Vaunce News

🔒
❌ About FreshRSS
There are new available articles, click to refresh the page.
Yesterday — May 17th 2024Your RSS feeds

PBS Takes Pro-Hamas Line on Israel, Nakba: 'Mass Expulsion' of Palestinians in 1948

Wednesday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour forwarded pro-Hamas historical talking points to paint Palestinians as endless victims of yet another war they launched against Israel, matching up with the network’s consistently slanted coverage of the current Israel-Hamas war. It’s been 76 years since Arab countries attacked the fledgling state of Israel en masse in 1948 to strangle the Jewish homeland in its crib, but were repelled. PBS portrayed the al-Nakba, or “catastrophe,” using the Palestinian rhetoric of “mass expulsion,” with no caveats or actual historical explanation given. Host Geoff Bennett stirred in the anniversary to portray Palestinians as endless victims of unjust Israel aggressions, based on two wars begun by Arab/Islamic entities. The full report: Bennett: In the Middle East, there's been intense fighting across the Gaza Strip, including in the southern city of Rafah. An Israeli government spokesperson said today that Israel will eliminate the four remaining Hamas battalions there, but not necessarily every Hamas fighter. Separately, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential building in the Jabalia refugee camp near Gaza City. Medics say at least three people were killed and 20 others injured. This all comes as Palestinians marked 76 years since the Nakba, or catastrophe, which refers to their mass expulsion from what today is Israel. Some displaced Gazans say the war now is even worse. Faridah Abu Artema, Displaced Palestinian (translation): My mother and father told me about the Nakba, but this here is worse. This is destruction. What we have seen, no one else has seen. Every day is a catastrophe, the catastrophe of hunger, the catastrophe of illness. Every day, we move from place to place. The children are sick. I don't know what to say. Bennett: The U.N. says more than 80 percent of Gaza's population have fled their homes since the start of the war. Many have relocated more than once. The historical reality: In 1948 Britain partitioned the Palestinian Mandate, cleaving out a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Jews accepting statehood but the Arabs refusing to live alongside the Jews in the region. Several Arab countries then launched a failed war on Israel they day it declared independence. PBS managed to out-do the slanted description from Wednesday’s CBS Evening News. These pro-Hamas talking points were brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular.

New York Times Admits 'MSNBC's Leftward Tilt,' But Presents NBC News Shows as Neutral!

The New York Times devoted nearly 3,000 words by writer-at-large Jim Rutenberg and media reporter Michael Grynbaum to a topic rarely acknowledged: Media bias from the left, in “How MSNBC’s Leftward Tilt Delivers Ratings, and Complications.” (Right-leaning Fox News, by contrast, is a constant target of the paper’s hostility.) But what does it say about the paper’s own tilt when its reporters constantly appear on the left-wing airwaves of MSNBC? The story began: MSNBC placed a big bet on becoming comfort TV for liberals. Then it doubled down. Time slots on the cable network once devoted to news programming are now occupied by Trump-bashing opinion hosts. The channel has become a landing spot for high-profile alumni of President Biden’s administration like Jen Psaki, who went from hosting White House press briefings to hosting her own show. On Super Tuesday, when producers aired a portion of a live speech by former President Donald J. Trump, Rachel Maddow chastised her bosses on the air. The moves have been a hit with viewers. MSNBC has leapfrogged past its erstwhile rival CNN in the ratings and has seen viewership rise over the past year, securing second place in cable news behind the perennial leader, Fox News. The unintentionally funny part is when NBC News suggested MSNBC was ruining it branding as "straight news." Who believes that any more?  But MSNBC’s success has had unintended consequences for its parent company, NBC, an original Big Three broadcaster that still strives to appeal to a mass American audience. NBC’s traditional political journalists have cycled between rancor and resignation that the cable network’s partisanship — a regular target of Mr. Trump — will color perceptions of their straight news reporting.  NBC faced "tensions" in an election year, on "how to maintain trust and present neutral, fact-based reporting in a fractionalized era when partisanship carries vast financial and cultural rewards." The report talked about how they tried to take some of the hyperpartisan tone out in the last decade by moving Al Sharpton to weekends, bringing Greta Van Susteren over from Fox, and creating a daily version of Meet the Press. But then Donald Trump showed up, and even those cosmetic shifts were scuttled: Then, Mr. Trump’s ascent shocked the Democratic base and spiked viewership of Ms. Maddow and other left-leaning hosts, whose programs became a kind of televised safe space. MSNBC’s ratings surged. The story centered on NBC News boss Cesar Conde and how he's tried to bring Republican voices on NBC, including the brief Ronna McDaniel Debacle, and Kristen Welker's incredibly combative interview with Donald Trump on her debut at Meet the Press host. The Left has a fit any time NBC interviews Republicans, and so the interviewers end up sounding fiercely oppositional.  At least, Rutenberg and Grynbaum acknowledged that MSNBC was “tightly embracing its partisan direction” by hiring Biden press secretary Jen Psaki and another Biden aide, Symone Sanders: “It was the kind of revolving-door hiring that liberal pundits used to criticize when it happened with Fox News and the Trump administration.” Left out of the long story were any mentions of the myriad Times reporters (including authors Rutenberg and Grynbaum themselves) that have appeared as guest talent on the "comfort food for liberals" channel during the Trump era and beyond, presumably contributing to what the Times itself calls the network’s “leftward tilt.” some with contributor contracts. A partial list of Times journalists who’ve appeared on MSNBC in recent years would include Susan Craig, Nicholas Kristof, Nicholas Confessore, Katie Benner, Jeremy Peters, Annie Karni, Carl Hulse, Michael Schmidt, Nicholas Confessore, Jeremy Peters, Mike Isaac, Megan Twohey, as well as the story’s authors Jim Rutenberg and Michael Grynbaum (the article contained no disclosure of their previous MSNBC appearances). Appearances by Times scribes are much thinner on right-leaning Fox News, though ex-NYT staffer Nellie Bowles did appear on America’s Newsroom on Wednesday to promote her eyebrow-raising criticism of wokeness, including some bizarre anecdotes from her days at the Times.
Before yesterdayYour RSS feeds

PBS Drools Over Dem Success on Abortion Issue: 'Could You Ever Vote Republican Again?'

The PBS NewsHour on Monday attempted to bolster the struggling Biden re-election campaign by focusing on a purported Democratic issue, abortion -- or as PBS labels it, “reproductive health care” -- in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in all 50 states. It’s a partisan tactic they’ve tried several times before both on weekdays and the weekend edition. Monday’s story featured the program’s most biased reporter, political correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez, complete with labeling bias. Besides the euphemistic references to “reproductive health care” and the “right to choose” a "procedure," the reporter used the term "conservative" twice, but no liberal or even “progressive” ones. Amna Nawaz: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Republicans have banned abortion in 14 states and restricted it in more. But, when given the chance, voters have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to protect access to the procedure. This election year, abortion will again be a defining issue. Laura Barron-Lopez reports from the battleground of Michigan, where Democrats plan to keep reproductive health care front and center. Annie Sharkus, Michigan Voter [to her child]: You got it? Great job. Laura Barron-Lopez: Raised in a deeply religious and conservative household, Annie Sharkus stayed out of politics, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Sharkus: I gathered signatures. We organized, like, a rally. I gave a speech at one, started going to, like, coffee hours and things like that with our local politicians, just getting more involved, because I didn't want my kids to look back at this point in time and say, like, OK, well, what did you do, and I couldn't tell them that I did nothing. Sharkus told PBS she doesn’t “specifically identify as Democrat or Republican,” but if you can't ever imagine voting for Republicans again, you sound like a Democrat.  Barron-Lopez: Do you think that you could ever vote Republican again? Sharkus: I don't think that I would with the current direction that the Republican Party is going. I am so far from identifying with what they want to happen that I don't see it ever happening. Barron-Lopez: Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin wants to keep women like Annie squarely in the Democratic column. Her message to voters, abortion will always be on the ballot. ...When voters turned out for abortion rights in Michigan in 2022, it was a victory for Democrats. In 2024, they're trying to replicate that success here and in states across the country. Slotkin, now running for the U.S. Senate, is one of many down-ballot Democratic candidates trying to maintain urgency. Shanay Watson-Whittaker of Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) combined belief in God with the “right to choose” abortion. Slotkin has been endorsed by this abortion lobbying group, and boasts a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record. But neither Slotkin nor the abortion lobby are apparently "liberal" or "leftist." Even the conservative in the story sounded liberal on the issue, not wanting to make it a federal issue. Barron-Lopez: Nolan Finley is the conservative opinion editor at The Detroit News. What exactly would you like to see either the presidential nominee, Donald Trump, lay out or other Republicans across the board in terms of the specific policy towards abortion? When asked by the reporter to pin down a time frame during the pregnancy, Finley was amenable to a ban after 20 weeks, far past the first trimester of pregnancy. Finley: Fifteen, maybe twenty, wherever -- somewhere in that range where people can settle and say, this is fair. This allows people time to make their decision…. There were a couple of a Trump soundbites as well, so it wasn't completely one-sided. After soundbites from two other pro-abortion voters, Barron-Lopez huddled up again with Rep. Slotkin and gave her the last word, sounding the “wakeup call for Democrats” against the party’s previous “complacency” on the issue. This pro-abortion, pro-Democratic segment was brought to you in part by Cunard. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/13/24 7:24:01 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Republicans have banned abortion in 14 states and restricted it in more. But, when given the chance, voters have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to protect access to the procedure. This election year, abortion will again be a defining issue. Laura Barron-Lopez reports from the battleground of Michigan, where Democrats plan to keep reproductive health care front and center. Annie Sharkus, Michigan Voter: You got it? Great job. Laura Barron-Lopez: Raised in a deeply religious and conservative household, Annie Sharkus stayed out of politics, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Annie Sharkus: I gathered signatures. We organized, like, a rally. I gave a speech at one, started going to, like, coffee hours and things like that with our local politicians, just getting more involved, because I didn't want my kids to look back at this point in time and say, like, OK, well, what did you do, and I couldn't tell them that I did nothing. Laura Barron-Lopez: Now abortion access is protected in Michigan, but voters are still thinking about it. Even though it's not on the ballot in Michigan this time around, do you still think that it is a top issue for a lot of voters? Annie Sharkus: Even if we're not worried about it in our state in particular, yes, it's definitely something that people are using to gauge how they're voting. Laura Barron-Lopez: The stay-at-home mom of two, who lives in the suburbs of Detroit, isn't excited to vote for Joe Biden. But Annie thinks he will ultimately make access to abortion safer. Annie Sharkus: With voting for Joe Biden, it is hard, because I'm not a single-issue voter. I don't specifically identify as Democrat or Republican. While I will vote for him, I wish that there was another option. Laura Barron-Lopez: Do you think that you could ever vote Republican again? Annie Sharkus: I don't think that I would with the current direction that the Republican Party is going. I am so far from identifying with what they want to happen that I don't see it ever happening. Laura Barron-Lopez: Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin wants to keep women like Annie squarely in the Democratic column. Her message to voters, abortion will always be on the ballot. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI): The other side has made this a central issue for them for 50 years. Their actions speak louder than words. And their actions are currently, like, as we speak, trying to threaten a woman's right to choose, and people see that. Laura Barron-Lopez: When voters turned out for abortion rights in Michigan in 2022, it was a victory for Democrats. In 2024, they're trying to replicate that success here and in states across the country. Slotkin, now running for the U.S. Senate, is one of many downballot Democratic candidates trying to maintain urgency. Rep. Elissa Slotkin: We have to understand that most people see this as a kitchen table issue. A decision about whether to have a child or not is the most profound kitchen table issue that we have. It's not separate from inflation. It's not separate from the economy. It's like your whole family trajectory and whether you are going to be able to afford that life. Laura Barron-Lopez: What happened in Michigan became a blueprint for how to organize around abortion effectively. Ohio followed suit in 2023. Now the right to an abortion will be on the ballot this November in three states, including Florida, which currently bans any kind of termination after six weeks of pregnancy. And similar initiatives could end up on the ballot in up to nine other states this year, including the battlegrounds of Arizona and Nevada. Shanay Watson-Whittaker, Reproductive Freedom for All: What happened in 2022 wasn't an anomaly. Laura Barron-Lopez: Back in Michigan, state activists like Shanay Watson-Whittaker, who works for the nonprofit Reproductive Freedom for All, were instrumental in mobilizing voters in 2022. Two years later, she's sharing that strategy. Shanay Watson-Whittaker: Michigan, for a lot of folks, has been like a North Star. We specifically and intentionally had conversations with Black clergy, with clergy from other denominations, sat them down and talked about reproductive freedom. What people forget are that clergy are humans. They have experienced loss — miscarriage loss. They have had abortions. We believe in God and we believe in Jesus. And,at the same time, we believe that government should not interfere with a woman's right to choose. Laura Barron-Lopez: Meanwhile, Republicans who cheered the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe are struggling to find their footing. In March, the presumptive GOP nominee, Donald Trump, spoke favorably of a national 15-week abortion ban. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: People are really — even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be — 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at. Laura Barron-Lopez: Then, last month, he flip-flopped, saying states could decide for themselves. Donald Trump: The states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state. Laura Barron-Lopez: Still, some top Republicans in Congress support the national 15-week ban and measures that would make it a crime to transport minors across state lines for an abortion without parental consent. Donald Trump: Thank you, Wisconsin. Laura Barron-Lopez: More recently, Trump told "TIME" magazine he'd allow states to both monitor pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. Nolan Finley, Opinion Editor, The Detroit News: Republicans keep handing Democrats this issue every election cycle. It never seems to be out of the political picture. Laura Barron-Lopez: Nolan Finley is the conservative opinion editor at The Detroit News. What exactly would you like to see either the presidential nominee, Donald Trump, lay out or other Republicans across the board in terms of the specific policy towards abortion? Nolan Finley: Well, I would like them to stay away from a federal policy. I think that's what's the point of the Dobbs ruling. But I think the Nikki Haley solution of let's all sit down and find out where we can agree in terms of a point in the pregnancy where were going to say you have had time to make your choice. Laura Barron-Lopez: Whether it's six, 15 weeks? Nolan Finley: Fifteen, maybe 20, wherever — somewhere in that range where people can settle and say, this is fair. This allows people time to make their decision. This allows you to deal with rape and incest, et cetera, but it also prevents something I think most people would be opposed to, and that is abortion in the last month or so of pregnancy. Laura Barron-Lopez: For voters we spoke to in Lansing, they're heeding calls that abortion is an issue to turn out for in November. Matt Allswede, Michigan Voter: Michigan voters, they recognize that this is an issue that goes beyond the borders of the state of Michigan. Susan Anderson, Michigan Voter: I think we have all found out that we cannot rest on our laurels, that we must come out and vote for the right people. Laura Barron-Lopez: Ultimately, Roe was a wakeup call for Democrats like Congresswoman Slotkin, one that she says exposed their party's complacency. Rep. Elissa Slotkin: I think we let ourselves get comfortable, that we didn't believe the other side when they said, we're coming for Roe v. Wade and we want to overturn it. We saw all that happening, but we just had a failure of imagination. What I want to do is say publicly to the whole country that we have a 10-year plan to get back to a federal right to an abortion. We're not going to let it just be a state issue. We're actually going to organize and mobilize to do the thing we didn't do for 50 years, which is pass a piece of federal legislation to codify Roe. Laura Barron-Lopez: The results in November could determine if Slotkin's plans takes 10 years or another 50. For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez in Michigan.      

New York Times Roots for Pro-Hamas Competition: 'Al Jazeera Finds Fans On Campus'

The radical leftists on campus don't trust newspaper like The New York Times for their coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, but the Times doesn't mind. On the front of Monday's business section, they offered a laudatory look at the pro-Hamas, Qatar-funded network Al Jazeera, under “Why Al Jazeera is the Go To News Source for Student Protesters.” Santul Nerkar, a young journalist at the paper, never used terms like "leftist" or "radical" or even "progressive." They're just "pro-Palestinian." The print headline: “Al Jazeera Finds Fans On Campus.” He began: Nick Wilson has closely followed news on the war in Gaza since October. But Mr. Wilson, a Cornell student, is picky when it comes to his media diet: As a pro-Palestinian activist, he doesn’t trust major American outlets’ reporting on Israel’s campaign in Gaza. When conservatives say they don’t trust the mainstream press to cover Republicans fairly, they’re often smeared as ignorant or racist or McCarthyite. (The Times certainly doesn't respect the right-leaning New York Post.) Yet when leftists readers spout distrust, journalists from those same outlets under attack sound supportive. Strange how that works. Instead, he turns to publications less familiar to some American audiences, like the Arab news network Al Jazeera. “Al Jazeera is the site that I go to to get an account of events that I think will be reliable,” he said. Nerkar listed a few freak-show outlets, including Jewish Currents, which spouts about “Israel war crimes and “genocide,” as reliable reportorial options. Many student protesters said in recent interviews that they were seeking on-the-ground coverage of the war in Gaza, and often, a staunchly pro-Palestinian perspective -- and they are turning to alternative media for it. There’s a range of options: Jewish Currents, The Intercept, Mondoweiss and even independent Palestinian journalists on social media, as they seek information about what is happening in Gaza. .... Israel’s recent ban on the local operations of Al Jazeera has only elevated the network’s status among many student protesters. They prize coverage from reporters on the ground, and Al Jazeera has a more extensive operation in Gaza than any other publication. Students also noted the sacrifices it has made to tell the story there. Two Al Jazeera journalists have died since the start of the war. What didn’t make it into this report: Al-Jazeera’s pro-terrorist coverage like throwing a “birthday party” with cake and fireworks in 2008, to celebrate the release of a Lebanese terrorist who killed four in Israel, including a four-year-old girl. Al Jazeera reporters Ismail Abu Omar and Mohamed Washah were caught moonlighting as Hamas commanders. In February, The Times of Israel reported that "the IDF revealed a trove of images" that showed Washah in a Hamas uniform training fighters how to shoot rocket-propelled grenades, build warheads, and operate drones armed with an RPG. Nerkar oddly described Hamas as "armed resistance," not as engaged in the slaughter of civilians and hostage-taking. Critics say its coverage veers into support of the armed resistance to Israel. The Israeli government, which has accused Al Jazeera of acting as a “mouthpiece” for Hamas, last Sunday seized its broadcast equipment and shut down its operations in the country for at least 45 days. This is apparently Al Jazeera’s idea of balance: Terrorist videos as well as Israeli government news conferences. Al Jazeera called the government’s accusation “baseless” in a statement, adding that it has broadcast every news conference held by the Israeli cabinet and representatives for the Israel Defense Forces, in addition to videos from Hamas. …. The protesters rattle off a list of mainstream American publications as having coverage they find objectionable, including CNN, The Atlantic, the BBC and The New York Times, among many others. Nerkar approached the truth when he quoted scholar Hussein Ibish that the show’s “distinctly anti-American bent” had found a new fanbase on American college campuses: “There’s a third-worldist, anti-imperial point of view, and that’s also the view that many college kids have adopted.” Can’t disagree with that.

NPR Loves Far-Left Tik-Tok Effort to Punish Celebrities For SILENCE on Gaza

Chloe Veltman, a correspondent on National Public Radio’s “Culture Desk” who last year celebrated the “Nation's first 'drag laureate,'" is still guarding the far-left ramparts of U.S. culture for NPR with Saturday’s “The Met Gala has fueled backlash against stars who are silent about the Gaza conflict.” She demonstrated, as if any more evidence was needed, the tax-supported network’s rigid adherence to a left-wing worldview that offends at least half its intended audience. Even as other outlets are trying to rein in the woke left and open public debate back up with more tolerance of opposing views, Veltman went all-in in support of anti-Israel (i.e. pro-Hamas) social media-fueled cancel culture targeting the outlandish Met Gala in NYC. A collective effort on TikTok and other social media platforms to push celebrities to speak publicly about the conflict in Gaza went into overdrive this week after The Met Gala. Creators on TikTok have earned millions of views for videos they've made linked to hashtags like #celebrityblocklist, #letthemeatcake and #blockout. Many of these posts list the names of actors, musicians and other high-profile figures whom the video creators say had not yet spoken out against Israel's attacks on the region -- or hadn't spoken out sufficiently -- and therefore should be blocked. And there's been a special push in recent days to name those who attended the opulent, star-studded annual Met Gala on Monday. They're not punishing celebrities speaking out for Israel. They're for punishing celebrities who say nothing about Israel or Gaza. This doesn’t sound sinister at all: "I made a Google Doc of every celebrity that attended the Met Gala, and now I'm going through and writing if they've been silent, or if they've been using their platform to speak up about the genocide in Gaza," said one TikTok user in a video displaying a long list of celebrity names against a black background with the word "SILENT" in red next to some, including Zendaya, Nicki Minaj, Keith Urban and Andrew Scott…. (There’s an unrelated “Zionist authors” version of this sort of hate-list as well.) Veltman the NPR culture journalist sounded precisely like Veltman the far-left activist: Calls on social media to boycott celebrity silences have been on a slow burn for months. But the fact the New York event, with its unchecked display of privilege and wealth, took place at around the same time as thousands of Palestinians were being forced to flee Rafah at less than 24 hours notice as Israeli troops took control of the Gaza territory's border crossing with Egypt, fanned the glowing embers into full-on flames. …. The rationale behind the calls on social media to block celebrities, thereby negatively impacting their advertising revenue, is to put pressure on them to use their massive influence to try to stop the violence in Gaza. The journalist concluded her taxpayer-supported segment celebrating the destructive, ultra-online temper tantrums for somehow helping “Gaza” (though calling for Israel to stop its war on Hamas would benefit the terrorists who run Gaza). And even if the many, much-viewed videos aimed at canceling celebrities don't help to bring about a change for the people of Gaza, there's at least an emotional reward for those doing the canceling. "It does provide some sense of agency," said the University of Michigan's Collins. "A sense that I've done something to influence other people to do something that perhaps maybe might make a difference. Because in the minds of those folks, it's better than doing nothing."

