Saturday, October 17, 2015

Eco-Socialism at UC Santa Barbara

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


The below report was forwarded to me by Act for America in Calabasas (Ca). The writer, Michael Greer, attended a workshop devoted to Climate Change at UC Santa Barbara. If you need any further proof of the socialistic agenda of the climate change crowd, here it is.


Michael Greer
10/12/2015 02:41 PM

WELCOME COMRADES: 21ST CENTURY ECOSOCIALISM CONFERENCE

Although I’ve known for a long time that our children are being steeped in the Liberal view of the world at our universities, I had no idea how truly perverted and dangerous it was until I attended the “21st Century EcoSocialism Conference” at the University of California at Santa Barbara this weekend. This event was extremely disturbing. 

The Conference began Friday night with the screening of a documentary entitled, “Climate Deadline” by Richard Widick. Widick is a Sociologist at the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies at UCSB. He is currently writing a book, “Climate of Empire: Inside the Struggle over Global Climate Governance”. 

Dr. Widick was introduced by John Foran, Professor of Sociology at UCSB, Executive Producer of the film and organizer of the Conference. Widwick bounced onto the stage like Rocky. Grinning, he said how happy he was to be with all these “Socialists” and “Welcome, Comrades!”  He spoke about having attended the United Nations Climate Conventions for last four years, both as an observer and an activist protesting outside. His film covers those Conventions.  He is giddy about the upcoming Convention in Paris this December as there are BIG plans for this convention. 

The film had interviews in the hallways of the conference interspersed with protests outside. Police in riot gear lobbing tear gas canisters at angry crowds. There were interviews with delegates from France, Brazil, the Serra Club, and others. But most revealing were from Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.  This woman revealed the true goal of these conferences. She said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”   
The young woman representing Brazil also confirmed Ms. Figueres statement by saying the Conference had nothing to do with climate but was about the redistribution of wealth. She said it was about who would be “allowed” to own what. The film ended with views of a chaotic protest march outside the Convention with the crowd singing, “That’s why I’m a socialist.” 
After the film Richard Widick and John Foran took the stage for questions and answers.  I was struck by how joyful Dr. Widwick was.  He never stopped grinning.  He spoke laughingly about how difficult it was to hold a camera while ducking tear gas canisters and said if anyone wanted to volunteer to be cameraman at Decembers Conference email him at rwidick@ucsb.edu. 

When they asked for questions, I raised my hand and was given the microphone. Foolish them. I thanked Dr. Widwick for his honesty in telling us what Climate Change was really about. It’s about global governance, global socialism, and the destruction of Capitalism.  I said Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system and socialism spreads poverty not wealth so I didn’t think many people would like that. I said there hasn’t been any warming in more than 18 years and CO2 is not a pollutant, it is nutrient necessary for life.   

Dr. Widwick seemed shocked and said something about how this would protect private property. I asked him what the UN’s position on private property was. He said the UN had no position on private property. I said, of course it did, their position is that private property is the main source of the accumulation of wealth which isn’t “fair” and that all property should belong to government.  As I got up to leave, Mr. Foran said he was offended that I would insult their intelligence. A man sitting behind me said, “sit down, you might learn something.” I replied, “not likely.” 

Saturday morning the Conference began with Roberta Cordero giving a Greeting to the Gathering that explained that the land UCSB was on had been stolen from the Chumash Indians.  During the day we were reminded numerous times that we needed to be respectful of our being on Chumash land (neglecting to mention the humongous casino they have built next to the small two story Danish town of Solvang). 
Mr. Foran (dressed in a rumpled t-shirt that said “System Change, not Climate Change”, rumpled black cargo shorts and tennis shoes) told us that we didn’t give our leaders authority to destroy the world. I’m sure he and I have differing ideas on who is destroying what. He introduced three men who were joining us by Skype from different parts of the world. Jeremy Brecher, from somewhere in the USA, spoke about the culture of resistance and civil disobedience.  Mr. Brecher is of the age that one might imagine he had been involved in the protests of the 60’s. His rhetoric was dusted off from the 60’s. 

From Paris, Skye Boughsty-Marshall told us how they were preparing for the December COP (this is what attendees call the UN Climate Change Conferences. It stands for Conference Of Partners).  They are co-ordinating global radical EcoSocialism.  November 28th and 29th they are planning “Incidents” in Europe.  November 30th they are having “Climate Games”.  They plan mass blockades of corporate buildings during meetings of the “Climate Criminals”. As the COP is about to adjourn they plan to form three circles around the conference building. The first circle inside the building blocking exits. The second and third outside the building blocking anyone from leaving. They plan to demand delegates sign an agreement that includes their demands. They are hoping for violence and police action that will unfold in front of the world.  But Skye wanted us to also be mindful of the more passive activists as there is a place for them. 
From South Africa, Patrick Bond said it was important to link climate to EVERYTHING. They need union support and, as many of them belong to unions, they should be able to recruit people.  He said making it about climate not socialism will make it easier to get people with other views to join them. 

