headerphoto


Maxine Waters at 2 minutes 12 seconds ...


Tags: Maxine Waters, liberalism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Texas A&M Professor Advocates Killing Whites-in Class




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


Hat tip Campus Reform


Tommy Curry
(Photo by Campus Watch)


This is as bad as it gets. This goes far beyond race hucksters talking about white privilege on campus. Here we have a black professor named Tommy Curry advocating the killing of whites He does it on the air in an interview, and he does it in class.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32688/


Here is an article by the campus paper, The Battalion.

If we were talking about slaves rising up and killing their white masters, I would not have a problem. This is not the time of slavery. This idiot apparently thinks it is because he brings his crazy ideas into the modern day.

In my view advocating murder of a particular race is not free speech. They may not find a prosecutor willing to bring criminal charges, but if Texas A&M doesn't fire this dangerous man, every student should withdraw and every donor should stop giving money. If the president doesn't have the gonads to fire this man, then he should go too.

For a decade now I have been stating and writing that if campus anti-semitism is not dealt with by our universities, we are going to eventually see a Jewish student murdered on a college campus. After reading this, I have to conclude that if this "white privilege" nonsense isn't nipped in the bud by universities, we will see the murder of a white student on a campus simply for the reason that he or she is white.

RIP Chris Cornell




Tags: Chris Cornell, Soundgarden, Audioslave To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Ex LASD Sheriff Lee Baca Sentenced to Three Years

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




"Heigh ho, heigh ho
It's off to jail I go"


Former LA County Sheriff Lee Baca was sentenced this week to three years in prison  on a corruption conviction based on his attempts to thwart an FBI investigation into abuses at his county jail.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-baca-sentenced-jail-sheriff-corruption-20170512-story.html

I have no sympathy for Baca. Not only did he abuse his power and corrupt his office, he was  also an apologist for radical imams and mosques in Southern California. He was an ally of organizations like CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, appearing at their events and helping spread the lie that sharia law was no threat to our own laws. This is something I personally observed back in 2012 in Garden Grove.

Baca was a disgrace to law enforcement. The cell door cannot shut quickly enough on him.

UC Santa Cruz Caves in to Black Students' Demands




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

Hat tip Legal Insurrection




“We recognize that we have more work to do in supporting [Afrikan, Black and Caribbean] (ABC) students here at UC Santa Cruz,” director of media relations Scott Hernandez-Jason read from a letter from the chancellor to a crowd of about 400 at Kerr Hall. “We are committed to build capacity to fully integrate ABC-identified students so that they have a sense of belonging and connectedness here on campus.”


Last week some black students at UC Santa Cruz (America's Wackiest University) occupied the offices of the school's feckless chancellor, an empty suit named George Blumenthal. They had a list of demands which included repainting Rosa Parks House green, red and black, the colors of African nationalism or something like that. They also demanded mandatory diversity training for all incoming freshmen. Along the way, they launched some anti-Jewish taunts at Jewish students. And guess what: The school caved in to all demands. No wonder the school mascot is a banana slug!

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/05/uc-santa-cruz-students-occupy-building-shout-anti-semitic-slurs-admin-caves-in-to-demands/

Here is the campus newspaper article. Of course, it says nothing about the taunts directed at Jewish students.

http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2017/05/04/reclamation-demands-met/

Now let me pose this question: If a group of Jewish students had occupied Kerr House and along the way hurled racist taunts at black students, do you think they would have achieved their demands? Not hardly. Instead, they would have been at the very least suspended. And rightfully so.

And what is with these "Caribbean" students? Am I to assume that we have Caribbean students at UC Santa Cruz who have come to the US to study and instead participate in occupying university buildings and making demands? If that's the case, I say send them back.

The foolish students have done nothing more than strike a blow for segregation. They have also done a disservice to the memory of Rosa Parks.


My Exchange of Letters With UC Irvine





Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Below is a response to my letter of today to UC Irvine regarding the "Standing Rock Is Everywhere" event. It comes from Dr. Thomas Parham, UCI's vice chancellor for student affairs, who originated the New Narratives program, which sponsored the event.


Mr. Fouse: 
 
Thank you for your note and for attending the New Narratives forum. Reviews on 
that program were very positive even as we understand that attendees and even 
panelists may agree or disagree with the assertions being advanced and opinions 
being offered by the various speakers. 
 
The purpose of the New Narratives series when I developed it was to create a 
forum where issues of race, gender, identity, oppression, social justice, etc. 
could become topics of critical discourse and analysis. That is what we intend 
to deliver in those NN forums. Also, while I do take occasional license to 
suggest a speaker, the speakers are primarily invited by a committee of students 
and staff from across the university. In light of your recommendations, I will 
make sure that those are forwarded to the committee for their consideration. 
 
Thank you again for your message. 
 
Dr. Parham 
 
Thomas A. Parham, Ph.D 
Vice Chancellor Student Affairs 
University of California Irvine 
Irvine, California. 92697 

www.vcsa.uci.edu 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my response:







Dr. Parham 
 
Thank you for your response. Since the purpose of New Narratives is to treat 
these issues with critical discourse and analysis, it seems that having 
conservative speakers would be essential in order to provide the students with 
balance enabling them to come up with their own conclusions. How can there be 
critical discourse and analysis when only one side of an issue is presented? 
 
I would be grateful if you could advise me as to the committee's decision on 
inviting Dr Sowell or Mr. Elder to speak at UCI. 
 
 
Thank you again for your response. 
 
 
Gary Fouse 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Open Letter to UC Irvine Re: Standing Rock Is Everywhere Event




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


In connection with my previous post regarding the Standing Rock is Everywhere event at UC Irvine on April 18, I have sent the below letter to the university and elected leaders expressing my concern.



