Is ISIS Right on Islam?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com




Every time ISIS commits another heinous atrocity in the name of Allah, we hear the Western apologists tell us that they are not true Muslims because Islam forbids such acts. I am talking about people like CAIR,  the numerous Western-based imams, and even President Obama himself. Of course, those of us who have taken the time to study the teachings of the Koran, the hadith, and the life of Mohammad often come to a different conclusion.

This is not to suggest that all or even most Muslims approve of ISIS or agree with their ideas. Most Muslims do not engage in violent jihad. Yet we in the non-Muslim world must come to grips with this phenomenon because we are all threatened by it. Thus, we have the right to openly discuss it, and we should without having to worry about being called Islamophobes or bigots.

But in discussing ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah and other Islamic terror groups, there are certain questions that keep popping up in my mind. Let me focus on ISIS in particular.

We already know that literally thousands of Muslims residing in Western countries have traveled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS. My question is how many Western Muslims have we documented that have gone to Iraq or Syria to fight against ISIS? I am unaware of any. I am only aware of a few non-Muslim Westerners who have gone to join forces with fighters such as the Iraqi-Kurdish Peshmerga.

It is true that ISIS has killed many more Muslims than Christians or other minority religions. One reason is that ISIS is made up of Sunni Muslims, and they have an age-old hatred of Shi'ite Muslims, witness the Sunni-Shi'ite split in Iraq or the Sunni-Alawite split in Syria. Among the Alawites, a division of Shia Islam, is the Assad ruling family.

Then there are the various Muslim armies fighting against ISIS. Here I include the Syrian army, the Iraqi army, and the Iranian army, the latter of whom are Shia. Of course, these soldiers are not fighting to take back Islam from those who have "hijacked" it. They are fighting because their rulers have sent them to fight in order to maintain their political power, or in the case of Iran, to exert hegemony in the region.

In addition, there are the Kurds, who are fighting for their independence. The Peshmerga is the fighting force of Iraqi Kurdistan. They are engaged in battle against ISIS and badly need our weaponry. Instead, Obama prefers to supply the Iraqi army, but that is another topic.

So my question returns to the point: If ISIS is made up largely of previously non-military types who have joined the jihad fighting under no national banner, where are their civilian Muslim adversaries? Where are the armies of Mohammad who have banded together to rescue Islam from this evil force that has given it such a bad name? If jihad is such a positive concept in Islam, where are the anti-ISIS jihadis? If one definition of jihad is defending Islam, where are the jihadis defending Islam against the "perversions" of ISIS, perversions that are doing so much damage to Islam's reputation in the world?

Or does ISIS really represent the pure teachings of Islam?

Brussels: The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse,blogspot.com






The latest attack has taken place in Brussels. Just days after the Paris attack ringleader was arrested in Brussels, ISIS has struck again. Between 30-34 people are dead at the Zavandam Airport and a metro station downtown, and ISIS is taking credit.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/22/isis-claims-credit-for-terror-attacks-at-brussels-airport-metro-station.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Of course, we know that there will be more attacks. What we don't know is when our leaders will finally conclude the obvious: That ISIS must be exterminated. That will not stop terror altogether, of course, because the ideology that drives ISIS will live on. It is an ideology with a veneer of religion.

Yes, it is the very ideology of militant Islam that is the ultimate root behind all this. Not radical Islam because the  agents of this inhumanity are following the dictates of the Prophet Mohammad and the Koran. "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them". "Strike terror into their hearts". "Cut off their limbs..." It's all there in front of us, but too many of us refuse to believe their our  lying eyes.

This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists. There are millions of Muslims who are secular. A few are reformists. Most just want to get on with their lives. As always, we must resist the impulse to retaliate against them. But we cannot allow their feelings to silence us.

But first and foremost, we must defend ourselves, our lives and our liberties. We must face the truth about Islam. It is not a religion of peace. It is a political ideology built on violence and hate. It believes in conquest. It does not recognize a separation between religion and the State.

We must speak openly and without fear about this scourge. We must proclaim that we will never submit to Islam.

Secondly, we must face the reality that we have to defeat ISIS where it is. We must combine with NATO and our Arab allies to go in and root it out in Syria, Iraq and Libya.

And finally, we must realize that these animals cannot kill us if they are not in our countries, This continued immigration of Muslims into the West must cease. That includes these so-called refugees and migrants who are streaming into Europe.

When will we say that enough is enough?

What Obama Must Do in Cuba

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Joanna Chesimard aka Assata Shakur


If President Obama accomplishes one important thing in Cuba this week, he should demand the extradition of US terrorists who are wanted and have found refuge in Cuba. That includes cop-killer Joanna Chesimard aka Assata Shakur.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/21/nj-police-renew-call-for-escaped-domestic-terrorists-in-cuba-to-return-to-us.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Just recently, one of the men who helped break Chesimard out of prison, Sekou Odinga, aka Nathaniel Burns, spoke at UC Irvine, hosted by the African-American Studies Department and the School of Humanities. Without question, the above entities advertised Sekou as a former "US political prisoner of war" (He served 33 years in prison for attempted murder of police officers.) It also referred to the "liberation" of Shakur.

It appears that the above announcement has now been taken down. I don't know if this had anything to do with my letter of protest to the dean of the School of Humanities.

At any rate, President Obama has a moral duty to press the Cubans for the extradition of these criminals back to US justice. I will be pleasantly surprised if he does.

Operation Fast and Furious Rises Again

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Larry



Eric Holder-2011 Fousesquawk "Jerk of the Year"



Once again the ghost of Operation Fast and Furious comes back to haunt us. Recently, we learned that one of the weapons involved in the scheme was recovered in conjunction with Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman's arrest in Los Mochis. Now we learn that one of the weapons involved in the "Draw Mohammad" event attack in Garland, Texas was-you guessed it- connected to Fast and Furious.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430043/drug-kingpin-el-chapo-had-rifle-fast-furious-gunwalking-program

It is amazing how the highest officials in President Obama's cabinet, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, knew nothing about this bizarre operation. It's the same ignorance professed by Clinton when her ambassador in Libya was pleading for more security before he was killed in the attack on our mission in Benghazi.

This is truly a national disgrace.

