Democracy’s Tolerance is “So Yesterday at Marxist Yale”

YOUNG: Free speech, not disruption

by  ZACH YOUNG  at the Yale Daily News,  NOV 09, 2015

“Last Friday, the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program hosted its fifth annual conference on “The Future of Free Speech.” Planned over six months ago, the daylong conference brought together 14 distinguished guests from policy, journalism and academia to discuss contemporary issues of free speech. The prospect of our panelists speaking freely, however, did not sit well with everyone at Yale.

The unrest began when a student in a yellow t-shirt rushed to the front of the lecture hall during a panel. When other attendees told him to sit down, he refused and instead taped posters across the wall. A Yale police officer stationed outside entered the room and asked the student to leave.

“You’re going to have to carry me out,” the student said. The officer obliged.

Another student soon wrote about the incident on the Facebook group “Overheard at Yale.” Comments on the post identified our event’s location. “Run through,” one recommended.

Protesters lined up outside the lecture hall. Some demanded that we immediately add speakers of their choosing to the conference……”   please read on:

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/11/09/young-free-speech-not-disruption/

Heather MacDonald at City Journal Can’t Quite Call Racism “Racism” when BLACKS Commit It!

Heather MacDonald is one of those few American females of our time who, using the head on her shoulder can think and therefore write rationally.

 ..

Being rational is NOT common among the human female animal these days.    There are so many other activities she could prefer to engage in……like dreaming, collecting pennies,  seeking protection,  emoting, and voting for Marxist Hillary in order to be taken care of……and in our time gaining weight to look like and vote  for Hillary so she won’t have to be bothered by someone finding her attractive, interesting, lovable, and potentially motherly……that modern kind of American women taught by leftists at college.

 ..

But Heather is programmed to use politically correct language concocted, directed, and distributed by  lefties at university.

Or, in fairness, it could be the person or committee which dictates headlines at City Journal  associated with its articles.

 ..

Heather  can certainly tell a male wuss when she  ‘meets’ one, the kind who “run” college bureaucracies,  Democrat Tim Wolfe formerly at the University of Missouri to name but one……BUT SHE CAN’T QUITE GET AROUND TO CALL BLACK RACISM “RACISM”.

 ..

She, or her subordinate or subordinates call black racism, RACIAL HYSTERIA to accompany her article below from City Journal.  (Perhaps black racists of all races, sexes, shapes, and sizes need to don sheets to make it into the racist big leagues.)    Nevertheless, do read Heather MacDonald’s excellent article below about black racism rising at the American university……(What else have they these ‘black’ racists  been taught to learn and do at university?)

HEATHER MAC DONALD

..

RACIAL HYSTERIA TRIUMPHS ON CAMPUS

..

Missouri, Yale, and America’s Cultural Revolution

November 9, 2015

PHOTO BY MICHAEL B. THOMAS/GETTY IMAGES

..

The pathological narcissism of American college students has found a potentially devastating new source of power in the sports-industrial complex. University of Missouri president Timothy Wolfe resigned Monday morning in the face of a threatened boycott by black football players of an upcoming game. Wolfe’s alleged sin was an insufficient appreciation for the “systematic oppression” experienced by students of color at the university. Campus agitators also alleged that racial slurs had been directed at black students and feces had been smeared in the shape of a swastika in a dormitory.

..

The university’s board of overseers had convened in emergency session to discuss the football boycott; Wolfe resigned before meeting with them, issuing the standard mea culpa: “I take full responsibility for this frustration, and I take full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred.” According to the New York Times, the university could have lost more than $1 million had it forfeited its football game with Brigham Young University on Saturday. A group called “Concerned Faculty” had walked off the job in solidarity with the student activists and was calling on other faculty to join them.

Do read on:

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon1109hm.html

Wall Street Journal Advertises Black Nazi Attacks at the University of Missouri

Sharon Terlep and Douglas Belkin are identified as ‘reporters’ for the Wall Street Journal.   They wrote an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal titled:  “RACIAL TENSIONS ESCALATE”.

