info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Ejercito
Nov 22, 2017, 11:35:21 AM11/22/17
to
Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
by Ruthie Blum
November 22, 2017 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11403/robert-spencer-stanford-university
Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and
director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate
director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out,
but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually
wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the
walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also
forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.
The reason for having to smear Robert Spencer was clear. Portraying him as
someone who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him
banned from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet
no student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to
violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to
produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on
the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few
months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund
an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti,
serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating three
deadly attacks.
It is no surprise that students at Stanford University disrupted
best-selling author Robert Spencer's lecture on November 14. Given the
lead-up to his talk -- "Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam: An Honest
Discussion" -- the scenario was scripted in advance, with the encouragement
and support of the school's administration.
As soon as the Stanford College Republicans invited Spencer, founder of the
website Jihad Watch, to speak on campus -- as part of the Fred. R. Allen
Freedom Lecture Series, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation -- a
concerted campaign was launched to prevent him from being allowed to set
foot on the premises. Stanford students, faculty members and administrators
published a steady stream of articles in the student publications the
Stanford Daily and Stanford Review, claiming not only that Spencer was
unqualified to speak to them -- despite frequently addressing FBI, Joint
Terrorism Task Force, military, and other government groups for years -- but
also pronounced that his presence threatened Muslim students on campus; that
he enabled anti-Semitism; that his message deprived Muslims of "personhood;"
and that he was endangering students by replying to their attacks on his
website.
When that effort failed, they employed other means to intimidate Spencer and
the students who wished to hear what he had to say. Not only did hundreds of
protesters cause a disturbance outside the venue, but another 150 entered
the auditorium, played Arabic music loudly to drown out what Spencer was
saying, and then staged a mass walk-out minutes after the event began.
Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and
director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate
director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out,
but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually
wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the
walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also
forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.
According to one report of the event, published in the Stanford Review the
following day:
"[T]he protest was a deliberate attempt to block students from engaging with
Spencer in any capacity. If you personally do not wish to engage with the
man, fine, power to you. But preventing others from doing so is shameful."
Stanford University associate dean and director of student affairs, Nanci
Howe (front left), pats on the back a woman who is walking out of Robert
Spencer's speech in protest.
Meanwhile, another event took place on campus -- "Stanford Against Spencer:
A Rally Against Islamophobia" -- timed to coincide with Spencer's talk. In
the Facebook invitation to the rally, the "coalition of concerned students
and organizations that formed in response" to Spencer's lecture referred to
him falsely as a "self-proclaimed Islamophobe and co-founder of two known
hate groups," while lambasting him for responding on his blog to the barrage
of defamation to which he had been subjected by Stanford students and
faculty during the past few weeks.
In "An open letter to the College Republicans regarding Robert Spencer,"
printed in the Stanford Daily on November 8 -- penned by a "coalition of
concerned student groups" -- Spencer is accused of being "an established
Islamophobe, and "Islamophobia" is described as:
"more than just anti-Muslim sentiment, [but] institutionalized through U.S.
foreign policy (the ongoing "war on terror") and immigration policy (Trump's
xenophobic Muslim ban), extending its violent impact on people from and in
Muslim-majority countries."
In other words, supporting the eradication of global terrorism constitutes
"Islamophobia" in the eyes of the signatories of the letter, all far-left
organizations -- such as Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for
Peace, Students for Queer Liberation, Students Against Militarism, Student
And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All People -- known
for their radical views and responsible for the often violent curtailing of
the free speech of anyone who disagrees with their politics at universities
across the United States.
Furthermore, to justify their call on fellow students not to "engage with
[Spencer], even if you are critical of [his views], because engaging in a
conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction," the
authors of the letter referred to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as
their key source of information. The SPLC, which has been discredited widely
for its left-wing bias and unreliable designation of conservative groups on
its "hate list," was also quoted by a Pakistani Muslim student at Stanford,
who wrote about being "afraid" as a scarf-wearing Muslim on campus. Of
course, this is ludicrous, as no Muslim has ever been harmed on the Stanford
campus, while in the student's native Pakistan, Christians are persecuted by
Muslims on a daily basis.