BDS and Anti-Semitism on College Campuses

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


For several years now, we have been documenting anecdotal evidence based on incidents on US college campuses that anti-Semitism is a growing problem and there is a direct link between the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement against Israel. We have also been reporting on incidents involving anti-Semitic expressions by Students for Justice in Palestine. Now, thanks to the AMCHA Initiative, we have empirical evidence. What is linked below is the result of a year-long study.


http://www.amchainitiative.org/antisemitic-activity-schools-large-Jewish-report-2015

Once again, to my great consternation, the University of California is prominent on the list. Among its campuses. UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and UCLA are all among the leaders. At least, UC Irvine doesn't appear. A few years ago, it would have. I am sure people like former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren and Daniel Pipes are pleasantly surprised that UCI is not among the leaders. Both have had their speeches at UCI disrupted in recent years.

And what accounts for UCI's slipping off the list? No doubt the hacks from Hillel and the Jewish Federation of Orange County will be quick to claim credit. For what? For their stand down orders to Jewish students? Because they attacked Jewish students and community members who stood up and spoke out? Because they tried to get people to put away their US and Israeli flags when the UCI I-Fest was disrupted?

I would rather think it is because the pro-Palestinian crowd and their invited speakers have learned that they will not be met by indifference and submission when they come to UCI. Ask Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Ask Norman Finkelstein. Ask Ysroel Dovid Weiss. Ask William Robinson. Ask Sohail Daulatzai. Ask Omar Barghouti. Ask David Palumbo-Liu. Ask (whatever happened to) Rabab Abdulhadi. (We still don't know if she actually made it down to UCI last May. I have a sneaking suspicion she was hiding behind the curtain on the stage waiting to learn if the Muslim Student Union/SJP would be able to keep me from videotaping.)

All that aside, the AMCHA Initiative has provided an important contribution to the study of Jew hatred on American college campuses. The hack university administrators don't put much stock in anecdotal evidence no matter how egregious it is. They favor empirical evidence. Well, here it is.

Mizzou: The Chickens Come Home to Roost

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Eagle Rising


"What happened to the tigers?"



This is an example of what happens when weak college administrators allow student agitators and unruly professors to run amok on campus. The University of Missouri is now forced to cut budget because of dropping student enrollment.


http://eaglerising.com/31353/poetic-justice-liberal-university-caves-to-black-lives-matter-protesters-loses-millions-of-dollars-and-more-than-a-thousand-prospective-students/

What did they expect after the Black Lives Matter crowd destroyed the school's reputation? What did they expect when administrators dropped to their knees? The university chancellor actually resigned. What did they expect when a journalism professor, no less, showed that not only was she an out of control agitator, but also had no clue about the First Amendment?

Mizzou hasn't seen this drastic reduction in enrollment because certain students decided they were not safe from white racists on campus and lacking of sufficient "safe spaces". Nor was it because current students were outraged at the firing of Melissa Click. They were predominantly new enrollees that the school lost.

So what happened? Students decided that they needed to go somewhere else where they could study in peace without aggressive, obnoxious students getting in their faces and asking if they believed that black lives mattered (and you'd better say yes). Parents decided they didn't need to be paying tuition to a university that had become a national joke and a poster child for all that has gone horribly wrong in academia.

Like my friend, Onan Coca, who wrote the above article, I find it hard to feel sympathy for Mizzou. I can hope, however, that Mizzou will become a teaching moment for university administrators everywhere; if you don't want to see the same thing happen to your school, you'd better get it under control.

More Bad News for Hillary

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

"The source, who is not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Pagliano has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state."

According to this Fox News report, Bryan Pagliano is turning out to be a "devastating witness" in the Hillary Clinton email scandal.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/source-clinton-it-specialist-revealing-server-details-to-fbi-devastating-witness.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Then there is this:

"Clinton recently told CBS, “I'm delighted that [Pagliano] has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has. And I think that we will be moving toward a resolution of this.” 

Yeah right. 

"Gotti recently told CBS, “I'm delighted that Sammy the Bull has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has. And I think that we will be moving toward a resolution of this.” 

And kudos to Univision's Jorge Ramos for throwing hard questions at Mrs Clinton in the Miami debate this week-questions that others have been unwilling to do. Hillary was clearly upset about the questions about being indicted and the reference to Benghazi showing a video clip of Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the victims of Benghazi.

Trump: Let the Process Play Out

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Full disclosure: I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, nor am I a Republican. As a conservative, I routinely vote Republican. Of the four remaining candidates, (Trump. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich) Trump is the one I least want to see get the nomination.

Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that, while it is not inevitable, it appears Trump will at the very least go into the Republican convention in Cleveland with the most primary votes.  This puts the RNC and the Republican establishment in a very difficult position. What they do may decide the future of the party itself.

We all know that the establishment is firmly against Trump. Their favored candidate is Rubio because they view him as the one who can best go up against Hillary Clinton in the general election. (They are probably right.) If Trump doesn't have enough delegates to clinch, there are all sorts of scenarios whereby someone else can snatch the nomination. They may even change the rules.

Either way, they are left with a very bad pair of choices: First, they can allow Trump to win the nomination fair and square and  run in the general election. Even if he wins, the odds are great that he would be a disastrous and dangerous president. On the other hand, if the establishment steals the nomination from Trump, his followers will be so outraged they will probably  stay home en masse on election day. If Trump feels cheated, he will no doubt run as an independent. Either way, that means a Democrat in the White House.

My feeling is that the Republican establishment, for better or worse, should avoid the smoke-filled room and let the winner prevail-whoever it is. They need to remember that is they who have helped create this monster in the first place. This is the inevitable result when the people feel that their leaders-the ones they have voted into office- have lied to them, cheated them, and failed to do what they said they would do. Here I am talking about people like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and many others. They told the Republican voters that they needed to give them a Republican House. They got it. They told the voters they needed a Republican Senate. They got it. Yet, nothing has changed. Harry Reid might just as well be the Senate minority leader, and Nancy Pelosi might just as well be the speaker of the House. Obama still gets everything he wants. When moderate methods don't work, the people turn to more radical solutions. (Europe is a prime example.)

So my advice for the Republicans is to listen to the voters. You stand to lose an entire generation of voters if you screw them once more. It is ultimately you who are responsible for this situation

Sekou Odinga: My Letter to UC Irvine Chancellor et al

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

Sekou Odinga

Reference is made to my postings on the February 10 speaking appearance of Sekou Odinga 

aka Nathaniel Burns at UC Irvine on February 10.

