Here is a new video of the full event at Stanford on Tuesday night, including the walkout staged by Stanford’s fascist community, courtesy Stanford College Republicans.
Look at the screenshot. It is taken from during the walkout. At 17:44, Nanci Howe, Associate Dean and Director of Student Affairs appears, grinning happily at the fascist students who are walking out, patting one on the back, exchanging some happy words with another, and clearly enjoying the walkout. She exits stage left at 18:02.
Howe and Snehal Naik, Assistant Dean and Associate Director of Student Affairs, ensured that as few Stanford students as possible would hear me. They did this first by making sure that the hall was packed with students who had no intention of attending the lecture, but were there only to sabotage it by denying seats to people who actually wanted to attend. They even kept out some members of the College Republicans, the group that was sponsoring the event.
Then, after the walkout, they refused to allow in people who actually wanted to attend, refusing repeated requests to do so.
They also refused to allow the Young America’s Foundation to stream the event, clearly because they knew what was in the offing and did not want video going out live that would show just how much Stanford has deteriorated and how opposed it is to free discourse.
As you watch Howe enjoying her big moment, reflect on how Stanford, and other American universities today, are no longer centers of higher learning, but factories of hard-Left indoctrination. Howe should be fired immediately, of course, and Stanford should demonstrate that it believes in the freedom of speech with more than just lip service. But instead, Howe will probably get promoted, with a big raise.
Max Publius says
Why is Stanford University seemingly exempt from the Leonard law protecting free speech on private campuses? Does it only work to protect politically deranged totalitarians?
“The Leonard Law is a California law passed in 1992 and amended in 2006 that applies the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to private and public colleges, high schools, and universities. The law also applies Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution to colleges and universities. California is the only state to grant First Amendment protections to students at private postsecondary institutions. Attempts at a federal Leonard Law and for Leonard Laws in other states have not succeeded.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law
mortimer says
FRAUD is the issue here. NANCI HOWE and SNEHAL NAIK intentionally sabogtaged the event with Robert Spencer. Therefore, they should be personally billed for all costs related with it. The transgressions and fraud of Nanci Howe and her Muslim Brotherhood front man Snehal Niak are abysmal. Not only should they personally pay all costs, but the university should discipline, demote or dismiss both of them. They are both amoral, believing that their ends justify the means of making America safe for jihad sot that Sharia law may be implemented without verbal opposition.
Nanci Howe appears to be a typical, amoral Alinskyite radical. It should be noted that Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, the exemplar of amorality.
Nanci Howe and her team apparently operate on Alinsky principles of immorality and radical pragmatism. After all, they are trying to usher in the people’s utopia; why should they allow mere ethics, legalities, and other such encumbrances to interfere with their mission to save humanity from itself?
They are actually just the useful idiots of the Muslim Brotherhood, doing the bidding of Islamic totalitarians without having the slightest clue about the what the Islamic utopia entails… complete destruction of the dhimmi culture, the dhimmi way of life, the dhimmi physical existence. Once implemented, Sharia law acts like a meat grinder, methodically destroying the dhimmis and grinding them into oblivion.
Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik should be sent a bill for all costs associated with the Robert Spencer event payable by them personally.
David thatcher says
Excellent. Could not agree more.
Emilie Green says
You know, that’s a very good point. Not only was there a breach of contract b/w the sponsoring club and Stanford (authorized clubs have some “rights” under Stanford’s club rules), but here there’s been an intentional tort/s, including conspiracy (more than 1) tortfeasors.
Don’t let this thing go.
Illegitimi non carborundum,
jihad3tracker says
HELLO AGAIN MORTIMER — Please let me somersault into your shrubbery, to repeat a request I made in a Friday comment regarding the DISRUPT & SILENCE TACTIC of Snehal Naik — but also done by Nanci Howe. Below is what I wrote yesterday, modified slightly and relevant to her:
I am of the opinion that such unmerited cynical academic totalitarianism should be widely publicized. Agree? I thought so.
Therefore, today and Sunday, for those with traditional Monday-Friday jobs: when you are already on the ‘web or can fire up your computer anyway, get on Google. In its search box enter this, EXACTLY AS I TYPE IT HERE, in capital letters:
NANCI HOWE + “CLEARLY ENJOYING THE WALKOUT”
Use + [plus sign] as the search operator, and that quote from Robert in this item (above) which you just read.
If, say, 5,000 of us around the world do this, 10 separate times over the weekend, the result will be, of course, fifty thousand hits, ensuring that Google’s popularity algorithm boosts Howe’s name up to the top of a queue when it is searched FOR OTHER PURPOSES, unrelated to Jihad Watch, by people who are unaware of how despicably she behaved.
Robert risked serious physical harm or even his life — at the Stanford event. Those fascist students could easily have charged the podium en masse, as a mob, assaulting or even killing him.
I think the least we can do in gratitude is donating a minuscule slice of our weekends time in tribute to that courage.
Custos Custodum says
Done.
The idea seems a little silly at first, but it is an excellent – dare one say, Alinskyite – concept. Google will either continue to reflect the high response rate, or MANUALLY intervene to airbrush the record.
If they decide to airbrush the searches, there will need to be discussions of how, where, how much etc.
Katherine C. says
Added my “search” in on Google. We live in SoCal and are a Stanford family. We stopped donating over a decade ago, when we saw the tide had totally turned towards not just being uber-liberal, but the denigration of the conservative voice on campus had flipped into full gear. Denial of the conservative voice, laced with overt mockery, is now the way of all these top universities. When our scholarly son was admitted to UC Berkeley, but not Stanford (he wrote a conservative, pro-life essay for his application just to test them), one of the top admissions officers told me we’d like it better at Cal, since the Farm had swung so far left. That employee was exactingly accurate. Today, we don’t give a dime to Stanford, and our son has enjoys a top-level executive position . BTW, at the alumni gatherings for people who are 60+, you’ll meet the crème de la crème of yesteryear (when things were more normal). These people are now a good portion of the big donors for the school, and most whom you’ll meet are committed conservatives – always have been, always will be. I am proud of your attempted appearance before such hostile faculty, Mr. Spencer. I am sorry their morals and their intelligence are so far removed from your own.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Jihadtracker3, You present some interesting ideas about information warfare, specifically, how to manipulate the priority rankings of search engines. Question: Why do you propose that search strings be input in ALL CAPS + “LIKE THIS” ? Why uppercase letters?
Won’t all such rank-manipulation efforts be easily defeated by human intervention?
