Hat tip Campus Reform
If you want an example of brown shirt tactics in action on our university of Minnesota where they are likening a pro-Israel student group to the KKK. In addition, a co-founder of the pro-Israel group has been removed from student committee.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6101
This is nothing short of fascism in action, which the far left in academia has adopted. When these kinds of tactics are used against Jewish students, it amounts to brown shirt tactics in my view. Intimidation has no place on our campuses, and it is up to administrators to rein it in. Unfortunately, few have shown any such moral courage.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Miggie and Findalis
If you are a regular reader of Fousesquawk, you have read many of the comments by Miggie and Findalis in the reader thread. Miggie has been absent from the exchanges for quite some time. That is because he is recovering from kidney cancer. During the treatment for that cancer, internal bleeding was caused which came very close to causing his death in the hospital. Later, while recovering at home, he fell down the stairs and is now recuperating in a rehabilitation facility. I have been visiting him every few days.
Findalis, who lives in the Midwest, is suffering from a lymphoma, which has now metastasized. She is scheduled to undergo bone marrow transplant in January, but she faces a very tough struggle.
My prayers go out to both of them, and I hope you will also pray for their recovery.
Findalis, who lives in the Midwest, is suffering from a lymphoma, which has now metastasized. She is scheduled to undergo bone marrow transplant in January, but she faces a very tough struggle.
My prayers go out to both of them, and I hope you will also pray for their recovery.
Government Income Incentives to Hire Illegal Aliens?
Remember, Folks. It is illegal to hire an illegal alien. If in doubt, please check E-Verify.
Wait! This can't be true!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/26/businesses-to-receive-incentive-to-hire-illegal-immigrants-report-says/?intcmp=latestnews
The next thing you will know, people will be crossing the border and turning themselves into Border Patrol agents who will then put them on buses and airplanes to their final destinations in the US.
I can't believe this report is true.
Do you?
"Uhhhhhh.........yeaaaaah."
On second thought, with this Alice in Wonderland administration, anything can be true.
Wait! This can't be true!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/26/businesses-to-receive-incentive-to-hire-illegal-immigrants-report-says/?intcmp=latestnews
The next thing you will know, people will be crossing the border and turning themselves into Border Patrol agents who will then put them on buses and airplanes to their final destinations in the US.
I can't believe this report is true.
Do you?
On second thought, with this Alice in Wonderland administration, anything can be true.
Ezra Klein's "Take" on the Ferguson Shooting
Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein is one of the whiz kids you see a lot on MSNBC opining about this and that. He also runs a blog called Vox. Anyway, in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision, the street-wise Klein, who grew up on the mean streets of Irvine, offers this "analysis" of Officer Wilson's account of the struggle that ended with the shooting death of Michael Brown.
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/11/25/Ezra-Klein-Can-t-Believe-Officer-Wilson-s-Story-Even-Though-Mike-Brown-s-Friend-Agrees-it-Happened
As to the account of Brown friend and fellow convenience store patron Dorian Johnson, we now know that there was some parts of it that were BS, but he did confirm the part about Brown passing the cigarillos to him while fighting with Wilson.
Ezra Klein might want to get his BS detector recalibratad.
The Anti-Israel Crowd Jumps Into the Ferguson Issue in Seattle
Hat tip The Mike Report
Our colleagues at The Mike Report in Seattle recorded these pictures of Ferguson protests in that town in the wake of the grand jury decision. Not to let a good opportunity pass, the cynical pro-Palestinian bunch is attempting to lump Ferguson together with the Palestinian cause.
http://mikereport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/and-now-they-blame-ferguson-on-the-jews/#comment-2333
Hey, Seattle! Where's that famous rain of yours when you need it?
At any rate, no doubt the university professorial crowd will use the same tactics in coming months and years to link Ferguson and Israel. Cynical to be sure, but what else can you expect?
