Morris Beschloss, a longtime resident of Southern California’s Coachella Valley, is a conservative economic and political expert who at 82 writes a regular column for the Desert Sun newspaper, blogs on the paper’s website, and hosts his own television show, The World Report, on the Time Warner network.

In 1939, at the age of 9, Beschloss, a German Jew, escaped Nazi Germany with his mother and older brother. His grandmother refused to leave, and several years later she became one of the six million Jews murdered at the hands of Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Morrie, as friends call him, spoke to me about his only son, Michael Beschloss. He is the Harvard educated, NBC News Presidential Historian. As the Presidential Historian, the younger Beschloss holds himself out as an unbiased, apolitical analyst of all things Presidential. Long ago, a political wedge was driven between the two, with Michael Beschloss strongly objecting to his father’s conservative politics.

The older Beschloss talked about his son’s accomplishments, which he admires. When it comes to his son’s work with NBC, however, Beschloss didn’t mince words:

“Once you’re in bed with the devil, you begin to spout the devil’s bullshit,” he explained, when referring to what he calls NBC’s overtly liberal bias. He cited Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin as another example of media driven political taint. “She is nothing but a lackey for the left,” said Beschloss.

Beschloss, who calls the cable division of his son’s employer, MSNBC, “nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Obama White House,” spoke with disdain about the network and many of its on-air personalities. Al Sharpton, who incited the 1991 Crown Heights riots, “is a known anti-Semite,” said Beschloss. He also decried the fact that the network employed, as an anchor, the daughter of alleged “arch-anti-Semite Zbigniew Brzezinski” (Mika Brzezinski).

Afsaneh and Michael Beschloss

We then began to talk about the self-designated, progressive “media watchdog group” Media Matters for America. Michael Beschloss (the son) is married to Iranian born Afsaneh Mashayekhi Beschloss. She has well-documented, strong ties to Democrats and George Soros-backed groups, including Media Matters. Mrs. Beschloss is currently President and CEO of Rock Creek Group, a hedge fund based in Washington, D.C. One of Rock Creek Group’s senior advisors is Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former Lt. Governor of Maryland, who is also leading American Bridge–a Democrat fundraising project co-founded with Media Matters for America’s David Brock.

George Soros announced in 2010 that he was donating $1 million to MMFA specifically to go after Fox News Channel, whose hosts, he claimed, were “inciting violence.”

“George Soros is the most dangerous man in America,” said Morrie. Beschloss believes that major conservative media such as Fox News and BigGovernment.com are targets of MMFA and Soros not only because they present opposing points of view, but because they have “huge audiences” that far outnumber those of liberal media outlets.

Beschloss adds that despite Soros’ Jewish heritage, Soros “sides with the enemies of Israel on a regular basis.” In 2010, Soros gave $750,000 to J Street–an organization that poses as pro-Israel but in reality is a radical left-wing group actively campaigning against Israel’s right to defend itself.

Beschloss went on to say that in his view, the only media that matters is News Corp., the parent company of Fox News Channel; and the Wall Street Journal, which he says are the “only objective major media left in America.”

Notwithstanding his son’s affiliation with NBC and his daughter-in-law’s ties to MMFA, Beschloss says MMFA’s simple mission is “to destroy any organization with views that contradict theirs.”

Photo: National Post (Canada) / Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg

The email apparently targeted staff from the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, and recipients included staff working for Sen. Inhofe as Ranking Member, apparently in error. (Sen. Inhofe is an ardent supporter of the Keystone pipeline and has objected vehemently to President Barack Obama’s decision to prevent it from moving forward.)

The fact that MMfA’s email was, atypically, sent to Republican staffers might suggest a gesture at bipartisan outreach–except that the email was explicitly addressed to congressional “allies” on an issue where Republicans have shown unusually strong unity, and the opposition, such as it is, has come from Democrats and the White House. (Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill supporting the Keystone pipeline with Republicans favoring the project 232-3, and Democrats opposing it 144-47.)

The email announces that Media Matters aims to assist fellow opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline (i.e. congressional Democrats) based on the premise that the media has focused on the jobs the project could create, and not on the potential downsides of the pipeline:

From: [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 09:11 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: Heads up – MMFA study on media coverage of KXL out tomorrow

[Redacted],

I wanted to flag that MMFA will be putting out a major, quantitative report on media coverage of KXL tomorrow morning.