On February 19, I sent the below email to UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman, Vice 

Chancellor Thomas Parham, Dean of the School of Humanities Georges van den Abbeele, 

and Chair of the African-American Studies Dept. Bridget Cooks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Chancellor Gillman et al, 
 
I am writing to express my dismay at the recent speaking appearance of Sekou 
Abdullah Odinga aka Nathaniel Burns at UCI on February 10, 2016, sponsored by 
the African American Studies Dept. and the School of Humanities. More than that, 
I am outraged at the false and misleading biographical description of Odinga 
that appeared on the School of Humanities website. 
 
Let me state at the outset that I am fully aware that Odinga has served his 
sentence and has the right to speak in public just as the African American 
Studies Dept. has the right to invite him as a speaker. Yet, as a retired law 
enforcement officer with nearly thirty years of experience (US Army Military 
Police, US Customs, and Drug Enforcement Administration) I wonder why this 
particular speaker was chosen. Had he come, expressed remorse at his past, and 
offered it as advice for young people not to make his mistakes, that would be 
one thing. While I was not present at this event, given his recent speeches 
since his release, which I have reviewed, I think it is safe to say he did not. 
 
Here is how the School of Humanities advertised Mr Odinga: 
 
"Sekou Abdullah Odinga grew up in Jamaica, Queens-New York in a family of nine. 
He is a husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather.  He was inspired by 
the revolutionary principles of Malcolm X when he joined the Organization of 
Afro-American Unity, followed later by the Black Panther Party and the Black 
Liberation Army. He is a Muslim, a citizen of the Republic of New Afrika and for 
thirty-three years was a U.S. held political prisoner of war. In 2009, Sekou 
reached his mandatory release date for his federal conviction in connection to 
the Liberation of Assata Shakur - living in exile in Cuba - and was "paroled" to 
the New York State prison system. After five years, he won a parole hearing and 
was released on parole on November 25th, 2014 from the New York State sentence." 
 
First of all, I don't know where the Republic of New Afrika is located, and 
secondly, Mr Odinga was not a US political prisoner of war. Thirdly, I find it 
curious that a prison break would be called a "liberation". At any rate, here 
are the facts of Mr Odinga's incarceration: 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brink%27s_robbery_(1981) 
 
First of all, I think the sponsors of this event have an obligation to fully 
present the background of the speaker. Again, I was not present, and perhaps, 
those who introduced Odinga to the audience did, in fact, describe his 
connections to the 1981 Brinks robbery that left  two police officers and a 
Brinks guard dead. 
 
Secondly, in reference to the above bio listed on the School of Humanities 
website, I would like to ask the following: 
 
Is it the position of the African Studies Dept. that Odinga was a US political 
prisoner of war? 

Is it the position of the School of Humanities that Odinga was a US political 
prisoner of war? 
 

Is it the position of UC Irvine that Odinga was a US political prisoner of war? 
 
Again, I am fully cognizant of the First Amendment, which I hold dear. However, 
I think universities, while allowing controversial figures to speak their views, 
need to consider whether they are knowingly or unknowingly putting their own 
imprimatur on those views. 
 
Thank you for your attention. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Gary Fouse 
Adjunct teacher 
UCI-Ext 
DEA retired 
 
 
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to give the addressees ample time to respond to my (3) questions in the above 

email before posting this. As of today, I have received no response. If I do receive a 

response I will post it. In the absence of a response, I must assume that the answer to 

those three question is yes.

Jasbir Puar's Academic Supporters

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Alums For Campus Fairness and Campus Watch


In spite of Rutgers University Professor Jasbir Puar doing her best impersonation of Julius Streicher in her recent speech at Vassar, she has hundreds of academics who have lined up to sign a letter in her support. Of course, that also includes some very questionable signatures.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/15617

Here is the letter in Puar's support, which says that "her words were chosen carefully and were grounded in serious scholarship and thorough  research" referring to Puar's charges of Israelis harvesting organs of dead Palestinians and engaging in "weaponized epigenetics".

The fact is Puar provided no evidence for her charges, but her words were "chosen carefully and grounded in serious scholarship and thorough research." Had that been so, don't you think Puar would have provided evidence for her wild accusations?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1aJBcvnhQ0ZiFarqDmlBlEx-RzbmGtiiA7doPp-40yxI/viewform?c=0&w=1


And who are these academicians who signed this letter? Obviously, I am only familiar with a few, but here they are. The ones I know of are all regular anti-Israel activists who use their positions to preach the "evil" of Israel far and wide.

Judith Butler (UC Berkeley- She signed twice.)

Here is a link that describes my interaction with Butler when she spoke at UC Irvine in 2015. I asked her a question during the q and a and followed up with a letter to her, which she never responded to.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2015/05/an-open-letter-to-professor-judith.html

Rabab Abdulhadi (San Francisco State University)

This woman was mentor to the General Union of Palestinian Students at SFSU, some of whose members engaged in violent expressions in 2013 exhibiting a desire to kill Israel soldiers. She was also the subject of a suspicious trip to the Middle East for which she received school funding, but reportedly did not attend a conference for which the funds were reportedly allocated. Last May, she was supposed to appear at UC Irvine on behalf of the Muslim Student Union's annual hate fest against Israel. For some mysterious reason, she didn't show up. I sent her a letter, but she, of course, never responded.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2015/05/an-open-letter-to-sfsu-professor-rabab.html


Lisa Hajjar (UC Santa Barbara) Another regular on the anti-Israel seminar tour. Hajjar told a Jewish audience member during a q and a at UCLA in 2009 that he "had his Zionist hat screwed on way too tight."

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/ucla-symposium-on-israel-and-gaza.html

David Lloyd (UC Riverside)

Dr Lloyd gave me a demonstration of his idea of scholarship when he sponsored co-founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti at UC Riverside. When I asked if the school might consider exposing its students to the other side of the issue with a pro-Israel speaker, he termed the question, "preposterous".