The introductory headline to the article runs:    “Missouri Athletic staff backs black football players who want president to be ousted.”

(The president the Missouri Athletic staff and its football players are not referring to black Marxist American president, Barack Hussein Obama, but to the president of the University of Missouri, Tim Wolfe, “who is white” according to the writers.

The first sentence of the article reads:  “Racial tensions at the University of Missouri reached a boil over the weekend, with the school’s athletic department voicing support for minority football players who are seeking the ouster of the university’s president.”

This introductory sentence  is a lie.  The headline, RACIAL TENSIONS ESCALATE”  is also a lie.    Truth in reporting should be:  BLACK RACISTS THREATEN REVOLUTION;   DESTROY PEACE AS USUAL  AT UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI…..  OUST WHITE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT.

The article continues:

“More than 30 black football players at the school announced on social media Saturday night that they would boycott games and practice unless President Tim Wolfe resigns or is fired over accusations he mishandled racial issues on campus.  On Sunday, the athletic department, made up of university employees, issued a statement saying it supports the players’ actions.

Of the team’s 84 scholarship football payers, 58 are African-American.  The 35,000 -strong student body is 77% white and 7% black.”  the article continues.  “Black student groups have complained for  months about racist slurs and harassment on campus.  In an incident last month, a swastika was drawn in human feces in a dorm.

Mr. Wolfe earned the ire of some students at last month’s homecoming parade, after he refused to get out of his car when it was surrounded by black protesters”…….

(Wow, now that is a real crime to stop the world!)  “Mr. Wolfe apologized for not getting out of his car and acknowledged  ‘racism  does exist at our university and it is unacceptable’.

For more tension from this Black Nazis movement  as reported by Terlep and Belkin, ” Tensions have been mounting since September, when an African-American student-government leader posted on Facebook that a passenger in a truck shouted a racial slur at him.  The post went viral and people  across campus responded with their own accounts.  The school’s chancelor, R. Bowen Loftin, decried the incidents.  “Hate and racism were alive and well at Mizzou,” he said.  “It’s enough.  Let’s stop this.”

We know the school’s chancelor, R. Bowen Loftin, (“Who is white”) is a leftist black-racist -idiot-bureaucrat and/or conspirator to the core when he “ordered online diversity training for all staff, faculty and students.  BUT THE LEADERS OF THE ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT ON CAMPUS DEMANDED THE SCHOOL  DO MORE AND SAID THEY WERE ANGERED BY MR. WOLFE’S LACK OF INVOLVEMENT”…to confront the black racists’ charges. (Caps added.)

Now, folks, the above includes the total of the article.   THE RACIST POLITICS ON THE MISSOURI CAMPUS IS BLACK….AND NAZI – LIKE in its process and intimidation based upon rumor arising only from the mouth of the  Nazi blacks themselves.

Where are threats coming from any white racists demanding:     “Do this or we’ll threaten you to  do that! We want this, that person fired or we won’t show up for professing?”     Is there a Ku Klux Klan chapter on campus.  Why shouldn’t there be when black racists behave in the manner above?  How would they differ?

WHAT JUSTIFIES THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL?

Where are the institutions spreading any racism besides those selling BLACK RACISM?

“RACIAL TENSIONS ESCALATE”  is a lie according to the content of the article itself.

These black racist invasions of American institutions  are mere copies of  the Nazi racists invasions, conquering  the once intellectually honest, free, and independent  professor class of German universities of the 1920s.   These white Nazis, not black fascists, lied, cheated,  invaded, threatened, and eventually rioted and murdered, to change the instruments and nature  of true academic learnings throughout Germany.

Today’s University Liberal Arts armies from the Atlantic to the Pacific  are leftist, feminist, and fascistic Marxists  at heart and in ignorance, because they’ve been programmed to be by their peers, their own professors of their antiAmerican era of the past two generations.    This disease is so infectious the Wall Street reporters of the article seemed to miss the real story that it’s BLACK RACISM TIME IN AMERICA.