The next two speakers were in person. Both young, attractive and very radical socialists.  Ben Manski is from Seattle. He said those of us who are radicals must stop the the economic machine.  He spoke of building a Red/Green movement before the May Day/Earth Day celebration. He suggested “climate strikes” that include shutting down roads, shutting down buildings, and universities.  He said to go to climatestrike.org and nextsystem.org for more information.   

Emily Williams, a pretty blond, is hoping to make a powerful statement in Paris (she will be there) by locking people in the Conference until they agree to their demands. No concessions.  She bragged about getting UCSB to divest from coal. 

A man got up and wanted to know where everyone was from.  He asked all from Los Angeles stand up and about a third stood. Many were from the Bay area and Seattle. About a third were students from UCSB.  I’d guess there were about 150 people in attendance, about 30 of them speakers. 

Lunch was followed by four break out sessions from 1:15pm to 2:45pm.  “Converging Storms: the Crises if Energy, Capitalism and the Environment”, “Ecology and Marxism”, “Paris COP21: What Do EcoSocialists Think Can be Done There for Radical Climate Justice” and “The Capitalist Patriarchy and the Climate Crisis: Can Real Climate Justice Be Had without Gender Justice and Vice Versa?” 

I chose the last one about “Gender Justice” (whatever that is).  A very sincere, young woman, Julie Gorecki was the presenter.  She asked us to go around the room and give our names and why we were there.  She said she should have asked us what pronoun we wanted to use.  Were there any who prefer “they” and one young asian man said he would.  “They”?  She said to please remember to use the preferred pronoun and if we forget we will be gently reminded.  Although she was very bright and used lofty scholarly terms she spoke as though she were speaking to kindergarten students not adults.  She spoke about the institutionalized domination of women, especially southern indigenous women and women of color. She used very intellectual, scholarly terms like “gender binary”, “eco-feminism”, “dualistic thinking”, “micro-agression”, etc..   She spoke of capitalism being paternalistic.  She talked about the oppression of women, the culture of rape, the subservience of domestic work and child care, and apparently it’s all caused by paternalistic Capitalism.   
When she opened it up for discussion I said I thought it was all an interesting intellectual exercise but that I hadn’t felt oppressed by men.  I said I have two daughters who are very successful as are their friends, many of whom made more money than their husband in this evil Capitalistic country. I asked what system has brought more people out of poverty than Capitalism.  One young woman said that was my experience but not the experience of others.  I replied it is the experience of very many.  That there have been women leading countries (Margaret Thatcher, Eva Peron, Golda Meier), women CEO’s, women Secretaries of State, women business owners, and many of color.  When the session ended Ms. Gorecki told me how much she appreciated my comments and that I handled the hostility gracefully. She said she thought it was healthy to open the discussion to different points of view. 

The next break out session was from 3:00pm to 4:30pm, with the subjects of, “The Struggle Against Coal Exports in Oakland”, “Front Line Hotspots in British Columbia, Canada”, “Tools of Re-evaluation Counceling for Climate Activists”, and  “Capitalism and Climate Change: Organizing Tools and Experiences in Los Angeles”. 

I chose the “Experiences in Los Angeles” one. It was presented by David Klein, professor of Environmental Science at the California State University at Northridge (CSUN).  Seated at the front and around the room were grotesque puppets. They were made by students of Edie Klein (wife of David, who also teaches at Northridge) to depict what Capitalists look like.  Again we were asked to go around the room and say our name and why we were there. I said my name and that my daughter graduated from Northridge with a degree in Environmental Science and that neither she nor I believed man was causing global warming. 

Professor Klein introduced his wife, a perky little blond with bright red lipstick, who announced, “I’m Edie, I’m a proud anti-Capitalist”.  She told us about her students who knew nothing about Capitalism until she set them straight.  She said she likes to think up fun projects called “Art and Spectacle” to help her students understand the evils of Capitalism.  She had them make the puppets and she also had them make a replica of Wall Street out of match sticks, six feet high and twelve feet long.  When it was finished they burned it down to her great joy.   

Klein then gave us the Global Warming data that he teaches his students. He said he tells his students to use the word Capitalism at least twice a week in a negative way. He said college should be free through PhD’s. Healthcare should be free.  We should be paid full time to work 15 hours a week.  He said to think of all you could do if you only worked 15 hours a week. He said students ask him what they should say if someone calls them a Marxist.  He said, “say, Thank you”. 
Klein is a member of a group, “System Change, Not Climate Change” (which IMO says it all).  There are chapters of this group across the nation, apparently.  He asked one of his students to tell us about a group she was forming at CSUN.  She spoke about how difficult it was. When she quoted Noam Chomsky I wasn’t surprised. She had been working on it a year and it was just starting to come together. Another woman said she was trying to start a group in Los Angeles and was having a hard time as well. It was suggested they not mention Marxism but use Climate Change.  She said she only had about 15 members which was met with pleasant surprise. They couldn’t believe she had that many members.  That made me feel a little better because I was beginning to think they had more supporters than they actually have. 

