Supreme Court appears wary of massive tax code overhaul
A Washington state couple’s nearly $15,000 tax bill was debated by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a case the Biden administration says could have “far-reaching consequences,” potentially costing the government more than $5 trillion. At issue is whether Congress has authority to tax people and companies for sums that have not yet been received, or “realized,” as income. The current case may be relatively small in scope, but the high court was told its eventual ruling could have an enormous impact on taxing the wealthiest Americans who shield their earnings through a variety of investment loopholes. SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CASE IMPACTING ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION ON HOTEL WEBSITES In a lively two hours of oral arguments, the high court heard claims that its decision would cause financial chaos, upend much of the federal tax code, and derail a so-called “wealth tax” that has been promoted by some Democrats, but has not yet been enacted. The justices appeared cautious about issuing a sweeping ruling, and instead seemed ready to uphold the current tax on unrealized foreign income. “We don’t have to agree with you on that for you to prevail,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the implications of a sweeping decision, telling Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar that the government could win on narrow grounds. “Why is it that you think we can decide for you without putting any of those kinds of very established taxation schemes at risk?” Justice Elena Kagan asked the lawyer for the investors. Charles and Kathleen Moore, a retired couple from Redmond, Washington, are challenging taxes on their 13% minority shareholder stake in KisanKraft, an Indian corporation that supplies power tools to small farms in that Asian country. The married couple says the company reinvested its earnings to expand the business rather than distribute dividends or payments to its stakeholders, and therefore should not be considered taxable income. “If you haven’t received any income, how can you be required to pay income taxes?” Charles Moore says in a video from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group representing the couple in court. “It seemed, to both of us, unconstitutional.” The specific provision in question was part of a massive 2017 corporate tax overhaul passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Trump. A one-time levy – known as the “mandatory repatriation tax” – is imposed on deferred earnings of American shareholders in foreign corporations, even any gains that have not been “realized” or passed on to them. It was imposed as an offset to other tax benefits. SUPREME COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS IN $6 BILLION PURDUE PHARMA SETTLEMENT THAT WOULD GRANT IMMUNITY TO SACKLERS The IRS says that provision could reap the government $340 billion over ten years. The provision was designed to address one of several workarounds investors have relied on for years to access unrealized investment property, before receiving it and paying taxes on it. Groups supporting the government say while the Moores may not have received any actual money, their initial $40,000 foreign investment has increased over the years to more than a half-million dollars. More broadly, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting the Moores’ situation say this case could be applied as a preemptive strike against any wealth tax on the assets of the richest Americans, including stocks that are only taxed when they are sold. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has championed such a tax for years. Just last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) led a group of 15 fellow Democrats to introduce the Billionaires Income Tax. And President Biden has suggested a version of a “billionaire’s tax” on U.S. households worth more than $100 million to pay a minimum of 25% on capital gains each year, whether those assets were sold for a profit or still held by them. But none of the justices publicly expressed enthusiasm about venturing down that path, suggesting any consideration of a wealth tax or other IRS provisions is off the table. The arguments focused instead on how a narrow ruling could be crafted, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying, “I don’t fault the parties for shooting for the stars but I guess the tenor of the questions is that nobody’s happy with anybody’s definition of anything, okay?” The Moores’ appeal prompted one of the largest series of amicus briefs filed with the high court from a variety of interest groups and lawmakers. Concerns were expressed over how a ruling would affect other longstanding tax provisions – including business partnerships, real estate investments, and charitable and philanthropic donations. An underlying ethics question has dogged the Supreme Court’s consideration of the tax case. Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats urged Justice Samuel Alito to recuse, because lawyer David Rivkin representing the Moores also co-conducted four hours of Wall Street Journal opinion page interviews with the justice. Alito in a four-page statement in September refused to step aside. “There is no valid reason for my recusal in this case,” he wrote. “We are required to put favorable or unfavorable comments and any personal connections with an attorney out of our minds and judge the cases based solely on the law and the facts. And that is what we do.” Alito was an active questioner in the Moore case. “I am quite concerned by the potential implications” of the Moores’ position, he said to the Justice Department lawyer. “You say that if we rule in petitioners’ favor, then large, important pieces of the Tax Code will also logically fall. And I think that’s a fair argument. But I think it’s also a fair argument to do the same thing with your position, and I want to understand the limits of your position.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The case is Moore, Charles v. U.S. (22-800), and a decision is expected by early summer 2024.