On the same general subject, I happen to be reading “From Bacterial to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds” by Daniel C. Dennett. On page 131 he writes about another technique in information warfare: “Look up Virginia Mountweazel in [sic] Google”. That takes you to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry
Delphi says
Lucifer plans to use the burning remains of Europe as fuel for the 3rd world war. Pro tip.
Custos Custodum says
We now know the “Howe” of the operation on the surface.
However, behind the scenes whole operation was initiated with a few winks and a few nods by Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Persis Drell who themselves preferred to keep a distance from the actual operation at this point.
Most likely, the censorship operation was NOT primarily initiated by the Muslim Students Association, CAIR or the like, but by Deep State interests who want to continue to tighten their grip on what remains of Free Speech protections in public and private spaces, the better to implement their totalitarian fantasies.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO C.C. —
Yes, certainly the President & Provost were the major force behind that pre-arranged walkout. Howe and Naik, loyal spineless cyborgs, just did what they were told. THE UTTER STUPIDITY OF THINKING THEIR CONDUCT WOULD NOT BE CAUGHT is amazing to my ancient, but experienced-in-consequences, brain.
You might recall Georgetown University’s Muslim convert professor Jonathan Brown, last February, lecturing in a suburb of Washington DC about how benign slavery was in the original cultural context of Islam, long ago.
Among his introductory remarks was “. . . everything gets recorded . . .”, and, sure enough, that lecture WAS taped, so when he tried to run from what he said in it, or shade his assertions, that deception failed miserably.
Robert probably has kept the two posts about it on JW, so do a search in its box. The brilliant and puckishly amusing Andrew Harrod (JD & PhD) was central in exposing Jonathan Brown’s mendacity. BTW, his wife is also a Georgetown pathological minionist, cheerleading for bloodthirsty Allah — Christine Fair.
kabooooooooooooooooooooom says
I have a negative visceral reaction to any image of these 2 thugs (Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik). They are both considerably shorter and wider than the average male/female and both are considerably overweight leaving me wondering if they suffer from the same mental imbalances their bodies indicate.
At 1:09:58, as Robert answers a question the camera pans to the asker of the question and Howe’s disturbing mug creeps into the panorama at the upper right. Ugh.
This creep restricted legitimate access but sticks around itself. Right out of Rules for Radicals.
gravenimage says
Their height and weight are not an issue–their crushing of freedom of speech *is*.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Mortimer.
Blurb1000 says
When I read about this I can only see… SNehail NAiK
Gae says
Sol Alinsky was mentor of Hilary Clinton 1969 Weslyan thesis: THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT; An analysis of Alinsky model…As long as this RADICAL mobs AGITATORS, Hilary Clinton, B. Hussein Obama and their Muslim Brotherhood and deep state suporters are free to roam in USA and the world, they will continue with their destruction of USA.
They all need to be rounded up and tried for treason as there is enough evidence to convict them all… Guantanamo may not be large enough to house all these traitors of America, including these Stanford deans…who clearly had been brain washed into politically correct cultural relativism taht had destroyed their common sense.
Gae says
Sol Alinsky was mentor of Hilary Clinton 1969 Weslyan thesis: THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT; An analysis of Alinsky model…As long as this RADICAL mobs AGITATORS, Hilary Clinton, B. Hussein Obama and their Muslim Brotherhood and deep state suporters are free to roam in USA and the world, they will continue with their destruction of USA.
They all need to be rounded up and tried for treason as there is enough evidence to convict them all… Guantanamo may not be large enough to house all these traitors of America, including these Stanford deans…who clearly had been brain washed into politically correct cultural relativism taht had destroyed their common sense.
gravenimage says
Disgusting Alinskyite tactics in practice, definitely.
Delphi says
I LOOKED AT THE DEAN AND WAS FILLED WITH LUST! UNVEILED WESTERN WHORI ! I NEED TO TAKE HER AND ENSLAVE HER RIGHT NOW AND ADD HER TO MY HAREM!
jihad3tracker says
Hello Delphi — Please make an appointment early on Monday with an ophthalmologist, followed by an hour or two of psychotherapy.
kabooooooooooooooooooooom says
You have poor taste dog. I wouldn’t touch the DB with a 50-foot pole. Betcha old m0 mighta fancied it though – m0 was reputed to be not very fussy.
jihad3tracker says
The mice in my cottage walls want to borrow eight “o”s from your name, to use as hors d’oeuvre plates during a Thanksgiving party.
You can reply directly here: small-but-cute @ furrymail [dot] com.
gravenimage says
Very funny, Delphi.
Meshulam says
Somewhere there is a bridge wondering where their troll went …
WPM says
yes and his name is Meshulam
Delphi says
I CAN SEE HER HAIR! OH MY GOD! SEXUAL EMERGENCY. WHERE IS THE CAMEL PISS. KABOOM!
gravenimage says
WPM. I think Meshulam meant that the troll is Nanci Howe.
Infidel says
MUST C VIDEO about THE HORRORS of the Kashmiri Hindus at the hands of MUSLIMS…. in 1990.. Those days there were no media, no net …. but thank God for the memories of this survivor (very horrific ones)… the world should take notice of WHAT HAPPENED IN 1990… Robert . I humbly PLEAD with U to take note of this monstrosity…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SD59-FPwrA
Infidel says
I would like to add Robert that as the speaker says, the Muslims committed UNSPEAKABLE ATROCITIES on the Kashmiri Hindus. These are the REAL TEARS OF JEHAAD…. Ps spread it far and wide and share..
gravenimage says
Yes–and Muslims continue to violently target Hindus in Kashmir. It is something few Americans know anything about.
PRCS says
i heard a rumor that one Stanford student had heard about that–but had dismissed it as hate speech.
Ted Tyler says
PRCS, That is the problem. If an idea conflicts with a persons image of the World, then that idea must be false.
gravenimage says
All too true.
FYI says
Like Daniel in the lion’s den.Richard in the lion’s den.
They simply cannot handle the Truth.They tried a couple of tricks to interfere with the speech..
It might be a coincidence but often microphone failure,the usual cacophonously discordant Arabic muzak in the background,coughing fits,the rehearsed and carefully timed walk outs.,the deliberate rudeness and disrespect..are handy tricks to use.Both fascists and communists have always used these tricks to disrupt a speech.