The reason for having to smear Spencer was clear. Portraying him as someone
who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him banned
from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet no
student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to
violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to
produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on
the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
This did not prevent four graduate students (three of them doctoral
candidates) -- Joshua De Leon, Umniya Najaer, Jason Beckman, and Jamie M.
Fine – from complaining that Spencer had "endangered" the life of a student,
by exposing a video of the boy tearing down posters advertising the lecture.
The claim was completely nonsensical, of course. In the first place, the
student was the one who shared a video of himself on Snapchat removing the
posters; Spencer merely re-posted the clip. Secondly, as Spencer responded
to the barrage of criticism he received for this:
"I have never called for or condoned violence against any individual. If
this Stanford fascist is harmed by anyone, it would be a disgrace, and the
perpetrator should be prosecuted. However, [he] is not really in any danger.
The College Republicans at Stanford are not neo-Nazis, contrary to the
defamation in this latest Stanford Daily piece. Nor am I..."
What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few
months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund
an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti,
who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating
three deadly attacks.
The May 25 event -- "Dignity Hunger Strike: Aarab Barghouti on Palestinian
Political Prisoners' Demands for Dignity" -- was hosted by the Stanford
chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and co-sponsored by many of the
same organizations that protested Spencer's November 14 appearance: Jewish
Voice for Peace, STATIC magazine, International Socialist Organization,
Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the
Liberation of All Peoples.
It is noteworthy that one Jewish student senator at the school told the
Stanford Daily why he supported giving a platform to the son of a convicted
terrorist, the point of whose lecture was to blame Israel for the alleged
plight of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners:
"In the interest of full transparency, I am personally very deeply concerned
with the content of [Barghouti's] speech, but I need to make sure that I
afford equal access to freedom of speech to groups, even those who I deeply
disagree with."
The irony did not escape Spencer, who pointed out:
"There was no uproar when Aarab Barghouti spoke at Stanford. No calls for
cancellation or boycott. No statements from administrators offering support
to students who found Barghouti's presence disturbing. No protests. No safe
spaces opened. No hysterical attacks on Barghouti in the Stanford Daily. No
calls by dorm staff to report students who put up posters advertising
Barghouti's event.
"Likewise, when the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] co-hosted an
event at Stanford featuring Mads Gilbert, who supports the 9/11 jihad
attacks that murdered 3,000 people, no one at Stanford got hysterical and
called for cancellation, boycott, punishment of the students supporting the
event, etc."
Yet Stanford's vice provost for student affairs, Susie Brubaker-Cole, and
its dean for religious life, Jane Shaw, wrote a blog to reassure the
anti-Spencer students that, in spite of the university's "commitment to
freedom of expression," it is
"compelled to call out the fact that Mr. Spencer has a track record of
actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims, contradicting our
university's values of inclusion and respect for all peoples and faiths. We
acknowledge the emotional impact of Mr. Spencer's visit on university
community members, and we are actively developing supports for the Muslim
community before and after his visit."
In conclusion, they said:
"We also recognize that anti-Muslim racism and other forms of bigotry are
systemic and require long-range and comprehensive approaches. We reaffirm
our support for the Muslim community, and ask all to stand with us in
speaking out for a mutually supportive society where all experience care and
respect."
It is a travesty that Stanford's administration has no compunction about
asserting that Spencer "has a track record of actions and speech that
motivate hatred towards Muslims," and that "anti-Muslim racism [is]
systemic." Spencer's work focuses on the way in which jihadists use the
Koran and other Islamic teachings to justify terrorism and incite Muslims to
violence. This is something that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should at
least wish to learn about, if not embrace; they certainly should not view it
as an affront.
As for the claim that "anti-Muslim racism" is rampant: the only places in
the world where Muslims are slaughtered for the way in which they adhere to
Islam, or are deemed not to practice it properly, are dominated by Muslims.
Anyone teaching or attending an institution of higher learning as
illustrious as Stanford should know that.
Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and
the 'Arab Spring.'"
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone
Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be
reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
by Ruthie Blum
November 22, 2017 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11403/robert-spencer-stanford-university
Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and
director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate
director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out,
but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually
wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the
walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also
forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.
The reason for having to smear Robert Spencer was clear. Portraying him as
someone who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him
banned from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet
no student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to
violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to
produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on
the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few
months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund
an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti,
serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating three
deadly attacks.
