headerphoto


College Republicans Under Attack at UC Berkeley




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Campus Reform


I earlier cross-posted a report from The College Fix which describes the backlash that UC Berkeley College Republicans are facing over their sponsoring of an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos on February 1.


http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2017/01/college-republicans-at-berkeley-face.html

The blog, Campus Reform has more information regarding the on-going campaign of harassment directed at CR.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8646

Coupled with last week's disruption of an appearance by Yiannopoulos at UC Davis as well as the ugly reactions against him in other universities all over the country, it is clear that the concept of free speech in academia is limited to the left. CR chapters all over the country are learning what happens when they invite speakers like Yiannopoulois to campus. It is particularly despicable that now the far left loons on campus have manufactured phony posters alleging that the CR had invited white nationalist Richard Spencer to speak.

And where is that joke of a chancellor Nicholas Dirks? How can UCB tolerate this crap on campus? Physical harassment is not free speech.


As Slaughters Continue, US Is on Guard Against-Islamophobia




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Creeping Sharia

It doesn't seem possible that we in the West could have things so much in reverse, but instead of guarding against further Islamic encroachment, our leaders are determined that we should not think ill of Islam just because people are being slaughtered en masse virtually every day in the name of Allah. Islamophobia is the thing we must guard  against.

This is how it works. Some terrible deed is carried out in America by a jihadist inspired by ISIS or Al Qaeda. Or perhaps, a horrible scene takes place in Europe like Berlin, Brussels or Paris to name a few. Instantly, here in the US, the CAIR bears and their gullible supporters in the media and Justice Department began warning of Islamophobia and impending acts of retribution against innocent Muslims-which don't happen. In fact, most of the reported "hate crimes" like a Muslim woman in hijab being assaulted or insulted turn out to be manufactured hoaxes. Remember that notorious letter sent out to various mosques threatening violence? Not only has the threat not materialized, but we still don't know who the writer was.

The fact is that Jews are far more under the gun than Muslims, yet that is a story that has no legs. The media could care less. The fact is that with rare exceptions, Americans have responded in an exemplary manner to all the horrors of Islamic terror and intolerance. We don't lash out at innocent Muslims, and I have been very clear that it would be un-American to do so. But anybody who thinks there is no threat out there and that all these horrific attacks have nothing to do with Islam is deluding themselves.

An Orange County Rabbi Sounds Off on the UN, Israel, J Street etc




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Arutz Sheva


Orange County Rabbi Dov Fischer is a friend and associate who does fabulous work in Orange County. In this op-ed with Arutz Sheva, Rabbi Fischer sounds off on the UN, our abstention in the Israel resolution, J Street and other issues.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19954

Well stated, Rabbi. There is plenty of shame to go around. Hopefully, J Street is now exposed as an enemy of Israel. Any organization supported by George Soros cannot be anything else. As a gentile, I must say that American Jews who consider themselves supporters of Israel and President Obama must be examining themselves. It is clear that Obama has nothing but hostility for Israel. While there are some Democrats like Charles Schumer who support Israel, it is also clear that it is the Republican party that supports the Jewish state. Schumer himself must be wondering how much influence he has held with the Obama administration.

No doubt Donald Trump will be a much greater friend to Israel than this current administration. I also hope he will take a big first step toward the eventual demise of the UN by dramatically reducing our funding. This poisonous organization is not only dangerous to Israel but the US as well.

January 20 cannot come fast enough.

UC Irvine's Disgusting Op-ed in Wall Street Journal




UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman and UCI law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky have written a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the recent US Senate Anti-Semitism Awareness Act passed to address the problem of campus anti-Semitism. The authors feel that the bill violates freedom of speech. I am cross-posting the op-ed from the UCI web site since the WSJ posting requires sign in.

https://communications.uci.edu/in-the-news/pdf/Gillman%20Chemerinsky%20WSJ%2012-16-2016%20A%20Bill%20to%20Police%20Campus%20Speech.pdf

Where to begin? I should first note that both Gillman and Chemerinsky are of Jewish background, so let's rule out anti-Semitic intent. I have no idea what their attitudes toward Israel are. However, having recently concluded an 18-year career teaching part time in the UCI Extension, I strongly believe that neither man has done much if anything to counter the long-standing problem of anti-Semitic speech and activity at UCI. In fact, Chemerinsky went on record as stating that there was no anti-Semitism problem at UCI even before he arrived to inaugurate the new law school.

