by | BLOG, EDUCATION, HYPOCRISY, Israel
The latest attempt by Liz Magill to smooth over Jewish donors and save her job is absolutely pathetic. She purports to condemn hateful acts and claims they have no place at Penn, but has done nothing to actually ensure they have no place by removing antisemitism from the campus. There is no expulsion of students who actually engaged in antisemitism — even though she even described those acts! There is no removal of faculty or administration who have downplayed antisemitism and allowed its ideas to take root and grow. Penn indeed “has work to do”, and it can start there. But it won’t. And here’s why.
Liz Magill doesn’t actually believe what she says. It is apparent on the front page of her plan. She writes, “As we move forward with this important work, we will ensure that our programmatic efforts consider the interconnectedness between antisemitism and other forms of hate, including Islamophobia, so that we are fostering a welcoming community for all.”
Right there, Magill can’t help but include Islamophobia alongside antisemitism; this means she is fearful of actually taking a unilateral stand solely against antisemitism on behalf of her Jewish students, faculty, and donors. She is equivocating here by including what she calls “other forms of hate” in her statement, because she is more worried about upsetting other members of the community than she is clear about defending Jews.
Even more alarming is the fact that she calls “Islamophobia” a form of hate, but it is not. The very definition of antisemitism is hatred against Jewish, a form of racism and outright hostility toward the Jewish people. In contrast, Islamophobia is a fear (phobia), often irrational, toward Islam or Muslims. Fear and hatred are two very different things and to conflate the two is disingenuous.
But she doesn’t end there. She repeats the sentence in her Education plan, again lumping antisemitism with Islamophobia. And then further along as a Medium Term Action, she announces the commitment to hire “an experienced leader with expertise in preventing and responding to antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate.”
If this was actually about antisemitism, it would be about antisemitism. And that’s why it’s not. The need to throw “Islamophobia” in there three times (and no specific mention of any other forms of hate, mind you) is ridiculous and it cheapens anything she says. Magill is merely pandering to the Jewish community because she is actually terrified of offending the larger UPenn community as well as losing millions in donations to her school. Her action plan to combat anti semitism should start with her own resignation.
by | BLOG, Israel, MEDIA
The major media outlets in the United States, notably the NYTimes and the Washington Post, are once again complicit in the perpetuating misinformation. The latest example is the rush to blame Israel for a hospital bombing in Gaza that purportedly killed five hundred people. When it later became apparent that it was a misguided missile from Islamic Jihad, that the hospital was not severely damaged, and far fewer people died, there was no major recantation from the newspapers.
Even when the actual evidence continued to pile up and contradict the initial reports, they just merely resorted to stating that there is “evidence on both sides.” They couldn’t even admit that they were incorrect. They don’t even seem to want to restore their credibility. And that’s the problem. How stupid can these media groups be to even believe any news from Hamas? In the rush to downplay the atrocities or equivocate Israel’s response for the Hamas slaughter, they perpetuate the lies and don’t even seem to really care that they do.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, Israel
The atrocity of the October 7 Hamas invasion in Israel has recently been compared to our 9/11 attack. While the situation is similar — an Islamic terrorist group struck against a sovereign nation — the assault on Israel was far worse. To put it in perspective, consider this: on 9/11, 3,000 American citizens died and during the Hamas attack, 1,300 Israeli citizens died. But when you consider those terrible numbers in reference to the total population of each country, the 1,300 deaths out of an Israeli population of 9.55 million would be comparable to a loss of roughly 45,000 Americans. That is 15 times higher than our losses from 9/11. Similarly, the initial injuries incurred by Israelis are 3,227. That would be equivalent to 113,000 injuries to Americans on 9/11, while in actuality that number for us was roughly 6,000.
As a lifelong New Yorker, I am in no way downplaying the monstrosity of 9/11. Yet as an American, it is imperative to show others how wide and cruel the Hamas slaughter really and truly was.
by | ECONOMY, TAXES
In the WSJ this week, Phill Gramm and Don Boudreaux do an excellent job detailing the devastating effects Trump’s tariffs have had on the American economy. How can protectionists like Trump and his allies not understand that tariffs are destructive? A tariff is basically a tax on imports. It is championed as a means to boost domestic production and government revenue, but this is far from economic reality. Tariffs clearly and consistently hurt the consumer and taxpayer by driving costs up to everybody in amounts far in excess of any short term benefits.
