This is What We are Fighting

Among many on both sides of the political aisle there persists this screwball notion that America’s Constitution is, somehow, outdated or in need of a drastic overhaul. Solid evidence of this manifests in the way that so much of this nation’s judiciary—especially those of a particularly Liberal bent—feel compelled to needlessly “interpret” this explicit and well-written document. Not to be outdone, Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) refuse to abandon the field to their Democratic counterparts and have joined in the cry for limitations on First Amendment rights to free speech. Colorado’s ever-delightful Ann Barnhardt not so gently annihilated this intellectual midget in her 2011 two-part video.

In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut schoolhouse massacre, there has been a renewed attack upon Second Amendment rights to bear arms as well. Once again, in their desperate effort to harvest votes from political quadrants that would sooner give birth to a porcupine backwards than ever vote Republican, the GOP is actively promoting restriction of Second Amendment rights.

There are few better examples of this frontal assault upon the Constitution than a recent New York Times article titled, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution”, by op-ed contributor, Louis Michael Seidman, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC and author of, “On Constitutional Disobedience”. The author recently made this statement on the CBS television network.

You Tube participant, Scott Wilhelmsen, took umbrage at this hit piece and posted an instructive video that encapsulates several of the NYT article’s main points.

What follows are verbatim quotes from the NY Times article and the CBS appearance, respectively:

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.

Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity.

But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.

But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.
Taken in order, these astonishing declarations frequently contradict themselves and, just as often, ignore the political bedrock that makes them at all possible.

Seidman claims that, “… at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

Every word of which ignores how it is abrogation of the Constitution that is responsible for precipitating the vast majority of this nation’s current financial woes. Not least of which was abolition of the Gold Standard, which alone made possible unlimited printing of the fiat currency that now greases our skids as we hurtle towards the fiscal cliff.

Unable to withdraw the knife without first twisting the blade, Seidman smears the Constitution’s “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.” Having introduced the topic in these highly polarized terms, does the author then bother to go on and itemize exactly which provisions are so “archaic, idiosyncratic” or “downright evil”? Perish the thought that this “legal expert” might have to provide actual examples that support his claims instead of relying upon facts clearly not in evidence.

After making such unwarranted and unproven assertions, Seidman then goes on to note how, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.”

All the while he assiduously ignores how limitations upon free speech would be gigantic obstacles to “debating the merits of divisive issues”. Nor does this academic dullard seem to understand how seeking to dismantle the Constitution might, from the onset, have somehow “inflamed our public discourse.”

Just as obviously, the mask slips when Seidman makes reference to, “a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.”

Mentioning “white propertied men” is code-speak for neo-Communist “Social Justice” and its attempts to obtain reparations for institutionalized discrimination with total disregard for how, in an effort to address this issue, America’s government has enacted some of the most unconstitutional laws imaginable. Affirmative Action, minority hiring quotas, disparate impact legislation and small business loans restricted to minorities; the list is as lengthy as it is in direct opposition to Constitutional law.

Seidman is shameless in his attempt to resurrect that eternal bogeyman of slavery, even though all who participated in that abhorrent practice have been dead for nearly two centuries. Nor would such a political snake oil salesman bother to note how slavery was utterly reliant upon Black chieftains to provide the hapless victims; much less admit that Islamic slave traders returned to Muslim lands more slaves than were ever held in Europe and America combined. Only 5% of the 11 million Transatlantic slaves were destined for North America, whereas of the 140 million Islamic-held African slaves, estimates are that some 112 million of them perished before even reaching the auction block.

While the dirty business of slavery required bad actors of all races, Black, White and Arab; one metric shows who were the most humane. Transatlantic slave ships saw some 10% mortality in transit. Slaves sent to Muslim lands via the Trans Saharan routes experienced mortality rates of 80% to 90%. Beyond that, most African males were immediately castrated upon arrival and the vast majority of females were subjected to sexual slavery. For some obscure reason, academic poseurs like Seidman never mention these astonishing facts. Perhaps this data is too exculpatory of those “white propertied men” that he is so fond of denigrating.

One is obliged to speculate just how he might react when informed that the first American citizen to be granted permanent ownership of a slave was, Anthony Johnson, a Black man. Or, that by the year 1860, Black households in the city of New Orleans alone owned some 3,000 slaves.

Such inconvenient truths cannot dog a mind so closed as that of Seidman’s. Even as he makes the outlandish declaration that, “Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.”

At no time in recent history or, possibly, in its entire past—save, perhaps, the Civil War—has America ever been so close to such dire financial and social chaos. The current administration has made more than clear its admiration for totalitarian governments abroad and has passed more legislation than any other that could support the emergence of real tyranny in America.

To state, as Seidman does, that “Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution”; utterly ignores how—as a body of law—those fundamental freedoms found their first true enshrinement in the American Constitution. One may as well say that, “The Ten Commandments are all well and fine but whether or not they appear in the Bible is irrelevant.”

