• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Universities to “Return” Beliefs to Aboriginal Basics?

IS IT THE NEW YORK TIMES, OR THE ONION?

“A friend sent me a link to this New York Times article, published on Monday, that is headlined “A College Built for Canadian Settlers Envisions an Indigenous Future.” It reads like a parody, but I have verified that the Times actually did publish it. It is about how universities across Canada are “indigenizing.” I will turn the floor over to my friend; the comments on the Times piece are his.

The college was built in the last century, modeled on the great American and British universities. It was imagined as a grand preserve of Western thought for the children of Canadian settlers, then flooding into the country’s youngest province in the prairies. …

Now, all that has changed. Universities across Canada are “indigenizing” — a new, elastic term that means everything from drawing more aboriginal students and faculty members onto campuses built largely for white settlers, to infusing those stodgy Western institutions with aboriginal belief systems and traditional knowledge.
***
Two smaller Canadian institutions introduced indigenous learning requirements for all undergraduates this past school year.

Hilarious! Yes, those “stodgy Western institutions” like Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Bologna, Harvard and Yale. Sure…let’s “infuse[e]” them with “aboriginal belief systems and traditional knowledge” whatever that is…..

Of course, this is a problem:

Aboriginal scholars say that colonial education philosophies and aboriginal theories of knowledge are incompatible.

Just laughable! I can’t wait to compare and contrast “aboriginal theories of knowledge” with Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein…for starters…and I can’t wait to see, to paraphrase a snide remark made in a not dissimilar context, who is the Dostoyevsky of the aboriginals? (Answer: Dostoyevsky is the Dostoyevsky of the aboriginals — a universal, non-tribal greatness accessible even to aboriginals, raising them up as he raised up his own cultural confreres. That is the greatness of those “stodgy” universities.)

I’m also looking forward to all aboriginal “theories of knowledge” concerning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, mathematics, architecture…who is the aboriginal Euclid, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Gauss, etc. ad infinitum.

This, however, has to be among the most fatuous, risible and utterly clueless remarks uttered by a university factotum, and there is plenty of recent competition:

Even Peter Stoicheff, the university’s president, recognizes the challenges.

Universities are so inherently white and Western, when you start to push against it, you realized how intractable a lot of that is,” Mr. Stoicheff said.

Everything is based on reading stuff,” he explained. “Everything is laid out in a hierarchical and linear fashion. Look at the aboriginal ways, from visual expression to the wampum belt, dances and oral storytelling. It’s not linear. Everything is based on the circle.”

“Universities are so inherently white and Western.” Well, duh! One of the great glories of our civilization, and one which the benighted of any tribe are invited to partake of!

This, however, IS right out of The Onion: “Everything is based on reading stuff.” Beyond belief.

Note, too, the New York Times using, intentionally and deliberately, left-wing terms of political correctness: “white settlers,” “colonial educational philosophies” and, of course “indigenous” and “aboriginal”. As the “woke” multi-cultural left well knows, “settler” is an especially loaded term. The anti-Israeli left uses it to describes Jews, and the ANC in South Africa to describe Dutch origin Afrikaners —- with the shared slogan, “one settler, one bullet”.

But you’ll never see the “woke” multicultural New York Times and its rabid left wing allies use the term to describe “refugees,” “migrants” or “undocumented workers” (“immigrants”), will you? So, the Canadians are “white settlers” but the waves of Asian and Muslims arriving are “immigrants.” OK. I wonder what they think of “aboriginal theories of knowledge.”

That was all from my friend. The Times article also says this:

Last year, the academic governing body agreed that all of the 17 colleges and schools, from dentistry to engineering, should include indigenous knowledge.

I am not sure what the Stone Age engineering of Native Americans can teach modern engineering students, but I know this for sure: when it comes to “indigenous” dentistry, count me out!”

Article by John Hinderaker at PowerLine.

WSJ: Anatomy of a Witch Hunt

Anatomy of a Witch Hunt

The Trump-Russia scare comes from the same playbook as fake cancer scares.

by Holman Jenkins   at the Wall Street Journal:

“Americans won’t be really good citizens until they read Timur Kuran and Cass Sunstein’s 1999 law review article about “availability cascades.”

