Aggregator
Liberty call for ‘consistency’ from refs after facing tough calls in loss to Wings
Khris Middleton, ex-Nets star in middle of wild six-team NBA trade
Disgusting video shows children riding boats in ‘sewage brown’ water at popular Maryland theme park
Maniac Florida cop arrested after attacking elderly couple at bar: ‘How to throw away your career in 2 minutes’
"F**k The USA": Professor Delights Chicago Crowd With Anti-American And Anti-Border Rant
Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,
I have previously written about the "radical chic" in higher education of faculty members who espouse extremist views in departments purged of conservative, libertarian, or moderate voices. While it is virtually impossible to get departments to seriously consider a mainstream conservative or libertarian, schools like Princeton eagerly hire professors such as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, who recently delighted a Chicago audience with an unhinged rant against the United States and the concept of a nation-state.
Bill Ayers and Princeton's Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor appeared at a July 4th event and denounced the country and its anniversary.
Taylor thrilled the crowd by recounting her disgust that a woman gave her child an American flag at the airport. She credited herself by not instantly burning it, but went on to denounce the country and credited the audience for its "F**k the U.S." attitude.
Notably, Taylor suggested that only fools rally behind the flag or the notion of a nation-state. She clearly believes not just in open borders but rejects the very concept of borders. She repeatedly declared that "borders kill" and suggested that patriotic people are simply dupes.
Bill Ayers is a former professor and one of the founders of the domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was also a member of the group, and both were fugitives for several years. Dohrn is also a professor who has taught at Northwestern University School of Law.
Taylor is a Professor in the Department of African-American Studies at Princeton University. She writes for the New Yorker.
In the Chicago event, Taylor called on others to reject "the idea of loving a nation state, which is what patriotism is." She repeatedly returned to the theme that borders are "deadly" and "borders kill people." She explained that we have to erase any borders because they are "a tool of death and destruction."
Furthermore, she emphasized that the very concept of a nation-state should be the "object of political struggle."
This reflects the level of intellectual rigor in departments like the one at Princeton. Her writings have been honored by the Marguerite Casey Foundation and Group Health Foundation, the Organization of American Historians, and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (which gave her a fellowship).
On one level, the erasure of borders could be viewed as the "withering away of the state" espoused by Friedrich Engels and later by Vladimir Lenin. However, it reads more like the jargonistic narrative common in higher education, where radicals espouse such views without serious challenge from their colleagues.
Even European states that once allowed expanded undocumented migration are now struggling to reverse course due to the high social and security costs. However, academics such as Taylor tell students that we can eradicate any nation-states and live without borders. While most people would expect such views to be espoused by raving lunatics on the subway, Princeton made her a chair professor as the Hughes-Rogers Professor of African American Studies.
Her writings are celebrated for her combination of socialism and identity politics. The gushing articles even include praise for her use of emojis. ("All those cry-laughing yellow orbs betrayed a critic with a sense of humor.").
Few colleagues or critics feel comfortable noting that views like the eradication of the nation-state or erasure of borders are little more than unsupported, jargon-saturated tripe. There is no effort to push her on what happens to an economy without borders where the country (or whatever will replace the nation-state) is responsible for supporting millions of immigrants.
When you hear young socialists in the Mamdani Administration (including Mamdani himself) speaking of "seizing the means of production," it is the result of college classes taught by figures like Taylor, who offer little more than shallow sound bites and slogans. They have been told that socialism is a successful economic model despite its utter failure historically. It is a fable told by the uninformed to the unquestioning: unicorn economics, eagerly embraced like a bedtime story.
The alternative is what I have called the "liberty-enhancing economy" that the Framers embraced. The combination of political and economic freedom made this republic the greatest engine of prosperity and human rights in history. That does not mean that we do not have difficult economic and social problems. However, the suggestion that we should embrace socialism and erase borders is properly viewed as perfectly bonkers ... outside of higher education.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."
Tyler Durden Tue, 07/07/2026 - 23:25SoCal woman on Mexican beach vacation with her beloved dog shot in attempted carjacking
The motivation behind Gotham FC’s move to Queens: ‘Elevate our team’
Mets’ piecemeal pitching’s implosion wastes early lead in ugly loss to last-place Royals
Giants claim defensive lineman C.J. Ravenell after being cut by Titans
California city erupts as invasive plans would see new homes pop-up on their actual doorsteps
Bill Clinton Insider Warns Of Socialist Takeover, Calls For Probe Into Possible DSA Foreign Ties
Mark Penn, the former chief White House pollster and strategic advisor to President Bill Clinton for six years, used a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "The Socialist Threat Is Real" to warn that far-left radicals are hijacking the Democratic Party.