PBS Slights Non-Protester Rights on Campus: 'No Right to...Most Convenient Path to Library'

Tuesday’s PBS NewsHour actually brought on a critic of the pro-Hamas protesters currently infesting college campus quads across the country, which so far have gotten a nearly free ride from scrutiny (there’s certainly been little scrutiny of the pro-Biden groups funding them). New York Times columnist David French is certainly no hard-core conservative -- he's pretty close to PBS regular David Brooks -- but his opinion that the “camping” protesters posed a threat to other students and should be removed was a strong counterpoint to PBS’s knee-jerk support of the agitators and its exquisite sensitivity to the radicals’ demands. That was too much for NewsHour reporter and interviewee Lisa Desjardins, who found bizarre ways to excuse the mobs, which have often targeted Jewish students in disgusting ways. She introduced French as someone "who says colleges are not doing enough to crack down" on protests. Journalists have been terrible at distinguishing peaceful protests and occupying public or private spaces.  Desjardins suggested to French he's weak on injustice:  "Protesters do say they see an injustice overseas and America tied to that injustice some — they say, through its support of Israel. They see this as a life-and-death cause. They're talking about nothing less than starvation, violent deaths of civilians. What should protesters be doing when they see injustice like that, in your view?" FRENCH: Well, they should absolutely lift up their voices in protest, and the schools should absolutely provide an avenue and a place for people to protest. They can engage in their own boycotts. They can engage in all kinds of constitutionally protected activities to lift up this issue. But they do not have the ability, under American law, to violate the rights of others because they think it's for a good cause. That is not the way this works. You cannot — my First Amendment rights and my rights to study, to sleep, to receive the benefit of an education do not depend on whether or not another group of students consider that a cause is important enough to disrupt my rights. That's not how this works. Desjardins lectured that non-protesting students shouldn't complain about little inconveniences: "As you know, there's not the same kind of right to free speech on private college campuses as there is on public, but many embrace that ideal. But I also don't know that there is an espoused right to sleep or right to have the most convenient path to the library….the Founders themselves espoused rebellion, not just their own.” Jew checkpoints on campus aren’t exactly the same thing as a “convenient path to the library." Bonus coverage: In the previous segment, NewsHour congressional reporter Laura Barron-Lopez claimed Donald Trump had “demonized Palestinian refugees” at a campaign rally. What awful thing did Trump say? Her clip: Donald Trump: Your towns and villages will now be accepting people from Gaza, lots of people from Gaza, because, under chain migration, they can bring everybody they ever touched. Under no circumstances should we bring thousands of refugees from Hamas-controlled terrorist epicenters like Gaza to America. We just can't do it. This segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/7/24 7:32:27 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Protests against the war in Gaza continue on a number of campuses across the country. As part of our ongoing coverage, Lisa Desjardins has a conversation tonight about the wave of crackdowns at some colleges and universities and how they are being justified. Lisa Desjardins: Amna, the past day shows more action and reaction. Police made dozens of arrests as they broke up an encampment at the University of California, San Diego. At the University of Chicago, police disbanded another encampment. But, at MIT, pro-Palestinian protesters refused to move, despite the threat of academic suspension. Today, in his own speech recognizing Holocaust Remembrance Day, House Speaker Mike Johnson charged that many schools are hostile places for Jewish people and have — quote — "succumbed to an antisemitic virus." Last night, we looked at the idea that colleges have themselves fomented these protests. Our guest tonight says colleges are not doing enough to crack down on them. David French is an opinion columnist for The New York Times. And, David, what do you think universities are getting wrong here? David French, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times: Yes, what they're getting wrong is, they're ignoring their own reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that should allow all parties to have equal access to campus facilities. This is something that universities who have tens of thousands of students often, but not — they don't have the public spaces big enough to encompass everybody who might want to engage in free expression. So, when you have a time, place and manner restriction, what that does is, it says everyone's going to have equal access to the campus, and also that place and manner restriction means that people can't disrupt the actual educational process of the school. And so what's happening is that many of these protests, particularly encampments, are occupying space on the quad. They're, by necessity, excluding others who might want to use it. And then, with the nature of the protests, they're interfering with the students' ability to study, to learn, sometimes even to sleep. And some of these Jewish students are finding that their access to campus is limited by the protests as well. And so by blowing through these time, place and manner restrictions, the protesters are actually violating the rights of other students. And in that circumstance, the university has to step in. Lisa Desjardins: Some of these protests, as you say, have raised a lot of concerns, but so has the idea of calling in police. Police have more power than students. How do you see the idea that perhaps how do you make sure that a get-tough approach doesn't go too far? David French: Well, the bottom line is that these universities have a legal obligation to protect the rights of all of the students and also to protect the Jewish students on campus from antisemitic harassment. So, when these encampments violate the rights of others and they refuse to leave, then, sometimes, there's no option but to bring in law enforcement. Now, that doesn't mean that law enforcement can do whatever it wants. It should be disciplined. It should be restrained in its use of force. But when a group of students is violating the rights of other students, there are legal obligations that attach to the university to defend the rights of others. And so if these students won't move, the university is, in many ways, their hands are tied, because they cannot continue to consent to the violation of other students' rights. Lisa Desjardins: Let me get at this idea of what is civil disobedience and what is actually problematic, unlawful conduct, as you're saying. For example, if there was a sit-in at a diner… David French: Right. Lisa Desjardins: … and those conducting the sit-in were preventing the business from conducting its own business and preventing other patrons from entering, is that something that you see in the same kind of light? And is it civil disobedience or not? David French: Well, when we saw the civil rights movement, what you saw was protesters violating unjust laws, like prohibiting Black Americans from eating in the same diners as white Americans. That's violating an unjust law and then accepting the consequences. So you accept the consequences of your legal violation, which upholds the rule of law. But that's the key. There's an unjust law that you violate, and then you accept the consequences, and you do it all peacefully. Here, in many ways, what they're doing is, they're violating just laws. In other words, they're actually in violation of laws that protect the rights of others, and then they're refusing to accept the consequences. They're covering their faces to avoid detection. They're often in outright defiance of the police when the police try to move them. And that's when you're moving from civil disobedience, which is honorable and respects the rule of law, to outright lawlessness, where they're violating just laws and refusing to accept the consequences. Lisa Desjardins: Protesters do say they see an injustice overseas and America tied to that injustice some — they say, through its support of Israel. They see this as a life-and-death cause. They're talking about nothing less than starvation, violent deaths of civilians. What should protesters be doing when they see injustice like that, in your view? David French: Well, they should absolutely lift up their voices in protest, and the schools should absolutely provide an avenue and a place for people to protest. They can engage in their own boycotts. They can engage in all kinds of constitutionally protected activities to lift up this issue. But they do not have the ability, under American law, to violate the rights of others because they think it's for a good cause. That is not the way this works. You cannot — my First Amendment rights and my rights to study, to sleep, to receive the benefit of an education do not depend on whether or not another group of students consider that a cause is important enough to disrupt my rights. That's not how this works. Students have ample opportunity to express their views, and they also have opportunity to engage in true, genuine, peaceful civil disobedience. But what we're seeing on many campuses, not all, but many campuses is something an order of magnitude beyond that. Lisa Desjardins: As you know, there's not the same kind of right to free speech on private college campuses as there is on public, but many embrace that ideal. But I also don't know that there is an espoused right to sleep or right to have the most convenient path to the library. All of this is sort of weighing with something you pay attention to, our founders. You're an originalist. You pay attention to their intention here. The founders themselves espoused rebellion, not just their own. How do you weigh that idea of this sort of American tension between, yes, speak up, even do rebellious acts for something you believe in, but also perhaps follow the law? David French: In many of these campuses, if you're talking about people in their own dorms, in the comfort of their own dorms, there is a right to some peace and safety and security here. And it is in fact violation of federal law, anti-harassment law, in particular, when, in particular, Jewish students can't have full access to campus, can't have — can't sleep, can't rest. These things actually violate federal law when it rises to that level. And in that circumstances, these universities have to do something to protect the rights of other students. The right to rebellion, I would say that that was seriously diminished after the loss in the Civil War by the Confederacy. I don't think there's any real concept of a right to rebellion. In this circumstance, if you have an actual rebellion against authority on campus, where people move beyond these reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, they're violating the rights of others. And I'm sorry, the law protects all of us. It doesn't just protect a small cohort of people who decide to occupy part of a campus. Lisa Desjardins: David French, part of a national conversation here, we appreciate your time.

Desperate NY Times: Valid Soros Criticism Equals 'Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes'

As pro-Hamas campus protesters scream end-of-Israel slogans on college campuses and President Biden cuts off weapons to Israel, the New York Times put its investigative journalism to a very political task, neutralizing any attempt by Republicans to campaign against antisemitism:  How Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes Despite Declaring Support for Israel Prominent Republicans have seized on campus protests to assail what they say is antisemitism on the left. But for years they have mainstreamed anti-Jewish rhetoric. The Times spent some 3,500 words and used Artificial Intelligence and four staffers (Karen Yourish, Danielle Ivory, Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, and Alex Lemonides) to try to paint the GOP as the true anti-semitic party. Their methodology?  The Times used a variety of methods to examine the extent to which federal politicians have used language promoting antisemitic tropes. Reporters examined official press releases, congressional newsletters and posts on X (formerly Twitter) of every person who served in Congress over the past 10 years that contained the words “Soros,” “globalist” or “globalism” — terms widely accepted by multiple historians and experts on antisemitism as “dog whistles” that refer to Jews. The paper’s ideologically motivated thesis rests heavily on the false assumption being that criticism of left-wing ideological financier George Soros is by definition anti-Semitic. Some “seizing” occurred on the “largely peaceful” (really?) campus protests, which the Times severely underplayed. Amid the widening protests and the unease, if not fear, among many Jews, Republicans have sought to seize the political advantage by portraying themselves as the true protectors of Israel and Jews under assault from the progressive left. While largely peaceful, the campus protests over Israel’s bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands have been loud and disruptive and have at times taken on a sharpened edge. Jewish students have been shouted at to return to Poland, where Nazis killed three million Jews during the Holocaust. There are chants and signs in support of Hamas, whose attack on Israel sparked the current war. A leader of the Columbia protests declared in a video that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Debate rages over the extent to which the protests on the political left constitute coded or even direct attacks on Jews. But far less attention has been paid to a trend on the right: For all of their rhetoric of the moment, increasingly through the Trump era many Republicans have helped inject into the mainstream thinly veiled anti-Jewish messages with deep historical roots. The conspiracy theory taking on fresh currency is one that dates back hundreds of years and has perennially bubbled into view: that a shady cabal of wealthy Jews secretly controls events and institutions contrary to the national interest of whatever country it is operating in. The Times will not tolerate any criticism of leftist financier George Soros. The current formulation of the trope taps into the populist loathing of an elite “ruling class.” “Globalists” or “globalist elites” are blamed for everything from Black Lives Matter to the influx of migrants across the southern border, often described as a plot to replace native-born Americans with foreigners who will vote for Democrats. The favored personification of the globalist enemy is George Soros, the 93-year-old Hungarian American Jewish financier and Holocaust survivor who has spent billions in support of liberal causes and democratic institutions. The reporters extrapolated wildly to make standard political rhetoric “hate-filled speech of the extreme right.” This language is hardly new -- Mr. Soros became a boogeyman of the American far right long before the ascendancy of Mr. Trump. And the elected officials now invoking him or the globalists rarely, if ever, directly mention Jews or blame them outright. Some of them may not immediately understand the antisemitic resonance of the meme, and in some cases its use may simply be reflexive political rhetoric. But its rising ubiquity reflects the breaking down of old guardrails on all types of degrading speech, and the cross-pollination with the raw, sometimes hate-filled speech of the extreme right, in a party under the sway of the norm-defying former, and perhaps future, president. The reporters spared a few paragraphs of their diatribe to note left-wing anti-Semitism, referencing the campus protests and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) “for her statements after the Hamas attack, including ‘from the river to the sea.’” The Times repeated the same snotty “In fact…” formulation for the pro-Hamas protests. An “indirect” connection is still a connection, no matter how often the press throw around “anti-Semitism” in Soros’s defense. In fact, Mr. Soros’s connection to the protests is indirect: His foundation has donated to groups that have supported pro-Palestinian efforts, including recent protests, according to its financial records….

PBS NewsHour: Trump's Wild Gestapo Remarks vs. Biden Faces 'Jaded Electorate'

The “Politics Monday” segment of the PBS NewsHour, as hosted by substitute anchor William Brangham, was spicier than usual. Brangham found “controversy” on Trump’s side (no surprise there) but President Biden eluded blame for his poor polling -- blame a “jaded electorate” instead. Brangham: It's already shaping up to be a busy political week, as Republicans navigate the fallout from controversial remarks made by former President Trump at a fund-raiser over the weekend. Meanwhile, six months out from the election, President Biden continues to deal with a jaded electorate, as he wrestles with the political ramifications of the war in Gaza. He was joined by the usual Monday political duo, Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Brangham huffed: Six months out, as I just mentioned, from this election, this weekend, Donald Trump was at this campaign event and he made these comments where he basically equated the Biden White House with the Nazis, saying that they are running a -- quote – ‘Gestapo administration.’ Now, this is, obviously, Amy, the -- just the latest in a long history of Trump saying things like this. But one of his fellow Republicans, one who's vying to be the number two on the Trump ticket, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, came out and defended Donald Trump. Here's what he had to say. Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND): The majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. In sarcasm mode, Brangham interjected his own thought. "So feeling like a trial is unfair is equivalent to being part of the Nazi secret police."  As if Democrats haven’t been calling Trump or all the other Republican presidential candidates some form of “fascist” for time immemorial. Walter lamented how Republicans must suck up to Trump to be his vice presidential candidate, as if that’s a novelty. Kamala Harris didn't have to demonstrate loyalty? Walter: What we are seeing as well, as you pointed out, Doug Burgum reportedly on the short list to be a vice-presidential candidate, is that loyalty to Donald Trump is always important. I think, in a Trump 2.0, it will be very, very top priority in picking who is around him. And so, when we talk about, what are the constraints or what are the restraints or the guardrails around a Trump presidency for things that he says or does, who's going to maybe rein him in, stand up and say no in the way that the vice president, Mike Pence, did, these folks are not saying that they would like to… Brangham: They're saying: I won't do that. Don't worry, boss. NPR’s Keith explained a sort of running mate beauty contest in Palm Beach. She mocked it as comparable to the soapy reality show The Bachelor: Tamara Keith: They brought all of these candidates, potential vice-presidential picks in, and then many of them went out on the Sunday shows. And what they had to do was show their loyalty to former President Trump. As Amy said, he does not want another vice president who will be loyal to him only up until when it matters and when the Constitution is on the line. He wants someone who will go out there and prove and tie themselves in knots, like Senator Tim Scott did on Meet the Press, just tie themselves in knots to stick with the reality that is Trump's reality, even if it is not true. Then Brangham ran the infamous clip from NBC’s Meet the Press of host Kristen Welker hassling Republican Sen. Tim Scott, a possible Trump VP choice, asking him SIX times if he would accept as valid the results of a presidential election that hasn’t taken place yet. No panelist admitted their fellow journalist's questioning was hackishly excessive, though both Keith and Walter agreed it went on “for a long time,” and the PBS clip skipped the part when Scott finally said in frustration, “This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat Party.” The panel then turned to Biden’s poor polling. This snotty segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/6/24 7:45:57 p.m. (ET) William Brangham: It's already shaping up to be a busy political week, as Republicans navigate the fallout from controversial remarks made by former President Trump at a fund-raiser over the weekend. Meanwhile, six months out from the election, President Biden continues to deal with a jaded electorate, as he wrestles with the political ramifications of the war in Gaza. Following this all closely is our Politics Monday duo, Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. So nice to see you both. Happy Monday. Six months out, as I just mentioned, from this election, this weekend, Donald Trump was at this campaign event and he made these comments where he basically equated the Biden White House with the Nazis, saying that they are running a — quote — "Gestapo administration." Now, this is, obviously, Amy, the — just the latest in a long history of Trump… Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report: Yes. Yes. William Brangham: … saying things like this. But one of his fellow Republicans, one who's vying to be the number two on the Trump ticket, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, came out and defended Donald Trump. Here's what he had to say. Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND): A majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. William Brangham: So feeling like a trial is unfair is equivalent to being part of the Nazi secret police. Amy Walter: Well, first, let's talk about the majority of Americans, as the governor said right there, feel that this is unfair, which, according to the most recent poll, the NPR/PBS/Marist poll, that is not true; 54 percent in that poll thought that it's fair. Now, 46 percent think it's unfair. So there are a lot of people… William Brangham: Right. Amy Walter: … who think the way the North Dakota governor does. But if we think that this candidate Trump or a Trump 2.0 president is going to look any different than the candidate we have known since 2016 or the person who was president for four years, you're going to be sorely mistaken. This is the reality of — this is just who Donald Trump is, how he's going to operate, how he is going to speak and behave. What we are seeing as well, as you pointed out, Doug Burgum reportedly on the short list to be a vice presidential candidate, is that loyalty to Donald Trump is always important. I think, in a Trump 2.0, it will be very, very top priority in picking who is around him. And so, when we talk about, well, what are the constraints or what are the restraints or the guardrails around a Trump presidency for things that he says or does, who's going to maybe rein him in, stand up and say no in the way that the vice president, Mike Pence, did, these folks are not saying that they would like to… William Brangham: They're saying: I won't do that. Don't worry, boss. Amy Walter: I'm pretty good with — I'm pretty good with the way that Trump is going to operate. Tamara Keith, National Public Radio: Yes. Right now, we are in the audition phase of the vice presidential pick contest… Amy Walter: Yes. Tamara Keith: … or, like, an episode of "The Bachelor" or something. And he — they had this event in Palm Beach. They brought all of these candidates, potential vice presidential picks in, and then many of them went out on the Sunday shows. And what they had to do was show their loyalty to former President Trump. He — as Amy said, he does not want another vice president who will be loyal to him only up until when it matters and when the Constitution is on the line. William Brangham: Right. Tamara Keith: He wants someone who will go out there and prove and tie themselves in knots, like Senator Tim Scott did on "Meet the Press," just tie themselves in knots to stick with the reality that is Trump's reality, even if it is not true. William Brangham: Let's take a look at what Tim Scott had to say, because he was asked about, will you accept the election results, regardless of who wins? Here's what he had to say. Kristen Welker, Moderator, "Meet the Press": Well, Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line? Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump. And I'm excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment, and… (Crosstalk) Kristen Welker: Wait, wait. Senator, yes or no, yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter who wins? Sen. Tim Scott: That is my statement. William Brangham: I mean, Kristen Welker went back and forth about this multiple times. Tamara Keith: For a long time. Amy Walter: Yes, for a long time. Tamara Keith: And this is relevant because former President Trump is still denying the results of the last election. He is going to Wisconsin and Michigan and saying, oh, no, I actually won here, when he didn't. So, it's entirely relevant whether you will accept the results of the 2024 election. He has also said in that "TIME" magazine interview that — it came out last week — that he doesn't think that there will be violence or any issues, as long as the election is fair. But, at the same time, he is saying that the last election, which was fair, wasn't. William Brangham: Fair meaning, "I won." Tamara Keith: Generally speaking, yes. (Crosstalk) Amy Walter: Yes. William Brangham: Amy, meanwhile, Biden has got polling that again showing not great news for his campaign. We want to put up this graphic here. A majority of the U.S. adults, 54 percent, disapprove of Biden's performance. That is a 3 percent jump since March. Now, that's within the margin of error. Amy Walter: Yes. William Brangham: But it is his worst rating since 2019. I mean, how panicked should that campaign be? Amy Walter: Well, he is deeply unpopular, but he's not that much more unpopular than Donald Trump is. And the poll that you're citing are — the Marist poll. So, Donald Trump's overall approval rating is 42 percent, the president being at 40 percent. Where we sit right now is really fascinating. It feels like we have been — this campaign has been going on for about 100 years, because it basically has. (Laughter) Amy Walter: We're rerunning 2020. William Brangham: You both look great for 100-year-old people. (Laughter) Amy Walter: Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. But the focus right now is on Joe Biden. He's the president now. Obviously, four years ago, it was Donald Trump. If the question is, should we go — which president do you think did a better job in his first term, right now, Trump is winning that argument. And you see in poll after poll when they ask questions about what do you think — who you did a better job on the economy, whose policies do you think have helped you the most, Biden or Trump, Trump is beating Biden on those matters. But if you talk about a campaign, which is about the future, that's the conversation that we haven't really gotten into yet. And that's why you saw even the Tim Scott interview. You hear the surrogates, as well as Donald Trump, talk a lot about, remember back in the days, let's bring us back to those days of four years ago… William Brangham: Right, booming economy. Amy Walter: … when the economy was great and inflation was low. So, remember, remember how great those times were. It's up to the Biden campaign to make the case that — not so much to fight about whether those times were great, but to talk about the next four years and what an administration of Biden's would look like and his policies and compare them to Donald Trump's. Tamara Keith: Which is why the Biden campaign continues to highlight all of the things that Trump says… Amy Walter: Yes. Tamara Keith: … like the Gestapo comments and everything else that he has said, while also really trying to amplify what he is saying he would do… Amy Walter: That's right. Tamara Keith: … and, in particular, on abortion rights, where he is trying not to say what he would do, and on any number of policy matters. In that "TIME" magazine interview, again, where he talked about wanting to round up migrants and… William Brangham: Right, deploy the military inside the U.S. Tamara Keith: Yes. And then he was asked, well, but the military being used on civilians? And he said, oh, no, they're not civilians, which is a pretty significant departure from norms. William Brangham: Right. Amy Walter: Yes. And this — the case hasn't really been prosecuted yet. Tamara Keith: Yes. Amy Walter: Believe it or not, we are still, which feels like either six months, you think, is a long time from now or a very short time from now. I tend to think of it as a short time. I think most normal voters think, well, we're a long way away from the election. William Brangham: So they just haven't dialed in yet. Amy Walter: Yes. And the — and both candidates soon enough will be on the airwaves making their case to voters. Theoretically, there will be debates between these candidates, where the differences between the two will become more of the conversation. William Brangham: Theoretically, on those debates. Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, so nice to see you both. Thank you. Amy Walter: You're welcome. Tamara Keith: Thanks, William.

