Cinnamon Stillwell

I’m the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. I was a political columnist for (San Francisco Chronicle online) from 2004-2008. I've written for the Algemeiner, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, Independent Journal Review, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, Family Security Matters, Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters, Israel National News, Jewish Press, J-The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, and many others.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Berkeley-CAIR Islamophobia Report: 'No There, There'

Stephen Schwartz, writing for Campus Watch, reports on the latest in "Islamophobia production" to emanate from the University of California, Berkeley, in league with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). His article appears at American Thinker:

In April, Berkeley's Law School, also known as Boalt Hall, cosponsored a conference with the University's Center for Race and Gender (CRG) on "Islamophobia Production and Re-Defining Global 'Security' Agenda for the 21st Century." The event followed a divisive March seminar at the University's Hastings law campus in San Francisco, "Litigating Palestine," which was little more than a forum for anti-Israel bombast. On June 23, America's premier Islamist organization, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), unveiled a report prepared in cooperation with UCB-CRG's Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project (IRDP) titled, "Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States."

. . . "Same Hate, New Target" is a garish political pamphlet, filled with splashy graphics and panic-mongering rhetoric. Its message is distinct: while the East Coast Islamist enablers focus on prettifying the condition of American Muslims, West Coast denizens concentrate on the American Muslim as a victim of the Republican political agenda, in need of "positive" assistance.

To read the rest of the article, please click here.

Cross-posted from the Campus Watch blog.


Anonymous Neve Rallow said...

It's been said that Germany in the 1960s and 1970s turned out when visited to be "run by the United States." Angela Merkel no doubt has her own judgments, but the point was the U.S. money poured in in very visible ways.

But Israel is nothing like Germany. Now, I know this may come as a surprise to you, Cinnamon Stillwell. But unlike Germany, Israel has always been a very small nation which has no resemblance to the United States at all. You could compare it to Newfoundland.

So what would be surprising on arriving in Israel would be that it is like Newfoundland.

So you were lieing when you wrote in every forum you politely have listed on your convenient apparent web site that Israel, as such, has the attributes and qualities which you were attaching to it from within San Francisco.

Israel directly compares to the various Palestinian areas based on size, one God religion, qualities in which region interacts with sexual relations (and if you've ever been in Alabama you know this is true) and whereby region has to do with time perceptions.

Long versus short time. So Israel is the victim of the United States. The Maggie Gyllenhaal quote in '05 and the responses to it which are on a web site will be defended, with the full strength and legal integrity of the United States. But as the Wicked Witch said, "It's how to do it. These things must be done delicately, or it could hurt the spell."

And they have been.

Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Neve Rallow said...

Exclusion For Life is a dish best served with cubes of ice. Other nations with republican forms of government have civil rights and laws and such things, but in the United States it's been a fight for who controls the cubes.

Since your blog history or columns simply state that U.S. troops engage in activities, you have no cubes. Your columns or blogs stated that killing by U.S. troops included an accounting for their freedom to use the format of being troops in any subsequent way, but also that they became troops in the field of operations equipped with that ability.

So what you did is describe U.S. troops as vastly powerful in terms of their freedom. In other words, you wrote column after column, blog after blog, portraying U.S. troops who are children impounded in a military hierarchy by a vacuum cleaner into high schools.

You portrayed U.S. troops. You didn't engage in any vastly mature and superior blogging defense of Jews, Israel, the United States, or U.S. troops. You have no cubes.

To get cubes, you have to first recognize that the reasons to become a U.S. troops have always varied, and each criminal U.S. president (as each is) used that so that it's either non-existent or a thin line now. This line, on veteran web sites, also interacts with the female partners of troops being framed and held in place based on eminations from them of criminality to the becoming a troop, which is held criminally in particulars which destroyed why such eminations would be comparable and analyzed.

Standard. Dictators use singular themes. One troop. The Libyan one has some insight into himself, the U.S. presidents operated criminal conspiracies. And of course, you have no cubes on that. The above means the hidden reasons to become a U.S. troop are in a completely different field of knowledge and analysis from how U.S. troops are applied domestically. And that's all there is to the use of U.S. troops via television and electrical web sites. Purely domestic.

