Also, I considered flagging your post for your personal attacks on me, but really, it only strengthens my posts (as if they needed that!) because your response is just so weak. At some point I may grow tired of winning.

Second, like many liberals (a word I haven’t written until just now, again, learn to read), you are attributing motive and calling an argument. You also show the typical leftist trait of knowing exactly how I feel and think. Furthermore, you put facts in quotation marks to imply that what I was saying was not factually accurate and also implying that you, the liberal, are the educated one without ever having directly addressed anything I said with any sort of counter-facts or proof. You completely ignore the numerous questions I did ask and merely attributed motive by saying I did not come here to discuss. Where did I ever say I was a victim? I merely pointed out that the panel was one-sided in its ideology and that the caveats of the discussion rules (which you broke, by the way) skirt on the fringes of legality. Again, learn to read and learn to debate.

Third, German-Americans and Italian-Americans were interned during WW2. They even have an organization: . Thus no false equivalency QED. Learn to research. Or you can dehumanize those German and Italian Americans because they don’t fit into your racist narrative. I’ve never read a single book by Bill O’Riley and find him rather insufferable. I do have an extensive historical library at my home, however.

Furthermore, ohhh booooo, you mad bro? You mad bro because I took your pathetic leftist buzzwords and made them into a joke? How about you intersect with a sense of humour. Or maybe deconstruct your hang ups and lighten up. I know exactly what these words mean but I am not going to use them in the way your narrow, humourless, bigoted ideology demands because it restricts thought, creativity, and joy. I’m having fun, you’re not. And that is funny.

Seriously man, I’m not going to knock it off. You didn’t answer anything I wrote, you gave no facts, you personally attacked me, you attributed motive, and you condescended to me and everyone who does not agree with you. Where did I ever say I hated anyone? Again, oh wise leftist, you surely have some crystal ball to see into my soul and know what I’m feeling and what I have read. You’re a bundle of regurgitated talking points with no point. And Donald Trump is your President! :)

Have a wonderful day.

First, complaining your “free speech” is being censored is crap. You prattled on and on over three posts and about 1200-1500 words and nobody “censored” you in anyway. You are not a victim.

Second, you did not come here for a “discussion.” You wrote these tedious comments to prove your conservative “I am a victim” worldview and complain about strawman “liberals.” If you really wanted a conversation you would have asked a few questions and considered the speakers point of view. Instead you wove fake outrage and pathos-based “facts” together into a stump speech that only reinforces your point of view and does nothing the actually push forward this important conversation about government, oppression, and hate.

Third, just because you know how to use big words and read a few books about WWII history written by Bill O’Riely does not make you an expert. Your arguments are full of faulty logic such as false equivalencies (e.g. 11,000 Germans Nationals were detained, interviewed and released, a far different experience from the AMERICANS WHO WERE JAPANESE) and jumping to conclusions, and…. Gawd–I do not have enough time to “deconstruct” your superficial and faux-intellectual arguments. Really, you sound like an idiot.

Furthermore, you have no idea what the terms “deconstruct,” “racism,” and “intersectionality” mean. Please, go take a class on these terms before you throw them around and dishonor 100 years of hard work by post-modern, feminist, social science, and anthropology scholars. Also, WE ARE AT WAR, and have been about fifteen years now.

Seriously, man, knock it off. The liberals you hate and think are stupid in reality are a bunch of moderates like myself who are sick to death of people like yourself screaming about free speech and censorship. Screaming something over and over does not make it true.

You are dissentious because you are not looking for an actual academic debate and conversation. You only want to prove liberals wrong so you can feel vindicated and justified in your fake, hystrionic victimization.

Harry Anastasiou is a particularly hilarious addition to this panel. Lets examine his hyperbolic statement, “If you look at the legislation that takes place during periods of protracted war, you see something very astonishing: All the laws that are enacted during wartime tend to be undemocratic laws, but we never identify them as such. We call them martial law or emergency measures, but we identify them as such because they are fundamentally undemocratic.” I can only guess to what laws he was specifically referring to (remember, President Trump’s travel ban was an executive direction to enforce a law that was written in peacetime) but it makes me wonder if he would dare call the ACA undemocratic? What about the National Environmental Policy Act? Both were passed during wartime (or what constitutes wartime in the post WW2 USA) and both were hailed as emergency measures. Mr. Anastasiou also seems to be a big fan of both the EU and the UN – two bodies of un-elected, faceleless bureaucrats. In fact, the tyrannical, unelected EU will soon be dissolved by the peaceful, democratic forces of nationalism when the Netherlands and France choose to exit stage left (a la Brexit) this autumn. The man seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth… and his book “The Broken Olive Branch” will soon have to be retitled “The Broken Thesis.”

