Below is my column on Fox.com on the escalating fight between Harvard and the Trump Administration. For Harvard, this could prove a case of winning battles and losing a war of attrition.
Here is the column:
Eighty-one years ago, on May 31, 1944, General George Patton walked before the 6th Armored Division before the D-Day invasion and told the troops a simple, inescapable fact about war: “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
It is a cautionary speech that might well be given in Harvard Square this week as the fight between the university and the Trump administration escalates. By the end of this war (regardless of the outcome), the Trump administration is likely to win even if it loses in the courts.
The Trump administration has committed to total war with Harvard on multiple fronts. It is threatening the school’s tax-exempt status, denying the ability to admit foreign students, freezing grants, and launching a myriad of investigations.
Harvard has responded with its largest deployment since the “Harvard Regiment” left for the Civil War. (It is worth noting that the famed 20th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry suffered one of the highest casualty rates of any unit in the Union Army).
For the record, I have previously criticized the administration for some of these actions, including the attack on the school’s tax-exempt status, the wholesale freezing of grants, and the blocking of foreign students. These measures undermine both free speech and academic freedom in higher education.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration will prevail in some actions, particularly in the allocation of discretionary grants.
Harvard’s own recent study found that it created an unsafe environment for Jewish students. Harvard also has a documented history of racial discrimination that led to a major Supreme Court ruling a couple of years ago against the use of race in college admissions.
The administration is claiming that Harvard failed to turn over information to regulators on foreign students and has not fully addressed the antisemitism on campus.
Harvard has compelling arguments to make regarding due process and procedural protections.
However, in the end, this is a war of attrition that Harvard will lose.
President Donald Trump has already framed this fight in a way that is politically and financially lethal for Harvard. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have a son studying at Harvard Law School).
This week, Trump suggested that his administration may redirect billions from Harvard to trade schools.
His targeting of foreign students also shows an understanding of the soft underbelly of higher education. Foreign students are the meal ticket for universities. They generally pay full tuition, allowing universities to fund scholarships for other students. Over 27 percent of Harvard’s class is composed of foreign students.
Cutting off both grants and foreign enrollments is a devastating one-two punch, even for a school with Harvard’s massive endowment.
Even if these measures are ultimately rejected in the courts, many researchers and foreign students will view Harvard as a risky choice in the years to come.
More importantly, Harvard can hardly expect much support from the public after years of open hostility toward those who espouse conflicting viewpoints.
As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right,” Harvard is not just an academic echo chamber. It is a virtual academic sensory deprivation tank.
In a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters, fewer than 9 percent of the Harvard student body and less than 3 percent of the faculty members identify as conservative.
For years, Harvard faculty have brushed away complaints over its liberal orthodoxy, including purging conservative faculty. It has created one of the most hostile schools for free speech in the nation, ranking dead last among universities in annual studies by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Only a third of students at Harvard feel comfortable speaking on campus despite being overwhelmingly liberal at an overwhelmingly liberal institution. (The percentage is much higher for the small number of conservative students).
Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
The problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
The question is whether America will now support Harvard.
The school hopes that the public will rush to its side in this fight in the name of intellectual diversity.
Trump knows that this comes down to the numbers.
At the height of the Civil War, General (and future President) Ulysses S. Grant declared “I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.” Grant knew that he had a greater ability to absorb casualties, whereas even in successful battles, Lee was being drained of men and material.
Trump is clearly willing to fight this out if “it takes all summer” and indeed would be happy to do so if it takes his whole term.
Why would the public rally to support Harvard on the basis of intellectual diversity? In my view, Harvard has been actively working against intellectual diversity , purging conservatives and shutting down free speech, for decades. The last thing they are, it seems, is intellectually diverse.
Glorious.
It may take 20 years or more for Harvard to get back to its former reputation from the 20th century and further back than that — and that’s assuming they aren’t dismantled due to their obstinacy and piss-poor ‘leadership.’ The alumni are going to run away from their Harvard heritage as well.
“ Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.””
Wow! He drank the kool-aid and he liked it!
I never could understand why Lee committed to fighting a war of attrition.
Lee knew the Generals he was fighting around Washington. He expected to win fast and get it over with.
As did the Japanese and Nazis in WW2.
“You know that one of the two political parties is, let me put it nicely, white supremacist adjacent—at a minimum.”
– James Comey, FBI Director
__________________
“Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support…”
– Peter Strzok, FBI Agent Under Comey
What a surprise. Trump’s tariffs are illegal. I guess Libertarian Rand Paul was right.
