Rachel Maddow Smears Vance as a Fascist Speech-Squasher Is what the MSNBC host does really “news”? by Tim Graham

https://www.frontpagemag.com/rachel-maddow-smears-vance-as-a-fascist-speech-squasher/

The Democrats were distraught when Rachel Maddow negotiated with her Comcast paymasters to only do her show one night a week. What would the Left do with their Maddow magic cut by 80%?

For media critics, Maddow has been tougher to analyze as a cable “news” host. She goes on long pseudo-intellectual benders of historical analysis and then tries to bring it right up to today’s politics. She especially loves identifying Hitler sympathizers from the 1930s and attaching it to today’s Republicans. It’s like making Joy Reid sound more ponderous and in-depth, even if it’s not.

On Sept. 30, on the cusp of the vice presidential debate, Maddow naturally sought to connect Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) to a series of antisemitic and fascist revolutionaries who wanted the universities destroyed in the 1930s and 1940s because they spread “communistic” ideas. Viewers were “treated” to nine minutes of this lecture, which began with the founder of Walgreens dragging his niece out of the University of Chicago.

Then came more “unearthed” video of Vance from 2021, before he ran for the Senate. Vance gave a speech titled “The Universities Are the Enemy.” To Maddow, this sounds like the hayseeds are against “book learning.” Or Vance is rebelling against his time at Yale Law School?

We’re supposed to overlook that you can barely find a conservative professor in our most prestigious institutions of higher education. The last survey found only 1% of Harvard professors identified as conservative. The idea that “Harvard hates America” has been around for decades, and it’s been true for decades.

As Vance put it, “You go to Harvard and put your preferred pronouns in your bio and learn to hate people in the heartland.”

Solveig Lucia Gold Political, or Politicized? Institutional neutrality isn’t just desirable for universities. It’s essential for carrying out their civic missions.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/universities-should-be-political-but-not-politicized

Wesleyan University’s campus was abuzz last week after student protesters, demanding divestment from the “U.S.–Israeli Empire,” occupied an administrative building and refused to leave until the police arrived and threatened arrest. This was a new development for Wesleyan, whose president Michael Roth had boasted about not calling the police during the past year’s protests. His leniency didn’t earn him many friends among the demonstrators: in an Instagram video posted by the student group Beyond Empire, students shout “shame on you” at Roth as he walks away—under the floating text, “f— michael roth.”

It’s hard to feel sorry for Roth, though. As my colleague at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) Steve McGuire was quick to point out, he published a New York Times op-ed at the beginning of September titled “I’m a College President, and I Hope My Campus Is Even More Political This Year.”

Clickbait headline aside, much of what Roth says in the op-ed would be unobjectionable were it not for the deplorable occurrences on American campuses over the past year. He decries the vision of a college education as merely a means to make a better living, arguing instead that colleges should lean into their “civic mission” of preparing students to be better citizens, capable of respectful and productive disagreement. In pursuit of this mission, he says, professors should use the classroom not to indoctrinate students but rather to challenge them to think deeply about how we ought to live in a community.

If a campus being “political” means that its professors are educating students with an eye toward responsible citizenship, then many of us at ACTA and elsewhere would also like to see campuses be more political. Students are woefully ignorant of American history and government. Colleges would do well to mandate basic civics lessons to teach students how to think critically about America’s past and to form well-reasoned arguments about shaping America’s future.

Douglas Murray: A Time of War The West is ‘drunk on peace.’ What will it take to wake them up?By Bari Weiss

https://www.thefp.com/p/douglas-murray-a-time-of-war?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

When we planned this episode of Honestly, I thought we would be looking back at the past year from a slightly quieter vantage point. We were going to release it on October 7. But quiet is the last thing happening in the Middle East right now. The war that Iran outsourced to its proxies since October 7, 2023 has now become a war explicitly between Iran and Israel.

Hours before I sat down with Douglas Murray in New York City, Iran launched over 100 ballistic missiles toward Israel. As Israel’s 9 million citizens huddled in bomb shelters, a handful of them made a direct impact. For a lot of Americans, it still feels like a faraway war. But it is not.

There are not many bright lines that divide good and evil. This is one of them. This is a war between Israel and Iran. But it’s also a war between civilization and barbarism. That was true some 360 days ago. And it’s even more true today. And yet this testing moment has been met with alarming moral confusion.