The supposed reporting on troops in action has them under leadership with goals. Troops vacuumed from high schools don't turn into leadership goals. The "enemy" is interfolded into U.S. troops to impersonate them and create the domestic saturation, based on superior freedoms made what U.S. troops have. But to have cubes, it's about what domestic murder has turned into, via this.

This does not assess U.S. troops, and it treads lightly on your public writing being a rubberstamp specifically aimed domestically, nor describe criminal presidents, the use of trials, of murders, of impersonation of troops and in fact of Islamic regional fighters.

As Nancy Sinatra might say, "These cubes are made for reflecting, and that's just what they'll do. One of these days these cubes are gonna reflect all over True Blue."

Friday, August 26, 2011 4:32:00 PM  
Blogger Gary Fouse said...

Hatem Bazian is a joke. He screams about Islamophobia, but is reported to have made anti-Semitic statements. When he came to UCI to speak at Israel Apartheid week a couple of years ago, I questioned him about those reported comments. Of course, I did not get a straight answer.

Gary Fouse
Adj teacher

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Neve Rallow. said...

I didn't expect either of my posts to actually appear and it's no surprise to me that they in fact did, since I understand that you are indeed a hard worker. You just changed that whole sentence in its middle.

My second post says it's impersonation of U.S. troops (by the perfect etc.). Back right after September 11, I happened to hear a black military recruiter. He was asked about the entire military injection ahead, and he said, "Just bombing."

There you have it. When I say you need to have "cubes" to serve Exclusion For Life, it means you need to be able to define any type of extortion down to the exact heard quote within two months of September 11. You have to be Neil Armstrong, not Neil Diamond.

Anyone who alters the ability to use the quote, sayonara. To show how possible it would have been to draw on simple domestic quotes (this in support of the difficult constructions in my second post), the very parking lot of the place where the black recruiter said that had a woman who had placed a large plywood sign on the back of her card with a religious message, about how September 11 was caused by things done by U.S. parties. She was risking being pulled over for it blocking her rear view.

Of course this is not analysis, nor does it defend what I said in my second post. But that is why Exclusion For Life is a dish best served with cubes. I was reading an article in a 1959 issue of "The New Yorker," this is when there was a magazine called "The New Yorker," about the Oxford school of British philosophy. The article, by Ved Mehta, was based on a criticism by someone named Ernest Gellner of the whole school, a criticism that the editor of "Mind" had refused to run. Ved Mehta went to talk with Ernest Gellner about this.

And punching in his name, there is a review of his life works, that is, what took place after 1959. It is worth your time to punch in his name. I even got it wrong for a whole weekend. In a marvelous mistake, I had him as Warren Mellner, after having read the entire 1959 article.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Neve Rallow said...

What is the difference between ego and necessity? I will provide the answer. According to my second post read adequately, "degrees" of advocacy of violence by parties who are Islamic in the Middle East are completely fictional within the domestic United States. My first post was a defense of Israel against the "leaders" of the United States so that Israel could be considered as a republican form of government. Most countries that are not dictatorships are that. Not too many run based on town hall meetings.

So my second post (I realize that my third one says "card" for "car" on the woman with the huge wooden sign attached above her license plate, which reminds me, as Reagan might have said, let's increase the sizes of license plates while we're at it) (I also realize that the third one failed to reassure that I photographed the woman's entire message on that wooden board, and how the board was attached to the car, and the color of the car, and the weather) is the post to consider.

As a general rule, if it's not ego but is required, that party will also be able to create some rules to deal with the huge amount of written material by the actual party, or the Cinnamon Stillwell, whose blog site or web site this is. A non-ego party will be able to refrain from scanning the web site. Okay, and a non-ego party will be able to refrain from correcting general statements already posted by himself or herself which were just provisional in nature.

In the novels of Taylor Caldwell, who was read by the actresses of the 1950s and who sounds just like Reagan, she several times says that there didn't even need to be a civil war. Why again did there need to be? But there's no question about the reality, that the Current U.S. President, the CUSP, has succeeded in attacking and destroying the ability in the domestic United States to draw on evidence from the printed word.

Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:33:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home