Tuesday, 13 November 2007

NEWS FROM THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SPEAKER'S BUREAU

Ken Berwitz

Columbia University could not find a way to get Jim Gilchrist on campus and allow him to speak.  But Ahmadinejad got the red carpet treatment.

Here, courtesy of the Times of London, is a little heads-up on what is going on under his stewardship of Iran:.

Gays should be hanged, says Iranian minister

Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learnt.

Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged.

President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country.

Britain regularly challenges Iran about its gay hangings, stonings and executions of adulterers and perceived moral criminals, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) papers show.

The latest row involves a woman hanged this June in the town of Gorgan after becoming pregnant by her brother. He was absolved after expressing his remorse. Britain said that this demonstrated the unequal treatment of men and women in law and breached Irans pledge to restrict the death penalty to the most serious crimes.

A series of reported executions of gays, including two underage boys whose public hanging was posted on the internet, has alarmed human rights campaigners.

The Pet Shop Boys dedicated Fundamental, their Grammy-nominated album, to Mahmoud Asqari and Ayad Marhouni, who were hanged in Justice Square in Mashhad in 2005. Graphic photographs of the execution of the youths, who were under 18 when arrested, were released by the Iranian Students News Agency.

Gay rights groups in Britain, such as Outrage!, accuse Iran of cloaking executions for homosexuality with bogus charges for more serious crimes.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the FCO released papers to The Times about the death penalty being used in Iran for homosexuality, adultery and sex outside marriage.

Minutes taken by an official describe a meeting between British and Iranian MPs at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a peace body, in May. When the Britons raised the hangings of Asqari and Marhouni, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Mr Yahyavi, a member of his parliaments energy committee, was unflinching. He explained that according to Islam gays and lesbianism were not permitted, the record states. He said that if homosexual activity is in private there is no problem, but those in overt activity should be executed [he initially said tortured but changed it to executed]. He argued that homosexuality is against human nature and that humans are here to reproduce. Homosexuals do not reproduce.

Nicole Pichet, a researcher who also took notes of the gathering, told The Times that the discussion began with British MPs discussing the underage gay hangings. Mr Yahyavi responded by saying homosexuality was to blame for a lot of diseases such as Aids.

Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP and head of Britains delegation, said yesterday: It is of great concern that these attitudes persist and we made it clear what we felt.

Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Nigeria apply the death penalty for homosexuality, according to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. .

Since Iran is one of 7 countries - all Muslim - which consider homosexuality a crime punishable by death, does that mean Columbia University will now start inviting evangelical preachers to speak?  Hey, a lot of those guys just think gay people will go to hell for eternity;   Ahmadinejad's government SENDS them to eternity. 

Or maybe Jim Gilchrist could put out a bulletin demanding that gay people in the USA be put to death.  Based on ahmadinejad's reception, that could get him a gig at Columbia too, one that the students would let him finish without disruption.  Maybe they would even raise his honorarium.


MARKOS MOULITSAS ZUNIGA (THE DAILY KOS) JOINS NEWSWEEK

Ken Berwitz

If you like unadulterated gloating, you're going to love this piece from the huffington post. 

Newsweek has hired one of the leading LAMBs in the country - daily kos founder Markos ("kos")  Moulitsas Zuniga, as a contributor for the 2008 election.

Here is the article, which contains Newsweek's announcement.  Please note the magazine's explanation, which I have put in bold print, and then let's talk about it afterwards:.

Bill O'Reilly's Gonna Love This: Newsweek Taps Kos As '08 Kontributor

Huffington Post   |  Rachel Sklar   |   November 13, 2007 03:43 PM


Score one for the Netroots! Newsweek has just announced that Markos Moulitsas, namesake and founder of the Daily Kos website, will be a contributor for the 2008.

Here's the statement from Newsweek editor Jon Meachem, which seems to anticipate some sort of reaction from a disgruntled element:

"We have always sought to represent a diversity of views in Newsweek, and we think Markos will be a great part of that tradition. He will give our readers in print and online a unique perspective. As always, our job is to create the most energetic and illuminating magazine possible, and Markos will help us do that as the campaign unfolds."