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2014/01/omar-ingrate-barghouti-touring.html

Here is the video:

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2014/01/video-of-omar-barghouti-at-uc-riverside.html

David Palumbo-Liu (Stanford)

Another anti-Israel regular. Just recently I caught his act at UC Irvine, where he stated that the State Department definition of anti-Semitism included the mere criticism of Israeli policies (not true). When confronted with his mis-statement after the event, he turned tail and ran from his accuser rather than defend what he said.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2016/01/freedom-of-expression-debated-at-uc.html

Rashid  Khalidi (Columbia)

Khalidi is a Palestinian-American who was buddies with Barack Obama, Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn back in their Chicago days. He was also at the center of a story about how then US Senate candidate Obama told Khalidi that once he got to the US Senate, he could take a harder stance against Israel. The tape of that conversation is still in the hands of the LA Times, who refuse to release it.


Sondra Hale (UCLA)

Though now a professor emeritus, Sondy is  a member  of the highly partisan and highly anti-Israel Center for Near East Studies.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/even-radicals-retire-at-ucla.html

Bettina Aptheker (UC Santa Cruz)

We all remember Bettina from the 1960s, don't we?

Angela Davis (UCSC) Who could forget her?

David Shorter (UCLA)

Shorter is the UCLA professor who was putting his pro-BDS views on a UCLA web server.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/shorter-saga-continues-at-ucla.html

Lisa Duggan (NYU)

Lisa is a BDS supporter who is president of the American Studies Association-which also supports BDS.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2014/01/asas-incoming-head-lisa-duggan.html

Richard Burt (Univ of Florida) This is the unusual fellow I saw recently at UC Irvine talking about the Dead Poets Society or some such nonsense supposedly related to freedom of expression.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2016/01/freedom-of-expression-debated-at-uc.html

Andrew Gutierrez (UC Berkeley, signed twice)

Here's a winner. I first posted about this charming fellow when he was captured on video heckling and giving the finger to Jewish students who were peacefully protesting the appearance of swastikas at UC Berkeley in 2010. Retired now, he spends his afternoons with his wife, a member of Women in Black who pester students at the university with harangues about the evils of Israel.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/uc-berkeley-professor-objects-to.html

Richard Falk (Princeton) Former UN Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories. This man's one-sided reporting against Israel was so odious even the State Department distanced themselves from him.

Steven Salaita (University of Beirut) This is the lovely fellow whose job offer at the University of Illinois was rescinded after he went on social media in the wake of the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank. Salaita penned his hope that "all settlers would go missing." The three teens were later found murdered.

But this gets better. They even have signatures from a few students, one identified only as Bryant, a PhD student from the University of Miami and Hanan, a post-doctorate fellow from who knows where as well as Caitlyn (nfd) a PhD student from Texas A&M.

Then there is Alison (nfd) an asst professor from Rutgers and Prantik Saha (nfd) , location unknown.

But now it really gets better. How about these three giants of academia?

Ishat Ma'Pants, Professor of Sociology retired

Thisshit Ain'ttrue, Professor of fallacy promotions at Nonsuch College

Ima Liar, anti-Semite Boulder Grass University

Serious Scholarship? With this kind of scholarship, you couldn't put a dog in the pound. Unless, of course, the dog catcher is Ishat Ma'Pants.

The Enlightened and Informed Juan Cole

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
hppt://garyfouse.blogspot.com



The Enlightened and Informed Juan Cole


If you ever go to hear University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole speak (as I have), you come away with the impression that he is a know-it-all. In fact, he runs a blog entitled, "Informed Comment". His latest piece is an example of his intellectual arrogance. In this piece, he "explains" Donald Trump's victory in the South Carolina primary. It is because, you see, voters in South Carolina (at least the Republicans) are a bunch of dumb, racist hicks who hate Muslims.

http://www.juancole.com/2016/02/trumps-sc-victory-and-anti-muslim-hatred.html#comment-375028

"But perhaps one unexpected indication as to why he won is Trump’s strident hatred of Muslims."

I think the word, "hatred" is a bit strong. After all, the harshest thing Trump has said on the topic was that he proposed a ban on Muslims coming to the country until the government figures out "what the Hell is going on". After all, that would be designed to save innocent lives, hardly an evil intent.

But it is Cole's demographic analysis on South Carolinians that I find objectionable along with his pronouncement that the "legacy of slavery and Jim Crow is hardly gone". Sorry, Dr Cole, but it is a new South.

And then there is this:

"Likely the large number of southern men who spend some time in the military is one explanation for this unusual concern with terrorism." 

Of course. And what an evil combination that is. (Cole was an Army brat.)

At any rate, in a few days, Sotuh Carolinians will return to the polls and no doubt give Hillary Clinton another primary victory over Bernie Sanders. One wonders what Cole will say about them then. I know. He will say that those were the enlightened Democrats as opposed to dumb hick Republicans. Maybe he will say that those were a combination of African-Americans combined with enlightened Northerners who have retired to the Palmetto State.

As for Trump, I am starting to believe that he is winning national support largely due to his stance on the border and Muslim immigration. That just may run deeper than we all believed. If I am right, Dr Cole will find out that it is not just a bunch of dumb, racist hicks in South Carolina he can point the finger at.

Oh, I forgot. Cole did say that South Carolina is a lovely place with warm and friendly people. That sort of reminds me of how Trump talks about Mexicans out one side of his mouth.

University of California Still Trying to Get Around Affirmative Action Ban

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Campus Reform

Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California, is still trying to get around the ban in California on race-based admissions.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7291

In a way, I don't get it. Not only do I teach part-time at UC Irvine, which is over 50% non-white, but I have visited the campuses at UCLA, Berkeley, Santa Barbara, and Riverside. I didn't see the problem, but then again, unlike some bean counters and more racially conscious people, maybe I just didn't notice. Of course, Asian-American students are well represented on our campuses especially at UCI.

Obviously, Napolitano wants to increase the number of black and Hispanic students. So do I, but I think that has to be addressed at the lower rungs of the educational ladder and within society.

My Letter to UC Irvine School of Humanities Re: Sekou Odinga

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

This week I posted an article on the speaking appearance at UC Irvine by Sekou Odinga aka 

Nathaniel Burns.

Below is how the School of Humanities represented Odinga in their event announcement.

https://www.humanities.uci.edu/SOH/calendar/events.php?recid=5615&dept_code_val=all&event_cat=current&file_name=events

Below is the text of an email I have sent the School of Humanities this morning.

