Here's the disgusting video of the anti-free-speech Left shutting down a speech by Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist at Columbia University. Note Columbia security protecting the anti-free-speech hooligans. Eight years ago, Columbia's president dispatched security to keep attendees from a conference I had organized (and contracted with Columbia's Faculty House to hold) from attending the event. When accused of censorship, a school official said that since they were banning the audience and not the speakers it didn't amount to that. The security forced us to hold the event in an off-campus park--in November! Herbert Marcuse's condemnation of "repressive tolerance" has been enacted at Columbia, an institution that Marcuse was once affiliated with. "Liberating tolerance," New Left guru Marcuse claimed, "would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left." Students disrupt speeches at Columbia because they have the tacit approval of the administration. Eight years ago, Accuracy in Academia had 13 film rolls of film proving just what students berated conference-goers and shouted down speakers. Today, the organizers of the Minutemen speech have a video tape showing the barbarians stamping out free speech. In neither case has Columbia acted to punish the self-appointed guardians of speech. In both cases their security acted to protect lawbreakers.

Have lawsuits ever been tried in these cirumstances?

I couldn't get any lawyers interested in our instance, as it was explained to me that it would essentially have been a simple violation of contract case that we would have one. About five months after the fact, Columbia refunded our money (about $10,000)--which they had claimed in the media that had already done. Although Columbia gets more money from the federal government than almost every "state" school in America, it is considered "private" and thus able to govern speech as it sees fit. In other words, a case against Columbia would likely have had no ramifications on speech outside of Columbia, which explains why free-speech lawyers weren't interested in our case. Although we didn't take our case to a courtroom, we did bring it to the court of public opinion where everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Nat Hentoff to John Leo weighed in against Columbia.

Where's the hypocritical ACLU when you need it?

I have to hand it to you, Dan. You gave considerable treatment to the Marcusian version of tolerance in “Morons” and pegged it. As evidenced by the events at Columbia these elitist ideologues are only interested in speech that confirms their misguided, intolerant belief system. Maybe O’Reilly was right when he said these crazy loons act that way because they know they cannot back up their views any other way, especially by logic and common sense. When I saw the video of the Columbia fiasco these words came to mind:

“Freedom with their exception”

Metallica “…And Justice For All”

I found the whole incident instructive, as these "children" will someday be in charge. One hopes that they will wake up once real life slaps them up side the head. That said, I'm doubtful. Their "love" of tolerance is underwhelming.

First of all Dan, this isn’t a video of the anti-free-speech Left, it’s a group of students at Columbia University. Second of all, when you say “Note Columbia security protecting the anti-free-speech hooligans.” You fail to note that they are protecting the so called “hooligans” from being kicked in the head by “pro-free-speech Right.” Check the videos. Don’t get me wrong it is unfortunate that there couldn’t have been a civil debate between the two groups, its just that trying to state that this group of students in anyway is “the anti-free-speech Left” is just partisan and does nothing to further understanding on the issue. And as long as the issue is about tolerance, who is less tolerant than Jim Gilchrist, a vigilante, homophobic, bigot who puts forth the dangerous ideology that American citizens are worth more than citizens of other countries? Should Columbia University be tolerant of a hate monger? I guess, sort of in the same way that that crazy group of “Christians” can protest soldiers’ funerals. Its too bad that some of the best defenders of our first amendment rights are crazy radical racists The fact is that the protests were about people being free, they were chanting no person should be illegal (or something along those lines) which is way more “tolerant” than anything Gilchrist has ever approached.

R.C:
You’re comments on free speech only for a few don’t hold water. I’m not going to comment on the video because it speaks for itself, but does Columbia practice free speech or not? Gilchrist is not a hate monger, he simply organized a group of private citizens to do what the government has failed to do: protect our sovereignty. Many of us believe, as do the Minutemen, that we as Americans have every right and responsibility to protect ourselves against any threat. Mexico does this quite diligently, as do most other countries. Why do we forfeit that right? The crazies at Columbia could have indulged in a debate on the immigration issue but didn’t. Why? Because they have no logical argument! They are just a bunch of spoiled, misinformed babies that need a dose of reality.

The “No Person Should Be Illegal” rhetoric sounds great in theory. But as someone who lives in Arizona I have friends who live near the border that are afraid to walk their dog (or even, in some cases, watch TV in their living room) without wearing a sidearm. Let’s see how you would act watching strangers running through your yard all hours of the day and night. How would you react to see your pet or livestock killed, your children abused or your neighborhood destroyed by people with no right to be here? I’d be willing to bet you would want some kind of positive action taken. Again, why shouldn’t a citizen in this country be able to protect himself against anyone who would do him harm, especially if the government refuses to?

And yes, that group of wackadoo’s at Columbia does seem to be indicative of our universities propensity to indoctrinate its students to a particular ideology.