As for myself having preceded Chemerinsky at UCI, I can say there has been a problem going back well over a decade. The same must be said about other UC campuses as well as many universities all over the country. The cause? That is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been turned into a hot button topic not by neo-Nazis or skin heads, not by some "alt-right" Jew haters, rather by the pro-Palestinian factions, namely the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine.

The letter states that the problem of campus anti-Semitism is real and should be addressed. They state that attempts to disrupt Jewish events on campus will not be tolerated. Yet for the past two years, I have personally witnessed pro-Palestinian students loudly disrupt the annual May I(srael)-Fest with their protests a few yards away and loud chanting with a bullhorn. On both occasions, the protesters marched out of the Cross Cultural Center at the beginning and back to the CCC at the end of their protest.What did the university do about that? Nothing.

A worse example was last May 18, when Students Supporting Israel was holding a pro-Israeli Defense Forces film, "Beneath the Helmet". Their event was disrupted by SJP and other student groups who tried to force their way into the room as terrified (mostly female) audience members tried to block the door while calling campus police to come and restore order. One female audience member told of being chased from the room and to another building by protesters. After the "investigation", SJP got off with a letter of warning.

But it gets worse. Some of the protesters identified themselves as "legal observers" from the National Lawyers Guild, a left-wing organization that began in the 1930s as a legal arm of the Communist Party USA. Further that they were attached to the UCI Law School. When the incident became national news, the NLG sent out a statement that the incident was not disruptive, and that when it was over they "accompanied the protesters back to the CCC."

Two points. If Chancellor Gillman ever asked Chemerinsky for an explanation of this, it is not on record. I have publicly called on Chemerinsky to explain this involvement of people in his program with this incident. To date, I am unaware of any statement he has made.

Secondly, why has the CCC for years allowed the MSU and SJP to use its facility as a staging area when they disrupt pro-Israel events-as in 2010 when the MSU disrupted the speech of Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren at UCI? I have protested this in writing to UCI and the CCC to no avail.

I also find it offensive when the letter states that "much to the consternation of groups now supporting the Anti-Semitsm Awareness Act", UCI was cleared of wrongdoing in 2013, when it was the subject of an investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education because of complaints of harassment by Jewish students. That complaint died because of findings that complainants had not been filed (by students) in a timely manner and that there was no finding of discrimination due to national origin. (At the time, religion was not covered under Title VI. The Jewish students concerned were American as opposed to being Israelis.)  UCI has crowed ever since that it was innocent of allowing a hostile environment for Jews.

Yet, last March, due to continuing complaints by Jewish students system-wide, the UC Regents finally approved a new statement of principles against intolerance that specifically addressed anti-Semitism, an acknowledgment that there was a problem. Subsequently, Chancellor Gillman himself, formed a task force at UCI, headed by the director of the UCI Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, to investigate the problem. To my knowledge this group has not completed its work.

But what the writers complain about here is what they consider an infringement on free (political) speech. I agree that just because a speaker says something that may be deemed anti-Semitic, it is still protected speech. I have never advocated that the vile Oakland-based imam Amir Abdel Malik Ali, for example, who has spoken at UCI many times over the years and who has engaged in anti-Semitic speech, should be denied his right to speak. Even when another vile Jew-hater, Washington DC-based imam Mohammad al Asi, came to UCI and stated in 2001, "We have a psychosis in the Jewish community that is unable to co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings. You can take the Jew out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew," it was free speech. Similarly, when the MSU in 2008 put up a caricature of Ariel Sharon on their mock "apartheid wall" drawn in the stereotypical style of the old Nazi publication,"Der Stuermer", it was free speech, but should have been condemned by the university. It wasn't. The only time UCI ever spoke out about one of these expressions was in 2010, when then-Chancellor Michael Drake reacted  to statements by Ali that he supported specific terror organizations (Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad). Yet Drake  did not identify the speaker, the statement (other than referring to support of terrorist organizations), the offended group, the sponsoring group, or the event. Drake did not address Ali's statement calling Jews in the audience "the new Nazis".

