Texas A&M University has come under intense scrutiny after revelations that its partnership with the Qatar Foundation granted the state-led organization substantial control over research operations at the university’s satellite campus in Doha. This partnership, which has been in place since the campus's opening in 2003, has raised serious questions about the security implications for U.S. interests, particularly given Qatar's connections to controversial entities like Hamas and Iran. According to reports, the Qatar Foundation, which is closely tied to the Qatari royal family, has obtained ownership rights over all technology and intellectual property developed at Texas A&M's Qatar campus (TAMUQ). This arrangement is highly unusual compared to traditional university research partnerships where the academic institution typically retains ownership of research outputs. Did you know that Texas A&M has a campus in Qatar which is fully funded and controlled by Qatar? Additionally, Qatar OWNS all the intellectual property developed on campus including sensitive research in computer science and bioengineering. So a top American nuclear engineering… pic.twitter.com/BwgTvGTer0 — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 5, 2024 Critics argue that this level of control essentially makes Texas A&M researchers in Qatar "worker bees" for the Qatari government, a scenario that poses potential risks to U.S. national security​. The controversy escalated following a report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), which detailed how the partnership allowed Qatar unprecedented influence over academic research and the handling of sensitive information. Although Texas A&M officials have denied that any nuclear or weapons-related research takes place at the Qatar campus, the ISGAP report pointed out that the contract between the university and the Qatar Foundation remains opaque, fueling concerns about what Qatar might access through its association with Texas A&M​. HUGE: Texas A&M leaves Qatar after @JudicialWatch exposes massive funding stream from the terrorist-supporting regime. More to be done! https://t.co/8b1mSafAPl pic.twitter.com/ITMlradXFn — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) February 23, 2024 The partnership has been criticized not only for its potential security risks but also for the ethical implications of associating with a regime that has been accused of supporting terrorist organizations. The controversy was further inflamed by the October 7, 2023, terror attacks in Israel, carried out by Hamas, a group that receives substantial funding from Qatar. Critics argue that by allowing Qatar such influence, Texas A&M may inadvertently be supporting a regime that funds terrorism, thereby compromising its ethical standards. In response to growing concerns, Texas A&M's Board of Regents voted earlier this year to gradually wind down operations at the Doha campus, with the goal of fully closing it by 2028. The decision was made without much public debate, leading to dissatisfaction among faculty and students who were caught off guard by the sudden announcement. The university cited "heightened instability in the Middle East" as a key factor in its decision, although it’s clear that the controversy surrounding the partnership also played a significant role. Despite the denials from Texas A&M officials, including university President Mark Welsh, who has repeatedly asserted that no nuclear research is conducted at the Qatar campus, the details of the partnership remain a subject of intense scrutiny. Welsh's statements have done little to alleviate concerns, as critics demand more transparency and accountability regarding the university’s operations in Qatar​. This ongoing situation at Texas A&M highlights the complex and often problematic nature of international academic partnerships, particularly when they involve countries with contentious political ties. As Texas A&M moves to close its Qatar campus, the broader implications of such partnerships for U.S. national security and academic integrity will likely remain a topic of debate for years to come. The post Texas A&M’s Controversial Partnership with Qatar Foundation Raises Security Concerns appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

‘That's when I started screaming’

'what a difference a new messenger makes'

'This new program that she’s gonna do is pretty far left'