"Should Columbia University be tolerant of a hate monger?"

You mean someone like, oh I don't know, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Ralph, you're reading my mind. That scumbag would probably be hailed as a hero by those empty cans.

AM,

Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia by Lisa Anderson, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs. No doubt he would have been warmly received, but the University President, Lee Bollinger, cancelled the invitation (no doubt, in response to wide-spread criticism by alumi, donors, media and the public).

Typical Ivy League mentality.

Remember these are the same people who welcomed Achemyhennutts from Iran with open arms.

R.C. you are delusional. Your thread shows your true colors, as fringe to say the least. I've watched the video about seven times now and still can't see the conservatives kicking the liberals in the head. "Check the videos" was buggs bunny on your video as well. Mendax! "So called hooligans" and they are not? if you describe the situation to anyone without putting labels on either side, you don't think most anyone will come away with thinking they are hooligans to say the very least,(even hehe would call these kids hooligans) although you can't see that, but you can see some innocent liberals being kicked in the head? Classic liberal playbook material, attack the messenger not the message. Jim Gilchrist believes in enforcing our borders like the vast majority of Americans do, and thats what he came to Columbia to speak about. You obviously don't believe in borders period. R.C. you can't debate the merits of Gilchrist's speech so you label him a hate monger. Maybe like you said, those kids that stormed the stage could have had a "civil debate" on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Those kids have civil debate thats a laugh. If the left sees this situation at Columbia similar to the way R.C. sees it, we are all in a lot of trouble.

Here's the video with the head kicking.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N41eXtVK7hA&mode=user&search=

sorry I thought you would do a little research on your own, hence the title video's and not just watch the one that Dan suggested.

Second, I don't believe I in any way endorsed the protest, I only asserted that the protesters did not belong to any group that could be called the "anti-free-speech Left" that they were students involved in a specific protest against a specific individual.

And lastly, I guess you are correct in that I don't "believe in border period" as regards to establishing the value of a person. Gilchrist, as far as I can tell, portrays an ideology where mexicans are inferior to Americans. And it is this sort of pompous arrogance about the value of American lives compared to the value of the lives of people in the rest of the world that I have a problem with.

I don't see the connection between protecting our borders by not allowing illegals to come walsing across it unchecked and the value of people from different nations. Border security is a matter of survival for this country and has less to do with the Mexicans as an inferior group than it does with the social, economic and criminal ramifications of not maintaining our borders. What R.C. said in that last paragraph demonstrates the kind of foolish Liberal thinking that gets us into trouble all the time and is used to obfuscate the facts. The problem is never really the problem. It's always masked by the appearance of needing to take the higher ground on an issue that really has nothing to do with the original point. Call me a crazy xenophobe, but I'll take American interests over Mexican interests any day.

I think there would be less need for border fences, patrols, etc. if the Mexican government took care of their people. Mexico has all the natural and human resources it needs to assert itself as a major economic power in this hemisphere. Why hasn’t it? Mexico needs to fix her problems from within, not lay them at the doorstep of the United States. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve never heard anything from the left and very little from the right about Mexico fixing its problems at the source: The corrupt government.

R.C:
I’m curious how you feel about the people (citizens) who are having their property overrun by illegals. Don’t you think U.S. citizens have more rights than people here illegally? I think we disagree on this issue but you sound like an intelligent person and I really want to know your feelings. Also, can you cite a credible source that shows Gilchrist portraying “an ideology where mexicans are inferior to Americans.” The vague wording in your post suggests that you are not sure what his ideology is. I’ve met and spoken with Gilchrist (No, I'm not a Minuteman) and didn’t walk away with any anti-Mexican sentiment. Gilchrist is pro-American, there is a difference.

asdf totally agree. RC needs to watch Death Wish.

As much as the "America last" Left would like to think so, we can not solve the World's problems. Unfortunately, as it is in our own country, there will always be haves and have nots across the Globe. That's a fact of life. And, you're right AM: Mexico needs to fix its own problems. They are a good example of a ‘have not’ nation. In the meantime, it appears that they are not even trying to help themselves and are perfectly content to use the U.S. as a dumping ground with the expectation that our government with its (our) resources will shoulder the burden of their rampant social and economic problems. That’s only one of the many important reasons to close and protect the border.

I love the old adage that a Conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. So, when I watched the clip again, it dawned on me how intolerant these little liberal pissants will be when they or somebody they know are negatively affected by an illegal.

Especially if one steals their dope.

They won't have to worry about that. 'Cause if we continue to allow an open door policy with that lawless corrupt nation south of our border, there'll be plenty of supply.

I blame all of this, and in fact 95% of all the problems.