Tariffs add to inflation and put American companies at a disadvantage because foreign countries can (and do) retaliate by putting their own tariffs on our exports. This slows manufacturing growth, increases prices, and makes the economy more sluggish. On the other hand, free trade creates better choices for consumers and more global opportunities for American companies, resulting in lower costs and an expanded job market.
To suggest a tariff is a pro-growth economic policy is utterly ridiculous. Tariffs don’t strengthen American manufacturers; they are cronyism of the highest order. Protectionists are economically ignorant and tariffs have proven (yet again) to be disastrous for our economy.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, NEWS
Over at the Wall Street Journal, columnist Andy Kessler came up with a list of what he dubbed “15 Ways to Win a Presidential Primary.” Essentially, Kessler eschews style for content as a winning strategy for the crowded Republican primary field. Here is Kessler’s 15 point fix-it plan:
TSA reform
Tackle prescription drug pricing
End hidden fees
End the post office monopoly
Aviation and air-traffic control reform
End the public school monopoly
Offer a 20 year plan for school modernization
End housing price controls
End price fixing
End geographic monopolies
End train subsidies
Outlaw ethanol use
Tighten the border
Put expiration dates on legislation
Nix public-sector collective bargaining
This list is a good start, but I can also think of a few of my own, such as ending the capital gains tax and reforming estate taxes. What are some action items you would like to see?
by | BLOG, LAW, NEWS, POLITICS
The government interference in the Hunter Biden tax case is simply astounding. Looking beyond the “sweetheart” (misdemeanor) deal that Hunter Biden received is something just as egregious; namely, the actions of the Justice Department in the entire ordeal. Here’s a sampling of their odious behavior:
1) Probable cause had been established by prosecutors to search a) Hunter Biden’s guest house in Delaware at President Biden’s home; and b) the Hunter Biden’s storage unit in Virginia, where it was likely important records had been kept. Instead, the Justice Department denied permission for the search warrants.
2) Whereas the Justice Department traditionally declines to investigate or indict serious matters within 60 days of an election, they did so for six months.
3) They warned Hunter’s attorneys about an forthcoming search warrant that was intended to gather evidence
4) They declined the ability to have key witnesses interviewed on important issues involving potentially Hunter and his father.
Indeed, it seems rational to conclude if the Justice Department had made different choices than the ones above, those might have led to unearthing tangible connections with Hunter and Joe Biden. Furthermore, the Special Agent report recommended six felonies and five misdemeanors for Hunter’s tax problems. And yet, the federal government allowed the statute of limitations for 2014 and 2015 charges to expire, something that is practically unheard of. Moreover, allowing the misdemeanor charges to proceed in lieu of felony charges violates the Tax Division Manual.
The irregular actions of the Justice Department have tipped the scales in favor of Hunter Biden for reasons that are specifically unclear, but easy to speculate about (i.e. Joe). It’s incredible how brazen the government has been able to be.
by | ARTICLES, SCOTUS
Gorsuch does a good job pointing out some of the logical flaws in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Colorado website cake. The WSJ’s Notable and Quotable gives a fine excerpt, which I have included below, plus a link to the full opinion.
“From Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis, decided June 30:
It is difficult to read the dissent [by Justice Sonia Sotomayor] and conclude we are looking at the same case. . . . The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s “conduct,” not her speech. Forget Colorado’s stipulation that Ms. Smith’s activities are “expressive,” and the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that the State seeks to compel “pure speech.” The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Ms. Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the State’s. The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is “incidental.” All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the “very purpose” of “[e]liminating . . . ideas.” . . .
In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include.” But if that is true, what are we even debating?”
by | ARTICLES, SCOTUS
The Wall Street Journal published their “Notable & Quotable: “Thomas vs. Jackson” on July 1, 2023. Clarence Thomas takes apart fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, observing that her “contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.” It’s brilliant. You can read it in full below:
“From Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, decided June 29 (citations omitted):
Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.
Nor do Justice Jackson’s statistics . . . prove anything. Of course, none of those statistics are capable of drawing a direct causal link between race—rather than socioeconomic status or any other factor—and individual outcomes. So Justice Jackson supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood. . . .
Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.
Justice Jackson then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision. Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries, historically, have ended disastrously.