NYT's Hypocritical Horror Over Al-Jazeera Ban: Tried to Kick Murdoch Out of AUS, UK

The New York Times came out stridently in defense of pan-Arab news network Al-Jazeera after the Israeli government temporarily shut down its local operations, claiming it was threatening Israel’s security by serving as a “mouthpiece” for Hamas. The paper was highly aggrieved over the “anti-democratic” move while ignoring Al-Jazeera’s history as a virulently anti-Israel outlet Arab news network. Of course, wartime censorship is not unheard of even in democracies (including Ukraine) or the Arab world in general, and Israel is existentially vulnerable surrounded by enemies and with elite opinion firmly on the side of the pro-Hamas demonstrators on college campuses throughout America. Five reporters in all contributed to The Times' report, “Israeli Cabinet Votes to Shut Down Al Jazeera’s Operations in the Country,” in Monday’s edition. Israel moved on Sunday to shut down local operations of Al Jazeera, the influential Qatari-based news network, in an unusual step that critics denounced as anti-democratic and part of a broader crackdown on dissent over Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Al Jazeera, a major source of news in the Arab world that has often highlighted civilian suffering in Gaza, of harming Israel’s security and inciting violence against its soldiers. Israeli officials did not immediately provide examples of Al Jazeera content it claimed posed a threat. In a statement, Al Jazeera called the decision a “criminal act” and said that “Israel’s suppression of the free press to cover up its crimes has not deterred us from performing our duty.” …. Pointing to the government’s diminishing tolerance for freedom of expression, Ms. Touma-Sliman noted that in November, she was suspended from all parliamentary activities for two months after publicizing press reports about Israeli forces attacking Gaza’s main hospital. The military had denied the accounts. Meanwhile, reporter Steve Lohr found “media experts” to condemn the only democracy in the region as a censor: “Media experts condemn Israel’s move against Al Jazeera.” The Israeli government’s decision to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in that country and block its reports there was condemned by American media and free speech experts as a troubling precedent and further evidence that Israel was engaging in a harsh wartime crackdown on democratic freedoms. There was no criticism of Al-Jazeera from the Times itself, which merely relayed accurate Israeli criticism in a dismissive tone, even though Al-Jazeera has shown terrorist sympathies like throwing a “birthday party” with cake and fireworks in 2008, to celebrate the release of Lebanese terrorist, who killed four in Israel, including a four-year-old girl (see MEMRI’s clip). The Times also failed to mention that Al Jazeera reporters Ismail Abu Omar and Mohamed Washah were caught moonlighting as Hamas commanders. In February, The Times of Israel reported that "the IDF revealed a trove of images" that showed Washah in a Hamas uniform training fighters how to shoot rocket-propelled grenades, build warheads, and operate drones armed with an RPG. "Abu Omar infiltrated into Israel and filmed from inside Kibbutz Nir Oz during Hamas’s onslaught," they noted.   #عاجل #خاص في الصباح صحفي في قناة #الجزيرة وفي المساء مخرب في حماس! @AJArabic ⭕️خلال نشاط لقواتنا قبل عدة أسابيع داخل احدى معسكرات حماس في شمال قطاع غزة تم ضبط كمبيوتر متحرك يعود إلى المدعو محمد سمير محمد وشاح من مواليد 1986 من البريج حيث يتضح من المستندات ان محمد وشاح هو قائد… pic.twitter.com/s8CX1kOfvP — افيخاي ادرعي (@AvichayAdraee) February 11, 2024   By contrast, the Times has eagerly highlighted moves to squash outlets run by media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s supposedly dangerously right-wing news outlets. Censorship fever (from another media outlet!) ran particularly high in late 2020 and 2021, with the Times attacking Murdoch on bogus issues like climate change or spreading extremism. In February 2021, London bureau chief Mark Landler’s obsessive hostility toward Murdoch’s media empire was on display in his coverage of two fledgling right-of-center news outlets, in “Murdoch to Challenge U.K.’s Fairness Statute With Fox News Playbook.” He began with a tiresome attack against the “poisonous political culture” of Fox News, then suggested Murdoch could be banned in Britain, “where television news is regulated to avoid political bias.” In October 2020, Times reporter Isabella Kwai filed on an online petition in Australia targeting Murdoch, posted by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, asking “the government to establish a Royal Commission, the country’s highest form of inquiry, into the dominance of Australian media by Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp.” Rudd called “Murdoch “an arrogant cancer on our democracy.” An impartial voice for sure! In January 2021, columnist Nicholas Kristof launched a quest to ban Fox News from basic cable packages (just for a start) in order to “stop supporting networks that spread lies and hatred, and cable companies should drop channels that persist in doing so….” But now that a left-wing anti-Israel outlet is being temporarily suspended during wartime, the Times conveniently morphs back into free-speech absolutists.

Ugh: PBS Hails ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Court Win for Minors, Including Mastectomy

The PBS NewsHour was back to its old rhetorical tricks this week on the LGBTQ front. Lately the outlet has been reacting with pro-transgender alarm when yet another state restricts transgender surgery for minors. But it had cause to celebrate on Tuesday, covering a “groundbreaking ruling” that somehow didn’t shake up the other media outlets enough to cover. PBS teamed up with its fellow taxpayer-funded outlet National Public Radio to bring the joyful news that a federal appellate court in Richmond had ruled that so-called “gender-affirming care” must be covered by state health care plans in West Virginia and North Carolina. They used that Orwellian term no less than ten times in the segment. including in the supportive introduction from host Amna Nawaz: “A federal appeals court issued a groundbreaking ruling last night ensuring that gender-affirming surgery is covered by state-run health insurance programs.” The entire exchange took place in a liberal bubble, with zero mention of conservative counterpoints -- no  inconvenient questions about gender transition, or how a biological man can become a woman, or if the government should be obligated to pay for such a change. NPR health reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin -- who provided a similar bubble of an interview to transgender Biden appointee Adm. Rachel Levine two years ago, that there was "no scientific debate" on these surgeries -- only cared about how the "trans community" greeted the news. Reporter Stephanie Sy explained: ...this decision centered around two lawsuits, with trans people in West Virginia and North Carolina suing to secure insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgery." Sy crowed, "It is a win for the trans community, but it may not be the final word on the issue." Selena Simmons-Duffin, health-policy reporter, NPR: I think this is a really significant ruling. The Fourth Circuit's majority opinion was really strong and called discrimination against trans patients on these plans to be -- quote -- "obviously discriminatory." I think that the big takeaway is that insurers are not going to be able to say that they're going to cover this care for some patients with some diagnoses and not for others. If they're going to be covering things like sex hormones and mastectomies for some patients, they're going to have to cover it for trans patients as well. And I do think that it's really seen in the trans community as a major win, and it cuts against some of the trends of more litigation and more restrictions that we have seen in statehouses across the country. Sy: Selena, how far-reaching is this ruling? Does this mean trans people with state medical plans are now covered for gender-affirming care where they couldn't or where they weren't before? Simmons-Duffin explained that the ruling was a signal that “trans people are protected under the law,” as if they weren’t protected by law before. Both reporters ignored the traumatic effects of gender surgery (including hormone replacement theory and even chemical and physical castration) on children in their eagerness over the medical insurance decision, while continuing their happy talk about “gender-affirming care.” Sy: We have seen in the last few years some two dozen states pass restrictive laws on gender-affirming care specifically for minors. Does this decision, Selena, apply to minors covered by state medical plans, even in states where legislatures have banned care? Simmons-Duffin: ….it is important to differentiate this from some of the other cases around gender-affirming care for minors, because this is really about insurance coverage and whether insurers can make the distinction that they're going to cover hormones and mastectomies with certain conditions, but not for people with gender dysphoria. In this case, they said that's not going to fly and that needs to stop…. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/30/24 7:13:54 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: A federal appeals court issued a groundbreaking ruling last night ensuring that gender-affirming surgery is covered by state-run health insurance programs. Stephanie Sy has that report. Stephanie Sy: Amna, this decision centered around two lawsuits, with trans people in West Virginia and North Carolina suing to secure insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgery. The federal appellate court in Richmond, split 8-6, ordered that the state health care plans — quote — "reinstate coverage for medically necessary services for the treatment of gender dysphoria." The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote briefs in support of the trans plaintiffs. It is a win for the trans community, but it may not be the final word on the issue. For more on all of this, I'm joined by NPR's Selena Simmons-Duffin, who covers health policy for NPR. Selena, it's good to see you on the "NewsHour." So, as you know, there are numerous court cases around the country about transgender rights and access to gender-affirming care. How significant was this ruling, and what are the big takeaways to you? Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR: I think this is a really significant ruling. The Fourth Circuit's majority opinion was really strong and called discrimination against trans patients on these plans to be — quote — "obviously discriminatory." I think that the big takeaway is that insurers are not going to be able to say that they're going to cover this care for some patients with some diagnoses and not for others. If they're going to be covering things like sex hormones and mastectomies for some patients, they're going to have to cover it for trans patients as well. And I do think that it's really seen in the trans community as a major win, and it cuts against some of the trends of more litigation and more restrictions that we have seen in statehouses across the country. Stephanie Sy: Selena, how far-reaching is this ruling? Does this mean trans people with state medical plans are now covered for gender-affirming care where they couldn't or where they weren't before? Selena Simmons-Duffin: Well, actually, in both of these cases, the state plan in North Carolina and Medicaid's — Medicaid in West Virginia, they already had to start covering this care after the district court ruled in the plaintiff's favor in 2022. So people have been able to bill for this and get coverage for this in the last two years, but what the appellate ruling does is really solidify that coverage. And as I said, it also signals to other plans in other states around the country that this is care that needs to be covered and that trans people are protected under the law. Stephanie Sy: We have seen in the last few years some two dozen states pass restrictive laws on gender-affirming care specifically for minors. Does this decision, Selena, apply to minors covered by state medical plans, even in states where legislatures have banned care? Selena Simmons-Duffin: I should say that there were plaintiffs in these cases that were minors. So, for example, in North Carolina, there were some members of the plan who joined the case on behalf of their dependent minor child who was transgender. And so they were seeking coverage for the care of that child. But I think it is important to differentiate this from some of the other cases around gender-affirming care for minors, because this is really about insurance coverage and whether insurers can make the distinction that they're going to cover hormones and mastectomies with certain conditions, but not for people with gender dysphoria. In this case, they said that's not going to fly and that needs to stop. But one thing I also wanted to mention is that, in the realm of bans across the country in different states for gender-affirming care for youth, just today, in Kansas, the Statehouse was unable to override the veto of the governor who had vetoed the ban on gender-affirming care for youth in that state. So I think advocates are really hoping that this does — even beyond the realm of its actual reach, it does send a signal to different places, to governors, to statehouses to say, this isn't a winning issue and the courts are starting to fall in their favor, although it has been a mixed bag in the courts. Stephanie Sy: Yes, absolutely. In this particular case — and you quoted it — the majority wrote that, when it comes to the state's exclusion of gender-affirming care for medical plans — quote — "We hold that the coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity." It said the exclusions, in essence, violate the 14th Amendment and provisions in the Affordable Care Act. There are so many transgender rights issues mired in the courts right now. Selena, do you see the Supreme Court taking all this up any time soon? I know, in this case, West Virginia's attorney general has already said he is appealing. Selena Simmons-Duffin: Yes, I mean, court watchers and policy watchers that I have talked to really think that a case is going to reach the Supreme Court at some point, and probably soon. But the Supreme Court has been sending some mixed messages on this. So there was a gender-affirming caravan in Idaho that the Supreme Court allowed to take effect. But then there are other cases, including one from the Fourth Circuit that was related to transgender students participating in sports, that the Supreme Court declined to take. And that was a win for the transgender plaintiff in that case. Court watchers suggest that it seems like the Supreme Court is maybe reluctant to jump into the fray, but there has been so much litigation in this area and so many laws being passed that it just seems inevitable that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in and give some clarity.

NPR: Columbia Agitators' Call for 'Intifada' Just an 'Anti-Israel Slogan'?

Taxpayer-supported National Public Radio has picked sides in the Israel-Hamas war, supporting the students/terrorist supporters camping on the quads of progressive colleges campuses. This is how NPR’s Up First newsletter (a summary of what NPR considers the must-know stories of the day) on Wednesday morning described the illegal occupation by pro-Hamas agitators at Columbia University: NPR's Brian Mann tells Up First that Columbia students were shocked, dismayed, and stunned by the overwhelming force used by police. Columbia spokesman Ben Chang said in a press conference that protesters were frightening other students. Mann adds that despite this, there’s been a lot of community support for these encampments. Lena Whitney, a City College graduate who witnessed the police action last night, told NPR, “These students are putting their lives at risk; they’re putting their jobs, their diplomas at risk because they’re fighting for something bigger -- the right to life for Palestinians.” One would have to dig up the online transcript of Mann’s report, which aired first on Wednesday’s Morning Edition --“NYC police used force to clear a pro-Palestinian student encampment at Columbia” -- to confirm the campus disruptors at Columbia heard on the report's background tape were in fact chanting “intifada,” support for the killing of Jews. A Martinez, Host: ….Across the country, the pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University is gone this morning, and the campus building that protesters had seized is empty. Police forced their way into the building and arrested and zip-tied the hands of dozens of students who began their demonstration two weeks ago…. NPR’s reporter Mann committed bias by omission, reporting only that “Hundreds of students were defiant at first, A. They were chanting anti-Israel slogans and calling for divestment from doing business with Israel.” Calling for Israel’s destruction via “intifada” -- which Mann didn’t even acknowledge directly -- isn’t just an “anti-Israel slogan” and certainly isn’t a mere call for divestment. It calls up memories of the Second Intifada and the suicide bombers who murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians on buses and in cafes. Unidentified Protester: (Chanting) Intifada, intifada. Unidentified Protesters: (Chanting) Intifada, intifada. Unidentified Protester: (Chanting) Long live the intifada. Unidentified Protesters: (Chanting) Long live the intifada. Still, NPR stuck up for the terrorist supporters and their (illegal) occupation of a campus building. Mann: At one point, A, a student appeared on top of Hamilton Hall. That's the building they occupied Monday night. That student waved a Palestinian flag. But then around 9:30 p.m. last night, a huge number of NYPD officers in riot gear charged the campus. And the student crowd fell back. They were clearly frightened. The NYPD used a massive armored vehicle to push a bridge into a window of Hamilton Hall…. Martinez: Wow, what a scene. How did students react to all this? Mann: Yeah, with shock and dismay. I spoke to one student who was stunned by the overwhelming force. She wouldn't give her name because she fears reprisal by Columbia University. Unidentified Student: Myself and many other students have just felt horror seeing the swiftness with which the NYPD came and deploy themselves onto our campus. Mann ran a bite from a Columbia spokesman who said protesters had “created a threatening environment for many, including our Jewish students and faculty.” Still, the reporter located “a lot of community support” for the agitators, including the bystander Up First found interesting. Mann: You know, many politicians in New York City, including bipartisan members of Congress have condemned these protests, describing them as unlawful and antisemitic. That's a charge many students reject. There's also been a lot of community support for these encampments. NPR spoke last night with Leena Widdi, who watched this police action. She's a graduate of City College. Leena Widdi: Students are putting their lives at risk. They're putting their jobs, their diplomas at risk 'cause they know that they're fighting for something bigger, which is the right to life for Palestinians.

PBS’s Amanpour Celebrates ‘Heart of the Pro-Palestinian Campus Peace Movement’