Our colleagues at The Mike Report in Seattle recorded these pictures of Ferguson protests in that town in the wake of the grand jury decision. Not to let a good opportunity pass, the cynical pro-Palestinian bunch is attempting to lump Ferguson together with the Palestinian cause.
http://mikereport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/and-now-they-blame-ferguson-on-the-jews/#comment-2333
Hey, Seattle! Where's that famous rain of yours when you need it?
At any rate, no doubt the university professorial crowd will use the same tactics in coming months and years to link Ferguson and Israel. Cynical to be sure, but what else can you expect?
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Was It Something I Said, Professor?
Note: I did not videotape the below event, and my writing is based on my handwritten notes.
On Monday, I attended an event at UC Irvine sponsored by the UCI Center for Global Conflict Studies. The speakers were UC Irvine professor Mark LeVine and former Swedish ambassador Mathias Mossberg. Both of them have co-edited a new book that puts forth a rather bizarre proposal to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not a two-state solution, not a one-state solution, but a parallel state solution. ("One Land, Two States:Israel as Palestine as Two States").
The event was notable for two things: First, your humble correspondent made a serious factual error when I asked Ambassador Mossberg during the q and a about an article I understood he had written for a Swedish blog in which I quoted him (erroneously) as having condemned Israel over the recent Gaza fighting and denying that Hamas had used its people as human shields and had actually wished for civilian deaths as a strategy. His response was that he had never written it, and as it turns out, he was correct. More about that later. The event was attended by Professor LeVine's students as well as several older attendees. Of course the book they had co-edited was available for purchase.
The presentation was supposed to be accompanied by a power point presentation, but it never came off since apparently neither LeVine or Mossberg knew how to operate the power point. An appeal was sent out to students in the audience to get it sorted out, but to make a long story short, the power point never happened.
At any rate, as Mossberg explained it, the basic points of the parallel states plan are that:
The state would respond to people as opposed to the state.
Free travel in the territories.
There would be two presidents, two parliaments, and everybody would have to cooperate.
There would be a joint external security force.
The different economies (Israel-West Bank-Gaza) would have to joined in an equitable manner.
There would also have to be legal harmony between the Palestinian and Israeli legal
systems.
Ambassador Mossberg stated that since the two sides don't trust each other, it would be difficult but not insurmountable. As for reactions to the plan, he added that some people had positive reactions while others said it "was the most stupid idea they had ever heard."
But let's be fair. Ambassador Mossberg was having to ad-lib a bit because the power point presentation had not materialized. This article in The Guardian outlines it a bit better.
As for LeVine, he severely criticized the Oslo Accords even calling them "corrupt" at one point. At one point he said, "Don't Palestinians have rights?" and stated that the Israeli government acts like they don't know what they (?) are talking about.
Also, at one point Ambassador Mossberg said that Europe was likely to get more involved in the conflict and that Europeans were shocked by what they had seem from the recent Gaza fighting.
When the q an a came I got the first question, and it went something like this. (It was addressed primarily to Ambassador Mossberg.)
"If either party were to accept this plan they would want to be confident that the authors of the plan were impartial. With all due respect, professor LeVine is an anti-Israeli activist...
At this point Mossberg expressed disagreement and I added that LeVine would probably say that himself. LeVine then said that was not the case and that I had "disrespected" him. I was then allowed to continue with my question.
I continued with the article in question which came from a Swedish blog called Vänstra Stranden (Left Bank). I quoted the author (whom I erroneously thought to be Mossberg) as criticizing a previous article in Svenska Dagbladet by Israeli ambassador to Sweden Isac Bachman who had blamed Hamas for the recent Gaza war and charged that Hamas was using its own population as human shields and wishing for civilian deaths. The author of the Vänstra Stranden article had said there was no evidence that Hamas had used its people for human shields and absolutely none that they wished for civilian deaths. I countered those assertions by quoting reports from international journalists who had witnessed Hamas fighters firing from civilian sites and also a German film crew that filmed Hamas personnel forcing civilians back into buildings they were trying to evacuate after having been warned by Israel that an attack was coming. After being told by LeVine to come to the question instead of making points, I asked why should the Israeli government accept a plan whose authors were biased. Ambassador Mossberg asked for a copy of the article, took a look at it, and passed it back to me saying that he had never written it.