All we have been able to do is document these things and condemn them, which is our right of free speech. We cannot stop speakers from coming to campus and making their statements, and I am not saying we should. But there is a problem here. Many universities are all too prepared to prevent speakers like Milo Yiannopolous or Ben Shapiro from speaking on their campuses because some students don't like their message and are prepared to disrupt or try to stop it themselves. They are willing to punish those who say things deemed offensive about other groups, namely blacks, Latinos, Muslims, women or gays. Why should the rules not be the same for all?

Chancellor Gillman and his officials at UCI should use their own right of free speech to condemn hate speech when directed against Jews just as they would when other groups are targeted. As it is they have abrogated their moral responsibility to support Jewish students to the same extent they protect other minorities. It is not  just a UCI problem. The same can be said of the rest of the UC system-as well as universities all over the country. The worst -ism that exists on college campuses is anti-Semitism. It is this -ism that university officials like Gillman and Chemerinsky will not confront. Shame on them.

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

Hillary Decries "Fake News"





Hat tip Breitbart





Hillary Clinton figured her next speaking gig on Capitol Hill would be her inauguration speech. That didn't work out, so she did the next best thing this week on the occasion of the retirement of Harry Reid. What made news was that she used the occasion to decry what she calls "fake news" (on social media). And she wants it stopped, mind you. Of course, that opened the door for the obvious response.

Of course, what little folks like me say on social media, be it humble blogs like this or Facebook, is not news because it has a very limited readership. But when the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC, get it wrong and do it deliberately, that is fake news. More to the point, when Hillary herself tells us some lie, that is fake news. On that note, where do I begin?

When Hillary told Matt Lauer years ago that all the commotion about her husband's relationship with a White House intern was due to a "vast right-wing conspiracy", that was fake news.

When Hillary said that she landed in Sarajevo as first lady under sniper fire, that was fake news.

When Hillary told us that the terrorist attack at Benghazi that killed four Americans was a protest over a video that got out of hand, that was fake news.

When Hillary told us (for the first time) that she never sent or received classified information on a private server, that was fake news. Every time she subsequently said it, that was fake news.

So just what is it that Hillary is complaining about on social media? Is she saying that when blogs call her a liar, that is "fake news"? No, that is truthful news. Is it "fake news" when blogs refer to the Clinton Foundation as a corrupt enterprise? No, that is truthful news. Is it "fake news" when blogs refer to her use of as private server to conduct her State Department business as being against the law? No, that is truthful news. Is it "fake news" to term her rants against Wall Street hypocrisy when we know she has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street companies? That is truthful news. Is it "fake news" to point out the hypocrisy in her rants against the top 1% when she has collected 6-figure speaking fees from universities and that her family has enriched itself by hundreds of millions of dollars with the Clinton Foundation? Is it "fake news" to point out the dangerous position of authority she placed Huma Abedin given the latter's past history with the Muslim Brotherhood? Is it "fake news" to report on her campaign receiving debate questions in advance from CNN?

Fake news is not only the numerous lies, Hillary Clinton has told us over the years, lies too numerous to recount here. Fake news is what we have been getting from the mainstream news outlets for years, which reached a crescendo in the past election-lies which all favored  the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton. Fake news is the news that the media ignored or swept under the rug, for example, the revelations about the pay for play of the Clinton Foundation.

This all makes Mrs. Clinton's remarks this week laughable and just one more example of how tone-deaf she is. She is a walking, talking caricature of herself, rich fodder for late night talk show hosts. Except that they are too busy telling jokes about Donald Trump while ignoring Hillary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

Meet Keith Ellison

Hat tip Investigative Project on Terrorism and Truth Revolt


Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) is the frontrunner to become the next Democratic Party Chair. Nothing could signal the party's radical shift to the left more than this selection. This is not just because Ellison is a Muslim. He has ties to radical Islamists. There is also ample reason to conclude that he is anti-Semitic. Here is what Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism reports on Ellison's troubling background.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/5708/ipt-exclusive-in-private-fundraiser-ellison

And here is what Truth Revolt has to say about Ellison, who apparently wanted a separate nation for blacks when he was a college student.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/top-pick-dnc-chair-wanted-separate-country-blacks-trump-racist

Please, Democrats. Pleeeease choose this man as your DNC chair.


Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

Campus Anti-Semitism Surges After Trump Win




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in New English Review (The Iconoclast)


Having learned much about Islam since 9-11, I have come to distrust the term, "moderate Muslim", especially here in the US. Many of the people who are regarded as moderate Muslim leaders are just trying to put a happy face on Islam for our benefit. I have visited several mosques over the last decade and listened to their presentations when they invite the public in.  They invariably say Islam is a religion of peace, and that the terrorists (whose acts they condemn), are not practicing true Islam. While I concede that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are not terrorists and lead peaceful, lawful lives, that doesn't clear up the problems I find within Islamic doctrine. I am not so convinced that the terrorists are not actually practicing the true Islam as outlined in the Koran, the hadith, the Sunna, and the very life of the Prophet Mohammad.

I should point out at the outset that certain Islamic factions have a pretty good record in not being involved in terrorism and other forms of violence. I am referring to the Sufis and the Ahmadiya. The former practice a mystical version of Islam while the latter, formed in the 19th century in British Mandate India by a man known as Ahmed, believe that this person is a latter day prophet-after Mohammad. Because of this, the Ahmadiya are considered heretics by mainstream Muslims. They are persecuted in countries like Pakistan, where their numbers are greatest. The Sufi are also considered outside of mainstream Islam.

That has led me to searching for true Muslim reformers those who recognize there is a problem within the religion, and that young Muslims must be taught to be against violence and intolerance toward other religions. Perhaps, the best known reformer is Zuhdi Jasser, a Syrian-American based in Phoenix. Dr Jasser is a physician and former military officer. He is the head of an organization called American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which is dedicated to human rights (the American concept of human rights) and fighting what he terms, political Islam, that is Islam that seeks to dominate.

Another is a young Iranian-American woman named Shireen Qudosi (with whom I happen to be in email/Facebook contact). She recently testified before Congress, and she is someone to watch. I predict she will become quite prominent in the years to come. Her website is called, "The Qudosi Chronicles".

But here is my dilemma: Can Islam-The Perfect Religion- as Muslims are taught, really be reformed?

Islam, as we know, was not subjected to the Reformation as was Christianity. Nor was it subjected to the Enlightenment as were Christians and Jews in Europe. As to the Reformation, however, there are a couple of points to remember.

First of all, when Martin Luther began the Reformation, he was not rejecting Jesus Christ, nor was he rejecting the Bible. He was rejecting what he saw as the corruption of the Vatican. When the Reformation took hold and succeeded, the Bible and the figure of Jesus Christ were still sacred with Protestants.

In my view, for Islam to undergo a true reformation means they would have to reject those parts of the Koran which advocate hate, violence, and even death toward non-Muslims. That constitutes a lot of the Koran. The estimates I have read indicate that about 62% of the Koran refers to non-Muslims. And those references are not complimentary or respectful. Muslim leaders in the US love to recite the portions of the Koran that are peaceful, such as , "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2 verse 256). They don't recite the verses that urge Muslims to commit violence against unbelievers.

The key to understanding the obvious contradictions in the Koran is the rule of abrogation, handed down by the top Islamic scholars over the centuries. The Koran is not written chronologically. The chapters (suras) are ordered (with tiny exceptions at the front and end) by longest to shortest. Therefore, there is no story that the reader can follow. When Mohammad first began preaching his revelations in Mecca, he was peaceful, but the powers that be drove him and his followers out of Mecca, at which time Mohammad settled in Medina. Once he consolidated his power in Medina, he began to spread Islam at the point of a sword. That process continued after his death, but what is important to note is that as his life changed, so did the revelations from God, which he claimed he was receiving through the archangel Gabriel. In other words, the revelations evolved from peaceful to hateful and violent.

Thus, the rule of abrogation tells us that in case of conflicting verses, that which was received or revealed later in time abrogates the one revealed earlier.

So much for the Koran and its hateful and violent passages (from Mohammad's Medina period). For a true reformation to take place within Islam, Muslims must also reexamine Mohammad himself, his deeds and his words, which have been passed on generation to generation via the Hadith and the Sunna. Muslims consider Mohammad as the man to emulate in every way. How can they reconcile his wars, the execution of prisoners, the taking of their wives and daughters into sexual slavery, his orders to have people murdered with the demands of a modern world that all religions should co-exist in peace? Is it reasonable to expect that such a meaningful reformation could take place?

