Radical political historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat was scheduled to speak at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10 as part of the Bancroft Lecture series, but according to a recent article from The Federalist, this lecture has been “postponed.”  In September, Ben-Ghiat announced that she would be speaking at the Naval Academy in a Substack post, yet in the same announcement she connected her topic of lecture, that of “militaries under authoritarian rule,” with former President Donald Trump and what she proclaims to be “his authoritarian character.”   Ben-Ghiat, in the same post, also suggested a voting preference, stating that several people, notable to the military audience she intended to reach, will be “voting for Vice President Kamala Harris in November.”  It is troubling that the Naval Academy invited an explicit partisan to lecture future military officers at an authorized event on federal property, especially since Ben-Ghiat has deliberately denounced a current presidential nominee as an authoritarian akin to “Fascist Italy, Pinochet’s Chile, and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.”  It is even more troubling that the only reason this lecture is publicly known is through Ben-Ghiat’s Substack post announcing her partisan intent. The Naval Academy never publicized this event, despite having recently publicized a Forrestal Lecture in which the speaker talked about the far more appropriate topic of command leadership.   The concern over this Bancroft Lecture was publicized in a recent Daily Signal article. Since then, the Naval Academy has apparently postponed Ben-Ghiat’s lecture. Nonetheless, concerns still remain. There has been no official statement from Naval Academy leadership disclosing the status of the lecture, nothing to explain the logic for hosting an event of this political nature in the first place, and no remorse over the apparent politicization of the institution.  The Defense Department’s Directive 1344.10 explicitly states that service members shall “not engage in partisan political activity.” With such proximity to an important election, it appears that the Naval Academy, by inviting a radical anti-Trump speaker, has been acting in a political fashion. It calls into question whether academy leadership violated the Defense Department’s directive.  The Naval Academy ought to publicly explain itself, or else it will have missed the point entirely. The point is not that the lecturer is an extreme partisan, or that due to optics the lecture ought not to occur. The point is also not that leadership should simply postpone a lecture as soon as it receives heat from the public eye.  The point is that this is one instance of what could be a very dangerous broader trend.   The Naval Academy should take note of the articles publicizing exactly what is wrong, the letters from members of Congress urging leadership to take a look, and Ben-Ghiat’s expressly political language in describing a nominee for the next commander in chief. These should all serve as warning signs calling for more institutional vigilance, procedural compliance, and integrity. The lack of remorse, the denial of responsibility, and the absence of any acknowledgment of an internal review show a lack of accountability. They show a dangerous sense of complacency and a complete misunderstanding of what the Naval Academy ought to be—an apolitical, nonpartisan military institution.  The post Postponing This Partisan Lecture Isn’t Enough appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued an order granting review in what’s sure to be an incredibly high-profile case on sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex (among other characteristics). The Supreme Court will hear the case of an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claims she suffered sex discrimination in her employment because she is—drumroll please—a heterosexual woman. That makes her a member of what the Supreme Court has determined to be a “majority” class of individuals. Ames filed a discrimination lawsuit against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, saying she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted in favor of a two less-qualified LGBTQ candidates—a gay man and a lesbian woman, respectively. She alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of both sexual orientation (relating to the lesbian woman’s promotion) and sex (relating to promotion of the gay man).   Not since its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), has the court agreed to wrestle head on with a clash of individual characteristics—sex versus sexual orientation, for example—within employment discrimination law. When those characteristics clash, but the law at issue prevents discrimination against both, what is the court to do? This past summer, the court issued a per curiam (unsigned) order upholding lower court injunctions in cases challenging the proposed new Department  of Education rule on Title IX of the Education Amendments, which would expand the definition of “sex discrimination” in education to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.  That order, however, did not address the underlying merits of those challenges. While it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the Supreme Court will eventually address the issue of whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity fit within the definition of discrimination on the basis of “sex” in the education context, the court will grapple with that issue in the employment context in the Ames case.   The lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Ames’ sexual orientation discrimination claim, finding that, as a heterosexual, she is a member of a “majority” group and therefore must prove that her employer was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”   According to the Sixth Circuit, Ames failed to provide sufficient evidence of “background circumstances” necessary to establish discrimination based on her own sexual orientation as a heterosexual. Specifically, Ames was unable to prove that the supervisors who demoted her were part of a minority group (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people), or that there was a pattern of discrimination against straight employees by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. As for Ames’s sex discrimination claim, the court found that while Ames was replaced by a man, the Department had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her demotion. The Sixth Circuit reiterated that the department had previously addressed the need for Ames’s improved performance, and that she had met—but not exceeded—her employee benchmarks. The court concluded that Ames failed to demonstrate that the department’s reasons for not promoting (and eventually demoting) her were insufficient or pretextual. In a world of increasingly divided victim classes, do straight women get a stake in non-discrimination protections, even though they are members of a “majority” of Americans? If so, what must they demonstrate to prove employment discrimination? The Supreme Court will now address and hopefully answer those questions. In addition to Ames, the court has decided to consider other big-ticket items in cases concerning online pornography and the First Amendment, the constitutionality of a “ghost” gun ban, and the constitutionality of a state law barring gender “affirming” medical procedures for minors. This term is already shaping up to be one of the most high-profile yet. Oral arguments in Ames will likely take place early next year and a decision is expected by the end of June. The post Reverse Discrimination? SCOTUS Takes Unusual Case on Sex Discrimination in Employment Requiring Bostock Revisit appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge. Last week, we got another stunning employment report. The finest money can buy. So stunning, in fact, that it had Federal Reserve watchers fretting that maybe the Fed cut rates too early—a so-called policy error. As in, the economy’s still too strong and needs more choking by the Fed—what, with jobs waking up at their own funeral, jumping out of the casket, and dancing with the catering girl. Well, it turns out that stunning jobs report had a secret ingredient: government workers. A lot of them. 785,000, to be precise. On the month. Another couple months like that and our entire economy will be government workers regulatingeach other, sustained in their work-from-home colonies by flitting Amazon delivery guys. By the way, 785,000 is the highest monthly jump in government workers on record. And it brings government workers to a crisp 22,216,000—roughly twice manufacturing employment. For perspective, in 1950, there were three manufacturing workers per government worker. Today that’s flipped. In fact, it’s flipped six-fold. Of course, very few of those 22 million government workers are available for hurricane duty in North Carolina. All while there’s a good chance the laid-off manufacturing guys would have been trucking in volunteer supplies if they could afford gas. In the immortal words of Kendrick Lamar, “They not like us.” Thanks to Zero Hedge for finding the government numbers hidden in plain sight in both the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ household survey—which asks people if they have a job—and its establishment survey, which guesstimates from the handful of companies that bother reporting data to the government. So, once we take off the government workers, it turns out productive jobs—private-sector jobs—grew by just 133,000. I mentioned in a recent video how population growth soaks up between 175,000 and 200,000 jobs per year. So, 133,000 isn’t even treading water—it’s losing ground. Which matches with other data saying the job market continues weakening—data from part-time and second jobs to job quits falling—both classic indicators of job distress. Beyond the weak numbers, keep in mind it’s actually a lot worse if government workers are the cause. Because, as North Carolina is painfully illustrating at the moment, not only will these brand-new government parasites not be producing anything, they’ll be destroying. Like pouring salt on a garden, all these bright shiny government jobs will be collecting a salary toharass, mandate, and tax productive jobs out of existence. Meaning, we just hired roughly 785,000 parasites. Stunning job report indeed. So, what’s next? If stunning jobs are really just disguised government spending—and economy-destroying spending at that—this changes the math for the Fed. Because it implies the real, productive economy—the thing that pays for all of it, including the Fed—is actually much worse than they think. That suggests the Fed should have lowered rates long ago, to spread out the liquidation of malinvestments—the bankruptcies and layoffs—from the Fed’s previous easy money policies. Instead, as in every recession, the Fed slammed the gas too long—$7 trillion and zero ratesduring COVID-19. Then it slammed the brakes too long with mega-rate hikes to choke the private economy sogovernment could spend. And now that it’s finally bestirred itself once again, it’s slamming the gas. This sets up the next boom-bust cycle—the one nobody will see coming around about 2032—yet itcomes too late to stop the recession that’s already on our doorstep. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Government Jobs Booming While Private Sector Continues to Lose Ground appeared first on The Daily Signal.