April 26, 2017

Dear Dr Parham et al

My name is Gary Fouse, and I am a former part-time teacher in the UC Irvine Extension (1998-2016). Last week, I attended an event sponsored by the Office of Student Affairs “New Narratives” program and the Cross Cultural Center. It was entitled “Standing Rock Is Everywhere” and consisted of several panelists, who spoke not only about the Standing Rock pipeline issue but many other issues as well. Frankly, I was appalled at the negative perspectives given to UCI students by these speakers as it pertains to our country and our society (as well as Canada). Given the fact that the event was sponsored by the university, I wonder whether UCI was putting its official imprimatur on the views expressed.

I fully understand the dark chapters in our nation’s history and am old enough to remember some of them. I also understand the first amendment right of those speakers to express their opinions. But I do not share the negative opinions expressed toward our country as it is today or some of our leaders who were mentioned. For example, I do not believe Attorney General Jeff Sessions is a racist as was implied by one of the speakers.

I also found it offensive that a panelist (Janaya Khan) who has just moved to the US from Canada would open her remarks by saying that “she had picked the wrong time to move south of the border” then go on to trash this country. I also found the expression she used, “Christian patriarchy” equally offensive. I could go on, but you can read my reactions in full at the below link.


My real purpose in writing, however, is to inquire whether the “New Narratives” program has in the past or is willing in the future to sponsor a speaker or speakers with a more positive perspective on America as well as provide opposing viewpoints on the North Dakota pipeline and other issues brought up by your panel covered in the above event. I should add that I posed this question to Dr Abby Reyes before I left the event. While I don’t feel I got a particularly clear answer, she informed me that New Narratives was set up after the unfortunate “black face” incident on campus a couple of years back and was designed to give a voice to “marginalized students”. She also told me that suggested speakers are considered by a New Narratives panel and referred me to the vice chancellor’s office for further information.

Therefore, in the interest of providing UCI students and the community with other perspectives on these issues, I would like to respectfully propose a couple of speakers for your consideration (specifically for the New Narratives). First of all, I would like to propose Los Angeles-based talk show host Larry Elder, an African-American conservative. Secondly, I would like to propose Dr Thomas Sowell, who I believe recently retired from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is also a well-known African-American conservative. I can think of several other worthy speakers, but I will leave it with these two at this time.

In my view, university students deserve to be exposed to all sides of issues not just some. I don’t deny the rights of the above speakers to have their say, but I seriously question whether universities today are committed to giving a fair hearing to other voices.  I eagerly await your response to my suggestions.


Sincerely,


Gary Fouse

Cc
Dr. Howard Gillman, Chancellor
Dr. Douglas Haynes, Director, Cross Cultural Center
Dr. Abby Reyes
US Rep. Mimi Walters
State Senator John Moorlach
State Assembly Rep. Steven Choi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will keep you advised of any responses I get (or don't get).





UC Berkeley Cancels Ann Coulter Speech




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


This really makes a statement about UC Berkeley and its community, doesn't it? UCB has cancelled Ann Coulter's scheduled speech at the school over fears that protesters would cause violence. They are suggesting she come back in September-as if conditions will be different then.


http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/19/america-2017-berkeley-cancels-ann-coulter-speech-cant-guarantee-safety/

It should be noted that when Coulter came to speak at UC Irvine a few years ago, there were no incidents whatsoever.

Here is the problem as I see it. The cowardly Berkeley administrators cannot guarantee Coulter's safety because they are not willing to let their police do their duty when a riot breaks out. This was amply demonstrated at the recent riot that forced a cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos' scheduled speech.

So what we have here at Berkeley is the victory of the heckler's veto. This is what any conservative speaker can expect at UC Berkeley. "Sorry. We can't guarantee your safety."

Here is the article from the Daily Californian, UCB's campus paper.

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/04/19/uc-berkeley-administrators-propose-rescheduling-ann-coulter-event-september/

We regret this outcome — especially given our unqualified support for our students’ right to bring speakers of their choosing to the University, and our deep commitment to the values and principles embedded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,”






Keep in mind this is a tax-payer funded university, where only politically-correct/liberal/radical speakers have a voice.

The Fresno Shooter and His Motive




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

Fresno shooter Kori Ali Mohammad in his own words.





Any questions?

Yes, that's Arabic he is speaking along with the English.

Side note: While Mohammad was going on his shooting spree in Fresno, I was sitting in a
hall at UC Irvine listening to a group of ladies ranting about white racism.

Ironic, isn't it?

Detroit ER Doctor Charged With Performing Female Genital Mutilations




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


Hat tip The Blaze

“The Department of Justice is committed to stopping female genital mutilation in this country,” she added in a statement, “and will use the full power of the law to ensure that no girls suffer such physical and emotional abuse.”


Image result for jumana nagarwala

A doctor in Detroit has been charged for performing female genital mutilations. She is an emergency room physician named Jumana Nagarwala. She is facing federal charges.


http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/13/detroit-doctor-arrested-for-performing-female-genital-mutilation/

I can only pray that this story is widely publicized. This practice has encroached upon Europe. It is done behind closed doors. In other cases, young girls are sent back to the family's country of origin to have the procedure performed. No doubt some families here have sent their daughters back to the old country for the same purpose. Now this.

These girls are entitled to the same protections we all enjoy here in America. I am heartened that the new DOJ is prosecuting this. I doubt the Obama DOJ would have brought charges.

"Blue Lives Matter" Speaker Disrupted at UCLA and Claremont College




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


Hat tip The College Fix



"No justice-no peace"


Heather MacDonald, author of the 2016 book, The War on Cops" was invited to speak this week at UCLA on Wednesday and Claremont College on Thursday. Both events were loudly disrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters.