Of course communist and fascist ideologies demand that people be oppressed and “live in a state of subordination”.How interesting that they suddenly decided to leave shortly after you said that phrase::perhaps the truth that islam/fascism/communism all have one thing in common which is to demand people live in a religious(or political) “state of subordination” cut too close to the bone.They find it hard to deal with that.Because it is the truth.
So they walk out,making a public fool of themselves.Perhaps they had to go to their
safe spaces;it seems too much to expect that modern “students” actually try and use reason.
God help the USA with “students” like that.
PS.It looks like Nanci Howe enjoyed herself.
mike9a says
Richard!!!!????
FYI says
see below!
Terry Gain says
As ignorant as the students were for walking out the action of the administration in barring entry to other students who wanted to hear Robert Spencer was worse. It was pure fascism.
Simon says
Fairly certain you have no idea what fascism means..
Terry Gain says
Simon says. I’m positive that you are an idiot.
DG, United States says
Agreed Terry. Something Hitler’s boys would of done.
Phil Copson says
“have” done…
FYI says
Sorry I meant “Robert in the Lions den”.
All that fascist behavior by the students made me think of some other name..
Freudian Slip they call it,
gravenimage says
FYI, I hope this was just a slip, and not a Freudian Slip.
Ted Tyler says
FYI, No problem; however, I do wonder about “So they walk out, making public fools of themselves”. Here, I suspect that too many who view the video – and the walk out – will view the walkout as right and proper – a very good way to stage a non-violent protest against the hate speech from the evil Islamophobe – Robert Spencer.
My oversimplified analysis of the situation is as follows: Nanci Howe, in her mind, truly believes that Robert Spencer is an evil person, therefore anything that she can do to destroy him – or his work – makes her a good person.
Infidel says
Yes .. those that walked out on Robert made abject fools of themselves..
Theophilus says
Next time make it a ticket only event. Only let in a small number of fascists and lefties. That’s how many pro Israel events have to be organised.
Nana says
Amazing how Spencer doesn’t like it when people cherry pick his words- but that’s exactly what he’s doing to Islamic texts.
Every holy text has references to war and fighting!!! Hasn’t he read the Bible or the Torah or the Talmud???
All the verses or hadiths he mentions about fighting are for a specific context. You’re allowed to fight under very strict rules in Islam- when you’re transgressed upon, on the battlefields, in self defense. Even then, there are so many exceptions- no hurting of women, children, elderly, environment- and so much more.
Last I checked- every nation has the right to fight if transgressed upon.
Why doesn’t he mention the psychos who’ve gone into churches and killed people??? Because they weren’t Muslim! Even though one of them was from the US Air Force.
He’s a hate speech spreader and he has zero expertise. All he’s done is collect information from different places and arranged it in a way to fit his hateful agenda and ideology.
He’s no different than the psychos who misinterpret the holy texts to justify violence!!!
And by the way, president Obama had spoken at Cairo University-NOT Alazhar Univeristy back in 2009- but that’s just one of the many mistruths he mentions to fit his hateful agenda!!!!
RichardL says
You live in a weird world. Cherry-picking and quoting out of context are completely different things. But for argument to hold water they must be the same.
The jihadis, are they also misquoting and misunderstanding?
Your argument about “psychos” killing in churches destroys itself. They are psychos, islam offers an integrated guide to killing infidels and many Muslims make use of that theology. They are guided by theory, psychos are merely sick freaks.
And of course central to your logic is that words and killing are the same thing. Has Robert Spencer been accused of killing? Is he calling for violence? Please show us where.
rubiconcrest says
Nana I think you should read those Jihad verses again especially Surah 9 one of the last written in the Quran and therefore the verses abrogate ones written earlier. I don’t read context into them. They are pronouncements such as these from the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Quran online
009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. or…
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
There is no context here just ‘fight people who don’t believe in Allah ‘ ‘fight them wherever you find them’.
Noteworthy is that they are not commands to defend themselves or to respond to attacks.
Nana: Please explain yourself. What is the context you feel justifies these ‘commands’ to violence against non-Muslims?
Hugo Hackenbush says
Nana, like others who make the “out of context” argument, you should wish to speak from a position of authority. You can have that authority by simply reading ALL of the foundational documents of Islam for yourself. Read the entire Koran, the entire Hadith and the entire original biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. The first 2 are available on-line for free. The last on Amazon for ~$25. Why take the word of ANYone on such a intense subject? Like many, I assumed what George W. Bush said after 9/11 was true and that only maniacs would kill for religion in the 21st century. Then I looked under the hood of the vehicle of destruction commonly called “Islam” and found that the salesman had lied about the car. The engine did not run on rainbows and unicorns but rather viper venom (coated with honey of course). Obviously this is my opinion (conclusion). So, to return to the original point. THINK FOR YOURSELF and READ IT ALL FOR YOURSELF. I doubt your opinion will remain the same. Oh, and it is imperative that you do not stop with the Koran as without the other 2 documents you cannot put the material in the proper context (abrogation and all that). After all you wouldn’t want to miss these gems from the Sira (biography of you-know-who! Guillaume translation of Ibn Ishaq): Page 165: Regarding Sura 109. One of the “Satanic” verses (meaning put into the mind of Muhammad by Satan. Yes you read that right, by Satan). Interestingly Sura 109 is one of the verses frequently quoted to show the “tolerance” of Islam “…You can have your religion, all of it, and I have mine”. Later Mr. Muhammad is chastised by Allah (via Gabriel) for saying this (page 166) and Muhammad is remorseful. Allah then “sends down” a rewrite of Sura 109 via Sura 22.51 which then abrogates the original and acknowledges that this Sura is an undoing of the influence of Satan.
Page 197: Here we see “The Beginning of Islam Among the Helpers”. The interesting passage here is found on 198 where 12 “helpers” are at a fair and “..they gave the apostle the pledge of women. This was before the duty of making war was laid upon them”.
Page 208: The second pledge[aka ‘Aqaba] (and NOT of women). “When God gave permission to his apostle to fight, the second ‘Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of fealty. Now they bound themselves to WAR AGAINST ALL AND SUNDRY FOR GOD AND HIS APOSTLE, WHILE HE PROMISED THEM FOR FAITHFUL SERVICE THUS THE REWARD OF PARADISE” (my emphasis, not in the original).
IQ al Rassooli says
Nana you have OBVIOUSLY either NOT read the Bible, Torah, Talmud and other religions or having read them came to the WRONG conclusions because you are so STUPID!
On the other hand you most probably the usual irrational Muslim prtending to be otherwise
To prove my points, I challenge you the sum of $200,000 to find a single verse in the Bible inciting either the followers of Moses or Jesus to Subjugate or Exterminate OTHERS while I can show you over 100 verses in Muhammad’s Quran inciting Muslims to do just that.
Every single Muslim on planet Earth has to be in DENIAL of what their Quran actually commands them to when they attempt deceiving non Muslims
IQ al Rassooli
kafir & Proud!
Mo says
@ Nana
“Amazing how Spencer doesn’t like it when people cherry pick his words- but that’s exactly what he’s doing to Islamic texts.”
Provide the time stamp where he did this. Do not ignore me. Do not play your games with me. You made the accusation. Now BACK IT UP.
I have ZERO patience for liars and slanderers. Provide your evidence for your accusation.
Ashley says
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a response, MO. Nana is likely a hit-and-run troll.
mortimer says
MESSAGE FOR NANA: The Islamic primary texts are more violent than other religious texts.
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, Ph.D. concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. She stated that ‘Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.’
“What is striking is not in itself that one can find murderous passages in the Islamic texts, as such passages can also be found in other religions. But it is striking how much space these passages take up in the Islamic texts, and how much they focus on an us-and-them logic in which infidels and apostates are characterized as dirty, rotten, criminal, hypocritical and dangerous. It is also striking how much these texts demand that the reader fight the infidels, both with words and with the sword. In many passages, Muhammad plays a central role as one who encourages the use of violence, whether it comes to stonings, beheadings, acts of war or execution of critics and poets.”
Tina Magaard finds it particularly objectionable that so many Islamic scholars in her opinion knowingly fail to disclose these facts, and use their positions of power to create specific standards for what you can say.
underbed cat says
Sorry Nana the warfare doctrine of islam is found in the Quran. Read it find the verses, close to 109 sura’s that command violence about fighting the non believer. Islam in my opinion, Robert Spencer may disagree with me, I do not think this is religion, but gets protection as a religion as a cover to carry out the darwah and jihad. It is mass murder carried out around the world, who will terrorize relentlessly until citizens submit. In fact they fight citizens more than engage in warfare through deception…..They have very little respect for life although they speak of peace and tolerance, will often say they do not believe in killing, a double speak while they claim they are defending themselves they spread across the world bringing terror. Understand that in Islam to them a terrorist are not the muslims beheading or bombing, driving trucks into crowds, stabbing people in malls, the terrorist to them should be killed are the people who they attack for not being muslim that is commanded by their prophet. Read the Quran. Learn the double meaning of their words. Such as “we don’t believe in suicide, but they do martyr themselves with bombs strapped around their body as long as they take out non believers, their Allah that they die for will take them to Islam heaven is part of the method and deception of the doctrine. Oh by the way the Quran teaches muslims to be silent about the commands of the Quran, show a peaceful face while having a hard heart toward non believers, using deception to accomplish the the refugee migration but have a goal of warfare to bring shariah law to non believers. They market themselves as peaceful,
they have created many organizations that as civil rights, to hide the goal and market the doctrine.
underbed cat says
The reason your muslims friends do not speak about the jihad as warfare verses commanded to slay the non believers, is that in Islam, ,non belief is worse than murder…so they must be silent because the law of sharia has a death penalty for speaking against the doctrine, unless you must to deceive the enemy. When Islam has conquered a land, 20% population approx. and removed the former government they make sharia law nearly mandatory. They will only follow sharia law.
I had a student muslim friend back in the late 60’s a time when most people knew nothing about the doctrine, although there were many hijackings that started and reported in the news in the middle east. She did not wear a a head cover, dressed and looked not different than any other student, had a Swedish name, looked swedish but carried a Quran….So spoke openly to me, she wanted to convert me….the sharia penalties sounded gruesome….cutting of hands for stealing, cutting of heads, the use of the sword, it certainly did not sound like a religion. She knew all the verses, it was a different time Islam had just started to occupy land with mosques, very few were around, I never thought that Islam could ever be accepted so the deception began and the silencing of the truth is now enforced due to money paid to silence the media, universities and politicians. I am sorry this has happened it did so very cleverly by remaining peaceful until they had strength to kill and be protected…by ignorance and cold cash.
overman says
Nana – is that a derivative of Nanci?
So, lslam has only been ‘defending’ itself for 1,400 years. The invasion and enslavement of Europe during that time was an act of self-defence by the poor persecuted muslims. Mohammed beheaded 8-900 jews in one day because he was defending himself [not to mention the women and children taken as slaves]. l wonder if nana is the one who hasn’t read her so-called holy books, because l’m absolutely sure Robert has [and with his eyes open].
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/out-of-context.aspx
Some quotes from the above site:
“Verse of Violence are
Taken Out of Context:
The Game:
All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists. They accuse critics of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it) to discredit Islam.
This leaves the impression that the Quran is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise. The “exceptions” are embedded in context with obvious constraints which bind it to a particular place and time (as is usually the case with violent passages from the Old Testament)
The Truth:
It isn’t the verses of violence that are rare; it’s the ones of peace and tolerance. The latter were also narrated at an earlier time in Muhammad’s life and superseded by what came later. Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in many cases.
The last chapters of the Quran to be narrated by Muhammad are the more violent. Worse, the historical context is that Muslims had total power at the time and were not being persecuted or attacked. In fact, the verses order believers to “be harsh” to both the unbelievers and Muslims who are peaceful or non-practicing (verse 9:73) and to fight Christians and Jews into a state of submission (verse 9:29). All this is based on nothing other than their status as non-Muslims.
These are not the teachings of a religion of peace. Thus, the apologists are forced to play games, such as inventing historical context, pulling “textual context” from an entirely different part of the Quran, or pretending that the true meaning can’t be translated to non-Arabic speakers (or to non-Muslims, when native Arabic speakers agree with the translation, as they usually do)”
“Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.
Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad’s later imposition of the jizya and the sword)”
Infidel says
U ARE WRONG….TOTALLY… LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT ISLAM…. THERE WAS A VIOLENT PAST FOR CHRISTIANITY BUT CHRISTIANS HAVE REFORMED BECAUSE THEIR ROLE-MODEL PROPHET CHRIST WAS A COMPLETELY A MAN OF PEACE… WHEREAS ROLE-MODEL MOHD FOR MUSLIMS WAS A WARLORD WHO SHOWED NO MERCY TO HIS OPPONENTS. CHRIST EVEN PRAYED FOR HIS ENEMIES… NOW THIS IS THE BIG DIFFERENCE AND EXPLAINS TO U AS TO WHY THERE CAN BE NO HOPE FOR ISLAM TO REFORM!
