The meltdowns in Europe following US Vice President Vance’s taking their elites to the woodshed over their views on democracy, free speech and other civil liberties have been epic.

But as in keeping with the globalist class the meltdowns have spread back across the Atlantic to America, which is what led to the following from CBS anchor Margaret Brennan. BTW, this is now her 3rd clash with Vance following the VP debate “fact checking” and the epic “I don’t really care, Magaret” response from Vance: the following is via proxy of course, as Rubio puts this idiot in her place, and without rolling his eyes or bursting into laughter, which I would have done:

I should put Rubio’s response here in case that X-link vanishes:

Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities … There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were the sole and only party that governed that country, so that’s not an accurate reflection of history.

The Nazi regime used mass media, including newspapers, radio, films, and public speeches, to spread Jew-hating conspiracy theories, dehumanize Jews and incite violence against them – and any speech that was contra to that got canned in every way possible, including the use of violence, first by street thugs and then by the power of the German state once the Nazis controlled that.

Now the Powerline boys were so aghast at the stupidity of Brennan that they put up two posts on the subject, Why no one respects the legacy media, and The Brennan Syndrome, but I’d suggest taking a different angle on it.

This is a worldview that the Left have had for some time now as they advocated de-platforming people they don’t like. Brennan’s comment is actually not a stupid slip up, although it is still a demonstration of pig ignorance delivered by ideology twisting historical facts to its narrative. It’s part of the philosophy driving the modern corporate MSM – and the non-corporate as well, since the journalists all come from the same places nowadays (looking at you Columbia School of Journalism).

In fact her idea of “weaponised free speech” explains why she cut Vance’s microphone as he fact-checked her counter claims about Biden’s border policy during the VP debate with Kamala Harris.

Below is a longer clip of the exchange where Rubio also first got in some good shots backing up Vance’s speech.

Rubio backing up the points that Vance made about America’s Euro partners.

And so I think if anyone’s angry about his words — they don’t have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think actually makes his point. I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech, whether you agree with him or not, I think the valid points he’s making to Europe is: We are concerned that the true values that we share — the values that bind us together with Europe — are things like free speech and democracy and our shared history in winning two world wars and defeating Soviet communism and the like. These are the values that we shared in common, and in that Cold War, we fought against things like censorship and oppression and so forth. And when you see backsliding, and you raise that, that’s a very valid concern. 

We can’t tell them how to run their countries…He simply expressed in his speech his view of it, which a lot of people, frankly, share. And I thought…he said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said. And honestly, I don’t know why anybody would be upset about it…You don’t have to agree with someone’s speech — I happen to agree with a lot of what he said, but you don’t have to agree with someone’s speech to at least appreciate the fact they have a right to say it, and you should listen to it and see whether those criticisms are valid. I assure you the United States has come under withering criticism on many occasions from many leaders in Europe, and we don’t go around throwing temper tantrums about it. 

On the rolling-eyes front Rubio could have quoted the following because although it’s been around for years and has been used in similar situations I don’t think it has ever been more on point.