’s hand it to this shameless and sniveling hypocrite, to this celebrity who wears his political principles and social-conscience on his shirtsleeve. He’s simply a corporate shill—but for one of the most profitable and unscrupulous corporations in modern history: the Castro Family.

In fact Anthony Bourdain– this “hipster” chef—has headlined several propaganda junkets (his shows from Cuba) to help secure the financial lifeline for a Stalinist regime that jailed and tortured the longest suffering black, female and gay political prisoners in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere.

Bourdain’s bootlicking services for the financial welfare of the terror-sponsors who craved to nuke his nation also included –not only a tourism commercial for the Castro family!—but also an official “Tony Bourdain’s Guide to Cuba.” Along with a handy-dandy link from Bourdain’s page to the Castro-regime-owned Hotel Nacional– for quick and easy reservations! But let some celebrity chef plug a U.S. restaurant and Bourdain turns up his nose and sneers at such a “sell-out.”

In case you hadn’t heard, amigos: As Venezuela’s oil subsidies dry up, Castro’s Stalinist regime is increasingly living off tourism. And Cuba’s Intelligence and Military sector owns 80 per cent of the tourism industry, as documented in Congressional testimony by retired Defense Intelligence Agency Cuba analyst, Lieut. Col. Chris Simmons.

Those charming, smiling hosts who escorted Bourdain around Castro’s fiefdom were all regime apparatchiks. Immediately upon applying for his Cuban visa, well before Bourdain even set foot in Cuba, Castro’s intelligence had Bourdain completely sussed and his future escorts completely briefed. The procedure started the day he applied for Cuban visa, as also explained by Lieut. Col. Christopher Simmons. That your official “guides” while officially visiting a Communist nation were regime apparatchiks was common knowledge even to proto-imbeciles all during the Cold War. Bourdain was born in 1956.

Everywhere a Fascist The campus Left’s obsession with racism points to Israel supporters too. Richard L. Cravatts

Long before the hooded, masked, and dressed-in-black Antifa thugs marauded across campuses such as Berkeley, other supposed progressive campus activists had been raging an ideological war against ideas with which they disagreed. They are, as former Yale President, A. Bartlett Giamatti, once called people intolerant of others’ views, “terrorists of the mind,” individuals whose toxic views and on-campus behavior help to create a disruptive environment and promote incivility and acrimony.

One of those groups is the notorious Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), purportedly a pro-Palestinian campus organization but which actually in practice is strictly an anti-Israel group with the sole purpose of demonizing and libeling Israel, foisting boycott and divestment campaigns targeting the Jewish state on student governments, and doing their best to shut down and silence any pro-Israel voices on campus.

SJP has a long history since its founding in 1993 of bringing vitriolic anti-Israel speakers to their respective campuses (now numbering over 200 with chapters), and for such collateral activities as sponsoring the pernicious Israeli Apartheid Weeks, building mock “apartheid walls,” and sending mock eviction notices to Jewish students in their dorms to demonize Israel and create empathy for the Palestinian Arab cause.

This intellectually-destructive behavior is nothing new for SJP; what is new is that they have made a tactical pivot since the election of Donald Trump, choosing to join the chorus of shrill voices accusing the White House, conservatives, Republicans, and even white people in general of being a new incarnation of fascists, white supremacists, and virtual neo-Nazis emboldened and given influence by the Trump administration’s alleged racist and xenophobic ideology.

This false narrative has shown itself on campus across the country and has galvanized various left-wing student groups, social justice warriors, left-leaning faculty, Muslim student groups, and even the anarchistic, violent Antifa who purport to be fighting fascism by behaving fascistically. In February, in anticipation of a Milo Yiannopoulos speech, Antifa goons lit fires, beat and assaulted Trump supporters, smashed windows, and created havoc and some $150,000 of damage on Berkeley’s campus, all in the name of suppressing white supremacist ideology. Controversial sociologist Charles Murray was driven off the Middlebury College campus and his faculty companion physically assaulted because he was deemed to be a racist; Heather MacDonald, a critic of Black Lives Matter and supporter of law enforcement, had her speech shut down as well.

