College Cry baby Cartoon

Down with Wilson, up with Che: Wimpy colleges surrender to lunatic fringe

In a month when Western Civilization has come under renewed attack from jihadists, that other bastion of opposition to the economic and political freedom the West embodies has gone haywire: college campuses.  While it’s tempting to blame precious students who are demanding safe zones and freedom from unwelcome ideas, the real culprits are wimpy college administrators.
The latest chapter of political-correctness lunacy comes from Princeton’s campus, where a group of students staged an illegal sit-in at the offices of university president Eisgruber.  The students were outraged that the man who ran Princeton before becoming our 28^th president in 1913, Woodrow Wilson, was unable to see a century into the future during his life and comply with our contemporary racial sensibilities.  Despite a tenure that made him commander-in-chief during World War I and which fundamentally changed America’s role in the world, aggrieved students now demand safety from buildings and murals bearing Wilson’s name.
Princeton’s Black Justice League also wants a space on campus for “cultural affinity” groups and and a diversity and “cultural competency” training program.(Incidentally, China had a nationwide version of this beginning in 1966.)
Rather than having the trespassing students arrested and expelled, Eisgruber validated their tactics, signing an agreement that could lead to airbrushing Wilson, and which provided amnesty for the law-breaking students.
This is par for course in a year when college administrators have caved in to a loud minority of perpetually aggrieved students.  In the past month, kids at Yale made headlines for demanding administrators make them safe from potentially insensitive Halloween costumes and an email that dared suggest independent thought.  Instead of standing up for free expression and telling students to buck up, Yale’s president, Peter Salovey, gushed to protesters: “We failed you.  I think we have to be a better university. I think we have to do a better job.”
At the University of Missouri, students protested a lack of handholding after alleged racial incidents.  Ultimately, the school’s president was forced out.  In each of these cases, administrators indulged out-of-line students who should have been rebuked.
Administrators aren’t just kowtowing to fringe students in assaulting free speech and political rights, they’re also attacking economic freedom.  A case in point is the University of California at San Diego, which hosts a Marxist collective that can’t pay its bills.
The Che Cafe—named after communist Che Guevara--has graced its location on Scholars Drive at UCSD since 1980, when the self-styled “collective” began operating the music venue.  Its web site promises that, “Working in our co-op/workers’ collective, and learning to cooperate with others in a non-hierarchical setting can be a very valuable experience.”
Other helpful advice includes: “If you do not wish to be shoved by the mosh, do not stand in or next to the mosh.”  Words to live by.
But what about that mosh known as the real world, for which college is supposed to prepare students?  It can be tough out there, with things like laws and bills.  The Che has been brought to the brink of ruin not only by its pay-whatever’s-cool revenue model—a unique idea they oddly never taught us in business school—but also by a demand that it comply with health and fire regulations, including by installing costly sprinklers and alarms that do nothing at all for the radical-chic vibe.
The Che would very much like to keep bumming subsidies from UCSD—effectively seeking a bailout of about $700,000 from taxpayer funds and tuition.  In a moment of sanity, UCSD moved to evict the collective.  In true California style, the matter is now tied up in court.
Don’t blame PC-crazed kids.  It was actually a student-run committee that voted to cut funding for the Che. One of many reasons was a survey that revealed 83% of UCSD students never go to the place.
Nonetheless, even before a ruling from the court, UCSD has indicated it will back down.  In so doing, administrators would join the morally challenged presidents of Yale and Princeton.
At all of these colleges, PC thugs represent just a tiny minority; the vast majority of American students want to use college as a foundation for success and a good life, not a career of indulging grievances.  The real culprits are weak administrators who, rather than pander to the bottom 5% of future alumni, ought to stand up for the political and economic freedom that made America great—and which are crucial to critical reasoning and the attainment of knowledge.
No one expects students not to do stupid things on occasion, like hanging out at a collective or thinking they’re oppressed by a building named by someone who wasn’t culturally sensitive by standards a century after his death.  But it’s time for college administrators to start reflecting the values and judgment of parents and taxpayers who foot the bill for college—and for that matter the silent majority of students who want to learn to succeed in the great nation that pioneered political and economic freedom. 

