• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower
  • Advertisements

Back to the Catacombs? The Complete Collapse of Civility and Decency in America?

The Ongoing Plight of Christians

by  Eileen F. Toplansky    at American Thinker:


In the CQ Researcher issue titled “Religious Persecution,” dated November 21, 1997, Kenneth Jost highlighted the “well-documented cases of churches being bulldozed or burned down, clergy and lay leaders [being] arrested and imprisoned and clergymen being murdered by [Sudanese] government troops.”  In the 21 years since this article was printed, global Christian persecution has increased exponentially.  The following is a small sampling of what Christians are facing, and the sad truth is that no one seems to be stopping the oppressors and punishing them.

  • In Sweden, Muslim migrants often persecute Christian migrants, or immigrants who convert to Christianity.  Thus, “Open Doors Deutschland documented 743 attacks on Christians in Germany in 2016, and German police documented another 100 in 2017.  Similar violence plagues Christian refugees in Sweden, but the Scandinavian country has yet to issue an investigation.  A survey published by Open Doors Sweden last year found that … one hundred and twenty-three Christian asylum-seekers reported religiously motivated persecution, and 512 separate incidents.  Christian refugees suffered 65 violent assaults, 55 death threats, 7 cases of sexual assault, along with instances of social exclusion, insults, contempt, and threats.  More than half, 53 percent, said they had been violently attacked at least once.  Almost half, 45 percent, reported receiving at least one death threat.  More than three-quarters of those who faced such persecution were converts to Christianity, and almost all of the perpetrators were Muslim.”

Open Door’s top countries where Christians face the most persecution are:

  • North Korea (94 points) – Christians and Christian missionaries are routinely imprisoned in labor camps.
  • Afghanistan (93 points) – The government of this Muslim country does not recognize any of its citizens as Christian.
  • Somalia (91 points) – The Catholic bishop of Mogadishu has described it as “not possible” to be a Christian in Somalia.
  • Sudan (87 points) – The Muslim government has slated Christian churches for demolition.
  • Pakistan (86 points) – Christians and other non-Muslims sit on death row, facing charges of blasphemy.
  • Eritrea (86 points) – Only four religions are officially recognized (Sunni Islam and the Eritrean Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Lutheran churches).  Those belonging to other faiths are persecuted, and those of recognized faiths are routinely harassed by the government.
  • Libya (86 points) – The government is reportedly training militants to attack Coptic Christians.
  • Iraq (86 points) – Iraqi Christians have yet to return to their homelands after expulsion by ISIS.
  • Yemen (85 points) – The ongoing political and humanitarian crisis has further squeezed Christians and other religious minorities, who already faced severe restrictions on practicing their faiths.

Jeff Simino at the National Review writes about minority religious groups who suffer in Iran.  Thus, “the Iranian government continues to persecute religious minorities, including groups supposedly given special recognition by the country’s constitution: Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.”

Raymond Ibrahim, chronicler of the status of Christians, assiduously documents what is happening to them.  In fact, “[t]he Islamic world has the lion’s share of Christian persecution; 38 of the 50 worst nations are Muslim-majority.  In short, the overwhelming majority of persecution that these 215 million Christians experience around the world – especially the worst forms, such as rape and murder – occurs at the hands of Muslims.”

Moreover, “[u]nlike the persecution of Christians in Communist nations, rooted to a particular regime, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends any ruler or regime.  It unfortunately seems part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam – hence its tenacity and ubiquity.  It is a ‘tradition.'”  Ibrahim asserts that “those persecuting Christians come from a wide variety of racial, linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds – from African, Arab, Asian, and Caucasian nations – and share little in common with one another, except for Islam,” thus underscoring the source of the hatred.

On January 31, 2018, Jack Kerwick wrote, “[T]here was more violence against Christians recorded in Pakistan than anywhere else.”  As Islamists expand in the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Indonesia as well as Egypt, Nigeria, and Somalia, Christian oppression increases.  In Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, “with a grassroots revival of Islam” has come an increase in anti-Christian persecution.