On Monday’s Amanpour & Co., which runs on PBS and CNN International, host Christiane Amanpour took the side of the pro-Hamas campus protesters who are spewing anti-Jewish rhetoric on “progressive” college campuses nationwide -- no surprise given her long-standing journalistic hostility toward Israel. Against all evidence she insisted that the campus occupiers were “mostly nonviolent” idealists and that concerns had been blown “out of proportion.” Occupying private property is illegal, hence police may be called. Amanpour: Now, a major development sparked by this war is a growing protest and peace movement on college campuses across the United States. Though mostly nonviolent, several schools have called in local police and National Guard troops….the epicenter of all of this is Columbia University, where today, with negotiations between students and the administration at an impasse, the university called on protesters to clear their encampment or face suspension. Amanpour invited on a student journalist, introduced in the show opener like this: "Isabella Ramirez editor in chief of the Columbia Daily Spectator, reports from the heart of the pro-Palestinian campus peace movement." Ugh.   To her credit, she asked her about “student-on-student verbal harassment that has been cited as very damaging and uncomfortable and frightening by some of the Jewish students.” Ramirez replied her paper had “compiled pretty extensive reports regarding this, most particularly when in the aftermath of one of our campus rabbis telling Jewish students, hundreds of Jewish students to leave campus, to not stay because of the environment," including "particularly violent signage that was used to refer to actually Hamas...." But Amanpour then made the college administration the aggressors for calling on the local police to dissolve the disruptive and threatening takeover of the campus. Amanpour complained Columbia's president Minouche Shafik had been "hauled before" Congress to answer to anti-semitism on campus.  Amanpour:  I'm just fascinated to know what you think and how you're writing about the very targeted political situation that's layered upon all of this. Because after that, Shafik, did, as we've been talking, call in the NYPD to break up the protest. Now, it's interesting that the chief of the NYPD patrol on the U.S. said the students who were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner. And your newspaper wrote in an editorial, history has made clear who stood on the wrong side then. And it's clear that this is the side you are aligning yourself with now…. Ramirez replied with a laundry list of past protest movements at Columbia, then said her paper's editorial board was trying to warn the college president about her legacy if the wake of “the forceful removal of students from campus and also this crackdown on student protests.” Amanpour: And as we continue to chat, you know, we've seen on other universities, including Emory, it caused a huge ruckus, what happened on Emory, when a teacher -- a professor was essentially manhandled. Other teachers tried to help, faculty members, student, I think it was the police and the state guard or whatever they call them. It was a very rough situation over the weekend in Atlanta…. Ramirez turned understandable concerns about anti-Semitic rhetoric and “scholarship” by Columbia professors into a free speech issue (this after years of liberal academics calling out “micro-aggressions” against campus minorities). She said, "there has been this really big question as to whether the university has done enough to kind of protect academic freedom." Amanpour relayed the views of left-wing students and faculty, which seemingly morphed into her own view of the situation, that concerns about the campus encampments were being blown “out of proportion,” while inviting Ramirez to criticize mainstream media coverage of the protests, as if they were all too conservative. Amanpour: ….a lot of the faculty and some of the students have criticized the way we, the press, have covered these protests, some call it a peace movement. It's not even, you know -- it's not meant to be violence, it's meant to be nonviolent. And obviously, social media is blowing it out of proportion. You're watching it from the inside. Do you have a comment on the way the national press has been covering it? Ramirez demurred, and talked only about how the students can cover it because they live right there on campus. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS Amanpour & Co. 4/30/24 1:48:55 a.m. (ET) CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Now, a major development sparked by this war is a growing protest and peace movement on college campuses across the United States. Though mostly nonviolent, several schools have called in local police and National Guard troops. Today in Paris, French police entered the Sorbonne University campus to remove students occupying the main square. Now, the epicenter of all of this is Columbia University, where today, with negotiations between students and the administration at an impasse, the university called on protesters to clear their encampment or face suspension. Some of the most valuable reporting on all this comes from inside the student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator. Editor in Chief Isabella Ramirez. Joins us from New York. Isabella Ramirez, welcome to the program. And, you know, I can't tell you how much we've read about what an excellent job you are doing and your, you know, student newspaper, your on campus journalist. What can you tell us is the latest right now as we sit here talking? ISABELLA RAMIREZ, EDITOR IN CHIEF, COLUMBIA DAILY SPECTATOR: Today is going to be a very significant day in terms of our developments. This morning, our president, Minouche Shafik, sent out an e-mail effectively saying that negotiations failed to reach an agreement. And it, for the first time, outlined very explicitly that Columbia will not divest from Israel, which is the central demand of the protesters. As well as, in that e-mail, it laid out, what, the university actually brought to the table to those negotiators, to those student negotiators and included a series of very interesting things, including offering a list of financial transparency of direct holdings of the university that is -- would be accessible to students and updating that list. It also offered to potentially invest in health and education in Gaza, as well as create an expedited process for divestment proposals. And those were all the things that essentially those students would have rejected because it did not fulfill what their central demands would be. And one of the interesting things as well is that that e-mail did not include anything about amnesty for the students, which has also been a very big thing for the arrested and suspended students. And so, now, the university has been handling out notices to those students at the encampment at this moment warning of disciplinary action, and they have until 2:00 p.m. today to potentially clear out if not to face, again, disciplinary action. And at the same time that this is happening, we're hearing word from the encampment, they made an announcement essentially saying that they have voted to stay. AMANPOUR: Wow. RAMIREZ: So, the students currently have voted to stay past 2:00 p.m. and face those suspensions. And just to add one more thing, the suspensions are actually even more severe than previous. The previous suspended students who were suspended simultaneous to the first wave of arrests that happened, you know, on April 18th, those students were allowed to stay on campus, at least in the residential spaces. This interim suspension says they would have no access to any campus buildings, including residences, dorms, dining, et cetera, IDs completely deactivated, which would effectively evict a lot of those students or at least leave them without access to the residence halls and other important buildings. So, the consequences are now much more severe. AMANPOUR: So, it seems, honestly, Isabella, that it's a real standoff that there seems to be, you know, little peace building or bridge building between either side and both sides, administration and students are really holding the toughest positions right now. I don't know whether you see any way forward, but what I want to ask you is, you know, you're watching this, you're talking to people on campus, you also see the ruckus that's being created outside the campus. Can you tel us what is the real picture? What -- is it dangerous, violent on campus? Is that off campus? What are you seeing as journalists from inside? RAMIREZ: So, at the very beginning stages, there were -- there was a lot of activity in terms of protest activity, both outside of our campus on campus. To be frank, that off campus protest activity has held quite a bit. It has calmed down. That is where a lot of people were sort of citing a lot more tension in terms of when it came to, you know, certain chance or certain incidents that were arising from those outside protests. But predominantly for right now, the encampment has sort of remained the same. And there's been very few updates sort of on the day to day. That's why today is actually quite a big day. But, you know, I was just at the encampment pretty recently distributing our newspaper and really, when you walk on and you see it, it's students sort of laying on the lawn, you know, chatting, reading books, getting water, getting food. It's a really interesting environment because we are certain that there are a lot of students who have reported feeling uncomfortable, have reported feeling unsafe by the presence of the encampment. But also, when you walk onto it, there isn't like active protests necessarily occurring on the encampment itself, it's mostly just the state of occupying that space and kind of being on that space, and there being kind of a series of other activities often but very little in terms of tangible protest. There is going to be probably more escalation we can anticipate as a result of the university's crackdown. And that's sort of why we saw, in the first place, some of those outside protests come in and also some of the students themselves start to galvanize in terms of upping their protest activity was because or was in response to the arrests and also university crackdown. But for these past few days where everything hs been at sort of a -- the negotiations have stalled, it has been pretty, you know, regular in terms of just the students laying on the lawns and, you know, kind of doing their day-to-day activity and programming, sometimes even tuning in to class from the lawn. AMANPOUR: Isabella, did you see, or were you able to hear the kind of, you know, student on student verbal harassment that has been cited as very damaging and uncomfortable and frightening by some of the Jewish students? RAMIREZ: Yes, we have compiled pretty extensive reports regarding this, most particularly when in the aftermath of one of our campus rabbis telling Jewish students, hundreds of Jewish students to not -- to leave campus, to not stay because of the environment. We, in that report, were able to compile a series of incidents that had happened. I believe on the Saturday following the arrests, much were related to off campus protest somewhere on campus that involved certain rhetoric, some of which was evocative of the Holocaust, telling students to go back to Poland, go back to Europe. And there were also other particularly violent signage that was used to refer to actually Hamas and that was one singular protest, that was a protester that was holding that sign and referring to the pro-Israel protesters behind them. And so, we have seen those incidents, and for sure, it has come up quite a lot in the dialogue when it comes to Shafik's communication to the community and all communication we've been receiving from the administration has been very strongly condemning the particular incidents that have arisen from this. Now, is that to say that that represents the entirety of the protesters at the encampment or all of the sort of different moving pieces? I think that is, of course, probably too wide sweeping, but there have certainly been these incidents that should draw concern for our community in half. AMANPOUR: So, let's go back. There's so much politics as well. You just mentioned the president, Minouche Shafik, who is new, let's face it. She started at the beginning of this academic year and has been hauled, like the others, in front of the special committee in Congress. I want to play a little bit of what happened on April 17th as you guys were -- well, not you, but the campus protesters were building the encampment. This is an exchange between Shafik and the GOP Representative Lisa McClain. REP. LISA MCCLAIN (R-MI): Are mobs shouting, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free or, long live the intifada. Are those antisemitic comments? MINOUCHE SHAFIK, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: When I hear those terms, I find them very upsetting. And I have heard -- MCCLAIN: That's a great answer to a question I didn't ask. Is that fall under definition of antisemitic behavior? Yes or no? Why is it so tough? SHAFIK: Because it's a difficult issue. MCCLAIN: Maybe I should ask your task force. Does that qualify as antisemitic behavior, those statements? Yes or no? Yes. OK. Do you agree with your task force? SHAFIK: Yes, we agree. The question is what to do about it? MCCLAIN: So, yes. So, the -- so, yes, you do -- AMANPOUR: So, I'm just fascinated to know what you think and how you're writing about the very targeted political situation that's layered upon all of this. Because after that, Shafik, did, as we've been talking, call in the NYPD to break up the protest. Now, it's interesting that the chief of the NYPD patrol on the U.S. said the students who were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner. And your newspaper wrote in an editorial, history has made clear who stood on the wrong side then. And it's clear that this is the side you are aligning yourself with now. This will be your legacy. Are you -- were you addressing the president and the administration? RAMIREZ: Yes. So actually, our editorial board, I do not serve on, but it represents a sector of our opinion team who is very talented and has been working very hard on, you know, kind of reflecting discourse in a different way, because I oversee both the opinion and the newsroom. But that was -- that piece in particular was addressing Shafik herself. It was attempting to say, Shafik, take a look at what your legacy looks like right now to the public, to your students, to the administration. And I think a lot of it is inspired as well by what we know from previous protests at Columbia, 1968, Vietnam, antiwar, South African apartheid, these are all huge moments in Columbia's history in which those presidents also have been looked upon for the decisions that they made at that time. And now, when we reflect on it now, there is, of course, a lot of disdain and criticism for those decisions. So, I believe what the editorial board was really trying to get out here is, you know, really warning President Shafik as to what your legacy will entail if it means, you know, the forceful removal of students from campus and also this crackdown on student protests. Now, of course, there are many differing opinions here, but that was the opinion reflected by our editorial board in terms of what the majority voted for. AMANPOUR: And as we continue to chat, you know, we've seen on other universities, including Emory, it caused a huge ruckus, what happened on Emory, when a teacher -- a professor was essentially manhandled. Other teachers tried to help, faculty members, student, you know, the -- I think it was the police and the state guard or whatever they call them. It was a very rough situation over the weekend in Atlanta. But I guess what I want to ask you, because Columbia is known around the world for, you know, it's history of student protests, but most importantly, it's very enviable and distinguished Middle East program. You have a very important Middle East studies on Arab and Palestinian studies. You have very, very important Jewish studies program. What do you think happened? Why can't people talk to each other? RAMIREZ: I think part of it is that there is -- encircling all of this, encircling the protest activity is there's a big conversation about academic freedom at Columbia and sort of what are the limits of that, but as well as has the university done enough to protect those -- the academic freedom of the professors on our campus. And we saw that as well in the congressional hearing. Congress went very, very hard on Columbia for, naming multiple faculty members by name, most of whom came from the department regarding statements that they had made, scholarship, and other things that they have taught in their classrooms as, of course, labeling them antisemitic and unsafe. And so, there has been this really big question as to whether the university has done enough to kind of protect academic freedom in the first place to allow that discourse to even happen. And so, I think, you know, in terms of agree, like our tradition here at Columbia of both our Middle Eastern Studies Department, but also our immense connections too, we have the Jewish Theological Seminary, we have a -- controversial, but we have a relationship through a program with Tel Aviv University. We have these very deep-seated ties to this issue in particular Edward Said, many scholars who are considered foundational in Israeli and Palestinian issues. And so, a big question here has, though, been, what is academic freedom, what is the university's role in protecting it, and has Columbia, in this time frame, under political pressures, under student pressures, has it done enough to protect that and allow that discourse to occur on its campus? AMANPOUR: And briefly, we got just a little bit left. You know, a lot of the faculty and some of the students have criticized the way we, the press, have covered these protests, some call it a peace movement. It's not even, you know -- it's not meant to be violence, it's meant to be nonviolent. And obviously, social media is blowing it out of proportion. You're watching it from the inside. Do you have a comment on the way the national press has been covering it?

PBS's Favorite 'Republican' Claims the GOP Now Is an 'Autocratic Movement'

Former Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens is senior adviser of the Lincoln Project, a never-Trump “Republican” outfit whose pathetic anti-GOP stunts and scandals have discredited it everywhere but in the mainstream media, where it remains a reliable source for smears of the modern-day Republican party as fascistic. Stuart took his familiar act to Tuesday’s edition of Amanpour & Co., which airs on PBS. Host Christiane Amanpour used Steven’s spicy quote in her show opener: Stuart Stevens: Now, it's been a lot of sleepless nights trying to come to grips with it, but the Republican Party now is an autocratic movement. (Stevens is a popular “Republican” in PBS-land. In October 2023 he pumped his then-new book The Conspiracy to End America on the PBS NewsHour comparing his old party to Nazis.) Stevens was interviewed by co-host Walter Isaacson, who identified Stewart as “part of the anti-Trump movement in the Republican Party.” What? He's a former Republican. Isaacson asked him if Trump being on trial would hurt or help his presidential campaign. Stevens had to admit the optics of Trump on trial could work in the candidate’s favor: "It's the grievance campaign. I am your retribution. The deep state is out to get us. What better proof that the deep state is out to get us than the deep state has me on trial.” Prompted by Isaacson, Stevens alleged Trump supported Russian dictator Vladimir Putin before getting to the money quote. Stevens: “And I've spent a lot of sleepless nights trying to come to grips with it, but the Republican Party now is an autocratic movement. And I think what you see in front of the Supreme Court, where they're actually trying to make the case that a president is above the law, it's just further proof that. It's why they -- the conservative movement is in love with Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin.” Isaacson quoted from Stevens saying the Biden team has to be amazed at "how is this guy still in the race?" Stevens painted the GOP as racist. Stevens: You know, a lot of this ultimately has to do with race, Walter. We're a country that's headed to becoming a minority-majority country. If you're 16 years and under in America, you -- the majority are nonwhite. Trump's base is 85 percent white. And it's that reality that drives so much of the Republican Party's efforts to change election laws and to sort of curate the election.” Prodded by Isaacson, Stevens got more and more worked up, and, yes "alarmist." Stevens: ….it's difficult to talk about this without sounding alarmist, and language is one of the issues that, you know, we struggle with. But I think if Donald Trump wins this election, it will be the last election that we can recognize as a normal American election. I know these people. As bad as you think they are, they are worse. They want a different America, and they're open about it when you really listen to them, and that's why they embrace Russia so much. They look at Russia, and they say, OK. Russia, no nonwhite people in power. Putin says there's no gays in Russia. There's no women in power. Elections are performative, but not decisive. That looks pretty good. And they embrace that…. Excepting a question about anti-Trumpers, including Sen. Liz Cheney, journalist Isaacson just facilitated Stevens and his long, broad smear of one of America’s two main political parties. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” Amanpour & Co. 5/1/24 2:03:04 a.m. (ET) CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Stuart Stevens, a former Republican strategist, admits that he's still coming to grips today's GOP and its embrace of a man facing 91 criminal charges, and the grand old party's creeping authoritarian character, as he explains with Walter Isaacson. WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Stuart Stevens, welcome back to the show. STUART STEVENS, SENIOR ADVISER, THE LINCOLN PROJECT AND AUTHOR, "IT WAS ALL A LIE": Great to see you, Walter. Thanks. ISAACSON: You've been a Republican strategist most of your life, worked for George Bush, Mitt Romney, and then have been part of the anti-Trump movement in the Republican Party. Now, you're watching him on trial. In some ways, he's running on the notion of grievance and persecution. Does this trial help him or hurt him? STEVENS: Well, you know, I mean, I think that the sort of headline on this is that Trump is still a viable candidate and he's on trial. That in itself is extraordinary. Look, I think if you're one of the smart people running the Trump campaign, and they do have smart professionals now, this isn't what your ideal scenario would have been. But at the same time, it's not disqualifying for Trump, which it would be for any other candidate I can think of. And what -- the essence of that is that Trump's campaign, particularly in this cycle, is based on being a victim. It's the grievance campaign. I am your retribution. The deep state is out to get us. What better proof that the deep state is out to get us than the deep state has me on trial. ISAACSON: And you say these are really smart people running the campaign. Are they going to use this to help this politics of grievance? STEVENS: Yes, they're going to use it to try to eat as a proof point. You know, if you have -- you have to get inside their heads, Walter, the whole Trump thing. So, in their world, Trump won the presidency, the White House has been stolen. And the only way that they can stop Trump, who was the legally elected president, they say, from winning again is to put them in jail. So, this is just that process of the deep state trying to take away from you, the voter, your right to choose your president, and they would say, restore democracy. It's sort of like the aliens built the pyramids. Once you understand that, everything else makes a lot of sense. You know, the problem is aliens didn't build the pyramids. But that's how they see the world and this fits into that worldview. ISAACSON: If Trump were not on trial, if there had not been all of these indictments, would he be in a stronger or a weaker position? STEVENS: I think that the indictments helped him in the primary because it then became necessary to support Trump in the primary to prove that what the Democrats were saying and they put in the same Democrats in the deep state are exactly the same. I don't think it is going to help him in the general election. I think that there's something that is going to be disconcerting and wearing the people to see a potential president of the United States, a former president of the United States on trial in multiple jurisdictions. ISAACSON: But wait, haven't people been saying this for a year or two that eventually wear down? STEVENS: Yes. Yes. But the audience has been -- the audience that has been voting has been that primary audience. And it was fascinating to see the split in the primary electorate that pretty much the threshold belief that if you voted for Trump, you believe that he won the presidency last time. Very few of Nikki Haley's voters believe that. The majority of the country doesn't believe that. So, I just think that -- you know, I've compared the Trump candidacy to somebody walking around with a paper bag full of water. I don't think it's going to leak, but I think there's a very good chance it's going to go -- and when it goes, it's going to be very hard to put the water back in the bag.   ISAACSON: Were you surprised that the Republican Party, not just a hardcore base, but a majority of people in the primaries, rallied around him that way?   STEVENS: Oh, Walter, you know, I had a going out of business sale with any optimism in the Republican Party. I think that we've seen a complete collapse of any moral authority of the party. And the people to blame are not Donald Trump. Donald Trump is just being Donald Trump. It's all of the people that you and I know, and I helped elect a lot of them, who before Trump, they wouldn't have had lunch with Trump. They wouldn't let Trump in their house. They know that he's destructive to democracy. They know he's not a conservative. They know that Putin helped elect him. And yet, they still support him. ISAACSON: Why is that? STEVENS: That is a profound question. And I asked myself that. And that led me to write this book, "It Was All a Lie." And what -- the only conclusion I come to that makes any sense to me, and I think it makes any sense at all, is that all of these things that we espoused as deep values, Walter, that the party held, character counts, strong on Soviet Union, strong on Russia, the deficit matters, all of these things, we said were values were in fact just marketing slogans. So, OK, that's not the case then. So, character really doesn't count. Sure, we'll support the candidate who supports Vladimir Putin in, you know, the largest war in Europe since World War II. I don't know how else to come to a conclusion because people don't abandon deeply held beliefs in a couple of years. And the party has just walked away from these.   You know, the Republican Party now doesn't really exist as a normal American political party in any kind of tradition. It exists to defeat Democrats. And, you know, that's how cartels operate. Nobody asks OPEC, what is your higher purpose? You sell oil. And, you know, it's not like a fun thing to admit. And I've spent a lot of sleepless nights trying to come to grips with it, but the Republican Party now is an autocratic movement. And I think what you see in front of the Supreme Court, where they're actually trying to make the case that a president is above the law, it's just further proof that. It's why they -- the conservative movement is in love with Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin. ISAACSON: There's a group of people in the Republican Party who have, of course, pushed back Liz Cheney, most prominent among them, even Senator Mitt Romney, Former Vice President Mike Pence. Do you see the possibility that more and more Republicans like that will come forward between now and the election? STEVENS: I don't think there's many Republicans like them. I think if Trump is convicted it might make a difference with some. You know what – I think it's very interesting to look at, say, Chris Christie, who was a former client of mine. Loved the guy. Could not believe he endorsed Donald Trump in 2016. I remember standing at Atlanta Airport and seeing, you know, CNN and literally tears came to my eyes. It was like, how is this person that I love doing this. And I think he would say it was a mistake now, which is good. What he's going out there and saying now is what should have been said. But when you listen to Chris Christie, how do you come to any other conclusion but you have to support Joe Biden? Same with Asa Hutchinson, who ran in the Republican primary, former governor of Arkansas, another former client of mine, a really good and decent human being, and you may not agree with his politics. He has to support. Liz Cheney has to support Biden. Mitt Romney will support Biden. I think --   ISAACSON: Well, you think or he should -- STEVENS: I think they will. I think those two definitely will. ISAACSON: Do you think that Biden -- and Biden hadn't called them yet? Do you think Biden should reach out to all of them and create a Republicans for Biden committee? STEVENS: Sure. When the time is right. You know, if a prominent Republican came to me and said, I want to endorse Joe Biden, my advice, as wearing my political consultant hat, would be, that's great. I would wait. Because if you do it now, it's not going to mean as much as if you do it, say, during the Democratic Convention. And timing is pretty much everything in politics. So, I hope this will happen. If Trump is convicted, it may make that entry ramp a little smoother. But really, you don't need a conviction in any of these trials to know that Donald Trump should not be president. So, you know, it's just -- I mean, think about it, Walter, the Republican Party doesn't have room for a Cheney? Really? A Cheney? What do you do with that? And there is no Republican Party to go back to. And people just have to come to grips with that. There's a kind of false hope that somehow we can just look beyond Trump, and McConnell expressed a lot of this, and a lot of these sort of gentry Republicans have held their nose and say, well, you know, we're just going to be able to put Trump behind us. No, no. The party -- there is a need for a center right conservative party in America. That cannot be the Republican Party as it's currently construed.   ISAACSON: So, wait. What happens if there's a need for a center right party and the Republican Party has abandoned that? What do you see down the road?   STEVENS: I think 2032 is the best hope that you could have a sane center right party that will emerge. You know, pain is the best teacher in politics. Arguably, maybe the only teacher. And what needs to happen is Republicans need to lose, and they need to lose again and again. And then, out of some sense of survival, you could see a sane party emerging. You know, a lot of this ultimately has to do with race, Walter. We're a country that's headed to becoming a minority majority country. If you're 16 years and under in America, you -- the majority are nonwhite. Trump's base is 85 percent white. And it's that reality that drives so much of the Republican Party's efforts to change election laws and to sort of curate the election. ISAACSON: You talk about the politics of grievance and of anti-corporate, anti-state feelings. How does Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fit into this equation? STEVENS: It's a great question. I think it comes down to who RFK. Jr. is. If come October, and RFK Jr. is defined as a crusading environmentalist lawyer that took on big corporations, that guy's going to hurt Joe Biden. If RFK Jr. is defined as this wacky conspiracy nut who has said that there is no safe vaccine, which means he's basically the, you know, anti-polio vaccine candidate who believes -- has expressed these conspiracies about the CIA killing his father and how, you know, Prozac leads to school shootings, I think that guy will probably hurt Trump more. But, you know, if it was up to me, I would rather just have a straight race with no third-party candidates. It's a cleaner race. You have to make it a choice between Trump and Biden. And there are voters out there who don't like Trump, who are uncomfortable with Biden. If you give them any sort of socially accepted off ramp, my fear is that they'll take them. That was a great fallacy of a No Labels candidate. And all the candidates they talked about definitely would have just helped elect Donald Trump, which maybe is one of the reasons that ultimately, they didn't go forward. But, you know, in The Lincoln Project, we're out there defining Robert Kennedy for what he is, a conspiracy nut who's anti-vaxxer. I think that's what needs to be done. And I hope that's who he is in October. ISAACSON: The last few lines of your op-ed, let me quote them to you. You say, we should not normalize how extraordinary it is that Mr. Trump is still a viable candidate for president. The Biden campaign will watch the spectacle unfold asking, how is this guy still in the race? So, let me ask you, how is this guy still in the race? STEVENS: It goes, I think, to a fundamental hollowness that existed within the Republican Party that Trump brought to light. ISAACSON: But also, the American electorate? STEVENS: Well, you look at among Democrats, Trump is, you know, not getting a lot of support. But yes, you would have to say he is appealing to a dark side of America. And we've had other candidates who did that. George Wallace did it. We just didn't have him nominated by a major political party. The Democratic Party rejected George Wallace. The Republican Party embraced it. You know, I think that there has been, by the establishment of the Republican Party embracing Trump, it has given a permission structure for people who are troubled by a lot of Trump to say, well, he couldn't -- he must not be that bad. I think he's a little weird and all this, but, hey, my governor -- I know my governor better. My Senator, they're normal humans. They support Trump. And that is the failure of the party not to stand up to Trump. But look, if you're going to ask me if Donald Trump wins his next race, does it say something that's very, very troubling about the future of democracy? My answer overwhelmingly is yes. You know, it's difficult to talk about this without sounding alarmist, and language is one of the issues that, you know, we struggle with. But I think if Donald Trump wins this election, it will be the last election that we can recognize as a normal American election. I know these people. As bad as you think they are, they are worse. They want a different America, and they're open about it when you really listen to them, and that's why they embrace Russia so much. They look at Russia, and they say, OK. Russia, no nonwhite people in power. Putin says there's no gays in Russia. There's no women in power. Elections are performative, but not decisive. That looks pretty good. And they embrace that. So, the idea, you know, America is rapidly changing, non-college educated white voters have the largest declining demographic in the country, and they find it unsettling and troubling and they would like to stop that. And they will -- they are about the business of trying to change elections so that they reduce the power of those who see a different America. And that's -- the Electoral College facilitates that. Biden won by 7 million votes, but it's 45,000 votes to change hands in just exactly the right places Trump would still win. So, I think it's a race about the future of America. I think the cliche this is the most important race of our lifetime has never been more true. ISAACSON: Stuart Stevens, thank you so much for joining us again. STEVENS: Thank you, Walter. AMANPOUR: So, that was two Republicans, two former Republicans, talking about their party today.