FOX News Poll: Majorities say call it 'radical Islam,' oppose Syrian refugees

Most American voters believe Islamic terrorists will strike the U.S. soon.  A Fox News national poll released Sunday also finds Democrats and Republicans united against President Obama’s plan to accept Syrian refugees -- as most voters think at least one will be a terrorist who will launch a successful attack here. 
Here are five findings on the war against terrorism.  Voters feel:
-- The U.S. is at war with radical Islam, and Democrats who refuse to call the enemy by that name are doing the wrong thing.
-- Obama has not fought the war against ISIS aggressively enough, and that war is going badly.
-- Terrorism is now the top problem facing the country, and an attack is likely soon.
-- Bringing Syrian refugees into the U.S. is a bad idea, and a religious test would be shameful.
-- Closing Gitmo is wrong, and Obama should not side step Congress to do so.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Here are the details behind those findings:
Today 66 percent consider the country “at war” with radical Islam, up from 56 percent in January.
The poll asks about Democratic presidential candidates rejecting terms like radical Islam and Islamic terrorists to describe those who committed the Paris attacks. Fifty-six percent think they are doing the wrong thing by refusing to identify clearly the nature of the threat. Thirty-three percent feel Democrats are doing the right thing by being careful not to blame Muslim ideology.
More than 6 in 10 say the U.S. fight against ISIS is going badly (63 percent).  At the same time, voters continue to oppose sending a “significant” number of U.S. ground troops to fight the extremists (42 percent favor vs. 51 percent oppose).  However, opposition is decreasing; it was 37 percent in favor vs. 57 percent opposed in June.
While 26 percent think the actions of the Obama administration have been “about right” in trying to stop ISIS, most -- 65 percent -- say Obama hasn’t been aggressive enough. That includes 39 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independents and 91 percent of Republicans.
The current situation has pushed the president’s job rating to a low point for the year. Forty percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing, while 54 percent disapprove. It was 45-50 percent earlier this month. Some of the decline comes from Democrats: 78 percent approve now, down from 84 percent (Nov. 1-3, 2015).  Overall, Obama’s worst rating was 38 approve vs. 56 disapprove in September 2014.
In the wake of the Paris attacks, terrorism now tops the economy as the most important issue facing the country.  Twenty-four percent of voters say terrorism, up from 11 percent in August.  Currently 21 percent say the economy is the top issue, down from 30 percent this summer.  There’s a substantial gap before foreign policy (7 percent), health care (7 percent), immigration (7 percent) and the deficit (5 percent) are mentioned.  Only three percent say climate change is the priority.
Fifty-six percent think it is “very” likely Islamic terrorists will try to attack the United States soon, up from 50 percent who felt that way in January.
Two-thirds of voters -- and nearly half of Democrats -- oppose the administration’s plan for the U.S. to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year, and 77 percent think it’s likely at least one of those coming in through this process will be a terrorist who will “succeed in carrying out an attack on U.S. soil.”
Obama says it’s shameful to have a religious test for bringing Syrian refugees into the country -- and 64 percent agree with him. Fewer than one in four says it makes sense to only allow Syrian refugees who are Christian to come to the U.S. (23 percent).

Views by Party
Forty-nine percent of Democrats join majorities of independents (67 percent) and Republicans (86 percent) in opposing Obama’s plan to bring Syrian refugees into the U.S.
By an overwhelming 91-8 percent margin, Republicans think it’s likely a terrorist will sneak in as a refugee and carry out an attack.  Democrats agree that’s a likely scenario -- just by a smaller 62-35 percent margin.
Republicans (37 percent) are nearly four times as likely as Democrats (10 percent) to think a religious test for Syrian refugees makes sense.  Even so, a plurality of Republicans (49 percent) agrees with the large majority of Democrats (81 percent) who feel it’s a shameful idea.

Guantanamo Bay
Two days after the Paris attacks, the White House announced the transfer of five Guantanamo Bay detainees to the government of the United Arab Emirates.  That’s part of the Obama administration’s ongoing plan to close the facility -- a plan that by a two-to-one margin voters think is the wrong course of action (59-31 percent).
Even more voters, 73 percent, oppose Obama bypassing Congress to close the detention center by executive action. That’s widely seen as the only way he could close Gitmo given lawmakers’ opposition.
While a plurality of Democrats thinks closing Gitmo is the right thing to do (48 percent), a slim majority opposes Obama going around Congress to do it (53 percent).
Most say they would not be willing to have Gitmo detainees moved to a prison in their state (68 percent), however, nearly 3 in 10 say they would be (28 percent).
The Fox News poll is based on live telephone interviews (landline and cellphone) with 1,016 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from Nov. 16-19, 2015. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

California college newspaper creating 'safe space' for minority students

The “safe spaces” fad popular among many progressive college activists is occupying a new piece of real estate: The pages of a student government-funded newspaper.
The official newspaper of California’s Claremont McKenna College announced this month it would be setting aside some of its column inches to give “people of color” an unfiltered voice in the media.
“So for those who don’t feel all the messages of solidarity are enough, or who feel the mainstream media is misguided in representing people of color, or who feel compelled to speak and be heard, we would like to re-purpose its influence by providing a space in next week’s issue for students of color to voice their experiences,” a Nov. 13 editorial in The Student Life stated. “We will proofread, but we will not edit your voice or content.”

