Chris Murphy Is a Massive Hypocrite on Iran By David Harsanyi

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chris-murphy-is-a-massive-hypocrite-on-iran/

The Federalist reported yesterday that Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and other Democratic senators secretly met with foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference last month. Today, Murphy acknowledged that the meeting took place, arguing that “Congress is a co-equal branch to the executive” and, well, Donald Trump is bad.

It’s quite a volte-face for Murphy. In March of 2015, when President Obama was involved in negotiations with the mullahs, Senator Tom Cotton and 46 of his colleagues released an open letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran, offering some basic lessons on the American constitutional system — namely, an explainer on binding treaties.

At the time, Murphy called the letter “unprecedented” and claimed it was “undermining the authority of the president.” Then-Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to be in “utter disbelief” when asked about the letter. Kerry, no stranger to negotiating with America’s enemies, would a few years later meet Zarif a number of times to try and ‘salvage’ Obama’s Iran deal, in direct conflict with the position of the American government in Trump’s administration.

When Dianne Feinstein, then the Democrats’ ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, heard about Cotton’s letter, she was “appalled” at the “highly inappropriate and unprecedented incursion into the president’s prerogative to conduct foreign affairs.” Only a few years later, Feinstein would host the Iranian Foreign Minister for dinner.

Chicago Newspapers Split on Democratic Primary in Illinois’ Third District By Alexandra DeSanctis

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/democratic-primary-in-illinois-third-district-splits-chicago-newspapers/

DEMOCRAT INCUMBENT DAN LIPINSKI (ILLINOIS District 3) SHOULD BE RE-ELECTED EVEN THOUGH HE VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT
www.lipinskiforcongress.com

Next month, U.S. representative Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.) will face a progressive challenger, Marie Newman, in the Democratic primary in Illinois’ third congressional district, which encompasses a large section of Chicago’s southwestern suburbs. Newman attempted to unseat Lipinski last election cycle and came very close to doing so, falling behind by only about 2 percent, or 2,000 votes.

Newman’s campaign in 2018 was backed in large part by left-wing activist groups, which were frustrated primarily with Lipinski’s continual refusal to support legal abortion. Since taking over his father’s congressional seat in 2005, Lipinski has remained one of the few Democratic politicians who espouses pro-life views and votes according to them. Though his progressive opponents refer to Lipinski as a “conservative,” the truth is he’s plenty liberal — but he’s not a liberal in the modern social-justice–activism mold, focusing instead on the policies that matter to blue-collar, working-class voters in his district. And, most abhorrent to today’s Left, he simply won’t cave on abortion.

The last time Lipinski faced Newman, he received endorsements from both of Chicago’s newspapers, the Tribune and the Sun-Times. This cycle, he has retained the support of only one of them. “Seeking his ninth term, Lipinski has been in sync with the district for a long time,” the Chicago Tribune editorial board writes, noting the congressman’s concerns about the divisive effects of radical progressivism on the Democratic Party. Newman, on the other hand, supports Obamcare “but ultimately sees Medicare for All as the best option” and favors the ultra-expensive Green New Deal.

“We’re concerned that such massive government spending programs are unworkable and unaffordable,” the Tribune concludes. “Lipinski’s outlook, which includes participation in the House bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, is both more moderate and realistic. Lipinski is endorsed.”

Universities Can Be Global or Serve the National Interest. But Not Both. By Daniel Tenreiro

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/education-department-investigates-harvard-yale-foreign-funding/

The Department of Education cracks down on alleged foreign funding of Yale and Harvard.

L ast week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Education had opened investigations into Harvard and Yale for allegedly failing to disclose billions in donations from foreign governments. The department claims that American universities received as much as $6.5 billion in unreported gifts from countries including China and Saudi Arabia.

Foreign governments use donations to influence the work of professors and gain access to intellectual property. China’s Thousand Talents Plan, which figures into the investigation, has funneled money to 3,000 university faculty members. In return, Beijing requires them to turn over intellectual property to which they have access, as well as to sign agreements preventing them from disclosing the results of work conducted under Chinese patronage. Meanwhile, Beijing-funded Confucius Institutes, which ostensibly support Chinese studies in the U.S., have reportedly engaged in censorship and espionage of American students and professors.