When the event concluded, I approached LeVine and said that I had intended no disrespect. I started to explain that Ambassador Mossberg might want to look into this further, but I was cut off. At this point, with many of his students and other attendees still in the room, a visably angry LeVine began to shout at me. He told me that my writing was "sh--" and he was not embarrassed to say that it was "sh--" in front of the room. He also shouted that if I ever called him "anti-Israel" again, I was going to have a problem-that it was "slander". He finished by saying that I was not qualified to teach at this university and that he didn't want to talk to me-"Goodbye."
Temper, temper.
As I listened to all this, I told him that I was not going to engage in a heated shouting match since it was not the appropriate place. That was true. His own students were standing there, and as a teacher, I was not about to engage in this behavior in front of students.
So I went over to Ambassador Mossberg and told him that we should look further into this article, which I again showed him. This time he took the article which had his name above the text as if he were the author. I said that if he didn't write it, I would apologize for bringing it up. He was very gracious, and we parted on good terms unlike the aforementioned Professor LeVine.
Later, I checked further into the blog and determined that misleading as the post was, it was not Mossberg who wrote the article. If you Google Vänstra Stranden and Mathias Mossberg, you come up with this posting with his name above the text. However, if you Google say, Isac Bachman (the Israeli ambassador to Sweden) and Vänstra Stranden, you get the same result-a page that appears as if Bachman wrote the same article. This is a misleading feature of the blog, but I have no excuses. I thought I had an article written by Mossberg, when in reality, it was written by the blog's editor, Marie Demker. It was my mistake, and I take full responsibility for not checking deeper.
As soon as I found the problem, I sent an explanatory e-mail to Ambassador Mossberg with the appropriate links and repeating my apology. Here is the text of that e-mail:
As for Professor LeVine, if I was in error in calling him "an anti-Israel activist", perhaps it was due to the time I saw him as part of the Whither the Levant event at UC Irvine in 2009-a veritable one-sided Israel bash.
Or perhaps, it was the time he brought a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ibrahim el Hudaiby to his class in 2008. I was there also.
Or how about this article from Campus Report Online and cross-posted by Campus Watch in 2006?
Or could it be articles like this written by LeVine for Al Jazeera?
Or how about that letter LeVine signed calling for an academic boycott of Israel? No anti-Israel activist there.
I could go on and on, but maybe I just got the wrong impression from all of the above (and much more).
But I will say this: There will be no apology to Professor LeVine. He embarrassed himself in front of his class with his meltdown, and I would hope that the next time he chooses to explode at me he will do it when no students are around. Then we can have a "real discussion."
And as for that Utopian idea of his for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it strikes me as well, Utopian.
As long as LeVine keeps signing blatant, one-sided petitions supporting boycotts of Israel academic institutions and placing disproportionate blame on Israel for all the problems in the Middle East, his credibility and ideas are not likely to be taken seriously by people who are truly interested in finding a peaceful resolution to this long-standing conflict. He may think his spoken and written words do not make him an anti-Israel activist, but others would disagree.
On Monday, I attended an event at UC Irvine sponsored by the UCI Center for Global Conflict Studies. The speakers were UC Irvine professor Mark LeVine and former Swedish ambassador Mathias Mossberg. Both of them have co-edited a new book that puts forth a rather bizarre proposal to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not a two-state solution, not a one-state solution, but a parallel state solution. ("One Land, Two States:Israel as Palestine as Two States").
The presentation was supposed to be accompanied by a power point presentation, but it never came off since apparently neither LeVine or Mossberg knew how to operate the power point. An appeal was sent out to students in the audience to get it sorted out, but to make a long story short, the power point never happened.
