Thursday, April 26, 2018

Revolution and Worse to Come
April 24, 2018

Sign at a protest outside Trump Tower in New York City, February 8, 2018. (Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)
When legal bloodhounds and baying critics fail to take out Trump, what’s next? The Resistance wants Trump’s head — on the chopping block.
On the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence. Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground. Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its strange continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2016 election.
Indeed, the aim of the so-called Resistance to Donald J. Trump is ending Trump’s presidency by any means necessary before the 2020 election. Or, barring that, it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent. It has been only 16 months since Trump took office and, in the spirit of revolutionary fervor, almost everything has been tried to derail him. Now we are entering uncharted territory — at a time when otherwise the country is improving and the legal exposure of Trump’s opponents increases daily.
First came the failed lawsuits after the election alleging voting-machine tampering. Then there was the doomed celebrity effort to convince some state electors not to follow their constitutional duty and to deny Trump the presidency — a gambit that, had it worked, would have wrecked the Constitution. Then came the pathetic congressional boycott of the inauguration and the shrill nationwide protests against the president.
Anti- a
Next was the sad effort to introduce articles of impeachment. After that came weird attempts to cite Trump for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. That puerile con was followed by plans to declare him deranged and mentally unfit so that he could be removed under the 25th Amendment. From time to time, Obama holdovers in the DOJ, National Security Council, and FBI sought to leak information, or they refused to carry out presidential orders.
As the Resistance goes from one ploy to the next, it ignores its string of failed prior efforts, forgetting everything and learning nothing. State nullification is no longer neo-Confederate but an any-means-necessary progressive tool. Suing the government weekly is proof of revolutionary fides, not a waste of California’s taxpayer dollars.

Anti- and Never-Trump op-ed writers have long ago run out of superlatives. Trump is the worst, most, biggest — fill in the blank — in the history of the presidency, in the history of the world, worse even than Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, or Hitler. So if Trump is a Hitler who gassed 6 million or a Stalin who starved 20 million, then logically Trump deserves what exactly?
The book industry is doing its part. Mythographer Michael Wolff’s hearsay Fire and Fury suggested that Trump was a dangerous child despised as much by his friends as by his enemies. As  FBI director, James Comey leaked confidential memos, lied to Congress, misled a FISA court, admitted that he based his handling of the Clinton-email investigation on the assumption she’d win the presidency, misinformed the president about the status of his investigation. And the now-former director book-tours the country slamming Trump hourly on the assumption that he would certainly not be former, if only his prior obsequious efforts to appease Trump had saved his job. Comey is building perjury cases against himself daily with each new disclosure that belie past sworn testimonies, but that is apparently less scary to him than simply ignoring Trump.

Robert Mueller and his “dream team” were long ago supposed to have discovered proof of Trump’s collusion with Russia. A year later, they have found nothing much to do with this mandate. Then the alternative scent was obstruction of justice. Then the chase took another detour to follow some sort of fraud or racketeering. Now the FBI is reduced to raiding Trump’s lawyer in an effort to root out the real story on Stormy Daniels. One wonders what might have happened had Michael Cohen panicked and destroyed 30,000 emails before Mueller seized his computers. No matter, Mueller’s legal army presses on, even as it leaves its own wounded on the battlefield, as resignations, reassignments, and retirements for improper conduct decimate the Obama-era FBI and DOJ hierarchies.
Trump has left the intelligence community unhinged. John Brennan (“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you”) and James Clapper (who called Trump a veritable traitor working for Putin) have both admitted to lying under oath to Congress in the past, and with their present invective, they have discredited the very notion of a Washington intelligence elite. At some point, Mueller’s zealotry will remind federal attorneys that equality under the law demands indictments of those with far greater legal exposure, regardless of the exalted status of Comey, Andrew McCabe, and — in the matter of lying under oath, leaking classified materials, and destroying evidence — John Brennan, James Clapper and Hillary Clinton.
In addition, a media, found to be more than 90 percent negative in its coverage of the Trump administration, sought to delegitimize the president. Journalists declare that disinterested reporting is impossible in the age of Trump — and therefore believe that Stormy Daniels or James Comey’s Dudley Do-Right’s memos are a pathway to accomplish what they are beginning to concede Robert Mueller cannot.
Everything from the NFL to late-night comedy shows have become Trump-hating venues. Almost every sort of smear from scatology to homophobia has been voiced by celebrities to turn Trump into a president deserving such abuse — and worse. Late-night television host Steven Colbert was reduced to incoherent and repellant venom: “You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c*** holster.” Actor Robert De Niro has become deranged and dreams of pounding on Trump’s face. But then so does former vice president Joe Biden, who on two occasions boasted that Trump is the sort of guy that a younger he-man Biden used to take outside the gym to give a whippin’ to.
Each cycle of hysteria demands another, as the race to the bottom has descended into which celebrity or politician can discover the most provocative — or crude — Trump expletive. “S***” and “f***” are now the ordinary vocabulary of angry Democratic politicos and officeholders. Are we reaching a point in the so-far-failed Resistance where little is left except abject violence in the manner of the Roman or French Revolution? The problem for Trump’s pop-culture foes is not whether to imagine or advocate killing the president. That’s a given. They just need to agree on the means of doing so: decapitation (Kathy Griffin), incineration (David Crosby), stabbing (the Shakespeare in the Park troupe), shooting (Snoop Dogg), explosives (Madonna), old-fashioned, Lincoln-style assassination (Johnny Depp), death by elevator (Kamala Harris), hanging (a CSU professor), or simple generic assassination (a Missouri state legislator).