The study will be similar to our EPA counting study (http://mediamatters.org/research/201106070010) — and will drill home the point the media bought right into Big Oil’s desired frame on KXL, focusing largely on the (inflated) number of jobs that could be created, without paying due attention to the many other important issues at stake. (Ranchers’ land, spills, climate change, etc.)

We are hoping for a big media splash,  but – more importantly – we’re hoping that allies will be able to leverage it to gain favorable coverage.

I’ve pasted a very brief summary below – and will be sure to send along the final study as soon as it’s up.  If you have any questions, please let me know.

All the best,

[Redacted]

STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline

A Media Matters analysis shows that as a whole, news coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1 and December 31 favored pipeline proponents. Although the project would create few long-term employment opportunities, the pipeline was primarily portrayed as a jobs issue. Pro-pipeline voices were quoted more frequently than those opposed, and dubious industry estimates of job creation were uncritically repeated 5 times more often than they were questioned. Meanwhile, concerns about the State Department’s review process and potential environmental consequences were often overlooked, particularly by television outlets.

Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) organization, meaning it is exempt from paying taxes on earnings, but must also obey Internal Revenue Service (IRS) restrictions on political and lobbying activity.

Under IRS requirements, MMfA would likely be able to provide its research to legislators, but not to coordinate with political “allies” to “gain favorable coverage” on legislation still pending before Congress so that such legislation might be defeated and those allies might benefit from greater exposure.

What MMfA is doing on the Keystone XL pipeline issue goes far beyond its stated purpose of “comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” It is explicitly using its purported “analysis” to provide “leverage” to “allies” in Congress with the intent of achieving narrow partisan and legislative goals.

MMfA has the right to be wrong on the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline. But everyone else, as taxpayers, has the right to demand that it pay its fare share.

John Podesta, Center for American Progress

The Washington Post has just published an article reporting that the Center for American Progress, the left-wing think tank whose policies and personnel have close ties to the Obama White House, has been “accused of anti-Semitic language.”

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely aligned with the White House, is embroiled in a dispute with several major Jewish organizations over statements on Israel and charges that some center staffers have used anti-Semitic language to attack pro-Israel Americans.

The controversy reflects growing divisions among important allies of President Obama over Middle East policy that could complicate the president’s reelection outreach to some Jewish voters, just as he is seeking to assure them of his commitment to Israel’s security amid fears of an Iran nuclear threat.

Among the points of contention are several Twitter posts by one CAP writer referring to “Israel-firsters.” Some experts say the phrase has its roots in the anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country. In another case, a second staffer described a U.S. senator [Mark Kirk of Illinois] as showing more fealty to Israel and the prime U.S. pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, than to his own constituents, replacing a standard identifier of party affiliation and state with “R-AIPAC” on Twitter….

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said some of the statements from CAP staffers “are anti-Semitic and borderline anti-Semitic.”

“We’re concerned about it because this is a serious think tank, and it does influence the administration,” Foxman added. CAP is run by “serious people who need to take control of their entities.”

Jason Isaacson, an official with the American Jewish Committee, which often collaborates on policy issues with CAP, pointed to “very troubling things that have been written on a pretty regular basis by certain people associated with the organization.”

“For any serious policy center there are certain lines of fairness and objectivity and good sense that should not be crossed, and yet, disturbingly, those lines have regularly been crossed,” Isaacson added.

Reached for comment this morning, Josh Block, a Democrat who has criticized the language used by CAP and its ally, Media Matters for America, called for the organization to make immediate changes:

If CAP wants to continue having people writing the organization’s day-to-day views on national security and Middle East policy who truck in language and theories more at home on White Power and anti-Jewish conspiracy websites than in the mainstream of the Democratic party, that is their choice, but the organization and their work will be judged accordingly, and CAP will continue eroding their credibility to zero.