This flagrant disregard is only amplified by how Seidman closes that paragraph with, “We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.” I wonder how he would reconcile that with Abraham Lincoln’s statement—from his January 1838 "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois"—that:

… We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them--they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Their's was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
Should we feel no sense of “obligation” to those who valiantly risked life and limb—through Revolutionary, Civil and World Wars alike—to cement these fine political traditions so that ivory tower academics like Seidman may casually shrug off any sense of “obligation” in favor of some condescendingly and grudged feeling of “respect”?

As an undeserving inheritor of these hallowed political institutions, Seidman only manages to demonstrate further contempt by alluding to, “The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition.” This, coming from one who blatantly indulges in the Liberal practice of Magical Thinking™, easily one of the most superstitious mindsets on earth. Again, he closes his thoughts with yet another whopper, “As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity.”

This bald faced lie simply defies all logic or reason. It is precisely such rampant “constitutional infidelity” which has led America to the precipice, both financial and social, upon which it teeters today. Equally doubtful is this nation’s ability to successfully survive the catastrophic plunge, which awaits us due to such fiscal irresponsibility and socially divisive government policies; many of which are a direct byproduct of “constitutional infidelity.”

Seidman attempts to downplay his seditious tripe by saying that, “… even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.” As if strict adherence to Constitutional Law is some sort of pernicious drug “addiction” instead of a patriotic duty and such observance is a bad “habit” that needs to be kicked. What other bad habits would this cowardly rascal suggest we overcome; an unwillingness to let foreign powers dictate domestic policy, our resistance to Political Correctness, the American people’s justifiable insistence that all immigrants assimilate fully and demonstrate unalloyed patriotism?

Such concerns are brought into needle-sharp focus by a statement from Seidman’s CBS appearance, where he notes:

Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?
So what? Seidman acts as if America’s electoral college isn’t a bulwark against how “one man, one vote” could just as easily herald the swift onset of a “tyranny of the majority”.

So what? That someone so manifestly unqualified to occupy the Oval Office currently usurps the role of America’s Commander in Chief, even to the point of declaring America to be “a large Muslim nation”, despite how the actual number of Islamic Americans totals less than one percent (0.8%).

This same person who countenanced the murder of an American ambassador and refused to send readily available military assistance to protect American soil abroad nonetheless felt no compunction over appearing at terrorism central, al Azhar University in Cairo, to state that, “… America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.” This is the same person who seeks to de-nuclearize the world powers while rogue regimes in Iran and North Korea are zealously pursuing atomic weapons, even at the point of starving their own populations to do so.

On CBS, Seidman goes on to say that, “But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do.” Again, this academic pundit exhibits one of the most deleterious and habituated forms of behavior, which is consistently displayed by lawyers, judges, politicians and justices alike; a steadfast and almost unshakable, hardcore addiction to precedent.

So long as this reliance persists, there will not, nay cannot, be any return to actual Constitutional Law because it will always be perverted by the stumbling blocks of prior findings, even when those previous decisions represent the most base forms of illegal and incorrect Constitutional “interpretation”.

Again, in his “white propertied men” mode of Liberal code-speak, Seidman prattles on with, “So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.”

By doing so, he belittles the Second Amendment’s root cause regarding the right to bear arms as some odd and outdated residue of colonial times when, in fact, it is exactly the dread of a tyrannical government—which a well-armed citizenry has every good reason to resist—that the right to keep and bear arms so clearly addresses.

This sort of dismissive attitude constitutes some weird form of forensic name-calling, a favorite pastime of Liberals everywhere. As in, when you are called upon to produce factual evidence that backs up your unfounded assertions, immediately descend into vociferous name-calling. This summoning up of “white propertied men” is the latter day—though less obvious—equivalent of playing the race card. But, instead of talking about Black oppression, now it’s all about White Privilege.

In his next to last paragraph, Seidman claims, “This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.”

There, again, you see this academic wanker attempt to diminish the pertinence, even today, of the Founding Fathers. Their concerns then are our concerns now and the White House is currently advocating that the United Nations determine America’s right to bear arms through the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Similarly, by supporting UN sponsored legislation for international blasphemy laws, the White House is actively seeking to restrict Free Speech on American soil. This was made explicitly clear when a movie titled, “The Innocence of Muslims”, was purposely made into a scapegoat for 9-11 Atrocity anniversary celebrations in Benghazi, Libya. Instead of defending the movie producer’s right to Free Speech, this crude production was allowed to justify the invasion of International Soil and murder of an American diplomat abroad.

Seidman closes with this little gem; “If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.”

As if “our own country” would even exist today without having been sheltered under the strong wings of its Constitution. As if Seidman would have the fundamental right to make such preposterous claims in many other nations around the world without facing harsh prosecution, if not summary execution.

Like so many others, Seidman has forgotten that, before all else, aspiring tyrants first restrict Free Speech and then set about confiscating all weapons in public hands.

Throughout all of this, the entire concept of altering the Constitution via the historical method of ratified amendments seems to have been lost in the shuffle. We already have a way of changing the Constitution but, as is so often the case, the political and judicial elite find it far more preferable to warp and mutilate this precious document behind closed doors than to allow the will of the people to serve as arbiters of the real and only acceptable legal process.

Finally, nowhere does Seidman even question how America’s Presidential oath of office, demands that whomsoever is sworn in that capacity must, “…to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Then again, if the Constitution is no longer applicable, defending and protecting it isn’t much of a priority now, is it?