NY Times: GOP Calling Immigrant Surge an ‘Invasion’ Dehumanizing, ‘Could Stoke Violence’

New York Times national politics reporter Jazmine Ulloa has deputized herself to patrol the parameters of acceptable political discourse from her liberal perspective, attacked Republicans candidates again for daring to call the influx of immigrants across our southern border an “invasion,” in Sunday’s edition: “Talk of an Immigrant ‘Invasion’ Grows in Republican Ads and Speech.” As the elections loom, Ulloa’s hypersensitive language radar seems tuned only to the words of one political party. A campaign ad from a Republican congressional candidate from Indiana sums up the arrival of migrants at the border with one word. He doesn’t call it a problem or a crisis. He calls it an “invasion.” .... It was not so long ago that the term invasion had been mostly relegated to the margins of the national immigration debate. Many candidates and political figures tended to avoid the word, which echoed demagoguery in previous centuries targeting Asian, Latino and European immigrants. Few mainstream Republicans dared use it. .... The resurgence of the term exemplifies the shift in Republican rhetoric in the era of former President Donald J. Trump and his right-wing supporters. Language once considered hostile has become common, sometimes precisely because it runs counter to politically correct sensibilities. Immigration has also become more divisive, with even Democratic mayors complaining about the number of migrants in their cities. Democrats and advocates for migrants denounce the word and its recent turn from being taboo. Historians and analysts who study political rhetoric have long warned that the term dehumanizes those to whom it refers and could stoke violence, noting that it appeared in writings by perpetrators of deadly mass shootings in Pittsburgh, Pa.; El Paso, Texas; and Buffalo, N.Y., in recent years. If one truly wanted to police offensive and threatening language, Ulloa should look no further than a “pro-Palestinian” rally at the nearest “progressive” college campus. Republicans defend using the word and see it as an apt descriptor for a situation that they argue has intensified beyond crisis levels and one that could help sway voters. Ulloa extrapolated wildly, going from the word “invasion” to mass murder in three sentences flat. "Analysts" of "extremism" say the I-word suggests racism and anti-semitism. Analysts who study political rhetoric and extremism have continued to raise alarm that the word invasion and what they describe as similarly inflammatory language regarding immigration plays into replacement theory. The racist doctrine, which has circulated in far right-wing corners of the internet, holds that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to “replace” and disempower white Americans. The shooters in Pittsburgh, El Paso and Buffalo echoed the theory in online posts, and targeted Jews, Hispanics and Black people in their killings. She accused Donald Trump of “using language that invokes the racial hatred of Hitler” (Trump’s “poisoning the blood of our country” remark) before relaying concerns about “Republican fear-mongering about migrants" from a researcher at America’s Voice. America’s Voice is hardly a non-partisan one. Their main goal, according to the group’s website, is to “win reforms that put 11 million undocumented Americans on a path to full citizenship."

NPR Cheers Pro-Hamas Campus Agitators: 'Getting Closer to Their Demands?’

National Public Radio’s coverage of the anti-Israel agitators who’ve taken over progressive college campuses while spouting violent rhetoric at Jewish students has been no better than its tax-funded partner PBS (both outlets reside under the taxpayer-supported auspices of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.) NPR’s Friday coverage flattered the protesters, suggesting they were laser-focused on concrete demands that their respective colleges cease financing Israel, while ignoring their vocal support for Hamas terrorists, demonstrated by praising the October 7 massacre of Israelis and reciting eliminationist chants like “From the river to the sea.” Friday’s Morning Edition program aired “Protests against the war in Gaza intensify at Columbia and other universities” without a single mention of the despicable rhetoric from the protests, nothing about the ongoing anti-Semitic ranting and toddler-like tactics when confronted by police, only enthusiasm for the alleged success of the protests. Here’s your tax dollars at work, producing bias by omission: A MARTINEZ, co-host: It's been a week since Columbia University called in the police to clear an encampment of anti-war protesters on a campus lawn. And what a week it's been. LEILA FADEL, co-host: More than a hundred students were arrested that day. And since then, the student demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza have only intensified. They spread to universities across the country and led to hundreds more arrests. Adrian Florido reported from New York: "For days, protest leaders and university officials have been in negotiations over the encampment's future. The university wants it gone, but the hundreds of students in the camp say they're staying put until their demands are met." Martinez took the protesters seriously: Now, you mentioned that the students are refusing to clear the encampment until their demands are met. What are those demands? Florido sounded empathetic: The big one is divestment. They want Columbia to sell off the stock it owns in companies that do business in Israel and that, the protesters say, are enabling Israel's war in Gaza and its operations in the West Bank." He featured a soundbite from grad student and organizer Ray Guerrero, "who says that if Columbia pulls its money from these companies, other institutions might follow. And that could bring pressure to bear on the Israeli government.…." Martinez asked how the protests would affect graduation ceremonies. ADRIAN FLORIDO: Well, here at Columbia, the encampment is smack in the center of where the school holds its main graduation ceremony. And in fact, all around the encampment, workers are already basically putting up the stages and scaffolding for that event. It's part of why protesters suspect they're about to be removed by force. At USC, the main graduation ceremony has been canceled. And that could happen at other schools because these students showing up to protest say they're not going anywhere. No concern was voiced over the hate chanters ruining a milestone event for those students (suckers) who attend college for the education – cruelly, many of whom also missed out on high school graduation in 2020 because of COVID restrictions. That's one human-interest angle NPR chose to ignore. Note: This story was also included on “Up First.”  a popular NPR podcast delivering brief daily highlights of NPR’s coverage, and introduced there in the most supportive fashion imaginable: “As protests and arrests continue at college campuses across the U.S., are the students calling for divestment in Israel getting closer to their demands?”

PBS NewsHour Again Takes Side of Pro-Hamas Campus Agitators: Just Like Vietnam?

Thursday’s PBS NewsHour covered the hate virus spreading on progressive college campuses nationwide of agitators threatening Israel and Jewish students. Of course, that’s not how PBS saw it, painting those pro-Hamas protesters as standing in the honorable shoes of the 1960s campus rioters that changed the course of American involvement in Vietnam. PBS also took on a University of Vanderbilt president who dared punish students for the violent invasion of a campus building. Anchor Amna Nawaz relayed the good news, from tax-supported PBS’s perspective. Nawaz: Campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza are continuing to grow across the U.S. The University of Southern California announced today it's canceling its main commencement ceremony next month. Encampments are now in place in at least 20 colleges, and hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested in the last several days at multiple schools, including the University of Texas, Ohio State and Emory University….These incidents are just the latest in a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations unfolding on campuses from coast to coast and beyond, including universities in Paris, Cairo, and Sydney. Some in the U.S. say they want their universities to cut financial ties with Israel. She neutralized concerns of threats against Jewish students Nawaz: Jewish students across the country have said they feel unsafe amid the demonstrations and after being targeted by hate speech and antisemitic symbols. But some are taking part in the protests… Nawaz hosted Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier, who earlier this month penned an op-ed for the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal on his school’s crackdown on student disruptors that clearly didn’t please PBS, which described his school as a place “where dozens of students have faced suspension, expulsion, and even arrest for their participation in recent protests on campus.” Nawaz took the side of the violent students: "There was a late March incident. Some 27 students or so forced their way into a closed administration building. I understand a campus security officer was injured during that incident. Most of the students had to be escorted out. Four were arrested, is my understanding. Help us understand the line for you. Why were those students arrested and some expelled?" Diermeier explained that his campus has hosted peaceful protests for months, but these students “forced their way into a closed building” and “ran over a security officer” before trying to invade his own office, then sat in a hallway for hours before finally being arrested after refusing to disperse. Nawaz was lawyerly in response: "So the line for you was the physical violence part of it. Had the building been open, you're fine with students entering and sitting in, in protest, in other words?" Has Nawaz seen the video of the frankly pathetic Vandy students she's supporting so strongly, whose freedom to act like spoiled toddlers was so cruelly infringed? After Diermeier explained the issue was disruptive conduct, Nawaz again jabbed from the left. Nawaz: You said in your op-ed that free speech is alive and well at Vanderbilt. But there was an open letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. They say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. They say the rules seem arbitrary. And they say the criterion that protests must not disrupt university operations, as you say, is perniciously vague and expansive. What do you say to that? After Vanderbilt’s president again defended his university’s response, Nawaz weighed in again on behalf of the disruptive protesters: Nawaz: ….Many would say the purpose of protests is to disrupt. The next night, Nawaz again discussed the “expansion of college protests and encampments” and used more soundbites from protesting students, this time skipping the anti-Semitic threats and slogans entirely and comparing these hateful protests to the takeover of college campuses during the Vietnam War, while pretending that divestment from Israel was the main thrust of the new agitators. (Comparisons to Vietnam War protesters are almost always positive in PBS land.) Nawaz: Many say today's demonstrations echo college protests movements of the past, including against the Vietnam War….As protests of Israel's war in Gaza spread to campuses across the country, some see parallels between today's demonstrations and college protests in the past. These segments in support of anti-Jewish campus disrupters were brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. Transcripts are available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/25/24 7:28:18 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza are continuing to grow across the U.S. The University of Southern California announced today it's canceling its main commencement ceremony next month. Encampments are now in place in at least 20 colleges, and hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested in the last several days at multiple schools, including the University of Texas, Ohio State and Emory University. Amid police confrontations, multiple arrests and large demonstrations, Emory University today became the latest flash point in a wave of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. Early this morning, at Boston's Emerson University, violence erupted as police cleared a student encampment. More than 100 were arrested. Authorities say four officers were injured. That followed this clash at the University of Southern California. Officers there say protesters refused to remove their encampments. The protesters say they were provoked. Student Protester: What we just saw was an act of USC acting aggressively and failing to defend, and, in fact, being the aggressor against its students. Amna Nawaz: By nightfall, more than 90 people were taken into custody. Incidents are just the latest in a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations unfolding on campuses from coast to coast and beyond, including universities in Paris, Cairo, and Sydney. Some in the U.S. say they want their universities to cut financial ties with Israel. Former USC Student: We want the university to disclose its financial holdings and divest from its relationships with financial institutions. And we want the university to recognize and acknowledge to its student body that there is a genocide happening to our families in Gaza. Amna Nawaz: Officials at Columbia University yesterday extended talks with demonstrators to clear the campus, where, that same afternoon, House Speaker Mike Johnson was booed after his remarks. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): The cherished traditions of this university are being overtaken right now by radical and extreme ideologies. They place a target on the backs of Jewish students in the United States and here on this campus. Amna Nawaz: Jewish students across the country have said they feel unsafe amid the demonstrations and after being targeted by hate speech and antisemitic symbols. But some are taking part in the protests… Protesters: Free, free Palestine! Amna Nawaz: … which continue to spread to more campuses and show no signs of ending soon. The protests have also reached Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, where dozens of students have faced suspension, expulsion, and even arrest for their participation in recent protests on campus. Joining us now is Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier to discuss his school's approach, which he outlined in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Chancellor, welcome to the "NewsHour." Thanks for joining us. Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor, Vanderbilt University: Thank you for having me. Amna Nawaz: So, before we get into your school's specific experience, I just want to get your reaction to how quickly and how widely these protests have spread across campus. Daniel Diermeier: Yes, I think what we have seen in the last week or two is certainly that these issues and the protests have intensified, but, really, we have had them for the last six months or so. Amna Nawaz: And Vanderbilt has been among those that's seen its own protests. As we mentioned, there was a late March incident. Some 27 students or so forced their way into a closed administration building. I understand a campus security officer was injured during that incident. Most of the students had to be escorted out. Four were arrested, is my understanding. Help us understand the line for you. Why were those students arrested and some expelled? Daniel Diermeier: Absolutely. So, overall, over the last six months, things on campus have gone very well. Our students have done great. They had vigils. They had in-depth discussions. We have had a Passover celebration just like a few days ago with 400 students on our main lawn. And then some students have protesters as well on both sides. We have had displays of, like, the victims in Gaza. We have had displays of the hostages. So all of that has gone very well. But about a month ago, we had a small group of students that forced their way into a closed building. This is our main administration building. And we're still doing some construction. They ran over a security officer. They then tried to get into my office. They were — they tried to push over some of my staff there, but didn't succeed, and sat down in the hallway. And then, after a few hours, we told them that this is inconsistent with university policy, that this is disruptive conduct. We then had three of the students arrested that had pushed over the police officer. We had one student arrested who had smashed over a window, and then the other students left on their own accord and were subject to student discipline subsequently. Amna Nawaz: So the line for you was the physical violence part of it. Had the building been open, you're fine with students entering and sitting in, in protest, in other words? Daniel Diermeier: Well, the issue for us is whether you're disrupting university operations. Now, certainly, when you are forcing your way into a closed building, closed for construction, and you're injuring a public safety officer, that line has been crossed. The critical question for us is always, are you protesting and making your voices heard, or are you engaging in disruptive conduct? That can have many different forms. For example, we would not allow them to enter a classroom with a megaphone and disrupt the class, for example, so it can come in many different forms. This was certainly across the line. Amna Nawaz: You said in your op-ed that free speech is alive and well at Vanderbilt. But there was an open letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. They say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. They say the rules seem arbitrary. And they say the criterion that protests must not disrupt university operations, as you say, is perniciously vague and expansive. What do you say to that? Daniel Diermeier: Well, I think that this particular issue has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. As I mentioned before, there have been many expressions of student protest on campus. The issue for us is, in this particular case, was that the people forced them — forced their way into a construction building and injured a police officer. I don't think anybody should confuse this with free speech. Amna Nawaz: But, if I may, this line that you draw that it shouldn't disrupt, protests shouldn't disrupt university operations, your opposition here says that that's actually too vague and too expansive. Many would say the purpose of protests is to disrupt. Daniel Diermeier: I think the purpose of protest is to make your voices heard. I don't think the purpose of protest is to injure members of the staff or to disrupt classes. Amna Nawaz: One of the things the students were asking for was a student-led vote, a referendum, in essence, asking for the university to divest itself financially from any financial ties to Israel. My understanding is, you did not allow that vote, that referendum, to move forward, which then, of course, leads students to say that their free speech is being violated. So why not allow them to discuss that and hold that vote? Daniel Diermeier: The university has three principles. One is free speech. One is what we call institutional neutrality, which means that the university will not take policy issues unless they directly and materially affect the operations of the university, for example, not on foreign policy issues. And the third is civil discourse, which means that we treat each other with respect, we listen to each other, and when our students come on campus, they sign a community creed where they affirm their commitment to the last value of civil discourse. The students then had a — wanted to have a referendum to use student government funds to basically boycott any firms that had connection with Israel. That, in Tennessee, is against the law. Even the vote itself would have put our state funding at risk, and so, as consequences of that, we did not allow the vote, and because it's inconsistent with Tennessee state law. But I want to be clear that calling for the boycott of Israel is also inconsistent with our stand on institutional neutrality. Amna Nawaz: You know, Chancellor, I have to ask, if you believe that you and other leaders are handling these protests well, that you are hitting that balance between free speech and safety, why do you think that the protests and objections are spreading as rapidly as they are? I mean, is there a chance here that you are not necessarily hearing the concerns of your students in the way they feel they need to be heard? Daniel Diermeier: I need to distinguish between what's happening on my campus. And on my campus, this was an isolated incident that involved 30 students. What other universities do and how they handle that, I think, is something that will depend on their context. All of us will have — will be tested. Our approach has been that we have been very clear about our principles, the principles I just stated, and that we will enforce those principles, and that's the way we have handled the situation. Amna Nawaz: That is Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier joining us tonight. Chancellor, thank you very much for your time. Daniel Diermeier: Sure. Thank you. * PBS NewsHour 4/26/24 7:17:45 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: As protests of Israel's war in Gaza spread to campuses across the country, some see parallels between today's demonstrations and college protests in the past. Steven Mintz is a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin, and Angus Johnston is a professor and historian of American student culture at the City University of New York. Welcome to you both. Professor Johnston, let's just start with what the protesters are calling for here. What is their focus? What do they want as a result of these demonstrations? Angus Johnston, Assistant Professor, City University of New York: Well, it varies campus by campus, but primarily what we're looking for — looking at is, they're looking for a divestment of the universities' financial relationships with Israeli companies, a disentanglement of the universities from relationships with the Israeli government or military, and transparency as to the nature of those relationships where they currently exist. Amna Nawaz: Professor Mintz, how do — what do you make of the demands, as Professor Johnston had laid them out? Is that something you think colleges can achieve? Steven Mintz, Professor of History, University of Texas at Austin: I think they're very unlikely to be achieved. The protests of the 1960s, it was possible to achieve some kind of accommodation. First of all, one of the demands, an end to the military draft, received widespread support throughout society, and Richard Nixon's administration would make that happen. But on campuses themselves, there were some practical goals, like studies programs, women's studies programs, coeducation at the elite private universities, an end to parietals and in loco parentis regulations. There was a lot of ground for accommodation and compromise. And I don't see that much right now. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston, what do you make of that? Do you agree? Angus Johnston: Well, I think that the easiest, simplest demand that they're making is a demand for transparency in their universities' relationships with Israeli institutions, and I think that that is something that is certainly winnable on a lot of campuses. I also think that, in a lot of ways, the anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and '80s is a much better analog than the mass student movement of the late '60s in some ways. And I think it's important to remember that, in the case of the anti-apartheid movement, the calls for divestment on campuses began in the mid-70s. And it was a very, very long and slow process, by which students were adjusting people's views of the crisis itself. Amna Nawaz: What do you make of that, Professor Mintz? Could these protests now start what could be a long chain of changing people's minds when it comes to how they see this issue? Steven Mintz: The context today is very different than in the 1960s or 1970s, when higher education was growing and the federal and state investments in higher education were increasing. Today, the situation of American higher education is extremely precarious. Public support has diminished. Funding is hotly debated in many of the states. There are threats in some state legislatures to tax endowments, to tax university property, to tax university income. Donations to many of the leading universities have declined. This is a very treacherous moment, especially for the most well-endowed and highly selective institutions. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston, do you agree with that? I mean, is there a chance here that protesters run the risk of losing support the longer these protests go on, because of this scenario, as Professor Mintz has laid it out? Angus Johnston: Well, I think it's important to note that the protests themselves so far have largely been pretty moderate in their tactics. We're not seeing, as we did in the 1960s, rioting, rocks being thrown at police, even buildings getting burned — being burned down. The protests themselves have been pretty moderate. The thing that is inflaming the situation right now — in terms of their tactics, the thing that's inflaming the situation right now is bringing in the cops and using the police not only to engage in mass arrests against students, but in arresting and in some cases beating and abusing faculty as well. I think it's really important to point out that there are a number of campuses at which the university has decided to take a hands-off approach to these encampments. MIT is one. Berkeley is another. And at these, the encampments have been proceeding with very little issue and very little drama. Amna Nawaz: Professor Mintz, what about that? Because we have seen some pretty heavy-handed tactics in some cases. At your campus, at the University of Texas in Austin, dozens of people were arrested. Police in riot gear were called in to disperse the crowds. Is that necessary? Steven Mintz: Right now, we have many brand-new presidents, unseasoned senior administrators making decisions. One suspects that administrators who were more knowledgeable about past history, had more experience dealing with students, had better rapport with their student populations, that this would be playing out extremely differently. What we need to see on the part of senior administrators is a real willingness to step out of their offices, communicate with the students, and try to achieve some kind of accommodation. Amna Nawaz: Are you saying that you don't believe that the police should have been called in some of these circumstances? Steven Mintz: Absolutely not. And the lesson of history could not be clearer that this only escalates the situation, it worsens the situation, and it results in a degree of alienation that's very difficult to overcome. Amna Nawaz: So, given all that, Professor Mintz, I will ask you, and, then, Professor Johnston, if you would follow, I will just ask you both, where do we go from here? How do you see this unfolding in the weeks ahead? Professor Mintz? Steven Mintz: I think the conversation needs to be made more productive. In this country, if you want political change, you build coalitions. And what I'm not seeing on campus right now is an effort to have effective protests that will bring people together. When people hear anti-American sentiments, they are radically turned off. The demonstrators, in my view, should be calling for peace, for the release of the hostages, and an American foreign policy that will really result in a two-state solution. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston, I will give you the last word here. Angus Johnston: I'm really heartened by the fact that, despite what Professor Mintz has said, a lot of faculty have been turning out in support of these students, some of them turning out in support of the students' goals, but others turning out in support of the students' right to protest without being harassed and without being abused by cops. I think we are seeing the development of a new coalition on the campus. And I'm very heartened by that. And I hope that administrators take heed of that and do their bit to de-escalate the situation as well. Amna Nawaz: That is Professor Angus Johnston from the City University of New York and Professor Steven Mintz from the University of Texas at Austin. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Angus Johnston: Thank you. Steven Mintz: You're welcome.