(PS…..The president of the school was ousted.)

The Ben Carson Flaps….by Thomas Sowell

 The Ben Carson Flaps   by Thomas Sowell at realclearpolitics

 ….

“Dr. Ben Carson’s whole life has been very unusual, so perhaps we should not be surprised to see the latest twist – the media going ballistic over discrepancies in a few things he said.”    (Do read on:)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/10/the_ben_carson_flaps_128677.html

Gary Gilson, a chronic Leftist Liar Spreading Stories in the Minneapolis Tribune?

I AM LIBELED. I RESPOND.

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

Scott wrote yesterday about a letter to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune that responded to his column on the movie “Truth.” The letter was written by Gary Gilson, a supposed journalist who, as the former executive director of the Minnesota News Council, used to rule on whether news stories were accurate or not. Gilson’s letter adopted the long-discredited “fake but accurate” defense of 60 Minutes’ attack on President Bush.

Scott didn’t mention it, but the last sentences of Gilson’s letter took an irrelevant swipe at me:

Johnson’s partner in the Power Line blog, John Hinderaker, was once asked by a radio interviewer if Power Line checked the facts on stories it distributed. “No,” he immediately replied. If there are any errors in what Power Line sends out, he said, people out in cyberspace will quickly correct it.

So much for respect for facts.

I have given a great many radio interviews, but the statement attributed to me by Gilson is not one that I have made, or would make, since it is untrue. I was also struck by the imprecision of his smear: what exactly did I say, and where and when did I supposedly say it? So, just a few hours after his letter appeared in print, I sent Mr. Gilson this message on Facebook, LinkedIn and his web site:

Mr. Gilson: I was surprised to see the statement that you attributed to me in the Star Tribune this morning. I have given many interviews over quite a few years, but I am quite certain that I have never said any such thing. I also note that you did not purport to quote me precisely, which I find odd. Would you send me the audio of the radio interview you referred to in mp3 or similar format, so I can understand what you are talking about? Thank you. Please reply to ———-.com.

John Hinderaker

At 12:43 p.m., Gilson responded:

Mr. Hinderaker,

I heard you say precisely that on the radio, with my own ears. You said, no, Power Line did not check facts, and that you relied on followers to correct errors.

The interview I referred to took place after Time recognized Power Line as Blog of the Year. I do not have a recording of it, but I recall it vividly.

Gary Gilson

I’ll bet. I have no idea what I said in some unknown, unidentified interview more than ten years ago. I don’t know what I was asked or how I answered. But I certainly never said anything remotely like what Gilson implied: that we are indifferent to truth; that we make stuff up and peddle fake documents, like Mary Mapes and Dan Rather; that we publish random assertions and count on others to correct us.

So three minutes later I sent this email:

Whose radio program was it on? What was the date? What question was I answering? What is your best approximation of the verbatim exchange? I likely can find it in the show’s archives if you supply the particulars, and we will find out exactly what you heard. It won’t be what you claim.

John H.

At 1:04 p.m. Gilson replied:

It was most likely on WCCO Radio, which was the only local commercial station I listened to back then. I do not have the exact date, but, as I said, it was around the period Time recognized you.

The question was: Does Power Line check the facts before sending out its posting? Your instant answer was, “No.” That was when you explained that your relied on followers’ corrections.

I have no doubt that I heard you correctly. I was not a casual listener to such topics. I have been a journalist since 1961, with a particular interest in journalism ethics. Your answer was so memorable because it was so startling.

What did you think of the Boston Globe’s investigation of GWB’s military record?

Gary Gilson

It was “most likely” on WCCO? That answer obviously raised more questions. At 1:57 I emailed Gilson:

What program on WCCO? Who was the host? Morning? Evening? Where were you at the time? In your car? In your home? Somewhere else? Was anyone else with you?

What else do you remember about the conversation? What did the host say, what did I say? Were there any other guests involved? For example, was Scott Johnson on the program?

