Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Shilling for Hamas, Censoring Dissent by Sara Dogan

By on May 8th, 2017

“Now that Saint Louis University has cancelled a scheduled October speech by conservative activist David Horowitz, it joins the small group of campuses that are universities in name only.” – Cary Nelson, president, American Association of University Professors.

Editor’s note: Over the past two weeks, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has identified seven campuses in its report on the “Top Ten College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment.” Today, we continue this series with Saint Louis University and the University of Minnesota. These two schools join Brooklyn College (CUNY), Tufts University, Brandeis University, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, San Francisco State University, and Vassar College in sharing this dubious honor. These campuses provide financial and institutional support to terrorist-linked campus organizations such as the Hamas-funded hate-group Students for Justice in Palestine while actively suppressing speech exposing the truth about Israel’s terrorist adversaries and their allies in the United States.

Last night, the Freedom Center placed posters exposing the links between the terrorist group Hamas and SJP on both campuses. These posters serve as an important source of information for students and as a challenge to the SLU and Minnesota administrations to uphold the First Amendment, even when doing so means accepting speech that deviates from the anti-Israel narratives that dominate on campus.

Saint Louis University: Campus Administration

As the only Catholic university on our list, it would be understandable if St. Louis University exercised a somewhat greater degree of involvement in the selection of speakers who appeared on campus than its public counterparts to ensure that such events are compatible with the Catholic faith. But in fact the administration of St. Louis University is one of the most shameless promoters of anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish Islamic hate mongers. It has welcomed campus speakers and organizations that promote Islamic supremacism and support the anti-Israel terror group Hamas while defaming pro-Israel speakers as racist and Islamophobic and banning them from campus. In recent years, it has hosted events designed to indoctrinate students in Hamas propaganda and train them to support anti-Israel terrorism.

In 2012, Saint Louis University hosted a three-day training and strategy conference for the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, formerly named the International Solidarity Movement, a hate group that spreads Hamas propaganda and promotes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. SLU also promoted the BDS movement at a 2011 event held at the Busch Student Center called “An Introduction to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement: Nonviolent Resistance to Stop the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories.” The event featured Fulbright scholar Sandra Samaan Tamari, a member of the Saint Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee.

In 2015, the university hosted a seminar by a group named #MyJihad which was formed by Ahmed Rehab, the executive director of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with extensive ties to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood network. The seminar aimed to whitewash the concept of jihad for American audiences.

But while repeatedly opening its doors to Hamas sympathizers, SLU has taken extreme measures to ban speech and organizations critical of anti-Israel terrorists on campus. In October 2009, Freedom Center founder and CEO David Horowitz was invited to speak at SLU by the campus chapters of the College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation about “Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights.” But administrators told the student organizations sponsoring Horowitz’s appearance that they must either disinvite him or radically alter the format of the event to include a second speaker who would interpret Horowitz’s views in light of “Catholic teachings,” stipulations that had never been placed on appearances by several pro-Hamas speakers who appeared at SLU. Ultimately, school administrators cancelled Horowitz’s speech.

Continue reading →
EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

University Sit-in Results in Administration Caving to All Demands By Rick Moran

By on May 8th, 2017

Borrowing a tactic from the 1960s college protest movement, the University of California at Santa Cruz African-Black Student Alliance occupied the administration building and presented four demands to school officials.

In the 1960s, most administrators were made of sterner stuff than the spineless, groveling bureaucrats who run schools today. Back then, intelligent administrators might negotiate a settlement. Stupid authorities would get the police to expel the students by force.

But university officials at UC Santa Cruz caved in completely to the black activist demands, setting the stage for a repeat of the occupation by some other group at a later date.

Anyone figure out how much all of this is going to cost?

Santa Cruz Sentinel:

• UCSC committed to extending up to a four-year housing guarantee to all students from underrepresented communities who applied to and live in the Rosa Parks African American Theme House.

• UCSC committed to converting the first floor lounge area of the Rosa Parks African American Theme House from housing back to a community lounge space.

• USCS committed to painting the exterior of the Rosa Parks African American Theme House in the Pan-Afrikan colors red, gold and green.

• USCS committed to delivering a mandatory “educational diversity” orientation to all incoming freshmen and transfer students.

Lest anyone think the fearless leader of UCSC had any intention of standing up to the bullies, here’s how he decided to “confront” the protesters:

Two hours earlier, an agreement that would end the three-day occupation did not seem likely. About 3:30 p.m., members of the Alliance leadership announced through a bullhorn that Blumenthal had declined to meet at Kerr Hall, citing concerns for his safety.

