Lessons from the Berkeley riots that prevented a conservative from speaking on campus

The liberals at UC Berkeley say they support free speech--totally, absolutely.

They're lying.  What they really want is free speech for them but not for any viewpoint they don't like.

Of course you think that can't be true, because it that was their position they'd be totally roasted by our media elites, right?  I mean, such bare, naked hypocrisy should prompt howls of derision and contempt.

Well...consider that the goal of the recent Berkeley riot was solely to prevent a gay conservative from speaking.

"Visiting assistant art professor" Samara Haplerin put the Left's position very well, telling the Daily Californian "I'm outraged that he's been given a platform at UC Berkeley.  There should be no place for him here.  He should be scared that people aren't going to stand for this."

Does that sound like supporting free speech?  Not only no but hell no.

The crowd hurled fireworks at police officers, smashed windows at the student union and damaged buildings in downtown Berkeley.  One member of the mob attacked a young lady wearing a Make America Great Again hat as she was being interviewed on television, pepper-spraying her in the face at close range.

University adminishits issued a statement blaming the violence on outsiders, and allegedly affirming their support for the conservative guy's right to speak on the liberal campus.  But that "affirmation" is worthless unless it's enforced--and according to the university not a single person was arrested.

Not one arrest.

Did someone order the police officers to stand down?  If so, who gave that order and why?

Universities have allowed this stuff to happen, and even in some cases encouraged it.  Berkeley should lose every dollar of federal funds for a year.  Then if every conservative who speaks there is treated courteously, resume federal funds.  If not, kill federal funds for another year.

Berkeley students can afford to make up any shortfall.