When the session was over a woman came and stood in front of me with a big smile on her face. She said, “Well, how do you feel?” “Did you learn something?”  Obviously, she thought I was simply uninformed and surely Professor Klein had convinced me.  I told her I didn’t learn anything I hadn’t heard before and no, it didn’t change my mind.  She asked if she could interview me and I agreed.  She asked what I thought of EcoSocialism. I said I was appalled. I was appalled our children are being taught by people who want to overthrow our system. I was appalled that they are being taught Capitalism is evil when it has brought more people out of poverty than any other system. I said even in this horrible economy we create millionaires every day.  I said Capitalism may have been corrupted but you fix it you don’t destroy it. She asked why I didn’t believe man was causing Climate Change. I told her I belong to a group that brings experts, scientists, world leaders, etc from around the world and I get my information from people actually involved in the science and politics of the subject.  I held up a list of the scientists, just from California, who don’t believe man is causing Climate Change.  It’s about 20 pages of single spaced names. It’s an impressive list and, of course, no one there ever heard of the Petition Project. 
There were two other activities going on that definitely deserve mention, one was, “Climate Science, Terror Management Theory and the Psycho-Social Limitation to Climate Justice Activism” and “Guided Loving Kindness-Equanimity Meditation: Strengthen Your Mind as an EcoSocialist Activist”. I was really curious how EcoSocialist activism and loving kindness could be compatible. 

The next break out session from 4:45pm to 6:15pm included, “Collective Liberation: Building a Democracy Movement in the Age of Corporate Personhood”, “Uniting Labor, Environmentalists and the Unemployed in EcoSocialism”, “Woman’s Labor, Capitalism and the Climate”, and “You Can’t Have Capitalism Without Racism: The Politics of Environmental Justice”. 

I’m pretty sure Oprah Winfrey, Beyonce, Denzel Washington, Michael Jordan, Sean Combs, etc, etc, etc have benefited from Capitalism, so I was curious how Capitalism was racist. As I took a seat a young Black man came to sit next to me. He shook my hand and introduced himself as David.  He said he really appreciated what I said during the “Gender Justice” session. He said I was very brave coming to this conference and he probably wouldn’t agree with me on many things but he thought they needed to hear what I had to say. I told him they have intellectualized the subject to the point that they completely ignore human nature, the male, female dynamic, the physiology of the sexes, and common sense. 

Once again we went around the room introducing ourselves.  This time two students, Unique Vance and Nia Mitchell,  who were presenting this session asked that what person that has “passed on” would we like to have dinner with.  When I said I’d like to have dinner with Andrew Breitbart, David laughed and said he really liked me. 

The session began with Columbus bringing mass colonization, slavery and institutionalized white supremacy. And, of course, the genocide of the indigenous people.  Capitalism causes racism, exploitation and domination.  Individualism is selfish and doesn’t care about the “Common Good”. The Prison Industrial Complex is a Capitalist dream. Even though Blacks are 12% of the population but 44% of the prison population, it isn’t because they commit more crime, it’s due to racism. When the student presenters announced we were going to do some role playing, I decided that was a good time to make my escape. 

I left the Conference at that point.  Even though there was another session from 7:30pm to 9:00pm entitled, “Plenary Session 2: Building a Diverse Radical Climate Justice Movement”. 

I also missed the following day, Sunday, that was an entire day of activist training with the following subjects: 
“Decolonizing the Food System” 
“Class, Diet, Climate Change and Social Justice” 
“Monarchs to Migrants: Breaking Down the Borders” 
“What if the Water Can’t be Stopped: Resilience Plans in an Age of Sea Level Rise” 
“Organizing Broad-based Climate Justice Events: The West-Coast Road to Paris” 
“The Bernie Sanders Campaign: What Do EcoSocialists, Greens, and Other Radicals Think?” (I’m so sad I missed this one but my head had already exploded). 
“Flood the System” 
“EcoSocialist Strategizing for a Water Future” 

This was a UCSB sanctioned event organized by Professors who are teaching this to our children. These Professors were sociologists not atmospheric scientists. They are using information from the supposed 97% of the scientists who say man is causing Global Warming/Climate Change. They offer no opposing data or opinions, nor do they want to hear any. When people say not to listen to other opinions, you NEED to listen to those opinions. 

The trouble is that 97% claim is based on a study done by John Cook, an Australian blogger/global warming activist. He and his Global Change Institute team did a study. They published the results of their study and the media ran with it. The British news paper The Register had this headline, “Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming” with the sub-headline that read, “Of those who have an opinion, over 97% say we’re to blame”.  “OF THOSE WHO HAVE AN OPINION” that is the key phrase. And just who are “those who have an opinion” in the Cook study. 

Cook looked for scientists who published papers on global warming. Cook used the key words “global climate change” and “global warming”.  Those key words brought up more alarmist papers than skeptic papers as skeptic papers aren’t as likely to use those keywords in their titles. 