Instead, Blumenthal sent members of his administration, including campus diversity officer Linda Scholz, to speak with the students at the entrance of Kerr Hall. Surrounded by hundreds of chanting, screaming students, Scholz invited the leadership group of the Alliance to speak with Blumenthal in the nearby Thimann Labs building.

It initially appeared as if the Alliance would decline to speak with Blumenthal and, instead, insist the chancellor meet on their terms. However, the leadership group eventually accompanied the administrators to Thimann Labs.

After more than an hour in conference, the Alliance leadership and Hernandez-Jason returned to Kerr Hall to announce the university’s decision and allow the students to celebrate their victory.

Got that? The chancellor thought it was too dangerous for him to meet with the protesters but had no qualms about sending some of his staff. They were screamed at and threatened with bodily harm for their troubles.

No word on how that private meeting between the chancellor and the protesters went but you can bet there was a lot of screaming and threats. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
EDUCATION, MEDIA, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The New York Times and Upper West Side Segregation By Robert Weissberg

By on May 8th, 2017

In the PC world of the New York Times, it is better not to offend certain sensitivities or raise uncomfortable questions than honestly address educational disasters. One can only be reminded of proper Victorians struggling to discuss venereal diseases as if sex never happened.

Of all of the taboo topics in today’s political landscape, absolutely nothing is more fraught with danger than race. Recall the old joke about how people dance at a nudist camp — carefully, very carefully. Everything from vocabulary to tone of voice must be carefully calculated and the slightest mistake can be career-ending.

A complex etiquette per se is not, however, the problem. Civil society would collapse if everybody spoke bluntly. The question is whether taboos blind us from serious problems that demand forthright, honest discussion.

A perfect illustration of how the race taboo undermines honest discussions of serious social problems can be found in recent New York Times articles (and here) about redrawing school district lines in Manhattan’s über-liberal Upper West Side. These articles abound in euphemisms and omissions guaranteed to obscure awkward truths.

Manhattan’s Upper West Side is home to a multitude of affluent white liberals and large numbers of poor blacks and Hispanics residing in public housing. Some schools, all overwhelmingly white, excel academically. Not surprisingly, “white” schools in this neighborhood have long waiting lists for prospective enrollees. But, often only a few blocks away, are schools with large poor black and Hispanic enrollments plagued by fights (often involving weapons), classroom disorder, and appalling academic outcomes. The polite nonracial euphemism for these schools might be “schools with low test scores.”

For those with school-age children who strongly care about their education, school district demarcations are vital. Having one’s offspring attend a stellar grade-school with bright classmates is seen as the first step to admission to an elite college. Equally crucial is safety — not even the most rabid Bernie Sanders fans would risk their children’s well-being, including the danger of acquiring bad habits (drug use, thievery, a penchant for violence, a rotten work ethic and similar underclass inclinations). As one education-minded parent said about these “diverse” schools, “My husband and I support public school education but not at the expense of our children’s educational and physical well-being,”

There are also major financial costs for parents in a lousy school district. For apartment owners, residing in a “bad school” attendance zone can substantially reduce the value of one’s residence, while the private school alternative can cost upward of $30,000 per child each year. If a private school is unaffordable, the remaining option is relocating to the suburbs, hardly appetizing to many Upper West Side liberals.

Now, what happens when a Department of Education bureaucrat announces that junior may be bounced from his nearly all-white (and often-overcrowded) high-test score school, and instead sent to the nearby “diverse” school that, say the bureaucrats, offers junior a chance to benefit from diversity since “studies show” that such a racial/ethnic mixture is essential mastering today’s multicultural world?

Ironically, these well-educated, affluent “good thinking” Manhattan (white) residents now confront the same tribulations faced by down-market white Southerners over court-ordered integration post Brown v. Board of Education (1954). But, unlike these bigoted Rednecks, white liberal New Yorkers, aided by the racially hypersensitive New York Times, need not block the doorway of junior top-flight nearly all white school and shout, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow….” while the federal government orders the New York City’s police to forcibly enroll residents of nearby public housing as junior’s classmates. These white liberals are expert at walking on eggshells (I’m not a racist but….”) and playing politics to keep their kids in white schools; there is even a website on how to game the system.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Healthcare Reform? Let’s Take a Close Look at Some Examples Abroad By Antonio R. Chaves

By on May 8th, 2017

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in Congress based in part on promises to replace Obamacare. Nonetheless, with so many Republicans facing re-election in states that voted for Clinton, the strategy of “repeal and replace” is easier said than done. Furthermore, in view of the challenges involved in garnering enough votes for the “Obama-Lite” alternative that barely passed the House, Republicans appear to be running out of options.

