Displaying posts published in

August 2023

NYPD names Rebecca Weiner as first woman to head intelligence and counterterrorism bureaus By Craig McCarthy and Sophie Gardiner

https://nypost.com/2023/07/18/nypd-names-new-counter-intel-boss/

The NYPD has named a new counterterrorism chief after the top post sat vacant for the better part of a year.

Rebecca Weiner, a 17-year NYPD veteran, was sworn in Tuesday as deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism — becoming the first woman to serve in the role on the department’s executive team.

“This pick is again a history-making pick at the NYC police department,” Mayor Eric Adams said at a ceremony announcing the appointment at One Police Plaza.

“The incoming deputy commissioner is an impressive and experienced intelligence analyst who has spent 17 years with the NYC police department, during which she has held nearly every civilian title in her field,” he added.

Weiner fills the role left empty by John Miller, who retired in June 2022 after nearly a decade in the civilian position.

The Harvard-educated attorney, joined in the NYPD in 2006 as a civilian employee and rose to assistant commissioner in the department’s Counterterrorism Operations and Analysis sections. She was joined by her husband and their two young boys as she took her oath of office Tuesday.

Noting the position is one of the city’s “most important aspects” in combatting terror attacks, Adams told reporters it took more than a year to fill the spot because his administration had to “get it right.”

“Even without a deputy commissioner in that position… you still have professionals that are still in place,” Adams said of the unfilled role, touting the NYPD’s “deep bench,” including Weiner, who continued to run the day-to-day operations.

Chief Thomas Galati stepped in to run the division in December as a three-star chief, the uniformed equivalent of the civilian role. He announced his retirement in March. 

Student debating, once a bastion of logic, has been invaded from the left By Richard E. Vatz

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/student_debating_once_a_bastion_of_logic_has_been_invaded_from_the_left.html

During my 48 years teaching at Towson University, all my classes involved informal or formal debating: the quintessential activity of academic classes outside and sometimes including the sciences and arts. Sadly, like everything else in academia, debating has succumbed to leftist ideology.

I love debate for its focus on credibility and evidence. It should be teaching the up-and-coming generation of thinkers. However, as James Fishback has noted, judges’ political preferences have come to dominate high school debate.

Under its major sponsor, the National Speech & Debate Association’s website, judges post “paradigms.” The purpose of paradigm alerts is to let debaters know in full disclosure judges’ stylistic biases, say, if they are put off by overly rapid speaking or if they approve of debaters’ apprising their audiences of the relative importance of specific arguments.

But in the last few years, Fishback explains, “Judges with paradigms tainted by politics and ideology are becoming common…[at] national tournaments, judges are making their stances clear: students who argue ‘capitalism can reduce poverty’ or ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’ will lose—no questions asked.” In general, Fishback argues, high school debate has been degraded “from a competition that rewards evidence and reasoning to one that punishes students for what they say….” One of several examples Fishback provides is a debate judge under whose list of “Things That Will Cause You to Automatically Lose” is ‘Referring to immigrants as ‘illegal.’ ”

I can attest that the same is true in collegiate debate, the last place in education I would have expected political bias to interfere with education.

Several colleagues, including one who has both designed debate camps and programs and served as a tournament judge and another who is a major administrator in the National Communication Administration, tell me that, among debate coaches and judges, coaches and judges throw around their biases as a sign of virtue. This is a disheartening and dispiriting sign that we’re seeing the end of the unbiased marketplace of ideas and academic freedom. Worse, this is happening in an activity that, by definition, should be resistant to politically approved outcomes.

The EPA Defies the Supreme Court The agency imposes a ‘suite’ of climate policies and doesn’t even try to hide its own lawlessness. By Chris Horner

https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-environmental-protection-supreme-court-regulation-unconstitutional-climate-change-administrative-state-biden-42f31ce3?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

In politics, inadvertently telling the truth is called a “gaffe.” Last year Michael Regan, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, made a remark in passing that gave away the Biden administration’s plans for enforcing its climate agenda through a “suite of rules” imposed under programs lacking any credible connection to climate. A few months later, a Supreme Court opinion transformed Mr. Regan’s indiscretion into justification for wholesale judicial repudiation of the Biden administration’s climate regulatory blitz.

