Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ann Coulter Speech Cancelled at Berkeley Over Safety Concerns

Ann Coulter Speech Cancelled at Berkeley Over Safety Concerns

“The hecklers used their veto.”

https://youtu.be/gzAo6vtlbAk

UC Berkeley couldn’t (or wouldn’t) guarantee Ann Coulter’s safety, so her speech has been cancelled. In this case, leftists used the mere threat of violence to silence another conservative voice.

FOX News reports:

Ann Coulter cancels Berkeley event amid protests, says decision ‘a dark day for free speech in America’

The hecklers used their veto.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter told Fox News on Wednesday she would no longer give a planned speech at UC Berkeley after Young America’s Foundation pulled its support for the event amid threats of violence, calling her decision “a dark day for free speech in America.”

The speech was originally scheduled to take place Thursday – but Berkeley asked to postpone it until next month after protests over the planned speech grew into a nationally-watched firestorm.

Coulter, YAF — which had helped organize and finance the event — and the Berkeley College Republicans initially fought the school’s decision, with YAF and the college Republicans filing a civil rights lawsuit on Monday. But by Wednesday YAF had “actively” opposed Coulter’s speech, she said, and “ordered the lawyer not [to] file for [a] court order” which would have mandated a room for the talk. The college Republicans are bound by YAF’s decision, Coulter said, “so there’s nothing more I can do.”

Ann discussed the issue with Sean Hannity last night:

Ann Coulter said universities like Berkeley, where she planned to speak before the event was canceled, are generally “radical.”

She said that progressives on campus want to “destroy and squelch” conservatives’ free speech.

Coulter added that even fellow progressives in the media and government like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Joy Behar think some of the protesters’ actions have gone too far.

“I’m not just some homeless person wondering onto the square, but I’d be allowed to speak then too,” she said.

Coulter also criticized her Berkeley event sponsor for “running away,” saying the Republican Party should change its motto to “next time.”

Coulter said the Young America’s Foundation, a conservative group, preferred a strongly-worded statement to a lawsuit against the university.

Watch the video:

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

And Portland OR cancelled its annual Rose Parade due to the same threats of violence by the same black shirts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/27/portland-rose-parade-canceled-after-antifascists-threaten-gop-marchers/?utm_term=.e25fc26c2ea2

If nothing else, why are these fascists being allowed to get away with calling themselves “anti-fascists”?

If the government we just elected in a landslide armed with an unequivocal mandate won’t defend our constitutional rights, who will? We didn’t elect this all-Republican government to be bystanders or to police us. We elected them to SAVE US from our enemies at home!

If the government won’t perform its primary constitutional duty, it’s time for free people to MOBILIZE! This is exactly why our founding fathers insisted on the 2nd amendment, to protect the 1st amendment and so, the entire constitution should the government turn against us.

    Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | April 27, 2017 at 11:03 am

    “Landslide”? You are delusional.

      valegorge in reply to Ragspierre. | April 27, 2017 at 11:11 am

      Given the surprising results that virtually everyone dismissed out of hand and the obvious jihad by the Media to Stop Trump, I would not quibble with the word “landslide”. I certainly would not call someone using it “delusional”.

        Ragspierre in reply to valegorge. | April 27, 2017 at 1:41 pm

        Nope. Sorry, but in realityville words mean things. “Landslide” has a meaning, and it has nothing to do with surprise.

          Walker Evans in reply to Ragspierre. | April 27, 2017 at 2:00 pm

          Her Royal Corruptness was “supposed” to win the election with at least 400 Electoral votes; instead she lost with a measly 232. While words do indeed have meanings, they also have hyperbolic and sarcastic usages as well; Trump’s victory being called a “landslide” under these circumstances fits that meaning perfectly.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 27, 2017 at 2:49 pm

          I think “bullshit” applies to the whole “landslide” nonsense.

          justaguy in reply to Ragspierre. | April 27, 2017 at 4:19 pm

          107 thousand votes out of 12 million in PA, MI and WI that made President Trump instead of President Hillary is of course a landslide.

It’s a rioter’s veto. Coulter could easily deal with just hecklers.

T-rump should have listened to Levin and federalized the California National Guard to assure Coulter could speak safely and those who wanted to hear her could attend safely.

    valegorge in reply to Ragspierre. | April 27, 2017 at 11:12 am

    The @nationalguardCA is already federalized. See the chain of command and the CinC.

      Ragspierre in reply to valegorge. | April 27, 2017 at 11:24 am

      Nope. Again, words mean things.

      Renaud, John. “National Guard Fact Sheet Army National Guard (FY2005)” (PDF). Army National Guard, G5, Chief, Strategic Plans and Policy.

      The way it’s been explained to me is that the US NATIONAL Guard was chartered with a dual purpose. One is to serve as the state militia under the command of the governor. The other is to serve the CIC in their role as Army Reserves being called to duty.

      I understand that the the CIC usually asks permission of the governor but I am sure it mustn’t matter because Eisenhower sent in the Guard in Arkansas to integrate the public schools and I suspect that the governor didn’t approve. So far, governors have not been able to stand in the way when the CIC steps in to do the governor’s job.