I also take issue with those who say that the killers of ISIS, Al Qaeda etc are violating the teachings of Islam. If so, where is the theological debate that should be raging all over the Islamic world? Aside from certain national armies (Iraq, Syria), where are the armies of Muslims rushing to fight and kill those who are giving such a bad name to Islam?  There are tens of thousands of Western Muslims who have gone to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. Others, mostly Somalis, have gone back to Somalia to join Al Shabaab. Many more in the US have been arrested attempting to leave. I don't mean to stigmatize all Western Muslims, but the numbers are alarming.

How many Western-based Muslims do we know of who have gone to those areas to fight against ISIS or Al Shabaab?

There are many reasons why Muslims have not risen up. For some it is fear. For some it is ambivalence or a degree of sympathy. However, I suspect that the biggest reason more don't confront the extremists is that they fear they cannot win the theological argument. After all, remember that 30 years ago, we were calling these killers fundamentalists.

Have Our Universities Bottomed Out Yet?




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in New English Review (The Iconoclast)


I have been teaching English as a second language part-time at the University of California (UCI) Extension (now Dept. of Continuing Education) since 1998. Since I am retired from the Drug Enforcement Administration, this has been a part-time endeavor only to keep me busy and provide a little beer money to boot. It has also given me a chance to observe the goings-on at UCI and other college campuses at least since I became involved as an activist around 2006.

I should note at the outset that as a conservative, I have had no issues with my co-workers. To teach ESL only requires a masters degree. My co-workers are people who almost all have either lived in other countries, married spouses of other nationalities, and have opinions across the political spectrum. Usually we tend not to discuss politics in the office anyway. My campus activism, which has no doubt alienated some within the UCI administration and faculty in the humanities sections, has not touched upon my work in the Extension. Furthermore, I have made it a personal policy never to bring my personal beliefs into the classroom. I have reserved them for on-campus events, seminars, and comments in the campus newspaper.

In recent years, UCI has gotten a black eye due to incidents on campus involving groups like the Muslim Student Union (MSU) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Generally speaking, however, UCI is a school with a rather small humanities department, concentrating mostly on departments like engineering, biology, and other hard sciences etc. The overwhelming majority of UCI students don't get involved in campus craziness as they do at UCLA, Berkeley, and so many other universities around the country. Slightly over half of the student body is Asian-American, and they pretty much concentrate on their studies and enjoying their university experience. Most of the damage to the school's reputation is thanks to the above two groups.

For years, however, the MSU has annually sponsored an ugly week of events dedicated to bashing Israel. Many of their invited speakers can only be described as radicals, who also bash America and in some cases, Jews as people. In 2010, MSU disrupted the speech of Michael Oren, the then Israeli ambassador to the US. Just this past May, SJP disrupted a film event sponsored by Students Supporting Israel necessitating the call for campus police to quell the disturbance. No arrests were made, and only a warning letter was issued to SJP. Like so many other universities, the UCI administration has been sorely lacking in standing up to groups like these as well as confronting campus anti-Semitism. For this, I have publicly criticized the UCI administration as well as University of California presidents-past and present.

Being conservative, I have been appalled by the politically-correct liberal dominance on college campuses in general. To me, this is the culmination of a process that began when I was a college student in the 1960s, and we were experiencing campus protests over the Viet Nam war and other causes. It is safe to say that many of the campus protesters of the 1960s went on to become the professors and administrators of our universities decades later. This is a culture that has been decades in the making, and it will not soon go away. To be sure, students need to get a variety of different viewpoints, but most conservatives, in my view, would prefer to stay in the real world rather than put up with all the nonsense.

Still, it is troubling to see how our young people are being indoctrinated by so many professors in the classroom and led to believe that their country is imperialistic, racist, and in need of a drastic overhaul. In my view, it is necessary to inform the public what is going on in academia. After all, it is we who are footing the bill-at least for public universities. Fortunately, I think the message has now gotten out.

The past couple of years have been really troubling, yet comic in a way. The Black Lives Matter movement, which arrived about 50 years too late, has gained a lot of traction on University campuses. In places like the University of Missouri, administrators have resigned under pressure because of complaints of racism, some real, some imagined. In one astounding videotape, we watched a University of Missouri professor of journalism actually try to stop a student reporter from videotaping a  Black Lives Matter protest in a public space on campus. She actually called for "some muscle" to remove the young man. The university, figuring it had no use for a journalism professor who didn't understand the First Amendment, rightly fired her. Not surprisingly, many parents have opted not to send their kids to Mizzou resulting in a sharp decline in enrollment. I applaud those decisions just as I applaud the decision of Jewish parents not to send their kids to the University of California until it gets serious about the problem of campus anti-Semitism.