My College's faculty was very liberal, but we never dealt with any of the stuff, because we didn't have enough crazy students. No matter how bad the faculty is, nothing like this would happen without idiotic students. Also most students don't listen to their teachers, they listen to their peers and the only people who get brainwashed at ivy league schools are a) liberals who are already predisposed to the BS they get taught and become much worse and b) conservatives from the south or midwest, who want to "fit in" with all their liberal classmates.

If you have a very bright son or daughter, don't send them to an ivy league school. They'll be just as set for grad school if you send them to Duke, Vanderbilt, or UVA. Although duke is about the most liberal and yankee infested school in the south, can you imagine how much worse the response would have been if the Lacrosse incident happened at Harvard or Brown?

As for Marcuse, I think he was a fraud, but you don't need to read " A Critique of Pure Tolerance" to learn the hecklers veto.

Probably the worse part of the video is watching the CR head blame the incident on "cultural relativism"

Yeah, that's the real problem.

Ancient Mariner,

I’m not sure what you mean by people having their property “overrun” by illegals. Do you mean run-over (as in illegals crossing over their property on their way to somewhere else), or are people literally waking up in the morning to find illegal aliens strewn about their lawns? Either way in the case of property damage, we already have laws against this, I don’t see the need for Gilchrist to be out policing with firearms.

To tell you the truth I haven’t study Gilchrist’s ideology a whole lot, so you’re correct in apprehending the vagueness of my statement. He is quoted as saying "Every time a Mexican flag is planted on American soil, it is a declaration of war." (I can just picture Gilchrist and his Minutemen executing complicated swat team maneuvers on every taqueria in the U.S.) I know immigrant workers (not sure of their status illegal or not though). I work the same jobs (construction, landscaping, painting) they’re good workers—a lot of them are better than the Americans that do the same jobs—and they are good people. For a (legal) Mexican immigrant to display a Mexican flag is no more a declaration of war than an Irishman flying his flag at a soccer game. Part of being an American—part of being a citizen in the world today—is living in a pluralistic society. This means people are going to come from different countries, have different religions, different languages, different sexual desires...I don’t see Gilchrist as prepared to live in this type of society. His influence is an antagonistic one that tries to create war where there is none, this is not a viable strategy in today’s global political climate.

On this illegal immigrant issue—as I said above—I work the same jobs, so I have an obvious motivation to prevent illegals. However my motivation is directed at the employers, at the lack of U.S. enforcement over the employers, not the individual illegal immigrant and certainly not at an entire culture. There is something wrong when a group of civilians take up weapons and start patrolling a border, it reeks of the same white male lower-middle class insecurities that inspire people to join the KKK, or other white supremacy groups.

ASDF - The strategy is not putting America last, its recognizing that the fact that you were born in America doesn’t endow you with any more right to carve out a life for yourself on God’s great earth, that there are other people and these people should be treated as such, not as “barbarians” or “savages.” It doesn’t get much more biblical than that.

16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12

an interview with Gilchrist: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/11/1430231

Anybody catch the Daily Show piece on this?

"These protesters make Sean Hannity look like the reasonable one"

Amen to that.

Chalk this up to the 5% of the time you Rush Limbaugh repubs are right.

If you think anybody here is a Rush Limbaugh Republican, you are either very stupid or haven't been reading other people's posts.

Or both.

R.C. I read the interview with Karina Garcia, "it is our RIGHT and our duty to stand up on stage and call this man a murderer and this man a racisist." Would anyone continue to have dialogue to that? These people obviously don't believe in the US borders or borders of any kind, like the stage. Was that a border or was it theirs to take when they deemed it necessary? Take any big political or social issue, how is it argued by a liberal. For instance, if one is against affirmative action you are a racisist, if one is against abortion you are anti-women, if you vote against propositions for raising property taxes every 2 to 5 years you are against the children but not against wasteful spending or trying to be able to hold on to a house you can no longer afford. It is not as much the stance taken on an issue of the other side that myself and so many on this site are against, it is the utter cowardly approach to debating an issue. Attacking the messinger not the message. Rather than taking on the almost impossible task of defending illegal immigration and an open borders policy, just call the person taking the other side a hate monger or a murderer. It shows intellectual bankruptcy and a lack of character.
And you know it!

Who's treating them like savages? I and a lot of other people in this country just want them (and that means ANY of them, race notwithstanding) out and kept out if they're illegal. Either you're not getting it R.C. or, again, you're using that age old liberal ploy where all issues come down to some level of a human rights violation. This is not that. It is a legal issue that ends up turning into a security breach for this country.

Also, if you are unclear about what it means to have your property overrun by illegal criminals from across the border, I would suggest you get educated. The Minuteman site would be a good place for you to start.

R.C:
We also have a laws regarding crossing the border illegally, why can’t we enforce those as well? The sad truth is the local police departments are either unable to handle that volume of people or unwilling to take on the political hot potato. They are not border agents and it’s not there job to chase a bunch of illegals around. Doesn’t it make more sense to stop them before they get into the country?