Notwithstanding the entrenched Islamic hatred of Christians, “India and Nepal are two prominent illustrations of intense, anti-Christian Hindu nationalism.  But, notably, in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, Buddhist nationalism is being used as an instrument of anti-Christian oppression as well.”

Nathan Johnson documents that in February 2018 in Nigeria, Muslims continue attacks on Christians.  In fact, “International Christian Concern (ICC) documented at least 32 attacks by Fulani militants on Christians, which killed over 95 people and destroyed dozens of villages.  These attacks spanned 11 different states and killed nearly 100 Christians.”  With more than twice as many Christians killed this year than last year, there “is a clear uptick in attacks.  Between January and February 2018, there have already been more than 270 Christians slaughtered by invading Fulani” (who share many beliefs with other West African Muslims).

Furthermore, “[t]his continued violence demonstrates either incompetence or complicity by the Nigerian military in these attacks.  Villages that have been attacked are often within sight of military outposts or checkpoints.  Despite this, the military has almost never successfully intervened and stopped an attack from causing overwhelming devastation.”

Less obvious than the outright violence is the fact that “Islamists around the world are furthering their agenda through diplomatic and political action, as well as grassroots social efforts.”  Consequently, “sharia law has been ‘peaceably’ enacted into law” and with it the desire to expunge any faith of the infidel.

Thus, Ibrahim explains the draconian hardships imposed for centuries upon Copts and other religious groups by Muslim rulers prompted many to convert to Islam.  Therefore, “nations such as Egypt which were about 95 percent Christian in the 7th century are today only about 10 percent.”  Acquiescing to dhimmi status and accepting life with few rights, they eventually converted to Islam “to find relief.”  Fifteenth-century anecdotes describe Muslims burning churches, slaughtering Christians, and enslaving their women and children.  Besides being “physically purged, they were spiritually murdered – a slow-motion genocide,” if you will.  Negative conditions of life of coercion coupled with “social bondage and financial bondage” pressured many to convert to Islam.

And it continues to the present day.

In 2016, at the Hoover Institution, Ralph Peters wrote:

The genocide against Middle-Eastern Christians approaches its endgame, while Western leaders look away as resolutely as they ignored the Holocaust when it was happening.  In time, there will be crocodile tears and, perhaps, a museum designed by an in-demand architect.  For now, though, the presidents and prime ministers who romanticize Islam and explain away its excesses all but condone the extermination of a 2,000-year-old religious civilization.

H.R. 565 – Save Christians from Genocide Act was sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.-48) and introduced on January 13, 2017.  As of this date, it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.  It is intended to “recognize that Christians and Yazidis in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and Libya are targets of genocide, and to provide for the expedited processing of immigrant and refugee visas for such individuals, and for other purposes.”

With Easter soon upon the world, it behooves people, no matter their religious persuasion, to acknowledge that while John the Baptist announced to the crowd in John 1:29  “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” it is up to individuals with a conscience to demand protection for those who accept Christianity.  There have been far too many Christian martyrs.


U of Miami “Finances” Savagery for the Future of America


by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

The Federalist Society at the University of Miami Law School proposed to bring in Charles Murray as part of a debate on free speech. Ironically enough, the university responded by charging the Federalist Society for the cost of security for the event–security made necessary by liberals’ proclivity toward violence. The tab? Nearly $8,000, a prohibitive sum for most campus groups. Goodbye, debate on free speech!

The president and vice-president of the Federalist Society sent this letter to the Dean of Miami Law School:

Dean White,

We have just received the proposed security cost estimate from the UM Police Department. We are surprised and genuinely concerned about the implications that this request has for this event, the Federalist Society, and the law school. We ask that you quickly clarify (by March 6th) that no such fee will be required. Otherwise you will be censoring free speech—more precisely a debate on free speech.

The total cost listed for security is a minimum of $7,646, guaranteed to increase with the hiring of additional wanders and bag checkers. This is unprecedented and obviously unaffordable for any student group.

Just as one example, last year, the co-founder of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, Alicia Garza, gave multiple stand-alone lectures at our University at the invitation of Osamudia James, a professor at Miami Law. At the time, the BLM movement was developing into one of the most powerful and controversial interest groups our nation has seen in decades. Their activities received national attention on a daily basis by virtually every major news source. By that time, the group had been responsible for numerous high profile demonstrations that inflamed passions across the nation and on both sides of the political aisle.