Now the Democratic party — whose presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, hired Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump with the aid of Russian sources to warp the 2016 election — is suing President Trump, alleging collusion with the Russians. If Clinton were called as a witness, what would she say under cross-examination — that she did not hire Steele, that he never purchased Russian dirt, or that there was no collusion effort to enlist foreign nationals such as British subject Christopher Steele and Russian propagandists to warp an American election?
Insidiously and incrementally, we are in the process of normalizing violence against the elected president of the United States. If all this fails to delegitimize Trump, fails to destroy his health, or fails to lead to a 2018 midterm Democratic sweep and subsequent impeachment, expect even greater threats of violence. The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

Instead, like the French revolutionaries’ Committee on Public Safety, the unhinged anti-Trumpists assume that they have lost public opinion, given their venom and crudity, and are growing desperate as every legal and paralegal means of removing Trump is nearing exhaustion. Robert Mueller is the last chance, a sort of Watergate or Abu Ghraib that could gin up enough furor to drive down Trump’s poll favorability to the twenties and thereby reduce his person to a demonic force deserving of whatever it gets.
After the prior era of hysteria, between 2005 and 2008, when books and docudramas staged the imagined assassination of George W. Bush, and celebrities like Michael Moore and activists such as Cindy Sheehan reduced Bush to the status of a war criminal, the Left in 2009 demanded a return to normal political discourse and comportment, with the election of Barack Obama. A newly contrite and apologetic America was abruptly worth believing in again. In 2009, the CIA and FBI suddenly were reinvented as hallowed agents of change.
Bush careerists, including Clapper and Brennan, were now damning the very counterterrorism practices that they once helped put in place, while offering Obama-like politically correct sermons on the benign nature of Islamism. Surveillance and jailing were appropriate punishments for suspected Obama apostates (ask James Rosen or Nkoula Basseley Nakoula). The IRS was weaponized for use against Obama’s ideological opponents. Suggestions that the president was unfit or worse became near treasonous. Unity was the new patriotism. The assumption was that Obama had ushered in a half-century of progressive norms, not that he so alienated the country that he birthed Donald Trump.
The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.
We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won. @vdhanson

Key players (recurring roles) :  Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Robert Mueller; James Comey;Rod Rosenstein;. Lois Lerner

From 2001 to 2005 

There was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

A Grand Jury had been empaneled.

Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.

Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared.

Hmmm, now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.

Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? No other than James Comey.
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine, Lois Lerner.

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?
No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this timeframe???  Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and/or were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

Fast forward to 2009.

James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server by the way.

The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary.

Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, the People got absolutely nothing out of it.

However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one hour speech then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

Guess who was the FBI Director during this timeframe? Yep, Robert Mueller.
He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.

Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland. No other than, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess what happened to the informant? The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved?

~145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? No other than, Lois  Lerner.

Fast forward to 2015.

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.

He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law.

He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email.

Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013?

Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer.

No other than James Comey.

Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?

Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email Investigation” after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner “Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her.

Nope couldn’t find any crimes there.

Can you guess what happened next?

In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy.

They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury.

Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016, and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing.

Can you see the pattern?

It goes on and  on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.

FISA Abuse, political espionage..... pick a crime, any crime, chances are...... this group and a few others did it.

All the same players.

All compromised and conflicted.

All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves.

All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's.

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service……Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018


I do not personally know Adm. Jackson…. but I do know the military staff at the White House, having served in that capacity… and under the Obama administration I was at functions  with  Adm. Jackson several times, but I have never spoken to him.

 The best way to resolve the matter immediately is to have the Surgeon General of the Navy convene a closed-door panel investigation which will accept testimony under oath subject to cross-examination.

