RUTHFULLY YOURS

A professor at Orange Coast College in California banned the school’s Republican Club from attending a public African American/Women’s roundtable discussion in March — apparently over “safe space” concerns.

Jessica Alabi, a sociology professor, apparently e-mailed three campus officials announcing that she would not allow the students to attend. The e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Examiner, stated:

Hi Kevin. I just told the Republican club that they could not come to the Curl Talk event. This event is an African American / Women’s round table discussion. I asked Vincent why was he doing this and I was very upset. He brought five people who kept saying that they were told that they could come to women’s history month events.

I just want everyone to be advised that the African American female students had and still have an expectation that this is a safe space event. If the college will not stand up to the Republican club, I have decided to stand up for myself and other students. Just wanted to keep you informed.

Yes, that’s right. Alabi considers banning students from a public event to be “standing up” for herself. Sorry, Alibi, but that’s not called “standing up for yourself;” it’s called “being a totalitarian nightmare.”

Thankfully, OCC agrees with this logic — the Washington Examiner reports that OCC president Dennis Harkins spoke with Alabi and informed her that she had no right to ban students from the event.

The club members, though, said that they didn’t think this conversation would do any good — that Alabi had done this kind of thing in the past and would probably continue to do it again in the future, regardless of what the college president told her. The members issued a letter with the following demands to stop such “discrimination” in the future:

1. That an investigation be opened, or reopened, into Jessica Alibi discriminating against Republican club members, and conservative students as self-reported by her via public email to you.


2. That upon the completion of the investigation if it’s proven that Professor Alabi discriminated against students on the basis of their ideological viewpoint and party affiliation that, at the least, she be suspended from teaching for two non-intersession semesters at Orange Coast College, and if possible as well as the Coast Community College District, and be permitted to return after that suspension once she’s attended an in-depth training on student’s rights and preventing viewpoint discrimination, as well as be required to write a one page long apology letter to the OCC Republicans and the members effected [sic] by her actions.


3. That President Harkins write a letter to the Board of Trustees supporting the revision and ratification of board policy changes proposed by our club in early April to the Board of Trustees that would amend current district policies to protect students from discrimination on the basis of political affiliations and ideological beliefs .


4. That Orange Coast College will take measures to start, or improve, training for faculty and staff on how to respect students’ rights, viewpoints, and be trained on what viewpoint discrimination is to prevent future instances.

Now, I don’t know anyone involved in this situation personally, but I’d have to say that I certainly understand the students’ concerns that talking to Alabi won’t do any good. Why? Because I have enough faith in Alabi’s basic intelligence to believe that she already knew that what she was doing was against the rules. After all, the idea that public events are supposed to be open to the public is not exactly a hard concept to understand. In all likelihood, it wasn’t that she didn’t understand what the rules were, it’s that she thought she was above them.

What’s more, the fact that Alabi apparently did this under the guise of protecting “safety” is completely ridiculous. Having the Republican Club at the event may have made some people uncomfortable, but it would not have made anyone unsafe. And there’s a huge difference: We do have a right to be safe in public spaces; we don’t have a right to be comfortable.

At a moment in history when the ACLU is quickly becoming a partisan left wing advocacy group that cares more about getting President Trump than protecting due process (see my recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal,) who is standing up for civil liberties?

The short answer is no one. Not the Democrats, who see an opportunity to reap partisan benefit from the appointment of a special counsel to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign/ administration and Russia. Not Republican elected officials who view the appointment as giving them cover. Certainly not the media who are revelling in 24/7 “bombshells.” Not even the White House, which is too busy denying everything to focus on “legal technicalities” that may sound like “guilty man arguments.” Legal technicalities are of course the difference between the rule of law and the iron fist of tyranny. Civil liberties protect us all. As H.L. Mencken used to say: “The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons of bitches: for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” History demonstrates that the first casualty of hyper-partisan politics is often civil liberties.

Consider the appointment of the special counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” Even if there were such direct links that would not constitute a crime under current federal law. Maybe it should, but prosecutors have no right to investigate matters that should be criminal but are not.

This investigation will be conducted in secret behind closed doors; witnesses will be denied the right to have counsel present during grand jury questioning; they will have no right to offer exculpatory testimony or evidence to the grand jury; inculpatory hearsay evidence will be presented and considered by the grand jury; there will be no presumption of innocence; no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only proof sufficient to establish the minimal standard of probable cause. The prosecutor alone will tell the jury what the law is and why they should indict; and the grand jury will do his bidding. As lawyers quip: they will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them to. This sounds more like Star Chamber injustice than American justice.

And there is nothing in the constitution that mandates such a kangaroo proceeding. All the Fifth Amendment says is: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” The denials of due process come from prosecutorially advocated legislative actions. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw what they intended as a shield to protect defendants, turned into a rusty sword designed to place the heavy thumb of the law on the prosecution side of the scale.