Similarly, we are seeing one of the most absurd movements of all as universities fall all over themselves to be "inclusive". White students are being actually demonized for their "inherent racism" and "privilege".  To be a person of color is noble. To be white is to be privileged. Indeed, many white students are rushing to don sack cloth and ashes not because of what they have done or said, rather because of what they are.

Even more absurd is the effort to make students feel secure, included and protected from such things as "macro-aggressions", "micro-aggressions", "trigger warnings" and other boogie men. Universities now talk of "safe spaces", where the little snowflakes (our term) can even hold teddy bears, hold hands and express their fears.

Just in time for President Donald Trump.

With Trump's election, our universities have truly lost their collective minds. Fortunately for them (and unfortunately for the rest of us) they already have the safe space infra-structure in place. University administrators, aided by their departments of equity, diversity and inclusion, are offering students counseling and group therapy sessions in order to cope with the pending arrival of the Evil Donald. If students are too traumatized to attend class or take a test, preferring to attend a protest instead, faculty are all too accommodating. (After all, they are probably too traumatized themselves to teach a class.) In effect, our universities have put their imprimatur on rejecting the results of this election. When a university president sends a campus-wide email out stating that "the university understands how deeply sad you feel about this election and we are here to help you," they are stating that they are also sorry that Hillary Clinton was not elected. That may be OK for a private school, but it is not OK for a public one.

To be fair, universities also have science departments, foreign language departments, engineering departments, and others where real education is taking place. It is in the humanities and social sciences where you usually see the misfit professors and indoctrinated students.  Entire departmental chairs devoted to ethnic studies, gender studies, and gay and lesbian studies are of questionable value other than fostering group identity and separating our students into tribes. Now some schools are even instituting black dorms. Segregated water fountains can't be far off. New words-especially pronouns-are being invented for those students who feel our current vocabulary is too sexist. The University of California at Santa Cruz, which I call, "America's Wackiest University", actually has a Community Studies department (teaching the little rascals how to organize and protest) as well as  a History of Consciousness Department, in which the notorious Angela Davis was a faculty member.

This is what we are paying for in California.

It is tempting to say that it can't get any worse than this, and that from now on, it can only get better. Yet until these universities see their enrollment and funding drying up, they will not reform. Until then I cannot answer the question of whether they have truly hit rock bottom. I try to maintain a sense of humor about it all. It is easy to laugh at the utter stupidity exhibited by people who, with their advanced degrees, should know better. It isn't funny, however, when you consider that every future leader of this great country is walking on our college campuses today.

Hussam Ayloush (CAIR) Shows His True Colors With Trump Election




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Hat tip Middle East Forum, National Review and Debra


Hussam Ayloush, CAIR's Southern California director, is a man who poses as a human rights activist. He is anything but. Here is what he had to say when America elected its new president, Donald Trump:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2016/11/cair-leader-overthrow-the-us-government

Ayloush, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood,  may think that he is living in Egypt or his native Syria, but he is not. This is America. This campaign may have been messy and ugly, but the actual election Tuesday night was fair and orderly. That is what separates us from the region from which Ayloush came. The "revolution" came from millions of people who merely went to the polls and voted. They didn't grab a gun and storm the capitol. They didn't take hostages or blow off bombs. They voted. That is what Mr. Ayloush wants to overthrow.

One can only hope that with a new administration, attorney general, and Justice Department, these organizations like CAIR and others will be thoroughly investigated, which they have not been since Obama came into office.


Qatar's $1,000,000,000 Gift to the Clinton Foundation While Hillary Was SecState




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


And she didn't tell the State Department



"The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments."


It's the very epitome of a conflict of interest. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state when Qatar, a nation that has also provided funding to terrorists, the home of Al Jazeera, gave $1,000,000,000 to the corrupt Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, in violation of her promise, she never told DOS about it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL

How many more blockbuster revelations will it take before the voters decide that we cannot have the corrupt Clintons back in the White House?