It’s not too late. I don’t think this is who CAP, its new leadership, or it’s allies want the organization to be, in the short or long term. This kind of demagoguery, anti-Israel invective, and in some cases actual hate speech, is absolutely wrong whether it comes from the extreme Right or Left, and like cancer, it has to be cut out before it metastasizes and destroys the whole body.

One CAP staffer who used the offensive language to describe Israel and pro-Israel Americans is no longer at CAP; others who have used the same language are still at CAP and Media Matters.

The radical group J Street, which enjoys the favor of the Obama administration and lobbies Congress to oppose Israeli policies, has defended some of the antisemitic language that is the source of the controversy.

On January 3, Media Matters for America (MMfA) linked, among others, a Big Government item by J. Christian Adams to support its mischaracterization of a Fox News segment on South Carolina’s contested voter ID law.

MMfA cherry-picked a small portion of Adams’s post, while ignoring the bulk of Adams’s argument solidly refuting MMfA’s own weak defense of Attorney General Eric Holder, thereby obscuring his criticism from their readers.

Emphasis via MMfA:

In a January 3 segment on Fox News’ Fox & Friends, correspondent Jim Angle promoted a number of falsehoods and misleading claims about voter ID laws and the Department of Justice’s action preventing one such law from being implemented in South Carolina.

Even Vote Fraudster J. Christian Adams Calls The Analogy “Silly And Constitutionally Incorrect”

Adams: Arguments “Flimsy” Since “The 15^th Amendment Is In Play When It Comes To Voting.”In a BigGovernment.com piece attacking the DOJ’s letter, J. Christian Adams wrote:

What Adams did was provide several solid arguments as to why Holder’s DOJ appears to be contesting the South Carolina law based largely upon misperceptions and fuzzy math for political reasons. Media Matters neglects to point out that Holder’s DOJ used out-dated data, grossly inflating any potential problem in South Carolina. They also repeatedly highlighted a 20% number already exposed as a math gimmick aimed at making the issue appear to be far more significant than it may actually be.

Likewise, the DOJ also turned its nose up at the late breaking development that the data were wrong. The state of South Carolina discovered that the election commission had provided data that probably included tens of thousands of people on the voter rolls who moved out of state. That explains why they had no driver’s licenses but were still on the voter rolls. Instead of waiting to review the new data, DOJ rushed its objection out the door. A credible operation, not interested in scoring political points, would have waited to review the correct data.

More on that issue here:

Apparently South Carolina thought that the numbers seemed off, too. According to this eye-opening interview with South Carolina’s Attorney General Wilson, the state did an audit and found that that group of 239,000 included 37,000 people who were deceased, 96,000 who had moved to other states, and other discrepancies.

Wilson claims that the actual number of people without DMV-issued ID is actually about 27,000.  (It should be mentioned here as an aside that South Carolina has made extensive provisions for those people who don’t have ID, including being able to obtain the ID free and even offering free rides to the offices issuing ID).

Even with exaggerated, out-dated data, the reported differences between minority (10%) and non-minority (8.6%) voters without photo ID are miniscule: a 1.4% difference. (Another way of putting it would have been to say that 90% of minority voters have the required ID, and 91.4% of non-minority voters do.) By manipulating these proportions, DOJ, with the help of the media and MMfA, spun that into a 20% difference.

DOJ: South Carolina’s Data Indicate Minority Registered Voters “Nearly 20% More Likely To Lack DMV-Issued ID Than White Registered Voters.”

In other words, according to the state’s data, which compare the available data in the state’s voter registration database with the available data in the state’s DMV database, minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised by Act R54’s new requirements.

The Media Matters attack on Fox is based upon little more than data manipulation, selective quotation, and incomplete facts deployed in defense of the hapless Eric Holder and his politicized DOJ.

The latest to weigh in are the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, two leading American Jewish organizations, which have joined the Simon Wiesenthal Center in criticizing CAP and its offshoot, Media Matters for America, for attacks on Israel that go beyond legitimate criticism and may cross the line into antisemitism.

Last month, Politico reported that CAP and MMfA have both taken anti-Israel positions that “are challenging a bipartisan consensus on Israel and Palestine that has dominated American foreign policy for more than a decade.” These stances include downplaying the threat of a nuclear Iran, and suggesting that pro-Israel groups have pushed the U.S. into confrontations in the Middle East.