Well, it's not that unique a perspective, considering that Daily Kos is one of the most popular blogs around (though it's currently at #30 on Technorati wow, there's been a reshuffling in that order lately. But still, that makes it one of the top-rated political blogs, though (cough) behind the Huffington Post at #18). Once again this demonstrates that the inmates are taking over the asylum bloggers are going mainstream, baby! I will note though that Kos' contributions are being framed as just that, as opposed to, say, reporting. Either way, Bill O'Reilly's gonna bust a gut. Can you imagine if NBC had hired him? Yikes.  .

Maybe the first thing to point out here is that, to Rachel Sklar of the huffington post, the most important result of Zuniga joining Newsweek is not what it means journalistically, but that it might tick off Bill O'Reilly.  That strikes me as amazingly childish. 

The next thing is the even more amazing explanation by Newsweek's editor, Jon Meacham.  How in the world does a liberal/left publication, bring on a hard left "journalist" provide "diversity of views"?  Can it possibly be that Newsweek's idea of diversity is to offer its readers left and further left?  So it would seem.

Suppose Newsweek brought on Zuniga, and also brought on, say Mark Finkelstein of www.newsbusters.com, or Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com?  Then you could legitimately say it was giving readers diversity.  However, since this is not a cold day in hell, that apparently is not going to happen.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

----------------------------------------------------

P.S.  Yes, his last name is Zuniga.  I don't know why the article isn't using it.


ABOUT THAT MILITARY DEATH RATE...

Ken Berwitz

Leave it to www.sweetness-light.com and www.cns.com to publicize this report on military casualties.  Because if you leave it up to mainstream media.......

....no need to finish that sentence, is there?  I'm betting that, although the report has been out for almost two weeks, you don't even know it exists.  Do you?

Here it is, along with sweetness-light's brief commentary about it:.

CNS: Military Deaths Down From The 1980s

November 12th, 2007

Now this is what we like to see. Good news actually getting reported.

From our friends at the great Cybercast News Service:


Military Deaths Lower Now Than in 1980s

By Fred Lucas
November 12, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - American soldiers died in higher numbers during some of the peace-time years in the 1980s than in recent years when the military has fought conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a government report on casualty rates.

Further, the number of annual U.S. military deaths for the last three years is just slightly above the average annual death toll in the 1990s.

At the same time, the war in Iraq has the lowest death-per-wound ratio of any war going back to World War I, according to the report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which studied military deaths in a historical context.

While the number of combat deaths is higher in the military now than two decades ago, the suicide and homicide rate was substantially higher in the 1980s, as were accidents and fatal illnesses, all of which led to a higher death toll among military personnel than in recent years.

The study measures the death toll for every American war and also measures the total death toll per year from 1980 - when 2,392 military personnel died of various non-combat related causes - through 2006, when 1,858 soldiers died in both combat- and non-combat-related action combined.

However, 2006 also saw 753 American soldiers killed in hostile action, compared to no soldiers killed in hostile action in 1980.

One reason for the overall decline in the death toll is that the military population has declined over the last 25 years, experts said. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the military had more than 2 million enlisted in 1980, a number that began to decline in 1992 when it reached 1.8 million, and came down to less than 1.4 million today.

But other reasons, such as medical advances and better safety to prevent fatal accidents have a lot to do with the decline in deaths over time, said Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank.

Medical care, whether on the battlefield or trauma, emergency care is so much better today than it was even 20 years ago, Goure told Cybercast News Service.

With all the stories of Walter Reed, we forget that the battlefield stuff is just amazing. Its one reason we have so many wounded, people who have lost limbs. Its a good thing in a sad way. If we were doing as badly as in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, Walter Reed would be half-empty but the cemeteries would be much fuller, he added

We do a much better job in force protection, personal protection, armor, that weve worked very hard on and are getting better and better at, Goure said.