The College Fix has posted voeos of both incidents. (The UCLA event is linked in the below article.)

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32050/

(Remind me to post a Blue Lives Matter flag on this site.)

This is so typical of the know-nothing mentality on our campuses. All it takes is a couple of professional anarchists to show up on campus with bullhorns, and the minds of mush fall in line like a scene out of the Pied Piper of Hamlin.

Warning: Leave Sharm el-Sheik IMMEDIATELY

Tourists are being warned to leave Sharm el-Sheikh and other Egyptan Red Sea resorts IMMEDIATELY

 Here is the link.

Jihad - it's nothing new (but it's not the real problem)

There have been multiple terrorist attacks in the West since 9/11. Let us clear the ground straight away - everyone agrees that not all Muslims are terrorists. That is to say, where the subject term is Muslims, and the predicate term is men who have committed acts of violence and terrorism, the A proposition (All S are P) is false.

All S are P

However, this is irrelevant. The A proposition (All S are P) may be false, but it does not follow that the corresponding I proposition (Some S are P) is false. And in this instance, where the subject term is Muslims, that term is not distributed, and the predicate term is men who have committed acts of violence and terrorism, the I proposition (Some S are P) is true.

Some S are P

The world has just seen yet another example which demonstrates that this I proposition is true. Although it was quite shocking to see another terrorist attack in the centre of London, the means employed in this latest attack is nothing new. Back in 2010, the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire told its readers that in order to avoid capture, they should not attempt to execute a "spectacular" like 9/11 but should carry out smaller scale attacks.1 The magazine specifically recommended making an IED from a pressure cooker, and running people down in a 4 wheel drive vehicle.2

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a graduate of the University of North Carolina, had already thought of that. On 3d March 2006, he drove a rented SUV into a group of students at the university, hitting nine people and sending six of them to the hospital. Taheri-azar, an Iranian native, was reported as saying that he hated Americans and Jews, that he carried out his attack in order to punish the American government for how they treated Muslims, and that he intended to kill his targets. A fellow student who knew Taheri-azar when he attended UNC told the local newspaper that Taheri-azar was a "pretty devout" Muslim who had "studied the Quran", and was "deeply committed" to Islam.3

There have been multiple incidents throughout the Western world in recent years, where the perpetrator was a devout Muslim who stated what his motives were for committing violent and criminal acts. On June 1st 2009, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Memphis-born convert to Islam, drove past an Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas and opened fire on two American soldiers with a semi-automatic rifle. Muhammad killed Private William Long and seriously injured Private Quinton Ezeagwula, two young men who had completed their basic training just two weeks earlier.

Muhammad has several firearms in his truck when he was arrested, so he had the means to carry out the attack, and he clearly had the opportunity to carry out an attack on a soft target. That left Muhammad's motives. Muhammad was jailed for life without parole in July 2011. Before Muhammad was sent down, he wrote to the judge and explained what his motives were. In that handwritten note, Muhammad stated clearly that "this was a jihad attack on infidel forces" therefore his actions were "justified according to Islamic laws and the Islamic religion."4

Here is a copy of Muhammad's note, written in his own hand:






There are innumerable examples of this sort of thing. One of the men convicted of conspiring to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey, Eljvir Duka, explained his motives clearly: "In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone ... attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad." Serdar Tatar, a co-conspirator of Duka's, gave more insight into the mindset of these terrorists: "It doesn't matter to me whether I get locked up, arrested or get taken away, or I die, it doesn't matter. I'm doing it in the name of Allah."5 The would-be terrorist Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life imprisonment after an attempted attack in Times Square in May 2010. Shahzad pleaded guilty to ten charges, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. Shahzad also explained what his motives were: "I consider myself a Muslim soldier," he told the judge at his trial. "If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah ... Consider me only a first droplet of the flood that will follow."6

Since then, the world has witnessed the appearance of more of these murderous creatures. On 22nd May 2013, two of them attacked Lee Rigby, a 25 year old drummer serving with the Second Fusiliers in the British Army. Rigby had served in Cyprus and Afghanistan, where he was part of the Fire Support Group at Patrol Base Woqab.7 The pair took Rigby's life in the most brutal fashion, right in the middle of London's streets.8

One of the killers, who had converted to Islam and taken the name Mujahid Abu Hamza,9 was caught red-handed by a passerby who filmed him on their mobile phone at the scene of the crime. Holding a dagger and a meat cleaver, Abu Hamza stated that he was following commands found in the Koran, specifically citing surah-at-taubah, the ninth chapter of Islam's foundational text.10


"But we are forced by the Koran, in sura at-taubah, through many, many ayah throughout the Koran ..."

The response of the British Prime Minister to this horror was instructive. Following the murder of a British soldier on the streets of the nation's capital, David Cameron stood in front of the TV cameras, adopted a very stern face indeed, and asserted that there were no Islamic doctrines that justified such actions.11 Then he popped off to Ibiza for a few days in the sun with the wife.12 By leaving the country, Cameron avoided having to comment when three Muslim prisoners in Full Sutton Prison in Yorkshire attacked an ex-serviceman working as a prison warden.13 Nor did Cameron have to say anything when a Muslim convert called Alexander Dhaussy was arrested in Paris and charged with stabbing a French soldier in the throat.14 The silence was deafening when, barely a week after the murder of Lee Rigby, a Muslim convert who had changed his name to Islam was arrested for threatening to kill Prince Harry.15

Any citizen of the Western nations who looks at the situation rationally can see that there are two problems before us. We have killers arising from within the Islamic community pretty frequently, and we have terrorist attacks occurring somewhere in the West almost every day. But this is not as big a problem as it would appear at first. The primary function of the State is to protect its own citizens, and if agents of the State took that solemn duty seriously, then the threat posed by terrorism within our own borders could be reduced to almost nothing very quickly. The real problem is that our governments are not fit for purpose. Politicians tell us after each terrorist attack that it will not change our values, and that democracy and freedom will prevail. And they're right - it's not terrorist attacks that will undermine democracy, erode our freedoms and destroy our cultural values. It's politicians who are doing that.