Infidel says
I wish to add that even in that very rare event if a Christian decides to become a terrorist for his religious beliefs, the conduct of Christ will always bring him back to his senses… the same cannot be said of Mohd…
The Awful Truth says
Courageous of Spencer to have withstood the gauntlet imposed by the Stanford elite. Disappointed the whole thing isn’t here. Had it not been controversial I wouldn’t have bothered trying to watch the whole thing. Pity you can’t come to the UK. The world still needs you.
Ashley says
Nana says: “All the verses or hadiths he mentions about fighting are for a specific context. You’re allowed to fight under very strict rules in Islam- when you’re transgressed upon, on the battlefields, in self defense. Even then, there are so many exceptions- no hurting of women, children, elderly, environment- and so much more.”
____________________
Thanks for that, Nana. Guess that explains 9/11. The Boston Marathon. Fort Hood. San Bernardino. Orlando…
I guess that explains the recent phenomenon of vehicles mowing down pedestrians and bicyclists…
Guess that explains FGM, honor killings, wife beatings, pedophilia, child marriages…
Sorry, Nana. Innocent men, women, children and the elderly HAVE been slaughtered, maimed and traumatized in the name of Islam.
An inconvenient truth is still TRUTH.
Wellington says
You simply have no idea what you are talking about, Nana. You make so many mistakes it’s difficult to keep them all in mind. First of all, there is no direction or mandate for war in the New Testament. Nothing in the New Testament calls upon Christians to wage war across the earth until all the world is Christian. And yet in the Koran can be found well over 100 verses calling upon Muslims to wage war across the globe “until all religion is with Allah.” {Sura 8:39} Yes, over 100 to 0.
Second, any violence condoned in the Old Testament was for one time and place only. In short, it’s descriptive while the violence mandated in the Koran is ALWAYS prescriptive. Couldn’t be a bigger difference.
Third, when non-Muslims like Christians have done harm or killing in the name of their religion they were violating the tenets of their creed, contra Muslims big time. You missed this too.
Fourth, just since 9/11 there have been over 32,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide. How many documented Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc. terrorist attacks have been committed in the name of the respective religion since that time? It hovers somewhere around zero. Maybe five? Six?
Wake up, Nana. Islam is the prototype for Nazism. Unlike any other religion on earth it allows its believers to use force through all time to enforce and spread their religion of choice. No other religion has this. Most every religion threatens something in the world to come if one does not believe this, that or the other thing, or does this, that or the other thing. Many religions also warn that the deity or deities existent in that religion may cause harm to people here on earth but ONLY Islam additionally instructs its believers to also cause harm (and for all time until all the world is Islamic) IN THIS WORLD in the name of their religion. You missed this too. But then you missed a hell of a lot as many who have commented here have already pointed out. Learn, Nana. That is if you can, which right now appears to me on the doubtful side.
eduardo odraude says
Nana,
Jihad is only defensive? How do you explain that in the first century of its existence, Islam conquered much of the Middle East, all of North Africa, and part of Spain? Were the Muslims defending themselves all the way to Seville?
Bernard Lewis says Jihad is an unlimited offensive to bring the whole world under Islamic law; Christian crusades a defensive, limited response to, and imitation of, jihad
From pp.233-234 of The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years:
See the original page from Lewis’ book here: https://www.goo.gl/6zK5d7
The Islamic core texts contain open-ended commands to Muslims, whenever they are strong enough, to use conquest and persuasion to subjugate the whole world under Islamic law. The Hebrew scriptures contain no analogous commands. The Jewish bible describes instances of violence in the long distant past and does not prescribe violent conquest as general marching orders.
http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com
eduardo odraude says
Bernard Lewis says Islam imposes, without limit of time or space, the duty to subjugate non-Muslims
The well-known historian of Islam and the Middle East writes on p. 73 of The Political Language of Islam:
Go to https://www.goo.gl/hZrewq to see the page in Lewis’ book.
The Hebrew scriptures place on Jews no such open-ended duty of conquest.
eduardo odraude says
Ignore the italics I put into the Lewis quotation. My mistake.
gravenimage says
Nana wrote:
Amazing how Spencer doesn’t like it when people cherry pick his words- but that’s exactly what he’s doing to Islamic texts.
Every holy text has references to war and fighting!!! Hasn’t he read the Bible or the Torah or the Talmud???
………………………………
Cases of fighting in the Bible are descriptive; fighting the Qur’an is prescriptive. Jews and Christians are not killing unbelievers on the diktats of the Bible–would that we could say that was true re Muslims and the Qur’an.
More:
All the verses or hadiths he mentions about fighting are for a specific context. You’re allowed to fight under very strict rules in Islam- when you’re transgressed upon, on the battlefields, in self defense. Even then, there are so many exceptions- no hurting of women, children, elderly, environment- and so much more.
Last I checked- every nation has the right to fight if transgressed upon.
………………………………
Unfortunately, with pious Muslims they feel “transgressed upon” when Infidels don’t submit to Islam. That means all of us who are not living as dhimmis under brutal Shari’ah law.
More:
Why doesn’t he mention the psychos who’ve gone into churches and killed people??? Because they weren’t Muslim! Even though one of them was from the US Air Force.
………………………………
Are those who have attacked churches spouting a single ideology that demands they attack churches? Not that I have seen. This is a serious issue, but does not come from a single source.
But there have been almost 32,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11, all inspired by the texts and tenets of Islam. How can you pretend that this is not an issue?
More:
He’s a hate speech spreader and he has zero expertise. All he’s done is collect information from different places and arranged it in a way to fit his hateful agenda and ideology.
………………………………
How is opposing the rape of children and mass slaughter of unbelievers “hate”?
More:
He’s no different than the psychos who misinterpret the holy texts to justify violence!!!
………………………………
Have you ever asked yourself why so many pious Muslims are “misinterpreting” their “holy texts”, and why this misinterpretation is everywhere the same?
And are you claiming that peacefully speaking–even if in error, for the sake of argument–is no different from marrying children, keeping sex slaves, crucifying kids who snack during Ramadan, mass murdering people at cafes and concerts, and stoning rape victims to death?
Have you no moral sense at all?
gravenimage says
Many fine replies to Nana–too many to cite them all.