Section 117 of the Higher Education Act requires universities to disclose foreign contributions exceeding $250,000. If Harvard and Yale failed to comply, that indicates either a disregard for the law (which was enforced only loosely before Trump took office) or a tacit acknowledgment that the funding compromises the integrity of the institutions. In any event, it is clear that American universities do not see themselves as American.

That is not entirely surprising. Harvard and Yale were founded prior to the American Revolution. Primarily focused on ministerial training, they were colleges that educated American leaders but had no strong connection to the government. Universities were considered citadels of knowledge independent of their societies. Since they did not conduct scientific research for roughly the first two centuries of their existence, Harvard and Yale had only an indirect impact on the American military and economy.

Saving Higher Education By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/saving-higher-education-student-constitutional-rights-truth-in-lending-standards/

Start by guaranteeing students’ constitutional rights and holding schools to truth-in-lending standards.

D espite the denials of universities boards, administrators, and faculty, American higher education, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, is a hopeless mess. What basis is there for such a harsh diagnosis?

One, a college education is far too expensive. Nearly 45 million young Americans owe $1.5 trillion in student loans — a staggering sum unmatched in American history. Millions have either defaulted on their loans or are able to pay only the interest and are making no progress on the principle.

Universities have for decades upped their tuition and services higher than the rate of annual inflation. Yet they deny they have any responsibility for the staggering student debt, even though the encumbrances have altered the U.S. economy, culture, and demography. One of many reasons youth are marrying later, delaying child-rearing, and unable to buy a home is that so many of them are burdened well into their late twenties and early thirties with student-loan debt, on average over $30,000 per student. Again, the university more or less shrugs, insisting it has no responsibility for this collective national disaster that it helped create

The student-loan crisis could be alleviated if universities, not the federal government, were the co-signers of the loans, which would make them share with students the moral hazard of loan repayment. Instead of spending superfluously on “diversity and inclusion” czars and entire castes of non-teaching facilitators, universities would have incentives to lower non-teaching costs. It would be in their own financial interest to ensure that students could minimize debt by graduating within four years, and also to invest in job placement for their graduates, so they could move into the full-time workforce months after finishing school.

Two, universities have no methods to analyze whether students are, in fact, better educated after they graduate than when they enrolled. While most colleges still demand to see applicants’ standardized SAT or ACT scores, so they can judge the relative quality and significance of their high-school grade-point average, they allow no such audits on the efficacy of their own four-year course of study.

Ruthie Blum: Winds of Mideast change worth remembering at the ballot box Evidence of thawing anti-Israel enmity among states wishing to ally themselves with Washington against the ayatollah-led regime in Tehran should be cause for great celebration in the so-called “peace camp.”

https://www.jns.org/opinion/winds-of-mideast-change-worth-remembering-at-the-ballot-box/

The significance of two events that have been upstaged this week by the Hebrew media’s incessant coronavirus coverage cannot be overemphasized—particularly with the fast approach of the March 2 Knesset elections.

One was the rejection of an appeal by an activist in Bahrain sentenced to three years in prison for burning an Israeli flag during a pro-Palestinian protest last May. The other was the flight of an Israeli plane over the skies of Sudan.

Each occurred over the past weekend. Both indicate winds of change (one quite literal) in the Middle East, made possible through policies promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose enhancing of ties with Arab leaders in the effort to keep the Islamic Republic of Iran’s regional and global hegemonic ambitions at bay is bearing fruit.

The Bahraini verdict comes amid the now-overt warming of ties between Manama and Jerusalem, which do not have official diplomatic relations. In October, for instance, Israeli Foreign Ministry counter-terrorism department head Dana Benvenisti-Gabay attended the “Working Group on Maritime and Aviation Security” conference in Bahrain. The gathering of 60 countries—co-hosted by Manama, Washington and Warsaw—was referred to by the Bahraini foreign ministry as “an occasion to exchange views on how to deal with the Iranian menace and to guarantee freedom of navigation.”