This all goes to say that the co-founder of the BLM Movement was—at the time—a highly controversial figure in American politics. Her controversial nature is simply not debatable. Nonetheless, we are not aware of any security costs that were charged for her individual speaking events. That event was sponsored by the Office of the Provost, the Division of Student Affairs, Student Life, Multicultural Student Affairs, and Housing and Residential Life. If security cost were in fact imposed, we would be very interested to find out the amount charged and who ultimately paid those fees.

This situation boils down to the following: The Miami Law Federalist Society is the only student organization on campus that has been required to furnish security fees prior to an event, and it is the most prominent libertarian/conservative organization on campus. The imposition of these security fees is sure to have a chilling effect on the Federalist Society’s operations at UM.

Dr. Murray is an Emeritus Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a renowned political scientist, author, and public speaker. His groundbreaking scholarship was the catalyst that led to the comprehensive (and bipartisan) Welfare Reform Act signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Dr. Murray was a Peace Corps Volunteer, worked with US-AID in Thailand. He received his B.A. from Harvard and his Ph.D. from MIT. He is a decorated scholar, having been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Rhodes College and Universidad Francisco Marroquín. He has also been a recipient of the Irving Kristol Award, the Kistler Prize, and the Edmund Burke Award. He has published over 18 books and hundreds of academic articles. He is not a danger to the welfare of University students; he is not a speaker that warrants almost $8,000 in security costs. He is an elderly academic that poses no risk to the University’s operations. The only risk he poses is upsetting the established norms of academic thought and behavior at the University of Miami. That alone does not justify levying these impossible costs on the Miami Law Federalist Society. These security fees are only setting a bad precedent at Miami Law that conservative/libertarian leaning organizations will have to pay to play whereas other organizations are entitled to explore ideas free of charge, indeed with support from the school.

This event is a debate on free speech and academic freedom. If it cannot be held at one of Florida’s most prestigious law schools, where can it be held? By assessing unnecessary security fees against the inviting student organization in response to threats of disruption, you are effectively giving those who threaten the safety of campus a Heckler’s Veto over any topic, speaker, or discussion that they are not comfortable with.

Rather than protecting your students, you are doing them a grave disservice by sheltering them from ideas that they have neither heard nor taken the time to fully understand. As future legal practitioners, students at Miami Law would behoove themselves to learn how to deal with unfamiliar and challenging ideas in a civil manner. We should not be encouraging our students to embrace emotional and intellectual frailty. Instead, we should be encouraging students to develop and exhibit mature adult traits, including the ability to listen and disagree courteously, or to simply exercise the choice not to attend events that may offend them.

If for any reason you cannot eliminate this fee, please let us know what the reason is for the fee and how this event differs from other events where no fee was charged.

Warm regards,

Stephen M. Smith
J.D. Candidate | 2018
Federalist Society | President
University of Miami School of Law

Alex Kiselev
J.D. Candidate | 2018
The Federalist Society | Vice President
University of Miami School of Law

Liberals don’t have to worry about paying for security for their events, because conservatives aren’t violent, and we respect others’ rights of free speech. Thus, the heckler’s veto is a one-way street–it operates only to prevent conservative voices from being heard on campuses.

Let’s hope that the University of Miami Law School reverses what so far is a disgraceful position.

Eric Holder: “Every day we have to brainwash people in our schools!”

Eric Holder: We Have to “Brainwash People” & Kids With Anti-Gun Curriculum in Their Classrooms

(Article sent by Lisa Rich in California.)

There is perhaps no greater truth about the radical Left’s indoctrination of public school students on guns than this Eric Holder video clip that has resurfaced.

The former Attorney General — who helped run thousands of illegal guns to Mexico in his “Fast & Furious” scandal which killed Border Agent Brian Terry — simply tells folks during a speech that the Democratic plan to brainwash children about guns in school.     (Please click below for the video.)



Jonathan Alter, Thomas Friedman, Joy Behar Janowitz, Matthew Nussbaum, Harvey Weinstein, Adam Schiff, Rod Rosenstein, etc. and Today’s America

I was born in the mid 1930s  and raised in depression and World War-time overwhelmingly Christian,  mainly Roman Catholic  St. Paul, Minnesota in a very modest  neighborhood of many newly built homes amid countless acres of open space planned for slightly higher income communities.    No Catholic elementary school had yet been built to separate Catholic from Protestant, so the only minority in the district was Jewish…..as I remember about 20% of the public elementary school  where I attended.
There were no known leftists anywhere in this elementary school district.   Every one  was Godfearing in language and  public behavior, and in religious expression.
The only noticeable division within  the  two blocks of houses where I lived was the two Jewish families refused to participate in neighborhood, although always invited.
By the time I was eleven I did know  Jewish kids attending our  school  were all Democrats as were  Roman Catholics.   
That was yesterday when religion really mattered in America.  Today we have different Democrats in our voting booths,  the fascist left kind, writing our news, owning our television, atheist teaching our kids, planning and performing out entertainment, selling ignorance, drugs,  black racism, feminism, internationalist obedience  and so, creating a much different country…….
And then,  there is our America’s best known, most popular preacher,  Dennis Prager carrying the torch of the American best based on Truth, Knowledge,   goodness, courage, and Godfearing!
So many of Dennis’ enemies, far out of proportion to their populations within our nation, are the armies led by  today’s Jewish Left leaders, selling themselves as “stars” in  our American communication, education, and entertainment industries, those industries now falling as fascists in   love,  profiteering  with  the State and what the State can dictate and sell their brands of fake news. 
Do get to know and support  Our Dennis and his followers better so that today’s America can halt its fascist-left  drive for power and   decay into greed and corruption and return to America the Beautiful! 
Learn to recognize Truth from Fiction through knowledge.   Know thy enemy of freedom better by seeking Truth over Fiction and knowing their differences.
Why are the following leftist sales folks so corrupt?   Please do count the ways.   
The Thomas Friedman case:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/opinion/trump-russia-putin.html
The Jonathan Alter case:  https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-russia-isnt-about-the-cover-up-its-about-the-crime
The Matthew Nussbaum case:  https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/18/trump-twitter-mueller-fbi-russia-scandal-416858?lo=ap_c1# 

Corruption, FASCISM at Harvard, your State University and Neighborhood College?!


Ten Most Fascistic “Colleges” in Leftist Dictating America Today

The 10 worst colleges for free speech: 2018

By  February 12, 2018

Every year, FIRE chooses the 10 worst colleges for free speech — and unfortunately, 2017 left us with plenty of options: Campuses were rocked by violent mob censorship, monitored by bias response teams, plagued by free speech zones, and beset by far too many disinvitation attempts. Although the number of colleges with the most restrictive speech codes has continued to decline, 90 percent of schools still maintain codes that either clearly restrict or could too easily be used to restrict free speech.

Today, we present our 2018 list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech. As always, our list is presented in no particular order, and it includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment; the private colleges on this list, though not required by the Constitution to protect student and faculty speech rights, explicitly promise to do so.

A new feature of this year’s list is our Lifetime Censorship Award. This “honor” goes to the one college or university that is so frequently discussed as a contender for our annual “worst colleges for free speech” list that it deserves special recognition. This year, that school is DePaul University.

Are you a student or faculty member whose free speech rights are imperiled on campus? Submit a case to FIRE. Also, check out FIRE’s Guides to Student Rights on Campus to help you fight for free speech, due process, religious liberty, and more.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, N.Y.)

Rensselar EMPAC (Credit: UpstateNYer)

Rensselaer Student Union (Credit: FIRE)

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, nestled in eastern New York, has a long history of censoring anything controversial, from criticism of the Iraq War to critics of that criticism. In 2017, RPI continued that tradition, working (literally) day and night to censor students. The target? Students who criticized what they perceive to be RPI administrators’ attempts to take over the Rensselaer Union — an organization and facility that has been independently operated by RPI students for over a century.

Last fall, students were required to ask administrators’ permission to hold a peaceful demonstration outside a black-tie fundraiser held by RPI’s president, Shirley Ann Jackson. Administrators denied that request — the second time they had denied “Save the Union” advocates permission to hold a demonstration. To add insult to injury, RPI administrators tore down “Save the Union” signs before dawn — an act of censorship caught on video — and erected fences to keep student protesters away from would-be donors.

After students peacefully demonstrated anyway, RPI brought charges against “leaders” of the demonstration — identified as “leaders” on the basis that they spoke to local television stations. One student was charged under a policy barring commercial solicitation for distributing a letter criticizing the administration. These charges were dropped only after months of criticism from FIRE.

RPI’s conduct earned it letters from both FIRE and the New York Civil Liberties Union, which criticized RPI’s use of an “apparently non-existent policy” to penalize critics of the administration. In response to FIRE, RPI claimed student expression would not be punished “provided it is within the realm of civil discourse (e.g., not hate speech or threatening).” RPI has no written policy requiring “civil discourse,” but it does have a “red light” speech code rating from FIRE for other policies restricting student expression.


Drexel University (Philadelphia, Pa.)


Drexel University Main Building

Drexel University makes promises to protect professors’ speech rights, but the university’s treatment of Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher makes clear it does not keep them.

The trouble for Ciccariello-Maher began on Dec. 24, 2016, when he tweeted “All I Want For Christmas is White Genocide,” which he said was “a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, ‘white genocide.’” Perhaps predictably, a backlash ensued — one that was fueled in significant part by accounts operated by the Russia-based and Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency. Drexel initially promised Ciccariello-Maher that he would not face punishment for the tweet, but the red light institution quietly launched an investigation anyway.

FIRE wrote to Drexel on June 2, 2017, reminding the university of its commitments to free expression and warning that its investigation of Ciccariello-Maher contradicted those promises. Rather than admit its mistake, Drexel refused to drop its investigation and then barred Ciccariello-Maher from campus in October, citing threats from those outraged by his tweets. When FIRE asked Drexel to provide basic information regarding its decision to ban Ciccariello-Maher, the university refused. Finally, one year after the controversy began, Ciccariello-Maher resigned from his “unsustainable” position, noting, “We are all a single outrage campaign away from having no rights at all, as my case and many others make clear.”

Ciccariello-Maher was right to say there are “many others” like him. Just last year, faculty at schools including the University of TampaEssex County CollegeMontclair State UniversityCalifornia State University, Fresno, and Trinity College faced suspensions, investigations, and even firings in response to outrage campaigns.


Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.)

harvard panorama Marcio Jose Bastos Silva Shutterstock.com feat

Widener Library at Harvard (Credit: Marcio Jose Bastos Silva / Shutterstock)

To make the list for the fourth time, all Harvard University really had to do was continue unabated on the campaign against free association that landed it on this list last year.

Harvard did just that, and the blacklist policy to deny certain academic and leadership privileges to members of single-gender groups like sororities, fraternities, and final clubs is still on track to be implemented this semester. But, always the overachievers, Harvard’s administration cemented their case with two additional free speech controversies.

First, Harvard rescinded offers of admission from 10 students for sharing joke images in a private group chat on Facebook. Had those students matriculated to Harvard, subjecting them to punishment would have been in violation of Harvard policy. But as the students had only been admitted, Harvard, under the cover of that technicality, deemed them unworthy of protection.

Ironically, this happened only a week after we praised Harvard President Drew Faust for a powerful commencement address in support of free speech on college campuses. She said, in part: “Our values and our theory of education rest on the assumption that members of our community will take the risk of speaking and will actively compete in our wild rumpus of argument and ideas. It requires them as well to be fearless in face of argument or challenge or even verbal insult.”

Harvard’s administration had another opportunity to demonstrate that very same fearlessness when it received criticism from the intelligence community for extending a visiting fellowship to court-martialed former U.S. intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. Instead, it almost immediately buckled to pressure and revoked the fellowship. Harvard’s speed to cave under external criticism further undermines its commitment to the “wild rumpus of ideas.”