Ted Tyler says
Nana, Both the Old Testament and the Koran have violent and peaceful passages. That is not disputable – nor is it important. What is important is how people react to what these doctrines say. Thus – don’t judge my by what I say – judge me by what I do. You will find that no Jews mow down civilians walking on a sidewalk – but this is a common practice for those who truly believe in Islam.
Be aware the Islam may be a religion of peace – but that peace can only be attained when the entire world has been converted to Islam. Spreading terror throughout the world is a means to that end.
Champ says
Nana, your moral equivalence argument is a fallacy. Oh, and your lies are nothing new either …
Robert Spencer says
Let’s see who really has an “agenda”:
“Nana” writes that Obama didn’t speak at al-Azhar. Here are the facts:
Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo
JUNE 4, 2009
The following is a text of President Obama’s prepared remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House.
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement.
RichardL says
Being wrong will make Nana only angrier at those who are right. It is so sad how some people never question but just feel strongly.
overman says
Yes,
“”A New Beginning” is the name of a speech delivered by United States President Barack Obama on 4 June 2009, from the Major Reception Hall at Cairo University in Egypt. Al-Azhar University co-hosted the event”
underbed cat says
And at the U.N. Obama said, “The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” Slander is telling the truth and is considered a crime and has a possible death penalty. But many heard those words and only thought O.K. that means showing respect for another religion…but the muslim audience knew it meant the U.S. has been conquered and I am here to help.
Wellington says
Also, Obama the lawyer should have known you can’t slander (or libel) a dead person. But then Obama while President should have, because Chief Executive, kept his mouth shut about ongoing legal cases, like the Trayvon Martin incident and the Professor Gates tempest-in-a teapot affair, because of the likelihood of prejudicing them.
Obama sucked as a President. He also sucks as a lawyer.
Ted Tyler says
Slander usually means defaming a person by spreading false information. In Islam, slander is saying anything that they don’t like – true or not.
Dictionary Definitions:
The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation. “he is suing the TV network for slander”
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
“they were accused of slandering the head of state”
synonyms: defame (someone’s character), blacken someone’s name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone’s reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint
gravenimage says
Thanks, overman.
IQ al Rassooli says
Mr Spencer
Please correct me if I am wrong
I would have thought that by now you have had enough EVIDENCE of collusion by the administrations of several universities to SILENCE any and all FACTS regarding Muslims and Islam.
Why are you not going after them LEGALLY?
I have no doubt if needed ‘go fund ‘ will be helped by thousands of your supporters
These low lives will only get hurt when their finances are reduced to very little
Best regards
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Mary says
The best way to let Stanford know that their behavior towards Dr. Robert Spencer, PhD is beyond just being rude is to hit them where it will really hurt – the pocketbook. All Stanford Alumni/ae who have been donating over the years: STOP NOW. When you get that letter/phone call, asking for the Annual Donation, tell them that you are no longer giving Stanford money for the way they violated Robert Spencer’s right of free speech under the US Constitution. Stop rooting for the sports’ teams, but cheer for whomever they are playing. Go on line and let all your friends, fellow alums, etc. who might be giving Stanford money to stop their donations, even if it means calling the bank to put a stop payment on a check that’s already in the mail.
PRCS says
Nana forgot one of any Muslim apologist’s best old chestnuts:
Does he even know any Muslims?
Scott says
Robert, you are indeed a brilliant and brave man.
I have no idea how you continue to fight the tide and keep going.
Thank You for all that you do.
I unfortunately fear, given what you are up against; most especially the Orwellian behavior of
University administrators – it’s too late.
Bless you Sir
mortimer says
NANCI HOWE and SNEHAL NAIK intentionally sabogtaged the event with Robert Spencer. Therefore, they should be personally billed for all costs related with it. The transgressions and fraud of Nanci Howe and her Muslim Brotherhood front man Snehal Niak are abysmal. Not only should they personally pay all costs, but the university should discipline, demote or dismiss both of them. They are both amoral, believing that their ends justify the means of making America safe for jihad sot that Sharia law may be implemented without verbal opposition.
Nanci Howe appears to be a typical, amoral Alinskyite radical. It should be noted that Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, the exemplar of amorality.
Nanci Howe and her team apparently operate on Alinsky principles of immorality and radical pragmatism. After all, they are trying to usher in the people’s utopia; why should they allow mere ethics, legalities, and other such encumbrances to interfere with their mission to save humanity from itself?
They are actually just the useful idiots of the Muslim Brotherhood, doing the bidding of Islamic totalitarians without having the slightest clue about the what the Islamic utopia entails… complete destruction of the dhimmi culture, the dhimmi way of life, the dhimmi physical existence. Once implemented, Sharia law acts like a meat grinder, methodically destroying the dhimmis and grinding them into oblivion.
Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik should be sent a bill for all costs associated with the Robert Spencer event payable by them personally.
JAR says
Hey Mortimer-
I wouldn’t mind at all if Ms. Howe had to pay the bill for staging such an episode.
Robert wrote that Howe exited stage left at 18:02. But you can see her poke her head out again at 1:09:55 as she reappears in the upper right-hand corner of the screen when RS begins talking about the Stanford administration again in response to a questioner. I’m trying to interpret her Howe’s facial expression and body language.
I’d guess that Zakir Naik’s “brother” is up there in the balcony with her serving as the administration’s ears.
underbed cat says
I noticed that also, peeking over the wall ….hopefully she picked up some facts….I wonder will she check out your website or read the Quran, Haddiths etc. Typical of the “invested scholars”…who despise it when they find out facts that don’t jive with the mindset, paid for propaganda spread thru universities, media and lapped up by politicians who can be fooled and/or enticed by the terrorist oil money. All the muslim organizations set up had a purpose, a goal to achieve. We see the results at the universities and in government very clever group who out smarted the very people we assumed were intelligent, but either did not go to the source doctrine.
Keys says
Yes, that looks like Howe hiding stealthily in the wings putting a small digital recorder on the ledge as Robert responds to a question about why he thinks some Stanford administrators need to resign.
Maybe the questioner was a “plant” with the purpose of hoping to record Robert saying something against the administrators that they could use against him. Weasel works.
Robert is a man of integrity who courageuosly tells the truth.
Keys says
This is at about 1:10:00 in to the recording JAR mentions above.
DG, United States, Christian Faith says
I love everyone commenting on “JihadWatch”. Just keep in mind that long comments will tend to be skipped by some, including me. Perhaps two comments should be given. One reasonable one. One additional one that you want to explain everything.
gravenimage says
DG, not all long comments are unreasonable. You may feel free to skip them, though.