Britain and America fought during the war for the principles listed in the Atlantic Charter. In that document, it is stated that our countries fought against the Nazis to defend, inter alia, "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live".16 The so-called "remainers" seek to deny us this right - this is why their position is untenable. The fact of the matter is, by voting to leave Europe, the people of Britain have chosen the form of government under which they will live. And it is a form of government where the seat of power remains in their own country. It is a form of government where our individual votes still matter.

However, we cannot congratulate ourselves and then go to sleep, as if our work is done now, and it's time to head on up the wooden hill at the end of a hard day. In light of the ongoing terrorist threat to each and every one of us, which successive British governments have failed to prevent, it is clearly not enough to have the right to choose the form of government under which you and your children will live. Every morally sane person in Britain has to actually exercise that right.

It is not enough to have the freedom to speak the truth, we have to do so. It is not enough to say that we have have cultural values, we have to defend them. It is not enough to say that we live in a democracy, we have to remember that we all voted the current politicians in, and if they have failed in their duty to ensure the safety of British citizens, then we can - and we must - vote them out again.




References

1. Erick Stakelbeck, The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You About the Islamist Threat (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2011) p. 45;
Magazine details al Qaeda cargo plane plots, CNN, November 21st 2010.

2. Erick Stakelbeck, The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You About the Islamist Threat (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2011) pp. 52-53;
New issue of magazine offers jihadists terror tips, CNN, October 12th 2010.

3. Driver charged after SUV plows through crowd, NBC News, 3/5/2006;
Jessica Rocha, Samiha Khanna and Jane Stancill, Suspect says he meant to kill, News and Observer, March 8th 2006;
UNC Pit Suspect Claims Quran Supports His Actions, WRAL.com, December 12th, 2006;
Letters from Hit-and-Run Suspect Are Like Court Outburst, WRAL.com;
UNC Hit-and-Run Suspect Speaks Out in Court, WRAL.com;
UNC Run-down Defendant Deemed Competent for Trial, WRAL.com, June 13th, 2007;
Anthony Wilson, Taheri-azar sentenced to more than 20 years, abc news, August 26th, 2008.

4. Max Brantley, Cops: double shooting terror act, Arkansas Times, June 1st, 2009;
Sean Osborne, Islamic terrorism and insurrection are very much alive and well in America, Canada Free Press, June 3d, 2009;
Joseph Abrams, Little Rock Shooting Suspect Joins Growing List of Muslim Converts Accused of Targeting U.S., Fox News, June 2nd, 2009;
Note written by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad in his own hand, in which he explains his motives, available at: James Dao, A Muslim Son, a Murder Trial and Many Questions, New York Times, February 16th, 2010.

5. Wayne Parry, 6 Charged in Plot to Attack Army Post, Washington Post, May 8th, 2007;
Sean Alfano, Six Suspects Indicted In Fort Dix Plot, CBS News, June 5th, 2007;
Paul von Zielbauer, 5 Men Are Convicted in Plot on Fort Dix, December 22nd, 2008.

6. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Faisal Shazad Pleads Guilty to Manhattan Federal Court to 10 Federal Crimes Arising from Attempted Car Bombing in Times Square, June 21st, 2010;
Aaron Katersky and Richard Esposito, Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun', abc news, October 5th, 2010;
Scott Shifrel and Larry McShane, Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad sentenced to life, Daily News New York, October 5th, 2010.

7. Ministry of Defence, Drummer Lee Rigby killed in Woolwich incident, gov.uk, 30th May 2013.

8. Mike Sullivan, Jonathan Reilly, Tom Wells and Tom Morgan, We killed this British soldier. It's an eye for an eye, The Sun, 22nd May 2013 (updated 5th April 2016);
Sarah Weng, Drummer Lee Rigby, 25: Victim in Woolwich attack was loving father of two-year-old, Christian Today, 23d May 2013.

9. Harry Haydon and Karen Morrison, Woolwich terror suspect revealed as Muslim convert known to MI5, The Sun, 23d May 2013 (updated 5th April 2016);
Adrian Shaw, Woolwich attack: Murder suspect Michael Adebolajo asks to be known as Mujahid Abu Hamza in bizarre court appearance, Mirror, 3d June 2013 (updated 4th June 2013);
Arthur Martin and Martin Robinson, Posing like Usain Bolt and blowing kisses to his brother, Woolwich suspect now known as 'Abu Hamza', Daily Mail, 4th June, 2013.

10. Aftermath Video of the Woolwich Butchers - FULL, youtube, published 23d May 2013.
Robert Spencer, Full video and transcript of UK jihad murderer: "We are forced by the Qur'an", May 23d, 2013.

11. Nigel Morris, Murder of soldier in Woolwich was a 'betrayal of Islam' says Cameron as he insists Britain will stand resolute against terror, Independent, May 23d 2013;
David Cameron: 'Woolwich attack 'sickened us all', Telegraph, youtube channel, published 23d May 2013.

12. Samantha Cameron holidays with David and the family in Ibiza, Hello Magazine, May 27th, 2013.

 13. Natalie Chalk, Terror unit steps in as Islamic convicts break guard's jaw after 'pray for Lee Rigby plea', Express, May 28th, 2013;
Rosa Silverman, Prison warden stabbed in attack 'inspired by Woolwich murder', Telegraph, 28th May 2013;
Jack Doyle, Terror police called in after prison warder was held hostage by three Muslim inmates, Daily Mail, 28th May, 2013.

