Quote of the day—Matthew Vadum

A lawyer who represented the Trump campaign in a legal challenge to the Pennsylvania election results was forced out of his post last week as a law professor at Chapman University in California for representing President Donald Trump as a client.

Matthew Vadum
January 17, 2021
Trump Lawyer Ousted as Law School Professor
[The lawyer says:

Eastman accused members of the university’s board of trustees of publishing “false, defamatory statements about me without even the courtesy of contacting me beforehand to discuss.”

“Had they bothered to discuss the matter with me, they could have learned that every statement I have made is backed up with documentary and/or expert evidence, and solidly grounded in law,” Eastman wrote.

There appear to be large numbers of people of the opinion that expressing verifiable facts in support of a political enemy, let alone someone guilty of a crime, is sufficient justification to make them ineligible to earn a livelihood.

Assuming Eastman is being truthful, the facts are irrelevant to these people.

That’s some really scary stuff.

I’m so old that I remember when the ACLU went to court to defend the free speech rights of literal Nazis. And now it appears the Nazis now have the upper hand and are not going to allow the free speech of others.

Another observation I have about the article is based upon this:

Chapman University President Daniele Struppa promptly denounced Eastman for engaging in constitutionally protected free speech. Struppa accused Eastman in a Jan. 8 statement of playing “a role in the tragic events in Washington, D.C., that jeopardized our democracy.”

“Eastman’s actions are in direct opposition to the values and beliefs of our institution. He has now put Chapman in the position of being publicly disparaged for the actions of a single faculty member, and for what many call my failure to punish and fire him,” Struppa wrote.

This is a way of thinking that is alien to me. As long as Eastman did not claim to be representing Chapman University I can’t imagine whatever he said or did reflecting upon the University. He was acting as an individual and represents himself. But those who demanded and/or implemented his dismissal apparently don’t recognize the existence of the individual separate from their organization.

Hence, it would appear, by implementation of their own rules at a larger scale the people of the United States could decide they do not represent the U.S. and be morally justified in expelling them from the country.—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Matthew Vadum

  1. Well damn. We can’t have someone of integrity around these children! They might start to think for themselves or, or, worse yet. Actually start reading law!
    He clearly has to go.
    God, I hope our Chinese donors don’t hear of this! Were trying to get funding for the new Mao library!

  2. I’m so old that I remember when the ACLU went to court to defend the free speech rights of literal Nazis.

    Once the ACLU represented actual Nazis in a righteous cause: free speech, no matter how controversial.

    Now they defend people who, under another name, support everything the Nazis stood for — up to and including racial segregation and genocide of political opponents — while declaring their opponents unworthy of defending or of human rights, and attacking anyone who does defend them.

    The ACLU used to defend fascists who called themselves “Nazis”; now they defend fascists who call themselves “anti-fascists”.

    The sides have not changed. Just the labels.

    (And I notice they still haven’t stood to defend civil liberties when it comes to Second Amendment cases. Their site quotes multiple other Amendments, but the Second has no place there. Why is that?)

    • They haven’t supported the 2nd Amendment in a long time, if ever. Read Neil Schulman’s “Stopping Power” for lots of detail.

  3. “Had they bothered to discuss the matter with me, they could have learned that every statement I have made is backed up with documentary and/or expert evidence, and solidly grounded in law,” Eastman wrote.

    The totality of the naïveté is displayed in that statement boggles the mind of 2021. It denotes a state of “condition white” that is quite prevalent in America, but its prevalence only compounds the difficulty of understanding it.

    This is like watching a thousand drivers, one right behind the other, drive off a collapsed bridge into an abyss, none recognizing the error, much less the inevitable fate, of the ones before. And if you warn a driver farther back in the line, he’ll get angry and attack you for disturbing his peace! And now that that situation has been in place for decades, we’re starting to become surprised and confused by it?!

    We’ve all seen it now, for decades: professionals, scientists, professors, school teachers, politicians and pundits suffer similar fates regarding the “climate change” narrative, and the race hustling narrative, but apparently no one believes it could ever happen to them. Or they’re too afraid to face it, and do their best to forget about it.

    Do we believe, without the slightest shred of evidence, that because we’re “good and honest people” that no injustice can befall us? How stupid is that? NO; Young Grasshopper; you’re being attacked precisely BECASE you’re honest, and BECAUSE you’re relatively “good”.

    I suppose it’s the same reason why some people cannot possibly ever understand the desire of others to carry guns, or to own guns at all– They just cannot comprehend that “it could happen to them”, or, out of sheer terror, are unwilling to even ponder it, much less face the possibility head-on.

    In the sense of the “color code” for self defense, this is like going from “condition white” (obliviousness) to what some people refer to as “condition brown” (pooping one’s pants, entirely unable to cope with the situation at hand).

    “This is a way of thinking that is alien to me.”

    No, it is not alien to you! Not at all! You know it quite well. You’re just compartmentalizing, relegating such behavior to the past, into the Dark Ages, when “heresy” was a crime punishable by death.

    And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    Revelation 13; 16 & 17

    If you knew what that meant, none of this could ever surprise you. On the contrary, you’d be looking for it, and so when it happens you simply say, “Oh of course; there it is.”

    That, contrary to my broken bridge analogy above, would be like driving at night in deer country, expecting a deer to jump out in front of you any second. When it happens you’ll have been anticipating it, and so you’ll be able to take appropriate action and the problem will be solved, and over and done, even before your passengers understand what just happened.

    For America, and for Western Civilization in general, the problem is far, far past, even many generations past, the point where such appropriate actions would have been possible.

    “There will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth” — spoken several times by Jesus

Comments are closed.