Oh, look, it’s George. The communist-paid troll who lies with every comment. Like yesterday when he said the Kelo dissenters on Scotus agreed with takings for private development and only thought there was insufficient evidence to sustain the taking, when in fact the Kelo dissenters on Scotus opined that takings for private development are always unconstitutional. You can’t believe anything George says.
@Anon,
Trump’s tariffs were found to be illegal by a federal court in NYC.
That said… Trump will win on appeal.
Likely,
it is also likely he will revise the EO.
The IEEPA was not found unconstitutional.
This ruling precludes Trump from using the IEEPA to impose Tariffs.
It does NOT preclude Trump from using the IEEPA to block or limit trade.
There are 50+ currently active uses of the IEEPA to restrict trade since 1977
If Trump orders Wine from the EU to be blocked or limited tomorow, this court would have to overrule almost all the 50 currently active IEEPA trade restrictions to block Trump restricting EU wine (or Cars, or Canadian Lumber or Dairy, or ….)
This was a stupid decision, and frankly a stupid case to bring.
My wife deals with situations like this with criminal defendants on apeall all the time.
She gets Judges that impose “illegal sentences” that the defendants wish to challenge,
But at the same time the DA improperly calculated and the judge accepted a way too low prior record score.
She is constantly telling defendants NOT to appeal clear errors on the part of courts.
Because often there is more than one mistake and frequently those other mistakes favor the defendant.
This is such a case.
The ITC has told Trump – you can not use a scalpel, you must use a club.
Even if they were right on the law – which they most certainly were not.
Sometimes losing is better than winning.
“Sometimes losing is better than winning” – Sure, I can name a few examples.
But then, Trump has NOT thrown in the towel, has he?
Never bet against Donald J. Trump!
At least we know who George is.
Which part about trump’s tariffs being struck down is a lie?
George
It is the ITC that overstepped its authority – not Trump.
The Claim is that the IEEPA does not grant Trump the authority to impose these tariffs.
That may or may not be true. But there is only one plaintiff with standing to make that claim – Congress. And they are not a party in this case.
The actual plaintiffs do not have standing. Their claim that Trump’s tariffs might cause them harm is also irrelevant – Tariffs are a tax and all taxes impose economic harm. But again even if they had standing, and had a valid claim – this is AGAIN an injunction that greatly exceeds the scope that these Plaintiffs can ask for. The Lead Plaintiff is VOS Selections. The remedy available to the court – presuming that VOS Selections had standing – which they do not.
I can not sue the IRS because it collects income tax, would be to block the tariffs for VOS Selections purchases from foreign countries.
Constitutionally courts are constrained to the cases and controversies before them. The only party before this court with even a shred of standing is a wine importer. That is what the court is limited to.
I would note this is a legally stupid ruling. The IEEPA has been invoked many times by many presidents in the past. The claim here is that it can not be used to impose Tariffs. That is a very weak claim – though the IEEPA partially replaced and restricted the prior TWEA which was broader. The IEEPA allows the president to take broad actions in response to an economic, national security or other emergencies. There is zero doubt historically that Trump has the power to invoke the IEEPA. With respect to Congress – the president MUST report to congress every 6 months with respect to the emergency that has been declared and justify if it continues and why the presidents actions should be allowed to continue. Basically Congress can rescind individual IEEPA emergency declarations every 6 months – so there is no valid claim that Congress did not grant the power to the president and that congress does not have continuing oversite over each specific excercise of that power.
Put simply – the courts might have the power to declare the entire IEEPA unconstitutional – though I am not sure what the constitutional argument for that would be, but they do not have the authority to make determinations regarding the specific emergency declarations – because that authority rests with congress.
So the only remaining question is whether the IEEPA allows the president to impose tariffs.
There is ZERO doubt that the IEEPA allows the president to completely block to limit trade.
Which make this ITC court victory pretty much Pyrhic. Trump can announce tomorow that he is revising his EO and blocking some or all trade with China, or Canada, or any other nation, and there is ZERO doubt that he has the power to do that – presidents have been taking actions like that for 50 years. I would not the IEEPA was used for Trump’s initial China Tarrifs and those tariffs were continued – and expanded during the Biden administration under the same authority. No one challenged Trump’s use of the IEEPA to impose Tarriffs on china in 2018, no one challenged Biden’s expansion of those tariffs under the same authority in 2021.
So the only legal question here is whether the president can use the IEEPA to impose Tariffs as a tool to restrict or rebalance trade. There is ZERO doubt that the president can restrict trade under the IEEPA. That he can as an example order all or select canadian imports barred. Or that he can reduce canadian imports by 50%.
How do we know this ? Because presidents have done exactly that for the past 50 years, and because the IEEPA specifically allows that.
The plantiffs argument that they have been harmed is completely irrelevant and legally meaningless – every single invocation of the IEEPA since 1977 has caused harm to someone.
Again private actors and states do NOT have standing. Only congress does. The IEEPA is inarguably a constitutional delegation of the SHARED constitutional power the president and congress have over foreign trade to the president with provisions for regular oversight by congress.
The ITC in this case is esentially saying that while the IEEPA grants the president the power to block or limit trade. That doing so by Tariff rather than by saying that All or some trade is barred, somehow violates the law.
It is pretty common for the courts to declare the delegation of power to the president to be overly broad. I can not recall a court ever saying that a law grants the president BROAD powers, but that those power specifically exclude ONE particular means of excercising that broad power when the law itself both gives the president broad powers but does NOT itemize the means allowed, or Identify specific means prohibited.
The plantiffs argument is that the IEEPA does not specifically authorize the president to impose Tariffs – that is correct. It does not Specifically authorize ANY particular means of restricting trade.
I would note this is a stupid ruling for a completely different reason – though Other countries wisely did not impose retaliatory tariffs – China did. The ITC has just ruled that other countries can impose Tariffs on the US and that the president does NOT have the power to respond in kind.
Do you honestly think that if the Case before the ITC was China imposed a 50% Tariff on US goods, and the president used the IEEPA to retaliate that the court would have ruled those retaliatory tariffs unlawful ?
It is highly unlikely this decision survives appeal.
Several left wing nuts here have ranted that somehow Trump’s actions will empower the next Democrat president.
I have Zero problems with the next Democrat president having the power to fire government employees. To deport illegal aliens, to impose Tariffs to deal with bad trade conduct by foreign nations.
Trump made clear in his EO that the tariffs that he imposed were in retaliation for Tariffs and other trade impediments imposed by the countries they were levied against.
The left argued that Trump did not precisely match those of the countries he tariffed.
Which was always a stupid argument. When the Chinese Tariffed US Soy is the only response allowed the exact same tariff against Chinese Soy ?
The purpose of reciprocal tariffs was to impose approximately the same economic constraint as the country being tariffed. NOT to Match a 10% tariff on Soy with a 10% tariff on soy.
Most of the world has not just tariffs on US goods – some broad, some selective. but numerous other restrictions. Canada has relatively low tariffs on many US goods, but has very low limits to the amount that can be imported. The EU and many other countries have laws that make it impossible to sell certain US goods. These are not Tariffs, but they limit US exports to the EU.
John Say
So your incoherent gobbledegook is saying that the court erred in its decision because Trump COULD have done something else, that is arbitrarily restrict trade, rather than impose tariffs.
You are saying that Trump should have prevailed because he COULD have done something else.
That is like saying a murderer should be found not guilty of murder because he COULD have simply beaten up his victim.
Complete and utter nonsense.
As you say courts can only rule on matters before them. The IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The court ruled accordingly. They cannot consider what Trump COULD have done.
You also claim that the plaintiffs do not have standing because all they have to do is pay the tax, and paying taxes is not harm. Of course this utterly nonsensical. Authorized taxes may not be harmful, BUT UNAUTHORIZED TAXES ARE UNEQUIVOCALLY HARMFUL.
The IEEPA statute does not authorize tariffs, which are a tax.
Since tariffs are not authorized, the tax is not authorized.
Therein lies the harm.
The court is asked to rule on the matter before them.
They did just that.
George – the plantiffs and many others were surprised at this win.
Why ?
Because it is a very stupid decision.
Trump can revise the EO tonight and instead of Tariffing these countries he can just fully or partially block their trade.
There are about 50 currently active uses of the IEEPA by presidents since 1977 that block trade to individuals, groups or countries throughout the world.
There is ZERO doubt that Trump can tomorow bar the importation of wine from the EU, as an example.
It is common for the courts to say – “You can not use a club, but you are free to use a scalpel”.
I.e. that a presidents use of power is unconstitutionally broad.
I am not aware EVER of the courts saying – “You can not use a scalpel, but you are free to use a club”
I have a further question for you.
Are you opposed to presidents imposing Tariffs ?
Or are you opposed to Trump ?
Biden extended and increased the original IEEPA tariffs on China.
I do not recall you complaining ?
I am sure Rand Paul was in 2019, and 2021 and is now.
Rand Paul’s positions do not change depending on who is in power.
But yours do.
#9. According to a corrupt judge at the lower court level it stands only momentarily until the Black Robes decide. And Trump’s brilliance in playing 5d chess while the lefty loons are playing checkers becomes more and more clear. All of this that is occurring with the corrupted Federal courts partisan renderings is precisely what Trump knew was going to happen, and that the extreme leftists would jump at the dangling bait; over play their hand, and produce an obvious National legal issue which the SCOTUS would at some point, despite their druthers, have to intercede, and once done it is the law of the land from here on in.
Wait for it…, wait for it…
Wall street has an acronym for Trump’s tariff on and off positions. TACO ( Trump Alaways Chickens Out). LOL! So any time Trump makes a deal if will TACOing in short order.
George – you live in a bubble.
This decision will likely have four results
Trump revising his EO to block or restrict Trade from all these countries – something Presidents have been doing for 50+ years.
It will complicate ongoing trade negotiations, and create the idiotic impression in foreign countries that they can return to the status quo.
It will likely result in either revisions to the “One Big Beautiful Bill” to clarify Trump’s IEEPA power to impose tariffs, or it will result in congress amending the IEEPA to specifically allow Tariffs.
It will be reversed on appeal – because all constitutional broad grants of power always include the related lessor powers EXCEPT were specifically excluded.
You probably think the used car dealer “chickened out,” when you made your best deal!
A federal court has struck down President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs on a wide range of countries, saying his effort to justify them with broad claims of national emergencies exceeded his legal authority.
The unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade strikes a blow to one the central planks of Trump’s economic agenda at a time he is seeking to use tariffs as leverage to strike trade deals around the world.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the New York-based federal court said in its opinion, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The court also ordered that the tariffs that the Trump administration has collected so far be “vacated”
All Trump’s tariff orders are permanently enjoined and all tariffs collected must be refunded.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.55.0.pdf
Stock futures are through the roof.
Big day tomorrow.
Nvidia up $6.56 after hours following earnings report after close.
Made almost $50,000 on NVDA today.
Tomorrow will be YUGE !!!!!!
Yay!
Just think, executive power is vested “in a President of the United States of America.”
No executive power is vested in the legislative branch.
No executive power is vested in the judicial branch.
* 37 trillion dollars is truly an emergency.
ATS – While I have not read the entire opinion you cited the HOLDING which is what is critical does NOT say what you claim.
What it specifically says is that Tariffs are a tax and the IEEPA does not give the president the power to TAX.
The holding says NOTHING about the IEEPA’s grant of authority to the president to declare emergencies and to use those emergencies to impose restrictions on trade.
It does NOT say that specifically because doing so would require declaring the entire IEEPA unconstitutional – and there are currently 50+ active IEEPA sanctions some dating back to 1977.
The plantiffs were surprised by this decision – as well they should.
It is a stupid decision and a phyric victory. There is an excellent chance it will be reversed quickly on appeal. This ruling would preclude any president from responding to the imposition of tariffs by a foreign country, without congress first acting. Depending on circumstances, that could devastate all or part of the US economy.
One of the explicit purposes of the IEEPA is to empower the president to respond to economic warfare by foreign countries.
With respect to YOUR – not the courts claim that this is about the presidents declaration of an emergency. These are nearly always unreviewable by the courts. In the specific instance of the IEEPA – Congress is by law that it passed and that the president is bound to and agreed to, entitled to review and rescind the presidents declaration of an emergency every 6 months.
The courts do not have and do not need the power to determine whether the presidents declaration of an emergency is appropriate – because that power rests with congress.
Such emergencies are political questions – not constitutional ones or questions of law.
I would note – we see the same stupid arguments from the left regarding the AEA,
and SCOTUS has repeatedly refused to bite. There will be constitutional challenges to Trump’s use of the AEA. But they will NOT extend to whether the emergency is legitimate. That is NOT a legitimate power of the courts.
But ignoring the likely quick reversal.
A revised EO will likely be forthcoming. That EO will rather than Tax various foreign imports using the IEEPA, it will just block or limit them.
There is ZERO doubt that the IEEPA allows the president to completely block some or all imports, or to limit them.
I would imagine an EO ban on the importation of European wine.
Absent any provision to gain additional revenue this ruling does NOT interfere with the presidents power under the IEEPA to restrict Trade.
I also expect that in addition to a successful appeal that congress – possibly with democrat support will remedy this quickly.
Why ? Because it is extremely unwise to have a law that bars the president from using a scalpel in response to bad trade conduct by foriegn countries, but permits him to use a club.
Sane people would rather see the president imposing tariffs on a foreign country in response to their harmful trade conduct than to have the president just block trade entirely or partially.
This is also why this will likely be overruled on appeal.
* Harvard is an occupied building. Close off cash flow and laundering. It’s just buildings.
Build another university and people it with Americans, the best and brightest and fund the heck out of it. Get the best professors longing to be free.
Apparently no one is interested in buying Elmo’s Cybertrucks.
You know, they are the trucks where the body panels keep falling off because they are attached to the frame using only Elmer’s Glue.
In Detroit, they are stockpiling the unwanted trucks at a shopping mall parking lot.
“Tesla’s Cybertruck is a big silver sales flop and that’s given the company several problems, including working out what to do with all the electric pickups it can’t sell. Some of those trucks ended up stored at a run-down mall in Farmington Hills outside of Detroit in Michigan. Unsurprisingly, local officials are not happy about it.
Dozens of Cybertrucks and some other Tesla models are currently occupying several rows of parking bays at the Hunter’s Square shopping center, Crain’s Detroit Business reports. The lot is home to a now-closed Bed, Bath and Beyond, an also-shuttered Torrid, and a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant that’s still open, and has plenty of space for the EVs. But using the land for vehicle storage is against city code.
The shopping center landlord has already been informed of the violation, according to comments made by Charmaine Kettler-Schmult, director of planning and community development for Farmington Hills, Michigan to CDB.”
https://www.carscoops.com/2025/05/detroit-tesla-cybertruck-storage-parking-code-violation/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
Looks like a Tesla insurance scam is about to happen
Maybe they can be recycled into something useful…
He’ll probably unload them to the government for cheap and then claim a massive loss for tax reasons.
Communism is not viable and very expensive.
___________________________________________________
AI Overview
California is facing a significant budget deficit and a potential debt crisis. The state is projecting a $55 billion deficit in 2024-25, with potential deficits of around $30 billion in subsequent years. This is largely due to a severe revenue decline and other factors. While the state has reserves, they are unlikely to be sufficient to cover the multi-year deficits, potentially necessitating spending reductions or revenue increases.
The state’s budget deficit for the 2024-25 fiscal year is estimated to be around $58 billion, with ongoing deficits of about $30 billion thereafter. Additionally, California’s total long-term debt, between the state and local governments, exceeds half a trillion dollars, making it the most indebted state in the nation.
There isn’t a political nor econ system that works without honesty. Everyone could be given the same allowance in money in an econ system and the guy next door will quickly figure out if he steals your allowance he’ll have twice as much. Another will merely kill you and collect your mail from the mailbox.
ATS
I personally do not understand why anyone would buy a Tesla Cybertruck.
I think they are ridiculously expensive, and look ugly.
But in my city they are all over the place.
Speaking of “Veritas” . . . Project Veritas successfully catfished David Hogg. Here’s a teaser:
https://x.com/Project_Veritas/status/1927752118154244219
OT
Martin stated, “I am, Ed Martin, as pardon attorney, looking at it. I’m looking at it very closely. … I think it’s very clear that it was a drug overdose, and it’s very clear that Derek Chauvin is not a saint, but neither am I. … The question is, whether there’s a role to be played for a commutation or pardon, and, more importantly, whether the system — the system of justice has to be checked every now and then for fairness. It’s not only mercy on someone, it’s, when you — I watched that trial. And that was not a fair trial.”
– Breitbart
PARDON DEREK CHAUVIN!
The Point is:
The USAID paid (pays) The Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), to go into Foreign Countries as NGOs to do operations for the CIA. The result of which is the Trubays* make profits from the political arbitrage (conflict). Ukraine is the perfectly current example.
Trubays: The Bankers of wealthy Business Men that use offshore financial system to hide their wealth and assets from scrutiny (Dark Money investments from the; US, China, RU, etc. … covert illicit Banking)
Trump’s cutting this source of funding by the U.S. Government off, is what is at the heart of the ‘divestment’ of Harvard in this battle to clean up the Government.