At any rate, as Mossberg explained it, the basic points of the parallel states plan are that:
The state would respond to people as opposed to the state.
Free travel in the territories.
There would be two presidents, two parliaments, and everybody would have to cooperate.
There would be a joint external security force.
The different economies (Israel-West Bank-Gaza) would have to joined in an equitable manner.
There would also have to be legal harmony between the Palestinian and Israeli legal
systems.
But let's be fair. Ambassador Mossberg was having to ad-lib a bit because the power point presentation had not materialized. This article in The Guardian outlines it a bit better.
As for LeVine, he severely criticized the Oslo Accords even calling them "corrupt" at one point. At one point he said, "Don't Palestinians have rights?" and stated that the Israeli government acts like they don't know what they (?) are talking about.
Also, at one point Ambassador Mossberg said that Europe was likely to get more involved in the conflict and that Europeans were shocked by what they had seem from the recent Gaza fighting.
When the q an a came I got the first question, and it went something like this. (It was addressed primarily to Ambassador Mossberg.)
"If either party were to accept this plan they would want to be confident that the authors of the plan were impartial. With all due respect, professor LeVine is an anti-Israeli activist...
At this point Mossberg expressed disagreement and I added that LeVine would probably say that himself. LeVine then said that was not the case and that I had "disrespected" him. I was then allowed to continue with my question.
I continued with the article in question which came from a Swedish blog called Vänstra Stranden (Left Bank). I quoted the author (whom I erroneously thought to be Mossberg) as criticizing a previous article in Svenska Dagbladet by Israeli ambassador to Sweden Isac Bachman who had blamed Hamas for the recent Gaza war and charged that Hamas was using its own population as human shields and wishing for civilian deaths. The author of the Vänstra Stranden article had said there was no evidence that Hamas had used its people for human shields and absolutely none that they wished for civilian deaths. I countered those assertions by quoting reports from international journalists who had witnessed Hamas fighters firing from civilian sites and also a German film crew that filmed Hamas personnel forcing civilians back into buildings they were trying to evacuate after having been warned by Israel that an attack was coming. After being told by LeVine to come to the question instead of making points, I asked why should the Israeli government accept a plan whose authors were biased. Ambassador Mossberg asked for a copy of the article, took a look at it, and passed it back to me saying that he had never written it.
When the event concluded, I approached LeVine and said that I had intended no disrespect. I started to explain that Ambassador Mossberg might want to look into this further, but I was cut off. At this point, with many of his students and other attendees still in the room, a visably angry LeVine began to shout at me. He told me that my writing was "sh--" and he was not embarrassed to say that it was "sh--" in front of the room. He also shouted that if I ever called him "anti-Israel" again, I was going to have a problem-that it was "slander". He finished by saying that I was not qualified to teach at this university and that he didn't want to talk to me-"Goodbye."
Temper, temper.
As I listened to all this, I told him that I was not going to engage in a heated shouting match since it was not the appropriate place. That was true. His own students were standing there, and as a teacher, I was not about to engage in this behavior in front of students.
So I went over to Ambassador Mossberg and told him that we should look further into this article, which I again showed him. This time he took the article which had his name above the text as if he were the author. I said that if he didn't write it, I would apologize for bringing it up. He was very gracious, and we parted on good terms unlike the aforementioned Professor LeVine.
Later, I checked further into the blog and determined that misleading as the post was, it was not Mossberg who wrote the article. If you Google Vänstra Stranden and Mathias Mossberg, you come up with this posting with his name above the text. However, if you Google say, Isac Bachman (the Israeli ambassador to Sweden) and Vänstra Stranden, you get the same result-a page that appears as if Bachman wrote the same article. This is a misleading feature of the blog, but I have no excuses. I thought I had an article written by Mossberg, when in reality, it was written by the blog's editor, Marie Demker. It was my mistake, and I take full responsibility for not checking deeper.