Another researcher, Brandon Shollenberger, as well as another Australian researcher, Jo Nova, independently, looked into Cook’s study.  Cook sent questionnaires to 11,944 scientists who had written peer-reviewed papers.  7930 didn’t respond.  3896 responded that man could be causing “some” warming.  64 responded that man could be causing most warming.  41 responded that man IS causing most of the warming. But ZERO said it was catastrophic. The 97% claim comes from a very small number of “those who have an opinion”. This is a great example of how a BIG lie repeated often enough becomes fact……aided and abetted by the main stream media…….and academia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should note that I recognize one name in that report. That would be California State University Northridge math professor David Klein. So now we learn that Klein has other agendas besides using official CSU servers to spread his anti-Israel propaganda. (See below)

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2014/01/letter-to-cal-state-northridge.html


Indoctrination? You be the judge.



Saturday, October 3, 2015

Once Again Netanyahu Shames UN and Obama

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspoit.com


Hat tip American Thinker

Once again, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown himself to be a man among Lilliputians every time he goes to speak at the UN. This week was no exception. Speaking before that body of Third World corruptocrats and First World cowards, he pointed out to  them their utter silence in the face of Iran's threats to destroy Israel punctuated by a 44-second pause in his speech while the UN delegates-those who had not walked out-sat on their hands in silence. He told them that he was ready to negotiate with the Palestinians with no conditions. He pointed out to them that they had passed some 40 resolutions against his nation in the past year compared to just one against Syria! He showed them up for the small people they are.

Of course, he was met by silence. There was also silence from our Secretary of State John Kerry and our UN ambassador Samantha Power-because they weren't there. President Obama had pulled them out to attend a White House meeting-just the latest in a long series of snubs against Israel and its prime minister by this administration. The below report, with video of Netanyahu's speech is linked below by American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/obama_pulls_kerry_and_power_from_audience_of_netanyahus_powerful_un_speech.html#ixzz3nPQqwzKb

And the Palestinian reaction to Netanyahu's willingness to negotiate? Another massacre. Two Israeli parents were ambushed in their car Thursday night and murdered by Palestinian gunmen before the terrified eyes of their four children, the oldest of whom was 9 years old. (I am surprised they didn't kill the children as well.)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4706203,00.html

And what is the response of the Palestinian people themselves in The West Bank and Gaza? Horror? Disgust? Statements that the killers do not represent them?

No. What we witness are celebrations and fireworks.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/02/palestinians-launch-fireworks-wave-flags-to-celebrate-brutal-murder-of-israeli-couple/

The Palestinians. The only thing they know is hatred. They only thing they know how to do is kill and destroy. Yet, they are the beknighted darlings of the UN and the international left. The UN now even gives them observer status and gives them a role in the International Criminal Court so they can bring human rights lawsuits against Israel. They are celebrated in Europe and the West even though they spit at us.

They are killers. And if they don't do the actual killing, they cheer the actual killers. Mothers even raise their children to be suicide bombers.

And to you in academia, these are the people whose cause you champion no matter how many terrorist attacks they carry out against innocent Israeli civilians or civilians from other countries including our own. This is what you support. This is what you enable. You didn't care about the Munich Olympics massacre in 1972. You didn't care about the Achille Lauro attack in the 1980s. You didn't care about the Israeli buses blown apart by suicide bombers. You didn't care when the Fogel family was butchered in their beds a few years ago including a months-old baby. And you don't care about this latest murder that left four young orphans behind.

Those of you in the Middle East studies departments that infest our universities are too consumed with seeing that Israel is destroyed and becomes Palestine-from the river to the sea-with none of those hated Jews left. And those of you in other departments who have jumped onto this anti-Israeli bandwagon either because of your anti-Western, post-colonial philosophies or just because many of you are nothing more than 99 cent anti-capitalist Marxists, you share in the blame as well.

I have no sympathy with the Palestinian cause. They forfeited that way back in the late 1960s when I watched them skyjacking planes and murdering innocents in the name of their "cause".  In one form or another, they have never left terrorism. A Palestinian state would be nothing more than a base for terrorism and attacking Israel while having to survive on international handouts and welfare.

Of course Benjamin Netanyahu didn't say all that. I did.



Friday, September 25, 2015

The True Taste of Pakistan

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com








That's what two restaurant owners advertised in their kebab joint in Nottingham, England. Now they have been ordered to pay fines and restitution after some 150 patrons came down with e-coli from fecal infected food. (Hat tip Vlad Tepes)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247526/Kebab-shop-owners-infected-150-customers-rare-form-food-poisoning-meals-contaminated-human-faeces.html#ixzz3mfA1dmHVhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247526/Kebab-shop-owners-infected-150-customers-rare-form-food-poisoning-meals-contaminated-human-faeces.html#ixzz3mfA1dmHV

I think their lawyer should have argued that the owners adequately warned the patrons on the front window.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Stop the Flood of Muslim Refugees Coming Here

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Front Page Magazine, Steve and David


On the one hand, we have a president determined to run this country into the ground so he and his Democratic successors can rebuild it in their Utopian fashion. On the other hand, we have John Kerry, one of the biggest fools ever to serve as secretary of state. Together, they are working to join the EU in committing national suicide by flooding our respective societies with more and more Muslims. Daniel Greenfield in Frontpage Magazine reports on the dirty work being done by our leaders.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260186/kerry-vows-bring-refugee-total-100000-daniel-greenfield

Have we not learned by the Boston Marathon bombing, which was conducted by two refugees from Daghestan? Apparently not.