Tags: ENTER TAGS HERE To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

"A Time To Kill"

Patriot - if you already posted this I missed it, don't mean to duplicate.  I may have been the last to see and re-post but it needs to be read, again and again.

Hill, and Hussein O, and Janet, and Holder and every member of congress needs to be clear – there are Americans who disagree with their policies ie change for America.  They need to be reminded as Mark Levin said – November 6th was the election of a President.  The Constitution was NOT up for election.

Via - NCRenegade  –  A Time To Kill

I am a soldier.  I know what war looks like, what it sounds like, smells like, what it feels like in my soul.

I stand today in the twilight of my nation’s grace, looking into the darkness of impending war.

My sleep is troubled, knowing what awaits, yet the ignorant and the ‘true believers’ sleep easily in their delusions, and I am saddened by it.
Daily, I see the Blackhawk and Apache helicopters flying over my city, the military vehicles which appear so frequently now on our roads, often with ‘guns up’ in violation of Posse Comitatus, and I know why they prepare, that it is not far off.

Nightly I hear the report of gunfire near my home, the noise angry men make as they prepare to boil over.  These are not soldiers – they are but angry men.  And though I share their well-justified anger, I am cautious with them, for they are not disciplined, and they know not the face of war, nor the burdens it imposes upon mind, body, and soul.  Because of this, they are dangerous, and I am saddened by this – that dangerous men should roam the streets near my home, full of anger and the lust for vengeance.

All about me are the ceaseless murmurs of soulless politicians and media propagandists, who wear their agendas on their sleeves as a badge of superiority, and the boundless echoes of their contrived ‘message’ assaults me from all sides, even repeated from the mouths of dear friends, and I am saddened by it.

soldier-fighting-position-m240I bear witness to the fact that throughout my lifetime, the lifeblood of my republic has been drained away by greedy and self-serving men, from high to low, who contrive nought but deception against their neighbors and countrymen, and who fail to consider that their children and mine shall share the same fate, the same future, and I am saddened by it.

But I am a soldier, and I know what must be done; and so I shall put away my sadness and I shall harness up the bitter steed of war, and gird myself up for the battle; and I shall ride out to meet the enemies of Liberty; not in rage, not for anger sake or the hope of vengeance; but because I swore an oath before God, to jealously guard our Republic and its Constitution against all enemies; Him I shall not disappoint, for He is my Hope and my Trust.

Therefore, as much as my soul laments against the harsh truth before me, I make this declaration to my enemies who press me into this battle, that none shall be able to afterwards say “I did not know, you did not warn me”;

I do not care why you took that job with the government, or why you continue to hold it.  I only know that you have become Judas and sold yourself to an oppressive state - your government office buildings and vehicles are part of the battlefield, and as a soldier I shall act accordingly.

I do not care why, as a journalist, you choose to spin and corrupt the news, rather than report the plain truth and let the people judge for themselves.  I only know that you have violated the public trust in the most vile and seditious manner, and thus your homes, offices, studios, vehicles, and any other place you may find yourself are part of the battlefield, and as a soldier I shall act accordingly.

I do not care why you signed that union card.  I only know that you pay dues to a communist organization which conducts treasonous works against my Republic daily – and so your union hall and your work-sites are part of the battlefield, and as a soldier I shall act accordingly.

I do not care that you only voted for the traitor because you are elderly/disabled or otherwise dependent upon government largess.  Are you so ignorant and/or disinterested that you could not see through their propaganda, to the fact that your sustenance was assured either way?  What have you gained now that the public housing areas you live in, and the public facilities you depend on are part of the battlefield?  Though I am a soldier, I can afford you little protection, for you have placed yourselves on the battlefield.

sniper-fiftyI know that all of these places and all of these people are part of the battlefield, not just because I am a soldier, and have experienced a few battlefields in my day; but also because our President declares that even our own homes are on the battlefield, whether we wish them to be or not, and I have no choice but to believe him; it’s not just that the NDAA passed – a battlefield is not defined by law; it’s the profound build-up of martial power and resources across my once-great nation which tells me a battle is being prepared here.  

Over two billion rounds of ammunition procured by DHS and its sub-agencies in the past 18 months, plus machine guns in the tens of thousands, armored vehicles, combat aircraft, drones, and other implements of war being staged throughout our nation, our home – how do you explain that except as the preparation for battle?

Private-AI will fight not because I desire it, but because I cannot justify any other course of action – when the enemy attacks, you must fight – you must kill or you will die.

I smell you, my enemy; I can feel the ambush you have laid for me and my true countrymen, all about like a sticky spider’s web, yet we will not back down; and though you will kill some of us, you will not get us all before we have finished with you.

I stand here, ready, on the eve of battle, and I ask God why I have been brough to the threshold of this battlefield, about to be thrust in, when I though my soldiering days were through; and I am reminded that there is by His decree, a Time to Kill, as well as a Time to Die…  who am I to question why?

 Saddle up, boys, it’s time to ride out and meet them.


~Those who abuse Liberty, sentence themselves to Death!