“There’s a lot of opposition to just hearing what President [Donald] Trump has to say,” Elon Musk said at the beginning of his two-hour interview on X with the 45th and would-be 47th president. Musk noted, “I got a letter from the EU Commission, like, saying to not have disinformation during this discussion we’re having. And there’s a lot of attempts to do censorship and to force censorship even on Americans from other countries.” That’s not quite right, but it’s close. The letter was not from the European Commission, but from EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, a French citizen and former CEO of France Telecom. The letter purports to remind Musk of the European Union’s Digital Services Act’s requirements of “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures” regarding “detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.” In other words, X must censor questions to and answers from an American presidential candidate and keep the EU informed of its censorship procedures. What must be censored? “The amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation.” Breton reminds Musk of “formal proceedings … already ongoing against X under the [Digital Services Act].” Nice little digital company you’ve got there. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to it. It would surprise America’s Founders not a little that the unelected head of a European multinational organization would feel entitled to demand the words of an American presidential candidate be censored and to be informed of the censorship tribunal’s procedures and decisions. Some Americans, however, might not be surprised at all. They might think Breton is very much on the right track. Case in point: At the White House’s press briefing on Monday (the transcript is available on the White House website), Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson Jr. said, “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It’s an America issue. What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? “Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing,” he continued. Wootson didn’t use the verb “censor,” but his question suggested that the government had a moral obligation and a legal right to censor the opposition party’s presidential candidate and to monitor what White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described as “the responsibilities that social media platforms have when it comes to misinformation, disinformation.” One example of Team Biden’s approach to “misinformation” was the successful attempt to enlist social media companies to suppress dissemination of The New York Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Playing a key role was Antony Blinken, then a Biden staffer and now secretary of state, who organized the letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials or current CIA consultants charging that the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.” Of course, Blinken’s successful attempt to stamp out “disinformation” turned out to be, once the election was safely over, disinformation itself. But it got him the secretary of state job for four years. The public can expect more of the same if Vice President Kamala Harris is elected this fall. “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., Harris’ vice presidential candidate, told MSNBC in 2022. Liberals tried to excuse Walz on the grounds that he was talking about spreading false information about the dates and procedures of elections, and the First Amendment does not preclude remedies for fraud and libel. But the decision-makers in such cases are supposed to be neutral courts, not partisan officials. But it is long-settled constitutional law that the First Amendment does indeed prohibit censorship of what partisan officials may believe, sincerely or self-servingly, is hate speech or misinformation. On the contrary, the remedy for bad speech, as Thomas Jefferson advised people more than 200 years ago, is more and better speech. And no one should be reassured that Walz actually does understand the First Amendment by his campaign cries of “mind your own damn business” directed against, among other things, banning books. But the only reference to banning books in recent political discourse has been the law of Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., barring sexually explicit books in school libraries from kindergarten to fourth grade. Traditionally, in America, it has been people on the Right who have been most willing to ban books and restrict some personal behaviors. Today, and with the Biden-Harris and Trump-Pence administrations as recent examples, the greater threat to basic freedoms comes from the Left. And not just from Breton and Walz. Harris’ authoritarian instinct has been apparent throughout her career, as Dan McLaughlin argues persuasively in the National Review, citing her efforts to disclose nonprofit groups’ donor lists, her prosecution of a journalist exposing Planned Parenthood employees’ sale of fetal body parts, and her proposals to issue executive orders to ban certain guns, set drug prices, and rewrite immigration laws. The public can count on a vigilant adversarial press to expose any violations of basic freedoms by a Trump-Vance administration. Judging from the press’ complacency with Harris’ refusal to undergo interviews or to say anything about public policy, it cannot count on the same if the Harris-Walz ticket wins. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Who’s for the First Amendment—and Who Isn’t appeared first on The Daily Signal.