John Shaw seems also to have some problems with his thought processes. There is an ocean of difference between depriving American citizens of their rights for an indefinite time period, as happened to Japanase, German, and Italian Americans in WW2, and President Trump’s travel ban which temporarily (3 months) inconveniences non-US citizens. Does Mr. Shaw have an opinion on President Obama’s possible illegal use of the AUMF of Sept. 18, 2001 to destabilize the legitimate government of Syria? What about President Obama’s use of War Powers acts to wire-tap and imprison American journalists? I smell partisan hackery.

The net result seems to be the obfuscation of understanding, the propagation of marginal, extreme ideology, and baseless fear-mongering. Surely everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the baseless, anti-historical opinions that seem to be the only ones given a platform is very troubling. Or, to use a progressive code-word, “problematic.”

I can sit and deconstruct all this nonsense all day; I would not doubt that every single panelist has any number of un-examined assumptions that underpin a political belief system that does not hold water in reality. Intellectual diversity seems to be in very short supply.

First off, the panel and article completely ignore the fact that German-Americans and Italian-Americans were also targeted for internment by this Executive Order. While the Japanese-Americans were eventually given reparations, the German-Americans and Italian-Americans were not. Why is this injustice ignored by the panel and the article? This is either a sign or poor research or an agenda.

Of course, Japanese-Americans were the majority of those who were interned, but this can be adaquately explained by simple historical fact. The Japanese attacked us on December 7, 1941, soon thereafter Japanese fleets were sailing towards Midway and Japanese soldiers had even invaded Alaska at Attu Island. Meanwhile, Germany military was embroiled in a life and death struggle in Russia and was stalled outside of Moscow, Lenningrad, and had been repulsed at Rostov. Italy’s “war machine” was a widely-acknowledged joke. Neither Germany nor Italy had attacked the United States – they merely declared war out of treaty obligations within the Anti-Comintern/Tripartate pacts. Thus, the taking of more vigorous means against the most immediate threat was completely rational in the context of the time, even if the means, in this case internment of American citizens, was wrong and unjust. That these facts are not mentioned seems to indicate either incompetence, or an agenda.

Racism is constantly mentioned by the panel and article. The author of the article does not even seem to understand what racism is. I’ll quote from the article, “That racism resonates today for members of Portland’s Muslim community.” As Malcolm X learned when he undertook the Hajj to Mecca, the RELIGION of Islam embraces all races, white, yellow, brown, and black. This mistake is made several times in the article and seems to make the agenda increasingly clear.

Oh sweet agenda pushing fear mongering. We finally reach the denouement. President Trump’s travel ban. “Guided” by the poor historical research and grossly misinformed accusations of the author and panelists we can finally “see” how President Trump is racist and, by association, his supporters and those that voted for him. I reject this insinuation. The problem with EO 9066 was that it was an open-ended removal of the rights of American CITIZENS. President Trump’s travel ban was a very short term (three months) inconvenience for various non-citizens. This shockingly bad historical comparison seems to be further proof of an agenda. A much more apposite comparison would be Presidents Bush and Obama’s targeting of American citizens for death via drone strike or President Obama’s wire-tapping of journalists’ communications and imprisonment of journalists more journalists than all previous Presidents combined. Of course, apt historical comparisons is not what this is about, now is it? From the evidence, it seems much more likely that divisive race-baiting is the objective.

Also, I object to the caveats underneath the “Start the discussion” label. As a publicly financed educational institution you are required by law to allow me to make any speech I feel like making on campus or on the school’s web sites so long as I don’t incite violence or a few other items not covered under the First Amendment. There have been several court cases that have decided this issue. That I have refrained from any of the free speech that you imperiously proclaim to be “Verboten” just means I am a tasteful, decent person.