      I am not a lawyer but this issue is typically challenged under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limiting the power of the federal government in deploying US military troops on American soil. It is far from being settled law. So far, the CIC has prevailed.

      I am sure there are plenty of REAL lawyers who could join this discussion but based on my experience, nothing would get settled.

        Unless activated by federal authorities, the National Guard is an organ of the state in which it exists and answers solely to the state government headed by the Governor. If activated by the federal authorities, it becomes part of the US military and is under the command of the DOD. Certain federal laws, governing the use of the US Military, then apply to the activated Guard unit, such as the Posse Comitatus Law of 1878. When the Guard is used for protection from civil unrest, it is almost always used by the state government, as it then has state authority to enforce the laws of the state. When a Guard unit is activated by the federal government to enforce federal law, or even keep the piece, it brings up significant Constitutional and legal questions. When the Guard was deployed to the southern border, in 2010, it was in a non-active support role for the CBP to avoid such legal entanglements. This is why it is rarely done. When it has been been done, its use is usually over before any legal challenges can be mustered.

          Thank you. I’ve been involved in many online discussions on this over the years and that sounds right. Those discussions seemed to be dominated by people argue what they believe or want rather than what the law says or their interpretations of case law.

          I may not be a lawyer I completely understand why historically, our founding fathers and many successive generations didn’t want a standing army. I still don’t. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact so I expect it will by necessity remain a grey area.

National Guard
National Guard
National Guard
National Guard
National Guard
National Guard
National Guard
National Guard
Now

How is making terroristic threats (which this is) legal?

How are anonymous people able to control law-abiding citizens with terroristic threats and they aren’t declared an internal terror group?

    Immolate in reply to Conan. | April 27, 2017 at 11:56 am

    The authorities support the terrorists. Any other questions?

    alaskabob in reply to Conan. | April 27, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Because they are the “enforcement” branch of the Progressive Movement. The Left press tries to frame this as militant Left and militant Right when one is one is offensive (both meanings) and one is defensive (Right ).

    The Feds can make a determination that Ca law enforcement is not enforcing civil rights laws and de facto giving aid and support (by doing nothing) to rioters. Then, one could consider federalizing the National Guard to protect civil rights.

    Oh.. and this time… give the Guard LIVE ammo. The Left will try to make this another Kent State… which was bricks not flowers thrown at the Guard (also see Boston 1770 for context).

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to alaskabob. | April 27, 2017 at 12:29 pm

      They’re called “Brown shirts.”

      RE: “Because they are the “enforcement” branch of the Progressive Movement.”

There are three separate groups evidently trying to squelch Colter’s appearance. First, the obvious; the brownshirts. They’re the ones being blamed, but they’re only one factor. Second, the school administration, which tried to relegate her to the fringes, with restrictions on the time and place of the appearance; and the Young Americas Foundation—which may have pulled the rug out for prosaic reasons, such as lack of funding to pursue its suit.

It’s not obvious why she has to deliver a harangue at a campus facility. The best way to remove such things from the control of a hostile school administration is to not hold them at a school facility. Historically those giving public speeches have used any spot with some room which wasn’t far out in the boonies, even if just a platform on a railway car. The term “stand on a soapbox” arose from such harangues. To give an incendiary speech in London one would carry a soapbox into Hyde Park, stand on it (so no elaborate stage was needed), and hope to attract a crowd.

Bitterlyclinging | April 27, 2017 at 12:27 pm

Ike sent the 101st Airborne, with bayonets fixed, into Little Rock in order to desegregate Central High School.
There’s no reason The Donald couldn’t, likewise, send the 101st, with bayonets fixed, to UC Berkley to restore free speach.

    Ragspierre in reply to Bitterlyclinging. | April 27, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    Contra JFK, who sent in unarmed Federal Marshals in like circumstance to be more PC.

    IIRC, they were promptly shot up.

      Another Ed in reply to Ragspierre. | April 28, 2017 at 12:30 am

      “Unarmed Federal Marshals”?
      Just because you do not see them does not mean that they do not have them.

        Another Ed in reply to Another Ed. | April 28, 2017 at 12:39 am

        sorry, I posted too soon.

        “On the night of September 30, 1962, about 300 marshals encircled the Lyceum on the Ole Miss campus where Meredith was to register the next morning. A smaller detachment guarded Meredith at Baxter Hall about a mile from the Lyceum. The marshals at the Lyceum withstood a series of furious assaults by a mob of 2,000 or so men, many of whom had driven long distances and had brought their shotguns and rifles “to stand with Ross” (Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett).

        More than one-third of the marshals—160 in all—were injured; 28 were wounded by gunfire.

        All the marshals carried revolvers but never used them. Several times during the battle they asked for permission to return the fire. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach at the command post in the Lyceum relayed their requests over an open telephone to the White House, but President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy each time said “No” unless it was necessary to save Meredith.

        Baxter Hall never was attacked, and the marshals at the Lyceum, though embattled and furious at seeing their comrades shot down, held their fire. They were loyal men, well trained in their respective fields, but they had been assembled hurriedly from all sections of the country and there had not been time to organize them into well-disciplined units—yet they obeyed.”

        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1989/02/02/civil-rights-the-kennedys/

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend