Poetic Justice for the Biden ‘Ministry of Truth’ - Roger Kimball

 

by Roger Kimball

These past months have not been kind to the Biden conglomerate.

 

At some point in this column, I have probably had occasion to quote these famous lines from Walter Scott’s poem “Marmion”:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.” 

In another, better world, I like to think, the Bidens and their protectors and puppet masters would ruefully be contemplating Scott’s admonitory observation.

In this world, however, I suspect that—until quite recently, anyway—they had smugly sided with J.R. Pope’s sly amendment to Scott’s moralizing couplet:

“But when we’ve practiced for a while 

How vastly we improve our style.”  

I note that Pope’s amusing title for his opuscule is “A Word of Encouragement.”

Many of us feel a great contradiction at the heart of the Biden phenomenon.

On the one hand, he—“Big Guy” Joe—and his entire Snopes-like family—coke-head Hunter, “Dr.” Jill, the litter of grasping, on-the-make siblings—all seem like ciphers, the veritable incarnation of Gertrude Stein’s description of Oakland, CA: “there’s no there there.”

Indeed, from this point of view, Joe’s painful mental and, increasingly, physical vacancy seems to be the objective correlative for the entire Biden enterprise. It’s as if the nasty brother of the scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz suddenly came to life and occupied the White House. “If I only had a brain,” he snarls softly to himself, frightening everyone around him.

And that “as if” brings me to the extraordinary “other hand.” Joe Biden is president of the United States, still, if just barely, the most important political office in the world. Amazing. How could that be? Talk about going from zero to one!

Of course, history is littered with the spectacle of destructive lunatics and incompetents in high office, as such names as Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and Elagabalus remind us. (As an aside, I hereby note that Elagabalus is poised for a rerun, so perfectly does that epicene, “gender fluid” freak epitomize some of the central pathologies of our time).

The Bidens have yet to achieve the notoriety of such grimly illustrious predecessors. Nevertheless, these past months have not been kind to the Biden conglomerate.

First, there were the serial revelations of the Elon-Musk-enabled Twitter files, as journalists like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger took the ball and ran with it, exposing some portion of the Fed intrusion into and censorship of the media, social and otherwise. Those revelations might well have taken down another administration, but key segments of the media are too housebroken to respond to the scandal with condign outrage.

Second, the Republican takeover of the House, and the robust performance of Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Committee chairs like Jim Jordan (Judiciary) and James Comer (Oversight and Accountability) to ferret out, expose and hold to account the corrupt actors of the deep state, have opened a network of fissures in the edifice supporting the Biden conglomerate. Elections, as another politician observed, do have consequences.

Finally, there are the courts. The wheels of justice grind slow, we are told, but exceedingly fine. The Supreme Court has lately delivered a series of decisions that threaten to upend the entire “diversity industry” upon which the regime battens in its efforts to enforce ideological conformity throughout the educational establishment and a cowed and tranquillized populace.

The latest judicial intervention, released with what seems like poetic justice, on July 4, i.e., Independence Day, comes from U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana. In an extraordinarily forthright 155-page ruling, Judge Doughty issued a preliminary injunction barring the White House and clutch of federal agencies from liaising with social media to suppress, censor or otherwise subvert the expression of political opinions critical of the regime.

Responding to Missouri v. Biden, a suit brought by the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana, Doughty noted with refreshing frankness that “the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech.”

“The evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” he wrote, “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

Yikes.

And at issue is not just censorship of contrary opinions about Covid, its origins, severity and appropriate treatment, along with still-burning questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines imposed upon a stupefied public. The censorship also extended to other subjects, including the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” story, which all the world now knows was ruthlessly censored on the lead up to the 2020 election. And then there is the 2020 election itself, whose long shadow includes the January 6 imbroglio.

As Judge Doughty noted, “All were suppressed.” Furthermore, he wrote, “it is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.”

“Have” or “had?”

Philip Hamburger, Columbia law professor and CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (which represents plaintiffs in the case), crisply summarized the state of play in an OpEd for The Wall Street Journal. The case, Hamburger predicted, may well “become one of the most important free-speech cases in the nation’s history.”

The injunction is against the FBI, the DOJ, the CDC and five other federal agencies, as well as against such officials as the Surgeon General and various White House staffers. It prohibits them from “threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech.”