14. Peter Allen, Bearded man seen 'praying' on CCTV footage filmed moments before French soldier was stabbed by suspected terrorist in Woolwich copycat attack, Daily Mail, 27th May 2013;
Henry Samuel, Police: 'radical' Muslim confesses to stabbing French soldier, Telegraph, 29th May 2013;
Islamic convert charged with attempting to kill French soldier, Telegraph, 31st May 2013.

15. Jonathan Corke and Deborah Sherwood, Prince Harry Kidnap Plot, Daily Star, 2nd June 2013;
Steve Nolan, White Muslim convert threatened to kill Prince Harry just hours after brutal murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, Daily Mail, 2nd June 2013;
Justin Penrose, Prince Harry murder plot: Man admits in court he threatened to kill Prince day after Woolwich murder, Mirror, 2nd June 2013 (updated 26th September 2013);
Josh Layton, Prince Harry: Maniac who plotted to kill royal was radicalised in jail after he converted to Islam, Mirror, 3d June 2013 (updated 10th February 2014).

16. Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance: The Second World War, Volume III (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2015) pp. 352-353.



Tags: jihad, Islam, terrorism, freedom, liberty, logic, democracy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Orange Coast College Doubles Down on Dumb




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Leave it to poor old Orange Coast College to dig the hole deeper after being being nationally embarrassed by Professor Olga-Perez-Stable Cox's videotaped classroom statements referring to the election of Donald Trump as "an act of terrorism". After making the situation worse by trying to suspend the student who produced the tape and harassing the College Republicans, OCC has now proclaimed Prof. Cox as the Faculty Member of the Year!

"Ah  wunnerful, ah wunnerful, ah."

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8974

This reminds me of when Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize just for being elected president in 2008.

CNN - A Quality Network



Hat Tip: Knuckledraggin my life away

Tags: CNN, fake news, very fake news To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Breaking News: Surveillance on Trump




Tags: Trump, surveillance To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Research on freedom of speech - pt2

United Nations General Assembly, sixty-seventh session, 13th August 2012, document ref. A/67/303

The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 66/168.

======

15. Countless reports of grave violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief relate to converts and those who try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion. This has become a human rights problem of great concern which occurs in various parts of the world and seems to stem from different motives. For instance, abuses are perpetrated in the name of religious or ideological truth claims, in the interest of promoting national identity or protecting societal homogeneity, or under other pretexts such as maintaining political and national security. While some undue restrictions on the rights of converts or those trying non-coercively to convert others are undertaken by State agencies, other abuses, including acts of violence, stem from widespread societal prejudices. Violations in this sensitive area also include forced conversions or reconversions, again perpetrated either by the State or by non-State actors. In addition, the rights of converts or those trying non-coercively to convert others are sometimes questioned in principle. The Special Rapporteur has therefore decided to put a thematic focus on this issue in the present report in order to contribute to a clarification of the rights of converts and those trying non-coercively to convert others as inextricable dimensions of freedom of religion or belief.

16. The right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief has manifold facets. In the area of conversion, at least four subcategories warrant systematic attention: (a) the right to conversion (in the sense of changing one's own religion or belief; (b) the right not to be forced to convert; (c) the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion; and (d) the rights of the child and of his or her parents in this regard. [...]

17. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly guarantees the "freedom to change" one's religion or belief  as an inextricable component of the human right to freedom of religion or belief. While subsequent United Nations instruments use slightly different wording, the right to conversion remains fully protected. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that freedom of thought, conscience and religion includes "freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice". Article 18 (2) was included partly to reinforce the protection of the right to conversion, stating that "[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice". Article 1 of the 1981 Declaration refers to everyone's "freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice".

======

19. It is generally agreed that within the ambit of freedom of religion or belief, the forum internum, namely, the internal dimension of a person's religious or belief-related conviction, enjoys absolute protection. In this regard, the forum internum differs from external manifestation of religion or belief, which can be restricted under certain conditions and in accordance with certain criteria. As pointed out by the Human Rights Committee, the forum internum also covers everyone's freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice and this freedom is protected unconditionally. Consequently, the right to conversion has the rank of an absolutely protected right within freedom of religion or belief and does not permit any limitations or restrictions for any reason.

======

21. States therefore have a number of obligations vis-a-vis the right to conversion. First, States should respect everyone's right to conversion as a forum internum component within freedom of religion or belief, for example, by abolishing punishments against converts and removing administrative obstacles. Moreover, States are obliged to protect the right to conversion against possible third-party infringements, such as violence or harassment against converts by their previous communities or their social environment. In addition, States should promote a societal climate in which converts can generally live without fear and free from discrimination.

======

3. Right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion.

26. Freedom of religion or belief is not confined to the dimension of a person's forum internum but also includes the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief in external acts, such as "worship, observance, practice and teaching". Such forum externum manifestations can be undertaken "either individually or in community with others and in public or private". It cannot be denied that this covers non-coercive attempts to persuade others, sometimes also called "missionary work". Communicative outreach activities aimed at persuading others, including religious discourse, can be further based on article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide s that the right to freedom of expression shall include "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

27. Similar to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief has a strong communicative dimension which includes, inter alia, the freedom to communicate within one's own religious or belief group, share one's conviction with others, broaden one's horizons by communicating with people of different convictions, cherish and develop contacts across State boundaries, receive and disseminate information about religious or belief issues and try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner. Indeed, freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are two mutually reinforcing human rights. In this spirit, article 6 of the 1981 Declaration confirms that the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief includes the freedoms "(d) to write, issue and disseminate relevant publications in these areas", "(e) to teach a religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes", and "(i) to establish and maintain communications with individuals and communities in matters of religion or belief at the national and international levels".