In August, something named the Campus Antifascist Network (CAF), a collation of leftist activists, faculty, and social justice warriors, was created “to stand united against fascist hatred and white supremacy” and the “genocidal hate that underlies white supremacist ideology,” including “the physical engagement of antifascists towards the neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” meaning using violence as a tool of protest.

The hysteria, and evident delusion, over the perceived sudden resurgence of fascism, white supremacy, anti-minority racism, xenophobia—essentially Nazi-like behavior—and the subsequent demonization of anyone who expresses conservative thought, supports Trump, or who refuses to cave to the thrall of identity politics and political correctness on campuses, has given campus activists a new and potent tool in their campaign against any ideas they do not like—meaning, of course, any ideas that challenge their preconceived and leftist notions.

Trump’s Stand at the UN for America A bold call for freedom and a stern warning to its enemies. Joseph Klein

President Donald Trump came to the United Nations this week as the “representative of the American people,” not as the “global citizen” that Barack Obama had portrayed himself to be. To paraphrase William Shakespeare, when Obama asked his global audiences to lend him their ears, he came to bury America under a heap of apologies for its alleged past misdeeds, not to praise his home country. President Trump could not have presented a starker contrast. He praised the U.S. Constitution, called out the miserable failures of socialism and confronted the totalitarian enemies of the United States, singling out radical Islamic terrorists and the rogue authoritarian regimes of North Korea, Iran and socialist Venezuela with a moral clarity reminiscent of former President Ronald Reagan.

During his inaugural visit to UN headquarters in New York for the annual convocation of world leaders, Trump delivered two speeches and held a series of high level bilateral meetings. His first speech, delivered at an event Monday on UN reform hosted by the United States, focused on the need for significant management reform at the UN. Trump criticized the UN for its bloated bureaucracy and mismanagement, while not producing results in line with the sharp increase in the UN budget, which is disproportionately funded by the United States. However, he included in his remarks some praise for the UN’s disaster relief efforts, its feeding of the hungry and UN Secretary General António Guterres’ own UN reform initiatives.

Trump’s second speech on Tuesday, delivered on the opening day of the General Assembly’s world leaders’ debate, was much tougher in tone. It focused on his notion of “principled realism” in international relations, balancing effective multilateralism to combat problems of global concern with the primacy of national sovereignty. The U.S. president explained his “American First” principles in some detail and put the rogue nations of North Korea, Iran and Venezuela on notice that their misdeeds would have serious consequences.

A globalist appeaser is clearly no longer in the White House.

“Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens — to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values. I will always put America first — just like you — as the leaders of your countries will always — and should — always put your countries first,” the president declared. The success of the UN, he said, depends on the “independent strength” of its member states, built on each nation’s respect for the interests of its own people and for the rights of every other sovereign nation. “All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition,” he added.

America would do its fair share, continuing to “lead the world in humanitarian assistance,” the president assured the assembled dignitaries, and to shoulder the burden to protect freedom and security around the world without territorial ambitions. However, under his watch, President Trump would no longer allow the United States to be taken advantage of or enter into “a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.” This was not music to the ears of the self-important foreign leaders in attendance who have gotten used to exploiting UN globalist institutions on the US’s dime, while using forums provided by the UN to slander the United States and Israel.

Obama certainly won the popularity contest when he strutted onto the world stage year after year during his presidency to deliver his encomiums to global governance and to place the United States at the same level as all the other 192 member states of the United Nations, no matter how authoritarian they were or how little they contributed to the budget of the UN. Obama was treated like a celebrity, his speeches punctuated by frequent outbursts of rapturous applause. President Trump, on the other hand, came across during his General Assembly speech as the serious teacher, seeking to bring some sense and discipline to what he once referred to as “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.” The president reminded his audience of America’s unparalleled economic and military strength, rather than apologize for it as Obama so often did in front of foreign audiences.