What year was it? 2004? 2005? Do you remember the month or the season?

I don’t really understand what you claim I said. Is it your assertion that I said we make stuff up and peddle fabricated documents like Mary Mapes? I don’t know how much you read our site, but most of what we do falls under the heading of opinion journalism. When there are key facts, we generally link to a source. Most commonly, we are commenting on a news story, to which we link. Are you saying that if I mention the year when, say, Henry VIII died I don’t look it up first? Can you explain what the discussion was so as to give context to the alleged quote? The exchange as you describe it is inconceivable, makes no sense in the context of our site, and did not happen.

John H.

Those queries may have been obvious, but they were not questions that Mr. Gilson wanted to answer. He went silent.

At 7:29 yesterday evening, having waited five and one-half hours for an answer, I sent this email:

It looks as though you may not have gotten my last email, so I am re-sending.

I have just one more question: what fact checking did you do to confirm your vague, decade-old memory of my interview before writing your letter to the Star Tribune?

John H.

Once again, Mr. Gilson preferred not to respond. By this time, he had gone to ground, probably regretting his gratuitous smear. I waited until this afternoon for a reply from Mr. Gilson. Having received none, I sent this email at 3:00 p.m.:

Mr. Gilson: You obviously are unable to substantiate your false statement about me that appeared in yesterday’s Minneapolis Star Tribune. I trust you understand that you have libeled me. I hereby formally demand a public retraction and apology for your false statement about me.

John Hinderaker

So far, Mr. Gilson has not responded to my demand for a retraction and apology. Rest assured that I will not let the matter rest here. There is no shortage of liars and bullies in the world, but perhaps they are more accountable today than in the past.

What is striking about this episode is what a shameless partisan Mr. Gilson is. Not only does he toe his political party’s line, even to the extent of endorsing the absurd “fake but accurate” defense, he recklessly and falsely smears those who have the temerity to tell the truth. And this is the person who, until 2011, was relied upon to rule on the fairness of news stories in Minnesota! That tells you volumes about the corruption of the Democratic Party press in the United States.

(Note:  Lefty Gary Gilson stars on Mary Hanson Show advertising his devotion to honesty.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Gary+Gilson&docid=608052899221277459&mid=A9B3B73777B04A6625F2A9B3B73777B04A6625F2&view=detail&FORM=VIRE)

 

 

COURT DISRUPTS OBAMA’S FASCISM; DENIES HIS SEIZING POWER TO DICTATE IMMIGRATION LAW

ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

by Paul Mirengoff   at  PowerLine:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today upheld a block on President Obama’s executive action to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. This represents the latest blow to Obama’s unlawful effort, in effect, to charge immigration law without the consent of Congress.

The executive action under challenge would enable an estimated 4 to 5 million illegal immigrants who are parents of illegal immigrants who entered this country as children to apply for delayed deportation and work permits for a three-year period. Earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew ruled that this program — known as DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents — should have been subjected to the rule-making process. Accordingly, he enjoined the administration from implementing DAPA. We discussed his decision here.

Now, by a vote of 2-1, a panel of the Fifth Circuit has affirmed Judge Hanen’s ruling, meaning that the injunction stays in place. Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee (for whom Sen. Tom Cotton once clerked), wrote the opinion. He was joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee. Judge Carolyn Dineen King, a Carter appointee, dissented.

Texas is the lead plaintiff in the case. Its attorney general, Ken Paxton, said that through today’s decision, the Fifth Circuit has “asserted that the separation of powers remains the law of the land, and the president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else.” Paxton added that “throughout this process, the Obama Administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power, and Texas, leading a charge of 26 states, has secured an important victory to put a halt to the president’s lawlessness.”

Well put.

As of this evening, the Obama administration Justice Department had not returned a request for comment.

The case is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The administration hopes this happens by the end of the current term, i.e., June 2016. That way, if Team Obama prevails, the program can be implemented before Obama leaves office.

In the meantime, Obama’s executive amnesty is stymied.