But here is what we can do.

Support Rep. Brian Babin's bill (HR 3314) described below.

http://babin.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=356

A friend has emailed me a list of Congressional leaders who you can contact along with talking points. I assume these are committee leaders/GOP.

IN THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION: PROHIBIT ALL FUNDING TO BRING SYRIANS INTO THE U.S. UNDER ANY PROGRAM.

REASONS (If anyone asks)

1. SYRIAN REFUGEES POSE AN EXISTENTIAL NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT TO AMERICA:
  • ACCORDING TO THE FBI, SYRIANS CANNOT BE VETTED FOR TERROR CONNECTIONS
  • ISIS INFILTRATION THROUGH SYRIAN REFUGEES IS “A HUGE CONCERN.”ACCORDING TO JAMES CLAPPER, OBAMA’S DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
  • ISIS AND OTHER TERRORIST GROUPS HAVE PROMISED TO EXPLOIT THIS WEAKNESS AND CLAIM TO HAVE 4,000 MEMBERS IN EUROPE ALREADY
2. GULF STATES ARE NOT ACCEPTING ANY SYRIAN REFUGEES, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE MUCH BETTER SITUATED, WITH PROXIMITY, ROOM, RESOURCES and COMMON LANGUAGE.
3. If Congress wants to provide aid to Syrians staying in the Middle East that would be fine, but no money should be spent to bring them to the U.S.


Following are the relevant lists and their contact info.

SENATE LEADERSHIP

Mitch McConnell (KY) – Majority Leader
(202) 224-2541

John Cornyn (TX) – Majority Whip
202-224-2934

Roy Blunt (MO) – Chair, Rules Committee
(202) 224-5721

John Thune (SD) – Chair, Senate Republican Conference
202) 224-2321

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
Phone: 202-224-7257

Cochran, Thad (MS), Chairman (202) 224-5054 (Offices: http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/offices)
Mitch McConnell, (KY) (202) 224-2541
Richard Shelby, (AL) (202) 224-5744 (Offices: http://www.shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/offices)
Lamar Alexander, (TN) (202) 224-4944 (Offices: http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/officelocations).
Susan Collins, (ME) (202) 224-2523 (Offices: http://www.collins.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/phone)
Lisa Murkowski, (AK) (202) 224-6665 (Offices:http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/officelocations)
Lindsey Graham, (SC) (202) 224-5972 (Offices: http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/office-locations)
Mark Kirk, (IL) 202-224-2854 (Offices: http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=offices)
Roy Blunt, (MO) (202) 224-5721
Jerry Moran, (KS) (202) 224-6521 (Offices: http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-info)
John Hoeven, (ND) 202-224-2551 (Offices: http://www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/office-locations)
John Boozman, (AR) (202) 224-4843 (Offices: http://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/office-locations)
Shelley Moore Capito, (WV) 202-224-6472 (Offices: http://www.capito.senate.gov/contact/office-locations)
Bill Cassidy, (LA) (202) 224-5824 (Offices: http://www.cassidy.senate.gov/contact/office-locations)
James Lankford, (OK) (202) 224-5754 (Offices: http://www.lankford.senate.gov/content/contact-james)
Steve Daines, (MT) (202) 224-2651 (Offices: http://www.daines.senate.gov/ scroll to bottom)

HOUSE LEADERSHIP

John Boehner (OH) – Speaker
(202) 225-0600
Link to OH Offices: http://www.speaker.gov/contact scroll to bottom

Kevin McCarthy (CA) – Majority Leader
(202) 225-2915

Steve Scalise (LA) – Majority Whip
(202) 225-3015
Link to LA Offices: https://scaliseforms.house.gov/contact/ scroll to bottom