Of particular note, Obama used his global platform at the UN General Assembly in 2012 to shamelessly declare that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Obama had more concern for the Islamists offended by an obscure anti-Muslim video than he did for the victims of terrorism. He refused to acknowledge the ideology that inspires and sanctions Jihad. President Trump, in contrast, used his global platform at the UN General Assembly to categorically declare that the United States “will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation, and indeed to tear up the entire world.” The world must rally against “Islamist extremism,” he said, not wish it away or make excuses for it. In other words, the president named and labeled the ideology and movement now waging war on the Western world.

Media Continues Gaslighting Somali Refugee’s Stabbing Terror Attack at Minnesota Mall By Patrick Poole

UPDATED: The Star Tribune reporter responds. See exchange below.

On the one-year anniversary of the terror attack in St. Cloud, Minnesota, where Somali refugee Dahir Adan walked into the Crossroads Center shopping mall and began stabbing shoppers (as he asked his victims if they were Muslim) and shouting “Allah akhbar,” the media is still remarkably unclear about Adan’s motives.

The attack was later claimed by the Islamic State, which declared that Adan was one of their “soldiers”.

“Reporter” Stephen Montemayor tells us:

But one year after Adan’s rampage, newly unsealed court filings detailing the FBI’s early response underline the difficulty that persists in trying to unwrap the young man’s motivation and determine whether he had any guidance from virtual terror planners abroad.

Days after sending more than 20 agents to St. Cloud to interview scores of witnesses, the FBI obtained search warrants for Adan’s social media accounts, the Toyota Camry he was driving when he struck a bicyclist on his way to the mall and four digital devices, according to court filings. But authorities still say they may never know what sparked Adan’s decision to bring two Farberware kitchen knives to the mall that night.

FBI special agent in charge Richard Thornton told reporters last year that the bright young college student may have been radicalized “almost overnight,” growing withdrawn and scolding relatives for not being more devout […]

Authorities have not found contacts between Adan and operatives of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, instead pointing to witness statements that Adan shouted “Allahu akbar,” an Arabic phrase meaning “God is great,” and that he first asked some victims if they were Muslim before stabbing them.

Despite recounting the official claims of the attack by ISIS, testimony of the victims, and acknowledgement of Adan’s increasingly radicalized behavior, there still remains a great mystery to his motive according to the Star Tribune.

It seems what is going on is that the Star Tribune is taking the FBI saying that they can’t find a direct connection between Adan and ISIS and trying to gin that up into a controversy about what his motive was. However, these are not correlated issues.

To our knowledge and based on what has been reported, there is no indication that Adan ever claimed a direct connection to ISIS.

So how does the absence of any evidence of a direct connection, which was never claimed by Adan, suddenly throw into doubt all of the other available evidence? It doesn’t. That’s at the heart of the gaslighting that’s going on in this case.

And for local “activist” organizations quoted by Montemayor, that manufactured doubt about Adan’s motives now allows them to charge that others are able to “just fill in their own truths”:

The opacity of Adan’s case has been difficult for St. Cloud, said Natalie Ringsmuth, who directs #UniteCloud, a nonprofit that has worked to ease cultural tensions. Ringsmuth said the stabbing is still referenced by anti-Muslim activists visiting the city, as recently as last week. Meanwhile, she said not knowing whether Adan was indeed radicalized has curbed the opportunity to discuss preventing a similar episode.

UCF Diversity Chair Who Told Trump Supporters They Were ‘Not Welcome’ Resigns By Tom Knighton

Conservative and libertarian students don’t get to feel welcome on most college campuses. In more than a couple of cases, they have actually said as much.

At the University of Central Florida, one of the students saying so was named the Diversity Chair for the student government association by a winning candidate who said he wanted to represent all students, regardless of silly things like political ideology.