With President Faust resigning at the conclusion of this academic year, we hope that her successor, former Tufts University President Lawrence Bacow, will address Harvard’s red light speech code rating and demonstrate the commitment to defending free speech that Faust’s administration lacked. However, given that Bacow’s tenure at Tufts was marred by several speech controversies of its own, we are less than optimistic.


Los Angeles Community College District (Los Angeles, Calif.)

According to the Los Angeles Community College District, all of the grounds on its nine campuses — comprising the largest community college district in the country — are off-limits to free speech, except administratively designated “free speech zones.” The breadth and severity of its speech restrictions, affecting over 150,000 students in the district, earns LACCD a spot on this year’s list.

Last year, a student at one district campus, Los Angeles Pierce College, decided to push back. On March 28, 2017, Pierce student Kevin Shaw filed a lawsuit with FIRE’s help against administrators at LACCD and Pierce College after he was told he could not hand out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution on behalf of Young Americans for Liberty outside the college’s tiny free speech zone. The zone is about the size of three parking spaces and makes up about .003 percent of the campus. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in Shaw’s case, arguing that he successfully alleged First Amendment violations.

Just last month, the court rejected LACCD administrators’ attempt to dismiss Shaw’s lawsuit, which is part of our Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project. In an opinion from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the court ruled that open, outdoor areas of Pierce’s campus are public forums for student speech, whether or not school policy attempts to label them otherwise.

Fordham University (New York, N.Y.)


Fordham Rose Hill Campus (Credit: Fordham.edu)

What’s worse than making this list in 2017? Finding yourself back on it in 2018.

In late 2016, Fordham University’s United Student Government Senate and Executive Board granted approval to a prospective chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. However, Dean of Students Keith Eldredge overruled the USG and denied recognition to SJP, writing that he “cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country” and that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict … often leads to polarization rather than dialogue.”

On Jan. 25, 2017, FIRE and the National Coalition Against Censorship wrote to Fordham (which also earns a red light speech code rating from FIRE), calling on the university to reverse its rejection of SJP in keeping with its free speech promises. Instead, Fordham doubled down and even went so far as to sanction students protesting the university’s decision, which cemented its place on last year’s “10 Worst” list.

But the story didn’t end there. Members of the prospective SJP chapter fought back and fileda lawsuit against Fordham on April 26, 2017. Again, rather than admitting its errors, Fordham continued to stand by its disregard for free association, earning its title as one of 2018’s worst. On Jan. 3, Fordham defended its actions in court by offering a shifting array of justifications for its behavior, each less believable than the last, eventually claiming that the students could start a group, so long as it didn’t use the “Students for Justice in Palestine” name — a claim that directly contradicts the university’s written explanations for why it denied official recognition to the group.


 Click below to become better acquainted with the rest of the ten most Soviet fascist institutions  preaching  hate  American males lectures and studies on behalf of today’s feminazis,  feminists, black racists, standard communists and atheists of all sexes, colors, shapes, and sizes:



Despite FBI Director Wray Claim…. The FBI Was, Is Corrupted by the Obama-Hillary Leftists

FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus

by Thomas Lifson  at  American Thinker:

Thanks to the work of smart and hardworking (non-mainstream) journalists, we can peek just a bit over the horizon and see where the story of the weaponization of the FBI via a senior-level cabal is going from here.  I use the word “story” deliberately, because that is the way public opinion forms itself on major political affairs.  The progressives in the media and politics  have long understood this.  The cast of the story is now set, and some dramatic plot points have been identified.  The ending hasn’t been written yet, of course, but the villains are identifying themselves or being exposed, and some of the heroes are emerging.  We are on the cusp of a drama much bigger than Watergate breaking open, and its story elements are compelling.

In the calm before the storm breaks, the mainstream media and the Democrat attack squad from the House Intel committee [i] are in the midst of utterly discrediting themselves.  Once the story breaks into the open, indictments will be handed down, and the witnesses, hostile and cooperating, will be heard in hearings and in court.  They have worked together to cover up and distract from the story, but the truth will out, and now it is becoming clear how that will happen.

The fake controversy over the ten-page Schiff memo is keeping the morale of the #resistance crowd up, but Schiff himself will go down in history as the guy who kicked sand in the eyes of the investigators.  All that media effort in pushing the phony narrative of Russia collusion will make them into dupes and laughingstocks, once the solid evidence is brought to light that a conspiracy to push that phony narrative was run with key members of the Clinton machine working hand in glove with the cabal.