Their launching point is the process by which we (i.e., human beings) decide to believe what others believe, and judge the truth of a proposition by how familiar it is. Such “availability cascades” drive government policy in good ways and bad, but usually bad. An example the authors analyze in detail is 1989’s fake “Alar” cancer scare that devastated U.S. apple growers.

Which brings us to today’s question: How did it become widely believed in the first half of 2017 that a U.S. president committed treason with Russia?

Consider what has passed for proof in the media. Tens of thousands of Americans have done business with Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not to mention before.

In 2009 President Obama made the first of his two trips to Russia with a gaggle of U.S. business leaders in tow.

Of these many thousands, four were associated with the Trump campaign, and now became evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.

Every president for 75 years has sought improved relations with Russia. That’s what those endless summits were about. Mr. Trump, in his typically bombastic way, also promoted improved relations with Russia. Now this was evidence of collusion.

Russian diplomats live in the U.S. and rub shoulders with countless Americans. Such shoulder-rubbing, if Trump associates were involved, now is proof of crime.

The Alar pesticide scare only took off when activists whom Messrs. Kuran and Sunstein label “availability entrepreneurs” peddled deceptive claims to a credulous “60 Minutes.” We would probably not be having this Russia discussion today if not for the so-called Trump dossier alleging improbable, lurid connections between Donald Trump and the Kremlin.

It had no provenance that anyone was bound to respect or rely upon. Its alleged author, a retired British agent named Christopher Steele, supposedly had Russian intelligence sources, but why would Russian intelligence blow the cover of their blackmail agent Mr. Trump whom they presumably so carefully and expensively cultivated? They wouldn’t.

Yet recall the litany of Rep. Adam Schiff, who declared in a House Intelligence Committee hearing: “Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence?”

His litany actually consisted of innocuous, incidental and routine Trump associations interspersed with claims from the Trump dossier to make the innocuous, incidental and routine seem nefarious.

Maybe Mr. Schiff is a cynic, or maybe Harvard Law sent him back into the world with the same skull full of mush with which he arrived. But ever since, every faulty or incomplete recollection of a meeting with a Russian has been promoted in the media as proof of treason by Trump associates.

The president’s obvious irritation with being called a traitor is proof that he is a traitor.

Whether the Russia incubus did more harm to Mr. Trump’s vote or Hillary’s vote during the election is impossible to know. But Mr. Trump won, so under the hindsight fallacy his victory is now proof that he conspired with Russia.

The term “availability bias” originated in the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, whose Nobel Prize-winning research gave birth to the field of behavioral economics.

Mr. Kahneman went on to write 2011’s indispensable “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” and I’m here to tell you that journalists especially pride themselves on their fast thinking—the kind that mistakes randomness for pattern, confuses correlation with causation, and gives excessive rein to emotional and cognitive biases.

Notice I don’t say reporters and editors are so dumb they can’t free themselves from such errors. I say that such errors are their stock in trade.

The original allegory of fast thinking, of course, is the old folklore tale, “the emperor’s new clothes.” In his 1922 book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann explained how journalists reduce complex, novel realities to off-the-shelf “stereotypes.”

Or as a colleague once said of Stalin, “[He] tries to force life into a ready-made framework. The more life resists . . . the more forcefully he mangles and breaks it.”

Come to think of it, that’s not a bad way of describing how the D.C. anthill has reacted to the unexpected, exotic, high-risk, possibly providential experiment of the Trump presidency.

We mean every descriptor. His very unsuitability, the mood of the American public that elected him, the obscure impasse of American politics that brought him to power—all these signs deserve more respect than they’re getting.

His Torquemadas don’t and can’t know whether our democracy, in the improbable Mr. Trump, found a lever to move us forward, but there’s something repugnant in their desire not to find out.”

Comment:   The above Wall Street Journal article is a foreign language to about 99.3% of today’s American “adults” under the age of 50.  Truth, words, places, people, actions have become foreign to their modern  leftist equalized fascistic Democrat Party propaganda to force upon America the most important right….to be equally ignorant and powerless to what today’s “Democrats” are cooking up for the nation’s future.

