Translate


Thursday, April 5, 2012

Cal State Northridge Math Professor Subject of Another Complaint




Reference is made to my previous posts on California State University math Professor David Klein, who to this day, uses a CSUN web server to broadcast anti-Israel propaganda and calls for boycotts against the Jewish state. Previous complaints by The AMCHA Initiative to CSU Chancellor Charles Reed have met with a stone wall. Now another group has joined in the fray. They are complaining to California Attorney General Kamela Harris.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154476#.T34AZas7WAg

Well, if you are looking for a remedy from Kamela Harris, all I can say is good luck. Harris is the politically-correct former DA of San Francisco, who presided over a sanctuary city and refused to seek the death penalty, no matter how heinous the murder. As attorney general, her main concern is looking for "corporate polluters" to prosecute. I don't expect her to do a thing.

It is an amazing thing when so much time, resources and energy is spent on California's university campuses to boycotting Israel of all places. How about boycotting North Sudan for a continuing campaign of genocide against people in South Sudan? Nah. How about a boycott of Syria? Nah. How about boycotting Iran for all the horrors they commit? Nah.

Here is my call for Klein and all these other loony professors:

Teach your damn subjects!

Suppressing the Truth About Anti-Semitism in Europe



Hat tip to Miggie

One of my readers (Miggie) commented on the latest post about Toulouse and the French reactions by pointing out a 2003 report by the EU that identified Muslims as being among the perpetrators of anti-Semitism in Europe. The report was suppressed by the EU. Here is an article on the story by the Jewish Daily Forward from 2003.

http://forward.com/articles/7158/eu-accused-of-burying-report-on-antisemitism-point/

As you can see, the suppression of the report caused a firestorm of protest even among some members of the US Congress.

On March 31, 2004, the same EU office did release a report on rising anti-Semitism in Europe for the years 2002-2003. In its summary it assigned chief blame to young, disaffected white Europeans and secondary blame to young Muslims of Asian and North African extraction. ("Asian" in European parlance would include the Middle East and the sub-continent including India and Pakistan.)

http://europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_3341_en.htm

The entire report is here.

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/AS-Main-report.pdf


That was almost a decade ago, and it would be worthwhile to see how these reports have progressed since then. I think it would be safe to say, however, that Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe has, indeed, been under-stated. The case of Malmo is important to point out. As I have reported so many times on this site, the sizable and restive Muslim immigrant population of Malmo, which has created a dangerous "no-go zone" in the neighborhood of Rosengard, is literally driving the Jewish population out of the city, implicitly encouraged by Mayor Ilmar Reepalu, an opponent of Israel.

It is true that certain other elements have participated including skin-heads, neo-Nazis and other disaffected indigenous populations. The participation of the anti-Israeli left, which is much more influential, has contributed as well. Sweden, for example, is a hotbed of anti-Israeli-pro-Palestinian NGOs that have links world-wide.

When it comes to issues of hate, it is crucial that both perpetrator and victim groups be reported accurately and without fear of the results. If whites are guilty of racial or religious persecutions, as they certainly have been over the centuries, it must be reported-and it is. Indeed, there is no fear of blow back in that case. It is when another minority, especially one that is restive, is guilty that people get nervous about stating what is clear to all. We see it not only in Europe, but here in America as well. As the Trayvon Martin case has illustrated, white on black violence is wrong, black on white violence is wrong and black on black violence is wrong. Which gets the bigger play?

Similarly, in Europe, white on immigrant violence is wrong, immigrant on white violence is wrong, Christian on Jew violence is wrong, Muslim violence on Jew is wrong. Which gets the bigger play? Jew violence on Christian or Muslim? Virtually non-existent. That itself should tell you volumes.

If you are unwilling to define the problem, don't expect to ever fix it

El Cajon "Hate Crime" Update: Was a Divorce in the Works?

Shaima Alawadi
Shaima Alawadi


As we know, the recent murder of Shaima Alawadi in El Cajon, California has sparked charges of "Islamophobic hate crime". Just this week, I posted an article posted by the Islamic Circle of North America, which trumpeted that charge.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/icna-statement-on-trayvon-martin-and.html

Now U-T San Diego (San Diego Union Tribune) has published an update on the investigation which casts some doubt on the theory that this was a hate crime. It seems a divorce may have been in the works between the Alawadis.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/04/records-hint-iraqi-womans-death-not-a-hate-crime/

As we used to write at the end of our DEA investigative reports, "Investigation continues".