The Minutemen do not perform SWAT team maneuvers, that’s just plain crazy. They patrol the border (often at night with night vision goggles) and contact the border patrol when they see someone crossing illegally. They do not abuse them or practice tactical maneuvers. As a matter of fact they have saved dozens from dying of thirst in the desert because they keep bottles of water on hand to give these people. Many of the Minutemen do carry sidearms, partly because they have been threatened by certain groups, including some from the Mexican government, and partly because some of the illegals have firearms themselves. It’s wrong to demonize these people but it would also be a mistake not to realize that a significant number of them are committing serious crimes here. There is a lot of bad stuff happening down there, the best way to prevent violence is to be armed yourself. It’s called peace through strength, that’s why we spend all that many to have a military. It’s legal and it’s proper, what do the lefties not get about that? Again, we (the citizens of the U.S.) have a right and responsibility to safeguard ourselves, family and property. Look it up, it’s in the constitution.

Comparing the Minutemen to the KKK and calling Gilchrist a murderer is just left wing hyperbole and half truth at it’s worst. It’s what people do when they have no intelligent argument. Don’t buy it.

It just occurred to me that all of this becomes unnecessary if people go through the process to come here legally. The some goes to people from China, Germany, Mexico or wherever. What’s the big problem?

p.s. Am I correct in assuming you have an anti gun, as well as one world agenda?

One last point:

There was a murder of a police officer in Houston a couple of weeks ago. The murderer was an illegal who had been kicked out of this country several times (I think it was 3) for criminal activity and just kept coming back across the border. The local government refused to do anything about this guy, they even issued him an ID. This is a good recent example of the government refusing to take action and it ends up costing someone their life. It’s also a good defense of why we need groups like the Minutemen.

Ancient Mariner,

thanks for the info, as I said before I don't have that much info on the minutemen, the idea still makes me uncomfortable and I can't help but imagine a group of insecure males playing army, however I can't argue against what you've detailed. Obviously something is wrong here, and I don't think the minutemen are a permenant solution, I think it would be better to take away the incentive to come to our country, I understand it would be pragmatically more difficult.

I'm decidedly not anti-gun (dare I say pro-gun?). I don't own one, I don't know if I ever will, but I certainly support peoples right to have fire-power -- we'll need them in order to start the revolution ;)

Dennis
Grow up. Don't think you know what I think. While I am obviously more liberal than most in this chat, I do actually think for myself. For the record I believe Affirmative action is a racist program and that unless your name is Denise than your opinion on abortion shouldn't count.

"Rather than taking on the almost impossible task of defending illegal immigration and an open borders policy..." why do you think this is my position? I said that I compete with illegals for jobs. I don't know anyone that would defend this position, and the fact that you think I should shows how little you grasp of what you perceive to be you oppositions thought. Do you even realize that in your rant against some idiotic imagined liberal you did nothing to engage a debate that you accused me of missing by attacking the messanger?

r.c.

R.C:
Thanks for the follow up, I was wrong in my assumption. I agree we need a permanent solution to the border situation, it's sounds like the government may finally step up to the plate on this (although the UN is talking about taking the US to the world court over the 700 mile fence we're talking about erecting on the border). Taking away some of the incentives for people to come here would also be an important part of any solution.

What revolution are you referring to?

The peoples revolution.

R.C. you don't know what you think. You claimed to be for allowing illegal immigation and open borders, but never said why. It is immaterial if you compete with illegal immigrants, although it does making all that mindbogiling that you don't get it. R.C illegal immigration is against the law, it severely`drives down middle class wages, it causes a rising crime rate, skyrocketing health care costs, new strands of diseases, national security problems, less welfare to be given to americas truly needy, more people dependent on government and yes more Democrats. However Jim Gilchrist has an opposing view to illegal immigration so he is a hate monger, a racist, oh and I almost forgot a homophobe?

Nice to see the Hitler youth in attendance. (Okay, yeah, I've just lost the argument.)

At about 00:50 in the video Dan links to you can see the kid who kicked the other being talked to by one of the guys in suits on the platform.

Somehow a corporate rush by a mass of protesters can be ignored as not indicative of the left, but a single hot-headed youth somehow corresponds to some head-kicking of the "Right". (And the tape does not look like a head kicking, although he obviously did kick the guy.)

The whole idea that this is about people being called illegal is more of the liberal tendency to not totally understand how language works. A legal secretary is not by himself legal, and illegal aliens is not by themselves illegal. It's more mind-numbing dullness from the left getting mad about how it is that language doesn't conform to their specifications.

In all of these confrontations the illiterate left would rather chant slogans over and over than engage anybody in debate. If liberal is thinking for yourself, then how do you all know to chant the same exact thing? Is it synchronicity?

"and illegal aliens is not by themselves illegal"

I'm illiterate?