San Francisco Finally Releases List of Schools to Close and Parents are Furious

ShotSpotter is Still on the Chopping Block in Chicago

House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has challenged YouTube to clarify if its censorship of a federal whistleblower was a result of federal pressure. Jordan wrote an Oct. 7 letter to Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google and YouTube’s parent company Alphabet, according to an X post by the House Judiciary Committee, which Jordan chairs. In the letter, Jordan requested information on why YouTube censored a video featuring an interview with Catholic FBI whistleblower Marcus Allen.  Since Allen testified before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Jordan requested a  “briefing on YouTube’s decision to censor the video” and for “communications between YouTube and the Biden-Harris Administration relating to this censorship.” In the letter, the committee chairman argued that Allen was “wrongly suspended” and “without pay” for his “personal medical decisions, his religious beliefs, and for questioning FBI leadership.” Allen prayed the rosary and discussed what he went through in an interview with the 501(c)(4) group Catholics for Catholics. “During the interview, Mr. Allen shared how the FBI targeted him for his political and religious beliefs, how the FBI’s retaliation affected him and his family, and how he relied on his faith during the ordeal,” Jordan wrote. “Almost immediately, YouTube censored his story and religious expression.” Jordan added, “This censorship of religious and political speech is deeply troubling in light of YouTube’s previous collusion with the Biden-Harris Administration and Alphabet’s pattern of anti-conservative political bias.”  The FBI subsequently awarded Allen back pay and restored his security clearance after a congressional investigation, the committee chairman noted. Jordan ended his letter with a series of questions. He asked why the video was censored, how it supposedly violated the platform’s rules, if YouTube has protections for political and religious speech, and if the video will be reinstated. Jordan also specifically asked if the Biden-Harris administration and YouTube communicated about the video at all, and if there are documents illustrating targeted censorship of Marcus Allen. The FBI was accused of pressuring Big Tech to censor speech in the Twitter Files, including in coordination with Ukrainian intelligence. Furthermore, the FBI was previously exposedfor an internal memo labeling Catholics as “potential terrorists.”  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

In addition to a subsequent phone interview with The Weather Channel, CNN eagerly helped Vice President Kamala Harris insert herself into the news cycle Wednesday with a softball interview when the country’s news media should be entirely focused on the potentially catastrophic Hurricane Milton set to strike Florida’s Gulf Coast.  Instead, Inside Politics host and State of the Union co-host Dana Bash treated her to nearly nine minutes focused on her alleged role in the federal government’s preparations (which she has no power over) and putrid political kvetching that alleged Republicans are trying to get people killed with “misinformation” about the storm. Afterward, Bash and CNN colleagues expressed hope people listened to Harris! CNN’s Daniel Dale — who can be thought of as their resident Randall from Recess — was in the middle of hyperventilating about Republicans being beacons of lies when he was interrupted for the interview. Bash began with a softball that, along with the fact it was done over the phone, meant Harris could read from notes (click “expand”): BASH: What is the most important thing that you learned that you want to amplify for Americans who are in the path of this dangerous storm right now? HARRIS: The briefing was very helpful on a number of fronts, but most importantly, in getting the word out to folks in Florida in particular to please heed the advice and direction of your local officials because this storm is unlike anything we have seen before and that’s the point of emphasis. This is unlike anything we have seen before. We got a lot of tough, strong people in Florida who have been through a lot of hurricanes, tornadoes, but this is not like anything they’ve dealt with before. So, if they have been told to evacuate, they must evacuate. We expect that this is going to be catastrophic and deadly and I would emphasize that. I would also emphasize the information that we received that, even if the — the designation of the categories shifts from a five to four that’s not actually a downgrade in terms of the danger and the dangerous potential of it. And so let’s not have people rely to their detriment on, oh, this sounds like it’s going to be less serious than we thought. They made very clear category five, category four are almost equivalent in terms of the danger and the damage that they will create, so I would — I would urge people to really take that information away as well as to note there are dedicated folks on the ground from FEMA, from federal, state, and local agencies that are there to help you, to help you in terms of advice now, to help you get out and to help with recovery and rebuilding after this storm and this hurricane passes. This continued with another weak question about FEMA funding that, again, allowed Harris to stay on script: Vice President Kamala Harris has zero control over FEMA. Why is CNN's Dana Bash asking her about this and #Milton? We all know why. pic.twitter.com/RQat7xNRme — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 9, 2024   This disgustingly led in to the rest of the Milton-related questions being about something CNN has seemed to think is equally important (or close to it): “misinformation.” Bash griped about “this dangerous misinformation that is coming from a lot of corners, including [Donald Trump]” and wondered if she’s “spoken to GOP officials in Florida to figure out how to help combat that right now”. Of course, Harris only spoke in vague generalities about having spoken to “sheriffs,” “mayors,” and “local officials” about the “unconscionable” and “dangerous” rhetoric (from Republicans).  