If the “gradualist” strategy is so problematic, why not move to single payer? In Japan, healthcare spending makes up only 10% of GDP even though it has the world’s highest percentage of people 65 or older. In the U.S. it is an appalling 17% (Fig. 1). Japan also has the world’s lowest infant mortality, while in America this healthcare indicator exceeds that of all other developed nations with a comparable GDP (Fig. 2). If lack of access to healthcare is responsible for this shocking statistic, why not “get with the program” and shift these costs to taxpayers as they do in nearly all other affluent nations?

Before turning over 17% of GDP to the government, we should not overlook one extraordinary exception to this worldwide trend: Singapore is second only to Japan in having the world’s lowest infant mortality (Fig. 2) even though it has the least-subsidized healthcare in the developed world (Fig. 1). Singapore also stands apart from other developed nations in that it spends less than 5% of its GDP on healthcare (Fig. 1). If privatization works so well in Singapore, why have market forces failed so miserably in America?

While it is common knowledge that increasing the supply or decreasing the demand results in lower costs, many overlook the importance of having a critical mass of savvy customers shopping around for the best deals. This selective pressure ensures that the product or service gets better and cheaper for all consumers. In Singapore, patients shop around because co-payments cover a considerable portion of their medical bills and everyone is required to have a health savings account. In the single-payer systems that predominate in Europe, it is the government that does the shopping and bargaining. In America, health maintenance organizations stabilized prices in the 1990s by bargaining with providers and rationing services. However, many patients objected to “managed care” and the ensuing backlash resulted in government mandates that limited what these HMOs could do to cut costs. In the absence of a conscientious buyer, hyperinflation resumed by the end of the decade. Even though European governments provide healthcare at a lower cost, Americans who want to replace Obamacare with single payer should be careful what they wish for. More on this later.

Another reliable strategy for lowering costs is deregulation. We need not look abroad to see this principle applies to medical services: The cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. has remained remarkably stable despite a huge increase in demand. This has been attributed largely to a streamlined regulatory process that makes it easier for competitors to enter the market and for cost-cutting innovations to get approved.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Antifa Violence Will End Badly by Edward Cline

By on May 8th, 2017

An ex-Marine and blogger by the name of David Risselada published on Freedom Outpost an interesting and probing analysis of Antifa, “Antifa: Useful Idiots Too Brainwashed to Know They are Being Used.”

They are so brainwashed, writes Risselada, that they refuse – nay, are unable to see the contradictions pregnant in their violent actions – because contractions are either “white” constructs of the privileged order, or are direct permutations of Communist/Nazi ideology, and therefore can be dismissed with a fist in the face or a kick in the head. They do not believe in debate; their only recognized form of argumentation is physical violence. The brown shirts in training (other than college students) propose to oppose fascism by adopting fascist activism, which employs the physical obstruction of freedom of speech (and other civil liberties) with violent and passive means (but mostly violent). Britannica defines and discusses fascism:

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, and a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.

Ostensibly, Antifa poses as being an anti-establishment force to contend with, when in practice and in ideology (what there is of one) it is and will remain part of the establishment, as a kind of Mafia enforcer. There are no “victims” of Antifa violence. Only “fascists.” Risselada writes:

Across the nation, the group Antifa is continuing its call for revolution by staging massive riots and acts of violence against innocent people. They are pushing the narrative that they are engaged in a revolutionary struggle against Fascism and that the time to act is now in order to stand against oppression. They have been brainwashed to believe that America represents racism and our constitution was written only to protect the interests of a few privileged white men. They are demanding an end to constitutional government and the enactment of a communist system which they believe will be fairer. In this facebook video posted by Columbus Ohio Antifa, they are asking military veterans to remember their oaths and join their national militia. Obviously, these people have no idea what they are talking about nor do they have any clue what it means to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