Mr. Regan’s comment came on March 10, 2022, when he addressed the press following his keynote address to CERAWeek, a climate conference in Houston. A reporter asked about vulnerabilities of the EPA’s approach to installing climate regulation through the Obama-Biden Clean Power Plan, which was then awaiting judgment by the court. Mr. Regan replied that the agency had abandoned the idea of relying on any specific grant of regulatory authority. Instead it was in the process of tightening rules under numerous and varied regulatory programs all at once, pressuring disfavored operations to close and compelling investment consistent with the EPA’s desires.

Mr. Regan went on to cite rules to tighten regulation of mercury, ozone, soot, hazardous air pollutants, water effluent and coal ash under acknowledged congressional grants of authority. But he also called the “expedited retirement” of power plants “the best tool for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions” and opined that the “industry gets to take a look at this suite of rules all at once and say, ‘Is it worth doubling down on investments in this current facility or operation, or should we look at the cost and say no, it’s time to pivot and invest in a clean-energy future?’ ”

This already reflected something of a scofflaw position. Congress never approved what Mr. Regan described. It became a serious problem when the justices struck down the Clean Power Plan in June. West Virginia v. EPA held that the agency didn’t have the authority it claimed to force power-plant closures by setting unmeetable emission standards and thus dictate, as the court had put it, “how Americans get their energy.”

Chief Justice John Roberts noted for the 6-3 majority that after Congress had repeatedly considered and rejected providing the agency authority to regulate power-sector greenhouse gases, the EPA claimed “to discover an unheralded power” that represented a “transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority” to force “generation shifting.”

How the Woke Revolution Happened From Christopher Rufo, the perfect book to give to your clueless friends. by Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-woke-revolution-happened/

The story has been told many times over the years. There are, indeed, many ways to tell it, although a passage from the beginning of Roger Kimball’s 2000 book The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America can serve as a more than suitable summary of all of them:

 In the Sixties and Seventies, after fantasies of overt political revolution faded, many student radicals urged their followers to undertake “the long march through the institutions.”…In the context of Western societies, [this] signified – in the words of Herbert Marcuse – “working against the established institutions while working within them.” It was primarily by this means – by insinuation and infiltration rather than confrontation – that the countercultural dreams of radicals like Marcuse have triumphed.

For what it’s worth, the phrase “long march through the institutions” – a reference to the long march of Mao’s army in 1934 in retreat from the Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek – has been attributed by some to the German socialist Rudi Dutschke (1940-79) and by others to the Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937).

In any event, in recounting the American left’s long march, who or what should be foregrounded? No two writers have exactly the same answer. Kimball, for his part, chose to focus on a range of individuals and institutions, including Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, the “Beat Generation” writers, Timothy Leary, and The New York Review of Books. Two decades later, in a 2000 book that was also entitled The Long March, the British writer Marc Sidwell traced the gradual countercultural subversion of the West back to Gramsci before delving into the roles played in that process by György Lukács, E. P. Thompson, and Marcuse in that process. James Lindsay, whose 2022 book The Marxification of Education limits its purview largely to the subversion of the academy, puts the Brazilian socialist Paulo Freire (1921-97) at the heart of the story; and my own 2012 book The Victims’ Revolution, which also confines itself to the leftist takeover of higher education, splits the responsibility for that dire development among Gramsci, Freire, and the Afro-Caribbean Marxist Frantz Fanon (1925-69).

Christopher Rufo’s incisive new book America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything covers essentially the same territory as Kimball’s and Sidwell’s books while giving attention, along the way, to the events reported by Lindsay and me. Rufo, now a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is a remarkable young man (he turns 39 on August 26) who increasingly needs no introduction: during the last few years, he’s become a leading voice in the struggle against the mainstreaming at American schools and colleges of critical race theory (CRT), transgender ideology, and the tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In addition to writing extensively on these topics (notably at City Journal), he’s been impressively active on the barricades, leading the effort to have CRT banned from public schools in no fewer than 22 states, inspiring President Trump to ban CRT “training” in the federal government, and rolling back radicalism at New College in Florida, at which Governor Ron DeSantis named him a trustee. The progressive reaction to his activities is summed up in the fatuous headline of a 2021 New Yorker hit job: “How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict over Critical Race Theory.”