Speaker, Sekou Abdullah Odinga 
 
Department: African American Studies 
 
Date and Time: February 10, 2016 - 4:00 PM 
Event Location: HIB135 
 
Event Details 
 
"Sekou Abdullah Odinga grew up in Jamaica, Queens-New York in a family of nine. 
He is a husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather.  He was inspired by 
the revolutionary principles of Malcolm X when he joined the Organization of 
Afro-American Unity, followed later by the Black Panther Party and the Black 
Liberation Army. He is a Muslim, a citizen of the Republic of New Afrika and for 
thirty-three years was a U.S. held political prisoner of war. In 2009, Sekou 
reached his mandatory release date for his federal conviction in connection to 
the Liberation of Assata Shakur - living in exile in Cuba - and was "paroled" to 
the New York State prison system. After five years, he won a parole hearing and 
was released on parole on November 25th, 2014 from the New York State sentence." 
 
 
"Really? 
 
Let's set the record straight. Odinga was connected  to the 1981 Brinks truck 
robbery in Nyack NY that left two police officers and a Brinks guard dead. Two 
days later, he was arrested during a shootout with police who were looking for 
the killers. He was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 33 years in 
prison. He was not a political prisoner of war. 
 
Odinga is free to exercise his First Amendment right of free speech wherever he 
likes, but let us not misrepresent who he is." 
 
Gary Fouse 
Adjunct teacher 
UCI Ext 

UC Irvine Hosting 1981 Brinks Holdup Convict

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


On February 10, the African Studies Dept. at UC Irvine will be hosting Sekou Abdullah Odinga as a speaker. Here is how Odinga is being advertised:

https://www.humanities.uci.edu/SOH/calendar/events.php?recid=5615&dept_code_val=all&event_cat=current&file_name=events

Here is the rest of the story on Odinga, whose birth name was Nathaniel Burns. He was involved in the 1981 Brinks truck robbery in New York that left two cops and a Brinks guard dead. It was apparently not his only robbery. Burns was actually convicted of attempted murder as a result of a shootout with police linked to the Brinks robbery that had taken place just days earlier. He spent 30 years in prison calling himself a "prisoner of war".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brink%27s_robbery_(1981)

All I can say is this: This guy has the right to come at speak at UCI or any other school. (He apparently has been making the rounds: UCI, UC Berkeley, and  UC San Diego to name a few. I wonder who is paying for all this.) But shame on the African Studies Department at UCI for choosing him as a speaker. And shame on them for their false and laudatory bio of this criminal.

Who Needs Protection From Whom?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Shari Goodman of Act for America in Calabasas (California) has penned the below op-ed in the Canada Free Press in reaction to President Obama's visit to a Baltimore mosque this week. Contrary to what Obama said during his visit, American and Canadian Muslims are not in danger and don't need protection from anyone. However, there are a lot of people around the world who do need protection from Muslims.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/hear-obama-muslims-are-not-the-victims-they-are-the-perpetrators

Thanks, Shari.

Why Did Obama Choose the Baltimore Mosque?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Today, President Obama spoke at the Islamic Society Mosque of Baltimore. He spoke about Islamophobia. Apparently, he neglected to speak about the plight of Middle Eastern Christians who are being slaughtered by Muslims. Nor did he speak of Christian churches being burned in Egypt. Nor did he speak of the attacks against Jews in Europe-by Muslims.

Obama is also facing criticism over his particular choice of this mosque. Breitbart has some background information which centers around its former imam.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/30/obama-to-speak-at-baltimore-mosque-where-imam-condoned-suicide-bombings/

But there is much more to the ISB than ex-imam Mohamad Adam El-Sheikh. The Investigative Project on Terrorism, the encyclopedia of Islamic radicalism in the US, has much more on ISB, information on associations and statements that brings us up the present day.


http://www.investigativeproject.org/5144/obama-dubious-mosque-choice

Why could Obama not have considered a mosque with no past history, perhaps the mosque that Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser attends in Phoenix? The Obama administration, in its Muslim outreach, has ignored Jasser and his organization, The American Islamic Forum for Democracy. To be fair, the Bush administration also reached out to so-called moderate Muslims after 9-11, and now we are writing about some of these people who stood next to the president and talked of moderation. Some are in jail.

But what else would you expect from Obama? He has said next to nothing about the Christians being slaughtered in the Middle East. His refugee programs have all but ignored them while they work to being tens of thousands of  Muslim "refugees" from Syria and Iraq, some of whom will surely turn out to be ISIS terrorists.

I sympathize with innocent American Muslims who just want to be accepted and who mean us no harm. The fact remains that hate crimes against Muslims are much lower than crimes against Jews. With few exceptions, Americans have acted with restraint. What has given rise to charges of Islamophobia is the ever-increasing discussion among ordinary people who are trying to figure out why all these horrific things are happening. This discussion cannot be stopped (though the Europeans can try under their draconian hate speech laws).

President Obama may have gone to the Baltimore mosque with the best of intentions. With his choice of mosques, he did not help the situation.

Who You Gonna Blame Now, Hillary?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Squid




Hillary Clinton is running out of people to blame for being politically motivated when it comes to her email scandal. The State Department has now admitted that certain Clinton emails contained classified material. The below article is from the Washington Post-hardly a right-wing news outlet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/29/the-state-department-concludes-there-is-top-secret-material-in-hillary-clintons-email-correspondence-from-her-time-as-secretary-of-state/?postshare=5011454171850020&tid=ss_mail

One can only wish the the Post was dedicating resources to this story as they did during Watergate, but it is good to know that more readers are seeing the story in print.


"The Friday announcement was significant because it appeared to undercut Clinton’s argument in recent months that she was merely the victim of a bureaucratic squabble between overly strict analysts at the intelligence agencies and more reasonable reviewers at the State Department."

Hillary and her camp are now not just blaming Trey Gowdy and the Republicans. Now they are taking shots at the intelligence community. Soon they will be blasting the FBI.

Is everybody out there politically motivated to bring down poor Mrs Clinton?

And isn't it a hoot that the Clinton campaign is calling for the State Department to release the contents of those 22 emails mentioned in the latest report? For reasons of transparency, no less. They know full well that those emails cannot be released to the public because of their stated sensitivity. How disingenuous!

The late Christopher Hitchens, I recall, wrote a book about Bill Clinton entitled, "No one left to lie to".  That, of course, has applied to Hillary for a long time. Soon it will be, "No one left to blame."

Rome Covers its Statues to Not Offend Rohani

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


"Is he gone? Can we come out now?"