DANIEL GREENFIELD MOMENT: COMMUNISM’S MURDEROUS INSPIRATION FOR THE LEFT ON THE GLAZOV SHOW

By on May 8th, 2017

This new special edition of The Glazov Gang presents the Daniel Greenfield Moment with Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center and editor of The Point at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discussed Communism’s Murderous Inspiration for the Left — from Portland to Venezuela to the New York Times.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch the special episode of The Glazov Gang that featured Dr. Jordan Peterson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. Dr. Peterson shared his views on Non-Traditional Gender Pronouns, unveiling the dire consequences of the control of language now reaching the legislative level in Canada:

Continue reading →
EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Universities competing in race to the bottom By Carol Brown

By on May 7th, 2017

There’s stiff competition among our bastions of higher education. The race to the bottom is fast and furious. Toward that end, the University of California at Berkeley recently honored student Juan Prieto with an award for outstanding service to “undocumented” students. Juan then sent out the following tweet: “Let’s celebrate 5 de Mayo by going to Dolores Park and beating the shit out of white people, in the spirit of La Batalla de Puebla.”

But don’t worry. Juan didn’t mean it. It’s just Twitter and he often posts “dumb s*** on Twitter all the time.”

Oh, ok. I see.

Meanwhile, Florida Memorial University, a historially black college that produces a large number of teachers, announced it will be awarding a posthumous degree in Aeronautical Science to Trayvon Martin.

Also in the past few days, Emory University will cover tuition for all their students that are in the country illegally, while Mira Costa College in southern California will be offering scholarships to students who say they are “transgender.”

As I said, the race to the bottom is fast and furious. Which institution will move the bar to the lowest point imaginable remains to be seen. But, again, don’t worry. It’s only the future of America that’s at stake. Viva President Preito!

Hat tips: The Geller Report, The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, The Daily Wire, The College Fix

Continue reading →
IMMIGRATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Refugee admissions up 160% in April under Trump By Ed Straker

By on May 7th, 2017

Before he left office, President Obama set a goal of accepting 110,000 refugees in the 2017 fiscal year (beginning Oct. 1st 2016), even though he was only president for four months of that fiscal year. Once Donald Trump became president, he set a revised limit of 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year. However, a federal judge struck down the 50,000 limit.

As a result, Trump is admitting larger numbers of refugees.

The U.S. accepted 2,070 refugees in March, the lowest monthly total since 2013, according to State Department data. April ended with 3,316 refugees admitted….

That’s 160% higher than March.

Now here’s the tricky part:

While a federal judge has struck down Trump’s 50,000 limit, that does not mean that Trump is required to admit more than 50,000 refugees. He just can’t explicitly set a limit of 50,000. He could actually select fewer than 50,000, as long as he did not order a formal limit. No federal judge in the world can order President Trump to specifically select refugees to admit to America.

“As we have said repeatedly, Trump’s refugee admissions are not at the mercy of two rogue judges,” said longtime refugee watchdog Ann Corcoran in her blog post Thursday at Refugee Resettlement Watch. “He can bring in any number under the CEILING set either by Obama (110,000) or his reduced ceiling (50,000).”

So why is Trump admitting a larger number of refugees when he doesn’t have to? When he campaigned for the presidency, Trump promised to deport all Syrian refugees in America; now he is admitting more than ever, even taking in ones bound for Australia.

Trump supporters say we should be happy that Trump is admitting fewer refugees than Hillary would. But why not hold Trump to a higher standard–to his own promises? He can stop admitting any more refugees right now, not admit a single new one, and no federal judge can order him otherwise.

I guess we can file this away with other security promises that will never be fulfilled, like the wall that will be paid for by Mexico (or a wall at all), and the termination of the illegal “DREAMer” program. I just wonder, when a radical Islamic Syrian refugee that Trump admits into the country kills someone, who will Trump supporters blame? A federal judge? Paul Ryan? The Deep State? The Freedom Caucus? Ted Cruz’s father?

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

No, the FBI Was Not a Trump Partisan The Democrats’ latest canard ignores difference between criminal and intelligence investigations. By Andrew C. McCarthy

By on May 6th, 2017

There is nothing more inequitable than treating two fundamentally different things as if they were the same. This should be the retort to the media-Democrat complex’s latest “we wuz robbed” 2016 election narrative: The claim that the FBI became a rogue partisan, publicizing the investigation of Hillary Clinton while keeping mum on the investigation of Donald Trump.

This theme was hammered by Democrats in the questioning of FBI director James Comey during Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. It was, moreover, the leitmotiv of the New York Times’ 8,000-word report on the FBI’s handling of the two investigations — the losing side’s best shot at writing the definitive history.