Left-Wing Rage: Don’t Pretend It Doesn’t Exist

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/18/left-wing-rage-dont-pretend-it-doesnt-exist/

The Southern Poverty Law Center has its “hate map” of conservative groups that it hopes to marginalize if not kill off entirely. Meanwhile, the feds are looking for vicious, bloodthirsty right-wingers under the bed. But a university survey recently found that the left is more prone to political violence than the right. It’s exactly what we have come to expect from a group that is so sure of its superiority and the importance of its agenda that it’s willing to break an infinite number of eggs so that it can make its authoritarian omelet.

The University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats’ June survey of 3,543 adults has produced a lot of data noise but it also includes some useful information. Of course the media want to ring the bells over one finding in particular: an increase in the percentage those who agree that “the use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.” According to the project, in early April only 4.5% of those polled agreed with that statement. By late June, though, it had risen to (a rounded-up) 7%, “the equivalent of an estimated shift from 12 million to 18 million American adults.”

The media-wide implication is that the growing support for using force to put Trump back in the White House is fueled by the extremism (and dare we say “semi-fascism”?) of Republicans and MAGA followers. A prime example of this bias is found in the headline over a story in The Hill. It reads “More say violence could be necessary to restore Trump to White House.”

A closer look at the data, however, show both Democrats (4.5%) and independents (7.8%) agree with the statement. So it’s not just Republicans who would be sympathetic to the use of force in favor of Trump. Isn’t that a point worthy of highlighting?

There’s another figure that raises concerns that the media don’t seem to care much about: 9% of Democrats “strongly” agree that “the use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president,” and another 7.1% merely agree. That’s a total of 16.1%, compared to the total of 9.5% of Republicans who strongly agree or just agree that force is justified to hand the presidency back to Trump.

Again, isn’t this a fact that needs to be emphasized?

Vivek Ramaswamy Infuriates Fox News Host When He Won’t Take His Bait to Attack Donald Trump By Warner Todd Huston, Western Journal

https://ijr.com/vivek-ramaswamy-infuriates-fox-news-host-trump/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ijr-breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=firefly

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy expertly turned the tables on Neil Cavuto when the Fox Business host tried to get him to attack the GOP frontrunner in the 2024 race.

The pair spoke Tuesday on “Your World” about the various criminal charges filed against Donald Trump this year and Ramaswamy’s promise to pardon the former president if elected.

Advertisement – story continues below

If Cavuto was hoping the entrepreneur would blast Trump over the indictments, he was wrong.

Indeed, Ramaswamy told the host it is the indictments that are wrong.

“I will be unabashed about standing on the side of principle when I say, yes, these prosecutions are wrong,” he said.

“But there are 91 criminal charges in all … as you’re aware, over four criminal cases. They can’t all be politicized, can they? I mean, there’s something that the former president must have done in any one of these that struck you as wrong, if not illegal,” Cavuto said.

“I think, Neil, just because the government has brought a case, if we’re going to be a culture that now starts to say, ‘There must be something wrong if the government has charged 91 counts,’ I think that’s a … people of sheep. And when the people behave like sheep, that breeds a government of wolves,” Ramaswamy answered.

Will China, Russia, and North Korea Launch Their Nukes? by Gordon G. Chang

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19905/china-russia-and-north-korea-nukes

Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un see the world in the same terms, and they all realize that none of them will accomplish their goals unless they get the United States out of the way.

Perhaps of greatest concern is that all three regimes [China, Russia and North Korea] share a nuclear weapons doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” or “escalate to win”: threatening the use of nuclear weapons to keep others from defending their intended victims. Xi and Putin appear capable of actually using their most destructive weapons.

Kim has made threats to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively. His regime last year even enacted a law authorizing such use.

When aggressors threaten the use of nuclear weapons, anything can happen. America will have to be prepared that China, along with its friends, are willing to do anything to get what they want.

The regimes of China, Russia and North Korea share a nuclear weapons doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” or “escalate to win”: threatening the use of nuclear weapons to keep others from defending their intended victims. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin appear capable of actually using their most destructive weapons. Kim Jong Un has made threats to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively. His regime last year even enacted a law authorizing such use.

This week, the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Strike Group 5, centered around the USS Ronald Reagan, has been steaming off the east coast of Taiwan.