That conference took place four months after the White House gave a preview of the economic side to its “Peace to Prosperity” plan during a two-day workshop in Bahrain last June, attended by businesspeople and diplomats from the Middle East and elsewhere. The much-touted happening—the preview of Trump’s “deal of the century” that was unveiled on Jan. 28 in the presence of Netanyahu—was boycotted by the Palestinian Authority, in whose interest it was held in the first place. (The Israeli government wasn’t even invited as a gesture to the P.A.)

It is in the above context that Manama’s intolerance for the desecration of the Israeli flag can and should be understood.

Islamists’ Response to Peace Plan by Bassam Tawil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15622/islamists-response-peace-plan

When Hizb-ut-Tahrir says that negotiations and a peace process with Israel are acts of treason, their words are pointed straight at Abbas and the PA leadership. When Hizb-ut-Tahrir says it wants Muslim armies to liberate all of Palestine, the organization is actually calling on Muslims to march on Israel, kill Jews and destroy the state.

While the ideology of Hizb-ut-Tahrir might sound inhospitable, it is shared by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and several other Palestinian terror groups — particularly regarding the goal of eliminating Israel.

By continuing to incite their people against Israel and the US… Abbas… and other PA officials are driving more Palestinians into the open, welcoming arms of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as well as Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. By allowing thousands of Islamists to call for the destruction of Israel on the streets of West Bank cities, PA leaders are digging their own graves: The same people they are inciting against Israel and the US will kill these leaders not only for being affiliated with Israelis and Americans but for being too “moderate.”

Finally, by making, as they usually do, contradictory claims to their own people, they are losing, among the Palestinians, the little credibility they have left.

The Palestinian Authority, after rejecting US President Donald Trump’s recently unveiled plan for Mideast peace, “Peace to Prosperity,” as a “conspiracy” against Palestinians, is now trying to persuade the Israeli public that it is “still” interested in achieving peace with Israel.

Earlier this month, PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would cut all ties with Israel and the US, including security coordination, to protest the Trump plan, which he denounced as the “slap of the century.”

“We are informing you,” Abbas told Arab foreign ministers during an emergency meeting in Cairo, “that there will be no relations with Israel and the US, including on security cooperation.”

Abbas has been making similar threats for the past three years — probably the reason Palestinians have long stopped taking his threats seriously.

Why Did President Trump Expand the Travel Ban? by Lawrence A. Franklin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15605/trump-expanded-travel-ban

General justifications for the travel ban include: poor vetting of travelers to the U.S. by the restricted countries; an unwillingness on the part of those countries to share personal data on would-be visitors to the U.S.; and the refusal to accept the return of their nationals if expelled by U.S. authorities.

Kyrgyzstan made the travel-ban list largely because of its lax passport issuance, which has caused a global glut of false Kyrgyzstani passports used by criminals and terrorists to enter Eurasian countries. Kyrgyzstan is also notable for its poor counter-terrorism efforts.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2018 that the U.S. president has the authority to issue such travel bans as part of his duty to protect American citizens. The ruling also determined that the first list of countries placed on the restricted visa program in 2017 did not constitute a “Muslim ban,” as North Korea and Venezuela were also included…. Eritrea has more Christians than Muslims. Myanmar is almost entirely Buddhist.

Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, arguing for the administration, opined that it is only logical that any people applying for a visa to the U.S. be properly vetted.

There are general and specific justifications for U.S. President Donald Trump’s January 31 order to add Nigeria, Tanzania, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Myanmar (Burma) to the list of seven other countries — Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen — subjected to a restriction on travel to the United States.

General justifications for the travel ban include: poor vetting of travelers to the U.S. by the restricted countries; an unwillingness on the part of those countries to share personal data on would-be visitors to the U.S.; and the refusal to accept the return of their nationals if expelled by U.S. authorities.

