The Hypocrisy of Political Correctness
Posted Thursday, January 18, 2018 | By John Grimaldi

WASHINGTON, DC – A professor at NYU was shunned by his colleagues because of “the content and structure of his thinking.” That’s right, the “thought police” were after him. They didn’t like the fact that he was using social media to expose the hypocrisy of political correctness on campus.

Because he exercised his right to free speech, Professor Michael Rectenwald claims he was the target of defamation and harassment by his colleagues. And so, Rectenwald recently filed suit in Manhattan Supreme Court. The New York Post reported that “the politically incorrect NYU professor accused of ‘incivility’ by liberal colleagues and put on leave is now suing the college and four fellow profs for calling him everything from a drug addict to Satan.”

The suit sheds light on what is going on in college and university classrooms these days. Is it a movement by the left to create a generation of v**ers who could eventually have the numbers and ideological resolve to turn the United States of America into the Soviet Socialist Republic of America?

The irony here is that Rectenwald describes himself as “a c*******t.” Yet he says he is an ardent advocate of free speech on campus. As he put it in an interview last year: “Every time a speaker is booed off campus or shooed off campus because they might say something that bothers someone, that just feeds the notion that the left is totalitarian, and they have a point.”

I don’t think Rectenwald is switching teams anytime soon. Left is left and right is right and never the twain shall meet, the exception being those with a left of center political preference.

Wh**ever his bent, the Professor seems to believe that schools are places that should be encouraging discourse and a diversity of ideas, not “mindless indoctrination.” And, he believes that if there is a sinister motive behind the PC movement, it will not succeed. I believe that, too, because our kids are smarter than that, for the most part. They were brought up in a free society and it will take more than l*****t propaganda to make them give it up.

In the old Soviet Union, the c*******t culture was built on systematic indoctrination that brainwashed the citizenry into believing that the l*****t elites and their apparatchiks who ran the “Evil Empire” had their best interests at heart. The American Revolution, on the other hand, sought to allow the people to become individuals with a collective lust for freedom and justice.

And, what fuels that lust is knowledge, the kind of knowledge only available in an institution of learning that fairly exposes its students to all sides of any argument, whether it be scientific or political.

Since in common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: In ”common usage the word `person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign.” Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417 @425 (1979): “the word `person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. § para 1.” In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. US (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that: “In United States, sovereignty resides in people... the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared.”,

The state of Oregon is the legal fiction, Oregon State is the one of the several states. I am private without mala in se crime.

NO. Usurpation is a nullity.

You poor little babies, always being "suppressed". Is your nanny keeping your diapers clean?

Trump didn't freak out because he lost the popular v**e. Why? Cuz he won the e*******l v**e and therefore the presidency.

FYI: 9 months of finding nothing is a hell of a start.

Mueller’s Special Counsel Team Punking Public

No surprise that 9 out of the 16 witch h****rs on Mueller's team donated to Obama and/or Hillary. Some donated to the DNC. One donated to two Republicans in non-p**********l races in addition to giving more money to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and a string of Democrats.

Funny thing is Lady Justice is supposed to be impartial, objective and fair. She is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Her attributes are a blindfold, a balance, and a sword. Justice is blind? Mueller's mob flushed that concept down the s**tter right out of the gate.

I am known as one of the people. I have incontrovertible evidence that I am an American State National on Oregon. An Oregonian man. I am not a US citizen. Therefore, by definition I am a Constitutional Republican. I have documentary evidence fro two care providers at the VA I am competent. My status is filed into the public record I am private.

Yes look up person, then look up people. then look up the definition of a name in all caps. I use B****s Law sixth edition. Look up Private Membership Association, I am pro se, suie juris, in propria persona and:
Ronald Charles Vrooman Private Attorney Generals by the United States Congress 42 U.S.C.1988 and18 U.S.C.1510 and 18 U.S.C. 1512 and to be known as “One of the People” also “Qualified Criminal Investigator” and “Federal Witness” and by unrebutted affidavit. Status identified and unrebutted. Others to be named and added later.

Interesting follow-up, Acknowledgeurma...except for the fact that many, if not most, replies on this forum are ad hominem in response to others comments. Ad hominem attacks, by definition/description*, are of a personal if not private nature when exhibited on a public forum...such as calling anyone an "i***t" on OPP.

*Ad Hominem (Abusive), also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man.

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

The reality in modern use of any given word is likely of more immediate relevance than historical roots and meanings of that word