Displaying posts published in

May 2017

Professor Banned Republican Club from Public Women’s History Month Event The professor cited an ‘expectation that this is a safe space event.’ By Katherine Timpf

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.

Who Will Stand up for Civil Liberties? by Alan M. Dershowitz

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.

McMaster’s Western Wall evasion :Ruthie Blum

In a press briefing at the White House on Tuesday — ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe — National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster stammered when asked by a journalist if his boss believes that the Western Wall in Jerusalem is “part of Israel.”

“Part of what? I’m sorry,” McMaster replied, leaning forward, as if he had not heard the question. He did, however, answer the first half of the query: about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be accompanying Trump on his visit to the Jewish holy site in the Israeli capital.

“No … I don’t … no Israel leaders will join President Trump to the Western Wall. He’s going to the Western Wall mainly in connection with the theme to connect with three of the world’s great religions. And to advance, to pay homage to these religious sites that he’s visiting, but also to highlight the theme that we all have to be united against what are really the enemies of all civilized people. And that we have to be joined together in a … in a … with an agenda of, of tolerance and moderation.”

This was his first evasion. His second came a few minutes later, when a different reporter pressed him to answer the original question about whether the U.S. administration considers the Western Wall part of Israel.

“Oh, that sounds like a policy decision, for, for … and you know, uh,” he said, laughing uncomfortably. “And that’s the president’s intention. … The president’s intention is to visit these sites to highlight the need for unity amongst three of the world’s great religions.”

McMaster’s refusal to state that the Western Wall is Israeli was highly significant, as it came in the wake of a scandal surrounding the issue. A day earlier, two officials from the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem — later named as Obama administration leftovers David Berns and Jonathan Shrier — snapped at the Israeli team assisting in the preparations for Trump’s visit for asking about the possibility of Netanyahu and/or local film crews accompanying the president to the holy site, saying: “It’s none of your business. It’s not even part of your responsibility. It’s not your territory. It’s part of the West Bank.”

The outcry from Netanyahu’s office was quick to follow, as was a swift denial from the White House. “The comments about the Western Wall were not authorized communication and they do not represent the position of the United States and certainly not of the president,” a senior administration official told The Times of Israel.


Ironically Warren Buffet recently stated that “I don’t know that much about cyber, but I do think that’s the number one problem with mankind.” He is right. Cybersecurity is a preeminent threat.

What is being called the largest ransomware attack is being described as a real wakeup call y many cybersecurity experts and government officials. The ransomware disrupted hospital , organizational and company networks that were not well protected and up to date. Low hanging fruit for hackers. It did not turn out to be as lethal as originally feared, but it certainly demonstrated the global vulnerabilities associated with inter-connected networks and devices.

Facts are still being analyzed and disputed but It appeared initially that the cyber-extortion attack was perhaps initiated with a phishing/macro email attack, involving a variant of a ransomware called “WannaCry”, that exploited a Microsoft Windows Flaw. But in forensic reviews there is still no definitive explanation of how the malware propagated or who are the culprits, although some suspect North Korean involvement. What we do know that the ransomware was self-replicating and spread swiftly reaching over 100 countries. In various countries, industry, organizations and government were victimized. The Czech security company Avast stated that they saw 57,000 infections included major hits in Russia, Ukraine and Taiwan. (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/12/technology/ransomware-attack-nsa-microsoft/) British Prime Minister Theresa May called it “an international attack. Cybersecurity is truly a global threat and problem. (http://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-nhs-cyberattack-part-of-international-attack-2017-5)

It is thought that early ransomware spread via email and was propagated via online advertising. The ransomware locks computers and then launches a ransom note in a text file demanding payment. In this case, the ransom was $300 per device. Of particular concern were the attacks on the UK National Health Service. Non-emergency operations were suspended and ambulances were diverted because of the WannyCry attacks. Hospitals are often targets for cyber-attacks because they often use a multitude of devices, systems, and networks allowing for more surface attack areas. Also, They generally to not have adequate security operating budgets.