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

Harold Rogers, Kentucky, Chairman (202) 225-4601 (Offices: http://halrogers.house.gov/contact/offices.htm)
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey (202) 225-5034 (Offices: http://frelinghuysen.house.gov/contact-us/)
Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama (202) 225-4876 (Offices: https://aderholt.house.gov/contact/offices)
Kay Granger, Texas (202) 225-5071 (Offices: http://kaygranger.house.gov/contact-kay)
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho (202) 225-5531 (Offices: http://simpson.house.gov/contact/ scroll to bottom)
John Abney Culberson, Texas (202) 225-2571 (Offices: http://culberson.house.gov/contact/officelocations.htm)
Ander Crenshaw, Florida (202) 225-2501 (Offices: http://crenshaw.house.gov/index.cfm/officelocations)
John R. Carter, Texas (202) 225-3864 (Offices: http://carter.house.gov/contact-john-nav scroll to bottom)
Ken Calvert, California (202) 225-1986 (Offices: http://calvert.house.gov/contact/)
Tom Cole, Oklahoma (202) 225-6165 (Offices: http://cole.house.gov/office-locations)
Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida (202) 225-4211 (Offices: https://mariodiazbalart.house.gov/contact/offices)
Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania (202)-225-6411 (Offices: http://dent.house.gov/?p=OfficeInformation)
Tom Graves, Georgia (202) 225-5211 (Offices: http://tomgraves.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
Kevin Yoder, Kansas (202) 225-2865 (Offices: https://yoder.house.gov/contact/offices)
Steve Womack, Arkansas (202) 225-4301 (Offices: http://womack.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska (202) 225-4806 (Offices: https://fortenberry.house.gov/contact/offices)
Tom Rooney, Florida (202) 225-5792 (Offices: https://rooney.house.gov/contact/offices)
Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee (202) 225-3271 (Offices: https://fleischmann.house.gov/contact-me)
Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington (202) 225-3536 (Offices: http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
David Joyce, Ohio (202) 225-5731 (Offices: http://joyce.house.gov/my-office-locations/)
David Valadao, California (202) 225-4695 (Offices: https://valadao.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
Andy Harris, MD, Maryland (202) 225-5311 (Offices: https://harris.house.gov/contact-me scroll to bottom)
Martha Roby, Alabama (202) 225-2901 (Offices: http://roby.house.gov/our-district/my-offices)
Mark Amodei, Nevada (202) 225-6155 (Offices: https://amodei.house.gov/contact-us/)
Chris Stewart, Utah (202) 225-9730 (Offices: https://stewart.house.gov/contact/offices)
Scott Rigell, Virginia (202) 225-4215 (Offices: http://rigell.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)
David Jolly, Florida (202) 225-5961 (Offices: http://jolly.house.gov/contact/offices/)
David Young, Iowa (202) 225-5476 (Offices: https://davidyoung.house.gov/contact/offices)
Evan Jenkins, West Virginia (202) 225-3452 (Offices: https://evanjenkins.house.gov/contact/offices)
Steven Palazzo, Mississippi (202) 225-5772 (Offices: http://palazzo.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm)



It should not take longer than a few minutes to blast through these calls. If you live in a state where one of these members resides, be sure to call that member in every single one of his/her offices. FURTHERMORE, CALL YOUR PERSONAL GOP REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS WITH THE SAME MESSAGE. You can find their contact information here:

Thursday, September 17, 2015

University of California Regents Conference

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This week I attended parts of two days at the University of California Regents meeting held at UC Irvine. My main purpose in going was to participate in the public comments forum (Sept. 17) when the main issue of discussion was intolerance on campus. There had been a move to have the university implement the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism. Pro-Palestinian groups were in opposition. If I am not mistaken, the proposal was initially made  by UC President Janet Napolitano. In response, the UC provost and vice provost wrote up a proposed statement of principles on intolerance, which was very general and did not specifically mention anti-Semitism. The pro-Palestinan forces support this draft and those (like me) who are complaining about campus anti-Semitism are opposed to it.

I also attended yesterday (Sept. 16) when the topic of discussion was a proposed union contract with the university that concerned different university workers including physicians, interns, nurses and others. The reason I attended was not because I was interested in the issue, rather because I wanted to get a feel for how the meeting proceeded. I noted that during the public comment portion, Napolitano paid attention to the speakers (who were limited to one minute). Today, she was distracted about half the time and seemed not to be paying attention to some of the speakers.

Today, I was the first speaker on the list. (Again, we had one minute to speak.) I read from a prepared paper (which was a mistake because about half way through my hands began to shake holding the paper. That's old age for you.) Here is the text of what I said:

 "My name is Gary Fouse,  I am an adjunct teacher in the UC Irvine Extension. I am also the co-author of a  letter to  President Napolitano signed by over 100 UC faculty expressing alarm at campus anti-Semitism, asking that the university confront this problem and adopt the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism.

 The Israel-Palestinian debate has led to an atmosphere where many Jewish students who support Israel are often spending their college years in a climate of intimidation- not just from pro-Palestinian students, but in many cases from professors in the classroom.

The problem is not neo-Nazis or skin heads; rather it is the  pro-Palestinian lobby such as the Students for Justice in Palestine, BDS promoters, and their faculty allies. Every year, these groups invite speakers to campus, some of whom  cross the line from legitimate criticism of Israel to  attacking Jews as people. Over the years here I have seen and heard it first hand right here on this campus.

I thought that the regents were going to consider adopting the State Department definition of anti-Semitism. Are you instead going to pass some vague resolution opposing intolerance in general?  That would be useless.

 I ask you as a concerned Gentile to treat anti-Semitism with the same seriousness as you treat intolerance against other groups."

There were about 50 people listed to speak, some of whom didn't show up. I would say over half of the speakers were from the Jewish side. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin of the AMCHA Initiative spoke as well as several Jewish students including the president of Anteaters for Israel. I noted that one speaker from the other side was from the National Lawyers Guild in Los Angeles. A couple were from Jewish Voice for Peace including former B actress Estee Chandler (Don't ask me what movies she was in. I had never heard of her.) . Later, while the regents were discussing some inane topic, I was whispering with my friend and she turned around to give us the "shhhh" I told her to shut up. She did it with other people as well.

But I digress.

