Quote of the day—Donald Trump

We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous. Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.

Today I’m proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants.

Donald Trump
U.S. President
March 2, 2019
Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses
[While I applaud a push for free speech I wonder if this really should have been handled a different way. Could the next president sign an executive order requiring colleges and university to censor “hate speech” by anyone opposed to socialism?

I would think a better approach would be to prosecute university officials or individuals using existing laws. Wouldn’t 18 USC 241 and/or 242 be applicable? This would be particularly in the case on exhibit in the article (a kid was punched in the face). If something broader were needed then I think it should go through the legislative process.

Explain to me how I’m wrong on this.—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Donald Trump

  1. Executive overreach is a concern regardless of party, but for the most part Congress doesn’t seem interested in reigning it in.

    In this particular case, a problem is how do you tell? Is it “coincidence” that all students supporting Israel, say, score C- or lower in their social studies classes? Or are they all actually bad students? Statistics may paint the broad picture but it’s a tough row to hoe for an individual student trying to make a case against an abusive professor.

    Unfortunately I don’t have a good answer … other than to not pay for your kid to major in anything other than science or engineering disciplines, and try to get the non-major core classes out of the way in community college. Even that’s not a perfect solution but at least in those fields there usually is a “correct” answer (or set thereof).

  2. The executive order is something the President can do on his own. And hits them where it hurts (the wallet).

    Your option requires the cooperation of prosecutors and juries. Though I agree, threatening a couple of these campus capos with the death penalty might help Wake them the f— up.

  3. “Could the next president sign an executive order requiring colleges and university to censor “hate speech” by anyone opposed to socialism?” — they already have. The current university problems are in part because of government “guidance”. For example, the kangaroo courts implemented by universities to handle claims of sexual misconduct work as they do because Obama’s administration told them to do so.

    • “because Obama’s administration told them to do so.”

      I agree. The left presidents have ALREADY gone down this path. BO was just a little more quiet about it than Orange Man, but the results are the same. BO and others before him just had a minion in an appointed position do the deed back door rather than by EO.

      Is Trump wrong to use executive power to do some of the things he is doing? Definitely YES.

      The question should be; should he be allowed to right the corruption of the left using their same tactics BEFORE the technique is curtailed, if it ever CAN be curtailed?

      Given the political divide in this nation I doubt the correction can EVER be done by the legislative process as it was originally intended.

      WHEN was the last time you saw a leftist politician or judge removed from their position by impeachment for overstepping their power or boundaries, or even for illegal conduct?
      The Constitutional system is broken and I don’t believe that holding only OUR side to the Constitutional standard is going to work. Does that way be Dragons? Yes. But what other way is there at this point? If you can’t hold BOTH sides of the aisle accountable at the same time it’s not going to work.

      • There have a been a fair number of politicians on the left who have gone to jail for criminal activities. How many of the Illinois governors have NOT gone to jail in the last 20 years?

        I agree that not enough of them have but the number which have is significantly greater than zero and it is only for the most outrageous behavior, but there have been arrests, prosecutions, and sentences.

        • But they have gone to prison for petty corruption, not for violation of civil rights under color of law. The latter is what is needed.

  4. You’re right. This is deception. Let’s unpack it just a little bit;

    “We reject oppressive speech codes…”

    He could have said, quite simply, “We reject speech codes” (who ever “we” is). Instead he had to put in the word “oppressive” thus leaving the interpretation wide open. What, exactly, constitutes “oppressive” speech codes as distinguished from some other speech codes?

    …”every other attempt by the hard left…”

    By the hard left? So if it’s perpetrated by the medium left, or the center, or the right, then such oppression may be acceptable, or even laudable?

    “…to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas.”

    So the “hard left” is challenging “ridiculous and dangerous ideas”, and “we” want to put a stop to those challenges of ridiculous and dangerous ideas. We want ridiculous and dangerous ideas to be freely disseminated then?

    “These ideas are dangerous.”