 That will distinguish facts from backstabbing.

 In the meantime, everything I know about Adm. Jackson from multiple sources is very positive.  The accusation of giving out prescriptions promiscuously is a lot of crap. The accusation of excessive drinking while overseas is a lot of crap.    The personal who charge that they were demeaned or abused very often are disgruntled due to their feeling under appreciated and/or being assigned to duties that they do not want.  My experience has been when they have to swear  to the circumstances their story often changes.

 I cannot testify in favor of Adm. Jackson. But I think the public lynching is despicable.** I am sure that his behavior is much better than at least 50% of the Congressman I that I know. I am sure that his behavior is much better than 50% of the journalists that you know.

 I look forward to your fair, objective, balanced reporting on  Adm. Jackson.

** From CNN; the Wall Street Journal; etc.

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, the top Democrat on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, laid out the allegations in a CNN interview Tuesday night, saying the committee was investigating allegations from active duty and retired military officers who had worked in the White House medical office and who had come to the committee with numerous complaints, including that Dr. Jackson belittled lower-ranking employees, drank to excess on overseas trips, and handed out prescriptions “like candy,” walking down the aisle during flights doling out drugs to help people fall asleep and wake up.

“In the White House, they call him the candy man,” Mr. Tester told CNN.

He said that Dr. Jackson allegedly was drunk while accompanying President Barack Obama on overseas trips, so that he “couldn’t respond because he had been drinking so much,” leaving someone else to fill in. Mr. Tester also said that Dr. Jackson’s treatment of workers created an unbearable work environment.

“We were told time and time again the people above him he treated like gold, the people below him he belittled, screamed at,” Mr. Tester said. The result was “a very toxic environment to the point where the people who worked around him felt like they had to walk on eggshells because of his lack of respect for their jobs.”


His real estate investments are philanthropic; he has no personal involvement  with, nor any specific knowledge of any of the specific real estate investments; he has no personal knowledge of , or any contact with anyone at HUD relating to any of these investments- nor on any other matter

TV host Sean Hannity  has been building a real estate empire in the background over the course of time and apparently that's why he sought advice from President Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen.

According to The Wrap

On Sunday evening, The Guardian revealed that the Fox News host is also a real estate baron, with roughly 870 properties linked to him across the United States. According to the paper, Hannity amassed the properties over the last decade with a series of shell companies that dropped nearly $90 million on the purchases.

Some proceeded to attack Sean Hannity's real estate venture, claiming that he had conflicts of interest and failed to report them when interviewing guests on his program.

Hannity  responded with the following statement on his website:

It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money. The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support.

I have never discussed with anybody at HUD the original loans that were obtained in the Obama years, nor the subsequent refinance of such loans, as they are a private matter. I had no role in, or responsibility for, any HUD involvement in any of these investments. I can say that every rigorous process and strict standard of improvement requirements were followed; all were met, fulfilled and inspected.

The LLC’s are REAL companies that spend real investment money on real properties.

BIAS AT UCLA  ????   

Why Did a UCLA Instructor With a Popular Free-Speech Course Lose His Job?
By Sarah Brown JULY 01, 2017

According to communication-studies department leaders at the University of California at Los Angeles, the story of why Keith A. Fink lost his job isn’t an especially interesting one: He was a part-time lecturer, and his teaching wasn’t up to par.

But according to Mr. Fink, the tale is far more troubling. Mr. Fink, a conservative, says he was pushed out in large part because of his political beliefs and because one of the courses he taught — a popular class on campus free speech — dared to criticize UCLA’s own actions.
With campus free speech emerging as a hot-button national issue, Mr. Fink’s continuing struggle with his university has struck a chord. Campus Reform, the conservative news outlet, has championed him in a series of articles; Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host who regularly rails against campus liberalism, has made him a guest.
On Tuesday, June 27, Mr. Fink received a letter from Laura E. Gómez, interim dean of the College Division of Social Sciences, informing him that he would no longer be employed at UCLA once his contract ended, on June 30. "After a thoughtful and comprehensive academic review, it has been determined that your teaching does not meet the standard of excellence," Ms. Gómez wrote. (She did not respond to a request for comment from The Chronicle.)
The letter marked the latest development in a monthslong saga pitting Mr. Fink against several administrators: Ms. Gómez; Kerri L. Johnson, chair of the communication-studies department; and Greg Bryant, the department’s vice chair.

Mr. Fink, a lawyer, had been an adjunct faculty member in communication studis at UCLA for a decade. In one of the courses he taught, "Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus," he often brought up UCLA-specific speech controversies — for instance, provocative posters that appeared on the campus. In doing so, he said, he critically analyzed how university leaders had responded to the incident. At times, he said, UCLA didn’t come out looking great.