Left-Wing Group Organized Barr Attack Letter The letter is just another destroy-Trump mission funded by leftists to deceive and inflame the public. Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/17/leftwing-group-organized-barr-attack-letter/

The headline sounded ominous: “Former Justice Dept. Lawyers Press for Barr to Step Down,” blared an article in Sunday’s New York Times. More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors signed a letter to condemn Attorney General William Barr and encourage Justice Department employees to tattle on the nation’s top lawman if they see anything naughty.

The lawyers were outraged at Barr’s decision to override “line prosecutors,” including two holdovers from the Robert Mueller investigation, who had recommended an excessive sentence against Roger Stone. “Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words,” they wrote. “Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign.”

Times reporter Katie Benner, trying to make the stunt look like a legitimate grassroots effort, attributed the letter to Protect Democracy, which she described as a “nonprofit legal group.” But Protect Democracy is not an organic activist group spontaneously created by high-minded legal experts alarmed by Trump’s alleged flouting of the rule of law. Protect Democracy was launched in early 2017 as part of an extensive anti-Trump operation managed by a leftwing tech billionaire: Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay. This is who is behind Protect Democracy and a number of other nonprofits formed to destroy the president.

The price of crazy: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez yelps for help against 12 primary challengers By Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/the_price_of_crazy_alexandria_ocasiocortez_yelps_for_help_against_12_primary_challengers.html

Why would a candidate who has more money than all her rivals put together be issuing urgent appeals across the country for funds to her campaign?

That’s what we see now with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who’s sending out pleas for money from her supporters across the country, to ward off as many as 13 primary challengers.

From CNBC, here’s one:

WASHINGTON — Former CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera added her name Tuesday to the list of candidates hoping to deny Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a second term. 

Caruso-Cabrera, who worked for the financial news network for more than 20 years, is challenging Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic primary June 23 for New York’s 14th District. She filed her candidacy with the Federal Election Commission on Monday, becoming Ocasio-Cortez’s fifth Democratic challenger and 12th overall to file with the FEC. 

“I am the daughter and granddaughter of working-class Italian and Cuban immigrants,” Caruso-Cabrera told CNBC in a statement. “I am so lucky to have had such a wonderful career, and I want everybody to have the opportunity that I’ve had. That’s why I’m running.”

It’s weird stuff for a candidate who has so much money — $5 million–plus in the bank, against her next-challenger’s $800,000 or so, and the collective group of challengers having just $2 million at most among themselves.  According to a Politico report last month:

Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign received more than 325,000 contributions from more than 185,000 individual donors in 2019. Her fundraising in the final quarter of the year is a dramatic increase compared to the total raised for her entire first election campaign in 2018, which came in at $2.1 million.

President Trump slaps back when Obama tries to take credit for his economy By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/president_trump_slaps_back_when_obama_tries_to_take_credit_for_his_economy.html

It’s been fascinating watching the Democrats try unavailingly to address the fact that the economy under President Trump has been rocket-fueled. That effort reached its apex on Monday when Barack Obama put out a tweet boasting about how it was his Recovery Act, which he signed on February 17, 2009, that not only saved the economy but laid the groundwork for its current strength. The responses to his tweet were swift, especially from President Trump.

One of the things that truly riles the Democrats is that President Trump has so much to crow about. And crow he did during his State of the Union address, making sure to distinguish his economic accomplishments from the Obama malaise.

During his speech, Trump boasted about 7 million new jobs, which is 5 million more than projected in the Obama years; the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years; the lowest unemployment rates ever for minorities; the lowest overall unemployment for women since WWII; the record number of working Americans; the contrast between food stamp rolls under Obama (10 million added) and under Trump (7 million subtracted, plus 10 million leaving welfare); the contrast between the workforce under Obama (300,000 Americans left it) versus Trump (3.5 million joined it); the 47% gain in wealth for the bottom half of wage earners, a result of their rising wages (“a blue-collar boom”); the highest ever real median household income; the soaring stock market; and the unprecedented growth in consumer confidence.