Have you visited a mosque lately?

“Meet Your Muslim Neighbors,” “Ask A Muslim,” “Coffee, Cake, and Islam.” These are some of the welcoming names for these events you may have seen advertised recently, events at which local imams and other Muslims promise to tell visitors “the truth about our faith.”

These events are highly scripted — and highly predictable. What they actually deliver: a well-practiced lecture that sanitizes Islam, confirming the rose-colored, politically correct concept of the religion that dominates the political Left.

The event ordinarily begins with a fulsome welcome. The Muslim hosts mention being thrilled that so many have come out to “meet your Muslim neighbors” because “so many of you, I know, want to learn more about our faith.” Most importantly, “you are probably confused by all the stories in the media, so we thought we’d try to set the record straight. For there can be no better way to learn about Islam than by meeting Muslims themselves to tell you what it’s all about.” Then a short lecture is given, with a Q and A afterwards. And — an important part of the charm offensive — generally some amazing Middle Eastern food is laid out to end the evening, leaving everyone sated and content.

The lecture generally begins with the declaration by the hosts that “Islam means peace,” and this is flatly false. Any Arabic speaker would know that Islam means “submission.”

But who would be impolite enough to take issue with a welcoming Muslim telling you that he believes Islam means peace? Probably, some guests may think there’s room for doubt in translation, but in any case, why would they cause a fuss already when they are all trying to get along?

Then it’s on to the Five Pillars of Islam, which are always given pride of place: the Shahada (profession of faith); Salat (the five canonical prayers); Zakat (the required charitable giving); Sawm (the fasting at Ramadan); and Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca that a believer should make, if he can afford it, at least once in his life).

Well is he, or isn’t he?

Almost everything in a counterintelligence investigation is classified. And much of what goes on in a criminal investigation is secret, kept confidential by investigators and prosecutors. But there is one thing that need be neither classified nor otherwise concealed from the American people: the status of the president.

Is the president of the United States the subject of a criminal investigation?

If he is not, then the Justice Department and special counsel Robert Mueller owe it to the country to say so. There is no reason to be coy about it. In fact, because a president under criminal suspicion would be crippled, his inability to govern detrimental to the nation, it is imperative to be forthright about his status.

Instead, political games are being played and the public is forming an impression — which I strongly suspect is a misimpression — based on semantics. There is no guaranteed outcome in an investigation, but the government should not be able to keep from us the precise nature of the investigation when it involves the president and when the fact that there is an investigation has already been disclosed publicly.

We’ve been told that the main investigation, the one that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein has appointed special counsel Mueller to conduct, is a counterintelligence investigation. That is what former FBI director James Comey revealed (with the approval of the Justice Department) in House testimony on March 20:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. (Emphasis added.)

In appointing Mueller on May 17, Rosenstein issued an internal Justice Department order stating:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump[.]

Thus, to the extent it involves the president, the investigation announced to the public is a counterintelligence probe. That matters because it would mean the president is not a criminal suspect. A counterintelligence probe is not intended to build a criminal prosecution. It is intended to collect information. Its purpose is to uncover the actions and intentions of foreign powers to the extent they bear on American interests.

Corpus Christi Mayor Pro-Tem Lucy Rubio told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times that Judge Young Min Burkett has been placed on a 90-day leave of absence after it was discovered that the judge is not an American citizen. Rubio said that officials never asked Burkett during the qualification process whether she holds U.S. citizenship. She also claimed that Burket supposedly did not seek to deceive or misrepresent her status. Burkett’s nationality is unclear.

Burkett as judge has issued rulings from the bench. City attorneys have decided that her determinations are valid and lawful.

According to City Councilman Rudy Garza Jr., there was no question on the forms required to apply for the judgeship. The documents did, however, have a question as to whether the applicant was eligible for legal employment in the state. He said that Burkett is a permanent resident and eligible for lawful employment, he added. According to the Caller-Times, Burkett has been a lawful permanent resident since 2007.

However, according to a city ordinance, American citizenship is a requirement to be a municipal court judge. Garza, however, holds that it was the city that was in error, not Burkett and that she was not insincere or do anything dishonest.

“The error was a city error and we don’t feel Judge Burkett was insincere or did anything in her application or interview that led to any dishonesty on her part,” Garza said.

Burkett did not return phone calls Wednesday requesting comment. Her husband, Nathan Burkett, sent a message to the Caller-Times late Wednesday.

Husband Nathan Burkett wrote to the Caller-Times and noted that the job posting for which his wife applied only specified the ability to work in the country. He claimed that the judge never misrepresented her citizenship.

Mayor pro-tem Rubio, following a closed-door session on Tuesday, said that Burkett can use the 90 days’ leave to apply for American citizenship.