She couldn’t bring herself to say anything about Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, though, since he schooled her Monday about her Fatal Attraction-like desire to talk to him.     Bash doubled and tripled down, including a cartoonish question about misinformation on Hurricane Milton (and Helene prior) coming via “foreign adversaries” (aka Russia) (click the tweets to see the transcripts): CNN's Dana Bash wonders to Kamala Harris if “foreign adversaries” (i.e. Russia) are meddling in disaster preparations for #Milton and spreading “misinformation.” Bash: “We have been fact-checking — in fact, just before you came on, we did so our my colleague, Brianna Keilar,… pic.twitter.com/5Pfed8mLSz — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 9, 2024 CNN’s Dana Bash with another partisan jab at Republicans on #Milton: “Madam Vice President, I also just want to ask a little bit more about the federal response. The — one of the Republican senators from North Carolina, Thom Tillis, who I should say is not critical of the federal… pic.twitter.com/FL1hebxu3x — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 9, 2024 Like when her teleprompter went down last week, Harris fumbled and bumbled her way through a non-answer when Bash surprised her with a subject change: Here's how scripted Kamala Harris is. CNN's Dana Bash threw in a question at the end of the phone interview -- which meant Harris could read the entire time from scripts -- about her call with Biden and Netanyahu. She had ZERO clue what to say.... Bash: “Madam Vice President,… pic.twitter.com/34icE9Jukk — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 9, 2024 Bash tossed back to CNN News Central co-host Boris Sanchez in the storm zone not with an update on how he’s doing or the current conditions, but wondering if people were going to listen to Kamala Harris. Sanchez then complied by making his entire answer about “disinformation” and even dumped on an elderly woman hauling debris from Hurricane Helene (perhaps storm damage to her home and livelihood): Even after its interview with Kamala Harris, CNN went to Boris Sanchez in the storm zone for #Milton to ask people if Harris's MESSAGE is being heard and wonders if people are listening to her. You can't make this up. He even attacked an elderly woman hauling debris. Unreal. pic.twitter.com/f0KySBvybr — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 9, 2024 Bash spent the final five minutes of the hour with Sanchez’s co-host Brianna Keilar and Harris correspondent Priscilla Alverez continuing to spin up this manufactured news cycle that scores up scores of Americans in the path of Milton are in danger because of this incredibly vague claim of “misinformation” (aside from the truly disgusting conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the weather): PRIORITIES: Hurricane #Milton is hours from landfall and CNN is spending five minutes straight huffing about how evil Republicans are gonna get people killed with "disinformation". The REAL concern. "Threats" to FEMA officials. Storm surge? Secondary issue! It's like a drug. pic.twitter.com/HmWNHrJO0L — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 9, 2024 At one point in the above video, Keilar offered faux regrets about how “politics [have] been injected into this” and even threw a veiled jab at DeSantis: [W]hen you listen to Ron DeSantis — right — he is going to be judged by how his government, his state government reacts to this storm. He is going to be judged in very real terms. He’s going to be judged politically for that as well. To see the relevant CNN transcript from October 9, click here.

Many are calling the 2024 election the most important election of our lifetime — and it’s because much is at stake. One of the most pressing issues right now is our First Amendment, which has protected free speech since it was ratified in 1791. Although Democrats deny it, a Kamala Harris regime would likely see the end of free speech as we’ve known it. Glenn Beck points to three examples of people in Harris’ elitist circle who have boldly, unapologetically questioned our First Amendment and called for censorship. - YouTube www.youtube.com In the first example, Hillary Clinton in a CNN interview says, “If the platforms — whether it's Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are — if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control, and it's not social and psychological effects; it's real harm.” The second example comes from none other than Kamala Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz. In a clip from 2022 that’s since gone viral, Walz said, “I think we need to push back on this. There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, especially around our democracy.” Stu Burguiere reminds that Walz even reiterated this idea in his recent debate against JD Vance. And finally, at a World Economic Forum meeting last month, John Kerry stated the following: “If people go to only one source and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer it out of existence.” Of course, these are just three of countless examples of Democrats demonizing the First Amendment and calling for censorship. What none of the elitists are willing to say, however, is that they intend to be the “final arbiter” on what is considered misinformation and hate speech. “The arbiter that they are asking for is them — that they will alert social media and everyone else ‘this is not true, this is true,’ just like they did with the Hunter Biden laptop,” says Glenn. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Pacey players are already hard enough to deal with in EA Sports FC games, but in FC 25 things have been even more brutal. The community was quick to uncover a ‘speed boost’ exploit that could make rapid players like Kylian Mbappe and Rafael Leao even quicker, and it’s so easy to pull off that it has become rampant in online Ultimate Team matches. However, EA Sports has finally hit the speed boost with its nerf hammer, so blitzing past defenders shouldn’t be quite the cakewalk it previously was. Continue reading FC 25’s most overpowered exploit has finally been fixed in surprise update MORE FROM PCGAMESN: EA FC 25 review, All EA FC 25 heroes, EA FC 25 custom tactics codes

Tim Walz's Daughter Stuck With the Check at Coffee Shop