Some of the decreases in deaths could be expected, said Michael OHanlon, a national security expert for the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank. He stressed that the comparisons in the CRS report are not reason to view nearly 1,000 troops killed per year as a low casualty rate

The Pentagon reported last week that 2007 has been the deadliest year so far in Iraq despite the five-month decline in casualties since the surge of 30,000 additional American troops began. (See Previous Story)

Also in 1980, there were 1,156 accidental deaths in the military, compared to 465 in 2006; 174 military personnel were murdered in 1980, compared to 30 murdered in 2006; and there were 231 suicides in 1980 compared to 155 in 2006.

The training exercises are substantially safer as well, said U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Christopher Starling, a fellow with the Hoover Institution.

DOD as a whole has done a much better job in mitigating risk in the workplace and educating our servicemen and women about off-duty safety, Starling said in an interview.

Training now is better than it was in the 80s. Another factor - computers and simulation. We use much more simulation in training. Technology means that we can use weapon simulators to practice safe weapons employment before we transition to live fire. We shoot less live ammunition in training nowadays, he added.

The number of military suicides, though much-reported in the media recently, is lower than in the 1980s or early 1990s. Since 1996, the number of military suicides per year has been below 200, according to the CRS.

The Army recorded 17.3 suicides per 100,000 soldiers in 2006, the report said. The rate is higher than the rate of suicides in the general population, which ranges from 10 to 11 per 100,000 people annually, but lower than the rate of suicide when adjusted to match the Armys age and gender characteristics.

This is primarily because it is an all-volunteer military, a change the military was adjusting to when the draft was dropped after the Vietnam War, said Goure. Its also because the military is better now at spotting at-risk soldiers, he said.

Lets give a little credit to the military. They also are doing a better job of watching out for people who are that way, Goure said.

This is an all-volunteer force. You have a different feeling about the people youre dealing with when youre all-volunteers. You try a little harder. You care a little more. That I think shows clearly in the suicide rates. Even in war-time, some have gone back three or four times now. We have very high reenlistment rates, Goure added

Major kudos to Mr. Lucas for picking up on our piece from November 3, 2007 and expanding on it so brilliantly.

It makes no sense whatsoever for this amazing and encouraging information to be hidden under our mainstream medias bushel of doom. .

The only thing I disagree with here is the opinion that it makes no sense whatsoever to hide this information.  Of course it does -- if you are rooting for the other side and therefore do not want positive information to be available to the general public.

I keep asking;  which side are these people rooting for anyway?  Maybe the fact that this news has been buried is another indication of the answer.


HMMM, DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD WORK ON AHMADINEJAD? KIM IL SONG?...

Ken Berwitz

Here is a little squib I just read at the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com), indicating that Hillary is back to her old tricks (as if she ever left them):  Trying to orchestrate her public appearances.

It's not enough to cry foul because Tim Russert actually expected a straight answer to a straight question. It's not enough to spoon-feed softball questions to college students when she speaks in front of them.  Now we have this:.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... .

As you can see, there is no indication of who, specifically, made the warning, although it seems to imply that it was the Clinton camp itself.  That certainly would be in keeping with Clintonian news handling, wouldn't it?

I particularly love that "pull a Russert" thing.  All of a sudden Tim Russert, a lifelong Democrat, is the enemy.  Why?  Because - silly Tim - he thought she was supposed to answer questions during a debate like her opponents;  you know, the ones she considers mortals.  Little ones at that.

I guess there's nothing left for Russert to do but join Fox News.  If you're going to be a despised outcast, might as well hang out with the other ones.


WOULD MSNBC HAVE DONE THIS FOR JUDY GIULIANI?

Ken Berwitz

Please read this remarkable report from www.newsbusters.org and see just how far at least one mainstream media venue will go to protect the side it favors:

.

MSNBC Buries Michelle Obama's Black Self-Doubt Comments

By Mark Finkelstein | November 13, 2007 - 07:32 ET

Aren't TV networks in the business of featuring the most provocative statements made by the people they interview? So why would MSNBC bury the most controversial thing Michelle Obama said?

Yesterday, I wrote here about the controversial comments about black self-doubt that Michelle Obama made in the course of her interview with Mika Brzezinski in Iowa over the weekend.