After the comments from the audience, there were a couple of other issues discussed, one of which was sexual assault. I will deal with that in a separate posting. As for the issue we were all there for, there was a presentation by UC Provost Aimee Dorr and Vice Provost for Diversity and Engagement Yvette Gullatt, who were responsible for drafting the proposed statement of principles. Dorr said they had decided not to identify specific victim groups out of concern over inclusion. (I am paraphrasing.) Gullatt explained that the statement defined intolerance. Their comments were quite forgettable.

What was interesting were the comments by the regents who weighed in after the public comments. Most of them who spoke made it very clear that they felt the draft essentially said nothing and that there was a responsibility to specifically address the issue of anti-Semitism since it was the Jewish students and community who brought the issue forth. Here are some notes as to the regents who weighed in. ( I am paraphrasing.)

Norman Pattiz said that when he read the statement, he asked himself, "What is this? It doesn't say anything." He added that it was necessary to recognize those who brought this (issue) up. He said it was insulting to disregard them and that it was a disservice to them because it was they who brought the issue to their attention.

Bruce Varner said that the statement did not deal with the specific issues.

Bonnie Reiss said that while free speech was important, it was equally important to protect the students. She referred to the reported anti-Jewish incidents and said, "We hear you. We need to tell you we hear you." She added that  the statement did not do that.  Finally, she stated that the  political debate (Israeli-Palestinian)  had led to acts of hate against one group-the Jews.

Next was a student regent, Abraham Oved, a Jew. He opened by referring to the "flawed language". He noted that he had tried to consult with the authors of the statement but was rebuffed. He did not support the statement. It did not do justice to those victimized and he referred to those who ask why the UC campus climate is the way it is. Oved was very eloquent.

Next was the speaker of the California Assembly Toni Atkins. She opened by saying that both the assembly and the senate had asked (the university) to do more. She said that they could do better, hit the right points, and find the right balance.

John Perez, a former assembly speaker, said that the statement basically said nothing, and that he feared a whitewash which would't even mention anti-Semitism. He also added that when he was in the assembly, he met with many student groups (by ethnicity). He said that the only time he was met with resistance from the university was when he asked to meet with Jewish students. He was told he would have to meet the Jewish students together with other groups. He added, however that he did not support the State Department definition being applied to the university.

Deputy Regent Marcela Ramirez essentially said nothing of substance, just the usual politically-correct buzz words. She listed three important points for her-free speech, bigotry and education.

Richard Blum (husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein) said that if they didn't get this right, he was going to get complaints from his wife and added that punishment should be addressed. That was it.

Hadi Makarechian said he agreed with Blum as to punishment. That was it.

Janet Napolitano finished by basically saying nothing . She mentioned diversity and the need "to get it right." She said that not all would agree with the final product. She took no stand.

After all that, it was announced that "this was the beginning of a process", a consultative process to be performed by a working group of students, faculty, chancellors and stakeholders. It will be led by Regent Eddie Island.

That was it. The regents continued on with other business as  most of the audience left, some like me, to be interviewed by the news media. In my case, I was interviewed by the Orange County Register. I would also like to note that as I was leaving the room, the aforementioned speech monitor Estee Chandler was still sitting in the front row-and talking with a couple of her pals.

What does it all mean?

It appears that our efforts might produce some results, but it is too early to tell. I was quite encouraged by the comments of most of the regents who spoke on the issue. Whether the final statement will adopt the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism, I don't know. I suspect that it will contain some reference to anti-Semitism. My fear is that it will simply be a listing of all the -isms including anti-Semitism. That is not enough. Anti-Semitism on UC campuses dwarfs any other form of bias. It is the most serious, and it must be specifically addressed. I should also note that no representative from any other minority group spoke to express grievances.

And what a dressing down for the provost and vice provost. In my view, they deserved it. Their statement is a joke. The University of California is chock full of policy statements expressing opposition to all forms of bias. They have diversity and inclusion officials on every campus. What would this proposed statement add?

And what happened to Napolitano? She initially proposed adopting the State Department definition. Has she changed her mind? If so, why? We will have to wait and see on that.







Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Shameful 9-11 Revisionsim in Academia

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Paul Sperry and Creeping Sharia

"Poems from Guantanamo-Detainees Speak"


The below article by Paul Sperry in the NY Post focuses on 9-11 revisionist classes being taught at the University of North Carolina and other universities. It is where students are taught that the worst single atrocity in US history should be blamed not on the actual perpetrators, but on ourselves.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/06/revisionist-history-of-911-being-taught-to-our-college-students/

And what is the University of North Carolina English Department doing with  "Post-colonial studies"? Answer: In order to accommodate America-hating professors like Neel Ahuja.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Hatem Bazian's Latest "ISIS Is Not Islamic" Piece

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Hatem Bazian is a professor at UC Berkeley. When he is not agitating and making public speeches against Israel, he is complaining about Islamophobia. That means that part of his job description entails convincing the rest of us that the atrocities being committed by ISIS  have nothing to do with Islam. That leads him to write this latest piece for Lamp Post Productions, a site for American Muslim scholars and activists.


http://www.lamppostproductions.com/isis-compounded-ignorance-criminal-not-theology-dr-hatem-bazian/


In this piece, Bazian condemns ISIS for their acts especially focusing on their practice of using sexual slavery of Yazidis and others. he criticizes their use of Islamic texts to justify their crimes. At the end, he goes into his predictable references of Western slavery, the invasion of Iraq, the of companies and yes,- those neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle.