Everyone expects the Biden administration to appeal the judgment. After all, having been in the censorship business so long and so successfully, the administration will be loath to open the window on free expression and opinions critical of their performance.

We don’t yet know how this case will turn out. Perhaps Judge Doughty will be overturned and the censorship and suppression industry will go on its merry way making the world safe for Democrats. But I suspect that the genie has been let out of the bottle. The Deep state will howl. The forces of freedom will howl louder, and now they have the House and, most likely, the courts on their side.

Whatever happens, the Wall Street Journal’s Jacob Gershman is right: “The case is among the most potentially consequential First Amendment battles pending in the courts, testing the limits on government scrutiny of social-media content on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other major platforms. Never before has a federal judge set such sweeping limits on how the federal government may communicate with online platforms.”

I wish I knew what Judge Doughty’s favorite tipple is. I’d like to buy him a case of it.

Roger Kimball

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/09/missouri-v-biden-july-4-ruling-is-poetic-justice-case-of-tipple-for-the-judge/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Understanding Marxism Is Key To Understanding Today’s Leftists - Glenn Spitzer

 

by Glenn Spitzer

Leftists no longer speak in terms of the “bourgeoisie” or the “proletariat,” but they are still operating under the same principles, only at a more granular level.

 

As Americans, we are being assaulted by numerous alphabet ideologies we don’t understand—from DEI to ESG to LGBTQ+. We seek to understand through logic, but by doing so, we become only more confused. The only way to understand what’s happening is to recognize the ideology that underlies all of it: Marxism. When Patrisse Cullors, BLM’s co-founder, acknowledged that BLM leaders were “trained Marxists,” we failed to understand the significance. It is time to change that.

Marxism’s central idea is that the world is broken down into two groups; or as Marx stated: “in a word, oppressor and oppressed.” This is from his opening statement in the Communist Manifesto (published in 1848). If you remember nothing else, remember this.

Classic Marxism sees the world in binary terms: the bourgeoisie (oppressor) and the proletariat (oppressed). The bourgeoisie own the means of production, and the proletariat don’t. Marx believed that, if the proletariat seized the means of production, all class conflict would end, bringing us to a Communist utopia. Ironically, Marxists advocated achieving utopia through violent revolution.

The Frankfurt School is the key to understanding how Marxism is used today. It is responsible for what we now term “cultural Marxism” or “neo-Marxism.” The Frankfurt School was established in the 1920s to study Marxism with the goal of understanding why communism was not taking hold in Western societies. The most important idea that came from the Frankfurt school is “critical theory.” (The seminal work is Traditional and Critical Theory” by Max Horkheimer, published in 1937.)

Image: Herbert Marcuse (edited), from the Marcuse Family. CC BY-SA 3.0.

Critical theory expanded on Marx’s idea of the “superstructure.” The superstructure is made up of all the cultural and social institutions in society. Marx explained that those are the things that influence our “modes of thought, and views of life.”

According to traditional critical theorists, the superstructure reinforces the power structures and acts as a natural resistance to the changes that would otherwise bring about communism. The superstructure, they argue, is subconsciously ingrained and taints our traditional modes of analysis (e.g., reason), thereby making elusive any objective analysis of the world.

Critical theorists believe a more subjective analysis is required to understand how the superstructure maintains the bourgeoisie “hegemony” (control/dominance). In short, critical theory runs everything through the filter of oppressor and oppressed. It seeks to expose and eradicate all perceived tyranny within our social institutions. For Marxists, critical theory becomes the tool to address all disparate outcomes between oppressor and oppressed.

Critical theory expanded significantly in the 1960s under a movement known as the “New Left,” another product of the Frankfurt School. The New Left is guided by the writings of a new wave of Marxists led by Herbert Marcuse, often considered the “Guru of the New Left.” Marcuse believed a communist revolution required the development of what he called “radical subjectivity”—that is, the development of a form of self-consciousness that finds present social and economic conditions intolerable.

The New Left expanded critical theory beyond analyzing the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and, instead, looked at a multitude of different power struggles. “Queer theory” analyzed how social institutions maintained heterosexual hegemony, the modern feminist movement analyzed how the institutions were used to maintain the patriarchy’s hegemony, and critical race theory (which began in Harvard Law School in the mid-1970s) analyzed how the institutions maintained white hegemony.