PBS Sympathizes With Pro-Hamas Camping Protesters at Columbia: ‘Free Speech’

Tuesday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour took a deep-dive look at the anti-Jewish, pro-Hamas protesters camped out at Columbia University, with some “protesters” spewing eliminationist rhetoric at Israel and telling Jewish students to “go back to Poland.” One girl stood in front of a group of Jewish counter protesters holding a sign that read “Al Qassam’s next targets.” (Al Qassam is the military wing of Hamas.) Yet anchor Geoff Bennett’s intro was disconcertingly mild, ignoring all the disgusting details of the pro-Hamas demonstrators, while predominantly portraying them as victims of an over-aggressive college administration. Whatever actual goals the protests may have (divestment by the universities from Israel companies, perhaps) weren’t mentioned. Bennett: College campuses in several parts of the country are struggling tonight with just where to draw the line between allowing protests and free speech and preventing antisemitism and intimidation….Police said they were called in by university officials, who said protesters breached barricades and behaved in a -- quote -- "disruptive and antagonizing manner." Some faculty disputed that characterization by the school…. Hundreds of students have turned out for protests. On Thursday, [Columbia’s president] Shafik called the New York Police Department to break up tent encampments, and more than 100 protesters were arrested. Many students and faculty felt Shafik's crackdown has been excessively harsh in squelching free speech. Bennett put the genuine threat to Jewish students in passive terms, noting “but some students, Jewish students, in particular, as well as some alumni and faculty, say there's too much hostility on campus, leading some to feel threatened for their safety.” After quotes from a concerned non-Jewish student and the Anti-Defamation League, he pivoted: Bennett: But protesters say the crackdown is not justified. Aya Lyon-Sereno is a sophomore at Barnard College, which is part of Columbia, majoring in urban studies. She's Jewish. Aya Lyon-Sereno, Student, Barnard College: Barnard students have been evicted from dorms they're paying for, have been given 15 minutes to gather any belongings and are not allowed to eat in any dining halls, are not allowed to, like, use their meal plans and have been really, really criminalized. (A shame PBS didn’t cover such unfair practices by colleges during the COVID hysteria, when they were kicking out students out of housing they’d paid for, for the crime of…grocery shopping.) He brought Irene Mulvey into the studio, president of the (hard-left) American Association of University Professors, who delivered hypocritical talking points about defending freedom of expression on campus. Yet Mulvey signed an open letter at the height of the Black Lives Matter hysteria voicing concerns about “microaggressions” on campus. But now violent threats against Jews are part of “free speech.” Mulvey called them “peaceful protesters,” and pompously lamented “we saw the suppression of speech and silencing of voices because somebody might not like what they're saying. And that is a real danger in a democracy.” When Bennett asked, “How should a university balance the expression of free speech and student safety?” Mulvey was dismissive: “There's genuine -- there's harassment and antisemitism has, is not new, it's not the first time hate speech has reared its ugly head on campus. There are policies in place to deal with these kinds of things. And that's where we should go, policies that ensure due process for the students. And then what we're seeing instead is new policies being drafted on time, manner and place of protest….” Bennett followed up strongly: Well, thinking about this from the perspective of Jewish students who say they feel intimidated. If there is a climate of harassment on campus, isn’t the administration morally compelled and also compelled by law, by Title IX, to address it and shut it down? Mulvey said in times like these, “….you have to err on the side of free and open inquiry. There -- hate speech, antisemitism has no place on campus or anywhere and there are policies to deal with that. But in higher education, our primary focus should be academic freedom, free speech, and -- free speech and associational rights for students.” Bennett then went to Dr. Andrew Marks at Columbia University, who quibbled with a couple of Mulvey’s false assertions and noted examples of anti-Semitism on campus, but also praised Columbia’s president and said things were quieting down. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/23/24 7:03:29 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: College campuses in several parts of the country are struggling tonight with just where to draw the line between allowing protests and free speech and preventing antisemitism and intimidation. As the school year nears its end, Columbia University announced it would stay on a hybrid schedule until the end of the spring semester next week. And students were arrested at New York University last night. Police arrested more than 100 people at NYU, as the turmoil that has roiled Columbia over the past week spreads to other schools. Protester: It's a really, really outrageous crackdown by the university to allow the police to arrest students on our own campus. Geoff Bennett: Police said they were called in by University officials, who said protesters breached barricades and behaved in a — quote — "disruptive and antagonizing manner." Some faculty disputed that characterization by the school. It came as a wave of pro-Palestinian protests and encampments have spread in the past week since Columbia University President Minouche Shafik testified before a congressional committee about antisemitism on campus. Many are students, but not all are from the respective school where they are protesting. Earlier in the day, at least 60 people were arrested at Yale. There have been similar protests at Emerson, MIT, Boston University, the University of Michigan, and the University of California. Protesters: Free, free, free Palestine! Geoff Bennett: Columbia has been the flash point for a week now. Hundreds of students have turned out for protests. On Thursday, Shafik called the New York Police Department to break up tent encampments, and more than 100 protesters were arrested. Many students and faculty felt Shafik's crackdown has been excessively harsh in squelching free speech. Protesters: The people united will never be defeated! Geoff Bennett: But some students, Jewish students, in particular, as well as some alumni and faculty, say there's too much hostility on campus, leading some to feel threatened for their safety. Michael D'Agostino is a junior at the engineering school. He's not Jewish, but says he's watched what's happened too often. Michael D’Agostino, Student, Columbia University: The campus, honestly, it's full of a lot of hate and disagreement. And it's honestly just sad to see. It seems a pretty awful thing said to not only practicing Jews, but, I mean, people that are ethnically Jewish, simply for wearing like a Star of David.   Geoff Bennett: The Anti-Defamation League posted a video, contending it had become too dangerous as well. Man: Two individuals threw a rock at my head, hit me right in the face. I'm calling public safety. NYPD, where are you? Geoff Bennett: But protesters say the crackdown is not justified. Aya Lyon-Sereno is a sophomore at Barnard College, which is part of Columbia, majoring in urban studies. She's Jewish. Aya Lyon-Sereno, Student, Barnard College: Barnard students have been evicted from dorms they're paying for, have been given 15 minutes to gather any belongings and are not allowed to eat in any dining halls, are not allowed to, like, use their meal plans and have been really, really criminalized. Geoff Bennett: She also said the administration's approach has backfired. Aya Lyon-Sereno: The atmosphere on campus has been really tense, and I and many other students attribute that to the administration's actions, that people are feeling like it's tense on campus, people are feeling unsafe because there's a ton of cops in riot gear here. Geoff Bennett: For his part, President Biden also criticized many of the protests yesterday. Joe Biden, President of the United States: I condemn the antisemitic protests. I also condemn those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians. Geoff Bennett: And, today, before he went into court, former President Donald Trump blamed President Biden. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: What's going on at the college level, at the colleges, the Columbia, NYU and others, is a disgrace. And it's a — it's really on Biden. He has the wrong signal. He's got the wrong tone. He's got the wrong words. Geoff Bennett: The situation is also starting to affect the commencement season. The University of Southern California canceled all outside speakers, it says, out of concern for public. That followed a much-criticized decision to cancel the remarks of valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim student, over unspecified safety concerns. While Columbia University's administration has faced criticism for how it's handled the events and the arrest of students, concerns remain about the safety of Jewish staff and students on campus. We will get both of these perspectives first from Irene Mulvey, President Of The American Association of University Professors. She spent 37 years teaching mathematics at Fairfield University before retiring. Dr. Mulvey, thank you for being with us. And we should say that members of the Columbia University chapter of your organization are expected to move to censure the university president for her decision to call in the NYPD last week to arrest demonstrators. Why? Why is that warranted, in your view? Irene Mulvey, President, American Association of University Professors: Well, I think the idea of calling in police in riot gear on peaceful protesters protesting outside is a remarkably disproportionate and wrong-ended response to the events we're seeing on campus, because higher education is founded on listening, learning, discussion, debate, free and open inquiry. We challenge students to challenge their most deeply held beliefs in order to justify them to themselves and to others. Our goal is communication in service of understanding. Instead, we saw the suppression of speech and silencing of voices because somebody might not like what they're saying. And that is a real danger in a democracy. Geoff Bennett: Well, how should a university balance the expression of free speech and student safety? Irene Mulvey: There's genuine — there's — harassment and antisemitism has — is not new. It's not the first time hate speech has reared its ugly head on campus. There are policies in place to deal with these kinds of things. And that's where we should go, policies that ensure due process for the students. And then what we're seeing instead is new policies being drafted on time, manner and place of protest. So, your protest has to be over in a roped-off area in a tiny space on campus. This is suppression of speech. So the idea of, if you're suppressing speech in order to keep students safe, that's a false choice. You can do both. Geoff Bennett: Well, thinking about this from the perspective of Jewish students who say they feel intimidated, if there is a climate of harassment on campus, isn't the administration morally compelled and also compelled by law, by Title IX, to address it and shut it down? Irene Mulvey: The institution is required to allow for the most free and open expression, while also ensuring that conversations are civil and dialogue is respectful. But in situations like this, these are — people have extremely strong positions, and these are polarizing times, that debates are heated and messy. And so you have to err on the side of free and open inquiry. There — hate speech, antisemitism has no place on campus or anywhere and there are policies to deal with that. But in higher education, our primary focus should be academic freedom, free speech, and — free speech and associational rights for students. Geoff Bennett: As protests spread to other campuses, what lessons could other college administrators, university administrators take away from what's transpired at Columbia? Irene Mulvey: They could think about creative ways to respond. They could think about ways to encourage communication and dialogue in open forums across their campus and engaging all students, so that all students have an opportunity to hear other points of view, to understand other points of view, to question other points of view. They should figure out creative ways to respond, because what happened at NYU and Columbia is completely unacceptable. The silencing of speech in a democracy because somebody doesn't like it, this is a real danger. Geoff Bennett: Irene Mulvey is president of the American Association of University Professors. Thank you for your insights. Irene Mulvey: Thank you. Geoff Bennett: Let's turn now to Dr. Andrew Marks. He's the chair of the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University. Thank you for being with us. Dr. Andrew R. Marks, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics Chair, Columbia University: Thanks for having me. Geoff Bennett: So how do you feel about Dr. Shafik's handling of the ongoing demonstrations at Columbia? And what do you make of this view that the old policies in place to deal with student demonstrations were sufficient? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: I think she's doing the best that she can. I think that her heart is in the right place. I think it's an incredibly difficult situation and there are no easy answers. The university, Columbia University, has had policies in place which I think are capable of dealing with this situation if they're able to be enforced. Geoff Bennett: Have you witnessed incidents of antisemitism on campus? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Yes, I have. I have seen antisemitic slurs being hurled at Jewish students. And it's been very painful to watch. I have seen antisemitic hate language written on the college walk in the middle of campus and posters hanging that have been very offensive. Geoff Bennett: What more should Columbia be doing? What more could Columbia be doing to make Jewish students feel safer? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Well, I think Columbia has already done quite a lot and taken steps. And my personal observation is that, over the last several days, the hate speech has been toned down on campus. The problem is that, as you know, Columbia's campus is in the middle of New York City. And when you leave campus either — in either direction, there's a tremendous amount of antisemitic hate speech being hurled at students and faculty from people outside the campus. Geoff Bennett: When it comes to what's happening on campus, how should a university balance student safety and student expression? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Well, I think that students should be allowed to protest, absolutely. And I think that the limit has to be on hate speech. So I think that, as long as the protests are civil and respectful of other members of the community, that needs to be protected and encouraged. When it drifts over to hate speech, then it becomes offensive and I think threatening to the Jewish community at the university. Geoff Bennett: What do you think is informing and influencing Dr. Shafik's response to these ongoing protests? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Again, she's been in an incredibly difficult situation. And I wanted to clarify a couple of things I heard your previous speaker say. First of all, there — the actions taken against students had nothing to do with the content of their speech, except when it comes to hate speech, of course, but in terms of what they were protesting. It really had to do with them breaking the existing rules of the university. And President Shafik is responsible for the safety of all students. And she took an action, which I was not in favor of, bringing in the police. I wanted to negotiate or talk to the students some more before that. But she did that because she felt it was necessary to preserve the safety of the Jewish community on the campus and other people on campus. I was one of the people in the Senate Executive Committee that helped write the event policy. And it's important to note that that was done in complete collaboration and working very closely with students. And while no policy is perfect, we tried to come up with one that was fair. Your previous speaker mentioned that we were limiting protests to tiny parts of campus. That's not accurate. There were designated areas and times and place, which is common for all university campuses. And had the students adhered to those guidelines, things would have gone much differently.

NPR: Baby Sleep Training ‘Sacrifices Our Babies' Well-Being on Altar of Capitalism’

Greg Rosalsky of National Public Radio’s podcast “Planet Money” (which aims to explain the economy to listeners) has returned back from “lengthy parental leave” smitten by leftist social media rants, as shown in Monday’s segment “Sleep training: Life preserver for parents or "symptom of capitalism"?” No surprise, given the woke lunacy that has taken over taxpayer-supported NPR. ….Now that I'm a working parent, I want to take just one brief moment to complain on behalf of all of us. Like millions of parents before me, I've discovered it's hard to be productive when you're sleep deprived. He explained the concept of "sleep training," a “euphemism for the most infamous and controversial method: Cry It Out. Basically, you put your baby in a crib or bassinet in a separate room and don't come back until the morning. If they cry, so be it. The idea is they will learn to self-soothe and become good sleepers.…" Facebook and other companies have begun "subsidizing the cost of sleep training coaching for their workers." But then Rosalsky, who worked in the Obama White House, went off on a bizarre tangent, triggered by a stray political comment. For example, my wife was targeted with a post from a baby sleep consultancy called Taking Cara Babies that marketed their services to us (and our employers)….. It seemed pretty innocuous. But the most liked comment was the following: "Wish we had actual parental leave like the rest of the modern world so we weren't forced to sleep train and get back to work like good little capitalists." It turns out this sentiment can be found across the internet….There's a large community of parents who disparage sleep training -- and, in particular, any form of cry it out -- as basically a cruel practice that sacrifices our babies' well-being on the altar of capitalism. He went on, quoting comment after comment, before reining it in slightly. Whole Mother Therapy, which provides online therapy to parents, for example, argues on their blog that "Sleep training is a symptom of capitalism -- it cuts parents off from the natural attachment and nurturance that is essential for infant and baby development." "Sleep training is breaking your child's mind and nervous system to fit into the productivity model capitalism requires," tweeted an X user named HR. But is not wanting to be really sleep deprived only driven by economic concerns? If I had the luxury of not working, I probably would still want to be well-slept. And aren't there a whole bunch of countries that have capitalist economies -- but, at the same time, robust safety nets -- that give parents greater opportunity to stay home and be sleep-deprived without having to go into work? I'll let you be the judge. His concluding snark made no sense: As for us, we've pursued a strategy that you might call sleep training lite. Basically, when our baby cries in the night, we either feed him if it's been a while since he's eaten or we hold his hand and sing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star to him while he stays in his crib. Honestly, it worked really well between months 4 and 7. But recently, he started teething, and... well, we're both really tired. Take that, capitalism. Public-funded radio: Come for the sleep tips, stay for the socialism? PS: Christopher Rufo used this story to mock an NPR reporter being all about "factual news" on the website: This NPR employee wants you to believe that NPR is a home for unbiased, factual news, but the first story on the homepage is: "Sleep training: A life preserver for parents or a 'symptom of capitalism'?" Everyone knows NPR is biased, except NPR employees who are paid to deny it. https://t.co/zUZbTc92K7 — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 23, 2024

PBS News Show Defends 'The Unhoused' From 'Punitive' Laws Banning Street Camping

Sunday’s edition of PBS News Weekend spent 13 minutes out of its allotted 25 taking the loose liberal attitude toward homelessness (“the unhoused”) as a Supreme Court case looms. PBS found yet another liberal, an assistant public health professor at Cornell University, to make its preferred ideological case in the first segment, arguing an Oregon law limiting homeless camping in public spaces punishes people for being on the streets. JOHN YANG: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether laws limiting homeless encampments in public places are unconstitutional because they punish people for being homeless. The case is about laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 40,000 in the state’s southwest corner, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come. CHARLEY WILLISON, Cornell University: ….cities generally use much more punitive policies, these criminalization approaches that are at the heart of Johnson vs. Grants Pass to effectively punish people who are experiencing homelessness for behaviors that are associated with the realities of homelessness. Now, importantly, the use of these punitive policies actually facilitate cycles of homelessness and does not effectively end homelessness…. (Willison would throw in another “punitive” description before she was done.) Asked about Florida’s new camping ban, she responded similarly: “So these camping bans and other broadly punitive responses again, where we see people who are experiencing homelessness being either fined through civil penalties or criminalized through criminal penalties for realities associated with homelessness….” She responded to Yang’s question about a new California law to provide more drug treatment with liberal fantasizing, with no opposing views from Yang: ….For example, having more accountability, where cities are required to spend a certain proportion of their budgets on housing will likely help improve the situation and require cities to engage in these evidence-based policies which are far more effective. The anchor transitioned directly to a field report from Montana, with reporter Joe Lesar of Montana PBS speaking to Steve and Belinda Ankney, “[who] have been living in their trailer on the streets of Bozeman for the past three years.” Lesar admitted “Both have struggled with addiction” and Belinda has been previously jailed, which she blamed on “not getting the right help, not being on the right meds.” Lesar: To tackle this growing issue, Bozeman recently implemented a new ordinance limiting camping in the same spot to 30 days with an option for filing for an extension. There are rules about keeping camps clean, and after three warnings $25 civil penalties will be issued…. The reporter at least provided some anecdotes from citizens helping pay for homeless upkeep, with the head of an environmental consulting firm noting he’d suffered thefts on his company’s property and the harassment of an employee. But he ended with the view of a hand-wringing social worker and a lecture from the trailer-living denizen: Heather Grenier, Human Resources Development Council: Just general sentiment that everyone deserves the safe warm place to sleep is that doesn’t really resonate with everyone anymore. Steve Ankney: “….there are good people in Bozeman, just the ugly overshadows the good so bad.” The segment ended with a graphic of a federal government statistic claiming a 551% increase in “individuals experiencing chronic patterns of homelessness” from 2007 to 2023, which is a bit vague. When even the liberal Washington Post editorial page admits “There is no constitutional right to pitch your tent on the sidewalk” -- the kind of common-sense argument absent from PBS -- it’s clear that taxpayer-supported outlets like PBS and National Public Radio are pitched far to the left of the average American taxpayer who is involuntarily supporting them. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular, and taxpayers like you. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 4/21/2024 7:12:56 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether laws limiting homeless encampments in public places are unconstitutional because they punish people for being homeless. The case is about laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 40,000 in the state southwest corner, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come. Charley Willison teaches public health at Cornell University. She`s the author of "Ungoverned and Out of Sight: Public Health and the Political Crisis of Homelessness in the United States." Charley, in the filings for this case Grants Pass as well there these laws are about public health and public safety. The two homeless people who have brought this case say it`s really about pushing homeless people out of the -- out of Grants Pass getting them to move on to go someplace else. What`s your take on that? CHARLEY WILLISON, Cornell University: This is such an important question. And what this case is really getting at is a deep tension that American cities face when thinking about how to respond to homelessness across the country, but especially in West Coast cities that have very limited shelter capacity, and are also in the midst of a housing crisis. And these two tensions that I`d like to emphasize are that cities generally use much more punitive policies these criminalization approaches that are at the heart of Johnson versus Grants Pass to effectively punish people who are experiencing homelessness for behaviors that are associated with the realities of homelessness. Now, importantly, the use of these punitive policies actually facilitate cycles of homelessness and does not effectively end homelessness. While the alternative addressing homelessness through the use of more housing, as well as housing paired with access to social and medical services, does successfully end homelessness. However, we have seen cities across the United States have much less emphasis on the use of housing and supportive services compared to these punitive policies that are at the heart of this case. JOHN YANG: But at the same time, these camping bans are really spreading just this spring. Governor DeSantis and Florida signed a ban statewide banning camping in public places. But you say this really doesn`t help homelessness is it, does it hurt it? CHARLEY WILLISON: So these camping bans and other broadly punitive responses again, where we see people who are experiencing homelessness being either find through civil penalties or criminalized through criminal penalties for realities associated with homelessness, whether it is sleeping in public sitting down in public eating public, things like this do actually promote cycles of homelessness. Now, the Florida law that is in question is a ban on camping. However, it is also using an interim solution where there are temporary shelters and that will hopefully be used, as opposed to criminalizing people. So banning camping as opposed to incarcerating people, or finding people directing people into temporary shelters, which appear to be sanctioned camping sites. JOHN YANG: What about the ballot proposal that narrowly passed earlier this year in California that directs counties to spend more money on housing programs and drug treatment programs? Will that help? Will that make a difference? CHARLEY WILLISON: Proposition one in California, which passed just about a month ago, this raises the issue of the housing crisis itself, and the need for West Coast cities in particular, but especially cities across the United States, to engage in more housing based solutions, which are the only solution that effectively successfully ends homelessness. Across the country having these investments and in California, especially where there are by far very limited or far more limited shelter and housing opportunities compared to other East Coast cities. For example, having more accountability, where cities are required to spend a certain proportion of their budgets on housing will likely help improve the situation and require cities to engage in these evidence based policies which are far more effective. JOHN YANG: From your perspective, what`s the public health issue or what`s the public health effect implications of homelessness? CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many, many grave public health effects of homelessness. If we think about homelessness, in general, people experiencing homelessness, whether it is short term or long term face group far greater morbidity and mortality compared to the general population. And this is both in the short term and the long term. For example, we know that people who are experiencing sheltered homelessness, so this is when they don`t have to sleep outside, they have a place to go their mortality rates are about three times higher than the general population. Whereas people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness, which is the population that is at the heart of this court case, have mortality rates are about 10 times higher than the general population. So when we`re thinking about population health and homelessness is absolutely a public health problem because of the grave and dire consequences for people and their health in these ways. JOHN YANG: In your view, what`s at stake in this case? CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many things at stake in this case, but I would say probably the most important thing is again, going back to this tension, where cities have placed a lot of very robust resources in these punitive responses to homelessness. Now, if they are allowed to continue to do this, the question will be whether or not cities will be incentivized to create these alternative solutions using housing paired with social medical services, which we know actually successfully ends homelessness. However, if the court rules in favor of Johnson, we I think this is a very big opportunity for cities to engage in these evidence based solutions and make investments especially in West Coast cities, where they have not previously done so, so that we may actually successfully reduce and end homelessness. JOHN YANG: Charley Willison of Cornell University. Thank you very much. CHARLEY WILLISON: Thank you so much. JOHN YANG: In some cities with growing numbers of homeless people, the issue goes beyond encampments and public places. They`re also coping with more people living in cars and RVs parked on city streets. Montana PBS`s Joe Lesar reports on how city leaders in Bozeman Montana are dealing with the tensions arising from this more visible display of homelessness. STEVEN ANKNEY, Bozeman resident: Terry, oh, man, you got to have thick skin out here. BELINDA ANKNEY, Bozeman resident: Oh, we got the windows broke out. Not went up there. It`s just completely gone. STEVEN ANKNEY: Yeah, that one`s had the BB come through there. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Steve and Belinda Ankney, have been living in their trailer on the streets of Bozeman for the past three years. STEVEN ANKNEY: We take plates around or if people are having a hard time and they`re not eating, they`ll stop by and ask if we can help her anyway. JOE LESAR (voice-over): The rising cost of living has only compounded issues they I`ve been facing for years.   BELINDA ANKNEY: I was raised with the drugs. I was raised with the alcohol. That`s all I knew. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Both have struggled with addiction. Belinda works full time at a restaurant. But health issues made worse by inconsistent access to care have affected Steven`s ability to work. BELINDA ANKNEY: One of the biggest misconceptions is that we want to be here that we`re not trying to get out. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Belinda`s legal troubles out another barrier to securing housing. BELINDA ANKNEY: Yeah, the mental health issues. The drug issues the in and out of incarceration not getting the right help not being on the right meds, you know, just as (inaudible). JOE LESAR (voice-over): Urban camping as it`s been named, has increased by 200 percent in the last two years, according to city officials. It`s a growing issue. It`s increasingly dividing Bozeman. WOMAN: If Bozeman is too expensive to live in, choose another place to live. MAN: But it feels more like a warzone with all these housing crises and no solutions to anything. MAN: Bozeman doesn`t owe anybody anything. MAN: I`ve never seen or been in a city where there`s so much conflict over how this homelessness thing. JOE LESAR (voice-over): To tackle this growing issue, Bozeman recently implemented a new ordinance limiting camping in the same spot to 30 days with an option for filing for an extension. There are rules about keeping camps clean, and after three warnings $25 civil penalties will be issued. If unsanitary conditions continue, the city can clear camp 72 hours after giving notice. But some are criticizing city leaders for putting too much of a burden on the unhoused. Others feel they`re being too lenient. Mayor Terry Cunningham says the rules about where camping will be allowed will help make the situation more manageable. MAYOR TERRY CUNNINGHAM, Bozeman, Montana: You can`t be parked in front of a business, you can`t be parked in front of a school, childcare facility, residence, et cetera. So narrowing the areas that it is acceptable to camp in front of is important so we can get some level of predictability and control. JOE LESAR (voice-over): But many camps are already in compliance with those rules. A group of businesses are suing the city alleging that it is refusing to enforce existing laws within the homeless encampments. Andrew Hinnenkamp runs one of the businesses involved in the lawsuit. ANDREW HINNENKAMP, Principal, Modulus Corporation: Early on, we had some thefts of services on the property. We had a little bit of a harassment interaction with an employee and one of the individuals. TERRY CUNNINGHAM: homelessness has always been on the radar. This with urban camping RV`s, more cars. This is a recent phenomenon. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Because of the generators, new model cars and TV antennas, there`s a sentiment in Bozeman that people are choosing to camp in order to save money on housing. City officials acknowledged that some people are doing that and will be asked to move on. But figuring out who those people are comes with challenges. TERRY CUNNINGHAM: One of the difficulties is having the discussion and saying why are you currently homeless? We -- they are not required to provide us with that information and often are uncomfortable answering those types of questions. JOE LESAR (voice-over): The population of people experiencing homelessness in Bozeman has increased by 50 percent since 2020. In the groups providing services to this growing population have struggled to meet the demand. HEATHER GRENIER, President, Human Resources Development Council: As a result of COVID there was this big uptick in demand and there was this outpouring of support. And now that outpouring of support has dropped off, but the demand has stayed up at this level and the resources are very insufficient to meet the need. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Heather Grenier, who runs the nonprofit Human Resource Development Council, says her organization`s caseload is at capacity. And there are not many alternatives available. HEATHER GRENIER: It`s remarkably difficult because there`s no pathway for us to help them. There`s no housing. There`s no rental assistance to help them get into housing. And even if there were a housing unit, there`s no transitional housing. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Usage of HRDC overnight shelter has nearly doubled since 2019. Some of that needs should be eased when they`re new 24/7 shelter opens, but that`s not expected until next year. Grenier believes this newer, more visible form of homelessness has caused a shift in attitudes around Bozeman. HEATHER GRENIER: Just general sentiment that everyone deserves the safe warm place to sleep is that doesn`t really resonate with everyone anymore. BELINDA ANKNEY: Are we out? Are we out for it? STEVEN ANKNEY: No. I`ve seen not. I don`t know. BELINDA ANKNEY: OK. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Cost between a lack of services and a frustrated community, are people like Steven and Belinda? STEVEN ANKNEY: There are good people in Bozeman there. Yeah. It`s just the ugly overshadows the good so bad. This is what it`s about. We are having me struggles and we are having these problems. But as soon as we get through them, we are going to be okay. We are going to get to the other side. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Yeah. For PBS News Weekend, I`m Joe Lesar in Bozeman, Montana.