"The fact that I use current events at UCLA as teaching examples to illustrate free-speech principles likely bothers the administration, often because their campuswide emails run afoul of the First Amendment and directly or indirectly trample on students’ free-speech rights," said Mr. Fink, who was out of the country and responded to questions by email.
He has drawn the ire of administrators in other ways, too, he said. According to Mr. Fink, his conservative political beliefs have always been at odds with those of most other people on the campus. And then there was his lawyerly campus activism: On occasion he has assisted UCLA students who faced campus disciplinary or legal proceedings.
Past department leaders had supported him and "thwarted off attempts by the school to undermine or fire me," Mr. Fink said.
In July 2016, Ms. Johnson became department chair. She said she couldn’t speak for her predecessors, but stressed that "in no way has Mr. Fink’s politics been part of any classroom decision or any academic-personnel decision."
"As a top research university in the United States," she said, "we value and celebrate a diversity of opinion."
A Contentious Review
The trouble began in January, when Mr. Fink was scheduled to teach his campus free-speech course, a popular class that frequently filled up a large lecture hall. (UCLA’s academic calendar is divided into four quarters, and January marked the start of the winter quarter.)

According to Mr. Fink, Ms. Johnson abruptly limited the size of his free-speech course, to 200 students. The previous cap had been 250, he said, and he would sign permission-to-enroll forms for students who wanted to join the class as long as there were sufficient seats available.

Ms. Johnson also told him his spring-term class had been moved into a smaller lecture hall, with only 170 seats, Mr. Fink said. She "offered no concrete explanation" for the changes, he said.
Ms. Johnson disputes all of that. She said the size of the free-speech class "was not changed from his prior enrollments." Mr. Fink had asked that his course be expanded, she said, but she had decided not to increase the size of any of the department’s courses until she could review them individually.
Given that he had only one teaching assistant, 200 students was already more than ideal, Ms. Johnson said, adding that she wasn’t involved in the decision to move his spring-quarter course to a different room.
In the meantime, starting during the winter term, Mr. Fink was subject to a review that all lecturers go through after they’ve taught for 18 quarters. Faculty members who pass the review — which involves an evaluation and a vote by their department’s tenure-stream faculty members, and a final decision by the college’s dean — are promoted to "continuing lecturer."
Mr. Fink had concerns about the process from the beginning. He said he had been asked to provide a list of people he believed should be excluded from the process because they couldn’t objectively evaluate his teaching. He named Ms. Gómez and Ms. Johnson, his own chair, because they had tried "to arbitrarily reduce my class size." He added that Ms. Johnson disliked him and his political views.
He also named Mr. Bryant, the vice chair, as well as several other administrators and "all faculty members" in eight departments and programs across the university, including the departments of African-American studies, Asian-American studies, and gender studies.
The list was advisory, not binding, Ms. Johnson said. Also, she said, she didn’t learn of Mr. Fink’s political affiliation until after she had decided not to increase the course size. Mr. Fink then wrote her an email saying he felt he was being targeted because of his conservative views. "I’ve never told him what my politics are," she said.

“He's never come to any meeting or any function that we've ever had. Nobody knows him.”
Mr. Bryant wasn’t sure why he ended up on the list because he had never met Mr. Fink before evaluating his class. "He’s never come to any meeting or any function that we’ve ever had," Mr. Bryant said. "Nobody knows him."

Mr. Bryant sat in on Mr. Fink’s campus free-speech course nevertheless and wrote an evaluation. "I didn’t want to write the letter," the professor said, "but a lot of people said no" to the task.
The evaluation "was riddled with lies and misrepresentations," according to Mr. Fink. He said Mr. Bryant had taken issue with his decision to single out particular students, saying that doing so created an unwelcoming learning environment.
Mr. Fink provided The Chronicle with declarations from two students in which they said they had developed close relationships with the faculty member and had no problem being identified — one as a member of the campus Republican club, the other as a reporter and columnist for the student newspaper.
But that’s not why the class was unwelcoming, Mr. Bryant said. "He makes students uncomfortable to talk because he’s pretty aggressive back to them" if he disagrees with their point of view, he said. And Mr. Fink’s use of the discussion-based Socratic method in a large lecture hall "doesn’t really work," Mr. Bryant said.

“He was pushing his own views harder than I think he should.”
Mr. Fink also criticized specific UCLA administrators by name, Mr. Bryant said, and "he was pushing his own views harder than I think he should."

