ELECTIONS, MEDIA Comments turned off

Good News! The New York Times Has Found Its Candidate for 2028! A perfect choice considering the source. by Robert Spencer

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://www.frontpagemag.com/good-news-the-new-york-times-has-found-its-candidate-for-2028/

It’s early yet. A great deal is going to happen before the actual choosing of the 2028 Democratic presidential candidate that will upset any calculations that are being made now. Nevertheless, that isn’t stopping Democrats and non-Democrats alike from speculating as to who will emerge as the nominee of the Party of Enforced Insanity.

Kamala Harris has a big lead in the polls, but no one is particularly thrilled about that, least of all the Democrats who jumped off the cliff of Joy with her in 2024, and so the party top dogs are casting around with increasing desperation for someone to pull them out of the hole they’ve dug themselves into.

On Sunday, the New York Times picked its candidate (at least for now): it rolled out a puff piece over 1,500 words long, complete with flattering photos of the anointed candidate and earnest analysis of why she was the right choice for right-thinking people — that is, for the Times, left-thinking people. The choice of the moment for the New York Times is none other than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Swizzle Stick).

Yes, it’s really true. The New York Times is touting, as a viable presidential candidate, the congresswoman whose lack of basic knowledge of how the U.S. government works and other matters that you’d think even a bartender would know has made her an enduring object of ridicule among patriots. The congresswoman who has inspired ongoing speculation as to whether the “D” after her name stands for “Ditz.” The congresswoman who is so far to the left as to make Chairman Mao look like a capitalist roader. That Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It’s precisely because AOC is so very far to the left that the Grey Lady wants our nation to turn its lonely eyes to her. “For the last decade,” the Times puff piece begins, “Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been running for president, planning a run for president or pushing former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to adopt more progressive policies.” By “progressive,” of course, the Times means statist, Washington-centered, federally controlled and authoritarian.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE Comments turned off

The Passing Signal Psychodrama How does this blunder rank with prior diplomatic and military screw-ups? by Victor Davis Hanson

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-passing-signal-psychodrama/

When we finally learn the full melodrama of the so-called Signal 1-2 day “scandal” of inviting a leftwing, Trump-despising, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg onto a supposedly secure conference list, involving most of the top Trump security officials, lots of questions need asking and answering.

Most importantly, who exactly had Goldberg’s private number, and ostensibly (in error [?]) could have possibly inserted it into the cleared list of participants in the discussions? Why Goldberg, rather than some random person of some 345 million Americans?

So why in the world would any top Trump officials or their staffers ever even have Goldberg’s private contact information—given his quite public record of a) fabricating stories with unnamed sources, and b) suffering from a decade of chronic Trump derangement syndrome?

Did Goldberg know the mechanisms that had prompted and continued his stealthy presence on the secure discussions?

Why did citizen Goldberg not simply come clean on day one that he realized he was mistakenly included in key national security conference communications, to which he did not belong, and thus should be obviously excluded immediately? Why stealthily listen in for eleven some days? Was the idea of informing his hosts of his own improper presence too old-fashioned morality?

Did Goldberg’s publicizing these discreet discussions really affect in any way at all the otherwise completely successful mission to neutralize years of appeased Houthis aggression and begin to end their veritable destruction of Red Sea international maritime commerce?

ANTI-SEMITISM, EDUCATION Comments turned off

Trump Shuts Down Antisemitic Activism at Columbia The times they are a-changin’. by Mark Tapson

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://www.frontpagemag.com/trump-shuts-down-antisemitic-activism-at-columbia/

Columbia University, where student protesters in 1968 stormed and occupied many university buildings, forcing the resignation of the university’s president, is again at the center of the news for campus radicalism.

As FrontPage Mag has reported, Columbia grad student and green card-holding alien Mahmoud Khalil, spokesman for the pro-Hamas student group Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), has become what The New York Times called “the public face of protest against Israel” at Columbia. In addition to participating in a takeover of the library at Columbia affiliate Barnard College, he has referred to the October 7 attacks as a “moral, military, and political victory” and asserted that CUAD is fighting for nothing less than the “total eradication of Western civilization.”

To the shock and outrage of Jew haters on the Left, the Trump administration stepped in where the complicit Biden administration never would have, and arrested this terrorism-fomenting alien with possible deportation to follow.

“This is an individual who organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda, flyers with the logo of Hamas,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at last week’s briefing. “This administration is not going to tolerate individuals having the privilege of studying in our country and then siding with pro-terrorist organizations that have killed Americans.”

And that’s not all. Trump also threatened to cancel $400 million in federal research contracts and grants to Columbia unless the school tightened disciplinary procedures and asserted greater control over academic departments to stem antisemitism at the school, particularly in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Taking Back Childhood from Phones—Finally Americans don’t agree about anything. Except this: Kids belong in the real world. Jonathan Haidt and Zach Rausch

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://www.thefp.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The Anxious Generation was published one year ago today. Our plan was to promote the book in the spring, take the summer off to recharge, then get to work in September on Jon’s next book, a deeply depressing investigation of technology’s effects on democracy.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, the book catalyzed a movement around the world. Most spectacularly, schools, states, and entire countries implemented phone-free school policies, and Australia raised the age for opening social media accounts to 16.