Now, according to Campus Reform, that diversity chair is out.

The Diversity Chair for the University of Central Florida’s student government has resigned amid controversy over his past statements that Trump supporters are “not welcome” on campus.

Grayson Lanza was appointed to the position of Diversity and Outreach Coordinator on June 22, and conservative students argued that he is unfit for the position based on Facebook posts and hostile comments allegedly made in person to a classmate last October.

“I will be searching for someone who will actively represent all students.”

UCF student Daniel Hanna told Campus Reform that he and several friends “were having a good time waving Trump flags and such” at a pro-Trump rally on UCF’s “free speech lawn” when Lanza and several other students began taunting them with phrases such as “racist” and “sexist.”

Describing the behavior as “very aggressive,” Hanna recalled that Lanza “said multiple times that we were not welcome on campus and that he does not tolerate us.”

Lanza has since resigned, which Student Body President Nick Larkins and Vice President Cristina Barretto announced on their campaign Facebook page.

Of course, Lanza is only guilty of articulating what far too many students and staff on American campuses are already thinking. Further, plenty make the same idea clear through their own actions.

Larkins said in his Facebook announcement that he stands by Lanza, but that Lanza opted to resign. In other words, Lanza had become an albatross around Larkins’ neck.

I get that most students tend to lean progressive in their politics, which makes the right-of-center student a bit of an abnormality. However, that doesn’t mean those students should be explicitly made to feel unwelcome. The reality is that if every liberal-majority school sought to discourage conservative students from attending, there wouldn’t be too many places for those students to go, now would there?

Then again, these folks might see that as a feature, not a bug. After all, then they can call the right a bunch of uneducated hicks and have it be at least partially correct.

The thing is, since most of these schools receive at least some funding from tax dollars, everyone who is accepted at the school has a right to attend regardless of ideology. If we didn’t keep out communists during the height of the Red Scare, there’s no reason for anyone to exclude conservatives.

Lanza’s resignation was appropriate, and I get that Larkins probably had to say he stood by his cabinet member for political reasons, but he shouldn’t have to. This should never have been an issue.

Middlebury College Empowers Violent Students, Heckler’s Veto By Tom Knighton

Middlebury College was the scene of one of the moments that summed up the problems with free speech on college campuses when a professor was assaulted while walking next to Charles Murray after his aborted talk on the campus. Now, the college has taken steps to make sure that never happens again…by empowering the heckler’s veto so that someone like Murray will never be allowed to speak again.

The college has essentially established a policy that encourages student violence against speakers they don’t particularly care for.

From The College Fix:

The administration has released an “ interim” policy for “scheduling events and invited speakers” that incentivizes violent protests against speakers who are invited to campus.

Following a section that lays out a “risk assessment” to be performed and reviewed in the event that a speaker is likely to be confronted with “threats or violence,” the policy says:

In those exceptional cases where this review indicates significant risk to the community, the president and senior administration will work with event sponsors to determine measures to maximize safety and mitigate risk. Only in cases of imminent and credible threat to the community that cannot be mitigated by revisions to the event plan would the president and senior administration consider canceling the event.

This practically “rewards the heckler’s veto,” according to Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to President George W. Bush and Middlebury alum, who spoke on campus last year.

Let me explain, in simple terms, what this policy will mean to students who believe Antifa has the right idea. They will see this as a policy that can be used to effectively ban speakers who have uncomfortable ideas. They will look at this policy and make certain the school knows violence will happen if the unpopular speaker is permitted on the campus.

I get where Middlebury is coming from, but by saying under what circumstances they will cancel events, they are giving some people victory conditions and a roadmap on how to achieve it. If the collegiate left has shown us anything over the last year or so, it’s their willingness to embrace violence in service to their cause.

That means injuring professors, burning buildings, or anything else as long as they succeed in stifling someone else’s right to speak.

Not a single person was punished for the violence that broke out when Charles Murray tried to speak.

Nice job, Middlebury. Nice job.