28. Unlike the forum internum dimension as discussed above (namely, the right to conversion and the right not to be forced to convert), manifestations of one's religion or belief in the forum externum do not enjoy absolute protection. However, the decisive point in international human rights law is that the burden of proof always falls on those who argue on behalf of restrictions, not on those who defend a right to freedom. The relationship between freedom and its possible limitation is a relationship between rule and exception. In case of doubt, the rule prevails and exceptions always imply an extra burden of argumentation, including clear empirical evidence of their necessity and appropriateness. Moreover, any restrictions imposed must meet all the critera set out in article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which "[f]reedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others". Thus, limitations imposed on the right to try to convert others require a legal basis; they must pursue one of the legitimate aims exhaustively listed in article 18 (3); they should be clearly and narrowly defined; they must be proportionate; and they should not be implemented in a discriminatory manner. By contrast, general provisions against "proselytism", a term that often remains undefined or merely vaguely circumscribed while typically carrying negative connotations would not suffice to meet the criteria prescribed in article 18 (3).

======

45. In addition to criminal and administrative sanctions imposed by States or other restrictive State measures, individuals or groups trying to persuade others are often confronted with societal prejudices that sometimes escalate into fully fledged paranoia and concomitant acts of violence. This can even affect persons or communities who merely offer peaceful invitations. Members of religious communities that have a reputation  of being generally committed to missionary work may suffer from harassment, hostility and violence, regardless of whether or not they are personally engaged in any such activities.

======

D. Widespread misunderstandings

51. Freedom of religion or belief in the broad field of conversion is not only violated in practice; it is sometimes also questioned in principle. In discussions with representatives of Governments, members of various religious or belief communities and other stakeholders in society and academia, the Special Rapporteur has come across perceptions and conceptualizations that may lend intellectual support to undue infringements, in particular of the rights of converts and those trying to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion. He therefore briefly addresses some typical misunderstandings.

1. Disruption of peace and harmony

52. The most widespread objection against the right to try non-coercively to convert others concerns the fear that this may lead to a disruption of societal peace and interreligious harmony. A number of Governments have taken up such objections and turned them into a general argument of "public order" which they use to restrict the right to try to convert others even if such attempts are undertaken by means of strictly non-coercive persuasion. [...]

53. With regard to this issue, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that he obviously shares an interest in promoting peaceful relations among people of different religions or beliefs. He further notes that freedom of religion or belief itself should be seen as conducive to peace. This is reflected, for example, in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims in its preamble that respect for human rights constitutes "the foundation [...] of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

54. The peace facilitated by human rights in general and freedom of religion or belief in particular is built on due recognition of people's most diverse convictions and concomitant practices. This includes respect for the right of individuals to communicate on questions of religion or belief, reach out across communities and State boundaries, broaden their own horizons or try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner. Thus, a society respectful of freedom of religion or belief for everyone, as guaranteed in international human rights law, will likely be a religiously pluralistic society, with open boundaries among different communities and subcommunities, and will also be open to peaceful competition and intellectual controversies on religious and belief related questions.

55. The specific concept of peace underlying international human rights clearly differs from the authoritarian control agendas that are sometimes also put forward in the name of "peace" or "harmony". However, a peace based on respect for the dignity and freedom of all human beings goes deeper and has a better chance of sustainability than any societal order organized around such ideas as hegemony, customs or mere authority. Respect for human dignity, in turn, is not conceivable without recognition of every human being's freedom to communicate about issues of religion or belief, including the right to try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner.

======

63. In his daily work, however, the Special Rapporteur receives numerous reports of grave violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief in the broad area of conversion. In the present report, he has discussed this topic, distinguishing four subcategories that deserve systematic attention: (a) the right to conversion (in the sense of changing one's own religion or belief); (b) the right not to be forced to convert; (c) the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion; and (d) the rights of the child and of his or her parents in this context.

======

C. Right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion

66. In addition, many States impose tight legislative or administrative restrictions on communicative outreach activities. This may unduly limit the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion, which itself constitutes an inextricable part of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, many such restrictions are conceptualized and implemented in a flagrantly discriminatory manner, for instance, in the interest of further strengthening the position of the official religion or dominant religion of the country while further marginalizing the situation of minorities. Members of religious communities that have a reputation of being generally engaged in missionariy activities may also face societal prejudices that can escalate into paranoia, sometimes even leading to acts of mob violence and killings.

======

E. Recommendations to various actors

68. In general, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States to consistently respect, protect and promote the human right to freedom of religion or belief in the area of conversion. He reiterates that the right of conversion and its correlate, the right not to be forced to convert or reconvert, belong to the forum internum dimension of freedom of religion or belief, which has the status of unconditional protection under international human rights law. Furthermore, freedom of religion or belief includes the right to try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner. Any restrictions on missionary activities deemed necessary by States must therefore meet all the criteria set out in article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [...]

69. With regard to domestic legal provisions, including constitutions, legal statutes, by-laws and official interpretations of laws, the Special Rapporteur recommends that:

(a) States should clarify that the human right to freedom of religion or belief includes the right to convert and the right not to be forced to convert, both of which are unconditionally protected [...]

(f) States should further clarify that freedom of religion or belief includes the right to try to convert others by non-coercive means of communication and persuasion. This includes, inter alia, the dissemination of literature and other material relating to religion or belief [...]