NYT’s Annie Karni Pouts Over Speaker Johnson Doing ‘What Passes for Brave in Today’s GOP’

Congressional correspondent Annie Karni got snarky against Republicans (and, perhaps, some of her fellow reporters?) in Sunday’s New York Times, after House Speaker Mike Johnson received some backhanded praise from some quarters of the media/Democratic alliance for pushing a military aid bill for Ukraine through: “Mike Johnson, Like Pence, Does What Passes for Brave in Today’s GOP: His Job.” The accolades directed at Speaker Mike Johnson in recent days for finally defying the right wing of his party and allowing an aid bill for Ukraine to move through the House might have seemed a tad excessive. After all, a speaker’s entire job is to move legislation through the House, and as Saturday’s vote to pass the bill demonstrated, the Ukraine measure had overwhelming support. But Mr. Johnson’s feat was not so different from that of another embattled Republican who faced a difficult choice under immense pressure from hard-right Republicans and was saluted as a hero for simply doing his job: former Vice President Mike Pence. When Mr. Pence refused former President Donald J. Trump’s demands that he overturn the 2020 election results as he presided over the electoral vote count by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 -- even as an angry mob with baseball bats and pepper spray invaded the Capitol and chanted “hang Mike Pence” -- the normally unremarkable act of performing the duties in a vice president’s job description was hailed as courageous. Mr. Pence and now Mr. Johnson represent the most high-profile examples of a stark political reality: In today’s Republican Party, subsumed by Mr. Trump, taking the norm-preserving, consensus-driven path can spell the end of your political career. Karni brought her paper’s hostile labeling pattern with her. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pence, both mild-mannered, extremely conservative evangelical Christians who have put their faith at the center of their politics, occupy a similar space in their party. They have both gone through contortions to accommodate Mr. Trump and the forces he unleashed in their party, which in turn have ultimately come after them….Mr. Pence has been offering Mr. Johnson private encouragement in recent weeks, as he faced growing discontent from the far right. Karni saved space for Ukraine president and media hero Zelensky praising Johnson “for the decision that keeps history on the right track,” but instantly pivoted with “Not everyone was eager to pile on the kudos,” citing a Democrat who aired criticism precisely like Karni’s. “I’m so glad Republicans finally realize the gravity of the situation and the urgency with which we must act,” Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said on Friday as the House was about to take a vote to clear the way for the bill. “But you don’t get an award around here for doing your damn job.” Karni got the scoop from The View’s allegedly Republican co-host. Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former top aide in the Trump administration, was lukewarm, at best, in her praise for Mr. Johnson, who she noted had dithered for months before moving ahead on Ukraine aid, even though it was clear there was a broad consensus that the aid was critical. “It’s remarkable that this is being viewed as a brave or heroic move -- simply putting a bill on the House floor for a vote that has bipartisan support to pass,” she said. “In the period of time that Johnson waffled over whether to even allow a vote on it or not, Ukraine lost ground and Ukrainians were killed by Russians.” Alyssa Farah served with Trump for almost his entire term, and then quickly became a high-paid host on The View. Why is she the "bravery" judge? But the Times just did a puff piece on her.  Even after Johnson did what the Democrats (who waved Ukrainian flags on the House floor) wanted, Karni didn’t pause from her petulance. Even after his impassioned comments, he hesitated before releasing the text of the bills, prompting Democrats to worry that his indecision and desire to appeal to the far right would again win out.

PBS 'Washington Week' Gang Hails Speaker Johnson Finding His 'Inner Reagan' on Ukraine

The latest, foreign-policy-facing episode of Washington Week with The Atlantic found the weekly journalistic roundtable quite comfortable with both American hard and soft power -- as long as President Biden and the Democrats hold the reins. Jeffrey Goldberg, moderator of Washington Week and editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, was joined by Eugene Daniels of Politico, Seung Min Kim of the Associated Press, Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal, and Graeme Wood of The Atlantic. There was a scattering of hostile labeling, with three “far right” labels foisted on Republicans, including a "very raucous far right." PBS doesn't find "far left" for Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib. But most striking was the panel’s praise for previously mocked House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for finding his (yes) “inner Reagan.” Now that the press has decided defending Ukraine against Putin’s Russia is vital, the 40th president’s reputation has shifted from warmonger to responsible internationalist. Atlantic journalist Graeme Wood particularly loved Speaker Johnson finally “getting a grip on reality” on Ukraine, which in media terms meant Johnson turning away from his “hard-right” flank toward sweet reason – boosted by Democrats in Congress, who saved his speaker position -- by pushing an additional $60 billion in spending for military aid to Ukraine. Goldberg set up a clip of Johnson arguing for military aid to Ukraine, even mentioning an "axis of evil" (remember those?) consisting of China, Iran, and Russia, but this time to media approval. When asked by host Goldberg whether what we’re seeing is “the true Mike Johnson,” Wood responded thusly. Wood: I don’t know if it’s the true Mike Johnson. But having just been in Poland about a week ago, it seems to most polls and there are some parts of the world where the stakes are very high with these issues, that it’s a person, Mike Johnson, getting a grip on reality. I mean, Poles are seeing this as, arming Ukraine means stopping Kiev from falling and then stopping Russia from getting to the Polish border, which by the way, it’s been there before. Knowing how public television has traditionally treated Ronald Reagan’s presidency, this exchange registered as ironic: Jeffrey Goldberg: ….Vivian, let’s add onto that. Has Johnson found his inner Reagan? And is he strong enough to withstand what might be coming from the isolationist wing? Vivian Salama: I think he would love to believe that he’s found his inner Reagan. Goldberg: I mean, every Republican wants to find their inner Reagan, right? And did the Democrats backing this package show their "inner Reagan" as well? Later there was “optimism” Israeli’s embattled Netanyahu was listening to the wisdom of the American president and refraining from major countermeasures after Iran fired drones and missiles into Israel. Goldberg: So, that brings me to this question about President Biden and his relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. It seems like there’s been a little bit of a reset in their relationship. And by that, I mean it seems as if Netanyahu is actually listening a bit to Joe Biden now, or is that -- am I over-indexing? Wood: Yes, you might be a little bit too optimistic. But, you know, the hope was that during these last weeks, so much has changed, so much of the narrative could have changed, and it was a frozen and very bad narrative for a number of reasons in the Gaza War. But what can Netanyahu make of this? I mean, there are many Israelis who wish he would just disappear. But the next best thing would be for something in the frozen conflict, in the frozen situation to move…. Wood later admitted he wasn’t a Netanyahu fan: "We’ve got to understand, too, what type of pressure Netanyahu was under. I’ll speak with a rare note of sympathy with Bibi here, because if your country is attacked with 300 drones and ballistic missiles and you do nothing, I don’t think there’s any country that would allow an attack like that to go completely unanswered…." Journalists are certainly more confident of projecting American might during Democratic administrations. Exporting United States military might to Ukraine and putting the diplomatic squeeze on an ally are now admirable traits. Strange days! This sudden new respect for American military power was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular, and taxpayers like you. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic 4/19/24 8:02:01 p.m. (ET) Jeffrey Goldberg: So, it seems that Mike Johnson, the unlikeliest speaker in recent memory, even Washington reporters who know everything admit that they hadn't heard of him before his selection, might not be falling off the tightrope quite yet. The far right of his party has predictably turned on him, but Donald Trump hasn't, so far at least, and neither have the Democrats. Is Marjorie Taylor Greene inadvertently bringing back bipartisanship? I'll talk about this and the consequences for Ukraine and Israel funding with Eugene Daniels, a White House correspondent and co-author of Politico's playbook, Seung Min Kim is a White House reporter with the Associated Press, Vivian Salama is a national politics reporter for The Wall Street Journal, and Graeme Wood is my colleague and a staff writer at The Atlantic. Welcome, all. Seung Min, you're in the hot seat. Just came from the White House. So, the House is poised to pass this $95 billion foreign aid package finally, and if the speaker gets this done, it's going to be with the help of the Democrats obviously, and his right most members, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, who may or may not be, for further discussion, the most powerful person on the Hill. They're pretty livid. So, what are the chances that Johnson gets this done, and in so doing, also subverts his speakership? Seung Min Kim, White House Reporter, The Associated Press: The chances, on the one hand, the chances are good that the foreign aid package will pass the House tomorrow. On a procedural vote earlier today, you had 316 votes. That is far past the majority, helped with a lot of Democrats, like you said, and a significant portion of Republicans as well. And, you know, that will have to go back to the Senate, and then to the president's desk for it to be signed. But the real question is what happens to Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership position. What's been really interesting over the last couple of days is that it's not just Marjorie Taylor Greene anymore who's threatening to oust him from his speakership. The numbers, slowly, they are growing. You have two more House Republicans now on the record saying they would support him that what we call a motion to vacate, that maneuver, that mechanism that allows one person to oust a speaker. And why that matters -- Jeffrey Goldberg: The mechanism that was fatal to Kevin McCarthy. Seung Min Kim: Definitely, yes, that mechanism. And what's critical here is that the margins in the House are so narrow after there's one person leaving the house after this week and he will have just a one seat majority. That is almost untenable for any speaker to navigate, much less someone who is inexperienced and has a very raucous far right portion of the conference like Mike Johnson does. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. But I want to show you a chart from -- just to look at this. These are the last Republican speakers, and you see that it's not a job that lasts forever these days. Mike Johnson is at 178 days and counting. I'm not asking Eugene for you to predict the future, although can you predict the future? Daniels, White House Correspondent, Politico: No, not yet. I'm learning. Jeffrey Goldberg: All right. I mean, what are the chances that he finds himself in really dire straits? And what are the chances that Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, comes in to save him? Eugene Daniels: That's the key to this, right? That the chances of whether or not he gets saved, it's all up to Hakeem Jeffries. If Hakeem Jeffries signals either in front of cameras or behind the scenes to Democrats that, hey, I will let you not come, you can leave, we want you to protect and defend him, Mike Johnson, in any kind of vote, then they will do that. Jeffrey Goldberg: What's the Democratic interest in keeping Johnson in power? Eugene Daniels: The reason that they are, the people that are interested in it, is, one, they're worried about who would come next, right? If Marjorie Taylor Greene, if you're not far right enough for her, people are worried about who's coming next. And also, he's doing something that Kevin McCarthy did not do. He's acting in good faith with the Democrats at this point, right? The way that he's negotiating and trying to get these bills to the floor is something that they wanted from Kevin McCarthy. He would not do. Also, Kevin McCarthy was kind of bad mouthing Democrats on air a day after. They saved his bill, and so they were upset about that. They said, you know, we're not saving you, you're on your own. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Eugene Daniels: So, they're not getting that from Johnson. Jeffrey Goldberg: Johnson is kind of cool, understated approach is working. Eugene Daniels: It's working. It's working. Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes. Vivian, do you have any thoughts on, on whether he can maneuver this Ukraine bill to passage and maintain his job? Vivian Salama, National Politics Reporter, The Wall Street Journal: It's looking increasingly likely that he will get the Ukraine bill over the finish line. Now, whether or not he maintains his job is another story. Remember, Ukraine was at one point a largely bipartisan issue. Most people in Congress on both sides of the aisle supported some sort of U.S. aid package. However, it has become increasingly a political flashpoint. And there is one person that has driven a lot of that rhetoric, and that is Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, where he made it increasingly become a political issue, where he would say, why are we giving billions of dollars to Ukraine? You know, the country is falling apart. We have problems at the border. And so that has grown. And we've seen then the hardliners in the Republican Party pushing back on Ukraine aid. And that's where we are. It is not a substantive issue here. It is a political issue. And now you see Donald Trump coming along and saying, well, okay, we can give them aid in the form of a loan and everything has changed suddenly. Jeffrey Goldberg: I want to get to Trump. Before we get to Trump, I want to -- so NewsHour's Amna Nawaz earlier this week interviewed President Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and he made his feelings about all of this quite clear. Listen to this one segment. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President: We wanted another way to get this money last year, but for today, it doesn't matter. We need to survive and we need to defend our people. And that's why your decision, the ball is on your field, yes? Please, just make decision. Jeffrey Goldberg: So, I'm not, I'm not saying that what I'm going to play you now is a direct consequence of PBS' global reach, but, Speaker Johnson causation, correlation, we can have that debate later, but Zelenskyy's plea, it seems as if, you know, that kind of thinking that Zelenskyy is talking about there kind of moved Speaker Johnson. Listen to this. This is kind of an extended riff by Johnson on Ukraine, in which he sounds like an old style Reagan Republican. Listen, listen to this. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. I really do. I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we've gotten. I believe Xi and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil. I think they're in coordination on this. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys. My son is going to begin in the Naval Academy this fall. This is a live fire exercise for me, as it is so many American families. This is not a game. It's not a joke. We can't play politics with this. And I'm willing to take personal risk for that, because we have to do the right thing, and history will judge us. Jeffrey Goldberg: Graeme, this is pretty remarkable given where Johnson was in the sort of Trumpian quasi isolationist framework. Are we seeing something very unusual? Is this the true Mike Johnson? Graeme Wood, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: I don't know if it's the true Mike Johnson. But having just been in Poland about a week ago, it seems to most Poles and there're some parts of the world where the stakes are very high with these issues, that it's a person, Mike Johnson, getting a grip on reality. I mean, polls are seeing this as arming Ukraine means stopping Kyiv from falling, and then stopping Russia from getting to the Polish border, which, by the way, it's been there before. So it's a matter of someone who -- you know, maybe he has to satisfy Marjorie Taylor Greene, maybe not. These are political questions that are, that are unfamiliar to parts of the world where they're wondering about their future independence and prosperity. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. I would love as an exercise to try to explain Marjorie Taylor Greene's politics to the prime minister of Poland, but that we'll do that on another show. But, Vivian, come, come, let's add onto that. Has Johnson found his inner Reagan? And is he strong enough to withstand what might be coming from the isolationist wing? Vivian Salama: I think he would love to believe that he's found his inner Reagan. Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, every Republican wants to find their inner Reagan, right? Yes. Vivian Salama: And one of the things that I've heard a lot from folks on the Hill is that a lot of this is he's driven by faith, that he believes because of his faith that it is imperative upon the United States, it's incumbent upon the United States to help allies, including the Ukrainians who are on the frontline of this war, whether or not -- Jeffrey Goldberg: So, why did we wait so long? Vivian Salama: Well, that's just the issue. There's so much political headwind and it's taken so much time for the party to sort of coalesce around this concept that we have to do this. And it was -- as a standalone issue, I don't know if Ukraine aid would have passed, but we're lumping it in with other issues, support for Israel, support for Taiwan. And so it pads it with those issues that do have more bipartisan support at the moment and can sort of get through the house a lot quicker. Also remember there was a lot of pushback on border security that Republicans wanted to basically get a win by adding border security and linking it to Ukraine aid. And that is largely what slowed down the passage of this. And so this has been a major issue. Eugene Daniels: It's his faith, but there's also like a practical aspect of this. He said, I believe the intel, he gets a lot more access to information as speaker than he did as a kind of a rank and file backbencher in the House. So, he is getting information that he wasn't getting before. This is not the Mike Johnson that many of us did not know when you -- a few months ago, right? Jeffrey Goldberg: Wait, I want to study that sentence. This is not the Mike Johnson that they didn't know. Eugene Daniels: He's somebody we used to know. We know someone else. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Eugene Daniels: But like that is such a bit of integral part of understanding this change in him. He's in leadership. And there's a different way that you have to operate. His kind of dragging his feet, in my estimation, has always been -- he does have to make it look like he's not being pushed by Democrats to do anything. And a lot has changed in the months leading up to this. Jeffrey Goldberg: Talk about that from the White House perspective. I mean, obviously, he's in leadership. He's getting intel. Now, obviously, if you're in the paranoid nether regions of American politics, you think, oh, then he's like being influenced by the deep state. But what he's getting is real time intelligence about the Ukrainian struggles, right? Is this part of -- I mean, obviously, statutorily, you know, the speaker has to be involved in a lot of this, but is the White House cultivating Mike Johnson in a kind of way. Seung Min Kim: Right. I mean, that was a huge part of the White House's strategy when it came to persuading Mike Johnson on the need for additional Ukraine aid. If you recall literally the day after he was elected speaker, they brought him to the situation room right away. This is where he met Jake Sullivan. He met other national security officials. He met President Biden and spoke to him briefly for the first time. And he was exposed to the kind of information that he did not have as a rank and file member. He was then brought up for multiple meetings. He and National Security Committee chairman had regular briefings recently, obviously had multiple conversations. And that was part of the administration's strategy to convince him and give them real time, concrete information to try to persuade him that this is real, that his is a problem. And what's been fascinating to watch when it comes to Mike Johnson is that you do see an evolution of someone understanding that you can't behave the way as a rank and file member than you would as a leader, and not only as a leader of a House Republican conference, but a leader as a Speaker of the House. Which is why you can go from someone who voted against Ukraine aid like Mike Johnson did to someone who was shepherding it through at the risk of his own job. Vivian Salama: It wasn't just, by the way, the administration who's been lobbying him. Foreign leaders have been lining up to see Mike Johnson. I interviewed the Polish president just this week who had been in to see him a few weeks ago. And one by one, they'd all been going in saying, you do not understand what this threat means. Europe could fall. The Ukrainians have no more ammunition. We are literally at the brink. And I think over time they have managed to get to him, especially people like President Duda of Poland, who's very persuasive. He's also an ally of Trump's and then speaks sort of that language. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. He's a kind of a populist. Vivian Salama: He's considered right wing. And he appeals both to Trump. He did see Trump as well this week. But he also met with Mike Johnson. Others have as well. And so, progressively, over time, I think those European leaders and parliamentarians, you know, foreign ministers, you name it, they have managed to really get to him and make him understand the stakes here. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Graeme, this is the actual sort of largest question or most important question. What does this -- if this aid, and, obviously, it's a big package, Israel, Taiwan, but if this aid is freed up for Ukraine, tell us what that means on the battlefield. Graeme Wood: Yes. So, these briefings are very sobering for one reason, which is anything could happen between now and the end of the year. And that could mean the collapse of the Ukrainian frontline. The collapse of the Ukrainian frontline could mean the end of Ukraine as the state that we know it as. And once that happens, then that line starts moving and the political calculations of Europe change completely. So, I think some of the conversations that can happen in Washington can be about, okay, maybe we lose Ukraine. But a complete geo strategic reset that could happen with the collapse of a frontline in Ukraine is an extremely sobering thought. And that's why I think it's been so urgent that these conversations happen with -- Jeffrey Goldberg: So, you think it's plausible that it's not just that Russia will solidify its position in Crimea and in the east. You think that without U.S. resupply, the frontline could actually collapse and Russia could do what it couldn't do two years ago? Graeme Wood: Yes, that is plausible. It seems like right now the line could be frozen. But, you know, the way these things happen is slowly, slowly than all at once. Jeffrey Goldberg: Like Afghanistan. Graeme Wood: Yes. Things can happen so quickly that it would be pretty urgent to at least keep the line where it is. Now, having a plan for it to actually resolve the war, of course, is what everyone would want. But the disaster, the catastrophe that would happen, if the line really collapsed, would be unthinkable. Jeffrey Goldberg: Part of that catastrophe would be that Russia would then be in a better position to threaten actual NATO allies, and then we are required, by treaty, to come to their defense, as opposed to Ukraine, which is not in NATO.

