Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Is Political Correctness Being Exposed For The Lie It Is?

  • As the Hirsi Ali case demonstrated, many serious-minded people simply could not distinguish between genuine, often racist, hatred for Muslims and informed criticism of Islam as an ideology.
  • "[I]n relation to Ms Allman, I am confident [law student Robbie Travers's] actions were in response to her comments and her position, and unrelated to her race." — Catriona Elder, University of Edinburgh.
  • Let us hope that this will be the first of many more recognitions that it is improper, not least in a university setting, for one side to silence the other, especially by deceitful means.
When Esme Allman, a second-year law student at Edinburgh University, issued a maliciously-worded complaint to the university authorities concerning Robbie Travers on September 6, she must have been confident that her status as a black female politically correct activist would guarantee a listening ear. Her complaint (see below) was constructed in such a way that it seemed Mr Travers would find no way out of the predicament in which she had placed him. Had the university acted on her charges, there is little doubt that Travers's university career and future prospects would be damaged beyond repair. That certainly seems to have been her intent. The story was widely reported in the British press and here on Gatestone, for whom Travers had written. Her specific claim -- that Travers's calling Islamic State fighters "barbarians" and mocking their aspiration to marry 72 virgins in heaven should they die as martyrs in battle was racist and Islamophobic -- did not go down with members of the British public, who were only too aware of the multiple barbarities committed by IS terrorists abroad and in Europe, including in the UK.

Robbie Travers, falsely accused of "Islamophobia" for calling ISIS terrorists "barbarians." (Photo: Robbie Travers/Instagram)

However, even if this charge did seem no more than silly, her full complaint could not, on the face of it, be so readily dismissed. Here is the complaint as it was sent to Travers:
I am submitting a complaint about Robbie Travers due to his targeting of minority students and student spaces at the University of Edinburgh. While I have not met him personally, given my matriculation at the University of Edinburgh, my membership of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) liberation group [Liberation from what? Question by MacEoin] at the university, and how I identify personally, I take issue with this clear and persistent denigration and disparagement of protected characteristics and blatant Islamophobia.
While this has gone on for years as evidenced by his Facebook Page, his direct and unfair targeting of this year's outgoing BME convenor Esme Allman was irresponsible and dangerous. On Sunday, 14/05/17, Travers published a decontextualized quote by Allman from a privileged conversation generated by minority students in a safe space [If the conversation was public, how is it "privileged"? Question by MacEoin] he is neither subscribed to nor a member of without her consent. In this intentional effort to 'ruin her career', Travers disclosed Allman's full name, her position at the university, and (implicitly) the university she attends and the city she lives in to his 17,000+ followers some of whom have evidenced either in the past or within the comments of the status, aggression and discussed sensitive information regarding Allman's sexuality and identity.
Since then, Travers has stated that he intends to continue this inappropriate and irresponsible behaviour by advising that this is "phase 1," and he has many other "stings" planned.
In this 2016/2017 school year alone, Robbie Travers has consistently mocked, disparaged, and incited hatred against religious groups and protected characteristics on numerous occasions.
Not only do I believe this behaviour to be in breach of the student code of conduct, but his decision to target the BME liberation group at the University of Edinburgh, and how he has chosen to do so, puts minority students at risk and in a state of panic and fear while attending the University of Edinburgh.
His continual public disregard for other identities leaves me concerned for my safety and privacy as well as the safety of other students at the University of Edinburgh, given his willingness to remove statements from context and presenting them to a massive online audience, and the uninhibited and in some instances aggressive response of strangers to his statements.
This person has gone unchecked throughout their time at this university in their constant barrage against minority identities and religious groups and attacks of BME and other minority students on campus. There is ample evidence of his willingness and ability to incite hatred against students who belong to various identities at the University of Edinburgh. In lying about anti-Semitism, racism, and radicalisation among BME students, and subjecting students to his online following, Robbie Travers has put minority students, liberation group representatives, and the safe spaces they create and maintain at the University of Edinburgh at risk of harm, physical or otherwise.
Over the past two decades, many universities in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe have shown themselves to be supine when faced with disruptive, hate-filled, and at times violent behavior on the part of students and student groups that agitate on issues concerning racism, homophobia, or, above all else, efforts to demonize Israel to get it excised by the international community. From time to time student activists have been exerting pressure on university and college administrations to deny a platform to people with whose views they disagree.
In 2014, for instance, a heroic Somali-born best-selling author, former member of Parliament in the Netherlands, and womens' rights activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, respected for her campaign against female genital mutilation and forced marriage, as a victim of both -- was blocked from visiting Brandeis University, where she had been invited to receive an honorary degree and deliver a commencement address. Students who disliked her criticisms of Islam (a religion which she had abandoned and about which she has serious human rights concerns) delivered a petition that called for her to be silenced.