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

France "Recovers" From Toulouse

Guy Milliere is a French writer, who has dared to speak out against the Islamic radicalism that infests France today. I have heard him speak in front of Act of America in Orange County. In this piece, he criticizes how many sectors of the French establishment are ignoring the obvious implications of the massacre in Toulouse. It is entitled, "Jihad in France is just beginning."

(Hat tip to Gatestone Institute)

 http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2985/jihad-in-france

Lawrence O'Donnell Attacks Romney's Religion

Hat tip National Review

Now that it is becoming clear that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, the hired guns at MSNBC are focusing their attacks on him. Unfortunately, they have already sunk to this level. Last night, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell ripped into Romney's religion, Mormonism.



In 2007, O'Donnell was also attacking Mormonism and implying that Romney was a racist for following the tenets of his faith.



(For the record, Romney has publicly stated that he welcomed the announcement that the Mormon church was changing its policy regarding blacks.)

I hardly know what to say about O'Donnell's comments last night, and had not been aware of his previous comments about Mormonism. As a nominal Protestant Christian, I have formed my own evaluations of various religions over the years. I have lived in a Buddhist country (Thailand), am married to a Catholic, and only recently learned that the Presbyterian church at the highest levels was on a world-wide movement against the state of Israel. Like most, I have my private attitudes about religion including Mormonism. I am also somewhat familiar with  the story of Joseph Smith's life.

Having said that, what O'Donnell has done on both occasions is despicable. We don't have to agree with any religion. We don't have to regard that religion's prophet as a great or even good man. Most religions have episodes in their history that are hard to defend including mine. Yet, we don't go around insulting someone's faith. We have millions of Mormons in this country, and most all of them are fine, upstanding people. That is what counts.

Of course, this leads to the obvious fact that there is a ton of religious strife going around these days, isn't there? Anti-Semitism is back in fashion, but it has little to do with the tenets of Judaism. And of course, Islam has come in for its share of criticism, has it not? Since I write often on this topic, I know I have to walk a thin line. For example, O'Donnell would never talk about the Prophet Mohammed the way he did last night about Joseph Smith. Nor do I. I know all the talk, but I choose not to indulge in it because Mohammed is the prophet of decent Muslims as well as well as those Muslims that I do dare to criticize. What I feel comfortable in saying is that Mohammed, in his later (Medina) years, spread Islam through war.  That is incontrovertible. I am also quite comfortable in blasting away at jihadists, terrorists, terrorist supporters, those that consider non-Muslims as infidels and worthy of being killed, hate-mongers, and those that want to impose Islam and sharia on the rest of the world. I consider that as the most important issue of our time. But to insult Muslims for their religion? No.

O'Donnell, like so many liberals, has bought into the philosophy that it's OK to slam certain groups of people but not others. That is the intellectual rot of liberalism and political correctness. But more so, he has brought this campaign down to a new low. One could point out that President Obama came out of a church in Chicago led by a vile, hateful pastor who cried, "God damn America" in a sermon.  In fact, it was an issue in 2008. However, to condemn Jeremiah Wright for his hateful rhetoric is not to damn Christianity as a religion and demean Christians.

Lawrence O'Donnell should make a public apology to Mormons.

The Repercussions of Trayvon Martin in Toledo.

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit

Now we see the fallout from the Trayvon Martin case. In Toledo, Ohio, a 78-year-old white man is set upon by a gang of black and white youths who beat him, called him racial epithets, and told him, "This is for Trayvon." Gateway Pundit has the story.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/it-begins-youths-screaming-this-is-for-trayvon-beat-78-year-old-white-man-in-toledo/

I have two points to make here. First, this is a natural result of the irresponsible statements made in the Martin case by politicians in Washington like Frederica Wilson, Hank Johnson, and Maxine Waters, members of the media like MSNBC (Ed Schultz, Martin Bashir), and activists like Al Sharpton-to say nothing of the New Black Panther Party. Their words have been broadcast all over the country and have served only to stir up emotions. Rest assured this will not be the last such attack.

Secondly, I hope Mr Watts follows through on his intention to file a hate crime charge with the Department of Justice. If they are going to jump into the investigation of George Zimmerman, then they can also handle these cases as well.