All repressive and authoritarian regimes, from Caracas to Pyongyang, suppress speech. Rulers like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping cannot tolerate truth, as it can threaten their hold on power. Today, free speech is under attack even in the “free” world, and those attacks are undermining democracy at its core. An informed electorate will not always make good decisions, but an uninformed electorate is much easier to manipulate into making bad ones. Western “progressives” see their desired progress as threatened by “mis”- or “dis”-information, which is speech they consider false or motivated by malice. They consider suppression of that kind of speech to be allowable. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota summed Up that attitude in 2022 when he said, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” But there is. Under our Constitution’s First Amendment, Americans have the freedom to speak the truth or voice their opinions. The price society pays for that freedom is that people can also speak garbage and share reprehensible opinions, but it’s worth it. (Many defended Walz, with one website claiming the clip was “heavily edited” and “out of context,” but he said what he said.) On the immigration debate, as with other contentious issues, the legacy media has torched its credibility over the past decade through obvious bias and partisanship. The simultaneous explosion of alternative media has created a diversity of news sources and unlimited information. How the media frames and presents the facts is now as important as the facts themselves, a weakness which those in power exploit. The Western liberal elite and its allied media believe that mass immigration from the Third World into the First is both inevitable and good. To suppress criticism of this orthodoxy, they conflate reasonable opinions they disagree with—for instance, that immigration levels are too high—with criminal conduct, such as calling for migrants to be assaulted. Legitimate and verifiable observations, for instance, that asylum fraud is widespread, that housing asylum claimants is expensive, or that crime is higher in certain areas heavily populated by migrants, are tarred as hate speech to delegitimize these views. But if we are to debate immigration or any other national policy issue, we must maintain a distinction between free speech—including obnoxious or even hateful sentiments—and conduct that is unlawful. In Britain, recently shaken by public unrest in the wake of the murder of three children, we see how fine a line that can be. In late July, three little girls were killed by a 17-year-old in Southport, England. The assailant turned out to be a British-born child of Rwandan parents, but false rumors about his identity and origin sparked protests, counterprotests, riots, and mayhem across several towns. The Southport stabbings obviously tapped into a wide range of public antipathy in the United Kingdom about the country’s immigration levels, which have continued at an unprecedented scale despite the “Brexit” vote to leave the European Union. Net migration to the U.K. in 2023 was 685,000, or 1% of the population that year alone. The asylum system is swamped. At the extreme end, there is a small percentage of those willing to commit violence. But the bulk of people opposing mass immigration or the costs of spiraling asylum claims are simply expressing a political opinion. In Britain, under an insecure new Labour Party government and prime minister, it seems that the Crown Prosecution Service is throwing the book at anyone involved in counter-immigration protests. British police and the Crown Prosecution Service want to be seen cracking down hard not just on violence but on any anti-immigration speech and sentiment. They are not only prosecuting people who physically attended demonstrations and committed violent acts but are also finding and prosecuting “armchair warriors” who post on social media. Some offenses seem pretty clear. During the unrest, one 53-year-old Englishwoman wrote on Facebook, “Don’t protect the mosques. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it.” She received a 15-month sentence for “sending a communication to convey a threat of death or serious harm.” In another instance, a 20-month sentence was given to Jordan Parlour for “publishing threatening, insulting or abusive material to stir up racial hatred.” He had posted to Facebook that “every man and his dog should smash [the] f— out of Britannia hotel,” where the government was housing asylum applicants. Some of the nonviolent offenses prosecuted in the U.K. are more arbitrary. Jordan Plain, aged 30, got eight months for actions during one protest that mocked people’s race and religion. His behavior was clearly obnoxious and disgraceful, and as the judge said, “grossly offensive.” But the crime he was charged with was that his actions “caused alarm and distress to others.” Under Britain’s Public Order Act, causing “harassment, alarm, or distress” to anyone can get you a fine, and if it is “intentional,” it can be a crime punishable by up to 26 weeks in jail. Britain’s Public Order Act is a broad and powerful tool, wielded at the wide discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service and interpreted by judges. Some have argued that, when it comes to violent unrest, the British police and prosecutors apply a tougher standard on indigenous offenders than on those from immigrant backgrounds. Accusations of such “two-tiered policing” are fiercely denied by the government and its apologists, but videos on social media have shown police tolerating conduct by mobs of pro-Palestine demonstrators that arguably violates the Public Order Act. Protesters hold placards during an “Enough is Enough” demonstration called by activists near a hotel housing immigrant asylum seekers in Aldershot, Hampshire, England, on Aug. 4, 2024. Protesters clashed with British police during rallies as unrest linked to a mass stabbing that killed three young girls spread across the U.K. (Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images) The U.S. also has laws that can be used to target conduct (or people) the government disapproves of. But unlike the British—in fact, because of them—we have the powerful protection of the First Amendment as a defense. The Babylon Bee’s joke that “social media posts that will now get you arrested in Britain” rings true. And censorship is growing with our North American neighbors, too. In Mexico, a politician was criminally convicted of “gender-based political violence” for calling a colleague a “man who self-ascribes as a woman.” And Canada’s Online Harms bill has the laudable goals of preventing the sharing of private material without consent and protecting children, but it could also be used to interpret “hateful” content in ways that favor the ruling party. Immigration is one of the top concerns for American voters this November. Rhetoric will intensify, as with any subject people care about. Political ads will do the truth little justice. The American ruling class needs to keep its cool and trust our people to handle free speech. Yes, it is risky, but the alternative—content regulation by the government in collusion with unelected bureaucrats and self-appointed experts—is worse. The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: NJ Town Prioritizes Protecting Illegal Aliens From ICE Over Public Safety A Successful US Immigration Policy Would Send Venezuelans Home to Rebuild Here’s the Chart on Illegal Immigration That Trump Was Talking About When Shot How Noncitizens Get to Vote in US Elections and How to Stop It Yes, America Is Exceptional. Happy 4th of July! The post How Ruling Elites Continue to Stifle Debate Over Immigration Policy: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Politico: It Was For the Best that Walz Retired When He Did

Dumb Question: What If Iran Wants to Punish Biden?