    Which ones? The ideas of oppression, or the ridiculous and dangerous speech we’re ostensibly protecting? Now we’ve entered into the category of gibberish.

    “Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.”

    So; enforce the first amendment?

    But, oops; wait; those big tech companies you’re insinuating into this statement have been visiting the White House for years and years now. You’ve partnered with them. Now if advocates of liberty assert “property rights”, then the government/big tech partnership can do whatever it wants, and suppress speech with no first amendment implications, BUT if we call for restrictions and controls on these “private” industry tech giants, then you’ll say that we’re hypocrites, calling for restrictions on industry. Nice one, scumbags! Really clever scumbaggery there!

    This is actual Fascism being called for in the speech (not the fake kind being screamed about by the leftist street pawns).

    “Today I’m proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants.”

    “Proud”. Of course he’s proud. All politicians (instruments of the beast) are proud. That’s part of the problem. We are taught from a single digit age that pride is a virtue. Everywhere we look, we find team pride, city pride, state pride, American pride, tribal pride, gender pride, et al. What’s up with that? Replace pride with gratitude and you begin to see the destructive nature of pride. You also begin to see why the beast promotes pride in all things.

    And here we find the problem of federal funding leading directly, in a straight line, without passing Go and without collecting 200 dollars (for this IS a game of monopoly), to federal control. If THAT problem is to go away, then all federal funding of so-called “science” and of so-called “education” must go away.

    Legislators legislate, and an executive order is direct legislation, so to speak. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is the ability to make laws, every problem of every day will need a new law. Otherwise your value, and your power, as a legislator soon evaporates into nothing. So it is that we can NEVER have too many laws. Not ever. It isn’t possible.

    Once you recognize Dragon-Speak you begin to see how the obfuscation and manipulation works. The mechanisms, as it were. In fact it’s nothing but</em) obfuscation, manipulation, intimidation, veiled threats, etc., etc., for what else does a dragon have to offer? Nothing. It's about exercising power for the sake of exercising power, to elevate the beast and make everyone else smaller in the process.

    Forget who's "side" the speaker pretends to be on. He's no more than an actor playing his role in a morbid stage play written and directed by the Master of Lies.

    None of them are on the side of liberty. Liberty is what they all fear most, for it diminishes them to mere servants with little to do and none of the coercive power, and a tiny fraction of the loot, which they currently enjoy. It's why "constitutionalists" and Christians we're put on a list of incipient "terrorists" during the Bush 43 administration.

    We are now "fundamentalists" and "extremists" because the fundamental and eternal truths are now so extremely far from where the Progressive movement has taken us. Aren't they the clever bastards!

    Any and all of their "solutions", regardless of party, for both teams play for the same league, will be measures which in some way increase their reach or scope or power, or in some way otherwise elevate themselves at our expense. No other solution can be seen by the beast as a solution for anything.

    It's all there is and it's all they have. If dumb or silly or seemingly incoherent or curiously ignorant or otherwise strange things must be said along the way to make that happen, then so be it.

  5. The President can’t prosecute. That requires the Justice Department, and they are in active rebellion against the Constitution. This is a case where the Senate should be acting to bring referrals, but they aren’t, again because a majority of them are in rebellion against the Constitution.

    The hour is later than you think.

    • Assuming the Justice Department won’t prosecute, then what good does it do to issue an Executive Order?

  6. You are not wrong.
    He is getting to the point that we may have to un-elect him in 20

  7. While I applaud the sentiment an EO for this is overkill and not really the best method. If we had an HONEST legal system then the First Amendment and
    actions for civil damages would be MORE than enough to deal with the problem.
    But we DON’T have an honest legal system. We have one that is infested with agenda driven commie leftists. Since the only legal course of action for those harmed by anti free speech apparatchiks is a tortuous course through the courts with minimal guarantee of success we are in a quandary. Aside from Trumps EO on the matter pretty much all other venues for dealing with the problem are
    “extrajudicial”…..and ugly.

Comments are closed.