"They’re supposed to be neutral, non-partisan"
- Steven Glick

Junior Steven Glick, the publisher of Claremont McKenna’s Independent newspaper the Claremont Independent, told "Fox & Friends" on Sunday he didn’t feel the stance taken by The Student Life’s editorial board was appropriate.
“So with the school paper, they’re school funded, they’re connected to all the students, they’re designed to be a representative of the whole student body, they’re supposed to be neutral, non-partisan,” Glick said. “So for them to take a stand, side with one group on this issue, is not in the boundaries of what this paper should try to be accomplishing with their opinion section.”
On-campus protests related to perceived issues of race resulted in the Claremont McKenna dean stepping down on Nov. 12. The demonstrations, which included hunger strikes, were similar to ones seen around the country recently, most visibly at the University of Missouri, Yale and Ithaca College.
But Glick said student sentiment is far from one-sided and the protest issue has become contentious.
“It’s clearly a very divisive issue on campus; these protests that have been going on and the way they’ve been handled,” Glick said. “We had the dean of Claremont McKenna College forced to resign; we had the junior class president forced to resign as well. And it’s an issue that students have been very divided on. It’s something that, at a school of 1,200 students for Claremont McKenna College, a letter signed by 300 students in criticism of the protests was sent out. So clearly it’s something where the student body is very divided.”
The Student Life’s planned printable “safe space” is just one example of the trend in the Claremont College system.
The Independent posted a screen shot from the Facebook page of the Motley Coffeehouse at Scripps College purportedly advertising an event “only for people of color and allies that they invite.” The posting has seemingly since been deleted. The Independent also highlighted an event by 5C Students of Color Alliance at Pomona College that publicized a restricted meeting space. “As this is a space for students of color, please respect the space as such,” the Facebook post stated.

NJ mayor rips Trump over claim American Muslims celebrated 9/11 attacks

Jersey City Mayor Fulop, Democratic Party

The mayor of a New Jersey city slammed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump Sunday after the real estate mogul repeatedly claimed that he saw people cheering the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks across the Hudson River from where the Twin Towers fell.
Trump first told the story Saturday at a rally in Birmingham, Ala., as he pressed the need for greater surveillance, including monitoring certain mosques, in the wake of the Paris attacks.
"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering," Trump said.
Trump repeated the claim Sunday in an interview on ABC's "This Week" after host George Stephanopoulos explained that police had refuted any such rumors at the time.
"It did happen. I saw it," said Trump. "It was on television. I saw it."
"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down," he said.
"I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it," he added, "but there were people cheering as that building came down, as those buildings came down. And that tells you something."
A spokeswoman did not respond to a request for clarification Saturday about Trump's comments.
In a statement, Jersey City Mayor Fulop criticized Trump for his statements.
"Trump is plain wrong, and he is shamefully politicizing an emotionally charged issue," said Fulop. "No one in Jersey City cheered on September 11th. We were actually among the first to provide responders to help in lower Manhattan."
Footage of Muslims in Middle Eastern countries cheering news of the attacks were broadcast often on television, but there is no evidence in news archives of mass celebrations by Muslims in Jersey City, which sits right across the Hudson River from Lower Manhattan, with clear views of the World Trade Center site.
While rumors have circulated on the internet for years that American Muslims celebrated the attacks in Paterson, New Jersey, police officials and religious leaders denied it at the time.
"Trump needs to understand that Jersey City will not be part of his hate campaign," said Fulop. "Clearly, Trump has memory issues or willfully distorts the truth, either of which should be concerning for the Republican Party."

Isis is really scared of Hillary Cartoon

To ISIS Women are Objects.

Hillary's terror task: Ramping up rhetoric without breaking with Obama

Hillary and Howard Kurtz,Fox News analyst.