As soon as I found the problem, I sent an explanatory e-mail to Ambassador Mossberg with the appropriate links and repeating my apology. Here is the text of that e-mail:
Dear Ambassador Mossberg, I am the one who brought up the question today at UCI about an article in Vanstra Stranden that bore your name. Upon returning to my office I did further checking into the blog in question and have confirmed that as you stated, you did not write the article. For that I repeat my apology for bringing it up. The reason your name is attached to the article is due to some feature in the blog which can lead to confusion. I originally found the article by Googling your name and came up with an entry from Vanstra Stranden. As you can see from the copy I gave you the page would indicate that you are the author of the article when it is actually Marie Demker the blogger herself. Your name appears also at the bottom in a footnote by Demker that caused the problem. http://vanstrastranden.wordpress.com/tag/mathias-mossberg/ For example, if you Google the name Isac Bachman, the Israeli ambassador to Stockholm, and Vanstra Stranden you will get the same page with his name at the top suggesting he is the author. http://vanstrastranden.wordpress.com/tag/isac-bachman/ I hope that clears up the confusion, and once again I apologize for the error. Best regards, Gary Fouse
As for Professor LeVine, if I was in error in calling him "an anti-Israel activist", perhaps it was due to the time I saw him as part of the Whither the Levant event at UC Irvine in 2009-a veritable one-sided Israel bash.
Or perhaps, it was the time he brought a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ibrahim el Hudaiby to his class in 2008. I was there also.
Or how about this article from Campus Report Online and cross-posted by Campus Watch in 2006?
Or could it be articles like this written by LeVine for Al Jazeera?
Or how about that letter LeVine signed calling for an academic boycott of Israel? No anti-Israel activist there.
I could go on and on, but maybe I just got the wrong impression from all of the above (and much more).
But I will say this: There will be no apology to Professor LeVine. He embarrassed himself in front of his class with his meltdown, and I would hope that the next time he chooses to explode at me he will do it when no students are around. Then we can have a "real discussion."
And as for that Utopian idea of his for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it strikes me as well, Utopian.
As long as LeVine keeps signing blatant, one-sided petitions supporting boycotts of Israel academic institutions and placing disproportionate blame on Israel for all the problems in the Middle East, his credibility and ideas are not likely to be taken seriously by people who are truly interested in finding a peaceful resolution to this long-standing conflict. He may think his spoken and written words do not make him an anti-Israel activist, but others would disagree.
SJP's Actions on US Campuses
Hat tip Times of Israel
I am cross-posting an article by UC Santa Cruz professor Tammi Rossman-Benjamin in the Times of Israel about recent revelations concerning Students for Justice in Palestine.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-sjp-plans-illegal-activity-against-jewish-students-and-israel/
I previously posted about the disclosure of the SJP document at Binghamton University that called for disruptions of pro-Israel events. All I can say is that these tactics are reprehensible.
I am cross-posting an article by UC Santa Cruz professor Tammi Rossman-Benjamin in the Times of Israel about recent revelations concerning Students for Justice in Palestine.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-sjp-plans-illegal-activity-against-jewish-students-and-israel/
I previously posted about the disclosure of the SJP document at Binghamton University that called for disruptions of pro-Israel events. All I can say is that these tactics are reprehensible.
CAIR's Shameful Reaction to Ferguson Grand Jury Decision
Leave it to the Council on American Islamic Relations to join in the trashing of the Ferguson grand jury.
http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12741-cair-calls-for-national-action-on-racism-after-ferguson-grand-jury.html
"National Action on racism"?
I know that CAIR leaders like Nihad Awaf have very little grasp of American justice, but this is beyond shameful. That grand jury looked at all the evidence and testimony. The DA has released all the information as to what the jurors saw and heard. It has been established that Michael Brown assaulted the officer and was trying to take the officer's gun away from him.
CAIR calls for a federal investigation? They actually just had one since the FBI was working hand in hand with the local authorities. What else you you need to learn?