JAR says
At 20:45 is a good early exchange with one of his detractors. An event like this is a bit like taking a naughty little dog and putting his nose in his pile again and again. The puppy has a lot to learn. All Robert has to do is report what actually happened in the Stanford community in last week, and the naughty students then become witnesses against themselves. Poor kids. They may as well assume the pose of being spanked with a wooden paddle for an hour.
This audio is so much better and not nearly as annoying as the first tape. Thanks a lot for posting it, RS.
WPM says
Read what you want skip what you want it is still a free country.
Infidel says
Yup… I
As for me, I try to take in MOST of the comments as many of them are ABSOLUTE GEMS offering incisive perspectives… That is why I love this site so much..It just keeps growing on U..
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
Jayell says
During the infamous walkout, did I hear an apparently indignant young female voice near the camera complaining about someone ‘not reading the Qu’ran’ and saying (quote) ‘he’s so opinionated’. I wonder who this young person was? And who was she talking about? Surely not Mr. Spencer, who must be able to out-quote virtually anyone on Qu’ranic matters! And if she was saying that Mr Spencer was ‘opinionated’ on the strength of what she’d heard up to that point, that’s impossible because he wasn’t giving any opinions of his own but merely reading from an established text and quoting an established commentator. Of course she might not have been talking about Mr. Spencer at all, and might have been one of those who stayed in the hall. Doubtful, she was probably on her way out and talking too close to the camera. I would hazard a guess that she was one of those gullible little acid snowflakes who’s allowed herself to be manipulated into getting Stanford University a reputation that’s beginning to reek. If she’s reading this, and recognises this, it would be very nice to hear that I’ve got completely the wrong idea.
JM says
To: Nana, re: comment posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 8:22 am
Nana,
You wrote that Robert Spencer propagated numerous lies in his talk at Stanford. Yet the only example you give is that he claimed that President Obama gave his famous Cairo speech in 2009 at Al-Azhar University, when in fact it took place at Cairo University.
Technically, you are correct, as former US President Barack Obama delivered his important speech on June 4, 2009 at Cairo University, not Al-Azhar University. But you fail to note that Al-Azhar University co-hosted the event.
If Obama was sending a message for all intents and purposes to the religious power figures in Islam, then why not have the event at Al-Azhar University, which is the repository of religious truth in Sunni Islam? At least three reasons come to mind:
1. Infidels aren’t necessarily always welcomed with open arms at Al-Azhar.
For example, after being harshly criticized in Egypt by some influential Muslims for its discriminatory practices, the university just accepted, “…a Christian into its medical residency program, which some believe marks the first time the historic Muslim school has publicly accepted a Christian student…”
Source:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/egypts-al-azhar-university-accepts-christian-student-amid-accusations-of-discrimination-186530/
2. In spite of the influence of Islam in his early life, Obama’s declaration of his Christian faith during his presidential campaign in 2007 clearly labeled him as an infidel in the Islamic world. As such, he wouldn’t have been allowed to travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, for example. And although visitors are allowed at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, kuffar (infidels) in this bastion of Islamic light are generally considered unclean, and are perhaps tolerated but not embraced as equals in intrinsic worth and human dignity compared to Muslims, who are of course “the best of people”.
3. Al-Azhar University has 45,000+ students in its campus(es) in Cairo. But Cairo University, Egypt’s premier public university, has 280,000 students, With 6 times as many students, a more modern campus, and a relatively secular mindset, Cairo University undoubtedly was better equipped than the venerable Al-Azhar University to provide the venue, space, security, and infrastructure for such a large and important international event.
The first two sentences of the speech clarify the importance of Al-Azhar as a symbol to Barack Obama:
“I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement.”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html
President Obama apparently addressed both strict followers and so-called “moderate” Muslims in his speech.The venue at Cairo University instead of Al-Azhar simply made it less unpalatable for the stricter elements, which were probably Obama’s target audience.
Therefore, your example of the actual venue of the 2009 Cairo speech as sole evidence of Robert Spencer’s purported mendacity clearly has no merit, even though technically you are correct.
And even if Al-Azhar had not co-hosted the event, this would not materially change things anyway regarding the purpose and impact of Obama’s speech. It would have been much more useful for you to provide evidence of “lies” by Robert Spencer concerning the incompatibility with the non-Islamic world of Islamic ideology, doctrine, and practice as stated by Al-Azhar University, That you could only muster ponting to this feeble techicality of the Cairo speech venue strongly suggests that Robert Spencer’s statements and message were indeed accurate and irrefutable.
Terry Gain says
Nana claims America’s foremost scholar of Islam has zero expertise. She claims that Robert Spencer quotes jihad verses out of context. If she had even a passing familiarity with Spencer’s scholarship she would know that Muslim scholars agree with Spencer’s interpretation of Islamic texts. The meaning of the Jihad verses is well understood by Muslims. They have not been misinterpreted for 1395 years.
Perhaps this might help Nana.
http://scienceetcetera.blogspot.ca/2017/11/blog-post.html
WPM says
She most likely too busy playing with her phone like a 4 year old playing middle eastern music being disruptive to listen to what was being said by Robert Spencer before the walk out. Why listen to other people try to teach you something new and informative college is now about acting out like a pre school child whose teacher refused to give her morning snack because she was naughty. Do what the progressive leaders tell you to do it feels good is easy and fun. When the Islamics take away your free choices you have no one to blame but yourselves. Robert Spencer is a boring big meaney he wants me to listen and learn something, that some people want to kill me and destroy all I hold dear in this world. How infantile are the people who go to college are in this day and age. It is one thing to hold a belief or be foolish in youth it another to embrace and celebrate ignorance as a grand higher calling that will bring happiness or satisfaction later in life. Will these people walk out on their bosses when being told the boring things expected of them in the work place. If I disagree with something all I have to do is walk away it will disappear! Do these people still sit on Santa Claus lap in Macys around Christmas time?
PRCS says
Note to Nana:
The belief that a guy in the sky “revealed” why, when, how and within what limitations able bodied Muslims must defend themselves from “unbelievers” is an irrational belief.
And, yes, nations have the right to defend themselves. But Islam is NOT a nation.
PRCS says
Dean Nanci Howe wasn’t thanking students as they disrupted the event.
She was enthusiastically thanking them.
The young woman in the red sweater was seen, and interviewed, outside the event regurgitating her memorized epithets.
Ashley says
Huh…
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/17/connecticut-school-cancels-muslim-speaker-after-threatening-calls-to-teacher.html
I have conflicting thoughts about this matter.
