Glenn Beck Continues to Work Wonders

After much success with the Restoring Honor Rally (8/28), Glenn Beck is aiming  to restore confidence in our nation and her people once again.

Wilmington, Ohio recently suffered from DHL‘s pullout from the town. As a result, the majority of its workforce is unemployed, but not hopeless. Beck notes the town’s resilience in such a grave time in our nation’s history. The following will take place in December:


In mid-December Beck is taking his television and radio shows to a small Ohio town that was effected by the recent down economy to celebrate the giving message of the holidays.

“If they will have us, I’m going to pay [Wilmington, Ohio] a visit next month. I’m going to do the show from the streets. And I’m going to ask all the folks in nearby Dayton, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland or wherever else you might be to join me. Kind of a mini 8/28. It’s not going to be extravagant. It’s not going to be big. We are going to celebrate America’s first Christmas. We are going to find real hope where everyone else has found despair. ”

“What I’m asking the people in Wilmington, and they are hearing this for the first time” Beck continued, “What I’d like you to do is make Christmas presents for people. Things that my kids would want, or I would want that would remind me of a better time. Something that has value. If you happen to be watching this show and you are like my Grandmother you are making a quilt. Will you bring it and will you sell your goods because I would like to invite my friends and the people who watch this show to come on that day. Maybe we can open up some of the closed store-fronts and we can sell things for Christmas. ”


Professors and Outbursts: You Decide

Professors fall prey to outbursts. Then, they become YouTube sensations.

You decide whether their behavior was appropriate or not.

Cornell Hotel Administration professor reacts to “overly loud” yawn. Compatriots at the Cornell Insider have the full scoop on the incident.

University of Central Florida Professor, Richard Quinn:

Help The Young Cons Win This Video Contest!

Young Cons Josh “Stiltz” Riddle and Dave”Serious C” Rufful are competing in the Atlas Shrugged Video Contest. And they have to beat a robot! Help these conservative superstars out?

Their video, “Power of the Individual” is profiled below:

Do the right thing and vote for them.

Princeton wages war on Israel through Sabra hummus boycott

Taken from The California Review on November 21st, 2010:

What is with college students making everything political? One would think food—especially a delicious Mediterranean spread enjoyed by both Israelis and Palestinians—would be spared this injustice. Apparently, nothing goes unnoticed at the Ivy League. Not even hummus.

Why is such a harmless food item being spotlighted, one might ask? The Princeton Committee on Palestine is pushing for the removal of Sabra Hummus from University Stores. They cite Sabra’s partial owner—the Strauss Group—as a supplier of care packages to the Golani Brigade of the Israeli Defense Forces. This attack on hummus is an attack on Israel’s legitimacy. Efforts to delegitimize the state of Israel under the guise of divestment from companies funding Israel—which is a very familiar tactic at UC-San Diego and UC-Berkeley—are foolish. Hummus is a harmless late night snack, not a political ploy.

Samson Schatz, chair of Tigers for Israel, writes about Sabra’s shareholders in The Daily Princetonian:

The truth is that 50 percent of Sabra Dipping Company is owned by PepsiCo, and 50 percent is owned by the Strauss Group, an Israeli company. The Strauss Group sponsors a range of community outreach programs, including raising money for premature infants in Serbia and providing scholarship funds to children with cancer. The Strauss Group’s list of projects also includes a “support the troops” program, for which the company provides care packages of free hummus to Israeli soldiers in the Golani Brigade. The company has not been providing weapons or ammunition; it is simply giving the 18-year-olds in uniform free hummus and a little moral support.

He also notes the irrelevant nature of highlighting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by means of boycotting Sabra hummus:

You are being deceived because you are being made to believe that putting pressure on Israel is sufficient to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. The leaders of the anti-Sabra campaign imply that by attacking Sabra hummus or even divesting from Israel we can bring peace to the region. Israel is already making compromises. While we have been blinded by frivolous debate over a creamy, chickpea delicacy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday proposed to his cabinet a 90-day extension to the freeze on building settlements in the West Bank. Netanyahu hopes that the borders of the future Palestinian state will be decided within this time frame, which would render further discussion of settlement construction in Israeli territory moot. The Middle East conflict is more complicated than hummus. I strongly encourage this campus to focus its intellectual energy on the real issues rather than shift its focus to minute, immature and pathetic distractions.