The obvious problem with critical theory is that it purports to explain all disparate outcomes between the various oppressor/oppressed groups. Its advocates are conditioned to attribute any unequal outcomes to institutions and not to individuals. However, the connections are often tenuous and unverifiable (think “racist highways”). When one believes oppression is reinforced by unverifiable factors within social institutions, one soon comes to believe that oppression lurks everywhere within those institutions.

Take, for example, the issue of “systemic racism,” a concept that was raised repeatedly during the George Floyd riots. Advocates could not provide concrete, verifiable examples of “systemic racism.” Instead, systemic racism came to stand for the vague notion that our social institutions reinforce oppression on unconscious levels. This naturally led policymakers to flail around on nonsense solutions designed to disable the institutions themselves (think “defund the police”). Contrast modern systemic racism to the actual systemic racism in Jim Crow laws—laws that are verifiably racist and oppressive.

Without concrete or verifiable explanations for disparate outcomes, critical theorists come to see even the most innocuous ideas as responsible for maintaining the oppressive “hegemony.” Extremist CRT advocates attack ideas that most would find universally beneficial. Why do whites (and now Asians) do better in school? To CRT advocates, it’s because standardized testing, meritocracy, and even math and logic are racist concepts that only serve to maintain the status quo. These extremists even decry diligence and promptness as “white” standards used to maintain oppression. Ultimately, if there is any “inequity” (defined as unequal outcomes), the related institutions are viewed with suspicion, sometimes comically so.

In other words, critical theory trains people to ignore the far more obvious and simple explanations, such as cultural differences, fatherless homes, and other factors that more directly lead to differences in school performance. In that way, critical theory prevents us from effectively identifying and addressing real problems.

With subjective analysis, evidence becomes less relevant. Critical theorists use concepts like “lived experience” or “my truth” to support disparate outcomes. Lived experience holds that truth is subjective and that we experience oppression through our subjective experience as members of victim groups. Individuals from oppressor groups do not have “lived experience” and may not assess the lived experience of the oppressed group members. In fact, this is a common theme in Marxism: the rights of the “oppressors” are irrelevant or subordinate to the rights of the oppressed, which are sacrosanct (think different standards for free speech).

At first blush, we may compare “lived experience” to anecdotal evidence. However, the differences are significant. Whereas anecdotal evidence is an objective piece of evidence used to verify conclusions from larger data sets, lived experience is a subjective understanding of the world. It cannot be verified, falsified, or discounted by the oppressor groups. Instead, it simply must be accepted as true, and it becomes a replacement for traditional scientific methods of proof. Under the “lived experience” standard, objective verification of critical theory becomes impossible and ultimately irrelevant.

Critical theory teaches members of “oppressed” groups that they have no control over their destiny and that their failings are a result of unseen forces. While this offers a satisfyingly comfortable explanation for failure, it encourages complacency and resentment. Success requires an ability to identify a problem and a belief that one can address the problem. Critical theory removes this ability to identify problems and removes a sense of control.

For these reasons, critical theory should not be taught to our children; it will only lead to resentment, bitterness, and helplessness. We were mindful of these threats during the Cold War, but let our guard down after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is time again to be on guard. And the first step is to understand the threat.

Glenn Spitzer

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/understanding_marxism_is_key_to_understanding_todays_leftists.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ukraine supports 90% of UN anti-Israel decisions - Israeli ambassador - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Jerusalem Post Staff

Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Michael Brodsky underlined that Israel has supported Ukraine in the war since the Russian invasion began.

 

Israeli Ambassador to Kyiv Michael Brodsky welcomes Foreign Minister Eli Cohne to Ukraine on February 16, 2023

(photo credit: TOVAH LAZAROFF)

Ukraine supports 90% of anti-Israel decisions in the United Nations, Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Michael Brodsky told Ukrainian outlet ZN.UA.

"This is unusual considering Kyiv often turns to the Israeli authorities for various requests," he said. "If Ukraine sees Israel as a friendly nation and makes requests from it, then it needs to support us in the matters that are important to us just as Israel works with Ukraine on matters important to it."

In a UN vote in January on referring Israel to the International Court of Justice for its “occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestinian territory”, Ukraine voted against Israel in the draft and didn't cast a vote in the main round after its ambassador to Israel was summoned.