This is part of CAIR's cynical agenda to join forces with disaffected minorities and create a coalition, if you will, against the system. CAIR is a despicable organization.
http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12741-cair-calls-for-national-action-on-racism-after-ferguson-grand-jury.html
"National Action on racism"?
I know that CAIR leaders like Nihad Awaf have very little grasp of American justice, but this is beyond shameful. That grand jury looked at all the evidence and testimony. The DA has released all the information as to what the jurors saw and heard. It has been established that Michael Brown assaulted the officer and was trying to take the officer's gun away from him.
CAIR calls for a federal investigation? They actually just had one since the FBI was working hand in hand with the local authorities. What else you you need to learn?
This is part of CAIR's cynical agenda to join forces with disaffected minorities and create a coalition, if you will, against the system. CAIR is a despicable organization.
Steven Salaita- The Left's New Martyr
Hat tip Commentary Magazine and Campus Watch
Hell hath no fury like a professor scorned-in this case, Steven Salaita who finds himself out of a job since the University of Illinois rescinded its job offer to him over some intemperate tweets about Israelis going missing in the wake of the kidnap and subsequent murder of three Israel teenagers. Salaita has been awarded martyr status by the academic Israel-hating left who received him warmly at recent confab. Martin Kramer has the report.
http://dc-web1.commentarymagazine.com/2014/11/25/heros-welcome-for-hater-of-israel-at-mesa/
"To spice it up, there was someone who’s cannon is almost as loose as Salaita’s: Lisa Hajjar, University of California at Santa Barbara, an agitprof right out of a campus novel."
Lisa Hajjar? Where do I know that name from?
Oh yeah. She's that professor up at UC Skate Board (UC Santa Barbara). She was the one who told my Jewish friend Eric Golub at a "seminar" at UCLA a few years back that he "had his Zionist hat screwed on way too tight". (Eric always wears fedoras.)
What a masked ball that MESA convention must have been.
Hell hath no fury like a professor scorned-in this case, Steven Salaita who finds himself out of a job since the University of Illinois rescinded its job offer to him over some intemperate tweets about Israelis going missing in the wake of the kidnap and subsequent murder of three Israel teenagers. Salaita has been awarded martyr status by the academic Israel-hating left who received him warmly at recent confab. Martin Kramer has the report.
http://dc-web1.commentarymagazine.com/2014/11/25/heros-welcome-for-hater-of-israel-at-mesa/
"To spice it up, there was someone who’s cannon is almost as loose as Salaita’s: Lisa Hajjar, University of California at Santa Barbara, an agitprof right out of a campus novel."
Lisa Hajjar? Where do I know that name from?
What a masked ball that MESA convention must have been.
Shameful Ferguson Reactions
This morning I was listening to LA-Based civil rights attorney Leo Terrell, with whom I don't usually agree, being interviewed on LA radio.. Terrell, who is black himself concluded that the grand jury hearing the Michael Brown case reached the correct decision based on the evidence. he also stated that Officer Darren Wilson acted correctly from a-z. Kudos to Mr Terrell for listening to the truth and the facts that were brought out.
Then none other than Al Sharpton came on the air speaking at a press conference in Ferguson. I didn't hear it all because both stations playing it switched off. In one case KOGO radio of San Diego inexplicably went to other news while radio host Dennis Prager couldn't stomach any more. What I heard from Sharpton was sickening. He basically indicted the DA and the Grand Jury for the decision not to indict. Never mind that those jurors, who included three blacks, saw more of the evidence than any of us. If there is more unrest in Ferguson tonight, Sharpton can take part of the blame. He was stoking the anger. I hope NBC, which has given him his own talk show on their cable network, MSNBC, is proud of this man who once again is trying to stir up a lynch mob. Once again he called on the feds to intervene ignoring the fact that the FBI was involved in the investigation hand in hand with the local police every step of the way.