Watching MSNBC during the day yesterday, I never saw those comments resurface during snippets of the interview that were shown. But surely, I assumed, the comments would be there when today's "Morning Joe" ran what it billed as "The Michelle Obama Interview."

Wrong. At least in the extended presentation of the interview made during the 6:30 AM ET half-hour, the controversial bit was edited smoothly out.

View here video of the version "Morning Joe" ran today, with the controversial statements omitted.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Here's the transcript of the relevant part of the interiew from yesterday, with the portion that was deleted today in [brackets]. Viewers were not told of the elision.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The polls are showing your husband is trailing Hillary by 46% to 37% in the African-American community. What's going on here?

MICHELLE OBAMA: First of all, I think that that's not going to hold. I'm completely confident: black America will wake up, and get [it]. But what we're dealing with in the black community is just the natural fear of possibility. [You know, when I look at my life, the stuff that we're seeing in these polls has played out my whole life. You know, always been told by somebody that I'm not ready, that I can't do something, my scores weren't high enough. You know, there's always that doubt in the back of the minds of people of color. People who've been oppressed and haven't been given real opportunities. That you never really believe. That you believe that somehow, someone is better than you. You know, deep down inside, you doubt whether you can do it, because that's all you've been told, is "no, wait." That's all you hear, and you hear it from people who love you. Not because they don't care about you, but bcause they're afraid. They're afraid that something might happen.]

BRZEZINSKI: It's interesting that you say that, excuse me. Because a stewardess yesterday, a 52-year old African-American, and I asked her if she was interested in Barack Obama, if she would vote for him. And she said, like this, she said: "I don't think so, because he probably can't win, because he's black."

Did MSNBC hear from the Obama campaign, or did the network take it upon itself not to remind viewers that Michelle Obama had said of African-Americans: "You know, there's always that doubt in the back of the minds of people of color. You believe that somehow, someone is better than you. You know, deep down inside, you doubt whether you can do it"?

What made the omission even more odd is that in the conversation between Mika and Joe Scarborough that preceded the playing of the interview, both singled out Michelle Obama's comments on race as a "fascinating" aspect of the interview. Well, then why not let viewers hear the most fascinating aspect of those comments . . . unless MSNBC was trying to shield the Obama campaign from controversy?

BONUS COVERAGE: America's Fault if It Doesn't Elect Barack

In comments aired today not shown on yesterday's "Morning Joe," Michelle Obama essentially said that America will have no one to blame but itself if it doesn't elect her husband.

BRZEZINSKI: Given the debate over whether he's been too passive when it comes to Hillary Clinton, he's gotten a lot of unsolicited advice on this. What has Michelle's advice been?

OBAMA: We definitely talked about it. We talked about this before we entered the race, because our view is that we're not doing this to win. And you can't win at all costs. Sometimes that's what politics has become. That's what the press is sort of saying: if you want to win you got to kill her, you've got to rip her apart. Well, if that's the only way you can win, which we don't believe is the case, if that's all politics is. If we've digressed as a society to a point where that's the only way we can work out issues and people, no wonder we're such a divided country. And if Barack wants to be a different kind of leader, then his approach to victory has to be different.

So I don't want Barack to be anybody other than who he is. Because if America doesn't accept that, then I want America to own that. I want them to look themselves in the face and say "you had a choice. You had a choice to choose somebody who was decent, who was going to be a uniter. Somebody who's going to be honest, who is going to tell you the truth. All these things you say you want, and then you get it, and you trip. You freak out. And you question it, and you worry, and is it true?" .

The object of all this is to protect you, Mr. and Ms. Voter, from any troublesome reasons to think bad thoughts about __________ (fill in the name of a Democratic candidate.  Hillary, Barack, Edwards, you take your pick.). 

And I'll bet one day  ___________  will be a Republican.  That day will be roughly a week after hell freezes over and the Cubs win the world series, whichever comes last.

But listen to media squeal like stuck pigs if you accuse them of bias.


CAMPUS "TOLERANCE"

Ken Berwitz

We've seen again and again what the speech codes at campuses across the country seek to prevent people from saying.

Here, from the invaluable website www.frontpagemag.com, is an indication of what it is perfectly ok TO say.  