But they won't.



Another Pepper Spray Incident at a California College

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit

Yee gads! My alma matter, Santa Monica City College, had a student disturbance and a bunch of dopey kids got pepper sprayed.


"Ah wunnerful, ah wunnerful, ah" 


Agreed. Here is the video from Gateway Pundit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/leftwing-students-storm-trustee-meeting-eat-pepper-spray-at-santa-monica-college-video/

From the video, everything looks copacetic to me except why no arrests?

Furthermore, I don't know what the Hell those kids are protesting. When I went to SMCC, (1963-1965)I only paid three bucks a semester.

ObamaCare: Have They Conceded Defeat?

Last week, when the Supreme Court held three days of hearings on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, everyone was paying attention to the remarks of Justice Anthony Kennedy since we can pretty much predict how the other eight justices will vote. Those who dare to read the tea leaves concluded that Kennedy will go with the conservatives to hand a 5-4 defeat to President Obama's one legislative achievement. Yet, history has shown that reading tea leaves from justices' questions and remarks isn't always accurate. In spite of that, the Democrats and the White House are talking as if they already know the outcome. Do they?

Last Friday, the Court held what is called a straw vote on the matter. That is not publicly disclosed, but from there, briefs and opinions are drafted by each justice and probably by June, a final decision will be announced. Of course, individual justices can be persuaded and change their minds, but within the Supreme Court itself, the outcome is very likely settled. We just don't know.

Yet, if you listen to the liberal pundits, they are already speculating on whether a health care defeat may work on their behalf in the November elections. President Obama's controversial remarks this week about the Court indicate he may be laying a foundation for his re-election speeches-how an un-elected group of 9 persons is taking away the health care of Americans (hard-working Americans no less).

Of course the idea of a leak in Washington is unprecedented, as we all know, but is it just possible that the White House has been tipped off about that straw vote last Friday? Is it just possible that they have a connection in the Supreme Court?



Nah.                                                      "If you go to Dick Morris.com......"

( I still say she looks like Dick Morris, and we all know no secret is safe with Dick.)

Leaving that aside, is Obama correct when he implied that conservatives are always railing about an activist court that sets aside legislated law? Fair enough, but the hypocrisy argument goes both ways. Liberals have always relied on activist judges to accomplish what they could not achieve legislatively. In this case, it is one thing for someone like Rush Limbaugh to complain about the Supreme Court, but it is quite another for a sitting president to do so. Obama is also incorrect in stating that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to set aside a law passed by a democratically-elected Congress. How do I know? Because Fox's beautiful Megan Kelly told me so today on her show when she mentioned two decisions in the 90s. (You don't think I heard it from MSNBC oaf Ed Schultz, do you?)

I also object to Obama stating that the Affordable Health Care Act passed with a strong majority in Congress. It passed along party lines in the Senate and by 219-212 in the House.

At any rate, I'm not ready to pop the champagne cork just yet. Justice Kennedy is too unpredictable. Maybe it all depends on whether the decision will come down on an odd or even date.





Eric Holder's Homework Assignment


"Teacher, the dog ate my homework."


Poor Eric Holder. He's got enough to worry about these days (like going to jail) without getting stuck with some homework assignment from some federal judge in Houston named Jerry Smith who is none too happy about President Obama's veiled threats to the Supreme Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/04/justice-department-under-deadline-to-answer-court-over-obamas-health-law/

"Three pages, single-space"


Of course, someone forgot to tell Obama that with the Supreme Court, you don't "make'em an offer they can't refuse" like they do back home in Chicago. He keeps talking like that, he may not even get Ruth Bader Ginsburg's vote on that Health Care bill.

But it's not Obama that has to write the paper; it's his hapless attorney general-or one of his flunkies. Maybe he can assign it to the guy who dreamed up Fast and Furious, whoever he is.

And don't forget to indent.



Wedded Bliss for George Galloway



(Hat tip to Anonymous for the joyous news)

Wedding bells have rung for radical Islam's favorite useful idiot, the modern-day version of Lord Haw Haw, British MP George Galloway. I must send flowers.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124712/George-Galloways-wife-Rima-Husseini-mother-new-baby-says-theyre-wed.html

Who cares about being  a royal-watcher when you can be a soil watcher? And don't worry about those antiquated marriage laws. Britain's civil law is now under sharia, so George can marry up to 4 times-or he can just tell that pesky wife number 3 that he is divorcing her three times (no pun intended).