Tags: War On America; The Constitution To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

A song for our time


 By JimmyZ

‘Liberty’ by Jordan Page (2010) – This has been one of my favorites since first hearing it in 2010. I read the lyrics on my show in fact a long time ago.

I think the voice is good and the melody is great, but the lyrics are downright brilliant. Each time I read through as he sings them, I find more to love about it. And where he sounded a little over the top in 2010, he now sounds more aware of what has been happening. Every DAY Obama is pulling another socialist rabbit out of his hat, and it’s getting to be more than a little upsetting.

I do think people should be spending more and more time talking to God and trusting Him, instead of looking to politicians. How can we still be disappointed by Republicans? They keep doing what they have been doing, can we be surprised anymore?

Anyway, please check out the lyrics here – I think he wrote a song for our times.

Lyrics are beneath the video.

‘Liberty’ (lyrics)

Why do we sit down when all should be standing / And why do we back down at the critical moment / Like running away from the waves of the ocean / We head for the hills with the high tide approaching / As sand slips away from the castle

When it’s time to stand upright why do we falter / Like placing our freedom on the sacrificial altar / We hold tight to our fears and defend our oppressors / As we fight for their lies and become the transgressors / As pacifists transform to violent aggressors

But I’m only a stranger here / I’m a long long way from my home / And they say I can’t change / All the things I find strange / For what can one man do alone / What can one man do alone

When is the right time to stand up for freedom / Could it be when you start to feel creating children / Who’ll inherit the pain and the debt of this nation / And be slaves to the banks that cause hyper-inflation / Who are masters of commerce, lies, and bad legislation

If you looked in the eyes of a thousand young children / Through fences of razors, their innocence stolen / As the red flag of tyranny flies in the open / Is that when you’ll finally notice

But I’m only a stranger here / I’m a long long way from my home / And they say I can’t change / All the things I find strange / For what can one man do alone / Yes what can one man do alone

I’m only a stranger looking to find better nature in my fellow man / But they keep telling me it’s a sin to be free / And that’s more than I’m willing to stand

Where will you be when the order is given / To censor your mind as free speech is forbidden / As martyrs for peace from the world will be driven / Away by the sound of a bellowing thunder / And choke on the blood of a dream going under

As arrogant men tear up our Constitution / And from every direction we cry R3VOLution! / Standing together and without permission / Soldiers for truth in the war of attrition / The love of our country as our ammunition

But I’m only a stranger here / I’m a long long way from my home / And I’m going to change / All the things I find strange / For I am not one man alone / Yes I’m only a stranger / I’m a long long way from my home / And I’m going to change / All the things I find strange / For I know that I’m not alone / Yes I know that I’m not alone, not alone

Source is here

Stolen from JimmyZ 

Tags: ENTER TAGS HERE To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

I will NOT submit! 400,762: I am humbled...

400,762 views, page views, hits, whatever you want to call them. It is a small thing in the blogging world. These are not large or huge numbers but this site has never been about numbers. It is about FREEDOM.

 4753 Posts and I am not dead yet!

Incredibly humbling and honored to say the least. The focus of Patriot's Corner has evolved and will be evolving.

Counterjihadist I am. Constitution loving, second amendment keeper, I will always be. If my blood must be spilled on my front steps, inside my home or in the streets, then so be it. I am and will be at peace. Nothing more, nothing less.

As I have often stated, I am a simple man. Complicate me and you will be snake bit.

Standing in the watchtower, over Jerusalem. From my still warm, dead hands you will have to pry my love for freedom, liberty and AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.

It is who I am, have always been, and will always be.

Questions? I did not think so.

Tags: ENTER TAGS HERE To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Brownshirts in Action at UC Davis

Gary Fouse

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"

Another shameful episode has occurred on a University of California campus-this time at UC Davis last November, when the usual pro-Palestinian thugs  engaged in thuggery against Jewish students. The below letter is from Tammi Benjamin, a teacher at UC Santa Cruz and co-founder of the AMCHA Initiative, which is attempting to combat anti-Semitism on California college campuses. The letter is to UC Davis President Linda Katehi.

From: Tammi Benjamin 
Date: January 28, 2013 8:45:53 AM PST
Subject: Jewish students threatened at UC Davis event