"I believe Mr. Fink clearly has a right to express those views, especially in a class on the topic of free speech," he wrote in the evaluation, "but as a teaching technique, I feel like the more he belabors his points about UCLA in particular, the more he undermines his credibility and objectivity as an instructor."
Mr. Fink acknowledged that his provocative style might feel intimidating to some students. "But a university shouldn’t be a safe space," he said.
‘The Bar Is Incredibly High’
Student evaluations of the free-speech course Mr. Fink taught this year — provided by Andrew Litt, a recent UCLA School of Law graduate who served as Mr. Fink’s teaching assistant for two years and worked in his law firm — mostly paint a picture of Mr. Fink as an engaging teacher and his course as stimulating and interesting.

“This class was the best class I have taken at UCLA.”
"This class was the best class I have taken at UCLA," one student wrote. "While I did not agree with every views [sic] of Professor Fink, his lectures stimulated and provoked a wide range of thoughts and perspectives that I believe helped me to become a better student and citizen." A handful of comments were negative; one took issue with Mr. Fink’s "arrogance," and another said he "goes off-topic a lot" but added that "this is a very minor issue."

The department’s final report, provided by Mr. Litt, stated that the review "skewed toward a favorable view of Mr. Fink’s teaching effectiveness," but said faculty members had raised concerns "about the climate fostered within the classroom" and the rigor of his assessments.

“He's a good speaker, but that's not all it takes.”
"He’s a good speaker," Mr. Bryant said, "but that’s not all it takes."

Ultimately, the nine voting faculty members deadlocked: Three voted to promote him to continuing lecturer, three voted not to, and three abstained. Ms. Gómez, the interim dean, then declined to promote him.
"The bar is incredibly high," Ms. Johnson said of the review. There is another lecturer in the department who is well qualified to teach a course on campus free speech and may do so in the future, she added.
Mr. Litt didn’t believe the review process had been fair: "If you look at his record within the department, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to make credible arguments that he’s not excellent."
Mr. Fink said he may teach at another institution in the future, but in the meantime he is working with the university’s faculty union to file a grievance. He also plans to establish a nonprofit group that will provide free legal services to UCLA students and professors who feel their rights have been violated.
The spat illustrates what Mr. Fink describes as an intolerant culture at the university. "UCLA pays lip service to the notions of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity," he said, "but there’s an implied understanding among the school’s leaders that this really only applies if your views align with theirs."
That message has spread thanks to a steady stream of reports by Campus Reform, which has chronicled each step of the saga. A sample of the eight articles the website has published about Mr. Fink’s situation includes "UCLA still targeting conservative prof’s free speech course," "Conservative prof subject to ‘biased’ review committee," and now "UCLA fires Fink with little explanation."
UCLA’s administrators said the outrage is much ado about nothing. Mr. Fink’s case was "handled by the book," Mr. Bryant countered, and his views were not an issue. "My personal opinion about free speech is actually similar to his," he said.
"He just can’t believe that people would not think he’s an excellent teacher based on the reviews of students," Mr. Bryant added. "There’s more to it than what the students think."
Sarah Brown writes about a range of higher-education topics, including sexual assault, race on campus, and Greek life. Follow her on Twitter @Brown_e_Points, or email her at

 Conservative Professor OUT At UCLA


Conservaive professor Keith Fink has been officially let go from his position as part-time continuing lecturer for the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).

Fink has been undergoing his Excellence Review process regarding whether his employment at UCLA will continue after his 18th quarter of teaching. On Tuesday, Dean of Social Sciences Laura Gomez sent Fink a brief letter informing him of her decision to let him go, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Wire:

I write to inform you that your appointment as a Continuing Lecturer, effective January 1, 2018, was not approved. after a thoughtful and comprehensive academic review, it has been determined that your teaching does not meet the standard of excellence. The effective end date of your last employment as a Lecturer in the Department of Communication Studies will be June 30, 2017.

Fink provided the following statement to The Daily Wire in an email:

Dean Gomez' letter to me is devoid of any reason or rationale. I articulated in a seven page letter numerous concerns about the procedure and substance of my Excellence Review to Dean Gomez all of which she ignored. In return, she responded a month later with a five sentence letter comprised mainly of pleasantries, lacking substance or accountability. Despite being biased she refused to recuse herself. Why does UCLA ask a teacher to list those who are biased if there is no recusal? Why isn't a teacher after ten years of teaching entitled to some explanation as to why he is no longer able to teach? I intend to ensure that the UCLA is held accountable to the fundamental principles of free speech, due process and fairness. To that end I am establishing a non-profit that will provide free legal services for UCLA students and teachers whose rights have been violated. I will always fight for principles that we hold dear as Americans and will continue to be the one person UCLA students can count on for help when needed. I have been offered many teaching opportunities and will continue to be a positive role model and inspiring teacher for young people.