It's the biggest cover up in Italy since the Vatican Bank scandal. With Hassan Rohani, the President of Iran (Yes, they have one), coming on a state visit to Rome, Italian officials decided that all those nude statues in the Capitolini Museum, where Rohani met the Italian president, Matteo Renzi, Monday, had to  be covered up. They couldn't offend the moral sensibilities of Rohani, you know. (Somebody might get killed.) They have, however, offended many Italians.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/rome-spares-iranian-presidents-blushes-covering-nude-statues

I note that Rohani also met with the Pope. No word on whether he visited the Colosseum. I;m sure he must have since he would surely love to see where the Christians were fed to the lions.

Here is the report from La Stampa (in Italian) It focuses on Renzi's aide, Ilva Sapora, who is under fire not only for the statue controversy, but a number of other gaffes.

http://www.lastampa.it/2016/01/28/esteri/dai-rolex-dei-sauditi-al-cibo-scadente-tutte-le-gaffe-del-capo-del-cerimoniale-4Ic4UCFHvbF8fNJNpgzW7M/pagina.html

Freedom of Expression Debated at UC Irvine

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

                          "One person's hate speech is another person's education."



On Friday and Saturday (January 22-23, I attended two days of a three-day event hosted by the University of California at Irvine and the University of Southern California (Day 3-Sunday- was scheduled at USC. That I did not attend.) The topic of discussion was Freedom of Speech in a Changing World: What Cannot Be Said? The conference consisted on a series of panels made up of cartoonists, writers and professors debating freedom of expression with a supposed emphasis on the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. On Saturday, fugitive intelligence leaker Edward Snowden was interviewed via a telecon hookup from Moscow and via a moderator in New York (Barton Gellman).

Generally, the audiences numbered from 100-200 persons mostly academic types I would guess and a few students.

On Friday evening, there was a panel of cartoonists. They were:

Lalo Alarez, Matt Bors, Steve Brodner, Ann Telnaes and a Malaysian political cartoonist named Zunar.

Alcaraz runs a cartoon strip known as, "La Cucaracha". He stated at the outset that he was in agreement with Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who had criticized Hebdo after the deadly attack because they were "punching down on a disenfranchised minority group" (Muslims) rather than "punching up" toward authority. He raised the name of Pam Geller, who in his words, had produced cartoons "because she could" and referred to cartoonists who drew Mohammed cartoons not as cartoonists, but as "A-holes". (Alcaraz used a few four-letter words in his remarks.) Alcaraz, as did the others, showed several of his cartoons for the audience on power point and poster boards including one mocking the McKinney, Texas police after last year's swimming pool incident involving black youths.

Bors, who is Portland, Oregon-based ("The Nib") showed some of his work including anti-gun and one entitled, "No Muslims allowed" mocking Islamophobia.

Brodner, who is a free-lancer, showed some of his work including Ronald Reagan with a long nose (a'la Pinocchio), an anti-(Nicaraguan) Contra piece, one of Rush Limbaugh in a negative light ("Got Hate?"), Donald Trump with a swastika on his scalp, and Henry Kissinger fornicating the world. Another, a Hebdo-inspired cartoon, showed a tree with the heads of figures like Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Trump, and a couple of other conservative figures hanging from the branches with blood dripping to the ground where heads representing terrorists were being nurtured by the blood. (At least that was how I understood the explanation.)

You get the picture. There was not a lot of sympathy being shown the victims of Charlie Hebdo here.

The closest one came to showing any concern for those victims was Ann Telnaes of the Washington Post, who most recently came under fire for her caricature of Ted Cruz with two monkeys on a leash representing his children. She told of the hate mail she received much of which was vile. She was very concerned that political campaigns would have an increasingly chilling effect on cartoonists in trying to "shut us down." She also showed some of her previous work, one showing Netanyahu punching a child in response to Palestinian attacks, another critical of Saudi Arabia and its treatment of women and US acquiescence. She did, however, part with Trudeau in saying that her "free speech fanaticism doesn't kill people."

Zunar is under prosecution in Malaysia for his criticism through art of the Malaysian government including the current president and first lady. His work has been banned on the charge that it might inspire revolt. Zunar stated that as a Muslim, he disagreed with the Hebdo cartoons, but defended their right to publish them. He stated that the Prophet Mohammad would never have ordered their killing and that he had freed and forgiven this or that enemy captured in war. He pointed to a young Muslim lady in the audience, probably a student, and asked if Mohammad would have ordered anyone killed. She replied, "No".

Zunar, meet  Ka'b bin al-Ashraf. 

But I digress.

During the q and a, Brendan O'Neill (a future panelist) and editor of Spiked.com, stated that he disagreed that Hebdo cartoonists were "punching down", rather O'Neill stated that they were "punching up" against censorship.

In answer to a question, all of the panelists stated that they would not produce a Mohammad cartoon.

The final speaker of the evening was Rebecca McKinnon, formerly CNN bureau chief in Beijing and Tokyo. She is now working with the New America Foundation and Global Voices Online. Her talk concerned freedom of expression in the Internet age.  She talked about how the Egyptian protests running up to the Arab Spring used the Internet and discussed the amount of control of the Internet in various counties (blocking content from Facebook etc.)

On Saturday, the first speaker was a California-based comedienne, Sandra Tsing Loh. I came in late and caught only the end of her q and a. The main event was Edward Snowden, who was to be interviewed via a telecon hookup from Moscow and via his interviewer, Barton Gellman, in New York.The interview lasted an hour and a half and the audience was asked not to film. (I had not brought a camera anyway.)

Rather than repeat all of Snowden's words, which were lengthy (I anticipate the video will be posted in the coming days by The Nation), let me say that he is an incredibly articulate young man especially for one who has only a high school education. Yet, in my view, he used the politician's tact of answering the questions he wanted asked rather than those which were actually asked. While the interviewer tried to ask questions about freedom of expression, Snowden waxed eloquent on the duty of the citizen to act and concentrated more on why it was wrong for the government to collect mega-data. In other words, he was more focused on protecting people's privacy. It was as if he had his own prepared talking points out of camera range. He acknowledged there were areas that required secrecy, but said that there was what he called, "uber-classification.

As for questions from the audience back at UC Irvine, we were told we could write them down and submit them (for screening). Of course, I don't care for that type of q and a just for that reason. However, the nice young man with the index cards was standing right next to me, and I figured, "What the Hell?" So I wrote my question.