70. With regard to different areas of administration, the Special Rapporteur recommends that: [...]

(d) States should give clear direction and training to law enforcement and similar agencies to ensure that they refrain from unduly infringing on the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion; [...]

72. With regard to non-State actors, the Special Rapporteur recommends that: [...]

(c) Religious leaders and opinion formers should become aware and acknowledge that not only is conversion to their own religion or belief protected, but that any decision to replace one's current religion or belief with a different one or to adopt atheistic views is equally protected;

(d) Religious communities, interfaith groups and civil society and developmental aid organizations are encouraged to address issues of conversion and missionary activities in voluntary codes of conduct. They should use this as an opporunity to also promote more respectful attitudes towards converts and persons engaged in non-coercive missionary activities.

 ======


Document available here:   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/GA67session.aspx




Tags: freedom of speech, freedom of religion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Is Sharia Law Compatible With US Law?




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


This article first appeared in New English Review.


Currently, many states are attempting to pass-or have passed- legislation which would preclude other forms of law being incorporated into state law. To be specific, the particular law they are trying to avoid is Islamic law-sharia (though they must avoid specifically targeting Islamic law as opposed to those of other religions). Correspondingly, Islamic leaders in the US are trying to combat this trend and prevent said laws from being passed. On one front, Muslim leaders in the US are involved in a public relations drive to convince non-Muslims that sharia law is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution and US law. It is not, and it is very easy to prove it.

Sharia in Arabic means, "straight path". In the early time of Islam it referred to the straight path to water, life's necessity. Since Islam is designed to guide virtually every aspect of the believer's life, sharia is quite detailed. Its two main sources are the Qu'ran and the Sunnah (sayings, actions and approvals of the Prophet Mohammad). Its interpretation through the centuries has come from the learned Islamic scholars.

Much of sharia is benign and related to principles of how one worships, marriage, divorce, financial rights etc. There are also civil and criminal aspects and punishments for criminal violations. Aside from the obvious discriminatory details regarding women and non-Muslims, it is in the area of criminal punishments that sharia is most problematic.

This past weekend, I attended a day-long seminar presented by the (Islamic) Institute of Knowledge in Diamond Bar, California on the topic of sharia. This was the third such event I have attended. While the very capable presenters explained sharia well and defended it, they  included an explanation of the most problematical part of sharia, that is hudud sharia, which covers fixed punishments for "crimes against God". According to what was presented, there are 5 "crimes" included in hudud. (Hudud is plural of hadd, which means "boundary" in Arabic.)

1 Unlawful sex-which may be adultery involving married people having sex outside of marriage or fornication involving unmarried people. According to the Qu'ran, the latter is punishable by 100 lashes, and the former by stoning.

2 Accusing someone falsely of unlawful sex, which is punishable by 80 lashes.

3 Theft, which is punishable by cutting off the hand.

4 Drinking alcohol- 80 lashes.

5 Highway robbery, which is considered a more serious form of theft especially if it involves death. This form of robbery is punishable by death.

What the presenters attempted to do was quickly point out that the standards of proof for these crimes are extremely high to the point of making conviction and administering the above punishments almost impossible. For example, the adultery charge requires confession and 4 male witnesses (emphasis mine).

I could stop right here with my thesis that sharia is not compatible with US laws, but there is so much more. We have not even gotten to the "crimes" of apostasy and blasphemy yet. We were told Saturday that apostasy and blasphemy are not covered under hudud.  Well and good, but they are still out there. The subject of apostasy really only came up due to audience questions (mine), which had to be written on note cards and passed to the front hopefully to be selected. We were told that in a non-Muslim country, the decision to leave Islam is between that person and God. In a Muslim country, it was explained that the apostate would be given 4 chances to repent and return to Islam before any sentence could be carried out. It was also explained that even in Muslim lands, if a person left Islam quietly, they would be left alone, but if they "undermine the state or stir up trouble", they would be guilty of treason and the death penalty would apply. (I was told once by a Saudi lawyer that in his country, an accused apostate gets 3 chances to repent before being executed.)

So as not to engage in overkill, let's cut to the chase. It is irrelevant whether or not the standards of proof are ridiculously high. It is irrelevant whether or not a person gets the chance to repent. What is relevant is that in our country, we don't even have laws against drinking (adults), adultery or fornication. Nor do we have laws against apostasy or blasphemy. Yet under sharia law, these are considered crimes and merit either the death penalty or lashing. We must also reject any law that discriminates against women or against those who do not belong to a particular faith-in this case Islam. Furthermore, in modern (nation-state) times, treason is considered betraying one's nation-not one's religion.

These aspects of sharia are clearly not compatible with our values and our laws. Every person living in the US-Muslim or non-Muslim- is entitled to enjoy every single protection that our constitution offers. Properly drafted, laws that preclude any outside law (including sharia) from being considered or recognized in our own laws should be passed.

Research on freedom of speech - pt1

United Nations General Assembly.  Sixtieth Session.  30th September 2005.  Document Reference: A/60/399

Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance

Note by the Secretary-General

The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 55/199.


2. Applicable standards

46. The Special Rapporteur notes that, according to universally accepted international standards, the right to freedom of religion or belief includes the right to adopt a religion of one's own choice, the right to change religion and the right to maintain a religion. She also notes that these aspects of the right to freedom of religion or belief have an absolute character and are not subject to any limitation whatsoever.

47. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion "includes freedom to change [one's] religion or belief". Article 1 of the 1981 Declaration states that "[t]his right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of [one's] choice" and that "[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice".