The Daily Wire has reported on Gomez's bias against Fink and Fink's letter making his case to Gomez here and here.

Fink's teacher aide, Andrew Litt, excoriated Gomez in a text message to The Daily Wire.

"This was preordained," Litt seethed. "What a joke. No recusal. No analysis. As expected."

Litt also noted that no one in the review process had any expertise on the subject matter that Fink teaches – free speech and employment law – and that Fink had requested for Gomez to seek "the input of the campus' (arguably the nation's) preeminent First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh." But her letter suggests that "she solicited nothing."

Indeed, Fink's letter to Gomez is filled with substantive arguments explaining how he meets UCLA's standards of excellence, while Gomez's letter is substance-free. You can read Fink's full letter here.

As The Daily Wire has previously reported, Fink has been railroaded during his review process from the get-go, which ultimately resulted in a deadlocked panel vote on his future at UCLA, leaving the decision in the hands of Dean Gomez, who seems to have a bias against Fink.

Meanwhile, The Daily Wire has received some of Fink's student evaluations from this past spring quarter and the vast majority of them are overwhelmingly positive:

I'm a science major who normally has no interests in classes like these. When I say this was one of my favorite classes here at UCLA, with the most passionate professor I've ever had, who made me want to learn a new field, I am not exaggerating. Professor Fink cares for his students like no other, and you always feel secure and welcome asking a man of his stature for help. His class was organized, concise, and he was very well spoken. I cannot point out any direct weaknesses because I feel nothing was needing of improvement. His strengths are the remainder, and they speak for themselves.

If I could rate every single category of this survey as a 10 instead of a 9, I would have. Professor Fink has been, by far, my most interesting, intriguing, articulate, and well-spoken instructor I've had here at UCLA. His class has single-handedly compelled me to pursue a career in law and has increased my interest 10 fold. It's really a shame that he has been under attack by the department because this is the best (in all aspects) communications course I've taken. If I could take his courses every quarter, I most definitely would. And I really hope he is not removed from teaching because this class really forces students to critically think about events and situations before they assume their position. With the current political leanings of the campus, I think it'd be valuable for every and any student to take his classes. He challenges you and forces you to question your own beliefs. He creates more conscientious and empowered students who know their rights. All in all, an amazing course that everyone should have the opportunity to take.

In my 4 years at UCLA, I've had a great deal of excellent professors but the one that stands out the most among them is Professor Fink. I first took his Free Speech on Campus last quarter and this experience was so life changing that I HAD to enroll in his class this quarter. Professor Fink is one of the few Professors at UCLA that TRULY cares about his students and he makes an effort to help students in any way that he can. The classes are conducted as Socratic Seminars and this method makes the class very engaging and helps my learning and understanding of the court cases. There has been controversy surrounding this course as some may view Professor Fink as being too conservative, but the truth is that Fink remains mostly neutral throughout the discussions and always plays the devil advocates in order to encourage dialogue and discussion. His class made me understand the importance of colleges remaining a market place of ideas with free speech as one can only defend their opinion by understanding both sides. If Fink were to be fired for being deemed "not excellent," this would be robbing future bruins the opportunity to take one of the most rewarding classes at UCLA with one of the most excellent professors in the campus. Interesting class... I have learned so much..

It seems that the UCLA administration wanted Fink out and used his Excellence Review as an opportunity to do so. They have gotten their wish, but in the process the university has a lost a popular professor who had a profoundly positive impact on his students.

Gomez's full letter can be seen below:

ByAARON BANDLER  May 22, 2017

Part-time UCLA lecturer Keith Fink, a conservative who teaches classes on free speech, will have his fate decided by a dean who is deemed by Fink as biased.

Fink is currently undergoing an Excellence Review, where at the 18th quarter mark of teaching at UCLA a panel of faculty members in the department reviews student and teacher evaluations of a candidate and then vote on whether that candidate meets their standard of "excellence." After the vote, they send a recommendation to the dean of their respective department, who typically follows through on their recommendation.

But a unique outcome occurred when the panel voted on Fink: the vote was deadlocked, three in favor of keeping him on board, three against and three abstaining. The Communication Department's letter to the dean of social sciences, Laura Gomez, does not give a recommendation either way about keeping Fink on as a part-time lecturer.