Somali-born best-selling author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was blocked from delivering the 2014 commencement address at Brandeis, or from receiving an honorary degree, due to her criticism of Islam. (Photo by Elisabetta Villa/Getty Images)

George Leef, writing for Forbes magazine summed it up:
The pressure of an online petition with over 6,000 names was too much for Brandeis to bear. On April 8, the university released a statement announcing its cancellation of the honorary degree. In it, Brandeis said that although Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a "compelling public figure and advocate for women's rights" it could not grant the honorary degree because some of her statements "are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."
Encouraging a clash of different opinions, however, is the most central value of any university, and without it such an institution would cease to be worthy of the name. Despite that, student bullies continue to rant and make demands that only serve to destroy the reputations of the schools they attend. Administrators cave in, speakers are banned, and students across the board who disagree with what is regarded by some as the latest politically correct dogma are attacked, scorned, bombarded with threats, and sometimes death threats.
Why do administrators cave in so easily? It pays to take a step back. From the 1960s onwards, university heads learned to take positive action on genuine issues that arose on campus as part of wider social change. It was considered noble to act against racism, to support women's rights, to end discrimination against gay students, and to ensure that members of minority groups (Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Latinos, gays and so on) were protected and respected. Important steps were taken to end discrimination. Import codes of ethics were created, often in line with state or national legislation. It became difficult for college officials to appear to be weak when confronted by charges of racism, homophobia, and -- a new and ill-defined concept -- "Islamophobia". As the Hirsi Ali case demonstrated, many serious-minded people simply could not distinguish between genuine, often racist, hatred for Muslims and informed criticism of Islam as an ideology.
It was (and still generally is) only when things got out of hand that administrations stood up against angry narrow-minded students and faculty. Anti-Israel movements have been among the most unjust and prevalent. The best summary of the many incidents over the years can be read here. In addition to criticizing the only democracy in the Middle East that actually protects equality under law and the human rights of all its citizens, the most notable aspect of this assault is the extent to which genuinely anti-Semitic words and behavior have been allowed to pass with a lack of constraint tantamount to complicity.
It is only when things escalate to the point where protesters have to be dragged out by security guards or the police have to be called that administrators wake up to the fact that more is involved than polite disagreement. There are, however, small signs that some administrators are waking up to the wider issues. That was demonstrated recently when UC Irvine acted to clamp down heavily on its chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), sanctioning it with "disciplinary probation" for two academic years after its use of extreme disruption at events organized by Students Supporting Israel. Positive though that this is, Edward Kunz has said:
"While the disciplinary probation at UCI will send a message that SJP's disruptive and uncivil activities will not be tolerated, it demonstrates a troubling trend of administrators refusing to take strong action against students violating their own policies until pushed to do so."
Which thought brings us to the extremely good news that officials at Edinburgh University have acted against that trend in a manner that gives cause for celebration. It took only days for two officials there, Catriona Elder and Gavin Douglas, to investigate the charges laid against Robbie Travers by Esme Allman. By the time they had finished, they dismissed the charges and wrote to Travers in clear and balanced terms giving their reasons for that dismissal. It may have been tempting for them to sanction Travers in order to avoid further protests from Allman and her supporters, but the investigators declined to do that in the interests of justice and the values of the university.
Here is the letter sent by Elder to Travers:
Dear Mr Travers,
I have now completed my investigation into allegations of misconduct that have been made against you under the Code of Student Conduct.
I have investigated potential breaches of the Code of Student Conduct, with specific reference to the following possible misconduct offences:
Complaint 1
12.3 Violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behavior or language (whether expressed orally, in writing or electronically) including harassment of any Person whilst engaged in any University work, study or activity;
12.4 Conduct which unjustifiably infringes freedom of thought or expression whilst on University premises or engaged in University work, study or activity;
12.7 Harassing, victimizing, or discriminating against any Person on grounds of age, disability, race, ethnic or national origin, religion or beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, marriage or civil partnership, colour or socio-economic background.
Complaint 2
12.3 Violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behavior or language (whether expressed orally, in writing or electronically) including harassment of any Person whilst engaged in any University work, study or activity;
12.7 Harassing, victimizing, or discriminating against any Person on grounds of age, disability, race, ethnic or national origin, religion or beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, marriage oir civil partnership, colour or socio-economic background.
My decision, following the investigation, is to:
44a. Dismiss the allegations of misconduct. In relation to both complaints, I found that the evidence presented did not support a finding that the code of Student Conduct had been breached.
Backing this up, one of the investigators provided further details as to the factors that led them to dismiss the allegations. It has been received in a private communication to this author.
In the course of my investigation, I have not seen any evidence that Mr Travers targeted Ms Allman or any other individual on the basis of their race or another protected characteristic as detailed in section 12.7. Mr Travers told me he planned to "expose" the BMELG in a series of posts, and described it elsewhere as a "sting". There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Travers planned to target the group before he became aware of the comments made by Ms Allman, or that he would have acted very differently had it been a different Students' Association group concerned. While I have seen rather controversial comments with the potential to cause offence made by Mr Travers on his Facebook page, I have also seen some evidence of Mr Travers actively disagreeing with others who have expressed racist or xenophobic comments in response to Mr Travers' (sic) posts. Mr Travers expresses frequent provocative opinions on Islam, however it is usually clear where he delineates between commentary on Islam, and more specifically political Islam, and condemnation of Islamic fundamentalism. I do not therefore believe that Mr Travers' online activity jeopardises the safety of Edinburgh University students. I have seen no evidence of individuals or groups being targeted based on their protected characteristics, and in relation to Ms Allman, I am confident his actions were in response to her comments and her position, and unrelated to her race. I find therefore that there has been no breach of section 12.7.
Let us breathe sighs of relief that, at least on this occasion, a vindictive accusation has been relegated to the obscurity in which it belongs. And let us hope that this will be the first of many more recognitions that it is improper, not least in a university setting, for one side to silence the other, especially by deceitful means.
Dr. Denis MacEoin took his second degree (in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History) from Edinburgh University in 1975 and has spent many years since then researching and writing on Islamic topics. He writes as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Trump Not Getting Support From Ryan


