If Trump dreams of a world in which he will have unfettered power, why does he advocate having the States (not the Federal government) have authority over the permissibility of abortions?
Why is he trying to eliminate the Department of Education, over which he has authority?
Why is he weakening other Executive Branch departments?
Why does he support Charter Schools, school choice, and parent groups while the Democrats support teacher unions?
Why are the Democrats (not Trump) talking about packing the Supreme Court?
Why did the Democrats use the courts to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado -- Trump did not attempt that against the Democrats.
Why did Trump not put large numbers of US residents and citizens into “relocation camps,” but liberal Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Japanese-American citizens and residents into them?
President Trump is ruling by Executive Order because Congress is paralyzed, despite having Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. The congressional paralysis is self-inflicted, a result of the 60 votes needed to pass regular legislation in the Senate. The only workaround is for budget bills, but the result is a "take it or leave it" approach with a huge bill with many unrelated provisions. This creates chaos and brinkmanship, and it not what the founders envisioned.
Here is how to tell if Trump wants unfettered power. Ask Trump the following question: if the Senate got rid of the 60 vote rule, would you do more through legislation and less through executive orders?
The "Center for Jewish History" event had an impressive array of well-known speakers, with diverse viewpoints. It is striking that the one with the best grasp on what is going on, Bill Ackman, was the subject of a protest about the value of his participation from 76 academics (of whom I'd only heard of one, and that was because I went to high school with his sister).
I'd have liked to hear Ackman's talk, and if there is video it would be good to get the link.
No mention here was made of Ruth Wisse, who is in NYC these days and was not mentioned as a speaker.
The big news here is that Ackman drew attention to the "shoe that hadn't dropped": the possibility that the federal government will allow those at Harvard with federal grants to take the grants to other universities. I've avoided raising this scenario publicly because it is the one remaining step that would most cripple Harvard. If it came to pass I didn't want anyone to think I had suggested it. Clearly Ackman was on the same wavelength but decided otherwise.
At the minimum, Harvard should be getting advice from Ackman about how to navigate this crisis. The wisdom of Ackman's comment about Harvard's lawsuit being a blunder is illustrated by Education Secretary McMahon's observation that it is now difficult for her to negotiate with Harvard because of the lawsuit.
Harvard has not yet gone down the tubes, but it is circling the drain. The one genius move that could save Harvard at this point would be to appoint Ackman as the head of Harvard's governing Corporation. That seems like magical thinking but MIT made a similarly smart appointment recently to its Corporation: https://corporation.mit.edu/member/bennett-w-golub/
"“You can complain about Trump’s methods, and yes, his latest letter was overreaching, for sure,” said Ackman, referring to an administration missive, sent May 12, suggesting Harvard was defrauding the government in its admissions policies. “But Trump is always overreaching. That‘s his negotiating style."
He added, “If I were chairman of the [Harvard] corporation, I could resolve this litigation with Trump in a day.”"
I am surprised that Deborah Lipstadt is not ashamed to appear in public: as the lead of Biden's Antisemitism Task Force, she tried to justify having CAIR involved.
Until Oct 7, when leaders of CAIR, true to form, made openly pro-Hamas declarations and were then removed.
Lipstadt justified their participation despite a clear and public history of CAIR support for Hamas, including founders going to prison for money laundering Hamas funds.
If Trump dreams of a world in which he will have unfettered power, why does he advocate having the States (not the Federal government) have authority over the permissibility of abortions?
Why is he trying to eliminate the Department of Education, over which he has authority?
Why is he weakening other Executive Branch departments?
Why does he support Charter Schools, school choice, and parent groups while the Democrats support teacher unions?
Why are the Democrats (not Trump) talking about packing the Supreme Court?
Why did the Democrats use the courts to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado -- Trump did not attempt that against the Democrats.
Why did Trump not put large numbers of US residents and citizens into “relocation camps,” but liberal Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Japanese-American citizens and residents into them?
President Trump is ruling by Executive Order because Congress is paralyzed, despite having Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. The congressional paralysis is self-inflicted, a result of the 60 votes needed to pass regular legislation in the Senate. The only workaround is for budget bills, but the result is a "take it or leave it" approach with a huge bill with many unrelated provisions. This creates chaos and brinkmanship, and it not what the founders envisioned.
Here is how to tell if Trump wants unfettered power. Ask Trump the following question: if the Senate got rid of the 60 vote rule, would you do more through legislation and less through executive orders?
The "Center for Jewish History" event had an impressive array of well-known speakers, with diverse viewpoints. It is striking that the one with the best grasp on what is going on, Bill Ackman, was the subject of a protest about the value of his participation from 76 academics (of whom I'd only heard of one, and that was because I went to high school with his sister).
I'd have liked to hear Ackman's talk, and if there is video it would be good to get the link.
No mention here was made of Ruth Wisse, who is in NYC these days and was not mentioned as a speaker.
The big news here is that Ackman drew attention to the "shoe that hadn't dropped": the possibility that the federal government will allow those at Harvard with federal grants to take the grants to other universities. I've avoided raising this scenario publicly because it is the one remaining step that would most cripple Harvard. If it came to pass I didn't want anyone to think I had suggested it. Clearly Ackman was on the same wavelength but decided otherwise.
At the minimum, Harvard should be getting advice from Ackman about how to navigate this crisis. The wisdom of Ackman's comment about Harvard's lawsuit being a blunder is illustrated by Education Secretary McMahon's observation that it is now difficult for her to negotiate with Harvard because of the lawsuit.
Harvard has not yet gone down the tubes, but it is circling the drain. The one genius move that could save Harvard at this point would be to appoint Ackman as the head of Harvard's governing Corporation. That seems like magical thinking but MIT made a similarly smart appointment recently to its Corporation: https://corporation.mit.edu/member/bennett-w-golub/
The Jerusalem Post did an article on this symposium, and provided more evidence that Ackman and I are on the same wavelength. Ackman said:
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-854661
"“You can complain about Trump’s methods, and yes, his latest letter was overreaching, for sure,” said Ackman, referring to an administration missive, sent May 12, suggesting Harvard was defrauding the government in its admissions policies. “But Trump is always overreaching. That‘s his negotiating style."
He added, “If I were chairman of the [Harvard] corporation, I could resolve this litigation with Trump in a day.”"
Another perfect take from Ira Stoll.
I am surprised that Deborah Lipstadt is not ashamed to appear in public: as the lead of Biden's Antisemitism Task Force, she tried to justify having CAIR involved.
Until Oct 7, when leaders of CAIR, true to form, made openly pro-Hamas declarations and were then removed.
Lipstadt justified their participation despite a clear and public history of CAIR support for Hamas, including founders going to prison for money laundering Hamas funds.