"Get me to the church on time."

And how about that 4-month-old baby-with his third wife, who claims they are still married, be jeezuz?




I hope he likes that Palestinian scarf I sent.

Don't tell me; let me guess. The best man was Anjem Choudary, and the maid of honour was Yvonne Ridley. Or maybe it was wife number 2.

And what about that honeymoon cruise, George? Are you going to take the blushing bride on the next Flotilla to Gaza? I recommend the bridal suite on the Mavi Marmara.

And all this just as George has just been re-elected to Parliament. Don't ask me which house, Lords, Commons, or the House of the Criminally Insane. I don't keep up with that stuff.




At any rate, good luck to the future ex- Mrs Galloway, whichever one you are. You're going to need it.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

ICNA Statement on Trayvon Martin and Shaima Alawadi

Add the Islamist Circle of North America (ICNA) to those rushing to judgement, not just on the Trayvon Martin shooting ("murdered"), but the El Cajon slaying of Shaima Alawadi, a Muslim mother of five found beaten to death in her home. Even CAIR in San Diego is being cautious in their assessment of the El Cajon killing, but not ICNA.

http://www.icna.org/hoodies-and-hijabs-icna-calls-for-response-to-hate/

This, of course, is right out of the playbook of organizations like ICNA. America is a "racist, Islamophobic" country, and therefore, all minorities must align with Muslims to fight the hate.

As I have pointed out in my previous writings on both cases, we all need to sit back and let the police do their jobs. In both cases, there are many things we just don't know yet.

By the way, ICNA is currently in the midst of a national public relations offensive to convince Americans that Shariah law is no threat to America, our Constitution or our freedoms (which is pure nonsense).

http://news.investors.com/article/606641/201204031900/icna-hides-extremism-in-national-shariah-campaign.htm

At any rate, ICNA knows a few things about hate. They are one of the myriad of organizations in the US linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Their suspicious associations with radicals has been well documented. And if you want to hear some hate, I can recommend two of ICNA's featured speakers, Amir Abdel Malik Ali and Siraj Wahhaj, who spoke at an ICNA "charity dinner" in Yorba Linda in February 2010.

If you want to learn more about ICNA, I recommend the below selection of writings by Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).

http://www.investigativeproject.org/topics/54/the-islamic-circle-of-north-america-icna

Most recently, one of ICNA's imams, now in the US, is the subject of  a war crimes indictment out of Bangladesh, which I wrote about just days ago.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/ipt-article-on-islamic-circle-of-north.html

This is the organization that wants to give us lectures on hatred and intolerance.




More Irresponsibility From Our Media-NY Times

Writer Rich Benjamin has written this op-ed in the New York Times regarding the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.


"Mr. Zimmerman reacted very differently, taking out his handgun and shooting the youth in cold blood."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/the-gated-community-mentality.html


Without re-hashing the facts that are not in evidence, which I have already done, suffice to say that it has not been established that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in cold blood. By all appearances, it appears that the shot was fired during a violent struggle. It may turn out that the shooting was not justified, but that is a far cry from shooting one "in cold blood." That statement is so irresponsible that any responsible editor should have caught it.

While the rest of Mr Benjamin's op-ed is worthy of discussion, he seems to have left out or neglected a few items. I guess we'll have to buy his book to determine if he encountered hostility while staying in those gated communities. The op-ed does not indicate either way. Benjamin appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox tonight. He does not come across as a threatening person. Indeed, he appears to be the victim of stunted growth and looks quite child-like. He is quite gentlemanly in his demeanor.

The problem is that there is a reason we have so many gated communities. We have a lot of crime-violent crimes, murders, rapes, break-ins, home invasions and burglaries.

Benjamin also mentions that the Zimmerman gated community sits in a racially-mixed suburb of area of Orlando. Maybe he meant to say that the gated community itself was not racially-mixed, but we know that Trayvon's father lived in that gated community-or at least his fiance did. The point is that gated communities are still open to all races if they can afford the home.

At any rate, the glaring sin in this article is jumping to the conclusion that Zimmerman shot Martin "in cold blood". Given the already volatile situation that exists, that statement is irresponsible-but hardly surprising given the once-great New York Times.