For Trump personally is it strikes at the root of the ‘Russian Collusion’ propaganda program that was used against him, of which Muller and the Democrats (HRC) were integral in its dissemination of lies.
Basically ‘The Swamp Blob’ making moves to kill Trump, to stop this from happening.
New & Old References & Propaganda:
[Link] thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/26/iop-forum-usaid-experts/
[Link] npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/06/600083466/u-s-hits-russian-oligarchs-and-officials-with-sanctions-over-election-interferen
[Link] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/defending-the-united-states-against-russian-dark-money/#h-executive-summary
* Offshore Accounts and Illicit Financial Flows:
Related to the use of offshore accounts and other mechanisms by Russian oligarchs to hide or transfer illicit financial flows.
Role in Politics and Influence:
How Russian oligarchs use their wealth and influence to engage in political activities, including supporting politicians or influencing elections, as evidenced by their involvement in past Russian elections and their relationship with Putin.
—
The Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), a research and consulting group at Harvard University, was involved in projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). HIID’s work, particularly in Russia, faced scrutiny over conflicts of interest and potential misuse of funds. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated HIID’s work, and the Department of Justice accused individuals of making personal investments while acting as advisors in Russia. A lawsuit was filed against Harvard, and a settlement was reached.
HIID’s Role in USAID Projects:
HIID received funding from USAID to work on various development projects, including a project in Russia focused on developing a capital market and legal reform.
Conflicts of Interest and Investigation:
The GAO investigated the HIID project in Russia, finding concerns about oversight and potential conflicts of interest, according to a GAO report. Andrei Shleifer, a researcher at HIID, was accused of using his position to benefit his wife’s investments in Russia.
Justice Department Investigation and Lawsuit:
The Justice Department investigated Shleifer and another HIID member for potential conflicts of interest and misuse of funds, according to Wikipedia. Harvard was sued by the U.S. government for breach of contract and other violations, according to the Harvard Gazette.
Settlement and Consequences:
Harvard reached a settlement with the government, which involved a payment and the University being found liable for breach of contract, according to the Harvard Gazette. The episode also contributed to the dismissal of Larry Summers from his position at the Treasury.
[Link] news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2005/08/harvard-university-reaches-settlement-agreement-with-usaid/
Mike Benz: The CIA’s Use of NGOs to Coup Foreign Governments, and How They’re Doing It to Trump
Mike Benz on how NGOs run the world on behalf of a small number of very dangerous people.
By: Tucker Carlson – TNC ~ May 28th 2025
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-benz-3
Video: (View dialog beginning at: 1:12:40′)
https://iframe.cloudflarestream.com/f15482c7abf61e7604cd26e99d5f23e2
* People have hysteria fatigue.
The emotional content of all programs is causing illness. Personally never in my life have I heard so much noise. It’s screaming, yelling, high pitched, anxiety ridden, screeching noise. Everything in the media should be rated for emotional content. If it yells, turn it off.
Sadly, men should be elected to public offices. Generally they avoid hysteria with a simple f off.
I’m going to take up antique restoration. The sound of steel wool and sandpaper sounds comforting.
* it’s the sound of caged chimps quite frankly.
All these references to the Civil War and no mention of the fact that secession was fully constitutional while the war and Lincoln’s acts were not?
Not only is secession not prohibited but it was incorporated in constitutional ratification documents.
Certain, if not all, states included the right to “reassume” the powers they granted to the U.S., or secede, when “necessary to their Happiness” or when those powers were “perverted to their injury or oppression.”
_________________________
NEW YORK
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788. (1)
“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness;…”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
VIRGINIA
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1)
“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia…Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:…
___________________________
Every act of Lincoln must be rescinded, and the unconstitutional consequences of those acts must be corrected, beginning with the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx.
Once again you post tripe. It does NOT matter what the states did in the years before they seceded. As a condition for being re-admitted to the union after they surrendered they gave up, forever, any right to secede. Even Texas.
My favorite follower! Thanks again for reading. The fact is that secession was constitutional, and everything Lincoln did was invalid, illegitimate, illegal, and unconstitutional, and, not dissimilar to Roe v. Wade in Dobbs, part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in Marbury v. Madison, and the Sherman Antitrust Act in U.S. v. E.C. Knight et al., must be rescinded and reversed by law.
Start with the antithetical, anti-American, communist, and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The workingmen of Europe…consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through the…RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.[B]”
– Letter, Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
Lincoln forcibly imposed martial law.
President Trump may do the same by the same presidential authority.
Right?