Then there was this tweet from Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN):
https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/537091021843480576
And this from anti-Israel activist and son of Clinton attack dog Sid Blumenthal, Max Blumenthal:
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/53708170498147123
This whole Ferguson thing is going to be very ugly. There is a valid need for discussion on the relationships between the black community and their police a discussion that should involve the police themselves. Unfortunately, I suspect that is going to be pushed into the background.
Then none other than Al Sharpton came on the air speaking at a press conference in Ferguson. I didn't hear it all because both stations playing it switched off. In one case KOGO radio of San Diego inexplicably went to other news while radio host Dennis Prager couldn't stomach any more. What I heard from Sharpton was sickening. He basically indicted the DA and the Grand Jury for the decision not to indict. Never mind that those jurors, who included three blacks, saw more of the evidence than any of us. If there is more unrest in Ferguson tonight, Sharpton can take part of the blame. He was stoking the anger. I hope NBC, which has given him his own talk show on their cable network, MSNBC, is proud of this man who once again is trying to stir up a lynch mob. Once again he called on the feds to intervene ignoring the fact that the FBI was involved in the investigation hand in hand with the local police every step of the way.
Then there was this tweet from Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN):
https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/537091021843480576
And this from anti-Israel activist and son of Clinton attack dog Sid Blumenthal, Max Blumenthal:
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/53708170498147123
This whole Ferguson thing is going to be very ugly. There is a valid need for discussion on the relationships between the black community and their police a discussion that should involve the police themselves. Unfortunately, I suspect that is going to be pushed into the background.
Ferguson Back in Flames
Last night showed once again that we still have a long way to go when it comes to race relations. When St Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced the grand jury's decision not to charge Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown, what ensued was not a protest but a riot in which cops were pelted with flying objects, stores were looted, shots were fired, and buildings set on fire. The legitimate protesters who felt they had valid grievances were lost in the shuffle as the troublemakers took over. The pleas of the Brown family for peace were ignored. It was a miracle that no deaths occurred.
There is every indication that what happened last night was planned by people far removed from the citizens of Ferguson. We thought that the police were prepared too, but they were not. They were basically limited to containing the unrest while the looters and burners went on their merry way. What prompted the DA to make the announcement at night rather than during daylight hours when the police could have had more control and a tactical advantage is beyond me.
At any rate, I do think the grand jury's decision was proper. McCullough laid out the evidence in his announcement. Based on that, it would have been unjust to indict Wilson and pass the buck to a jury trial. The physical evidence and the testimony of the most trustworthy witnesses (who were black) supported Wilson's version of events. There was a struggle inside the car for the weapon, a struggle in which the initial shots were fired. Then, outside the police car, it appears that Brown rushed the officer, who had his gun drawn and was telling him to get on the ground. I'm sorry, but when you try to take an officer's gun away from him and bum rush him while he is pointing his weapon at you, the whole argument about being unarmed goes out the window. If Brown had taken Wilson's gun, it would be Wilson who died that day.
As to the coverage, the first thing I heard from CNN was resentment from one of their expert panelists that expressed anger that McCullough had criticized some media coverage of the story. Legal analyst and California attorney Mark Geragos made the most irresponsible comment of the night when he charged that the fix was in and McCullough had gotten the result he wanted all along. Later, when CNN switched to their talking heads in London, Rosemary Church made this statement from the comfort of her studio on the Thames describing how one elderly man was carjacked and run over by protesters (emphasis mine). As for MSNBC, Chris Hayes droned on from Ferguson about how McCulloch was the son of a cop killed in the line of duty and was completely in bed with the police.
Sadly, the Congressional Black Caucus made an outrageous statement about it being a miscarriage of justice. We should expect more from our elected leaders.
All in all, it was a sad night last night.
There is every indication that what happened last night was planned by people far removed from the citizens of Ferguson. We thought that the police were prepared too, but they were not. They were basically limited to containing the unrest while the looters and burners went on their merry way. What prompted the DA to make the announcement at night rather than during daylight hours when the police could have had more control and a tactical advantage is beyond me.