In addition, Politico cited extreme and inflammatory comments about Israel made by CAP employees at the Middle East Progress and ThinkProgress blogs, as well as by senior MMfA staff on Twitter and elsewhere. MMfA Senior Fellow M.J. Rosenberg, for example, has railed against pro-Israel Americans whom he calls “Israel firsters,” echoing old antisemitic tropes of “dual loyalty.”

In 2010, Rosenberg spoke at the Palestine Center in Washington, DC on a panel discussion with Stephen Walt, who co-wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy with John Mearsheimer–a book widely panned for its inaccuracy and its use of conspiracy theory to attribute malevolent influence to pro-Israel groups and individuals. Rosenberg was even less careful with his language than Walt and Mearsheimer, referring repeatedly to “the Jewish lobby”:

The controversy over CAP and MMfA’s anti-Israel policies and allegedly antisemitic commentary has even reached Israel, where it has been covered by the Jerusalem Post. Supporters of CAP and MMfA accuse critics of trying to shut down debate on Israel–ironically, while celebrating the removal of one of their critics, Josh Block, from the listserv of the Truman National Security Project.

Block, a Democrat, had been quoted in the Politico article describing some of CAP’s views as “borderline anti-Semitic stuff.” His removal was described by the Truman Project as punishment for a “personal attack”–when, in fact, his comments were not personal at all in nature, and have been substantiated and supported by mainstream American Jewish organizations.

John Podesta, who founded CAP and helped start MMfA, is on the advisory board of the Truman project–perhaps a clue as to the real reason for Block’s removal.

Regardless, both CAP and MMfA are, as Politico points out, “[t]wo of the Democratic Party’s core institutions,” providing policy ideas, media talking points, and support staff to push the left’s agenda in Washington.

Until recently, the anti-Israel views espoused by CAP and MMfA were on the far-radical fringe of American political debate. As CAP and MMfA have grown in importance, however, their anti-Israel agendas have become more prominent within the Obama administration and the Democratic Party as a whole, leading to a rift that has already had electoral consequences.

Unless Democrats act to contain the damage, the controversy over charges of antisemitism at CAP and MMfA could affect debates–and votes–in the crucial campaign of 2012.

Yet the ADL’s message has been compromised by left-wing political bias, most recently in its failure to denounce the evident antisemitism of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement.

Photo at Occupy LA (Pajamas Media)

By contrast, the ADL was quick to accuse the Tea Party movement of antisemitism when it began.

In May 2009, shortly after the first Tea Party rallies in April, the ADL warned: “White Supremacists and Anti-Semites Plan to Recruit at July 4 Tea Parties.”

In November, the ADL issued a “special report” on the Tea Party and “anti-government conspiracies.” The ADL noted that “extremists were a tiny minority of Tea Party protesters,” but claimed Tea Party members were filled with “rage” and held ideas that “fall outside the mainstream.”

As of this writing, the ADL has said nothing about the “rage” and bigotry on display at several “Occupy” rallies. Instead, it is minimizing the antisemitism on display, effectively helping “Occupy” do damage control.

One ADL analyst told the Daily Caller:

“We have seen instances of individuals promoting these [antisemitic] views. We do not think that it is or has been institutionalized in the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movements,” she said. “But I think the bigger issue is sort of that when there is a heightened focus economic strife and the financial industry it is not surprising to see these messages. Yet, we will continue to be diligent, looking for them and combating the promotion of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories should they arise.”

Todd Gutnick, ADL’s media relations director, confirmed this morning: “Aside from the story in the Daily Caller in which we were quoted, ADL has made no statements on the Occupy movement.”

That is alarming, given the explicit anti-Jewish hatred on display at Occupy rallies across the country.

For example, on October 12, Reason.tv posted an interview with Patricia McAllister, a self-described employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District, and a demonstrator at Occupy LA. She stated: “I think that, uh, the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks, and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government–they need to be run out of this country.”

Pajamas Media recorded similar, and worse, statements at Occupy LA. The main Occupy demonstration in lower Manhattan has also seen numerous, well-documented examples of explicit antisemitism.