This went well beyond our wildest expectations of what could happen.

The question is why this change is unfolding so quickly—and what this mass movement says about the state of our culture and its prospects for renewal.

Wherever children have smartphones in their pockets and social media on those smartphones, family life turns into an eternal struggle over screen time. That’s been our reality for a while. Then came Covid-19.

For several years, children—deprived of school and every other normal social activity—were confined to their screens. As Covid restrictions faded away, the device addictions they had amplified did not. And that struggle between parents and their kids only intensified.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Charles Fain Lehman Burn a Tesla, Break Democracy Why domestic terrorism is a threat to the American way of life

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://www.city-journal.org/article/burn-vandalize-teslas-domestic-terrorism

Over the past month, anti-Trump agitators have found a new favorite target: Teslas. In response to Elon Musk’s war on bureaucracy, vandals in cities across the country have broken windows, punctured tires, and keyed doors of the popular electric vehicle. Some have even lit the cars on fire.

Various administration officials have labeled the acts “domestic terror.” Musk critics have brushed off these actions as the price of political participation or implied that they are a predictable backlash to his alleged extremism. Indeed, the most ardent defenders see the burning of cars as a proportional response—as one protester’s sign put it, “Burn a Tesla: Save Democracy.”

These efforts to blur the line between protest and terrorism, however, are profoundly undemocratic. The idea that property destruction and violence are legitimate forms of protest has deep roots on the left, but it is inimical to the freedom of expression that makes democratic life possible.

The Tesla bombers are reading from an old playbook. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, American and European anarchists conducted bombing campaigns and other acts of political violence. They were inspired by theorist Peter Kropotkin’s “propaganda of the deed”—the idea that the expressive character of violence could help instigate revolution.

The revolutionary Soviets not only engaged in brutal violence but also actively justified it as a necessary precondition of their revolution. In Terrorism and Communism, for example, Leon Trotsky responds to a liberal critic by insisting that the revolutionary class has an obligation to use violent means to attain its ends.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE Comments turned off

Trump Should (Again) Cancel Open Intelligence Hearings on Worldwide Threats Trump should cancel open worldwide threat hearings, which have become security risks and political spectacles used by Democrats to undermine his administration. By Fred Fleitz

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/28/trump-should-again-cancel-open-intelligence-hearings-on-worldwide-threats/

Like previous years, Democrats used the recent “Signal-gate” affair to turn this week’s unclassified hearings on worldwide threats by the Senate and House intelligence committees into political circuses that did nothing to conduct critical oversight of America’s intelligence agencies.

This is why, as he did in 2019, President Trump should cancel all future open worldwide threat hearings by refusing to allow his intelligence officials to participate in them.

Worldwide threat hearings are held annually and feature top U.S. intelligence officials presenting testimony on the analysis of their agencies on a wide range of security threats facing our nation. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, NSA Director Timothy Haugh, and DIA Director Jeffrey Kruse testified to this year’s worldwide threat hearings.

These hearings are conducted in open, unclassified hearings followed by closed, classified sessions. There has long been concern that the open hearings pose significant and unnecessary security risks because America’s top intelligence officials discuss the current work of their agencies in front of the press. Despite assurances that this testimony is unclassified, it still provides extremely useful information to America’s adversaries on the focus, scope, and emphasis of U.S. intelligence. There is no question that videos of these hearings are closely watched and studied by hostile governments and their intelligence services.

The worldwide threats hearings have also become political spectacles that members of Congress often use to undermine presidential policy and gain face time on TV to promote themselves. Instead of using these hearings to understand dire security threats, committee members sometimes give self-serving speeches, bully witnesses, and press them to contradict presidential policies.

MEDIA Comments turned off

Charles Lipson PBS and NPR should never have received public funding A democratic government should not sponsor news programs

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://thespectator.com/topic/pbs-npr-received-public-funding-hearing/

Congress has been mulling the future of publicly-funded television and radio. Here’s a spoiler alert: that funding is toast.

There is no way a Republican-controlled House and Senate will keep pouring money into networks they believe hate them. They know that hatred is warmly reciprocated.

The debate about partisan bias at PBS and NPR is important – the bias itself is obvious – but that’s not the most important point. What matters most is that democratic governments have no business funding or controlling news channels directed at their own citizens. Those channels should be privately owned and operated. Every single one. They should not only be private: they should be beyond the scope of government censorship and intimidation, the kind the Biden administration exerted on social media giants during Covid.

Why is it important to end public ownership of radio and TV networks? Because that is the best way to encourage robust debate about public policies. In a constitutional democracy like ours, the proper role of a government is to foster that public debate by 

Providing as much information as possible;
Avoiding the suppression of differing views unless they violate the law; and
Letting citizens and their elected representatives control the discourse without government interference, except to enforce the law

To facilitate that debate, public officials have a core responsibility: they should share information that citizens need. They should except only disclosures that would violate personal privacy or harm national security or ongoing law-enforcement operations. No one argues about this exception on privacy grounds. No one says those people abused by Jeffrey Epstein should be harmed again by the FBI releasing their names.