BREAKING: Paul Ryan Issues Nasty Message To Trump

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), has shown on multiple occasions that he has no regard for President Donald Trump. Most recently, he made a bold statement that is an insult not just to the president, but to every American who voted for him as well.
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and multiple other sources, informed Breitbartthat during a private dinner Ryan made a bold claim about Trump’s border wall. He stated that only “one member” is interested in building the wall, possibly referring to President Trump himself. In effective, Ryan was saying that the wall isn’t going to happen. This statement occurred on the evening after the House passed two important immigration bills, namely Kate’s Law and a bill that enacted reforms on sanctuary cities.
Tancredo explained to Breitbart News exactly what happened. According to the former House representative, “Ryan told a group of Republicans he met with…that only one person wants a wall.”
As most people are aware, there are far more people than just President Trump who want this border wall to go up. “I know several people in Congress who want a wall, and I know that there are millions of Americans who want a wall,” Tancredo said.
The battle against illegal immigration has been ongoing since before President Trump made it into office. However, once Trump made it into office, one of his primary goals was to stop people from coming into this country without legal documentation.
Republicans had insisted it was their mission, at least before Trump was elected, to crack down on immigrants illegally entering the country. Now that President Trump is in office it seems that many have experienced a change of heart, including Ryan.
“The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t want a wall…the pressure is greater from the Chamber of Commerce than it is from the members,” Tancredo said. During his years working in the House, he had plenty of experience trying to secure the borders and knows how other people in these positions feel about the subject.

Another unnamed member of the GOP told Breitbart that essentially the comment was taken out of context. The House member reasoned that Ryan was trying to summarize the voice of the GOP caucus.
 
Ads by Revcontent

Fro

There is a problem with this argument, however. The members of the GOP have spoken firmly against illegal immigration and favoring secure borders.
The people and the president want the wall, but Paul Ryan — not so much. Is Ryan disloyal to his party?

Is Paul Ryan a disloyal leader of his party?

There are only a handful of people in the GOP who have opposed these bills, and generally speaking, Ryan couldn’t have been talking about the varying opinions of the GOP. The way that it was explained, and the fact that the person who made the statement wanted to remain hidden, makes it sound more like an excuse.

Simply put, President Trump and Congress are supposed to advance and codify the will of the people. The people made it very clear during the rallies, primaries, and through their voting decisions that enforcement of our border laws and immigration policies is what they want.
Instead of honoring the American people, politicians like Ryan are taking the low road and supporting their donors and the Democrats. The complete disregard has not gone unnoticed and the longer they put off funding the wall, the more people are going to clamor, and perhaps rightfully so.