Dear Chancellor Katehi,
As you know, we are faculty members at the University of California, who have been investigating and documenting anti-Jewish bigotry on California public university campuses for the last several years.  
We are writing to you now to express our serious concern regarding an incident that occurred during a student protest on November 19, 2012, during which UCD students “occupied” an administration building on campus. We believe that numerous violations of state and federal law and university policy may have occurred at the event.  To our knowledge, your administration has neither acknowledged nor addressed these violations.
In addition, it appears that at least 5 university administrators, including the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, were present and witnessed much of this behavior, yet they did not take action to ensure the safety of the students who were targets of possible assault and hate crimes. Please see below for an account of the events as well as the federal and state laws and university policies which were potentially violated as a result of them.
Detailed Account of Events
Takeover of Dutton Hall
We have learned the following from newspaper articles, on-line videos, and conversations with Jewish students who attended the rally on the East Quad and the subsequent "occupation" of Dutton Hall.
 At 12:30pm on November 19, a rally entitled "March in Solidarity with Gaza," sponsored by the Graduate Student Association, began on the East Quad. (See HERE for an announcement of the rally).
 At approximately 2pm, about 40 of the protesters marched from the East Quad to Dutton Hall, where they hung a larger banner that read "DAVIS+GAZA ARE ONE FIST" from the building's entryway and "occupied" the building's entrance hall. Several protesters held anti-Israel and anti-Zionist signs and large banners, two of which read "DEATH TO ZIONISM" and "LONG LIVE THE INTIFADA!" 
 The occupation leaders refused entry to Jewish students who were known to identify with the Jewish state, and at least one Jewish student associated with a pro-Israel group on campus reported that when he tried to enter Dutton Hall at the beginning of the "occupation," a rally organizer physically blocked his entry through the front doors and refused to let him pass, because he was a "Zionist."
 At about 2:15pm, three Jewish students managed to slip into Dutton Hall, and one of them proceeded to film the discussion taking place inside the "occupied" entrance hall. Although a chief complaint of the "occupiers" was that pro-Palestinian students were being stifled on campus and not afforded their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of speech, nevertheless, several times in the 20 minutes of the rally captured  the "occupiers" themselves expressed the sentiment that "Zionists," including pro-Israel students at UCD, should not be given freedom of speech. For example, when a Jewish student wanted to know whether free speech could involve a civil discussion between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian perspectives, the leader answered, "I would say absolutely not. I would never discuss anything with Hitler.  He is our enemy...there's no question of free speech when it comes to the Nazis. And the KKK, when they march in Sacramento and the cops defend them...you should not talk to these white supremacist, racist, mother-fuckers." 

 Escalation of the Protest
 At about 2:30pm the rally leader said, "I just want everyone to know that there are Zionists filming everything we’re saying, and I think we should ask them to leave." Several protesters demanded that the Jewish students leave the public building, loudly chanting “Leave our space” and “Shame on you” repeatedly, and accusing the Jewish students of “hate speech” because of their support for Israel.

After the Jewish student stopped filming, most of the 40 protesters surrounded the Jewish students, who were standing up against a wall of windows, and screamed "Death to Israel," "Fuck Israel," and other curses. For about 10 minutes the protesters, many of whom stood 1 to 2 feet away from the Jewish students, continued to scream at the Jewish students to leave Dutton Hall and pounded their fists into their hands in a threatening way. Although the Jewish students were not physically harmed, they reported feeling physically and emotionally harassed and threatened until they finally managed to leave the building.
 When an Aggie photographer who had photographed the confrontation inside the hall followed the Jewish students outside for comments and contact information, protesters at the rally turned on him and demanded to see his photos of the physical confrontation and that he delete them.  Aggie staff members were also told by protesters that unless they were on the side of the "occupiers," they would also have to leave the administration building.
 See article written by an Aggie staff member (below)  In the article, the staff member asserts, “We witnessed many students…[end] up leaving, disgusted, as soon as the bullying began. Free speech is crucial. Ideally, our campus would be rife with protests, counter-protests and open dialogue regularly. But if students are scared to speak — scared of other students who resort to intimidation tactics — we have a serious problem.”


At approximately 2:45pm, after a student in Dutton Hall expressed disagreement with one of the protest signs, a protester grabbed his collar, raised his fist and forced the student to leave the building.
 UCD and Staff Member Witnesses of Event
According to a student outside of Dutton Hall at the time of the "occupation," 3 UCD administrators (the Vice Chancellor and 2 Associate Vice Chancellors of Student Affairs) and 2 staff members associated with the Center for Student Involvement were right outside the building during the "occupation." According to one of the 3 Jewish students surrounded by protesters inside Dutton Hall, since she and her friends were standing against a bank of windows which were in full view of those standing outside, she believed the 5 administrators and staff members could see them being harassed and intimidated by the mob of protesters.
 The administrators and staff standing outside did nothing to help the 3 Jewish students, but when they exited the building, one of the administrators asked one of the students if she was OK, which suggests that the administrator had witnessed the violent behavior of the protestors but did not take action. The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, who it appears also witnessed the protestors’ behavior toward the Jewish students, spoke earlier that afternoon at the rally on the East Quad, where she was quoted as saying: “I will not permit violence to occur in the context of free speech.” There were no other administrators, staff or faculty present at the rally inside Dutton Hall, and at no time did any campus police appear in or near the hall.