48. The content of article 18, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is the result of a lengthy process of discussion in the Human Rights Commission and the third Committee of the General Assembly. The wording initially proposed was "Everyone should have the freedom to maintain or to change his religion", but, following opposition by some countries which feared that the formulation would lend encouragement to proselytism and anti-religious propaganda, it was changed to "have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice", a wording that was adopted without dissent. This final version of the provision was undoubtedly intended to include the right to convert from one religion or belief to another. The Human Rights Committee, in paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 22 (1993) on article 18, observed that "the freedom to 'have or adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief."

49. The fact that article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to be imposed only on the manifestation of religion or belief clearly assigns the freedom to "have or to adopt a religion or belief" to the first part of paragraph 1, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, also called forum internum, which cannot be interfered with in any way. In its general comment No. 22 the Human Rights Committee states clearly that article 18 "does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice" (para. 3).

50. This prohibition of limitation is reinforced by paragraph 2 of the same article, which provides that "[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice." The fact that the prohibition of coercion was made explicit shows that the drafters of the Covenant found the freedom provided by paragraph 1 to be so significant that any form of coercion by the State was impermissible, independently of whether the coercion was physical or in the form of State-sponsored incentives. According to the Human Rights Committee:

"Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Policies or practices having the same intention or effect, such as, for example, those restricting access to education, medical care, employment or the rights guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions of the Covenant, are similarly inconsistent with article 18.2" (general comment No. 22, para. 5).

======

58. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur would mainly refer to the arguments made earlier in this report. The right to change religion is absolute and is not subject to any limitation whatsoever. Any legislation that would prohibit or limit the right to change one's religion would be contrary to international human rights standards and the provisions mentioned above.

======

61. Also, while not explicitly including religious rights, article 19 of ICCPR, which protects freedom of expression, is formulated in a way that also covers missionary activities: "[T]his right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of [one's] choice". The Human Rights Committee's constant jurisprudence has deemed the protection afforded by article 19 extremely strong.

62. Whereas the scope of freedom afforded to persons for the practice of their religion or belief by producing and distributing information about their religion or belief is wide, certain limitations can be imposed in accordance with article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. However, it should be noted that this article allows for restrictions only in very exceptional cases. In particular the fact that it mentions the protection of "fundamental rights and freedoms" (emphasis added) of others as a ground for restriction indicates a stronger protection than for some other rights whose limitation clauses refer simply to the "rights and freedoms of others" (e.g. article 12, 21 and 22). It could indeed be argued that the freedom of religion and belief of adults basically is a question of individual choice, so any generalized State limitation (e.g. by law) conceived to protect "others'" freedom of religion and belief by limiting the right of individuals to conduct missionary activities should be avoided.

63. The test for legality of a prohibition of any act motivated by belief or religion is therefore extremely strict. In practice, the European Court of Human Rights has given some guidance concerning the distinction between permissible religious persuasion, on the one hand, and coercion on the other. In Larissis v. Greece, the court decided that an officer of the Greek army had exploited his position of authority over his subordinates in trying to convert them. However, in Kokkinakis v. Greece, the Court did not find any violation when Jehovah's Witnesses called on their neighbour to discuss religious issues with her since that act, in the Court's view, fell under "bearing Christian witness" and was therefore protected by article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Judge Pettiti, in his partly concurring opinion, made this particularly clear: "Freedom of religion and conscience certainly entails accepting proselytism, even where it is not respectable. Believers and agnostic philosophers have a right to expound their beliefs, to try to get other people to share them and even to try to convert those whom they are addressing."

======

88. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that, as a principle, no one should be imprisoned because of his or her religious beliefs or the exercise of his or her right to freedom of religion or belief.

======

96. The right to adopt a religion of one's own choice, to change or maintain a religion is a core element of the right to freedom of religion or belief and may not be limited in any way by the State. When it is challenged by non-State actors, States have a positive obligation to ensure the enjoyment of this right.

97. Missionary activities and other forms of propagation of religion are part of the right to manifest one's religion or belief. They may be limited only under restrictive conditions, and the Special Rapporteur disapproves of the criminalization of certain acts specific to the propagation of one's religion.


http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/docs/A_60_399.pdf

Available at:  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Annual.aspx



Tags: freedom of speech, freedom of religion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

communism / socialism



Hat tip: NInety Miles from Tyranny

Tags: tyranny, communism, socialism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Red River Bible Conference - Live Now

Red River Bible Conference - Live Streaming NOW

(Paul McGuire, Mike Hoggard, Roger Oakland, Chris Pinto.)




Tags: Paul McGuire, Roger Oakland, End Times To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

The Face of Angela Merkel's Insane Immigration Policy




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


Hat tip Vlad Tepes




https://vladtepesblog.com/2017/03/10/mothers-facebook-post-to-her-son-victim-of-muslim-jihad-attack-in-dusseldorf/

This is the Face of Angela Merkel's insane immigration policy. His name is Domenico, and he is one of the victims of yesterday's axe attack by a Kosovar asylum seeker at the main train station in Duesseldorf.

Below is the translation of what his mother has put on social media:

This is my son Domenico in the intensive care of the University Clinic…
Amok at the Düsseldorf Main Train Station
He was hit in the head with an axe, from behind… Surgery took Long
The media is downplaying it all
It is terrible and incomprehensible
You are welcome to share this….
I Love You my Son

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

As usual, the mother is correct. The media is downplaying it all. The attacker is described as mentally ill. The police have reported that they have given him his medicine which he had neglected to take. What's next-his release? It seems every time an attack happens, the attacker is described as mentally disturbed. Perhaps, that is the case here, but aside from any mental imbalance, what was the motive for this attack?

Domenico is just another victim not only of Merkel's policy, but the policy of most all the Western Europe governments, as well as the policy of the EU. I guess the Europeans just have to get used to the new multi-culturalism and "cultural enrichment" that the left celebrates.