First of all, to the casual reader you might want to applaud Bazian for his strong condemnation of ISIS and their horrible acts. Yet, I note that only late in the article does he even mention the Qu'ran, preferring the term "classical sources". I would take that to mean the Ku'ran, the hadith and the sunnah. He also uses the term "Prophetic tradition", which I would take to mean the hadith and sunnah. Nowhere does he use the name Mohammad. Is he trying to avoid the reader thinking about what Mohammad would say or do about such practices? He does admit that the Qu'ran neither explicitly condones or condemns slavery, but conveniently omits those references to "those that your right hand possess", references to a Muslim man having sex with captive/slave women.

Another point that Bazian omits is that Mohammad is considered the ideal man by Muslims. Whatever Mohammad did is the ideal to strive for. The Qu'ran is the word of Allah according to Muslims, transmitted to Mohammad the Messenger through the angel Gabriel (Jibril). And those references to the 55 Islamic countries that outlaw slavery? What Bazian forgets to mention are the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and Northern Sudan, which both still practice slavery-the only two countries in the world to do so. Thus, the following quote from the article is not completely true.

"The sources from the past are still available, with extensive records of cases pertaining to slavery, but the first question that must be asked is, what is the present-day ruling on slavery in the Muslim world? Slavery is prohibited, and only ISIS and its followers are calling for it to be brought back." 

And if Bazian thinks that only ISIS is engaging in rape and atrocities against non-Muslims, he might want to speak to non-Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and many other Islamic countries where non-Muslim minorities are being persecuted-not to the extent of the Islamic State, but persecuted nonetheless. The plain fact is that in the Middle East as a whole, there is a systematic program of genocide against Christians in progress, which seems to have eluded Bazian's notice.

But to Bazian, in the end, it is always the fault of the West and the US in particular that the Islamic world is in flames. To be fair, it is not unreasonable to argue a causal connection between our overthrow of Saddam Hussein and ISIS. But what would have happened had the Iraqis themselves overthrown Saddam?  The Libyans (albeit with Western help) overthrew Qaddafi, and look at the result there. What will follow in Syria if and when Assad falls? If ISIS prevails, will that be solely the fault of the West? 

And as to those references to Wolfowitz, Pearle and the "neo-cons', Bazian knows full well this is code language for-you guessed it- the Jews.  As the Nazis used to say, "der ewige Jude"-the eternal Jew.  Of course this is the same man who reportedly told a college audience a few years ago they should count the Jewish names on the campus buildings. This is the same man who once called for an intifada in the US.

Nobody wants to hold all Muslims accountable for ISIS. Yet we cannot ignore what is happening to Christians, Yazidis, Shia and others who are being butchered like cattle in the Middle East in the very name of Islam. We have every right to discuss this phenomenon and the origins of Islam to figure out why this is happening and why we are all at risk. It is not enough to condemn the savagery of ISIS. Bazian tells us not to blame Islam. Then who are we to blame as more and more Western Muslims answer the call to join this evil movement called ISIS? If you read the "classical texts" and the "Prophetic tradition", you just might conclude that ISIS is following the pure Islam as Mohammad saw it the day he died.

Bazian concedes that Muslims throughout history have practiced slavery and rape,( as have followers of other religions). Yet he contends that their rationalizations for these actions based on religious texts are erroneous. Unfortunately, ISIS can point to specific verses and sayings in the Qu'ran, hadith and sunnah that provide their "justifications" . But in a broader sense, can we not agree that when an ideology demonizes and de-humanizes groups of people (as the Qu'ran, hadith and sunnah do with non-Muslims) then murder and other violations of human rights are only a step away?

Friday, August 28, 2015

Are the Walls Closing in on Hillary Clinton?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Hat tip to Funny Facts and Fiction-and Bruce



It appears that Hillary Clinton may have violated multiple laws during her tenure as secretary of state in relation to her handling of emails.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/?intcmp=hpbt1

If we are to believe her protestations that she never sent or received classified material, marked or not, on her private server(s)-which she used exclusively instead of the State Department server- then we are to believe that Clinton was a mere figurehead as secretary of state, occupying a ceremonial position, if you will.

In addition, if everything is present and accounted for, where are the emails pertaining to Benghazi, before during and after the attack? Where are the emails pertaining to countries and private companies seeking favorable decisions from the State Department as they were contributing to the Clinton Foundation and hiring Bill Clinton to give speeches worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?

I am putting my trust in FBI Director James Comey to direct his agents to do a thorough and complete investigation. If they determine that serious laws were breached pertaining to our national security and that Hillary Clinton and her aides engaged in obstruction of justice as well by trying to cover it all up, they will need to get Justice Department approval (the attorney general herself) to bring charges. I would also anticipate that the attorney general will have a sit-down with President Obama before giving such authorization.

It will come down to a question of whether everyone is truly equal in the eyes of the law.