Liberals: Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

Whether or not presidential aspirant Donald Trump's decision to cancel his rally in Chicago Friday night was proper, the reaction to it from liberals is telling. Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin, who is a Democrat, responded:

"You step back now and take a look, you say, that was an odd choice of venue for Trump unless he was ready to risk that possibility," Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Saturday. "It was pretty obvious to anyone looking at that campus, you think, why would Donald Trump not be at some conservative, suburban venue rather than coming right into the heart of Chicago's diversity?"

The chilling implications of his reaction, not to mention the internal contradictions of this statement boggle the mind--until one sadly realizes Durbin is a politician, a Democrat and represents corrupt Illinois.

So, let's step back now and take a look at Durbin's saying "that was an odd choice of venue."  Oh?  The University of Illinois in Chicago (UIC) is a government funded public institution.  Its auditorium is a popular venue for a variety of programs open to the public and not university related, including concerts and speakers, after they've made the necessary arrangements including payment.  The Clintons--both Hillary and Bill--have spoken there.

After all, this is a university where freedom of speech is so important for a good education.  Well apparently UIC doesn't think so.  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has given the university's speech code its worst rating--red--because of its restrictions on free speech.  FIRE cites these reasons from the university's code of conduct: 

To succeed personally and academically, an individual must be able to live free from unnecessary emotional stress caused by others. Hazing, physical or emotional harassment, or behavior which other persons find intimidating, abusive, or offensive to residents or staff, will not be tolerated in a residence hall community and will result in disciplinary action.

[...]

The following conduct is expressly prohibited: … Using offensive, vulgar, and/or insensitive language such as excessive swearing (particularly when directed toward another person or office), partaking in conduct which is disorderly, lewd, or indecent and/or creating a breach of peace or engaging in activity that would otherwise reflect poorly upon the Campus Housing and UIC community

Interestingly, in spite of these red warnings, the school had no problem hiring Bill Ayers--a  terrorist, who happened to be "just a neighbor" and who happened to hold an early fund raiser for soon to be Senator Barack Obama (D).  

The school also had no problem initially hiring Steven Salaita, although he made numerous remarks against Jews and Israelis and then, after numerous complaints and potential lawsuits unhiring him, ultimately paying a high price for their careless actions. (Well, the taxpayers paid the highprice.)  

But apparently the powers that be at UIC didn't consider that some students would suffer necessary "emotional stress and the language of these two professors, such as Ayers proudly stepping on an American flag not to be "offensive, vulgar and/or insensitive." 

No problem with that according to the university powers.  

Back to politician Durbin:  "risk that possibility."  What possibility?  What risk?  Again, does the senator, who is pledged to uphold the Constitution, not believe in freedom of speech?  Is freedom of speech for some people risky?  

Perhaps in corrupt Chicago in corrupt Illinois, it is.  

Durbin further asked, "why would Donald Trump not be at some conservative, suburban venue?"  Well, obviously he does appear at those places but is he restricted to them?  After all, the man wants to be president of the entire country not just suburban conservatives.  How would Durbin the Democrat, who incidentally is from a small town, react if he were told he could only appear in urban, heavily Democrat locales because conservative suburban areas were too "risky"?

And finally Durbin finished with "rather than coming right into the heart of Chicago's diversity?"  Diversity?  Where is the diversity?  The students, faculty and protesters who descended on the school are blindly uniform, molded into the conformity of a herd of unthinking, interchangeable robots which collapse into panic and rioting at even the thought of hearing and seeing someone who looked, sounded, said and acted differently from their limited knowledge.  They are proudly close minded and intend to stay well in their small comfort zone and woe to anyone who tries to breach it.  

Indeed, the delicate snowflake students and faculty were so infuriated at the possibility of hearing and seeing someone with whom they disagreed that they signed numerous petitions demanding the university cancel the Trump rally.

Ah, if only these university student and faculty liberals, led by Senator Dick Durbin, would dare venture into "some conservative suburban venue" they would learn so much without any risk to their safety.  But it would be risky to their narrow minded beliefs so they won't do it.  