"If you are a true whistle blower, why could you have not made your concerns known to your agency? If they had ignored it, you could have found a congressperson to report it to. And if you truly believe in your cause, why not return home and make your case in court?"

The card went to a side table where two ladies were assorting them into several stacks. There were probably two or three dozen of them. I figured my question would never be chosen.

I was right.

In all, nine questions from the audience were given to Snowden. While they were valid questions, none were critical. One asked under what conditions he would return to the US. He answered that he had volunteered to return and go to prison (He didn't say for how long he would be willing to serve.) and that he had received a letter from the Justice  Department promising not to torture him (laughter). Beyond that, he went on another long discourse but did not answer the question.

Snowden mentioned the case of General David Petraeus who had provided classified (Special Access Programs) information to his biographer and mistress. He stressed the fact that Petraeus pleaded to a violation of law but never spent a day in jail, whereas any normal person would have gone to jail for a very long time. (Are you reading this, Hillary Clinton?)

During his talk, the audience of 200-300 applauded often and at the end gave him a standing ovation. There was much love for Edward Snowden-much more than for the victims of Charlie Hebdo.

The first afternoon speaker (in person) was University of Florida English Professor Richard Burt, an odd sort, whose talk was entitled, "What the Dead Said". Burt's first two sentences were, "I am dead. I am dead." He then went on a long and incomprehensible presentation about certain people who had written things, like poems, and whose work was edited after they died. Included in this monologue were such gems as, "You have to be alive to speak". What all this had to do with freedom of expression, I have no idea. Burt told us about some English poet named John Keats who had  died at the age of 26. Keats had written some poem about reading King Lear. He showed us a picture of Keats' tombstone.

Freedom of expression???

If Burt wasn't dead, he was surely dying up there at the podium. All the while, he was fumbling with a malfunctioning power point laptop. Finally, the moderator mercifully called time just as Burt was about to delve into some guy named Thomas Bernhardt. (I hope I'm spelling that correctly.)

This was the worst presentation I have ever witnessed. I can't believe they brought this character all the way out from Florida to present such irrelevant drivel.

The afternoon sessions consisted of three panels. The first was moderated by the UCI Law School dean and noted liberal, Erwin Chemerinsky. It was entitled, "The Law, the Media and the Changing Parameters of Free Expression". The panelists were: David Kaye, a professor of law at UCI and UN rapporteur on free speech, Paul Smith, an attorney who has extensive experience dealing with the Supreme Court, Nadine Strossen, who has worked with the ACLU, and Nick Goldberg, editorial page editor of the LA Times. Each panelist spoke for about ten minutes. Strossen argued strongly for protecting free speech even hate speech, which is Constitutionally protected. She said that the government must remain neutral when it comes to speech. She expressed concern about the status of free speech and added that many millennials and minority groups do not fully support the idea of free speech,

Smith stated that the First Amendment is fully supported by the Supreme Court. He echoed Snowden's statements about the government and corporations collecting and saving information on people.

Kaye observed that we have an obsession with the First Amendment. He had two concerns: First, the current effort at Countering Violent Extremism and second, access to information.

Goldberg said that he was not concerned about threats to freedom of speech coming from the government. He was concerned about the threats coming from his (LA Times) readership. He referred to the reader reactions through letters to the editor and online comments which strongly took exception to the Times' writing. He quoted the use of the N-word and specifically the backlash after the Times published a piece by a Hamas official.

Comment: The use of the N-word aside, it seems to me that reader comments to what the Times prints is an exercise in itself of freedom of speech. Are the readers supposed to just accept everything the Times (or any other paper) prints and not talk back?

Rather than let the audience ask questions, Chemerinsky posed his own questions to the panelists. The audience was, thus, excluded. In answering one of Chemerinsky's questions, Strossen mentioned that the Council on  American Islamic Relations is losing members due to some fear of Muslims in being associated with them.

I should say. CAIR is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supporter of Hamas, and an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas involving Islamic charities funneling funds to Middle East terrorist organizations.

Strossen also came out with this curious claim: When the automobile was invented, the FBI objected to the invention because it could be used by criminals to evade the police. Really? Seems to me that the invention of the automobile pre-dated the establishment of the FBI. But I could be wrong.

Goldberg in defending his policy on what to publish or not publish, asked, "Do you publish racist material, or a column by Usama bin Laden, or things that deny Climate Change, where the debate is already settled...?"

So don't ask the LA Times to publish a piece that denies Climate Change because it is already settled, right?

But things were just getting warmed up.

The next panel was entitled, Freedom of Expression in Repressive Conditions. The panelists were Olufunmilayo Arewa from the UCI Law School, who talked about digital disruption in post-colonial Africa, Nina Khrushcheva (a granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev), who talked about the situation in Russia under Putin, Luisa Lim, who talked about China's (very successful) efforts to remove the memory of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and UCLA professor Saree Makdisi who talked about the repression of pro-Palestinian students at UCLA (that's right).

Khruscheva took the position that while Vladimir Putin is certainly repressive and has been responsible for the ordered killings of some of his opponents, the situation in Russia is much exaggerated in America. She told a humorous story about standing in Red Square holding a poster that read, "Putin is a dick" and being shooed away by a confused cop who had no idea what a dick was.

Then there was Makdisi. I mean, what is repression in Africa, Russia and China compared to UCLA, right? Makdisi, a professor of English literature, is a regular on the anti-Israel collegiate tour and a frequent op-ed writer for the LA Times, thanks, I presume to Mr Goldberg.. This was the second time I have heard him speak at UCI. At any rate, Makdisi spun his tale of woe by stating that one can take a lot of heat criticizing Israeli policies. He talked about the nasty hate mail he gets and the negative reactions from LA Times readers. He said that university administrators are not being protective of faculty and students (who criticize Israel) and mentioned the case of the so-called Irvine 11, the Muslim Student Union members who disrupted the speech of Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren at UCI in 2010, an event I witnessed. He characterized it as "interrupting" the speech something college students always do."

Interrupting?

On the contrary. It was an organized and choreographed attempt to shut the speech down.

During the q and a, I was called upon and directed my comments to Makdisi.