It's long.  But I want you to see every word and every supportive source, so you know just how accurate this piece is...

The Muslim Student Union: Where Community, Prayer, and Jew-Hatred Come Together  
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, November 13, 2007

If one were to judge the Muslim Student Union (MSU) of the University of California at Irvine (UCI) solely on the basis of its self-description and its stated mission, one would have no inkling of the volcano of Jew-hatred that animates this organization. Founded in 1992 by a small group of Muslim students who desired to establish an Islamic presence on campus, MSU says it aims to provide a community or family atmosphere for Muslims enrolled at UCI, and to build an environment that enhances good, discourages bad, and provides networks of resources, knowledge, people, and companionship to its members. Toward these ends, MSU offers daily congregational prayers, daily free iftars [the evening meal for breaking the daily fast] during Ramadan that serve over a hundred Muslims, over eight weekly classes, a quarterly magazine Alkalima, coalition building with other clubs on campus, and a gateway to the larger Muslim community MSU also provides career advice and a study/tutoring program to help Muslims at UCI.

It all sounds very, very nice.

What the Muslim Student Union does not mention in its literature, however, is that its members commonly
wear green armbands during the events it sponsors, to signal their allegiance to the terrorist group Hamas. Nor is there any mention of the fact that MSU has displayed posters on the UCI campus that equate the Star of David with the Nazi Swastika.

MSUs promotional literature is similarly silent about a February 2001 event where the organization
hosted the radical cleric Muhammad al-Asi, who told his UCI audience: The Zionist-Israeli lobby ... is taking the United States government and the United States people to the abyss. We have a psychosis in the Jewish community that is unable to co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings. You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of the Jew.

It should be noted that MSU was not the least bit unaware of Mr. al-Asis radical views when it invited him to speak on campus. Al-Asis Jew-hatred had been widely known for many years. Indeed as early as 1981, he was
removed as Imam of the Washington, DC Islamic Center at the request of several Middle Eastern governments that were troubled by his pro-Khomeini rhetoric. Al-Asi also has close ties to Ahmed Huber, the neo-Nazi Swiss convert to Islam who once lauded Khomeini as the living continuation of Adolf Hitler. And advocating an Islamic World Order, al-Asi holds that the 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by Israeli Mossad agents seeking to criminalize Muslims.

MSUs alliance with al-Asi is hardly what one would expect from an organization that
enhances good, discourages bad. But in fact, this alliance represents only the tip of a very large iceberg.

In 2002, a sign posted on the UCI campus by MSU
stated: Israelis Love to Kill Innocent Children. That same year, MSU sponsored a speech by the radical Oakland imam, Abdel Malik-Ali, who said: Israel wants Palestinians to have their own state. Its beyond that now. No. Thats off the table. One state. Majority rules. Us. The Muslims.

A
favorite guest speaker of MSU, Malik-Ali is an African-American convert to Islam, a former Nation of Islam member, and a longtime supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. His more infamous remarks include the claim that Jews staged the 9/11 attacks to give an excuse to wage war against Muslims around the world; that [t]he wars against Iraq [Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom] were manufactured by the Jews in America to avert attention from the two [Palestinian] Intifadahs; and that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a pretty good guy.

On February 26, 2004, MSU again brought Malik-Ali to the UCI campus to deliver a speech titled America under Siege: The Zionist Hidden Agenda.
According to UCIs student newspaper: [Malik-Ali] implied that Zionism is a mixture of chosen people-ness and white supremacy; that the Iraqi war is in the process of Israelization; that the Zionists had the Congress, the media and the FBI in their back pocket; that the downfall of former Democratic [presidential] front-runner Howard Dean was due to the Zionists; and that the Mossad [Israels intelligence agency] would have assassinated Al Gore if he was elected [in 2000] just to bring Joe Lieberman (his Jewish vice-president) to power.

In the spring of 2004, MSU and the Society of Arab Students (SAS) co-sponsored their fourth annual
Zionism Awareness Week, during which both groups again wore green armbands to signal their support for Hamas.