Hillary Clinton gave her commander-in-chief speech yesterday.
With the Republican candidates uniformly slamming President Obama for an anemic response to ISIS, his former secretary of State decided to lay down her own plan. And while Clinton didn’t overtly criticize her former boss, she proposed a somewhat more aggressive approach—a reminder that she is a more hawkish Democrat than the incumbent.
Her situation is not unlike that of Hubert Humphrey, running as LBJ’s vice president in 1968 and having to gingerly discuss a Vietnam War that was not going well without openly breaking with the White House.

The Paris attacks have dramatically shifted the media's center of gravity in this campaign.
The main headline from Clinton’s appearance at New York’s Council on Foreign Relations, carried live on MSNBC, is that she doesn’t want to send U.S. ground troops to Syria—even if there is another attack on American soil. In that, she is in sync with Obama—and at odds with such Republicans as Jeb Bush, who this week explicitly called for using ground forces against ISIS.
Indeed, the RNC wasted little time in calling Clinton “the architect of the failed Obama foreign policy” who has “largely doubled down on the existing Obama strategy.”
The other headline was her criticism of the Republicans—without citing the party by name—on Syrian refugees. Again, Hillary’s stance put her in lockstep with Obama.
“Turning away orphans, applying a religious test, discriminating against Muslims, slamming the door on every single Syrian refugee--is just not who we are. We’re better than that,” she said.
But in calling for America to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, Clinton is pushing a step that Obama is resisting. And by calling on Congress to quickly authorize the use of military force, she is challenging her former colleagues to do what they refused to do when the president asked for such authority in 2013.
In pure political terms, Clinton did not want to cede the stage to Donald Trump and other Republican candidates, who have been blitzing the airwaves with calls for more aggressive action against ISIS and halting the flow of Syrian refugees to this country.
Unlike every other presidential contender, Clinton ran the State Department for four years and dealt with terror issues—as is all too apparent from the failure in Benghazi. She made a point of threading her discursive speech with references to her Foggy Bottom tenure, such as building up “a unit of communications specialists fluent in Urdu, Arabic, Somali, and other languages to do battle with extremists online.” And: “We created the Global Counterterrorism Forum, which now brings together nearly 30 countries, many from the Muslim world.”
She was careful to observe diplomatic niceties, such as saying “the U.N. Security Council should update its terrorism sanctions.”
Clinton also dug in on the linguistic battle. “Islam itself is not our adversary,” she insisted. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” She declared that using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” which most Repubicans favor, “is not just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve and it actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.”
With the Paris massacre shining a media spotlight on fear and frustration, Clinton’s speech was not intended as a stirring call to arms. It was an effort to show she’s serious about terrorism—but sensitive to refugees—as those subjects dominate the campaign agenda.

Trump calls for surveillance of some mosques, attempts to clarify remarks on Syrian database

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump repeated his call Saturday for surveillance of mosques and a database on Syrian refugees coming into the United States, following a series of overseas terror attacks connected to Islamic extremist groups.
“I want surveillance of these people and of certain mosques,” the front-running Trump said at a campaign event in Birmingham, Ala. “We’ve had it before, we will have it again.”
The New York police department kept surveillance on mosques after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But the controversial program was ended in 2014.
Trump also said he witnessed thousands of people across the Hudson River in New Jersey cheered when Islamic extremist hijackers during the 9/11 attacks crashed two U.S. airlines into the twin World Trade Center towers, toppling the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan and killing thousands.
“Something is going on,” he said.
Trump also said he wants a database on all Syrians refugees coming into the U.S., following the recent, deadly attacks in Paris in which one suicide bomber allegedly came from war-torn Syria and entered France by foiling Europe’s refugee vetting system.
He appeared to clarify a comment earlier this week about such a database, making clear it would apply to all Syrian refugees being resettled in the U.S.
Trump, among the most outspoken of the 2016 presidential candidates on illegal immigration, also said that if elected he would make Syrians resettled in the U.S. leave the country.
“They’ll go back,” he said.
When announcing his White House bid this summer, Trump vowed to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants including “rapists” and “drug dealers.”
Despite the backlash, Trump continues to tout the plan, to the support of his conservative base, especially in the wake of the recent terror attacks.
President Obama says his administration will continue to accept Syrian refugees, include 10,000 more through 2016. However, Congress doesn’t appear to fully support the plan, amid voter fears that the refugee vetting process is not as thorough as needed.
On Thursday, the GOP-led House, with the support of 47 Democrats, voted in favor of tighter regulation on allowing refugees into the country.