Trump combats anti-Semitism on campus and the LEFT lies about it

Trump combats anti-Semitism on campus

Posted: 12 Dec 2019 01:21 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order that will enable the government to consider discrimination against Jews to be a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This means that colleges and universities can lose federal funding if they fail to combat discrimination against Jewish students. Trump’s move is a response to the growing number of anti-Semitic incidents on our campuses.

To receive Title VI protection, Jews must be considered a nationality for purposes of federal civil rights law. If Jews are deemed only members of a religion, the protection doesn’t apply.

In response to word that Trump was going to sign this Executive Order, the New York Times complained that Trump was redefining American Jews as a separate nationality. Two of the Times’ most prominent reporters, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, said that “Mr. Trump’s order will have the effect of embracing an argument that Jews are a people or a race with a collective national origin in the Middle East, like Italian Americans or Polish Americans.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal picked up this ball and claimed that Trump’s move “smacks not only of what happened in the Soviet Union but also Nazi German.” Thus, did Blumenthal, a known liar, try compare an order to protect Jews from anti-Semitism to Nazi Germany.

But Yair Rosenberg of Tablet pointed out that the underlying rule here adopts an Obama-era distinction that protects Jews as a nationality because racists view them this way. Slate’s Mark Stern, a liberal, said “the order’s interpretation of Title VI — insofar as the law applies to Jews — is entirely in line with the Obama administration’s approach.” He added, “the New York Times absolutely blew this story.”

Mainstream Jewish advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League praised Trump’s measure, thus further giving the lie to Blumenthal’s alleged concern.

Some critics have raised a more substantial concern about using Title VI to combat anti-Semitism on campus — the possibility that doing so might infringe on free speech, including speech about Israel. When the government threatens to cut off funding to colleges based on what is said on campus, there is always the danger that free speech might be unduly curbed.

However, the left is fine with the government threatening to cut off funding to colleges that don’t act against alleged (and dubious) cases of racism, sexism, etc. Thus, it’s difficult to take seriously the hand wringing over the possibility that the government will also act against campus anti-Semitism.

It’s worth noting in this regard that Trump has already signed an executive order protecting free speech on campus. This administration is far more solicitous towards the free expression of ideas on campus than its predecessor.

In sum, the latest executive order is a welcome way of addressing well-founded concerns about anti-Semitism and discrimination on campus. As with other executive orders, it’s possible that the government will interpret and enforce it in a over-bearing way. However, there is no reason to assume that it will.

Jihad at American

Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani JIHAD!!!!
An American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging a navigation system on a Miami flight with 150 passengers aboard pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempting to destroy the aircraft in a plea agreement designed to avoid a maximum sentence up to 20 years in prison.

“I do admit the guilt,” Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, 60, said through an Arabic interpreter in Miami federal court.

evil Sanders

Sanders Calls Netanyahu ‘Racist’, US Should be ‘Pro-Palestinian.

What else do you need to know about that jerk? Oh, that he is actually a full blown communist trying to hide it?

Impeachment not historic at all

The rank dishonesty and maniacal partisanship underlying impeachment have made for a sorry spectacle. What can be said about the House triumvirate of Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, and Speaker Nancy “prayerful” Pelosi? Send in the clowns.

The Russia hoax collapsed in the senile display of Robert Mueller before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24. On July 25 President Trump had the congratulatory telephone call with Ukraine’s President Zelensky that somehow became the subject of a complaint submitted by a fake “whistleblower.” The fake whistleblower has remained anonymous for some reason. We all know who he is, although the Democrats’ have protected his identity more zealously than intelligence authorities protect top secret information. Send in the clowns.

As the Russia hoax was a pretext for undermining Trump, the Ukraine thing is an obvious pretext for the continuation. Both episodes are shot through with such dishonesty and bad faith it is no coincidence (as the Communists used to say) that Adam Schiff has been out in front of each. The prayerful Pelosi logically tapped Schiff to conduct and direct impeachment theater in the House even though the Intelligence Committee has at best a highly questionable role in it. Send in the clowns.

Fake History

Posted: 19 Dec 2019 11:33 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Democrats and many of their media allies are desperate to characterize the impeachment of Trump as “historic,” rather than as approaching par for the course in our modern, hyper-partisan politics.

The fact that this is the third impeachment proceeding in the past 45 years, and that Trump is the third elected president of the past eight to endure one, undercuts the notion that this impeachment is momentous. However, Jonathan Allen makes a stab at it. He tweets:

Unprecedented: Trump now holds the record for most votes ever acquired on an article of impeachment at 230. He’s also No. 2 at 229.

Right, if we’re only talking about impeachments of presidents. But as Jim Geraghty points out, there’s less to this factoid than meets the eye. Much less.

When Andrew Johnson was impeached, there were fewer than 200 members of the House. His impeachment could not possibly have garnered as many votes as Trump’s did.

The vote to impeach Johnson was 126–47, with 17 members not voting. Thus, that impeachment had much more support than the current one.

Richard Nixon’s impeachment proceeding never came to a vote. Nixon saw that he would be impeached and that many Republicans supported this remedy. Accordingly, he resigned.

In any case, the Democrats controlled around 240 seats. Thus, even without a single Republican vote, Nixon would have been impeached with more than 230 votes.

This leaves only the Clinton impeachment. There, the article of impeachment for the crime of perjury garnered 228 votes. It didn’t gain more only because the Republicans held fewer seats then than the Democrats hold now.

More significant than the raw vote tally in the Clinton case is the fact that five House Democrats voted to impeach the Democratic president. Last night, no Republican voted to impeach the Republican president.

If the impeachment of Trump is historic, it’s because (1) there was zero Republican support for it and (2) there was no allegation that Trump committed a crime. These are historical firsts.

In the unlikely event that Nancy Pelosi declines to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, this impeachment will become a true historical oddity. No impeachment Congress has ever been dopey enough to refuse a Senate trial — not on any grounds, and certainly not on the grounds that the Senate needs to hear witnesses the House did not hear from due to its rush to get the impeachment over with.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to make history, that’s the way to do it.