The “Save the Hummus!–Vote Against the Sabra Hummus Boycott” event page on facebook notes backpedaling from the PCP on November 19th, 2010:

We are very excited to hear that, despite its initial advertising, PCP has backpedaled and no longer claims that its referendum is a direct call for the University to stop selling Sabra Hummus. Although the word “boycott” is not officially part of the referendum text, we still oppose this referendum because of its significant ambiguity and because it unfairly singles out Sabra Hummus.

The exact text of the anti-Sabra ballot resolution will be as follows:

“On behalf of the student body, the USG will make a formal recommendation to University Dining Services that it offer an alternative to Sabra Hummus in all university retail locations.”

This language is extremely ambiguous: does “offer an alternative to” mean an alternative in addition to or instead of Sabra? Although PCP originally aimed for this resolution to convince Dining Services to replace Sabra hummus with an alternative, as stated in the information on PCP’s Facebook group page and on PCP’s electronic petition, Bitran and PCP have since changed their message regarding the intent of this confusing text.

In a statement made to the Prince prior to the article published today, Bitran wrote that this referendum “asks the university to provide an alternative to Sabra. We don’t know what the university will do, whether they will sell Sabra and an alternative side by side, or how many of each.”

It is crucial that student governments refrain from political issues, especially when they are so divisive. Last year at UC-San Diego, our student government was faced with a resolution urging divestment from companies operating in “war zones” [read the fine print: doing business with Israel] — specifically naming companies with shareholdings there like GE. Regardless, political controversies should have no place in student government, which is supposed to be a voice for all of the students.

Tigers for Israel cites valid points in defense of Sabra hummus and Israel.

1. This boycott is far too broad a means of challenging human rights violations. Not all Golani Brigade soldiers are guilty of criminal behavior, and many of those who have committed crimes have, as acknowledged by PCP’s very own pamphlets, been convicted by Israeli courts. It is not right to hold the majority of soldiers responsible for the few, just as it would not be right to boycott Palestinian products because of the actions of a few terrorists.

2. The logic behind this boycott could be extended to include boycotts of various goods produced by American firms supporting US soldiers. Americans were guilty of terrible abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Nonetheless, American courts still convict those who are guilty of war crimes. Should we boycott Boeing due to its contracts with the US Army just because of isolated cases of human rights violations by American soldiers? Absolutely not!

3. (NOTE: This paragraph was written prior to PCP’s backpedaling on the meaning of the referendum.) The advocates of the boycott condemn the lack of consumer choice available on campus when it comes to hummus. But their position is not the one of enhanced consumer choice. We would love to see the University offer multiple brands of hummus in its stores. When we have more options, everyone wins. But that DOES NOT require banning Sabra Hummus. The reason Sabra is the hummus brand of choice as of now is that it is very popular across the country. In fact, it was recently reported that Sabra sold 40% of all hummus in the US. The University’s decision to make Sabra its default hummus choice is perfectly logical. We’d all love more options, but eliminating Sabra from the equation simply is not the answer.

4. Some speak of Arabs being forced to support crimes against their own people since Sabra Hummus is the only brand available to them. While we do not argue that Sabra MUST be allowed to have a U-Store monopoly, we think it absurd to suggest that supporting a company that sends care packages to Israeli soldiers is indirect support for war crimes.

5. Context is critical here. This boycott unfairly targets Israel. We’re not seeing an attempt, for example, to boycott products which somehow support the Saudi government despite its truly widespread human rights abuses. And even were the student body to deem boycotts targeted at Israeli goods to be acceptable, where would this stop? Would we boycott Microsoft, Intel, Victoria’s Secret, and other mainstream companies based heavily in Israel? Surely the student body is not willing to take this misguided effort to its logical conclusion.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very complicated issue, and we concede that there’s room for improvement on all sides. Placing ALL of the blame on Israel is not going to bring peace to the region. Instead of furthering these divides through arbitrary boycotting, we should work to build bridges between both sides by engaging each other in constructive dialogue to find ways to end the conflict.