Media Matters’s M.J. Rosenberg–who himself once called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “terrorist”–attempts to minimize these examples by highlighting some Occupy activists’ embrace of Jewish themes, such as atonement on the recent Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur.

Yet when have these well-meaning Occupy activists condemned the bigotry in their midst?

Furthermore, some Occupy organizers apparently share a pronounced hatred of Israel.

For example, Lisa Fithian, a professional activist who is coordinating Occupy protests around the country, has a history of anti-Israel activism, including a 2010 protest at which she accused Israel of murder, and demonstrators called for Palestine to be “free, from the river to the sea.”

Similar anti-Israel sentiments appear in emails in the Occupy Wall Street archive uncovered at Big Government last week. The ADL, which closely monitors anti-Israel hate, has shown no interest in such links between the Occupy movement and the global anti-Israel movement.

The American Nazi Party came out in support of the Occupy protests nearly a week ago, but the ADL has still said nothing.

What will it take for the ADL–the guardian of tolerance in America–to break its unconscionable silence, and speak out against the antisemitism at Occupy Wall Street?

Or does the ADL reserve its outrage for conservative groups like the Tea Party, which it has unfairly and inaccurately associated with the worst kinds of hatred?

The work the ADL does is too important to be compromised by such blatant political bias.

It is well past time for the ADL to call upon those behind the Occupy movement–the activists, unions, and elected Democrats–to speak out against the antisemitism and anti-Israel rhetoric among the movement’s leaders and supporters.

In response to a threatening letter I received from UMSL demanding that I meet with them for questioning, I submitted a Sunshine Law records request to the University of Missouri system. The emails below constitute UMSL’s reply.

UMSL fix ii

Large portions were redacted under the questionable pretense that they contained privileged communications between UMSL and its attorney.

What I learned from the visible portions was quite disturbing: numerous high-level university officials conspired in an attempt to punish me.

When this strategy proved unsuccessful, they engaged in a smear campaign against me, partly relying on inaccurate liberal blogs as “evidence.” Because senior UMSL administrators refused to take responsibility for their blatant failure of oversight in their labor studies classes, they resorted to maligning the student who spoke out about the unprofessional behavior of his professors.

For example, after learning that their professors were accused of encouraging criminal behavior and recruiting for the Communist Party during class, the first concern of Provost Glen Cope (UMSL) and Vice Provost Mary Lou Hines Fritts (UMKC) was to find who leaked the tapes and to punish them.

Admitting that she had not even watched the complete tapes herself, Cope asked Hines Fritts: “Also, do you know the name of the student who assisted in ripping the videos?  If he/she is a student registered at UMSL, then we would like to proceed with student conduct actions relative to the rules that have been broken…Since the semester is nearly over, we need to act quickly.”

Cope went on to ask in another email: “Do you have enough that we could make a student conduct inquiry relative to the appropriate usage policy? ”

Hines-Fritts responded: “The issue is whether it can be proven that HE actually did it…IF in fact he invited or facilitated the camera person on Saturday, that alone I would think would be a violation.”

It should be noted that I did not invite anyone to my class. The “camera person” to whom they referred was Adam Sharp, a blogger who my professor, Don Giljum (who is still welcome to teach at UMSL), attacked in the hallway during class.  UMSL subsequently confiscated Sharp’s footage.

An employee of UMKC searched my name online and discovered that I am, in fact, a conservative. After learning that apparently incriminating information, Provost Cope proclaimed: “This appears to be the student who was involved in the Labor Studies video ‘ripping.’…If so, is there anything we can do of a student conduct nature?  It may be that it’s not worth doing but we should at least check.”

The University officials did their damnedest to contrive a way to punish me, all the while bending over backwards to protect their faculty members. They did not determine that I violated a policy, and then subsequently decide that I should be punished. Rather, they first decided that I needed to be punished, and then floundered back and forth trying to invent a reason.

On the basis of my political affiliations alone, they clearly had convicted me before I even set had a chance to offer a defense. I showed up to UMSL’s “investigation” with an attorney. They decided at that point they did not want to talk to me anymore, and all conduct investigations were dropped. As soon as they discovered they couldn’t bully a powerless student, their bravado vanished.