"If Ukraine sees Israel as a friendly nation then it needs to support us in the matters that are important to us."

Ambassador Michael Brodsky

On the other hand, Brodsky told ZN.UA, Israel has supported Ukraine in the UN from the beginning, supporting a UN decision against Russia at the start of the war and later became a co-writer of the resolution.

Israel doesn't support Ukraine when it endangers security 

On Ukrainian issues that Israel did not support, Brodsky told ZN.UA that sometimes Israel has to take its security into account.

Workers handle packages of Israeli humanitarian aid destined for Ukraine, at Ben Gurion International Airport, near Tel Aviv, Israel March 1, 2022 (credit: REUTERS/AMMAR AWAD)

"This is due to our sensitivity in relations with Russia and the danger that may arise if Israel takes any careless steps that could lead to an aggravation of the situation," he said, adding that this is also why Israel hasn't sent weapons to Ukraine and has only given humanitarian aid.

Brodsky added that while Israel has not given Ukraine weapons, it is in the process of supplying the country with an early warning system.

"The schedule for the transfer of the system was agreed upon by the two parties, specialists from Israel and Ukraine meet, work, and actively do everything to make this system work here as quickly as possible," he said.

This aid, Brodsky said, is given after Israel made the decision early on to support Ukraine in the war.

"I think the most important thing in the current situation is that our sympathy for Ukraine and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky is not connected with his Jewish roots, but with the fact that your country has been subjected to aggression and is experiencing a colossal tragedy," he said.

He refused, however, to comment on recent comments made by Russian President Vladimir Putin questioning Zelensky's Judaism and calling him a "disgrace to the Jewish people," instead saying generally that Israel "reacts sharply to any manifestations of antisemitism."

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-749315

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

French Malaise Strikes Again - Amir Taheri

 

by Amir Taheri

The suburbs that burned are precisely the ones that the French state has invested more than 30 billion euros in "improving" over the past 20 years. The result has been the creation of a whole generation of "assisted" people whose ethnic and/or religious backgrounds are treated as heirlooms to justify government handout in various guises.

• These riots did start with the killing of a 17-year boy of Algerian ancestry by the police. But the killing was not racially motivated and, as protesters made clear, what was at issue was police brutality rather than racial hatred... [T]he root cause of the anger that provoked the riots was a deep dissatisfaction with the way the country is governed.

• What has happened in France in the past five or six decades is a major change in the balance of power between the state and society. French society today is far better educated, self-confident, better informed and more enterprising than the French state, which has become costlier, less efficient and more arrogant.

• The suburbs that burned are precisely the ones that the French state has invested more than 30 billion euros in "improving" over the past 20 years. The result has been the creation of a whole generation of "assisted" people whose ethnic and/or religious backgrounds are treated as heirlooms to justify government handout in various guises.

• But just as man can't live on bread alone, he won't be grateful and obedient by handouts alone.

Pictured: An Aldi supermarket in Marseille, France on July 1, 2023, after rioters set fire to it and the building collapsed. (Photo by Clement Mahoudeau/AFP via Getty Images)

Judging by France's recent history, the month of June should be a quiet moment when people prepare for summer holidays in exotic places. Protest marches, riots and even revolutions usually take place in the spring, with May being the hottest month for political gesticulations. The baccalaureate exams are over, the annual bonuses are paid and the fruit-picking is over. Thus, the riots of the past two weeks that produced mayhem in Parisian suburbs and a dozen other places across France came like bolt out of the blue.

"Race riots shake France," was one headline in British newspapers. "Muslim youths on the rampage in Paris suburbs!" was how a German newspaper's shorthand account of the events that saw the burning of over 100 public buildings, including city halls and schools, the torching of scores of buses and trams, and hundreds of cars, the looting of countless shops, and, more dramatically, the ransacking of Bibliotheque Alcazar, Marseille's iconic public library.

So, what is going on? What we witnessed was certainly not a race riot. In fact, though France has its own share of bigots, as a nation it's the least racist of all European nations. It had black African and Arab Muslim members of parliament and even Cabinet ministers at least half a century before the US allowed its "visible minority" a side-chair in places of political power. For decades, France was a refuge for black American writers, musicians, human rights activists and "ordinary" citizens unhappy about racial discrimination.

