Berkeley Group Stages Twitter Campaign With Disgusting Assumption About GOP Field

Describing it as open to participants of all political stripes, a Democrat student group at the University of California at Berkeley is promoting a live-tweeting event to coincide with Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate. In a Facebook invitation, Cal Berkeley Democrats called on activists to keep a close eye out for “racist tropes” being bandied about by the candidates.

The partisan group is co-hosting the event as a way to “teach each other about race, politics, and rhetoric,” the social media post explains.

“And as a final note,” organizers wrote, “we encourage everyone to remember that the strategic use of racism to get votes is a practice engaged in by Democrats and Republicans alike.”

Members of a campus GOP group, however, were skeptical that this event would result in anything other than a partisan attack on Republicans. Berkeley College Republicans released a response to the planned Twitter coverage, noting that such a forum is no place for a “meaningful discussion” of the issue.

“If the organizers were truly attempting to do more than simply launch a partisan attack,” the statement continued, “they would host a seminar which analyzed campaign speeches and debate answers from candidates of all political beliefs.”

Will Tuesday’s debate expose the GOP presidential field as a hotbed of racism? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Police Discover Something On Campus Stabber Faisal Mohammad That Explains It All

University of California Merced student Faisal Mohammad injured four people on the school’s campus with a hunting knife on Wednesday.

He was shot and killed by two university police officers.

One of the victims, a construction worker named Byron Price, received his injuries after intervening to protect Mohammad’s first victim from any more damage.

Price stated that Mohammad “looked scared,” but then said: “He looked like he was having fun. His eyes, I could see fear in his eyes. He was smiling.”

Now details about what motivated Mohammad are coming out after a manifesto containing his precise 24 step plan to cause harm on the campus was discovered.

The manifesto has not been released, but Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke spoke about it to reporters on Thursday.

Warnke said: “We had an upset teenager that was upset over being kicked out of a study group” for being disruptive.

Mohammad entered his Wednesday morning class with a 10 inch knife, and a backpack filled with zip-tie handcuffs and duct tape. He had his manifesto in his pocket.

Although the manifesto contained references to Allah, Warnke dismissed the idea that Mohammad was religiously motivated, saying: “His belief was through the Muslim faith, but there’s nothing to indicate other than that. It’s be like a Christian referring to the Lord Jesus.”

There is considerable speculation that Mohammad acted with religious motives.

ISIS has released nineteen videos encouraging stabbing attacks by Palestinians on Israelis.

A Twitter account that has been used for ISIS propaganda in the past tweeted, in Arabic, “May Allah accept him” after the attack.

What do you think motivated Mohammad to conduct the university stabbing attack?

Identity Of Campus Knife Attacker Revealed – People Are Noticing One Thing About His Name

Authorities in California on Thursday released the identity of the suspect killed by police following a knife attack that left several college students injured this week.

While there has been no official mention of a possible motive for the attack, a number of online commentators have speculated based on the suspect Faisal Mohammad’s Islamic name.

In response to an article on TheBlaze, one reader opined that such attacks on U.S. soil should have been predicted.

“The same terrorist stabbings that are taking place in Israel,” the commenter wrote. “Did people really think it would stay confined to just Israel and the Jews?”

A few social media users also noted the media narrative that followed the attack.

Developing reports indicate Mohammad was an 18-year-old student at the University of California at Merced, the site of Wednesday’s attack. Four individuals – including two students – were stabbed in the incident. As of Thursday morning, reports indicate one of the students remained in the hospital, and the other has been treated and released.

The other two victims, a college employee and a construction worker, were also taken to the hospital for treatment. While the former required surgery for a collapsed lung and was convalescing as of Thursday, the latter was released after receiving medical care Wednesday.

Are you worried about the threat of a domestic terror attack? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

BREAKING: Active Shooter On The Loose In This US City, All Incoming Flights Banned From Landing

Police are in a standoff with an active shooter near the San Diego airport, prompting the Federal Aviation Administration to cancel incoming flights.

According to the San Diego Tribune, police have flooded the Bankers Hill section of the city and are working to isolate the shooter, who is holed up in an apartment complex.

The incident is taking place near Washington Elementary School, which has been placed on lockdown.