That leaves Gomez to make the decision herself, even though she was on Fink's list of faculty members that he felt were biased against him in evaluating his teaching abilities that he submitted to the department. The reason for this is because, according to Fink's teacher's aide Andrew Litt, who also works at Fink's law firm, the Dean of Social Sciences office – including Gomez herself – were copied on emails in which Fink called out Communications Department chair Kerri Johnson in her attempts to block students from taking Fink's class. The dean's office was also copied on an email exchange involving Johnson telling Fink that he couldn't solicit his own letters and the office didn't respond until Fink corrected her.

Gomez also donated $1,000 to Hillary for America in 2015, according to a search on the Federal Election Commission's website.

"In a nutshell, Laura Gomez is biased for the same reason Kerri Johnson is biased: they've been working on this together from the outset and that's why at that outset we identified both of them as biased," Litt said.

Gomez has yet to respond to The Daily Wire's request for comment.

The letter from the department to Gomez, which was sent to Fink, features the department attempting to spin against the overwhelmingly positive response to Fink's teaching. For instance, the letter notes that Fink's "department Instructor and Course Ratings are 8.17 and 8.14, respectively" which is described as "modestly" higher than the department's averages. But Litt pointed out that the highest rating for a candidate to get in each category is nine, which means that it's incredibly difficult to get a higher average than what Fink has earned.

Additionally, the letter reveals that the panel of faculty members tried to downplay the positive student evaluations of Fink by suggesting that was only because his class was an "easy A." Litt acknowledged that most students obtain grades in the A- or above range in Fink's class, but the same can be said for Johnson's classes.

The letter then goes into aspects of Fink's classes that troubled some of the faculty members, including the description of Fink's Socratic-style of teaching as "intimidating" and "humiliating (which was disputed by students in an earlier report by The Daily Wire), a curious case of apparent plagiarism in a student's recommendation letter for Fink, as well as instances of cheating, but the letter acknowledges that one of the faculty members on the panel said "that the mentions of cheating tended to occur early in Mr. Fink's course offerings and indicated that he had taken steps to address this."

Litt told The Daily Wire that the faculty member's quote suggests that cheating in Fink's classes "is not an issue anymore, so what's the problem?"

Other concerns outlined in the letter were that some students were unable to hear Fink's dialogue with students during classes and that his lectures could be disorganized. The former could easily be fixed – Litt suggested letting Fink use a microphone to give his lectures – and the latter, if true, didn't prevent Fink from receiving high marks in the "clarity" category on Bruinwalk.

Johnson concludes by stating, "While he is clearly popular among many students, many factors remained worrisome to several voting members of the faculty, thus resulting in a split vote." Without a recommendation given at the conclusion of the letter, the implication is that Gomez will ultimately be the decision-maker on Fink's fate at UCLA.

Fink will send Gomez a response to the department's letter by the end of the week.

The full letter can be seen below:

Saturday, April 21, 2018

International law and the State of Israel
By Ted Belman

For thousands of years, nations came and went, pursuant to the rule, to the victor go the spoils. This included the right to rape the women, enslave the men, confiscate their wealth and rule the country as they saw fit.

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, this rule had changed considerably but the right of the victor to change borders and transfer populations of conquered countries was enshrined in international law.

So, in accordance with international law, the victors of WWI, Great Britain, France and the US negotiated the Versailles Treaty and forced Germany to accept it. This treaty changed borders of the defeated nations and moved populations. Their right to do so was never questioned.

Similarly, Britain, France, Italy and Japan met in San Remo in 1920 to dispose of the Ottoman Empire. They decided to break it up into various countries. These countries would start as Mandates under the newly formed League of Nations and would remain so until they were ready for independence.

(Yet, the Palestinians and other Arabs refuse to accept that the victorious powers had the right to create Israel.)

In deciding what countries to create, they held hearings, recorded evidence and then made decisions which were set out in the San Remo Resolution. It is argued by leading authorities that the decisions were Res Judicata i.e., legally decided. In other words, they were legally binding.

One of those decisions was to create the Palestine Mandate, which would become the Jewish Homeland. In accordance with this intention, the Jews were given the right of close settlement of the land. The land covered by that mandate included all of what is now Israel and Jordan.  Two months before this document was signed by the League of Nations, the Mandatory Power, Great Britain, inserted a new clause in the draft mandate which restricted the area of close settlement by Jews to the lands west of the Jordan River. This was in violation of what had been decided at San Remo but no one cared, except the Jews.

The land east of the Jordan River was called Trans-Jordan and it declared independence as Jordan in 1946.

Once again, after the crushing defeat of Germany and its allies in WWII, the victors changed borders and moved populations. It was their right.