Violations of Federal, State, and University Policy
We would like to bring to your attention the following aspects of this deeply troubling series of events:
1) We believe that incidents of this sort have the potential to create liability under the following legal authority:
  • Civil assault (Restatement 2d, Torts §21) - "An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with a person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension."
  • Civil battery (Restatement 2d, Torts §13,18) - "An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with a person, and (b) harmful or offensive contact with the person directly results."
  • Criminal assault (CA Penal Code 240) - Assault is "an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another." To be charged with criminal assault, physical contact is not required.  A person must simply place another in reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm.
  • Criminal battery (CA Penal Code 242) - Battery is "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another."
  • Disturbing the peace (CA Penal Code 415(3) - It is illegal to “…maliciously and willfully disturb another person by loud and unreasonable noise…[and to] use offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.” In other words, it is illegal to use “offensive words” that “necessarily invite a breach of the peace.”
  • CA Civil Code 51.7 “The Ralph Civil Rights Act” - "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics."
  • CA Civil Code 52.1 “The Bane Civil Rights Act” -  "If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured."
  • CA Penal Code 422.6 - "No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim."
  • Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) We believe the protesters' behavior may have violated the following UC Davis policies and principles:

  • UC Standards of Conduct for Students 102.06 -  prohibiting the “unauthorized possession…of any University properties.”
  • UC Standards of Conduct for Students 102.08 -  prohibiting  “physical assault, including threats of violence, or other conduct that threatens the health or safety of a person.” 
  •  UC Standards of Conduct for Students 102.09 - prohibiting racial and other forms of harassment, defined as “conduct that is so severe…objectively offensive, and so substantially impairs a person’s access to University programs or activities, that the person is effectively denied equal access to the University’s resources and opportunities on the basis of his or her race…national or ethnic origin, alienage, religion…or perceived membership in any of these classifications.”
  • UC Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students (PACAOS) Section 30 - “The University is committed to assuring that all persons may exercise the constitutionally protected rights of free expression, speech, assembly, and worship…It is the responsibility of the Chancellor to assure an ongoing opportunity for the expression of a variety of viewpoints.”
  •  UC Davis Policies and Procedures Manual Ch. 270 Section 05(C) -  “The University prohibits illegal, arbitrary, or unreasonable discriminatory practices. Campus organizations receiving University privileges, assistance, or supervision must abide by the University’s policy on nondiscrimination to qualify for any University privileges or assistance.”
  • UC Davis Policies and Procedures Manual Ch. 270 Section 20 - Public expression in the form of freedom of speech and advocacy may be exercised on University properties at such times and places and in such a manner as is compatible with the use of the property and as follows: 1) Assures orderly conduct; 2) Avoids disruption or interference with University operations; 3) Allows for the free flow of persons and traffic; 4) Avoids disruption or interference with the ability of the University to carry out its responsibilities as an educational institution; 5) Protects the rights of all individuals who use University properties; 6) Protects persons against practices that would make them involuntary audiences; 7) Assures the safety of all members of the University community; 8)  Does not interfere with property entrances or exits.
  • UC Davis Student Judicial Affairs Statement on Free Expression - “Efforts to quell unpopular opinions (e.g., by shouting down a speaker) stifle discourse and cut off dialogue…Even legal acts of intolerance and incivility erode our capacity to trust, and to work, live, and learn together...We can uphold both the need for respect and understanding and the right of free speech by responding appropriately to each incident. Crimes must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent, and infringement of civil rights must be addressed by campus administrative processes and/or state or federal agencies. Discriminatory acts or violations of campus conduct standards, including disruption, are subject to disciplinary sanctions or grievances.”
  •  UC Davis Principles of Community - “strives to maintain a climate of justice marked by respect for each other….affirms the right of freedom of expression…and commitment to the highest standards of civility and decency towards all…recognizing the right of every individual to think and speak as dictated by personal belief, to express any idea, and to disagree with or counter another's point of view… promoting open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity and respect.” In addition UC Davis vows to “confront and reject all manifestations of discrimination, including those based on race, ethnicity…religious or political beliefs, status…or any of the other differences among people which have been excuses for misunderstanding, dissension or hatred…striving to build a true community based on mutual respect and caring."

3) We believe the UCD administrators and staff members who witnessed the illegal and unethical behavior of the protestors but did not take action may have been negligent in carrying out their administrative responsibilities:

  • The Vice Chancellor and 2 Associate Vice Chancellors of Student Affairs who witnessed the "occupation" are responsible for Student Judicial Affairs, whose role is to enforce community standards and campus codes of conduct. As noted above, the protestors were in blatant violation of several UC policies which have the primary goal of ensuring student safety.  Evidence points to the fact that the administrators were aware of most, if not all, of these violations, and that student safety was being threatened as a result of their inaction.
  • Two staff members from the UCD Center for Student Involvement witnessed the "occupation." CSI avows that it promotes the UC Davis Principles of Community, which affirm the right of freedom of expression within the Davis community and its commitment to the highest standards of civility and respect, by helping students learn from each other in a safe and constructive environment.  However, during the solidarity rally, the protestors were in blatant violation of the Principles of Community in addition to violating 7 UCD students’ rights of free expression.  Protestors also failed to treat these students with civility and respect. The staff members from this department did not ensure a safe and constructive environment for students when they failed to intervene during a student group’s assault, harassment and violation of fellow students’ rights.