These riots did start with the killing of a 17-year boy of Algerian ancestry by the police. But the killing was not racially motivated and, as protesters made clear, what was at issue was police brutality rather than racial hatred. The victim, Nahel Merzouk was of Muslim background and some of the rioters who went on the rampage did mouth militant slogans. But the root cause of the anger that provoked the riots was a deep dissatisfaction with the way the country is governed.

The riots came as an unexpected prolongation of months of protests against President Emmanuel Macron's decision to increase the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 years. Interestingly, even some opponents of the change agree that the reform was necessary to shield the national pension fund from bankruptcy.

What caused deep anger was the fact that the measure, having failed to secure a majority in the National Assembly, was pushed through an extra-parliamentary device meant for use in highly exceptional cases.

France has never fully reconciled itself with representative democracy, always running its political life in two separate spaces, the parliament and the street. It has never managed to create political parties with a lifespan long enough to change the nation's political culture in favor of institutionalized politics. Between the parliament and the street where barricades can be erected the French also dream of a providential man -- someone like Napoleon Bonaparte, Boulanger, Gambetta or Charles De Gaulle to transcend the two spaces.

As the state machinery has grown to a gargantuan size, it has suffered a degree of desacralization that has turned it into an unfriendly, if not actually hostile, presence in the eyes of many French. And, yet, because the state controls more than 57 percent of gross domestic product, more than Poland and Hungry did even in the Communist era, it is seen as a pickpocket that could also put some money in your pocket if and when you know how to persuade or force it.

A costly beast, the French state is built on five levels, communal, departmental, regional, central and European. With the ever-speedier changes in information, knowledge and technology, the beast is often behind events in real life. Until not long ago, it even had a Ministry of The Plan to establish Soviet-style five-year plans that would become outdated before they were even published. Thinking it knows best, recently the state decided to distribute billions of euros to farmers to prepare for the latest fashionable "national concern", climate change. The bureaucrats sent to distribute the money quickly found out that the farmers were already coping with the problem in a wide variety of often ingenious stratagems without waiting for Olympian deities to become generous.

Almost half a century ago, the best-seller "The French Malaise" by Alain Peyrfitte spoke of a democratic deficit in the French system.

A Gaullist baron, Peyrfitte put the blame on the citizens who, being rebellious by tradition, disobeyed their democratically elected masters, making it difficult to implement necessary reforms or keep good leaders, such as General De Gaulle, in power. Democracy, he argued could not solve problems in the manner an instant coffee is made and served. The French leader needs time to do the great things he is destined to do for the nation. But time is precisely what the citizens don't or cannot give the leader.

The same analysis has produced rumors about Macron looking for a way to seek a third term as president, something forbidden by the law. That, of course, could be done through a constitutional referendum and shady political deals.

However, the malaise that France suffers from is unlikely to be cured by such shenanigans. What has happened in France in the past five or six decades is a major change in the balance of power between the state and society. French society today is far better educated, self-confident, better informed and more enterprising than the French state, which has become costlier, less efficient and more arrogant.

The "cold monster", as the French call the state, has lost its monopoly on information and seems unable to create new interfaces with society. Its old strategy of pouring money at problems, as shown by the latest "disturbances," has proven ineffective.

The suburbs that burned are precisely the ones that the French state has invested more than 30 billion euros in "improving" over the past 20 years. The result has been the creation of a whole generation of "assisted" people whose ethnic and/or religious backgrounds are treated as heirlooms to justify government handout in various guises.

But just as man can't live on bread alone, he won't be grateful and obedient by handouts alone.

This article originally appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat

 

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19784/french-malaise

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IRS whistleblower’s lawyer says Washington Post could become accessory to Hunter Biden legal team - Madeleine Hubbard

 

by Madeleine Hubbard

Leavitt is demanding for the Post to clearly state that Shapley was not the source for their story.

 

Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt, whose organization is representing IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, says that if the Washington Post does not come clean and say that Shapley never spoke with them, then the paper is acting as accessory to Hunter Biden's legal defense. 

Hunter Biden's attorneys have accused Shapley of illegally leaking to the Post for its October 2022 story titled, "Federal agents see chargeable tax, gun-purchase case against Hunter Biden." 