Hopelessly Woke NPR Places Trigger Warning on Declaration of Independence

The hopeless wokeness of tax-funded National Public Radio has been confirmed by NPR senior business editor Uri Berliner, who started shockwaves with his Free Press essay “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust” providing chapter and verse of how NPR had been take over fully by the left, and as a result blowing several major stories like Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, and dismissing the coronavirus lab leak theory. For his whistleblowing efforts, the veteran journalist Berliner was suspended from NPR for five days before resigning. Demonstrating the totality of NPR bias, new chief executive Katherine Maher is in the spotlight after a series of bizarre tweets resurfaced in which she sounds like an Artificial Intelligence parody of a leftist media elitist, such as when she excused looting during the summer 2020 riots. Berliner targeted Maher directly on X: "I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay." One example of anti-American wokeness is the “editor’s note” NPR staff felt obliged to place on archived stories about its on-air reading every Independence Day of the Declaration of Independence in full, an honorable tradition apparently now consigned to the ash-heap of history. Yes, one of America’s founding documents now requires a trigger warning, in the view of partially government funded radio (hat tip: Masks are bad, actually on X): Editor's note on July 8, 2022: This story quotes the U.S. Declaration of Independence -- a document that contains offensive language about Native Americans, including a racial slur. The transcripts of previous years of the annual reading now include the warning, relating to the Declaration’s reference to the “merciless Indian savages” purportedly whipped up by King George III of England to wage “domestic insurrections” on the rebellious colonists. NewsBusters previously explored how NPR host Leila Fadel in 2022 preened about NPR’s “break with tradition” in no longer reading the document on air, so as to explore “what equality means” instead, with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep and two liberal Harvard professors. Four days later, perhaps after an internal “struggle session,” the sad editor’s note appeared.

PBS’s Pathetic O.J. Simpson Take: Outrage Over Racism, Not Denial of Justice

PBS recruited the late football star and (acquitted) double murderer O.J. Simpson into the American race wars. On the April 11 PBS NewsHour had an odd take on the death of Simpson, whose televised trial captivated America 30 years ago, bringing in Dave Zirin, sports editor for the aging hard-left magazine The Nation. Together, he and NewsHour reporter William Brangham used the famous trial not as an example of justice denied, but to portray America as a historic haven of anti-black racism. Reporter William Brangham took us down that bloody memory lane before pivoting to the racial import of the trial. O.J. Simpson's trial and his initial acquittal was an enormous moment of reckoning for many, exposing another stark racial fissure in America, in particular, the chasm between how black and white Americans saw the police and the justice system. The trial also underscored glaring issues in how we view domestic violence, interracial marriage and the growing culture of media celebrity. The NewsHour’s expert source was the sports editor for the hard-left magazine The Nation, who in a series of repellent columns since October 7 condemned Israel but not Hamas for war crimes. He used the Simpson case as a ready means to condemn America as racist, even though the case itself featured a black man acquitted of a murder charge of which he was almost surely guilty. There certainly would be no condemnation of the majority-black jury acquitting a black football star of a crime he almost certainly committed. BRANGHAM: Dave Zirin wrote about all of this in a piece in The Nation today titled: "O.J. Simpson was a Rorschach test for America." And he joins me now. Dave Zirin, great to see you again on the NewsHour. You write in your piece -- quote -- "If anyone had illusions that the United States was in fact united, the O.J. Simpson trial and subsequent verdict quickly put an end to that." Remind us what the country experienced that day when that not guilty verdict came down. DAVE ZIRIN: ….it exposed that when it comes to the United States of America, there really is nothing united about it. White people experience particularly the criminal justice system and police one way, and black people experience it in a different way. And out of that, you get a white opinion out of the O.J. Simpson verdict that this was one of the great injustices of the 20th century, that someone just got away literally with a double homicide. And then, on the other side, in black America, there was an overwhelming belief that the police were corrupt, that O.J. Simpson was railroaded, and that the entire situation stank so much of racism and tainted testimony that there is no way there should have been a conviction…. Brangham acceded to Zirin’s left-wing viewpoint: "And yet, as you also document in your piece, that, for so many black Americans, this happening in Los Angeles, coming a couple of years after Rodney King and all of the revelations of racism in the L.A. Police Department, just seemed like, as you're saying, the culmination, this sort of apex of racial animosity towards black people." Zirin naturally agreed, bringing up the then-recent Rodney King beating and verdict. Then Brangham chided O.J. Simpson, not for his crimes, both proven and alleged, but for having “sort of steadfastly refused to talk about what it was like to be a black man in America” before his trial. This strange segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/11/24 7:15:01 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: O.J. Simpson, whose murder trial captivated international attention for months, died yesterday of cancer. His case dominated headlines during the '90s and was a prime example of people's fascination with celebrity and crime. But the trial was about much more than that, highlighting major fissures in America and one whose legacy is still discussed some decades later. William Brangham has our look. William Brangham: He was a football Hall of Famer, one of the greatest running backs of his generation, who suffered a precipitous fall from grace. O.J. Simpson's legacy would forever be tarnished by the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. They were repeatedly stabbed to death at her Los Angeles home two years after the Simpsons divorced. O.J. Simpson was charged in their killings after blood was found in his home and on his car. Millions of Americans sat glued to their televisions, watching as Simpson fled in a white Ford Bronco on the Southern California freeway. Police trailed him for 60 miles. He was eventually arrested and put on trial. The country was similarly riveted by the nine-month-long televised proceedings, transfixed by the grisly details, allegations of domestic violence, and what would become iconic closing arguments. Johnnie Cochran, Former Attorney For O.J. Simpson: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. William Brangham: It would eventually be dubbed the trial of the century. Christopher Darden, Prosecutor: He was also one hell of a great football player, but he's still a murderer. William Brangham: The case also further exposed the racism inside the Los Angeles police force. All along, Simpson maintained his innocence, and he was ultimately acquitted. Woman: We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of penal code section 187. William Brangham: Two years later, a civil suit filed by the victims' families found Simpson liable for their deaths. His assets were seized, and he was ordered to pay over $33 million in damages. They were never fully paid. It was all a stark contrast to his younger days. Hailed as one of the nation's top athletes, in the 1960s, Simpson was a decorated football star, an all-American at the University of Southern California. He was awarded the Heisman Trophy in 1968. And the next year, he was the number one draft pick, taken by the Buffalo Bills, where he went on to play nine seasons and was a five-time All-Pro. Simpson parlayed his fame and trademark charm into a successful career on screen, most famously as the pitchman for Hertz rental cars in the 1970s. He went on to act on TV and in movies, like in the late 80s slapstick "The Naked Gun." Well after the murder trials, Simpson had another run-in with the law. He was convicted of armed robbery and other felonies and served nine years in prison for stealing sports memorabilia in Las Vegas. He claimed the goods had originally been stolen from him. O.J. Simpson, Former NFL Player: I have done my time. I'd just like to get back to my family and friends. And, believe it or not, I do have some real friends. William Brangham: Simpson's family said he died Wednesday after battling prostate cancer. O.J. Simpson was 76 years old. O.J. Simpson's trial and his initial acquittal was an enormous moment of reckoning for many, exposing another stark racial fissure in America, in particular, the chasm between how Black and white Americans saw the police and the justice system. The trial also underscored glaring issues in how we view domestic violence, interracial marriage and the growing culture of media celebrity. Dave Zirin wrote about all of this in a piece in "The Nation" today titled: "O.J. Simpson was a Rorschach test for America." And he joins me now. Dave Zirin, great to see you again on the "NewsHour." You write in your piece — quote — "If anyone had illusions that the United States was in fact united, the O.J. Simpson trial and subsequent verdict quickly put an end to that." Remind us what the country experienced that day when that not guilty verdict came down. Dave Zirin, "The Nation": Wow, I remember it like it was yesterday. That's how powerful a moment it was in the American psyche. And what it revealed is that this country could have one common experience, watching this trial, and draw entirely different conclusions from it. And it exposed that when it comes to the United States of America, there really is nothing united about it. White people experience particularly the criminal justice system and police one way, and Black people experience it in a different way. And out of that, you get a white opinion out of the O.J. Simpson verdict that this was one of the great injustices of the 20th century, that someone just got away literally with a double homicide. And then, on the other side, in Black America, there was an overwhelming belief that the police were corrupt, that O.J. Simpson was railroaded, and that the entire situation stank so much of racism and tainted testimony that there is no way there should have been a conviction. And so, therefore, the jury's decision was just. So, what it really revealed was that you can have a common experience, but, then, at the end of the day it's viewed an entirely different ways based upon the color of your skin. William Brangham: Going back to that issue of how a lot of white Americans saw it, you write how O.J. being acquitted, to many, seemed like this is an example of a rich celebrity being able to buy and assemble this dream team that gets him past all of this evidence and gets him acquitted. Do you think that is how a lot of people saw that? Dave Zirin: Oh, at the time, the discussion about O.J.'s ability to hire this incredible dream team of attorneys led by the legendary Johnnie Cochran, not to mention people like F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, a group of people who everybody knew in legal circles coming together, people said at the time, a lot of people, this is not justice. Even Chris Rock had a line in his stand-up act that said, if O.J. Wasn't a rich celebrity with these lawyers, he'd be known as or Orenthal, the white lady killer. And that was a stark statement. But it was once something that was widely seen in the culture that, wow, if O.J. is found innocent, it'll be because he hired the best that money could buy. William Brangham: And yet, as you also document in your piece, that, for so many Black Americans, this happening in Los Angeles, coming a couple of years after Rodney King and all of the revelations of racism in the L.A. Police Department, just seemed like, as you're saying, the culmination, this sort of apex of racial animosity towards Black people. Dave Zirin: Absolutely. I mean, and the police chief, the former police chief by 1995, Daryl Gates, there was a very militarized approach to policing in what were called anti-gang initiatives in the Black community. And that led to a great deal of violence and a great deal of mistrust, which is why, after the Rodney King beating, nobody in L.A. really saw it as just a Rodney King story, but as emblematic of how Black people and brown people were treated by Daryl Gates' police department. And that's just in 1992. So the city is actually still rebuilding by 1994, when the trial begins. And so it's not like it was some distant memory. It was part of a continuum for many people of a racist and out-of-control police department. And then when there were revelations in the trial of legitimate police misconduct, that only sealed the deal for a lot of folks who thought to themselves, I'm not sure if O.J. Simpson can get a fair trial in the city and county of Los Angeles. William Brangham: Right. And this all comes, as you also write that it's ironic, in a way, that O.J. Simpson was the vehicle through which we start to even see this in its sharpest form, because, all throughout his career, he sort of steadfastly refused to talk about what it was like to be a Black man in America. Dave Zirin: Yes, O.J. consciously positioned himself commercially as somebody who would be different from civil rights figures at the intersection of sports and Black politics, people like Jim Brown, for example. O.J. Simpson was not going to be that. He was not going to be somebody who raised a fist on the medal stand at any ceremony. He was going to be O.J. Simpson. Like he liked to say to reporters very famously: "I'm not Black. I'm O.J." And positioning himself commercially that way meant that there was a great distance between O.J. Simpson and the Black community. But as was said quite often in 1995, when O.J. was arrested and put on trial, that was when he and a lot of other people discovered that he was, in fact, a Black man in the United States. William Brangham: Dave Zirin of "The Nation," always great to talk to you. Thank you so much for talking with us. Dave Zirin: Thank you for having me.

PBS: AZ Abortion Ban Dates to When Slavery Was Legal and Only White Men Could Vote

PBS took another bite out of the surprise decision that recently emerged out of Arizona’s Supreme Court, on the Saturday edition of PBS News Weekend, anchor John Yang really loaded the ideological dice in his introduction: “The near-total abortion ban that the Arizona Supreme Court revived this week dates back to when Arizona wasn’t a state yet, when slavery was legal, and when only white men had the vote. Many Republican officeholders and candidate scrambled to distance themselves from the law.” Yang introduced PBS’s version of a Republican guest: “Barrett Marson is a Republican strategist based in Arizona….it’s a swing state in the presidential election. You got a toss-up Senate race, and you got a couple of congressional contests that are going to be very close. How is this, what happened this week, the Supreme Court decision, going to affect those races?” Barrett Marson: ….I think last week, we were a lean-Trump state. And I think this week, we’re a lean-Biden state. I think Kari Lake is on the wrong end of this issue. And, in fact, you know, I think a lot of Republicans who have quite frankly championed this kind of thing for what two generations are finding themselves, at least in Arizona, on the wrong side of how voters feel about this issue. Yang: Have the Democrats picked up on this? Are they pressing this? Marson: I mean, that is what they are doing. 24/7. And rightly so, I mean, look, right now, you know, again, a week ago, I would have said the border and immigration and the economy and inflation, were absolutely not only the top two issues, but they were very much Republican issues. And now, I think abortion is the number one and prevailing issue. It is the issue that will take the oxygen out of the room for any other issue…. Yang likened the Republican Party’s current status on the abortion issue to being “sort of like the dog that caught the car? They don`t know what to do with it now?” Marson again flashed pro-choice credentials: "[Arizona] will have an initiative on the ballot most likely, and that would allow abortion up to 24 weeks. And I think that will pass maybe now with 60-plus percent of the vote if, especially if it is a choice between zero abortions, and maybe something a little bit too far to the left but better something that’s legal than nothing." When asked about Florida’s upcoming ballot initiative to preserve the abortion option, Marson embraced the idea of young people voting for Democrats: Marson: Well Florida has been trending Republican, for sure. But again, this ballot initiative has the chance, both in Arizona and Florida, to bring out so many young people, so many first-time voters, and we don’t know whether they will stick around, you know, come out for the abortion initiative, but stick around for Joe Biden and Ruben Gallego and, you know, and Senate candidates and House candidates down the ballot. Certainly they’re going to come out for the abortion initiative, and it’ll be up to the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to convince them to stick around and vote for them as well. Last month Marson appeared on the NewsHour also to suggest moderate voters like himself could vote for Biden, which makes him PBS’s ideal “Republican strategist.” This pro-abortion segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsWeekend 4/13/24 7:05:51 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: The near total abortion ban that the Arizona Supreme Court revived this week dates back to when Arizona wasn`t a state yet, when slavery was legal, and when only white men had the vote, many Republican officeholders and candidate scrambled to distance themselves from the law. It underscores some of the political consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision to strike down the constitutional right to seek an abortion and leave it up to the states to decide whether to regulate it. Barrett Marson is a Republican strategist based in Arizona. And before we get going, Mr. Marson, something we should make clear to the viewers. You`re not working for any candidates on the ballot this fall. BARRETT MARSON, Republican strategist: No, I am not. And thanks a lot for having me on, John. JOHN YANG: Thanks. In Arizona, it`s a swing state in the presidential election. You got a toss-up Senate race, and you got a couple of congressional contests that are going to be very close. How is this what happened this week, the Supreme Court decision going to affect those races? BARRETT MARSON: Well, I think you said it all in that sentence there except for that was what was last week. This week now, I don`t know if the Senate race is a toss-up anymore. I don`t know. You know, I think last week, we were a lien Trumps state. And I think this week, we`re a lien Biden state. I think Kari Lake is on the wrong end of this issue. And, in fact, you know, I think a lot of Republicans who have quite frankly championed this kind of thing for what two generations are finding themselves, at least in Arizona, on the wrong side of how voters feel about this issue. JOHN YANG: Have the Democrats picked up on this? Are they pressing this? BARRETT MARSON: I mean, that is what they are doing. 24/7. And rightly so I mean, look, right now, you know, again, a week ago, I would have said the border and immigration and the economy and inflation, were absolutely not only the top two issues, but they were very much Republican issues. And now, I think abortion is the number one and prevailing issue. It is the issue that will take the oxygen out of the room for any other issue. So you will see abortion be front and center in every time Democrats open their mouths on the campaign stump, and Republicans right now just don`t have an answer for that. JOHN YANG: You mentioned Kari Lake, she`s running for Senate this time, two years ago, when she was running for governor, she called this a great law. And you`ve also mentioned other candidates and officeholders, who have been championing this law or this idea and now have to deal with it, how should they deal with it? How can they deal with it? BARRETT MARSON: Well, look, it`s been dogma in the Republican Party for, you know, again, two generations, three generations. So I think, frankly, just own it. You know, talk about why you are pro-life, talk about the benefits, talk about the need, maybe for more of a social safety net, but talk about the benefits of being pro-life, because there is no really running away. And they`re, you know, otherwise, just like Kari Lake, you look like a massive flip flopper. And you know, two years ago, she called this the model for other states. And now she`s talking about she`s pro-choice. So, you know, I think you should just a Republican candidate should just own this. They`ve been wanting to do this for a couple generations. They`ve done it, celebrate it and embrace it. JOHN YANG: To that point, you also mentioned this has been Republican dogma. They got it. They got what they wanted when they were when Roe was overturned. Is this sort of like the dog that caught the car? They don`t know what to do with it now? BARRETT MARSON: Well, it is certainly an Arizona where the electorate is at least willing to have some sort of legal abortion, whether it is we will have an initiative on the ballot most likely, and that would allow abortion up to 24 weeks. And I think that will pass maybe now with 60 plus percent of the vote if especially if it is a choice between zero abortions, and maybe something a little bit too far to the left but better something that`s legal than nothing. JOHN YANG: Florida, of course, finds itself in a similar situation their Supreme Court cleared the way for a six-week band to take effect at the beginning of May. They`ve got are likely to have a constitutional ballot initiative on their ballot as well. Is it going to have the same effect there? Or do you think it`s different? BARRETT MARSON: Well, you know, Florida is a, you know, has been trending Republican, for sure. But again, this ballot initiative has the chance, both in Arizona and Florida, to bring out so many young people, so many first time voters, and we don`t know whether they will stick around, you know, come out for the abortion initiative, but stick around for Joe Biden and Ruben Gallego and, you know, and Senate candidates and House candidates down the ballot. Certainly they`re going to come out for the abortion initiative, and it`ll be up to the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to convince them to stick around and vote for them as well. JOHN YANG: Republican strategist Barrett Marson, thank you very much. BARRETT MARSON: Thank you.
❌