Der Spiegle reported;

“But the people fleeing the Red Army were unaware that the Allies had already agreed with the Polish government-in-exile to hand over large parts of eastern Germany to Poland and resettle the Germans who were living there.

“All those who didn’t manage to escape in time fell victim to the frenzied expulsions that were carried out until July 1945. The organized resettlement of Germans and ethnic Germans from Germany’s former eastern areas and the Sudetenland began in January 1946. In all, some 14 million Germans lost their homes.”

These expulsions were often done in a brutal manner and were carried out as part of a broader programme of nation-building pursued by the new communist government between 1945 and 1949. “The centrepiece of this programme was an attempt to achieve the ethnic homogenization of the state, to ensure as close a match as possible between its ethnic and political borders. At no time did the allies object to this “ethnic homogenization”.

The flight of the Arabs from the Palestine Mandate and Israel, whether voluntary or forced, must be viewed in this context. It happened at the same time. The hypocrisy of the West is glaring. In Europe, they insisted on the ethnic cleansing as the path to stabilization and peace whereas in the case of the “Palestinian refugees”, they maintain them in refugee camps to make possible their return to Israel. In addition, the West insists on the defeated Arabs being given a state and prevent the victor, Israel, from extending her sovereignty to the Jordan River.

Had the West applied the same rules to the Arab/Israeli conflict, the conflict would have ended 70 years ago.

On November 29, 1947 the newly formed United Nations, which took over from the now defunct League of Nations, passed non-binding Res 181 in the General Assembly which drew a line partitioning the land west of the Jordan River, between Jews and Arabs and invited both to declare independence over their respective parts.

The Jews accepted the invitation and declared their state of Israel on May 18, 1948.

The Jewish Virtual Library recalls:

“Before the United Nations voted in favor of the Partition Plan on November 29, 1947, the Arab Legion of Jordan attacked Jerusalem. Their forces blocked Jerusalem’s roads and cut off the city’s access to water. After bitter fighting, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City fell to the vastly superior arms and numbers of the Arab Legion. The surviving Jewish inhabitants fled to the “New City,” the four-fifths of the capital that Israel successfully held.

“Nearly twenty years later, during the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel’s army liberated Jerusalem’s Old City, finding the area completely neglected and virtually destroyed.

“All but one of the thirty five synagogues within the Old City were destroyed; those note completely devastated had been used as hen houses and stables filled with dung-heaps, garbage and carcasses. The revered Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives was in complete disarray with tens of thousands of tombstones broken into pieces to be used as building materials and large areas of the cemetery leveled to provide a short-cut to a new hotel. Hundreds of Torah scrolls and thousands of holy books had been plundered and burned to ashes.”

So much for the Arab respect for Jewish holy sites and their regard for the Al Aksa Mosque situated on the Temple Mount, which they today claim, is the “third holiest site in Islam.”

The Arabs on the other hand rejected Resolution 181 and declared war rather than a state. Not until the Arabs were losing the war in 1949 did the international community arrange a ceasefire. The ceasefire line was based on who controlled what and thus Israel ended up with more lands than the Res 181 had set aside for them.

The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, was signed on April 3, 1949.

Jordan ended up in possession of the West Bank and of the Old City of Jerusalem. The international community, except for three countries, rejected this annexation.

So clearly the West Bank does not belong to Jordan and Israel itself was legitimately created. So’ who does the West Bank, otherwise known as Judea and Samaria, and the Old City, belong to?

Some people argue that the Palestinians have a right to create a state there but they never quote the legal foundation for such a right. They simply reject the Balfour Declaration and its implementation. They claim that they, the Arabs, are indigenous to the area and therefor entitled to sovereignty over the land but international law does not support such right.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich is the head of the international law department of the Kohelet Policy Forum and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affair. He answers the question, “how can the legal position of Judea and Samaria [West Bank] be defined?”, in Israeli rule in the West Bank is legal under International Law .

“The question that should be asked is: What were the borders of Israel when it was first established? What defines this is the borders at the moment of independence. Israel was created, like most countries, after a successful war where no one came to its aid. In international law, there is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country’s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area. So, what was here before? The British Mandate. And what were the borders of the British Mandate? From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.”

Thus, he argued, Israel liberated its own territory in 1967. Therefor the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply and the settlements are legal.

The international community chose not to see it that way and passed UNSC Res 242 at the end of the Six Day War in 1967. It began with a misstatement of the law, “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…”.

International law holds that victors, in a defensive war, can keep the land acquired.

Nevertheless, the resolution did not demand that Israel withdraw from all territories but gave her permission to remain in the territories until the following condition was met:

“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

Clearly this condition is far from being met.