I don’t believe young teens at a public middle school should be exposed to ANY ideological influence. These are not college students. They are impressionable adolescents.
I also find it curious that the Bristol police did not receive any complaints. If this history teacher had been “threatened” via telephone calls and emails why weren’t the local authorities alerted?
I don’t believe Mr. Spencer has speaking engagements scheduled at middle schools. I would take issue with that.
I’m also curious that Fox published Annam Choudhry’s name while other media outlets have protected her identity.
Choudhry works at Best Buy. I’ll leave it at that.
And yet I feel conflicted. After the Stanford pig circus I am hyper-sensitive to silencing free speech in all shapes, sizes and forms.
Thoughts? I could use a little guidance here…
gravenimage says
Ashley, I agree that schools should not be sponsoring Da’wa to Middle School kids. They are even less able to critically deal with this sort of thing than High School students would be.
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist–even speech touting views I despise–and I only draw the line at calls for violence.
But it really is different with kids. Most children assume that whatever is presented at their school is the truth.
eduardo odraude says
Ashley said,
I hope this helps. In the U.S.,
1) All state controlled grade schools (“public” schools) involve a certain amount of intentional and unintentional state control of students’ minds. School boards, after all, are political bodies, and the political majority on the school board, whatever curriculum it supports, inevitably to some extent imposes its views on intellectual, religious, and cultural minorities in that school district. This arrangement, according to constitutional scholar Stephen Arons, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Without freedom of formation of belief, freedom of expression of belief is seriously undermined.
2) Fortunately, for several decades, despite the opposition of the leaders of the teachers’ unions, educational freedom has been growing in the U.S. Charter schools and vouchers may expand choice, but they tend to come with a lot of government strings attached to teaching, testing, values, curriculum. Probably the best way to minimize state manipulation of education and to expand educational freedom to all families is through tax credit scholarship funds. Florida’s arrangement is perhaps the most developed, but a huge amount of progress still needs to be made. Here’s how tax credit scholarship funds work. Individuals and corporations can donate money to non-profit scholarship foundations. In exchange, those individuals and corporations reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the taxes they owe to the government. The program allows parents who cannot afford to select an independent (non-government) school for their children, who can get a need-based scholarship that can be directed to a school of the family’s choice.
3) It should hardly require saying that even in a system of educational freedom, no school could be permitted to teach children to engage in illegal activities, sedition, or violent revolution. But apart from that, each family should be able to choose freely whatever school it finds best. It makes no more sense to have majoritarian control of schooling than it would to have the majority decide what newspapers you can read, what religion or philosophy you can subscribe to, what science is best, or what art can be made. Those are matters for individual and family freedom.
Ashley says
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, eduardo.
And for the education regarding such crap.
I need to mull this hot mess over…
Lydia says
“Howe” can anyone be so stupid?
Instead of “Robert’s rules of Order,”
we have “Howe chaotic and disorderly can we make it while oppressing free speech?”
gravenimage says
NEW VIDEO of Robert Spencer at Stanford, better sound: Dean Nanci Howe thanks fascist students as they disrupt event
……………………………
*Just appalling*. But not a surprise–it was obvious that this had been coordinated by the administration.
I had also wondered what Robert Spencer had said immediately prior to the walkout, but had previously been unable to ascertain due to the poor sound quality of the first video.
Here, it is clear that Spencer was talking about dhimmitude–about Infidels being forced to live under brutal Shari’ah law, and pay the Jizya.
Does this mean that those walking out were especially offended by Spencer mentioning in a critical way what would happen to all of these non-Muslim Stanford students, if Islam is ever in full ascendancy here?
This is certainly possible–*ugh*.
More likely, though, they were not even listening to what Robert Spencer had to say at all, and just walked out either at about 15 minutes after he started speaking, or else at a signal.
Either way, not just ugly but also–though they do not realize it–entirely suicidal. The very definition of useful idiots.
rubiconcrest says
Robert I loved the intro. You were just getting going when the group got up to leave. You’re right, it’s not about you. It’s about the religious texts and how they are interpreted by the highest authorities. Your point was perfect. I hope that some of those in attendance who left early at least remember that point.
Hugo Hackenbush says
Regarding Howe and her relationship the the “children” under her “care” at the “university” known as Stanford; I think this clip fits the allegorical bill nicely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Mi_LCWVbI
Porky The Crusader says
Great Robert, Thank You.
Georg says
Amazing that Robert keeps such composure in the midst of a heinous attempt by the Stanford administration to silence him by force; they inadvertently highlighted the importance of his speech by contrasting their belligerence with what was simply an argument (ie there was no racism, violence, or call to violence, for instance). Stanford simply showed they are unwilling to hear ideas which they fear they won’t agree with, and will go further by not allowing others to hear for themselves ideas which the former may not agree with.
A university without civility and open inquiry… well, isn’t a university in any reasonable or historic sense. Stanford is a center for leftist propaganda where some other, non-political things are taught.
gravenimage says
+1
John Forbes says
ANY WAY TO DEMAND THIS WOMAN REMOVAL?
SHOULD BE SOME WAY TO EMBARRASS THIS INSTITUTION & THIS WOMAN AT THE SAME TIME SO THAT SHE IS REMOVED?
IN PRINT & LEGALLY SURELY ??
herbert davis says
Your civil rights as a US citizen were violated and you should call for a civil rights investigation. I am not pro-zionist but,I do support your right to free speech and clearly the staff and students violated your civil rights.
Charlie Martel says
There is a similar issue for those who were prevented from entering the auditorium. Were their Civil Rights violated? Also Can Stanford be sued for not applying its own Code of Practice covering disruption?
Ade Fegan says
The loonatics have taken over the asylum
Linnte says
https://youtu.be/jOxZl60MyqE
The above link is off topic, sorry! But it is excellent! Dan Gibson’s documentary on the real Mecca.
Also, Dr. Spencer, I emailed the President of Stanford before your speech there, encouraging him to at least sit in and listen to you use Islamic texts to support your words. I am so sorry this happened. But I thank God for you and your courage to speak the truth. May Jesus of Bless you and yours always, and may He keep His hand on you for your safety.
With heartfelt sincerity,
Linda Clark
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link, Linnte.
Stan says
Dean howe’s email address is nanhowe@Stanford.edu
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link.
Charlie Martel says
Are they walking out with “willing submission”, or because they fear that their Professors will discriminate against them if the don’t?