The problem for Democrats is that years of letting socialists and Marxists into their DEI kingdom have only now produced dire consequences. Status quo Democrats are watching their power evaporate as Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates defeat mainstream Democrats in primaries across New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and other states.
Penn's warning was blunt: "America will be in serious trouble if Democrats fail to defend their party."
"This 'revolution' is driven not by the working class but by the urban professional class that is willing to support candidates who celebrate 9/11, cheer at the massacre of 1,000 Israeli and American kids, would defund the police, abolish prisons, end private property and open the borders," Penn explained.
Penn and his fellow status quo party members are watching in real time as their party transforms almost overnight from one once built around labor, civil rights and working-class citizens into one increasingly defined by anti-American rhetoric, hostility toward capitalism, support for foreign adversaries, calls to abolish jails, race-based politics and, of course, utter disdain for the Constitution.
What DSA stands for:
Our latest profiling of the new Democratic Party appears to show how DSA-ers are far detached from traditional American values and openly hostile to the country's founding institutions:
Meet the new Democratic Party:
Frank, Aaron, Hank and Sam are Communist insurgents, radicalized marxist revolutionaries hiding behind personal ideologies to justfy their 1A expressions of the right to promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America pic.twitter.com/XLzzjisOqd
— AnimalFarm1945 (Moshe) (@Farm1945A) July 6, 2026Meet the unofficial DSA spokesman:
Hasan Piker calls on his followers to kill capitalists:
“Yeah kill them! KiII those motherfuckers and murder those motherfuckers in the streets. Let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist blood, dude.”
Democrats are campaigning with him. pic.twitter.com/YiZxGgRkgc
Penn's op-ed then called for immediate investigations into the DSA to determine whether the socialists are "being funded by foreign governments and interests."
He said, "Lawmakers, law-enforcement agencies and journalists should investigate the DSA to see if it is being funded by foreign governments and interests."
It only appears as if Penn reads ZeroHedge:
Or perhaps Penn sees the writing on the wall:
- Feds Nab Alleged Member Of "Sprawling" Cuban Communist Subversion Network Linked To Hasan Piker's Havana Trip
- DOJ Grand Jury Probes Neville Roy Singham's Marxist NGO Empire: Report
- "No Longer Tolerate Radical Marxists": Rubio Sanctions Revolutionary Cuban Influence Network Tied To U.S. Left-Wing NGOs
Penn explains that if the DSA is not properly handled, then "New York and other cities will decay further."
Penn's call for investigations into the DSA, including whether the group is funded or supported by foreign governments or foreign interests, may not have come out of nowhere.
The broader concern is that federal officials are investigating whether elements of the far-left activist NGO sphere have been influenced by foreign-linked networks. Investigations are focused on China and Cuba.
Penn's decision to write an op-ed attacking the socialists only highlights the growing alarm inside the Democratic Party.
The question now is whether traditional Democrats begin looking across the political aisle to counter the socialist wing before it gains even more ground in low-turnout primaries and deep-blue districts. A bipartisan anti-socialist push would have been unthinkable not long ago, but if the DSA keeps toppling incumbents and reshaping the party from within, that may be exactly where this fight is headed.
President Trump has been gearing up for the political fight against the radical left, in which he said on Truth Social last month: "The Communists are finally making their move. I've been waiting and preparing for this for a long time."
Tyler Durden Tue, 07/07/2026 - 23:00Police investigating video of Nolan Wells’ alleged argument on Horn Island before Mississippi teen went missing
J.J. Watt joining ‘Shark Tank’ as guest investor for 18th season: ‘Pretty surreal’
Liberty overmatched by Wings again in ugly home loss
Dems are finally pulling the plug on Graham Platner — after selfishly ignoring all his warning signs
Shawn Johnson branded ‘weird’ by fans after sharing video kissing 2-year-old son on the lips
Shawn Johnson branded ‘weird’ by fans after sharing video kissing 2-year-old son on the lips
Michael Goodwin: America 250 showed the pride and joy this country has to offer
How Interceptor Missiles Work: The Technology Behind Stopping Missiles In Mid-Air
Authored by Kaif Shaikh via Interesting Engineering,
Intercepting a missile sounds straightforward. Launch another missile at it before it reaches its target. In reality, it is one of the most technically demanding challenges of defense.
Here's how modern interceptor missiles protect against aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic threats.Getty ImagesUnlike offensive missiles, interceptor missiles must detect, track, calculate, and collide with a target that may be traveling several times the speed of sound, often within a matter of minutes. Some even destroy their targets without carrying an explosive warhead, relying instead on the sheer force of impact. Here's how interceptor missiles work.
It Starts With DetectionAn interceptor missile is only as effective as the network supporting it. Long before an interceptor launches, satellites equipped with infrared sensors detect the intense heat generated by a missile launch. Ground- and sea-based radars then begin tracking the missile's trajectory, calculating where it is likely to travel and, more importantly, where it can be intercepted.
This information is continuously shared across a command-and-control network that decides whether an engagement is necessary, selects the most suitable interceptor, and determines the optimal launch time.
Predicting Where A Missile Will BeOne of the biggest misconceptions is that interceptor missiles simply "chase" incoming threats. Instead, fire-control computers predict the future position of the target based on its speed, altitude, direction, and expected flight path. The interceptor is launched toward that predicted intercept point rather than directly at the missile's current location.
As both missiles continue moving, onboard guidance systems receive updated tracking data and constantly adjust the interceptor's course until it reaches the target. The entire process, from detection to interception, may take only a few minutes for short-range ballistic missiles.
Three Opportunities To InterceptBallistic missiles travel through three distinct flight phases, each offering different interception opportunities. The boost phase begins immediately after launch while the rocket motors are still burning. During this stage, the missile is highly visible due to its intense infrared signature, but interception is extremely difficult because defensive systems must already be positioned near the launch site.
The midcourse phase is the longest portion of flight, when the warhead travels through space after booster separation. Systems such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense using SM-3 interceptors and the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense are designed to engage threats during this stage.
Finally comes the terminal phase, when the warhead re-enters the atmosphere and descends toward its target. Systems such as THAAD and Patriot PAC-3 operate in this phase, providing the final opportunity to stop an incoming missile before impact.
Hit-To-Kill Versus Explosive InterceptionNot every interceptor destroys its target in the same way. Many older interceptor missiles use blast-fragmentation warheads, detonating near the incoming missile and destroying it with high-speed metal fragments.
Modern systems increasingly rely on hit-to-kill technology. Rather than exploding nearby, these interceptors collide directly with the incoming missile at extremely high speed. The enormous kinetic energy generated by the impact is sufficient to destroy or disable the target without carrying a large explosive payload. Systems including THAAD, SM-3, and Patriot PAC-3 employ hit-to-kill interception for many ballistic missile defense missions.
Why Is Interception So Difficult?Intercepting a missile is often compared to "hitting a bullet with another bullet," but the reality is even more challenging. Incoming ballistic missiles can travel at several kilometers per second, leaving defenders with only a narrow engagement window. Modern missiles may also deploy decoys, maneuver during flight, or fly at lower altitudes to complicate tracking.
Weather, electronic warfare, radar coverage, and terrain can further reduce the time available to detect and engage a threat. For this reason, countries increasingly rely on layered missile defense, where multiple interceptor systems operate at different ranges and altitudes. If one layer fails, another still has an opportunity to intercept the incoming missile.
Examples Of Interceptor MissilesDifferent interceptor missiles are optimized for different threats. The Patriot PAC-3 focuses on defending military bases and cities against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft during the terminal phase.
THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) intercepts short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles at much higher altitudes, including outside Earth's atmosphere. The naval SM-3 interceptor protects ships and allied territories by engaging ballistic missiles during their midcourse phase, while SM-6 provides additional terminal defense against aircraft, cruise missiles, and some ballistic threats.
Other countries operate systems such as Israel's Arrow-3, David's Sling, and Iron Dome, each designed for different ranges and threat types.
The Future Of Missile InterceptionAs hypersonic glide vehicles and maneuverable ballistic missiles become more common, traditional interception methods are becoming increasingly challenging. Future systems are expected to combine more capable sensors, artificial intelligence-assisted tracking, and new interceptors, such as the Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI), currently under development, to engage hypersonic threats before they begin their final descent.
While no missile defense system offers perfect protection, modern layered architectures have significantly improved the ability to detect, track, and intercept increasingly sophisticated threats. Success ultimately depends not on a single interceptor missile but on the seamless integration of satellites, radars, command networks, and multiple defensive layers that work together within seconds.
Tyler Durden Tue, 07/07/2026 - 22:35