Harvard’s $9B battle with Trump is the Dems’ – Latest News
The Democrats have lastly discovered the chief of their resistance to President Trump.
No, it’s not Sen. Cory Booker and his self-serving 25-hour ground speech.
Nor is it Sen. Bernie Sanders or his first-class-flying socialist associate, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Or any of the misguided mayors and governors shielding migrant criminals from deserved deportation.
And it’s definitely not the idiotic vandals defacing Teslas with swastikas.
Instead, the honor of main the resistance in opposition to the president of the United States goes to Harvard.
More From Michael Goodwin
Why Harvard?
Because The New York Times, the spokesman and ringleader for the radical left, says so.
The Gray Lady has appointed Harvard to the job.
Bring it on!
In an article that hails the Ivy League college’s rejection of any White House penalties over eruptions of antisemitism on its campus, Times author Elisabeth Bumiller approvingly quotes a number of people who reward Harvard’s stance and declare that it carries political significance approach past the precise points concerned.
Her bigger level is clear: This is warfare with an administration the left likes to hate. Bring it on!
Bumiller and Harvard arrive at this conclusion solely by following a tortured path. The inversion of info is so weird that they finish up echoing pre-Civil War slave holders’ claims about states’ rights.
In this case, Harvard and its defenders act as if antisemitic campus rallies are a civil proper for the college as an alternative of a violation of Jewish college students’ civil rights!
And, not like Columbia, which had the good sense to simply accept federal calls for, Harvard is able to combat.
In their letter rejecting intervention, Harvard’s legal professionals say it “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”
As others have famous, what would we call this blanket protection if the college students who had been harmed have been black as an alternative of Jews?
In refusing even to barter, the so-called best and brightest have opened themselves to large financial penalties.
The blowback began instantly, with the White House asserting it has frozen $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and canceled a $60 million contract.
The president additionally raised the prospect of ending Harvard’s tax-exempt standing.
Overall, Harvard is mentioned to get about $9 billion a 12 months from Washington, with the huge bulk going to affiliated hospitals and medical facilities.
Even permitting for the college’s endowment of about $52 billion, its choice to put discretionary federal money at risk in protection of antisemitic protests appears particularly dumb.
So a lot for the best and brightest.
A call to arms
Bumiller’s article, like every thing else in the Times relating to Trump, is an activist’s call to arms.
Among the Harvard defenders she cites is Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, whom Bumiller calls “a rare critic of the White House among university administrators,” which is absurd since they’re a dime a dozen.
She’s thrilled he welcomed Harvard’s choice to combat and particularly his line that, “It’s like when a bully is stopped in his tracks.”
See what she did there — Trump is a bully and he’s been stopped!
She additionally cites J. Michael Luttig, who tells her, “This is of momentous, momentous significance,” as if one momentous wasn’t enough.
She calls Luttig a outstanding former federal appeals courtroom choose “revered by many conservatives,” whereas ignoring the incontrovertible fact that he is a well-known Trump hater.
Apparently she couldn’t discover a college chief or choose who thinks the president is doing the proper factor.
Bumiller additionally reads minds, as when she claims that “the fight with Harvard… is one that President Trump and Stephen Miller, a powerful White House aide, want to have.”
She doesn’t cite a source for how she is aware of that, however she doesn’t need sources. See, all Times writers can learn Trump’s thoughts and divine his motive, which is at all times malevolent.
Still, Bumiller is on to one thing when she makes this statement: “A high-profile court battle would give the White House a platform to continue arguing that the left has become synonymous with antisemitism, elitism and suppression of free speech.”
‘We like it, so do it’
She’s appropriate, although with one error: A courtroom battle with Harvard isn’t essential to show that.
There is zero doubt that the left is a font of “antisemitism, elitism and suppression of free speech.”
It’s a font of anti-Americanism, too.
Harvard is only one of many examples. Columbia, Penn, Yale, Cornell, Brown, Cal Berkeley, Michigan and scores of different colleges are guilty of the similar transgressions.
More broadly, the complete course of of Democrats forming a resistance is particularly unusual now.
Trump and Republicans received sweeping victories in the election the place they spelled out what they supposed to do.
By being so particular about so many issues, successful meant voters have been giving them a mandate: We prefer it, so do it.
Now that the victors are doing it, outrage on the left is erupting, as if the president is an interloper springing surprises on a nation of victims.
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our each day Post Opinion e-newsletter!
Thanks for signing up!
Nonsense. In truth, it’s simply one other bit of media misinformation to depict Trump’s strikes as popping out of nowhere.
Just as a result of the Times and different leftist media intensely dislike him doesn’t make his actions illegitimate.
The bigger drawback for the resisters is that they’ve no coherent agenda of their own — and never a lot of a following. Trump’s speedy success at sealing the border after Joe Biden left it open for 4 years cemented his popularity for motion and conserving his phrase.
Similarly, the choice by the media and a few Dems to go ballistic over radical foreigners who align with terror teams having their inexperienced playing cards and visas revoked is one other political loser.
Allowing males in girls’s sports activities is additionally wildly unpopular, however the Dems are going down with that ship, too.
Inaction and silence
In that sense, the Harvard case is instructive. Biden and congressional Dems mentioned little and did nothing as disgraceful episodes of antisemitism roiled many campuses.
Their inaction and silence have been particularly outrageous given the horror of Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas invaded Israel and killed 1,250 people, together with more Jews than on any single day since the Holocaust.
Most of the useless have been civilians, as have been the majority of the 250 hostages taken back to the hellholes of Gaza. Incredibly, 556 days later, 59 are nonetheless being held, with simply 24 regarded as alive.
The defenders of this death cult shamed Harvard and different universities with their protests, calling for the elimination of Israel and harassing Jewish college students. For Harvard to now declare the authorities has no proper to penalize it compounds the injustice.
There is, of course, an straightforward resolution. Harvard can reject all federal funds, as some colleges, together with Hillsdale College, do, and free itself from Washington.
The one factor it can’t do is have it each methods. If it takes federal money, it has to play by federal guidelines.
The trade-off is so easy that even Harvard ought to be capable to perceive it.