Consider a few examples from the last week. At the United Nations, 12 countries, including the U.S., presented a plan for a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon without mentioning the word Hezbollah. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted, “Our country is funding this bloodbath,” minutes after Israel assassinated the leader of the most fearsome terrorist army on the planet, Hassan Nasrallah, who, The New York Times described as “beloved,” “a towering figure” and “a powerful orator.” Here in New York, students chanted for an intifada moments after the Jewish community memorialized six civilian hostages murdered by Hamas. At Yale this week, students chanted, “From Gaza to Beirut, all martyrs we salute.” That’s just a few examples from the past week.

No one I know understands the moral urgency of this moment better than Douglas Murray. Douglas isn’t Jewish. He has no Israeli family members, although I know a lot of Israeli families who consider him an adoptive family member. And it is Douglas, more than almost anyone in the world, who has articulated the stakes of this war with the moral clarity it requires.

Douglas’s work as a reporter has taken him to Iraq, North Korea, northern Nigeria, Ukraine, and most recently, of course, to Israel, where he has become a celebrity. When you walk down the streets of Tel Aviv with Douglas Murray, it’s like being with The Beatles. He’s also the best-selling author of seven books, a regular contributor at the New York Post, National Review, and most importantly, at The Free Press, where he writes the beloved Sunday column, Things Worth Remembering. There is just no one I would rather be sitting with as we watch the Middle East and, really, the world transformed before our eyes.

Tim Walz’s Very Bad Answer on Social Media Censorship The would-be vice president is wrong to say that misinformation lacks First Amendment protection. Robby Soave

https://reason.com/2024/10/03/tim-walz-jd-vance-free-speech-censorship-debate-veep/

Toward the end of Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) argued with Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) about former President Donald Trump’s efforts to remain in power following his 2020 election loss. Trump’s conduct was indefensible, and thus Vance did not do a very good job defending it. Rather, he attempted to turn the tables on Walz, accusing the Democratic ticket of disrespecting the most important democratic norm of all: free speech.

“You guys attack us for not believing in democracy,” said Vance. “The most sacred right under United States democracy is the First Amendment.”

Vance went on to accuse Walz of wanting to criminalize misinformation, referencing previous, inaccurate comments the governor made about exceptions to the First Amendment. At that point, Walz actually interrupted Vance, and claimed that the First Amendment does not protect misinformation or “threatening or hate speech.”

In other words, misinformation, threats, and hate speech are all unprotected categories of speech, according to Walz.

But the governor is mostly, very wrong. He’s correct to note that true threats of violence lack First Amendment protection if they are specific enough. Misinformation and hate speech are absolutely protected by the First Amendment, however. And while the former is a relatively new category of expression facing explicit calls for censorship, the latter category—hate speech—has been exhaustively litigated before the Supreme Court.

Talibanization of Bangladesh: Biden-Harris Administration, ‘Human Rights’ Groups Silent by Keya Mukherjee

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20986/talibanization-of-bangladesh-biden-harris

Islamist and jihadist student protesters under [Muhamad] Yunus’s leadership have established an alternative government in the country, reminiscent of Iran’s private militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Dozens of individuals, including Hindus, are falling victim to mob justice, while the perpetrators of these gruesome crimes enjoy impunity.

Notably, Muhammad Yunus is one of the major donors to the Clinton Foundation. According to a cable leaked by Wikileaks, in 2007, Hillary Clinton made frantic efforts and exerted pressure on the Bangladesh Army to appoint her friend Yunus as head of the then military-backed interim government.

Since Yunus enjoys the full support of the Biden-Harris administration, as well as Democratic Party leaders such as Barack Obama, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, not one of the rights groups, including Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, has issued a statement condemning the attacks, rapes and murders in Bangladesh.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an anti-democratic Islamist organization that advocates for the establishment of a caliphate. It is banned in Bangladesh and several other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States.

[W]ill Bangladesh’s descent into radicalism continue unchecked, or will the international community finally confront the growing Talibanization threatening the stability of the region?

Days after Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was forced to flee the country amidst protests led by Jamaat-e-Islami, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Hizb ut-Tahrir, Hefazat-e-Islam, and other Islamist forces, all charges against Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani, the chief of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT)—later rebranded as Ansar Al Islam—were dropped. Rahmani, along with dozens of imprisoned Islamists and jihadists, was released. Shortly after his release, Rahmani appeared in a viral video, calling on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to “free Bengal from Modi’s rule and declare its independence.”

That ‘70s Show

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/10/04/that-70s-show-2/

A widening war in the Middle East that includes a literally more explosive Iran. Russians and Ukranians killing each other for no reason in a conflict in which the former has threatened a nuclear strike. A belligerent China menacing Taiwan. A dockworker strike (possibly resolved?) that could thrash an economy already ravaged by inflation. A migrant stream that is more invasion than immigration. Rising antisemitism.