It is also dumb as a doornail.

Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal, based on mountainous evidence of law-breaking, resulted in a criminal investigation. The suspicion that associates of Donald Trump have troubling ties to Kremlin insiders, based on comparatively sparse evidence, has resulted in a foreign-intelligence investigation. The two types of inquiry are fundamentally different — dissimilar in their objectives, their processes, and their presumptions about secrecy and disclosure. The only similarity is that each is called an “FBI investigation.” To contend that this makes them equivalents, suitable for similar treatment, is akin to saying red and blue must be the same thing because each is a color.

A criminal investigation is launched when investigators have a good-faith basis to believe one or more penal laws may have been violated. It is an inquiry that targets a particular person (or persons in the case of concerted criminal activity). Once investigators are convinced that a crime has been committed by the suspect, the objective of the investigation is to build a case fit for prosecution in a court of law — i.e., to amass sufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of the statutory offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The investigators fully anticipate making a formal public charge against the suspect (i.e., an indictment), which will be followed by a public trial — the presentation of witness testimony and tangible evidence in a judicial proceeding open to the media and other spectators.

For commonsense reasons, various aspects of criminal investigations are secret. Search warrants and wiretaps would not be very useful if police had to notify the suspect in advance of their raids and surveillances. It would be very difficult to get the cooperation of witnesses or compel the production of relevant documents if grand jury proceedings were conducted in public. Most significantly, the suspect is presumed innocent. To publicize investigative information before a person has an opportunity to test its credibility under due-process rules would undermine the presumption and brand the person a criminal.

Nevertheless, even amid the secrecy, an expectation of publicity hovers over every criminal investigation. Because resources are finite and crime is plentiful, police agencies rarely waste their time on unprovable cases. It is anticipated that charges will be filed, and that eventually everything will be revealed: Affidavits supporting warrants will be unsealed and provided to defense counsel; there will also be discovery of the evidence to be presented at trial, the grand-jury testimony of the witnesses, investigative reports detailing surveillances and witness interviews, and any potentially exculpatory information in the prosecution’s files.

All of this is disclosed because of what a criminal investigation, in essence, is: an effort by the government to deprive a person of his constitutional right to liberty. We permit this only under the strictures of due process — a trial of the accused before a jury of his peers in which he enjoys the assistance of counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and an opportunity to present any defense he may have. Because the whole point is to assure the society that the government has met its burden of proof before a person’s liberty is removed, the proceedings must be public.

Continue reading →
EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Emory University rewards law-breakers By Carol Brown

By on May 6th, 2017

Emory University will now fund 100% of financial aid to students who are in the United States illegally. It means that if you are in the country illegally, you are rewarded for breaking the law, while Americans who are working hard to attain a college education receive no such blanket aid.

Like so many things these days, it’s inverted, upside down, and backwards.

Breitbart reports:

“Emory meets 100% of demonstrated financial need for undergraduate Undocumented Students (with or without DACA) who are admitted as first-year, first-degree-seeking students, and who graduated from a U.S. High school through a combination of grants and scholarships, institutional work study (DACA students only), and institutional loans. Undocumented Students without DACA status may receive an institutional loan in place of the typical work study award,” the university’s website states.

Speaking to The College Fix, Megan McRainey, a spokeswoman for Emory, claimed that providing full financial aid relief to undocumented students reflects the university’s commitment to welcoming students from diverse backgrounds. [snip]

International students, who are not afforded the same aid privileges as undocumented students, will be forced to foot a $70,000 per year tuition bill if they wish to attend the prestigious Georgian university.

“Diversity!”

It’s one of the left’s favorite buzzwords which they pull out of the proverbial hat to rationalize all manner of insanity.

(Also, noticed how the university’s statement capitalizes the term “undocumented students,” elevating them to new heights (as if giving them a free college education isn’t enough.)

Taking a short walk down memory lane, readers may recall that last year some students at Emory University were traumatized by the words “TRUMP 2016” written in chalk on the pavement. Their “safe space” was violated, they were “in pain,” and they demanded action! Which they got, when university administrators pledged to get to the bottom of who wrote the “controversial markings.” The drama was of epic proportions, with protestors chanting the words of a cop killer as they ranted about their pain and, ironically, their commitment to fighting for freedom (here and here).

So this is Emory University. Where illegals get a free ride, Americans pay through the nose, and chalk is a dangerous weapon.

Continue reading →