Biden attorney Abbe Lowell cited the story in a letter late last month attacking Shapley and other IRS whistleblowers for alleged "illegal leaks" and said the whistleblowers "may be claiming that title in an attempt to evade their own misconduct" as part of "an obvious ploy to feed the misinformation campaign to harm our client, Hunter Biden, as a vehicle to attack his father."

Shapley has maintained that he was not a source for the Post in that story or any other story, ever. Shapley testified to Congress in May about an alleged Justice Department conspiracy to protect first son Hunter Biden during a criminal probe. Shapley told CBS News last month that he was stopped from investigating Hunter Biden's money trails involving "dad" or "the big guy."

Leavitt is demanding for the Post to clearly state that Shapley was not the source for their story. 

"Other than saying, 'We don't comment on sources,' they haven't said anything so far," Leavitt said about the Post on Friday's episode of "Just the News, No Noise."

"And if they don't do anything, they're simply being accessories to the Hunter Biden legal defense," he said.

Madeleine Hubbard is an international correspondent for Just the News. Follow her on Twitter or Instagram.

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/irs-whistleblowers-lawyer-says-washington-post-could-become-accessory-hunter

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Legal group puts medical schools on notice over SCOTUS affirmative action ruling - The Center Square Staff

 

by The Center Square Staff

The Liberty Justice Center sent a letter to medical school deans warning any delay in compliance will face a lawsuit.

 

A legal nonprofit has pledged to sue any medical school that does not comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling blocking raced-based admissions policies, possibly ushering in a wave of enforcement actions to set new admissions policies around the nation.

The Liberty Justice Center is the group in question, which sent a letter to medical school deans around the nation with a simple message: if you delay in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling, you’ll face a lawsuit.

The group also pushed for an end to other diversity and equity policies at schools, though it is unclear which if any of those policies are affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

“In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., your medical school must immediately cease any and all policies, practices, programs, or procedures that include a racial component,” the letter said. “This includes any Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ("DEI") policies. Consequently, to the extent your medical school fails to immediately comply with the Supreme Court's recent decision, Liberty Justice Center will actively engage in strategic litigation to vindicate the fundamental constitutional rights of those individuals whose rights have been violated.”

The letter comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the race-based affirmative action admission policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That case upends years of common practice at higher education institutions.

“University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and – at some point – they must end,” the majority opinion said. “Respondents’ admissions systems – however well intentioned and implemented in good faith – fail each of these criteria.”

That ruling, though, brings into question how schools will comply and what specifically may need to change to adhere to the ruling. There are more than 150 U.S. medical schools across all 50 states, and it remains unclear how those schools will react to the new affirmative action ban.

The legal group pointed to delays in the past where Supreme Court decisions were largely ignored for a stretch of time before another case had to be brought.

“In an industry where merit and skill must be the most important factors when selecting the top applicants for admission, medical schools have a moral obligation to swiftly comply with the law and remove these discriminatory practices,” Jacob Huebert, president of Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement.

The majority opinion states there is an allowance for discussion of race and its impact on a student’s life in their application, furthering complicating what it will practically look like to not consider race in admissions.

"Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” the majority opinion said. “But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”

The Center Square Staff

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/legal-group-puts-medical-schools-notice-over-scotus-affirmative-action

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US strike kills Islamic State leader in Syria, Central Command says - Madeleine Hubbard

 

by Madeleine Hubbard

"This will disrupt and degrade ISIS’s ability to plan and conduct terror attacks," CENTCOM said.

 

U.S. Central Command said Sunday that it launched a strike in Syria that killed Islamic State leader Usamah al-Muhajir.

"We have made it clear that we remain committed to the defeat of ISIS throughout the region," CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Kurilla said. "ISIS remains a threat, not only to the region but well beyond."

There are no indications that the strike resulted in any civilian deaths, but the U.S. military is assessing reports regarding a civilian injury. 

"This will disrupt and degrade ISIS’s ability to plan and conduct terror attacks," CENTCOM said. 

The MQ-9 drones that carried out the attack Friday are the same ones that, earlier in the day, Russian aircraft had harassed for nearly two hours, U.S. officials also said.

Madeleine Hubbard is an international correspondent for Just the News. Follow her on Twitter or Instagram.

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/us-strike-kills-islamic-state-leader-syria-central-command-says

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter