Displaying posts published in

March 2016

Richard Cravatts: The lie of academic free speech In the Israeli/Palestinian debate, campus bullies attempt to suppress opposing views by exploiting the concept of academic freedom.

When GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s March 11th rally at the University of Chicago Pavilion was shut down last week by hundreds of leftist protestors, comprised of activists from Moveon.org, Black Lives Matter, Muslim groups, and even unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the morally indignant protestors had one purpose: to disrupt the event, prevent Trump supporters from hearing the candidate’s speech, and, most importantly, suppress Trump’s ideas and beliefs.

Having already decided the Mr. Trump was a veritable racist, Islamophobe, and neo-Nazi, the mob of rioters—inside and outside of the venue—took it upon themselves to decide that Trump, and those who share his vision and ideas, do not even have the right to express their opinions, that their views have been deemed unacceptable by the self-appointed moral arbiters of our day.

The disturbing campaign to suppress speech which is purportedly hurtful, unpleasant, or morally-distasteful—a sample of which campaign was evident at the Chicago rally—is, for anyone following what is happening on campuses, a troubling and recurrent pattern of behavior by some of the same ideologues who shut down Trump: “progressive” leftists and “social justice” advocates from Muslim-led pro-Palestinian groups. Coalescing around the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, this unholy alliance has been formed in a libelous and vituperative campaign to demonize Israel, attack pro-Israel individuals, and to promote a relentless campaign against Israel in the form of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.

As the ideological assault against Israel and Jews intensified on university campuses, and pro-Israel individuals began answering back to their ideological opponents, the student groups leading the pro-Palestinian charge (including such groups as the radical Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)) decided that their tactic of unrelenting demonization of Israel was insufficient, and the best way to optimize the propaganda effect of their anti-Israel message was also to suppress or obscure opposing views.

Trump: No Free Market Conservative nor Constitutionalist Janet Levy Ross

His lack of character and moral reprobation aside (and his 3rd wife for First Lady!), he is no free market conservative or even a constitutionalist.

Trump supported Obama’s bailout of the auto industry and Stimulus program, government limits on executive pay, he favors big unions and tiered compensation, he agrees with government “takings” or eminent domain (he praised Kelo!), etc. He’s definitely not a champion of the free market with those views! (See my article on Kelo at American Thinker! The founders would be rolling over in their graves).

Trump favors suppressing speech and made several comments during the campaign about having the power to sue the press and stymie the critics. When the Club for Growth criticized his constantly changing taxation plans, he threatened them with a “cease and desist” notice. This is NOT a constitutionalist!

Add to the list that Trump is opposed to badly needed Medicare reform and prefers the disastrous Canadian-style universal healthcare plan. (This is why Canadians are sneaking over the border for medical care)! Plus, he agrees with the prosecution of “hate crimes” when we have adequate criminal laws in place that apply to everyone and don’t need to create privileged groups of victims. The law applies equally to everyone.

There’s so much more – flip-flopping on illegal immigration and H-1bs/H-2bs, praising myriad Communist leaders, off shore manufacturing, being “neutral” on Israel, etc.

Of course, no presidential candidate is perfect in all ways and on all issues. However, Trump is not presidential material in so many ways. Three A- polls (rated for past accuracy and survey design by FiveThirtyEight) predicted Trump losing against Hillary 9-13% and Cruz running dead even.

RACHEL EHRENFELD: EUROPE- HOW MANY MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT?

Decades of efforts to avoid stigmatizing Muslims and to understand and address ‘root causes’ of Islamist terrorism have yielded horrific dividends in Europe. Belgium’s 2003 Terrorist Offenses Act criminalizes terrorism and participation in terrorist groups, but gets out its way to exclude Muslim “organization whose real purpose is solely of a political, trade union or philanthropic, philosophical or religious nature, or which solely pursues any other legitimate aim, cannot, as such, be considered a terrorist group.”

Belgium, France, and other European nations are blamed for failing to integrate their Muslim population. While this may be true, it is important to note that Muslim immigrants, increasingly radicalized, refuse to integrate. Instead, the larger the Muslim population got, it demanded, often violently, that their adoptive countries adhere to Islamic law. Imams everywhere preached that Muslim women set themselves apart from non-Muslim and advocate Islamic values of modesty by wearing hijab (head scarfs), although “there is no provision in the Quran that requires Muslim women to wear a headscarf when they are outside of their homes.”

The growing Muslim communities’ efforts to enforce sharia in Europe and elsewhere have been accompanied by Saudi and Gulf funding and very large donations to academic and cultural institutions. Money talks. And when receiving billions of dollars is conditioned on covering cultural monuments symbols of Western civilization, or giving up wine for just a dinner or two as the Italians have last January to please the Iranian president, gets Europeans to toss hastily aside their national identity, independence, and pride.

Promoting peace or assaulting Israel? The Rockefeller Brothers Fund supports groups that encourage or participate in the BDS movement By Ziva Dahl

The movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel (BDS), which singles out the Jewish State among all nations to delegitimize and isolate, continues to gather steam.

The American Anthropological Association will vote on a BDS resolution in April. The University of South Florida, Northwestern and Vassar voted to boycott Israel, and a divestment campaign is underway at Columbia. This spring, Israel Apartheid Week, a BDS hate fest, is being held at college campuses around the U.S.

Seeing left-wing universities embrace the anti-Semitic movement is disappointing but not entirely surprising. But why does the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a premier philanthropy based in Manhattan, finance non-governmental organizations intent on annihilating the Jewish state?

BDS demands “the end of Israel’s occupation and colonialization” of all Arab lands, dismantling the security wall that protects Israelis from Palestinian terror and the right of return to Israel of several million descendants of original Arab refugees. In the words of Palestinian BDS leader Omar Barghouti, “A return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.”

In 1940, the five sons of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. founded the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as “a private, family foundation helping to advance social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful world.”