Corey Comperatore was a 50-year-old retired volunteer fire chief who was killed while protecting his family during the fateful Trump campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The family of the slain father gave their first formal interview since the tragic events of July 13 when Comperatore was shot and killed during the rally for former President Donald Trump. Corey and Helen Comperatore were married 29 years ago after being young sweethearts. They started dating as sophomores in high school. 'I started screaming, but in my head, I kept saying, 'Wake up,' like this is a dream. And then you realize it's not a dream, and you feel like your whole world is just over.'Helen recalled of her blossoming romance with Corey, "It was Valentine's Day. Corey showed up at my house with a dozen red roses. I said, 'Does this mean we're dating?' And he said, 'Yes, I think so,' and I said, 'OK.'"The couple got married and had two daughters: Allyson and Kaylee.Helen noted that Corey was a "great man," a "great husband," and a "great father." At age 16, Corey became a volunteer firefighter and worked his way to the fire chief of the Buffalo Township Fire Company in Pennsylvania. The family reminisced how Corey loved his two "rambunctious" Doberman pinschers and bass fishing. The family pointed out how Corey was the best "girl dad."Allyson told WTAE-TV, "He would put my hair in braids if I wanted my hair in braids. When I was doing competitive cheer, he was the cool dad because he could do back handsprings – and as soon as everybody got wind of that, he had all these little girls begging him to go up and do these back handsprings on the tumble track."The family said that Corey was so excited to see former President Trump for the first time at the Butler rally. Hours before his heartbreaking death, Corey's final X social media post read: "Trump rally! Butler, PA."The would-be assassin of Trump unleashed eight shots toward the Butler rally on July 13. Corey unselfishly and instinctively went to protect his beloved family who were at the rally with him when the Trump assassination attempt happened. Allyson revealed, "I was the one that my dad threw down. As he was throwing me down, that was when he was shot and he ended up falling onto me. I don't remember hearing any other shots. I don't remember feeling any other shots. In that moment, I was trying to take care of him."The grief-stricken daughter continued, "I was really confused when he was on me. I had turned around, and I went, 'Dad,' and when I turned is whenever he fell down, and that's when I started screaming and instantly I was trying to keep him from bleeding."Kaylee explained, "I started screaming, but in my head, I kept saying, 'Wake up,' like this is a dream. And then you realize it's not a dream, and you feel like your whole world is just over."One of the gunman's bullets struck Corey in the head and killed him. Helen declared, "He definitely was a hero. He saved his wife, he saved his child, and he was just the best guy. He was just the best."Helen said of her slain husband, "He was just a wonderful man, and I want everybody to try not to remember him as the man that was shot at the rally."The widow of the slain former fire chief is absolutely appreciative of all of the support the family has received but knows that it will never bring Corey back. However, Helen wants to expose how her husband was massacred during a political rally. Helen said, "I talk to him anyway, and the only thing that ever comes out of my mouth is, 'I'm sorry that this happened to you.' But I know he would want me to get to the bottom of this. I know he would."The Comperatore family has begun to try to put the pieces together as to what led to Corey being mercilessly gunned down on what was to be a joyous day. Helen declared, "I want justice for my husband, and I'm going to get it."Kaylee believes that the security at the Trump rally has "my dad's blood is on their hands, and I hope they wake up every day thinking about what they took from our family."The distraught daughter added, "Because we have to wake up every day and see that image of our father in our head, and no child should ever have to see that."A preliminary investigative report released this week by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) — a member of the House Bipartisan Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump — accused the FBI and the Secret Service of questionable decisions leading up to and following the deadly Trump assassination attempt last month. The FBI has since issued a statement to Blaze News denying the accusations."Any suggestion the FBI is interfering with congressional efforts to look into the attempted assassination which took place in Butler, Pennsylvania, is inaccurate and unfounded," the FBI National Press Office told Blaze News. “The FBI has been working closely with our law enforcement partners to conduct a thorough investigation into the shooting, and we have followed normal procedures in the handling of the crime scene and evidence.“The FBI continues its painstaking work on the investigation to develop as complete a picture as possible of what led to the shooting, and we remain committed to maximum transparency as we continue to brief Congress and publish information for the public regarding the ongoing investigation."You can watch the entire WTAE-TV interview with the Comperatore family here. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Lee Greenwood is not just a country singer. He's the man behind the patriotic tune “God Bless the U.S.A” — and his trip to the Republican National Convention was a memorable one. Greenwood was given the honor of introducing former president Donald Trump, and while he’s introduced him before, this time it was different. Specifically because it was following the attempt on the president’s life. “The RNC basically had said, 'When President Trump comes into the building, choose your moment and then introduce him,'” Greenwood explains. “I waited 'til president Trump came in the building, then I noticed he had the VP choice with him, Vance was walking with him.” “I was focused on his son as well, Don Jr., because he wasn’t the usual kumbaya and applauding and like, ‘This is great, here’s my dad’ — he was more serious about looking around — ‘Is there anybody going to take another shot at my father?’” Greenwood continues. “Yeah,” Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” says sympathetically. “I bet they were nervous.” “So, when he finally got in place and the vice president then got in place and he turned and faced me, I got eye contact with him for just a second. We’ve had this moment before, and I know that was the moment to introduce him,” Greenwood says, adding, “I just said what I felt and then sang the rest of my song.” Not only did Greenwood have the honor of introducing Trump following his assassination attempt, but Trump has been borrowing his hit song to play at all of his rallies. “We never talked about it, never talked,” Greenwood tells Gray. “He just did it and you were fine with it, unlike most artists,” Gray asks. “I’m a conservative Christian,” Greenwood answers. “I was not taken aback by it, but I was just surprised because as you know, you just pointed out, I wrote this song 40 years ago.” “Very few songs exist and have been passed down from generation to generation, so I was like, ‘Wow, this is kind of cool,’” he adds. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.