Another chain of emails was prompted by an inquiry by David Russell, Commissioner of the Missouri Department of Higher Education. Russell read my account of the labor studies class on BigGovernment.com and wisely asked for an explanation. UMSL responded by continuing its cover up and engaging in a smear campaign against me.

Margaret Brommelsiek, Chief of Staff to the Chancellor at UMKC, had no qualms about spreading baseless rumorsabout me. She wrote in one email: “He has a long history at Washington University of doing this type of thing and it appears only enrolled in this course at UMSL for this purpose.” She also referred to hyper-partisan blogs written by Media Matters and Crooks and Liars, both of which later ran fanciful, albeit creative, confabulations about my life, connections, and motives.

What Brommelsiek said was a outright lie. I do not have a “long history of doing this type of thing,” nor do I have any history at all. Brommelsiek simply endorsed politically motivated lies about me in order to protect her organization.

Contrary to what Brommelsiek and other administrators claimed, I do not have the time, money, or desire to take classes in order to tape and embarrass professors. To be perfectly honest, I took the class because I needed three credits and the course only required me to show up seven times. I’m simply not as nefarious and crafty as a lot of liberal bloggers would like to believe.

While I was unsurprised by these attacks when they appeared on left-wing blogs, I was saddened that I also had to defend myself from the supposed adult professionals at the University of Missouri who felt it necessary to spread rumors about me.

Next, UMSL Chancellor Tom George wrote: “Our people are very familiar with this student and what has occurred, and we can provide more details as necessary.” It would appear that the Chancellor was lying. Neither he nor Cope knew anything about me until Hines Fritts provided them with information from the Internet. UMSL Provost Glen Cope chimed in by saying, “The student who wrote this blog is the same student who apparently enrolled in the Labor Studies class at UMSL/UMKC for this express purpose.” She then claimed that she had seen nothing inappropriate in whatever course videos she had watched.

I guess that means that Provost Glen Cope believes it is appropriate for public university professors to encourage their students to destroy the capital of their employers as a means of gaining a stronger bargaining position. She must also believe that it is appropriate to encourage students to stalk and terrorize their bosses. For more examples, view my previous post on BigGovernment.com; it suffices to say that there were countless inappropriate occurrences in this class. If Provost Cope does not endorse such extremism, the only other possible explanation is that she had not actually watched the whole class as she had claimed, and was trying to cover up her own negligence and dishonesty–maligning me, a student, in the process.

UMSL’s own Senior Associate Vice Chancellor Ron Gossen admitted in one email that “Provost Cope, regardless of the accuracy of the student’s blog, is firmly behind the appropriateness of the course.” Thank you, Mr. Gossen, for confirming that no matter how correct I was, Cope had bound herself to protecting her professors and attacking me.

These attacks by University officials on a student are outrageously unacceptable. These people are government employees with Ph.D’s, paid by your tax dollars, and their idea of a fair investigation into serious charges of academic integrity is to consult Media Matters and subsequently attempt to punish and attack a student who spoke out about what he saw in class.

As a student, I’ve been told countless times that Internet blogs are not an academically acceptable source of information. It was on the basis of blogs and Internet links alone, however, that these officials falsely concluded I was a part of some vast conspiracy to embarrass them.

The university should recognize that its attempt at cover-up and character assassination has consequences.  Following the break of the UMSL story, I received an anonymous disturbing email which threatened violence against me and included my address. Yesterday, I found that someone had come into my backyard and busted up all my clay herb pots. I have since filed a police report which estimated $60 in damage to my property.

UMSL’s failure to investigate its professors’ disturbing conduct honestly has given credence to the false story that I was somehow “planted” in order to frame these poor, innocent scholars. Now, I’m left to deal with the violent political radicals who feel a need to punish me.

The state legislature and Governor Nixon must act to clean up Missouri’s university system before any more students are indoctrinated and abused in this manner. I urge readers in Missouri to call your elected officials and encourage them to read my two posts on BigGovernment.com.

In the meantime, I ask that all Missourians and alumni withhold any donations to the institution. Parents who are considering sending their kids to University of Missouri schools should definitely think twice.  Any dissent from the liberal university status-quo could make your child their next victim.