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

Real Election Reform At Last?

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/03/28/real-election-reform-at-last/

Lost amid a flash flood of recent news, President Donald Trump’s executive order to make American elections more fair and less likely to be corrupted by ideology-driven election officials is possibly a game-changer. If Trump’s order withstands the inevitable onslaught of legal and political challenges it will face, it will make a huge difference in future elections.

The ink had barely dried on Trump’s reform than the New York Times, setting the tone for the national media, ran this headline: “Trump Is Trying to Gain More Power Over Elections. Is His Effort Legal?”

So what does Trump’s order, dubbed “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” actually do?

Mainly, it seeks to ensure that those who vote are indeed American citizens – as required by current law, which states ignore or routinely fail to enforce – and that votes received after Election Day don’t get counted, since such votes are highly susceptible to cheating.

To do this, anyone filling out a federal voter registration form will need “documentary proof of citizenship” (for virtually all people, this requires doing nothing, since they are already recorded as U.S. citizens in federal databases).

It will require states to clean up their voter rolls, or lose federal funding for their elections, and encourages sharing of information across databases with the federal government.

It (again) bans foreign contributions to federal, state, or local elections, a law that already exists on the books but is rarely enforced.

It also requires, and this is important, paper ballots, or “a voter-verifiable paper record,” and bans voting systems using barcodes or QR codes, which can be tampered with, for vote data.

And it also reverses a number of Biden executive actions (“Bidenbucks,” anyone?) that, essentially, “turned federal agencies into Democratic voter turnout centers.”

Or, as our buddies over at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity put it: Trump Orders Clean Elections – What a Concept.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Brendan O’Neill Why are there more protests against Hamas in Gaza than Britain?

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-there-more-protests-against-hamas-in-gaza-than-in-britain/

You’re more likely to see a protest against Hamas in Gaza than in London. For brave, spirited agitation against this army of anti-Semites that murders Israelis and oppresses Palestinians, forget Britain’s activist class – they’re too busy frothing about the ‘evil’ Jewish State morning, noon and night. Look instead to the bombed-out Gaza Strip itself, where, finally, fury with Hamas is bubbling over.

If Palestinians vented their Hamas criticism in Britain, they would get an earful from ‘progressives’

Hundreds of Gazans took to their rubble-strewn streets to register their disdain for Hamas. Around a hundred gathered in Beit Lahia in the north of Gaza, brandishing placards saying ‘Stop War’ and ‘Children in Palestine want to live’. Some chanted ‘Hamas out’ and even ‘Hamas terrorists’. The ‘people are tired’, said one attendee. They’re tired of war, so they want the people who started this war – Hamas – to go.

There were protests in Jabalia, also in the north, and in Khan Younis, one of the big cities in the south. Marchers hollered ‘Down with Hamas’. Others made a simpler cry: ‘We want to eat.’ The valiant dissenters may have numbered in the hundreds, rather than the thousands. But their demand that Hamas stop denying them the two essentials of life – food and freedom – should echo around the world. Let’s hope these are the first stirrings of a larger revolt.

It is extraordinary to me that it seems less risky to protest against Hamas in Gaza than in Britain. Yes, these protesters will likely be chided by their ruthless Islamist rulers. One Gazan said he saw Hamas security forces ‘in civilian clothing’ breaking up a protest. But I reckon you’d get a far speedier roughing-up if you were to hold up a sign saying ‘Hamas terrorists’ on the streets of London.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

What’s It All About, Carlson & Rogan? Pondering the Big Platforming of Darryl Cooper by Diana West

Posted By on March 28th, 2025

https://dianawest.substack.com/p/whats-it-all-about-carlson-and-rogan

One of the more interesting things Darryl Cooper revealed while ensconced on the massive Joe Rogan platform last week concerned his appearance on the even more massive Tucker Carlson platform last summer. It was the night before the Carlson interview, Cooper recalled, and he and Carlson were having dinner, talking about the upcoming show. Carlson informed Cooper that he was going to introduce him as America’s greatest living historian. Cooper says that he demurred, having explained to Carlson that he was no historian, did no original research, published nothing; rather, that he was someone who recorded stories about what he had read.

Carlson was having none of that. He was dead set on tagging Cooper with this nonsensically extravagant accolade and told him just to roll with it during the taping the next day. If you go back and watch Tucker’s opening of the Cooper show, you will notice that no blush, no gulp, and barely a muscle move across Cooper’s face as Tucker coats him with this syrupy wash of words — “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” But even that wasn’t enough for Tucker: “I want people to know who you are, and I want you to be widely recognized as the most important historian in the United States today because —”

Yes, yes … why? Tell us why!

“— because I think that you are.”

If Carlson’s motives remain opaque, we are now at least privvy to the calculation, the Barnum-esque decision, to dress up the podcaster as this “greatest,” this “most important” historical expert in the whole of these United States.