It is no surprise that students at Stanford University disrupted
best-selling author Robert Spencer's lecture on November 14. Given the
lead-up to his talk -- "Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam: An Honest
Discussion" -- the scenario was scripted in advance, with the encouragement
and support of the school's administration.
As soon as the Stanford College Republicans invited Spencer, founder of the
website Jihad Watch, to speak on campus -- as part of the Fred. R. Allen
Freedom Lecture Series, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation -- a
concerted campaign was launched to prevent him from being allowed to set
foot on the premises. Stanford students, faculty members and administrators
published a steady stream of articles in the student publications the
Stanford Daily and Stanford Review, claiming not only that Spencer was
unqualified to speak to them -- despite frequently addressing FBI, Joint
Terrorism Task Force, military, and other government groups for years -- but
also pronounced that his presence threatened Muslim students on campus; that
he enabled anti-Semitism; that his message deprived Muslims of "personhood;"
and that he was endangering students by replying to their attacks on his
website.
When that effort failed, they employed other means to intimidate Spencer and
the students who wished to hear what he had to say. Not only did hundreds of
protesters cause a disturbance outside the venue, but another 150 entered
the auditorium, played Arabic music loudly to drown out what Spencer was
saying, and then staged a mass walk-out minutes after the event began.
Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and
director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate
director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out,
but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually
wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the
walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also
forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.
According to one report of the event, published in the Stanford Review the
following day:
"[T]he protest was a deliberate attempt to block students from engaging with
Spencer in any capacity. If you personally do not wish to engage with the
man, fine, power to you. But preventing others from doing so is shameful."
Stanford University associate dean and director of student affairs, Nanci
Howe (front left), pats on the back a woman who is walking out of Robert
Spencer's speech in protest.
Meanwhile, another event took place on campus -- "Stanford Against Spencer:
A Rally Against Islamophobia" -- timed to coincide with Spencer's talk. In
the Facebook invitation to the rally, the "coalition of concerned students
and organizations that formed in response" to Spencer's lecture referred to
him falsely as a "self-proclaimed Islamophobe and co-founder of two known
hate groups," while lambasting him for responding on his blog to the barrage
of defamation to which he had been subjected by Stanford students and
faculty during the past few weeks.
In "An open letter to the College Republicans regarding Robert Spencer,"
printed in the Stanford Daily on November 8 -- penned by a "coalition of
concerned student groups" -- Spencer is accused of being "an established
Islamophobe, and "Islamophobia" is described as:
"more than just anti-Muslim sentiment, [but] institutionalized through U.S.
foreign policy (the ongoing "war on terror") and immigration policy (Trump's
xenophobic Muslim ban), extending its violent impact on people from and in
Muslim-majority countries."
In other words, supporting the eradication of global terrorism constitutes
"Islamophobia" in the eyes of the signatories of the letter, all far-left
organizations -- such as Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for
Peace, Students for Queer Liberation, Students Against Militarism, Student
And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All People -- known
for their radical views and responsible for the often violent curtailing of
the free speech of anyone who disagrees with their politics at universities
across the United States.
Furthermore, to justify their call on fellow students not to "engage with
[Spencer], even if you are critical of [his views], because engaging in a
conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction," the
authors of the letter referred to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as
their key source of information. The SPLC, which has been discredited widely
for its left-wing bias and unreliable designation of conservative groups on
its "hate list," was also quoted by a Pakistani Muslim student at Stanford,
who wrote about being "afraid" as a scarf-wearing Muslim on campus. Of
course, this is ludicrous, as no Muslim has ever been harmed on the Stanford
campus, while in the student's native Pakistan, Christians are persecuted by
Muslims on a daily basis.
The reason for having to smear Spencer was clear. Portraying him as someone
who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him banned
from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet no
student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to
violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to
produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on
the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
This did not prevent four graduate students (three of them doctoral
candidates) -- Joshua De Leon, Umniya Najaer, Jason Beckman, and Jamie M.
Fine – from complaining that Spencer had "endangered" the life of a student,
by exposing a video of the boy tearing down posters advertising the lecture.