Prager’s WHY CONSERVATIVES STILL ATTACK TRUMP

Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

by Dennis Prager at Townhall:

“When people you know well, admire, and who share your values do something you strongly oppose, you have two options:

1) Cease admiring them or 2) try to understand them and change their minds.

In the case of my conservative friends who still snipe (or worse) at President Trump, I have rejected option one. The reason — beside the fact that I simply like many of them — is what I refer to as “moral bank accounts.”

Every time we do good, we make a deposit into our moral bank account. And every time we do something bad, we make a withdrawal. These conservatives have made so many deposits into their moral bank accounts that, in my view, their accounts all remain firmly in the black.

That means my only choice is option two. But to try to change their minds, I must first try to understand their thinking.

I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.

While they strongly differ with the left, they do not regard the left-right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

That is why, after vigorously opposing Trump’s candidacy during the Republican primaries, I vigorously supported him once he won the nomination. I believed then, as I do now, that America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president. With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

To my amazement, no anti-Trump conservative writer sees it that way. They all thought during the election, and still think, that while it would not have been a good thing if Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn’t have been a catastrophe either.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Many conservatives, including me, believe that it would have been close to over for America as America if the Republican candidate, who happened to be a flawed man named Donald Trump, had not won. Moreover, I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton.

In other words, I believe that Donald Trump may have saved the country. And that, in my book, covers a lot of sins — foolish tweets, included.

The Never-Trump conservative argument that Trump is not a conservative – one that I, too, made repeatedly during the Republican primaries – is not only no longer relevant, it is no longer true.

Had any Never-Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally, Assad, after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall; appoint a U.N. ambassador who regularly condemns the U.N. for its moral hypocrisy; restore the military budget; and work on lowering corporate tax rates, among other conservative achievements — that Never-Trump conservative would have been jumping for joy.

So, why aren’t anti-Trump conservatives jumping for joy?

I have come to believe that many conservatives possess what I once thought was a left-wing monopoly — a utopian streak. Trump is too far from their ideal leader to be able to support him.

There is also a cultural divide. Anti-Trump conservatives are a very refined group of people. Trump doesn’t talk like them. Moreover, the cultural milieu in which the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives live and/or work means that to support Trump is to render oneself contemptible at all elite dinner parties.

In addition, anti-Trump conservatives see themselves as highly moral people (which they often are) who are duty-bound not to compromise themselves by strongly supporting Trump, whom they largely view as morally defective.

Finally, these people are only human: After investing so much energy in opposing Trump’s election, and after predicting his nomination would lead to electoral disaster, it’s hard to for them to admit they were wrong. To see him fulfill many of his conservative election promises, again in defiance of predictions, is a bitter pill. But if they hang on to their Never-Trumpism and the president falls on his face, they can say they were right all along.

That means that only if he fails can their reputations be redeemed. And they, of course, know that.

But there is another way.

They can join the fight. They can accept an imperfect reality and acknowledge that we are in a civil war, and that Trump, with all his flaws, is our general. If this general is going to win, he needs the best fighters. But too many of them, some of the best minds of the conservative movement, are AWOL.

I beg them: Please report for duty.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/05/30/why-conservatives-still-attack-trump-n2332924

Leftist Alan Dershowitz Turns Honest for a Change?

I remember Attorney Alan Dershowitz  as a leftist extremist from many yesterdays with a foul temper who, over the decades, managed to manipulate the American Civil Liberties Union into an agency to stifle religious speech with the advancement of the freedom of scenes and noises to conquer and replaced the civil.

He worshiped his “I” counts for posterity then when he was never known for anything conservative.  I wonder what he now eats for breakfast.  Oatmeal might have caused it…..But then, where would this mouthy Dershowitz heat  his oats?   Please read below regarding his today’s claim to ‘righteousness’.

I’m glad he is right for a change….Aren’t you?   Perhaps he’s gaining a number of important perspectives of life old age offers when one gets old enough to be OLD.

Welcome, Alan!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/08/dershowitz-comey-confirms-that-im-right-and-all-democratic-commentators-are-wrong.html

Will the Obamaling Fascists Finally Rule Fox News as They Do Nearly All Other U.S. News Networks?

Will This Be The Week That Was for the Fox News Channel?