I stated that as a part-time teacher at UCI Extension, I had been following the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it has played out on our campus and other campuses since 2007. It was evident to me that the pro-Palestinian voices were totally dominating the discourse on campus-to the extent that Jewish students were being bullied and intimidated, to the extent that swastikas were appearing on campus buildings, and to the extent that an Israeli ambassador had his speech at UCI disrupted. Thus, I disagreed with Makdisi's assertions that pro-Palestinian students were the objects of repression.

In response, Makdisi stated the pro-Palestinian supporters were coming forth with facts and statistics, and that the pro-Israel students contended that this made them feel uncomfortable. He referred to the on-going issue of the university of California trying to formulate a statement of principles on intolerance and that the pro-Israel forces wanted the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism included in that statement. Makdisi mischaracterized the State Depratemts's definition as saying that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. (more on that point later). He also stated that "we are winning the argument" and that to label those arguments as anti-Semitic was an attempt to suppress arguments.

And for that, the audience of academics applauded.

The final panel was entitled, The New Correct: Freedom of Expression on Campus. The panelists were: Caitlin Flanagan a professor from Colorado College, Barry Glassner, President of Lewis and Clark College in Oregon, David Palumbo-Liu, professor of comparative literature at Stanford, and Brendan O'Neill (previously mentioned), Editor of Spiked.com.

O'Neill led off, and by the time he had finished, every flower in the room full of liberal academics had died. He was a refreshing voice of sanity as he quickly condemned ideas like "safe spaces", which he described as ugly, authoritarian places on British university campuses.. He gave plenty of examples of the insanity reigning in British academia including the incident a few days ago at King's College, where an Israeli speaker was loudly and violently disrupted by pro-Palestinian students who broke windows and rampaged through the building claiming that the event violated their "safe space". He spoke of how a speech by a Muslim apostate named Maryam Nemazie was disrupted by Muslim students at Goldsmith's University, who claimed that they were made to feel uncomfortable and that their safe space was violated. He talked about how his own participation at an abortion debate at Oxford was cancelled due to protests by feminists. Later, during the q and a, O'Neill asked whether the others really thought that minorities were less able to deal with free speech and engage in real debate, and whether that in itself was racist thinking.

O'Neill went on to place the greater blame on the adults who were teaching all this nonsense to students, who, in turn, were "little tyrants", whose idea was that "if you make us feel unsafe, we will destroy you."

O'Neill was followed by Glassner, who quickly took issue with his remarks saying that he had mocked students who alert their professors to "trigger warnings" and had mocked those (like him) who had to deal with them. He talked about the activism of his own students who "thankfully" had made his life miserable. He mentioned that he had to wait two months to move into his own office space because his students had taken it over as their own "safe space". (Boy, Mr Glassner, are you some weak president!) He then recounted the story of a 19-year-old black female student who had found racial slurs written on posters in her dorm. He said that "trigger warnings" were the result of serious research involving the victims of rape or other abuse and that they should be able to avoid certain materials in school that might trigger those memories.

Flanagan told of a white male student at Colorado College who had made a joke on social media to the effect that, "Black girls matter. They're just not hot". The student was called in by the administration, admitted to the statement, and apologized. He was suspended for two years. She added that FIRE, (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) reminded the school that although they were a private institution, their own handbook had affirmed their commitment to protecting freedom of speech. Flanagan asked, "Can we teach students that if somebody says something we don't like, we just get rid of them?" Later, during the q and a, she expressed her belief that there was a lot of anti-black racism among college students today.

Palumbo-Liu said that he was against making speech illegal, but expressed certain reservations. He mentioned the University of Oklahoma students who were expelled for singing racist songs on a bus. He said that he had discussed this incident with his students and noted one saying that "finally, a white college administrator had done the right thing". He noted that we would one day be a majority-minority society and also noted the rise in suicides among college students. He then went on to say that there were external forces attacking free speech on campus. This led him into the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  He repeated Makdisi's mis-characterization of the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism as including criticism of Israel. He referred to the issue of UC's statement of principles on intolerance and told of how one UC regent, Richard Bloom (who is married to US Senator Dianne Feinstein) said at a recent regent's working group at UCI that his wife would be asking him about the progress of the statement. Note: I was present at that event. Bloom's comment was inappropriate, to be sure, but Palumbo-Liu neglected to mention comments by several other regents, such as John Perez, Norman Pettiz and others that expressed a need to specifically address anti-Semitism.

Palumbo-Liu, in referring to "external forces" neglected to mention external forces that are backing the pro-Palestinian students, such as CAIR, American Muslims for Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, American Friends Service Committee, and others. At one point, Palumbo-Liu said that Jewish students should be challenged. I would have liked to ask him if he would extend that statement to other ethnic and religious groups since it seemed to be the dominant thinking that minorities should not be challenged given all the emphasis on safe spaces, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions and macro-aggressions.

There were so many questions I wanted to ask but alas, I was not called upon. O'Neill gallantly took all the heat and defended his views quite well. After the event concluded, I went up and thanked him for lending a voice of sanity and taking all the brickbats.

While I was doing that, a teaching colleague and friend of mine who was born in Israel and served with the IDF in combat, went up to challenge Palumbo-Liu on his statement that the State Department definition of anti-Semitism included criticism of Israel. He told Palumbo-Liu in no uncertain terms that his statement was demonstrably false. Palumbo-Liu was clearly taken aback and asked what was it he said that was false. I joined my friend, and at one point, I interjected that the definition listed specific references to Israel that could be considered anti-Semitic: Applying a double standard to Israel on human rights, and equating Israel with "Nazis".  Finally, as my friend continued to give the what-for to Palumbo-Liu, the Stanford professor simply turned and retreated-no doubt in search of a safe space.

Here is the State Department definition of anti-Semitism.

So ended another exciting event consisting of numerous liberals with one token dissenter (O'Neill). I chose to skip the Sunday event. Why drive to LA when I can be on my safe space couch watching football? I have taken enough punishment.

Of course, left unanswered was the question: Post Charlie Hebdo-what cannot be said? Maybe it will be answered Sunday at USC. In my view, there is precious little that cannot be said in the United States of America. If you are talking about racist slurs that a young Lewis and Clark student had to endure or the racist chants of the University of Oklahoma students, those are examples that no decent person would condone. On the other hand, the insane incidents described in Britain  (which are rampant in the US as well) by O'Neill deserved to be mocked notwithstanding the protestations of the pusillanimous president of Lewis and Clark.