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor stated the reason inbound flights have been cancelled is because the apartment complex is on the airport’s approach path. Outbound flights are still be permitted. The incident originated when police were responding to a domestic violence call from the complex around 9 a.m. Wednesday morning. As they approached the apartment, which is in an upscale neighborhood of the city, someone opened fire.

The San Diego Tribune reports that SWAT officers were later seen shooting teargas canisters through roof hatches of the apartment building.  “Authorities asked people in the area to stay inside and keep away from windows as they surrounded the complex. Dozens of officers with assault rifles were seen running down the street, and gunshots were heard,” Fox News reports “He’s shooting in all different directions,” Lt. Scott Wahl said. “But we have him contained inside the building.”

The War On Cars Is A War On Workers And The Poor

A just-released poll of Los Angeles residents found that 55 percent of respondents indicated their greatest concern was “traffic and congestion,” far ahead of “personal safety” — the next highest area of concern — at 35 percent. So if their city government was working in their best interests, it would be doing something about automobile congestion.

It is. Unfortunately, it will make things worse.

Los Angeles’s recently adopted Mobility Plan 2035 would replace auto lanes in America’s congestion capital with bus and protected bike lanes, as well as pedestrian enhancements, despite heightening congestion for the vast majority who will continue to drive. Even the City’s Environmental Impact Report admitted “unavoidable significant adverse impacts” on congestion, doubling the number of heavily congested (graded F) intersections to 36 percent during evening rush hours.

Driving Saves Time and Offers More Opportunity

Such an effort to ration driving by worsening gridlock purgatory begs asking a central, but largely ignored, question. Why do planners’ attempts to force residents into walking, cycling, and mass transit — supposedly improving their quality of life — attract so few away from driving?

The reason it takes a coercive crowbar to get most people out of their cars is that automobile users have concluded cars are vastly superior to the alternatives.

Why is automobile use so desirable:

  • Automobiles have far greater and more flexible passenger- and cargo-carrying capacities.
  • They allow direct, point-to-point service.
  • They allow self-scheduling rather than requiring advance planning.
  • They save time.
  • They have far better multi-stop trip capability (this is why restrictions on auto use punish working mothers most).
  • They offer a safer, more comfortable, more controllable environment, from the seats to the temperature to the music to the company.

Those massive advantages explain why even substantial new restrictions on automobiles or improvements in alternatives leave driving the dominant choice. However, they also reveal that a policy that will punish the vast majority who will continue to drive cannot serve residents effectively.

How Restrictions on Automobiles Punish the Working Poor the Most

The superiority of automobiles doesn’t stop at the obvious, either. They expand workers’ access to jobs, increasing productivity and incomes, improve purchasing choices, lower consumer prices and widen social options. Reducing roads’ car-carrying capacity undermines those major benefits.

Cars offer a decrease in commuting times (if not hamstrung by government planning), providing workers access to many more potential employers and job markets. This improves worker-employer matches, with expanded productivity both benefiting employers and raising workers’ incomes.

One study found that a 10-percent improvement in travel time raised worker productivity 3 percent. And increasing from a 3 mph walking speed to 30 mph driving speed is a 900-percent increase. In a similar vein, a Harvard analysis found that for those lacking high-school diplomas, owning a car increased monthly earnings by $1,100.

Cars are also the only means of assembling enough customers to sustain large stores with highly diverse offerings. Similarly, “automobility” dramatically expands the menu of social opportunities that are accessible.

Supporters like Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti may dismiss the serious adverse effects of the “road diets” they propose (a term whose negative implications were too obvious, getting it benched in favor of the better-sounding “complete streets”). But by demeaning cars as “the old model” and insisting “we have to have neighborhoods that are more self-contained,” the opponents of auto use do nothing to lessen the huge costs or increase the very limited benefits they plan to impose on those they supposedly represent.

Further, the “new model” of curtailing road capacity to force people out of cars is really a recycled old far-inferior model. As urban policy expert Randal O’Toole noted in The Best-Laid Plans:

Anyone who prefers not to drive can find neighborhood … where they can walk to stores that offer a limited selection of high-priced goods, enjoy limited recreation and social opportunities, and take slow public transit vehicles to some but not all regional employment centers, the same as many Americans did in 1920. But the automobile provides people with far more benefits and opportunities than they could ever have without it.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by