In June 2004, MSU asked UCIs graduating Muslim students
to wear green sashes inscribed with the word shahada, the Arabic word for the martyrdom of a suicide bomber, to their graduation ceremony. Two dozen students complied with this MSU request.

At a February 2005 MSU-organized event held in the center quad at UC Irvine, guest speaker Abdel Malik-Ali
told his audience of some 150 mostly Muslim listeners: Zionism is a mixture, a fusion of the concept of white supremacy and the chosen people. He complained about Zionist domination of the American media, Zionist complicity in Americas 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Zionists inclination to recount the horrors of the Holocaust when you accuse them of their Nazi behavior. One state. Majority rule, he said. Check that out. Us. The Muslims.

At a March 2006 panel discussion at UC Irvine, MSU led as many as
1,000 Muslim students in a protest against the decision of the events sponsors to publicly display some offensive Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, cartoons that had recently set off massive demonstrations and riots throughout the Muslim world. Donning their customary green, pro-Hamas armbands, MSU members initiated the protest by kneeling on their green prayer mats and reciting an Arabic prayer. When a crowd of counter-protesters sang God Bless America, the Muslim students responded with chants of: Hey Republicans Stop the Hate! All You Do Is Instigate, and Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho! The Prophets Cartoons Have Got to Go!

MSU organized a May 2006
Holocaust in the Holy Land event featuring four days of anti-Israel lectures and presentations that portrayed the Jewish State as the modern-day incarnation of Nazi Germany. The event was keynoted by the Holocaust-denier Norman Finkelstein, whose speech, titled Obstacles to Peace: Israelis or Palestinians, identified Israel as the worlds worst violator of human rights. Adjacent to a mock Israeli apartheid wall which they had erected in the center of the UCI campus, MSU students distributed fliers titled Exploiting the Holocaust to Justify Genocide, and bearing a quote from Finkelstein himself: The Holocaust has become the ideological justification for the oppression of the Palestinian people. Other guest speakers at the weeks festivities included Abdel Malik-Ali; Muhammad al-Asi, whose speech was titled Hamas: The Peoples Choice; and Rabbi David Weiss of Neturei Karta (an ultra-orthodox, PLO-tied Jewish group that opposes Israels existence), whose speech was called Zionism Hijacking Judaism.

Abdel Malik-Ali was the featured speaker at an October 5, 2006 MSU event, where he
told a crowd of some 200 cheering students: They [Jews] think they are superman, but we, the Muslims, are kryptonite. They [Jews] know that their days are numbered.

In May 2007, MSU sponsored an
Israel: Apartheid Resurrected week which featured a series of speeches and demonstrations condemning the State of Israel. On May 17, MSUs longtime favorite -- Abdel Malik-Ali -- delivered a lecture titled UC Intifada: How you can help Palestine, wherein he informed UCIs Muslim students (who again wore green armbands as well as T-shirts reading UC Intifada and Freedom Fighter) that no other form of death is as honorable as that of the martyr who dies while trying to kill Jews. Refusing to recognize Israels existence, Malik-Ali referred to that country not by its name, but only as the Zionist Apartheid State.

In 2007, a UC Irvine student blogger identifying herself as OC Apostate (she had recently left the Muslim faith in which she was raised) was forced to shut down her blog (wherein she criticized Islams intolerance), for fear that members of the campus MSU would harm her family in retribution for her apostasy.
She explained:

I
started a blog as way to express myself. Word finally got around that it was me [who was the author] and my family got threats that if I didnt shut up something might happen. I didnt want them to suffer for something I had done. So I deleted everything. They [Muslim students] saw me with my hair out [of the hijab]. They knew who I was. The reaction was a lot of gossip and speculation about my upbringing. Women who I didnt know gave me dirty looks. I dont underestimate them. The notion of a traitor in your own community is the worse thing that could possibly happen. There is no room for ex-Muslims in a Muslim society. The punishment for being an apostate is death.