By Peter Barry Chowka   at American Thinker:

“The week ahead promises to be a critical one for the future of the wounded and limping Fox News Channel (FNC). Knocked off its perch in early May as the longstanding number one cable television news outlet, FNC is now contending with an uncertain future. Declining ratings, internal conflicts and poor programming decisions, and new controversies have helped to energize a determined outside viral de facto “resist Fox News” campaign with the purpose of taking the channel down.

The decline of Fox News began last year with lawsuits by female employees alleging a hostile work environment, followed by the forced departure of FNC founder, chairman, and legendary media-political savant Roger Ailes (who died on May 18, 2017 as the result of a fall at his home in Florida one week earlier).

In the view of many observers, both critics and longtime fans of the channel, FNC’s new prime time program lineup launched in the wake of the executive and on-air talent shake-ups is simply not working. Since September 2016, FNC has lost three of its four highly-rated prime time hosts: veteran broadcasters Greta Van Susteren and Bill O’Reilly and the more recent breakout star Megyn Kelly. Sean Hannity, the last original survivor in prime time, like O’Reilly, started on FNC on the very first day the channel launched in 1996. For years, Hannity has been the second most popular radio talk show personality in the United States behind Rush Limbaugh and a leading conservative voice. Always a lightning rod for criticism from the left, Hannity has recently come under renewed attack thanks to a new wave of negative media scrutiny coupled with an orchestrated campaign to influence his advertisers to jump ship.


There’s more regarding the rise of America’s Obamaling fascism, i.e.,  the union of university honed fascists, it’s beloved fanatic sexual feminazi movements, the Black Racist Movement, all  mixed in with the traditional Hillary Roddham Clinton servants still weeping, cursing, and, still  plotting for the revolution  since last November’s Presidential election loss.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/will_this_be_emthe_week_that_wasem_for_the_fox_news_channel.html

Dennis Prager bemoans “THE COWARDS OF ACADEMIA”

THE COWARDS OF ACADEMIA

by Dennis Prager at realclearpolitics:

“Now that student mobs at universities around America (and elsewhere in the West) have silenced conservative speaker after conservative speaker, it has dawned on a small number of left-wing professors that the public is beginning to have contempt for the universities. As a result, a handful of academics at a handful of universities have signed statements on behalf of allowing “diverse” views to be heard at the university.

These statements are worthless.

While some of the professors who have signed them may sincerely believe that the university should honor the value of non-left free speech, one should keep in mind the following caveats.

First, the number of professors, deans and administrators who have signed these statements is very small.

Second, while no one can know what animates anyone else, it’s a little hard to believe that many of those who did sign are sincere. If they are, why haven’t we heard from them for decades? Shutting out conservatives and conservative ideas is not new. Plus, it’s easy to sign a letter. You look righteous (“Of course, I support free speech.”) and pay no price.

Third, these statements accomplish nothing of practical value. They are basically feel-good gestures.

If any of the rioting students read these statements — a highly unlikely occurrence — it is hard to imagine any of them thinking: “Wow, I really have been acting like a fascist, rioting and shutting down non-left-wing speakers, but now my eyes have been opened and I’m going to stop. Even though my professors have taught me that every conservative is a sexist racist xenophobic Islamophobic hatemonger, next time one of these despicable human beings comes to campus, I will silently wait for them to finish talking and then civilly ask challenging questions.”

Thanks to left-wing indoctrination that begins in elementary school, most American students do not enter college as supporters of free speech. As reported in The New York Times on Feb. 7, 2017, a Knight Foundation survey found that only 45 percent of students “support that right when the speech in question is offensive to others and made in public.”

If any professors want to do something truly effective, they should form a circle around a hall in which a conservative is scheduled to speak, with each of them holding up a sign identifying themselves as a professor: “I am (name), professor of (department).”

If just 1 percent of the professors on campus — that would mean just 43 faculty members at a place like UCLA — were to stand in front of the building in which a conservative was to speak, that might actually have an impact. If they were then attacked by left-wing thugs, other faculty members would be forced to take a position.

But it won’t happen. It won’t because the university is a particularly cowardly place. And it has been so for many decades. In the 1970s, when I was a graduate student at Columbia University, left-wing students took over classrooms and administration offices. But I recall no faculty members objecting; and the college presidents and deans, were, if possible, even more craven.

Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak this week at the University of California, Berkeley. Last week, the university announced it was canceling her speech, providing the usual excuse that it couldn’t guarantee her safety, or others’. This excuse is as phony as it is cowardly. Berkeley and other universities know well that there is a way to ensure safety. They can do so in precisely the same way every other institution in a civilized society ensures citizens’ safety: by calling in sufficient police to protect the innocent and arrest the violent. But college presidents don’t do that sort of thing — not at Berkeley, or Yale University, or Middlebury College, or just about anywhere else. They don’t want to tick off their clients (students), their faculty, leftist activist groups or the liberal media.

Under pressure, Berkeley’s cowardly administration rescinded its cancellation and rescheduled Coulter’s speech during the daytime during pre-finals week, when there are no classes and many students are not on campus. Coulter has rejected these changes and vowed to speak on the originally scheduled date.

So, next time you read a statement by some professors — virtually all of whom, remember, have been silent for decades — on behalf of allowing opinions other than their own to be expressed on their campuses, take it with a large grain of salt. It’s primarily because some alumni are finally withholding funds from their closed-minded alma maters, or because the students they have produced have become so violent even the mainstream media can’t ignore it.

Until they line up to safeguard people like Ann Coulter and stop teaching their students that conservatives are deplorable human beings, their open letters aren’t worth the printer toner that prints them.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/25/the_cowards_of_academia_133700.html

U Cal at Berkeley Joins Feminazis, Black Racists, Latino Fascists to Ban Ann Coulter from Speaking

America 2017: Berkeley cancels Ann Coulter speech because it can’t guarantee her safety

by Allahpundit   at HotAir:

“After the Charles Murray fiasco at Middlebury, I wrote that “We’re getting closer to the inevitable moment when someone is literally murdered on an American campus because a right-winger tried to speak.”

Berkeley’s administrators agree. In canceling Coulter’s speech next week, they made no bones about the fact that there are now so many fascist “anti-fascist” animals running around campus that Coulter herself or someone in the audience literally might not leave it alive. And after what happened when Milo Yiannopoulos tried to speak in February, that’s a perfectly reasonable fear. You call the local police in Berkeley if you want to arrange “symbolic arrests” at the sit-in you’re organizing for your pet cause, not to stop rampaging leftists bent on smashing store windows and skulls because a thoughtcriminal has arrived in town.

She says she’s going to show up anyway. Who’ll secure the speech to make sure that the “heckler’s veto” doesn’t silence her? The mayor? Jerry Brown? Trump?

UC Berkeley officials say they were “unable to find a safe and suitable” venue for the right-wing provocateur who was invited to speak by campus Republicans on April 27.

In a letter to Berkeley College Republicans sent Tuesday, Vice Chancellor Scott Biddy said officials made the decision in consultation with campus police who determined they could not ensure the safety of Coulter, audience members or protesters expected at the event…

University spokesman Dan Mogulof said that posters went up on campus last week threatening disruption of the event and officials discovered “targeted threats” on various websites indicating the possibility of planned violence.

We’ve reached the point now in American academic culture where the risk of “active security threats” needs to be weighed when scheduling someone to come to your campus to talk immigration. According to Coulter, the university tried to get her to back out of the speech “voluntarily” by imposing some demands on her — the speech had to be held in the afternoon (since rioters are more likely to come out at night), only students would be allowed to attend (to make sure local agitators can’t get in), and the venue wouldn’t be announced until the last minute (presumably so that “protesters” couldn’t shut down the building before Coulter showed up). Her sponsor, the Young America’s Foundation, advised her not to agree. But she did agree, on the condition that Berkeley met two demands of her own:

1) That the University of California chancellor request that the Oakland chief of police refrain from telling his men to stand down and ignore law-breaking by rioters attempting to shut down conservative speakers, as he has done in the past; and

2) That UC-Berkeley announce in advance that any students engaging in violence, mayhem or heckling to prevent an invited speaker from speaking would be expelled……..”  There’s more below:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/19/america-2017-berkeley-cancels-ann-coulter-speech-cant-guarantee-safety/