Are we back in the 1970s, when the world felt unstable and the future appeared grim?

The words typed above would have not been applicable in late 2019, as Donald Trump was about to complete his third year in office. Then came the novel coronavirus, leading to both economic and political disruption that was not necessary.

America and the world left the ugly 1970s behind when Margaret Thatcher was elected British prime minister in 1979 and Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980.

The details are different. In the 1970s Americans were ground down by an energy crisis, then-record postwar unemployment, stagflation, political upheaval, societal turbulence and a war that seemed intractable until it was over and then felt like a discouraging loss. There were legitimate concerns that America was losing its status. The Cold War raged and we feared the Soviets would launch nuclear missiles and start a conflict that might finish off all of us.

Our world today is causing similar frustration, uneasiness, and division. All were dropped on us, like a bomb, by the Biden-Harris administration, which has followed the instruction manual of the Obama regime.

Apparently some – maybe close to half of the country – favor, and likely savor, our decline. Polls keep telling us the presidential election is going to be close.

The other half, or so, believes that perpetuating these conditions, in fact, choosing to make them worse, is insane.

Voters have a choice in one month. They can choose concession, to approve the candidates who want the U.S. to be just another country, nothing special, to be a nation of a few elites and a lower class that’s there to serve them. They can send out another Democratic president on another apology tour, invite Washington to increase its influence over our lives, and give censorship and lawfare enormous boosts.

US: In Danger of Losing Freedom of Speech, Replaced by Politburo by Robert Williams

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20987/us-losing-freedom-of-speech

What [Biden-Harris administration climate envoy John Kerry] does not mention, of course, is who decides what is “disinformation,” or if it is just whatever the current government wants the public to think.

Recently, a video of vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz has also been circulating in which he alleged that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” Some have implied that Walz does not understand the First Amendment, but his statement, arguably, should not be viewed so much as being about what the First Amendment is, which he as Governor of Minnesota obviously knows, but what some political leaders would like it to be.

[Meta founder and CEO Mark] Zuckerberg also noted that he had agreed to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story on his social media platforms after the FBI, treacherously, falsely “warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election.” As it turned out, it was 51 former US intelligence officials who deliberately lied in a 2020 letter that the laptop story was Russian disinformation — lies that signatories such as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, ex-intelligence heads of the CIA and other analysts and officers still refuse to apologize for, with some of them instead referring to their treacherous behavior as “patriotism.”

Evidently, according to some of those in power, government disinformation is good — freedom of speech for the citizenry is bad.

In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration’s Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy demanded that social media stop certain people from publishing their expertise and views.

“We partnered with Google… For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of U.N. resources.” According to Fleming, the partnership came about after U.N. officials were “shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top…. We’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.” — Melissa Fleming, UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, yahoo.com, October 4, 2022.

In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration had attempted to do something similar in the US, when it actually created an Orwellian Ministry of Truth called the “Disinformation Governance Board,” under the Department of Homeland Security. The initiative met with so much backlash that it had to be scrapped just three weeks later.

No one can tell you that some politicians do not have totalitarian ambitions. They have not even tried to hide it.

The New Data on Migrant Crime As of July 2024, ICE has allowed over 662,000 criminal non-citizens, including those convicted or charged with serious crimes like homicide and sex offenses, into the country. By John R. Lott, Jr.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/03/the-new-data-on-migrant-crime/

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

he new data on all the criminal noncitizens coming into the U.S. is shocking.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) checks the background of illegal aliens they have in custody. But, the administration’s letter to Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) shows that as of July 21, 2024, ICE let 435,719 convicted criminals and 226,847 people with pending criminal charges in their home countries into the U.S.

Of those cleared by ICE, 13,099 have convictions for homicide, and another 1,845 were facing criminal charges. Some 9,461 have convictions for sex offenses (not including assault or commercialized sex), and 2,659 face pending charges. The convictions include other crimes such as assault (62,231), robbery (10,031), sexual assault (15,811), weapons offenses (13,423), and dangerous drugs (56,533).

About 7.4 million noncitizens are in the “national docket data,” so 662,776 is 9% of the total, and if one extrapolates the numbers to the homicide rate in this country, it strongly indicates that the government is letting migrants into this country who commit murder at a rate 50% higher than the rest of the U.S. population.

And these numbers clearly underestimate the crime rate of these noncitizens. The noncitizens in the “national docket data” turned themselves in to border agents for processing or were caught. Those who don’t turn themselves in are obviously far more likely to have something to hide from those doing the processing, so-called “gotaways,” who are observed illegally entering the U.S. but not caught or turned back.