Outcome of the Events
Jewish UCD students, within sight of UCD administrators and on public university property, were harassed, intimidated, and physically threatened. This is an abrogation of university policy and unlawful. 
We are deeply concerned about the virulent and hate-filled actions taking place on the UCD campus as a result of students’ religion and beliefs. And we are also concerned for the safety and well-being of Jewish students who want to feel free to express their beliefs and attend public university events without fear of harm or intimidation.
As the Chancellor of UC Davis, we know that you too have these same concerns.
As a result, the following are important actions that we urge you to take now in order to protect the physical and emotional safety and civil rights of Jewish (and all) students on your campus:
  • University policy must spell out actions that campus police, administrators, and staff are responsible for taking to ensure the safety and civil rights of all students, and we urge that this policy be published widely to the campus community.
  • Police, administrators, and staff must be immediately informed about actions they should take and protocols they can access to afford all members of the campus community — including Jewish students — the protections that are afforded to them under University policy and state and federal law.
  • Perpetrators of disruptive and threatening behavior must be identified and appropriately disciplined.
  • The University Chancellor should use her First Amendment rights to consistently and publicly condemn behavior which targets other students for harassment and intimidation.
  • The official status and funding of student groups that engage in behavior which targets other students for harassment and intimidation should be subject to suspension and revocation.

We look forward to hearing from you whether these steps can be taken to ensure that Jewish UCD students – and all UCD students – can enjoy a campus where they feel safe, protected, and able to enjoy their civil rights no matter their identity or beliefs.
You will be receiving a copy of this letter by U.S. mail.
Leila Beckwith
Professor Emeritus, University of California at Los Angeles
Co-founder the AMCHA Initiative

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin
Lecturer, University of California at Santa Cruz
Co-founder the AMCHA Initiative

Cc:   UC President Mark Yudof
        UC Regents
        UC Chancellors
        UC General Counsel Charles Robinson
        UC Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion (c/o Jesse Bernal)
        UC Davis Counsel Steven Drown 
        California Speaker of the Assembly John A. Perez
        California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson
        California State Senator Lois Wolk  (Davis)
        California State Assembly Member Mariko Yamada  (Davis)
        Congressman John Garamendi (3rd District) 
Bcc:    Members and supporters of the Jewish community

If you are wondering where the campus police were, probably hiding under their desks on the orders of Chancellor Katehi. This incident occurred on the one-year anniversary of the protest in which UCD police pepper-sprayed unruly students who refused to get up off their sorry duffs and disperse only to be condemned by the university. Is it any wonder they were afraid to intervene?

This is the kind of outrageous nonsense that UC President Mark Yudof (and his predecessors) have presided over for years. Instead of brown shirts, black and white checkered kaffiyah-clad thugs and nitwits swagger around campuses bullying any Jewish student who dares stand up for Israel while university officials stand by silently and passively. Talk about the inmates running the institution.

Let's not forget the professors here. These dopey kids are merely acting out the indoctrination they are getting from UC professors just as their counterparts at Harvard, Columbia, Yale and countless other universities.

Until the university gets a bold and competent president as well as bold and competent administrators, this shameful behavior will continue. Unfortunately, it will take a drastic change in the university's culture before that happens.

Speaking the truth about Islam and sharia-Vincent Bruno Otero

Straight from Creeping Sharia. We here do know what sharia is, how evil and perverted this and Islam truly are. Last week we posted a video by Vincent Bruno – NYC College Tutor Takes on Islam (video).

Here’s the latest via YouTube.

Watch your back Vincent, watch your back! PatriotUSA

In the first video we referred to Bruno as a student but he may actually be an intern or employee at Hunter College. Either way, it seems he has worn his welcome.

Update: Per his comment below, he is a tutor not a student.

Vincent Bruno Otero, on January 28, 2013 at 12:12 PM said:

WOW! Thanks once again for your support, so much appreciate it! We are going to see what happened. The complaint has been filed with the NYS Department of Human Rights and as of this morning I got word the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at CUNY is on the case with Hunter College (Thanks To The Email Campaign That Everyone Helped With!). Let’s see what happens. Things are moving and we Infidels are uniting, just what we wanted!

P.S. I am a Tutor at the College ;)

Source is here from Creeping Sharia.

Tags: ENTER TAGS HERE To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Reveals The Abyss

America.  One foot firmly planted on the road to tyranny, one foot firmly planted on the terra firma that is everything some have stood for, and died for, for over two hundred years, a Constitutional Republic.

You notice I say some because it is obvious all are not of the same American dream.  For half of America and our current government, the Constitution stands in the way of (here comes that word) fairness.  

And thus the abyss clearly revealed stands in wait of one, or the other.  Or both?

From - David Mamet - Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers,  far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

Huckster, soapbox, inflaming passions.  The ultimate actors so skilled as to be able to take a script and make some believe the illusion to be true.  But it is a lie and these same actors seemingly (notice the emphasis) believe, and therefore with their slick performances, encourage the blind, deaf and dumb to consume their bullshit.

There can be no clearer example of this than what we saw this week in the Benghazi hearings.  Hillary Clinton's answers to Rand Paul's questioning regarding what I shall call gun running. There were no answers per se, but complete, intentional, obfuscation.

Rand Paul:  “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Hillary Clinton: “To Turkey?”  “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

RPl: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

HC:  “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

RP:  “You’re saying you don’t know?”

HC:  “I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

The smartest woman in America, head of the State Department, has never heard such a thing, or read such a thing, despite it having been written about from basically day one of BenghaziGate. 

We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”

What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.