Frankly, I like my hummus and hate seeing this product go down by those eager to undermine Israel. Student governments have rejected all attempts to divest from Israel because it is pointless, divisive, and inappropriate to deliberate. Let’s keep it that way.

Illegal immigrants entitled to in-state tuition, CA Supreme Court rules

Taken from SFPA and The California Review on November 18th, 2010:

California has a number of big problems: illegal immigration, budget deficits, tuition hikes for already strapped families. All these problems combine into one: in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

The California Supreme Court has affirmed the state program granting in-state tuition to “undocumented students,” all while tuition hikes are imminent the University of California and the California State University systems (8 percent and 15 percent, respectively). As a California public university student, all I can do is watch our the continued budget difficulties and our growing appeasement to those without U.S. citizenship.


Opposition to this ruling will be viewed by some leftists as a racist attack against minorities. Americans do not hate immigrants, contrary to the image leftists seek to craft on a daily basis. Our nation was established upon the efforts and contributions made by immigrants that fled to the United States in search of better opportunities. The land of opportunity welcomes each person with open arms, regardless of any skin color or country of origin.

However, granting amnesty to people entering our country by illegal means—as the DREAM Act purports to do if it were passed—will prove deleterious to the state of California and our nation. Amnesty in the form of affirmation action is no excuse for undermining our education system further. Nevertheless, National Public Radio reports:

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that illegal immigrant students can continue to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities. The controversial ruling makes higher education in California more affordable for students who don’t have legal status. Critics of the ruling say they are precisely the students who should not be in the United States in the first place.

Unfortunately, many people in the state of California are suffering from increased hardships. No one group should be entitled to special treatment just because they boast a certain national origin. Nevertheless, leftists will go to any means to pass this type of legislation. The L.A. Times elaborates on that notion in the following:

Federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving college benefits based on residency and not provided to all citizens. A lawyer for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which sided with the challengers in the case, said the ruling failed to acknowledge “clear tension between federal law and the state’s special financial benefits for illegal immigrant students.” The case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “California is not in sync with the federal mandate against giving Brownie points for being an illegal immigrant,” said Ralph Kasarda, an attorney with the foundation.

Yet, supporters of the ruling cite that it will not supersede federal law due to California’s nonresident tuition exemption of 2001, which offers in-state tuition to those who attended California high school for a minimum of three years. Students that qualify are either illegal or those that live out of California who met the minimum addressed above. The California Nonresident Tuition Exemption of 2001 is addressed here:

Any student, other than a nonimmigrant alien, who meets all of the following requirements, shall be exempt from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges, the University of California, and the California State University (all public colleges and universities in California).

  • Requirements:
    • The student must have attended a high school (public or private) in California for three or more years.
    • The student must have graduated from a California high school or attained the equivalent prior to the start of the term (for example, passing the GED or California High School Proficiency exam).
    • An alien student who is without lawful immigration status must file an affidavit with the college or university stating that he or she has filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status, or will file an application as soon as he or she is eligible to do so.
  • Students who are nonimmigrants [for example, those who hold F (student) visas, B (visitor) visas, etc.] are not eligible for this exemption.
  • The student must file an exemption request including a signed affidavit with the college that indicates the student has met all applicable conditions described above. Student information obtained in this process is strictly confidential unless disclosure is required under law.
  • Students eligible for this exemption who are transferring to another California public college or university must submit a new request (and documentation if required) to each college under consideration.
  • Nonresident students meeting the criteria will be exempted from the payment of nonresident tuition, but they will not be classified as California residents. They continue to be “nonresidents”.
  • AB540 does not provide student financial aid eligibility for undocumented alien students. These students remain ineligible for state and federal financial aid.

Continual efforts to undermine legal immigration will prove costly. If you follow American laws and have legitimate state residency, then and only then should you be allowed the privilege of in-state tuition — no exceptions.