The claim was completely nonsensical, of course. In the first place, the
student was the one who shared a video of himself on Snapchat removing the
posters; Spencer merely re-posted the clip. Secondly, as Spencer responded
to the barrage of criticism he received for this:
"I have never called for or condoned violence against any individual. If
this Stanford fascist is harmed by anyone, it would be a disgrace, and the
perpetrator should be prosecuted. However, [he] is not really in any danger.
The College Republicans at Stanford are not neo-Nazis, contrary to the
defamation in this latest Stanford Daily piece. Nor am I..."
What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few
months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund
an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti,
who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating
three deadly attacks.
The May 25 event -- "Dignity Hunger Strike: Aarab Barghouti on Palestinian
Political Prisoners' Demands for Dignity" -- was hosted by the Stanford
chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and co-sponsored by many of the
same organizations that protested Spencer's November 14 appearance: Jewish
Voice for Peace, STATIC magazine, International Socialist Organization,
Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the
Liberation of All Peoples.
It is noteworthy that one Jewish student senator at the school told the
Stanford Daily why he supported giving a platform to the son of a convicted
terrorist, the point of whose lecture was to blame Israel for the alleged
plight of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners:
"In the interest of full transparency, I am personally very deeply concerned
with the content of [Barghouti's] speech, but I need to make sure that I
afford equal access to freedom of speech to groups, even those who I deeply
disagree with."
The irony did not escape Spencer, who pointed out:
"There was no uproar when Aarab Barghouti spoke at Stanford. No calls for
cancellation or boycott. No statements from administrators offering support
to students who found Barghouti's presence disturbing. No protests. No safe
spaces opened. No hysterical attacks on Barghouti in the Stanford Daily. No
calls by dorm staff to report students who put up posters advertising
Barghouti's event.
"Likewise, when the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] co-hosted an
event at Stanford featuring Mads Gilbert, who supports the 9/11 jihad
attacks that murdered 3,000 people, no one at Stanford got hysterical and
called for cancellation, boycott, punishment of the students supporting the
event, etc."
Yet Stanford's vice provost for student affairs, Susie Brubaker-Cole, and
its dean for religious life, Jane Shaw, wrote a blog to reassure the
anti-Spencer students that, in spite of the university's "commitment to
freedom of expression," it is
"compelled to call out the fact that Mr. Spencer has a track record of
actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims, contradicting our
university's values of inclusion and respect for all peoples and faiths. We
acknowledge the emotional impact of Mr. Spencer's visit on university
community members, and we are actively developing supports for the Muslim
community before and after his visit."
In conclusion, they said:
"We also recognize that anti-Muslim racism and other forms of bigotry are
systemic and require long-range and comprehensive approaches. We reaffirm
our support for the Muslim community, and ask all to stand with us in
speaking out for a mutually supportive society where all experience care and
respect."
It is a travesty that Stanford's administration has no compunction about
asserting that Spencer "has a track record of actions and speech that
motivate hatred towards Muslims," and that "anti-Muslim racism [is]
systemic." Spencer's work focuses on the way in which jihadists use the
Koran and other Islamic teachings to justify terrorism and incite Muslims to
violence. This is something that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should at
least wish to learn about, if not embrace; they certainly should not view it
as an affront.
As for the claim that "anti-Muslim racism" is rampant: the only places in
the world where Muslims are slaughtered for the way in which they adhere to
Islam, or are deemed not to practice it properly, are dominated by Muslims.
Anyone teaching or attending an institution of higher learning as
illustrious as Stanford should know that.
Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and
the 'Arab Spring.'"
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone
Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be
reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Nov 23, 2017, 9:43:10 AM11/23/17
to
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:31:40 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>by Ruthie Blum
ANOTHER circumcised jew cunt. Opinion DISMISSED!
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>by Ruthie Blum
Cheers!
RJ (preferred jew aliash)
- -
" I don't even have the heart to tell him I've never infested
Arizona."
- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he lied
from the very beginning, A jew scam, as expected
Iudaei orbem terrarum infestant.
- correct Latin
"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
- Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 - 1896)
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade
Unionist. Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I did not give a shit. Then they came for me and there
wasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)
Fformby-Smythe's Law of zionism:
"The importance of 'Israeel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israeel'."