These figures coincide with other data from the Arizona prison system and show illegal aliens commit crime at much higher rates than Americans or legal immigrants.

Under the Remain-in-Mexico policy, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) did background checks on immigrants’ cases, including contacting the country that the immigrant is from before they are approved to come to the U.S.

ICE agents cannot access the same databases to check on the immigrants, and they didn’t contact the immigrant’s home country. Plus, the massive inflow of immigrants has overwhelmed the system. The Deputy Director for ICE blames the “enormous workload”  agents face, so they haven’t been able to do even the limited background checks they are doing. There are so many coming in that the government can’t house these immigrants until their backgrounds are properly checked.

ICE processed these criminals as they entered the country, but it didn’t identify them as criminals, so it released them into the country. Now, they are just walking around freely in the United States, and no one knows where they are.

It took over six months for the Biden administration to finally respond to a congressional request for these numbers. The deputy director for ICE “apologized” for the delay.

How To Blow Up the Middle East War in Five Easy Steps The Biden administration’s approach to Iran destabilized the Middle East and led to the October 7 Hamas attack and subsequent regional chaos. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/03/how-to-blow-up-the-middle-east-war-in-five-easy-steps/

When Joe Biden became president, the Middle East was calm. Now it is in the midst of a multifront war.

So quiet was the inheritance from the prior Trump administration that nearly three years later, on September 29, 2023—and just eight days before the October 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis—Biden’s national security advisor Jack Sullivan could still brag that “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.”

So, what exactly happened to the inherited calm that led to the current nonstop chaos of the present?

In a word, theocratic Iran—the nexus of almost all current Middle East terrorism and conflict—was unleashed by Team Biden after having been neutered by the Trump administration.

The Biden-Harris administration adopted a 5-step revisionist protocol that appeased and encouraged Iran and its terrorist surrogates Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

The result was a near guarantee that something akin to the October 7 massacres would inevitably follow—along with a subsequent year of violence that has now engulfed the Middle East.

First, on the 2020 campaign trail, Biden damned long-time American ally Saudi Arabia as a “pariah.”

He overturned the policies of both the previous Obama and Trump administrations by siding with the Iranian-supplied terrorist Houthis in their war on Saudi Arabia.

Biden accused the kingdom of war crimes, warning it would “be held accountable” for its actions in Yemen. Biden-Harris took the murderous Houthis off the U.S. terrorist list.

Almost immediately followed continuous Houthi attacks on international shipping, Israel, and U.S. warships—rendering the Red Sea, the entryway to the Suez Canal, de facto closed to international maritime transit.

Worse still, by the time of the 2022 midterms, when spiraling gas prices threatened Democratic congressional majorities, Biden opportunistically flipped and implored Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to lower world prices before the November election. Appearing obnoxious and then obsequious to an old Middle East ally is a prescription for regional chaos.

‘Redefining masculinity’: Kamala’s hubby, Doug Emhoff, accused of slapping woman so hard at Harvey Weinstein event she ‘spun around’ By Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/redefining_masculinity_kamala_s_hubby_doug_emhoff_

Democrats have been gushing about Kamala Harris’s husband of four years, Doug Emhoff, as a model for American men.

He’s a “wife guy.” He ‘redefines masculinity,’ as MSNBC host Jen Psaki put it. He’s a “dreamboat,” “a hunk,” a “fantasy man” and a “sex symbol,” as Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell put it, unable to control herself.

That was after news broke that Emhoff had gotten his previous family’s nanny pregnant and apparently paid her off to keep quiet about it, the very thing that leftist prosecutors put President Trump in the dock for. For Emhoff, that episode flushed his marriage to his first wife and their two teenage kids down the toilet, freeing him up to go get ‘girlfriends.’

For Democrats, that news made him a male role model, and a lot of them couldn’t stop publicly swooning about it, which is precisely when the gushings started.

Now just in time for ‘Domestic Violence Awareness Month,’ as Breitbart columnist John Nolte noted, Emhoff is back in the news, credibly accused by an anonymous woman lawyer in New York who had been his girlfriend in 2012 of slapping her so hard she “spun around.”

According to the Daily Mail:

Vice President Kamala Harris’s husband assaulted his ex-girlfriend, three friends have told Dailymail.com.

The Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, 59, allegedly struck the woman in the face so hard she spun around, while waiting in a valet line late at night after a May 2012 Cannes Film Festival event in France.

One of her friends told DailyMail.com that the woman called him immediately after the incident, sobbing in her cab, and described the alleged assault.