Hateful Anti Trump Vandals Destroy Float

BREAKING Trump Unity Bridge

 Attacked by Vandals [VIDEO]

  • Source: 
  • by: TTN News
39 28 2  80
image: https://structurecms-staging-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/
trumptrain/media/picture/59bc/17ba/6970/2d34/
e91f/0f00/content_Screen_Shot_2017-09-15_at_2.10.32_PM.png?
1505499066
BREAKING Trump Unity Bridge Attacked by Vandals [VIDEO]
The "Trump Unity Bridge" and "Trump Mobile" owned by Rob Cortis
 was attacked this morning in Alexandria, VA outside of the Quality Inn
(see video below).

The property was defaced in broad daylight.


Here's a list of the damage inflicted according to the video:

-Nazi signs drawn on the car
-Foreign objects stuffed in the gas tank
-Ripped the Statue of Liberty's Arm Off
-Slashed tires
-An unknown white substance was found on the car
-All cables on the trailer were cut
-License plate(s) stolen
-Destroyed bald eagle statue
-A foreign object was stuffed in the tailpipe
-Over $500 worth of brand new "Made in America" American Flags stolen

Mr. Cortis was en route to the White House according to his video testimony.
The incident likely took place between 8 AM and 9 AM on Friday morning.

At the time the video was published Mr. Cortis was still waiting for the police
 to arrive. This will likely strand him in Virginia as he was traveling to the
Washington, DC area from Livonia, MI, according to his Facebook profile.

Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/breaking-trump-unity-bridge-attacked-by-vandals-video#meUOet9cOpwGUU0A.99

There Isn't A Clinton For Whom Comey Has Not Done "Favors"


JUST IN: Comey Busted In Major Criminal Cover-Up

Unfortunately for former FBI Director James Comey, it seems that more puzzle pieces are beginning to fall into place regarding his past involvement with the Clintons. Now the picture is getting clearer, as Comey’s history of covering for their crimes goes even deeper than first believed.
A new Twitter post is showing a newspaper dating back to July 21, 1996, in which James Comey closed a clemency probe related to a top supporter of Bill Clinton. It seems that as far back as 20 years ago, Comey has been covering up for Clinton scandals.
The newspaper proceeds to mention that federal prosecutors had closed their investigation concerning Bill Clinton’s grant of clemency to four men accused of bilking the government of millions of dollars.
James Comey, who was the US attorney for the case, said that they ended their investigation with no charges filed. “We thoroughly investigated it and it wasn’t appropriate to bring charges against anybody in the case,” he said.
Comey continued, saying, “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.” Comey refused to provide any further elaboration into his decision.
The case in question involved the misappropriation of tens of millions of dollars in federal aid intended for education, housing, and business in the Rockland County Hasidic community of New Square. The men in question were accused of using the money to enrich their community as well as themselves.
The missing link in the matter is that the village leaders had aggressively courted Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the community had voted demonstrably in favor of Hillary Clinton’s Senate election – winning 1,400 of New Square’s 1,412 votes. This has raised questions as to whether Clinton pardoned these four individuals as a favor in exchange for their support of his wife’s political career.
In the investigation, the Rockland County Democrat Party records were confiscated, and many politicians and community members testified before a grand jury. Although no specific crimes were specified, legal experts speculated that charges would have included bribery and voter fraud.
The mastermind of the group, Chaim Berger, 76, ended up pleading guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison as well as ordered to pay more than $11 million in restitution.
Comey has been covering for Clintons for decades. Will THIS revelation finally make DOJ take action against him?

Will this revelation finally make DOJ take action against Comey?

What this means in 2017 is that Comey’s supposed record of impartiality is far from stainless. This revelation comes in addition to a previous scandal which revealed that Comey had begun drafting an exoneration letter for Hillary Clinton in her e-mail server investigation months before he even interviewed her. Now that his long-standing history of supporting the Clinton family has come to light, his decision not to prosecute her makes all the more sense.
“The fact is, evidently, he already made up his mind three months before the investigation really got underway, so this whole thing was a fraud on the American people,” said one lawyer about the entire ordeal, aptly summing it up.
The truth is slowly coming to light, and as Americans continue to learn more about how deep the rabbit hole goes, Trump is appearing to have been ever more justified in his decision to fire the FBI director.