At any rate, I do think the grand jury's decision was proper. McCullough laid out the evidence in his announcement. Based on that, it would have been unjust to indict Wilson and pass the buck to a jury trial. The physical evidence and the testimony of the most trustworthy witnesses (who were black) supported Wilson's version of events. There was a struggle inside the car for the weapon, a struggle in which the initial shots were fired. Then, outside the police car, it appears that Brown rushed the officer, who had his gun drawn and was telling him to get on the ground. I'm sorry, but when you try to take an officer's gun away from him and bum rush him while he is pointing his weapon at you, the whole argument about being unarmed goes out the window. If Brown had taken Wilson's gun, it would be Wilson who died that day.
As to the coverage, the first thing I heard from CNN was resentment from one of their expert panelists that expressed anger that McCullough had criticized some media coverage of the story. Legal analyst and California attorney Mark Geragos made the most irresponsible comment of the night when he charged that the fix was in and McCullough had gotten the result he wanted all along. Later, when CNN switched to their talking heads in London, Rosemary Church made this statement from the comfort of her studio on the Thames describing how one elderly man was carjacked and run over by protesters (emphasis mine). As for MSNBC, Chris Hayes droned on from Ferguson about how McCulloch was the son of a cop killed in the line of duty and was completely in bed with the police.
Sadly, the Congressional Black Caucus made an outrageous statement about it being a miscarriage of justice. We should expect more from our elected leaders.
All in all, it was a sad night last night.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Zaid Shakir's Propaganda Show in Australia
Hat tip Campus Watch
Zaid Shakir
Cinnamon Stillwell of Campus Watch reports on a presentation given recently in Australia by Zaid Shakir, an Islamist who is co-founder of the Zaytuna College, something that is masquerading as a (Islamic) college at UC Berkeley.
Shakir, of course, is a colleague of that other noted academic joke at UC Berkeley by the name of Hatem Bazian, who is a co-founder of Zaytuna College, a co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine and a co-founder of the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Center, the latter of which is also located at UCB. Bazian is a two-trick pony, who when he is not crying about Islamophobia, is campaigning against the state of Israel. Recently, he has been leading the charge to get Bill Maher's commencement speech at UCB cancelled.
But I digress. We are talking about Shakir.
I recall hearing Shakir's name mentioned in December 2012 when I was attending the 2012 Muslim Public Affairs annual convention held at-get this- the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena (which is a story in itself). There was a young man speaking named Dustin Craun, who said he had recently moved to the bay area so he could study under Imam Shakir.
And here is an example of what Mr Craun was likely taught by his mentor, Shakir.
Too bad the Aussies chose to allow this character to enter their country.
Zaid Shakir
Cinnamon Stillwell of Campus Watch reports on a presentation given recently in Australia by Zaid Shakir, an Islamist who is co-founder of the Zaytuna College, something that is masquerading as a (Islamic) college at UC Berkeley.
Shakir, of course, is a colleague of that other noted academic joke at UC Berkeley by the name of Hatem Bazian, who is a co-founder of Zaytuna College, a co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine and a co-founder of the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Center, the latter of which is also located at UCB. Bazian is a two-trick pony, who when he is not crying about Islamophobia, is campaigning against the state of Israel. Recently, he has been leading the charge to get Bill Maher's commencement speech at UCB cancelled.
But I digress. We are talking about Shakir.
I recall hearing Shakir's name mentioned in December 2012 when I was attending the 2012 Muslim Public Affairs annual convention held at-get this- the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena (which is a story in itself). There was a young man speaking named Dustin Craun, who said he had recently moved to the bay area so he could study under Imam Shakir.
And here is an example of what Mr Craun was likely taught by his mentor, Shakir.
Too bad the Aussies chose to allow this character to enter their country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