Sharyl Attkisson has done us a great favor in identifying the dramatis personae who formed the FBI “secret society” that protected Hillary and spied on Trump.  She has organized a chart depicting the senior-level personnel changes at the Justice Department during the campaign, the Russia probe, and the Clinton email probe, highlighting in yellow the individuals James Comey appointed.

In the space of a year, as the presidential campaigns got rolling in the fall of 2015, James Comey moved his team into top positions in the intelligence and counterintelligence apparatus of the FBI.  That’s where the surveillance capacity exists.  Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intel Committee and Senators Grassley and Graham, we have the basic story already outlined and have received the first installment of the plot: the issuance of the FISA warrants on the basis of a fiction pushed by the Clinton campaign.

Disclosure of some of the lovebird texts of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page already has provided plenty of drama – romance, secrets, hatred, and a break-up text calling off the affair – and there are more texts to come.  Strzok’s firing from the Mueller special counsel’s team was the first manifestation of the cabal being busted, and last week’s flurry of senior-level FBI officials departing is another sign that insiders know that the jig is up.

Meanwhile, our own Clarice Feldman presents evidence that the guilty plea of General Michael Flynn, the pre-eminent scalp hanging from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s belt, may be thrown out of court when he appears for sentencing by Judge Emmet Sullivan, following the mysterious recusal of Judge Rudolph Contreras and the equally or even more mysterious request by Mueller to delay sentencing.  Something’s up, and it is big.

The forthcoming Department of Justice inspector general’s report, believed to be slated for next month, is a wild card.  With a staff of 250, I.G. Michael Horowitz should have uncovered much, and Horowitz has a sterling reputation.  But then again, so did James Comey at one point.  Lots of people putatively on our side have vouched for Horowitz, but we don’t know the scope of the report, nor do we know what evidence of corruption will be presented.

However, a game-changer is about to drop.  Last Saturday, we got the first indirect, inferential evidence of a major revelation on its way: there is an informant from among the cast of characters Sharyl Attkisson highlighted in yellow, a canary singing to save himself.

This mystery figure is the man who, a number of observers noticed, has never been mentioned as the information has dripped out of the FBI.  His name is Bill Priestap, and he was brought in by James Comey as assistant director of the FBI, Counterintelligence Division, in December 2015.

Preistap’s identity as the DOJ’s informant was inadvertently and indirectly confirmed Saturday night by Chris Stewart, a member of the Nunes committee, under informed and targeted questioning by Judge Jeanine Pirro, a former prosecutor and skilled courtroom interrogator.

Watch below as she blindsides Stewart with Priestap’s name, he deflects the question, and then she circles back in, softening him up by saying, “I don’t like that I haven’t heard of him.”  Then she went in for the kill, laying out the way Comey “threw him under the bus” (more on that later from Sundance) and then says, “The fact that we haven’t heard from Priestap tells me that he’s cooperating with someone or…what?”

Poor Stewart, an honest man, then gives away the game by responding, “Well, look, I’m gonna be careful because I’m not sure what we can say on this, and believe me, I don’t want to be the headline when Chris Stewart reveals a bunch of sensitive or classified information[.]”  Okay, he didn’t say, Yes, Priestap’s a cooperating witness, but it’s clear to me that such an inference is justified.

Sundance of Conservative Treehouse has a brilliant analysis that should be read in its entirety laying out why Priestap is the songbird.

His analysis of the moment Comey “threw him under the bus” is persuasive:

On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.

FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*

I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]

… At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.

In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey’s fall guy.  We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way.  The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.

Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations.  Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation[?]

Already, despite the mainstream media’s best effort, half of the public now believes that senior law enforcement officials broke the law to hinder the Trump presidency, according to Rasmussen.  A grand narrative of breathtaking conspiracy and corruption awaits us as the biggest political scandal in American history unfolds.  The story now has a face and a narrator named Priestap, even though his information can’t yet be revealed.  All in good tine, but preferably before November.