Secretary Tillerson’s political correctness Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

While the election of President Trump represented a setback to political-correctness, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s interview on May 14, 2017 NBC’s Meet the Press reflected the State Department’s political correctness on US-Israel and US-Arab relations, the Palestinian issue and the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

The interview may have sent a message of US procrastination on the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the ancient core of Judaism and Jewish history, which inspired the early US Pilgrims and Founding Fathers. Procrastination would be interpreted by Arabs as US retreat in the face of Arab pressure and threats, eroding the US posture of deterrence, triggering further pressure and emboldening anti-US Islamic terrorism.

Secretary Tillerson embraced the State Department’s zero-sum-game philosophy. He assumes that enhanced US-Israel relations undermine US-Arab relations. However, since 1948, and especially in recent years, US-Israel geo-strategic cooperation has surged dramatically, simultaneously with expanded US-Arab security cooperation, and unprecedented counter-terrorism cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan and Egypt, despite the lack of progress on the Palestinian front.

Contrary to conventional Western wisdom, the pro-US Arab regimes distinguish between challenges which are primary (e.g., the Iranian threat) and secondary/tertiary (e.g., the Palestinian issue). Therefore, when the machetes of Iran’s Ayatollahs and other Islamic terrorists are at their throats, the pro-US Arab regimes recognize that Israel is the only reliable “life insurance agent” in the Middle East, regardless of the Palestinian issue.

Secretary Tillerson insinuated that the relocation of the US Embassy to western Jerusalem – which is within the boundaries of pre-1967 Israel – could undermine the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Thus, he provided tailwind to the 69-year-old Department of State’s view – which contradicts the position of the American people and their representatives in the House and Senate – that there is no legitimacy to Israel’s sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. It radicalizes the Arabs, forcing them to outflank the US from the maximalist side, deluding themselves that they have nothing to lose and time is, supposedly, on their side.

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.

How to Prepare for a ‘Meet Your Muslim Neighbors’ Event By Hugh Fitzgerald

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).

Professor Wants White Male Colleagues To Quit Jobs for Racial Equality By Tom Knighton

It’s funny how the social justice jihadis never realize how outrageously racist they sound to those outside of their own bubble.

The latest example comes from the University of Hawaii, where a math professor has informed all of her white male colleagues that they should quit. All in the name of social justice, of course:

Not to alarm you, but I probably want you to quit your job, or at least take a demotion. Statistically speaking, you are probably taking up room that should go to someone else. If you are a white cis man (meaning you identify as male and you were assigned male at birth) you almost certainly should resign from your position of power. That’s right, please quit. Too difficult? Well, as a first step, at least get off your hiring committee, your curriculum committee, and make sure you’re replaced by a woman of color or trans person. Don’t have any in your department? HOW SHOCKING.

Remember that you live in a world where people don’t succeed in a vacuum; most success happens on the backs of others who did not consent. You have no idea how successful you would have been if you were still you, but with an additional marginalization (not white, or not male, or not cis gender, or with a disability, etc).

Right now, I want to talk about gender equality because the fact that women aren’t actually a demographic minority makes certain arguments easier, but please know that actual solutions require women of color and trans people. Remember having white cis women run the world is no kind of solution.

Piper Harron, an assistant professor at the University of Hawaii, is apparently only in a temporary position. This probably contributes to the Princeton graduate’s resentment at the hiring process.

In her bio on the American Mathematical Society’s blog where this screed was posted, she notes:

Piper Harron tried really hard to play by the rules of society and academia, but she failed. Not only did she fail, but she was miserable and found that playing by the rules wouldn’t even keep her safe.

It seems she chalks her failure up to being either a woman or a minority — it’s hard to keep up on which is a bigger hindrance these days. It doesn’t matter, because either way her failure simply has to be because of white men. It can’t be her fault in any way.

While she’s right by saying it’s impossible to know for sure that successful people would be just as successful if they were black or a woman, the converse is also true, but she’s absolutely sure that she would be more successful.

From a supposed mathematician, maybe her poor grasp of logic is what’s hindered her career? CONTINUE AT SITE

If the President Is Not the Subject of a Criminal Investigation, Then Say So By Andrew C. McCarthy

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.

Non-citizen appointed judge in Texas : Martin Barillas

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.