Most recently, MSU invited Yvonne Ridley, a reporter and activist for Iranian PRESS-TV,
to speak at UC Irvine on November 12, 2007. Ridley, who also writes a column for the New York-based publication Daily Muslims, is a member of the Respect Party led by British Member of Parliament George Galloway. She was formerly employed as a senior editor by Al Jazeera and helped launch that websites English-language version in 2003.

Ridley first came to public attention in September 2001 when, while on an assignment for the Sunday Express, she was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan and was held captive for eleven days. After she was set free, Ridley studied the Koran and found it to be a Magna Carta for women. She converted to Islam in the summer of 2003.

In the wake of a British anti-terror raid against a Muslim house in June 2006, Ridley
told a Respect Party gathering that Muslims should boycott the police and refuse to co-operate with them in any way, shape or form. From today until this terrorization of the Muslim community is stopped immediately, she elaborated, I believe all Muslims should withdraw their support. This goes from asking the community copper for directions to passing the time of day with a beat officer. We should enforce non-co-operation.

Ridley supports divestment from Israel, a nation she has described as that disgusting little watchdog of America that is festering in the Middle East. She crows that her Respect Party is a Zionist-free party, adding that if there was any Zionism in the Respect Party they would be hunted down and kicked out. We have no time for Zionists.

MSUs aforementioned Muslim student newspaper, Alkalima, once published a special report called
Zionism: The Forgotten Apartheid, which lauded Hamas and Hezbollah for nobly standing up to Israeli oppression.

On September 9, 2001, Alkalima and Al-Talib (UCLAs Muslim magazine)
co-sponsored a dinner at UC-Irvine to honor Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, a.k.a. H. Rap Brown, former Minister of Justice for the Black Panthers. Al-Amin was on trial at the time for the murder of an Alabama deputy, a crime for which he would eventually be convicted. A featured guest speaker at the dinner was a Black Muslim named Imam Abdul-Alim Musa, who said the United States was superior [to all other nations] in criminality and Nazism, and who characterized the American criminalizer [sic] as the most skillful oppressor that the world has ever known.

In 2006 Alkalima published For Justice We Fight, a pamphlet which stated that Islamic terrorist attacks targeting civilians are entirely justified. [T]he individual or community that participates in jihad finds itself between two blissful outcomes, said the pamphlet, either victory and the establishment of justice, or the reward of martyrdom and Paradise.

This, then, is the Muslim Student Union --an organization that combines its devotion to "community," "friendship," "companionship," "prayer," and "tutoring" on the one hand, with pro-terrorist Jew-hatred on the other.

Sources:

Reut Cohen,
Student Forced to Shut Down Blog by Campus Muslims (October 3, 2007).

Aaron Hanscom and Reut Cohen,
Exposing the UC Intifada (June 22, 2007).

Aaron Hanscom,
UC-Intifada (February 20, 2007).

Reut Cohen,
Attending UC Intifada (November 10, 2006).

Cindy Carcamo and Vik Jolly,
FBI Says Muslims at UCI Aren't Monitored (June 6, 2006).

Aaron Hanscom,
Anti-Israel Hatefest at UC Irvine (May 22, 2006).

CAMERA,
Springtime for MSU and UC Irvine (Spring 2006).

Aaron Hanscom,
Seeking Muslim Moderates (March 3, 2006).

Vik Rubenfeld,
Islamists Protest Against U.S. Freedom of Speech at U.C. Irvine (March 1, 2006).

Marc Ballon,
Jewish Students and Activists Call UC Irvine a Hotbed of Anti-Semitic Harassment (March 11, 2005).

Joseph D'Hippolito,
UC-Irvine's Anti-Anti-Terror Rally (February 21, 2005).

Roberta Leguizamon,
Graduation Jihad (June 17, 2004).

Arnold Steinberg,
Jihad Comes to UC-Irvine (June 8, 2004).

Loren Casuto,
UC-Irvine Welcomes Black Muslim Hatred (March 8, 2004).

BBC News, Call to Muslims over Police Help (
June 7, 2006)..

Now, try to find a David Horowitz, Jim Gilchrist, or Ann Coulter or Newt Gingrich talk at a college that isn't interrupted, shouted down or shut down altogether.

And weep for the universities that used to be forums for free thought.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!