The Founding Fathers knew it is governments nature to morph into tyranny if it goes unchecked by - We, The People.  Without the help of many more Americans by our side, slavery, and worse, is our future.

behold the abyss



Tags: War On America; BenghaziGate; Let's Roll America! To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Muslim Awareness Week at UC Irvine (2013) Sohail Daulatzai

Gary Fouse

This week, Sohail Daulatzai was one of the featured speakers at UC Irvine, hosted by the Muslim Student Union as part of their annual Muslim Awareness Week. The theme of the week's events was, "Meet the Muslim next door". Daulatzai, who teaches African-American Studies at UCI, spoke on "Return of the Mecca: Muslims, Multi-Culturalism and the Enduring Legacy of Malcolm X".

Due to family illness, I was unable to attend the event. However, I was able to learn a few details about Dr Daulatzai. He was born somewhere on the Pakistan, Afghanistan border (not further specified) came to the US with his parents and grew up somewhere on the US-Mexican border (not further specified).


Below is his UCI faculty page.


Below is an article Daulatzai wrote on Malcolm X, which appears on Al Jazeera. I have chosen certain excerpts.


"For to be black in America is enough to be deemed un-American, but to be black and Muslim is to be anti-American"

"In Cairo, Malcolm implored the heads of state not to be fooled by the "imperialist wolf" of the US or the State Department's attempts to use propaganda to convince African nations that the United States was making serious progress toward racial equality through Brown v Board and the passage of Civil Rights legislation." 

"In highlighting the use of propaganda and the managing of America's image abroad, Malcolm anticipated not only how after 9/11 the State Department would place Muslims in high profile positions in the arts and political realms to influence Muslim public opinion abroad, but also how the election of Obama and the rhetoric of "diversity" would be used to redefine America as inclusive, "post-racial" and progressive in order to mask the entrenchment of white power domestically and globally".  

"While Obama went to Egypt to co-opt this sacred city and put a benevolent face on American power, Malcolm had been there to strip away the veneer of benevolence and reveal the naked truth about US racial injustice and imperial ambition. This is why the legacy of Malcolm X is so important, as it sheds light on the racial dynamics that shape the global landscape today under US power."  

"Just as "anti-communism" was a proxy for race during the Cold War, "anti-terrorism" has become the new proxy for race and the re-entrenching of white supremacy by justifying US intervention abroad while also containing dissent domestically, as the logic of "terrorism" is used to determine who is a citizen and who is an enemy, who is human and who is not, and who is to be killed and who is allowed to live". 

"It's the recognition that the logic of mass incarceration in the US that has destroyed black political possibility and contained dissent through local policing and counter-insurgency is also what drives the US military and its imperial imprisonment in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram and other places. It's the recognition that the plight of migrants across the heavily militarised US-Mexico border resembles the conditions that contain and destroy Palestinian lives and livelihood. And it's the recognition that the neoliberal economic policies that have destroyed the social wage and witnessed the emergence of the warfare state in the US is deeply rooted in the exploitation of the third world through global finance capital and war." 

"To ignore this falls into the worst forms of liberal internationalism that presume the US to be a force for good in the world, and it replicates the very problem that Malcolm X heroically struggled against, and was ultimately killed for."  (emphasis mine)

I'll stop there. I think you get the point. It appears obvious that Dr Daulatzai doesn't have a very high opinion of his adopted country. He also seems to think that nothing has changed (racially) in America since the time of Malcolm X. Of course, I doubt seriously that Daulatzai was here at the time.

It is bad enough that Daulatzai is teaching college kids that America is such an evil nation, but when he suggests  that Malcolm X was killed because of his criticism of the US and its policies, that is a flat-out falsehood.

Sorry, Doctor. You have been watching too many Spike Lee movies and buying into too many conspiracy theories. Malcolm X was murdered by the Nation of Islam on the orders of Elijah Mohammed (never charged) because he become a Sunni Muslim, had broken with the organization, was publicly critical of it,  and was exposing Elijah's corruption and illicit sexual relations. Malcolm's widow, Betty Shabazz, spent the remainder of her life believing that the current leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, was involved in the conspiracy to kill Malcolm.

This is the problem, folks. This is what our children are being taught in American universities-that their country is inherently evil and has not changed racially since the 1950s and 1960s. Daulatzai refers to the fear of communism driving the US's international policies. Let's put it another way since I also grew up during the Cold War. After World War 2, we were locked in a struggle with the USSR for our freedoms and the freedom of the world. From Korea to Vietnam to Nicaragua, you can criticize the policies in retrospect, but  it has to done within the context of the Cold War. Had the USSR prevailed in that struggle, who would be living in freedom today? In fact, were it not for the US and our military, who would be living in freedom today?

Personally, it makes me sick that we have professors like Daulatzai in our universities. At the risk of sounding jingoistic, I will even say that if Daulatzai has so little regard for his adopted country, as reflected in the above article, why doesn't he go back to that place on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border from which he came? Surely, he would have little problem in finding like-minded friends.

And how ironic that the MSU's theme for the week was, "Meet the Muslim next door." I feel sorry for whomever is unfortunate to be living next door to Sohail Daulatzai.