More the pity.  

 

Whether or not presidential aspirant Donald Trump's decision to cancel his rally in Chicago Friday night was proper, the reaction to it from liberals is telling. Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin, who is a Democrat, responded:

"You step back now and take a look, you say, that was an odd choice of venue for Trump unless he was ready to risk that possibility," Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Saturday. "It was pretty obvious to anyone looking at that campus, you think, why would Donald Trump not be at some conservative, suburban venue rather than coming right into the heart of Chicago's diversity?"

The chilling implications of his reaction, not to mention the internal contradictions of this statement boggle the mind--until one sadly realizes Durbin is a politician, a Democrat and represents corrupt Illinois.

So, let's step back now and take a look at Durbin's saying "that was an odd choice of venue."  Oh?  The University of Illinois in Chicago (UIC) is a government funded public institution.  Its auditorium is a popular venue for a variety of programs open to the public and not university related, including concerts and speakers, after they've made the necessary arrangements including payment.  The Clintons--both Hillary and Bill--have spoken there.

After all, this is a university where freedom of speech is so important for a good education.  Well apparently UIC doesn't think so.  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has given the university's speech code its worst rating--red--because of its restrictions on free speech.  FIRE cites these reasons from the university's code of conduct: 

To succeed personally and academically, an individual must be able to live free from unnecessary emotional stress caused by others. Hazing, physical or emotional harassment, or behavior which other persons find intimidating, abusive, or offensive to residents or staff, will not be tolerated in a residence hall community and will result in disciplinary action.

[...]

The following conduct is expressly prohibited: … Using offensive, vulgar, and/or insensitive language such as excessive swearing (particularly when directed toward another person or office), partaking in conduct which is disorderly, lewd, or indecent and/or creating a breach of peace or engaging in activity that would otherwise reflect poorly upon the Campus Housing and UIC community

Interestingly, in spite of these red warnings, the school had no problem hiring Bill Ayers--a  terrorist, who happened to be "just a neighbor" and who happened to hold an early fund raiser for soon to be Senator Barack Obama (D).  

The school also had no problem initially hiring Steven Salaita, although he made numerous remarks against Jews and Israelis and then, after numerous complaints and potential lawsuits unhiring him, ultimately paying a high price for their careless actions. (Well, the taxpayers paid the highprice.)  

But apparently the powers that be at UIC didn't consider that some students would suffer necessary "emotional stress and the language of these two professors, such as Ayers proudly stepping on an American flag not to be "offensive, vulgar and/or insensitive." 

No problem with that according to the university powers.  

Back to politician Durbin:  "risk that possibility."  What possibility?  What risk?  Again, does the senator, who is pledged to uphold the Constitution, not believe in freedom of speech?  Is freedom of speech for some people risky?  

Perhaps in corrupt Chicago in corrupt Illinois, it is.  

Durbin further asked, "why would Donald Trump not be at some conservative, suburban venue?"  Well, obviously he does appear at those places but is he restricted to them?  After all, the man wants to be president of the entire country not just suburban conservatives.  How would Durbin the Democrat, who incidentally is from a small town, react if he were told he could only appear in urban, heavily Democrat locales because conservative suburban areas were too "risky"?

And finally Durbin finished with "rather than coming right into the heart of Chicago's diversity?"  Diversity?  Where is the diversity?  The students, faculty and protesters who descended on the school are blindly uniform, molded into the conformity of a herd of unthinking, interchangeable robots which collapse into panic and rioting at even the thought of hearing and seeing someone who looked, sounded, said and acted differently from their limited knowledge.  They are proudly close minded and intend to stay well in their small comfort zone and woe to anyone who tries to breach it.  

Indeed, the delicate snowflake students and faculty were so infuriated at the possibility of hearing and seeing someone with whom they disagreed that they signed numerous petitions demanding the university cancel the Trump rally.

Ah, if only these university student and faculty liberals, led by Senator Dick Durbin, would dare venture into "some conservative suburban venue" they would learn so much without any risk to their safety.  But it would be risky to their narrow minded beliefs so they won't do it.  

More the pity.