Michael Ejercito
Nov 23, 2017, 1:08:30 PM11/23/17
to
"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
aliash)" wrote in message
news:qqmd1dp32e7a4bs5b...@4ax.com...
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:31:40 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>>by Ruthie Blum
>ANOTHER circumcised jew cunt. Opinion DISMISSED!
Michael
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Nov 24, 2017, 8:48:40 AM11/24/17
to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:08:29 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
>aliash)" wrote in message
>news:qqmd1dp32e7a4bs5b...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:31:40 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>>>by Ruthie Blum
>
>>ANOTHER circumcised jew cunt. Opinion DISMISSED!
> Mangina, you are unable to address the merits of Ruthie Blum's article.
>
>
>Michael
Dreckgook, circumcised jew cunt Ruthie Blum's plagiarised article GOT,
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
>aliash)" wrote in message
>news:qqmd1dp32e7a4bs5b...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:31:40 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>>>by Ruthie Blum
>
>>ANOTHER circumcised jew cunt. Opinion DISMISSED!
> Mangina, you are unable to address the merits of Ruthie Blum's article.
>
>
>Michael
no merits!
Sick old pedo Andrew Andrzej Baron
Nov 24, 2017, 9:01:31 AM11/24/17
to
LOL, Andrzej!
Michael Ejercito
Nov 25, 2017, 3:28:55 PM11/25/17
to
"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
aliash)" wrote in message
>On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:08:29 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
>>aliash)" wrote in message
>>news:qqmd1dp32e7a4bs5b...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:31:40 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
>>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>>>>by Ruthie Blum
>>
>>>ANOTHER circumcised jew cunt. Opinion DISMISSED!
>> Mangina, you are unable to address the merits of Ruthie Blum's article.
>>
>>
>>Michael
>Dreckgook, circumcised jew cunt Ruthie Blum's plagiarised article GOT,
>no merits!
Michael Ejercito
Nov 25, 2017, 3:28:55 PM11/25/17
to
"Sick old pedo AndrewAndrzejBaron (aka "Ron Jacobson"/etc)" wrote in
message news:ov98nr$c1f$8...@pcls7.std.com...
>LOL, Andrzej!
Jews also won Turing Awards.
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Nov 26, 2017, 8:52:49 AM11/26/17
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 18:06:48 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
demand them!
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
>aliash)" wrote in message
>news:si8g1d5te2be5t7so...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:08:29 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
>>>aliash)" wrote in message
>>>news:qqmd1dp32e7a4bs5b...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:31:40 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
>>>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>>>>>by Ruthie Blum
>>>
>>>>ANOTHER circumcised jew cunt. Opinion DISMISSED!
>>> Mangina, you are unable to address the merits of Ruthie Blum's article.
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael
>
>>Dreckgook, circumcised jew cunt Ruthie Blum's plagiarised article GOT,
>>no merits!
> Nithing, you have yet to explain why.
>
>
>Michael
Dreckgook, YOU give the explanations when WHITE people (aka humans)
>
>
>"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
>aliash)" wrote in message
>news:si8g1d5te2be5t7so...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:08:29 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
>>>aliash)" wrote in message
>>>news:qqmd1dp32e7a4bs5b...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:31:40 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
>>>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police
>>>>>by Ruthie Blum
>>>
>>>>ANOTHER circumcised jew cunt. Opinion DISMISSED!
>>> Mangina, you are unable to address the merits of Ruthie Blum's article.
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael
>
>>Dreckgook, circumcised jew cunt Ruthie Blum's plagiarised article GOT,
>>no merits!
> Nithing, you have yet to explain why.
>
>
>Michael
demand them!
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Nov 26, 2017, 8:52:49 AM11/26/17
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:50:16 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jews also won Turing Awards.
>
>
>Michael
So awards for homosexuality are something to be proud of, dreckgook?
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jews also won Turing Awards.
>
>
>Michael
Michael Ejercito
Nov 26, 2017, 1:22:22 PM11/26/17
to
"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew
aliash)" wrote in message
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:50:16 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Jews also won Turing Awards.
>>
>>
>>Michael
>So awards for homosexuality are something to be proud of, dreckgook?
Mangina, Turing Awards are rewarded for contributions in computing; it
has nothing to do with homosexuality.
That is why you never won a Turing Award.
0 new messages