Fox News Politics: FB-I Spy
Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail. Subscribe now to get Fox News Politics newsletter in your inbox. What’s happening: – House Speaker Johnson gives President Biden ultimatum on Ukraine funding… – Trump sits down for Iowa townhall on ‘Hannity’ at 9 p.m. ET. Follow the Fox News live blog for the latest updates… – FBI Director says terror threat level is at an all time high… – Sen. Tommy Tuberville ends blockade of military promotions after months-long abortion fight… FBI Director Christopher Wray pleaded with lawmakers on Tuesday to continue funding a controversial surveillance tool of the U.S. government. Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning. In his opening remarks, he urged Congress to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which has been both credited with preventing terror attacks on U.S. soil and accused of being a vehicle for spying on U.S. citizens. The law lets the government keep tabs on specific foreign nationals outside the country without first obtaining a warrant to do so, even if the party on the other side of those communications is an American on U.S. soil. The program will expire at the end of this year if not reauthorized by Congress. Fox News Digital is told that congressional leaders are considering attaching a temporary extension of FISA to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense spending bill. ‘PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT’: DOJ gave Hunter Biden ‘preferential treatment’ during federal probe, GOP report says …Read more ‘HOLD FIRM’: Top conservative policy leader sends warning to Johnson on Ukraine aid …Read more FIGHT FOR UKRAINE: Internal memo shows senior Republicans making case for Ukraine aid …Read more TAKEN TO SCHOOL: Presidents of Harvard, MIT, UPenn pressed on response to antisemitism at House hearing …Read more SHOOTING BACK AT HUNTER: Special counsel hits back at Hunter Biden requesting Trump, Barr subpoenas …Read more SINEMA STRESSED: Sinema faces ethics complaint over failure to detail finances in disclosures …Read more OVER THE HILL: GOP Rep. Patrick Henry not seeking re-election, increasing numbers leaving Congress …Read more RACE TO 2024: How exodus of lawmakers from Congress could shake up election …Read more ALL TIME HIGH: FBI director says terror threats elevated to all-time high since Oct. 7 …Read more HIDING THE TRUTH: State Dept accuses Hamas of refusing to release female hostages to keep them from revealing horrors of captivity …Read more ‘SUSPICIOUS’ TIMING: Notice to DC residents hints at preparations for Trump trial jury selection …Read more BORDER ‘OVERRUN’: Shocking scenes as migrants surge into remote Arizona crossing …Read more KILL SHOT: Liberal activists seek to cripple iconic American firearms manufacturer …Read more CARTELS IN OUR ‘BACKYARD’: NY sheriff sounds alarm over crisis at Canadian border …Read more Follow the Fox News live blog for the latest updates…
UPenn president torched over antisemitic speakers, teachers allowed on campus but not Trump ICE director
University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill was under pressure during a House antisemitism hearing on Tuesday, as Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., noted that a Penn professor who called for “intifada” against Israel kept his job at the prestigious institution and other antisemitic speakers have been allowed to have events on campus. Banks, in turn, noted how former President Trump’s director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Thomas Homan, was prevented from speaking on campus amid anti-Trump student protests, as was India’s now-Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Amy Wax, a tenured law professor who opposes the diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, agenda. “Just weeks before the Oct. 7 terror attacks against Israel, Penn hosted a Palestine Writes Literature Festival,” Banks said. “The event featured Marc Lamont Hill, who was fired by CNN for calling for the destruction of Israel. It also hosted and included a member of the Palestinian Youth Movement, which has collaborated with the terrorists and maybe most notably, Roger Waters, the really wacky former Pink Floyd vocalist. The same Roger Waters, by the way, who’s publicly used anti-Jewish slurs, desecrated the memory of Anne Frank and has dressed up as a Nazi and floated a pig balloon with a star of David – at many of his concerts. Why in the world would you host someone like that on your college campus to speak at the so-called Palestinian Rights Literature Festival?” “I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Antisemitism has no place at Penn,” Magill began, before Banks interjected. “Why did you invite Roger Waters? What did you think you would get out of him?” Banks said. STEFANIK GRILLS HARVARD PRESIDENT OVER STUDENTS CALLING FOR ‘INTIFADA,’ RAMPANT ANTISEMITISM ON CAMPUS “Antisemitism has no place at Penn, and our free speech policies are guided by the United States Constitution,” she said. But Banks pressed specifically, “Why did you invite Roger Waters?” asking Magill, “Do you condemn what Roger Waters stands for?” The Penn president claimed that before the event, she issued a “statement calling out the antisemitism of some of the speakers at that conference.” “Specifically Roger Waters? Yes or no?” Banks asked. To that, the university president fell silent for a few seconds, adding, “Roger Waters is among them.” “So you specifically called out a guy who floated pig balloons with a star of David at his concerts?” Banks responded. “I haven’t seen the condemnation. And I’m going to go look for it after this hearing. And I hope, I hope can find that well-recorded condemnation from you.” Clarifying, Magill said, “I did call out the antisemitism of some of the speakers at a conference that had more than 100 people.” In the aftermath of the Palestine Writes Festival, Banks noted how Magill and her Penn board chairman wrote a memo outlining the university’s free speech policies. In that memo, Magill wrote, “Penn does not regulate the content of speech or symbolic behavior,” including speech “incompatible with the school’s values.” The university president went on to say Penn does not have a policy against hate speech because “defining and policing robust debate, even with respect to the most disturbing issues, is unwise.” HARVARD, MIT AND UPENN PRESIDENTS PRESSED ON ‘RACE-BASED IDEOLOGY OF THE RADICAL LEFT’ AT ANTISEMITISM HEARING “That’s what you wrote,” Banks said. “But in 2013, Penn canceled now-Prime Minister Modi’s scheduled keynote address at a Wharton-hosted economic forum in the face of opposition from Indian-American professors. And for the past year, your administration has sought to punish Amy Wax, a tenured law professor, for her stance on DEI and identity issues. And then you canceled an event with former ICE Director Tom Homan due to disruptive student protests simply because he worked for former President Donald Trump.” “The fact is that Penn regulates speech that it doesn’t like,” Banks charged. “Everyone gets this, no one more so than the faculty and students who know exactly where the lines are that they’re OK to cross,” Banks surmised, asking Magill, “Why did Penn let Professor Ahmad Almallah off the hook, who led hundreds of students in chanting ‘There’s only one solution, intifada revolution?’ Why does that, professor, still have a job at your university?” In response, Magill said, “Our approach to speech is as identified. It follows and is guided by the United States Constitution, which allows for robust perspectives. I disagree with the characterization that we treat speech differently and I can’t discuss any individual disciplinary process.” Banks went on to call out Penn professor Anne Norton, who he said, “repeatedly denied Hamas’ worst atrocities on Oct. 7” and professor Huda Fakhreddine, who Banks said “romanticized the murder of over a thousand Israeli Jews as, quote, ‘Palestine inventing a new way of life’ and clapped as a speaker said Jews should go back to Berlin and Moscow.” “Why does that professor still have a job at your university?” Banks demanded. Magill said she was “very troubled” by what he was describing. “You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You’re defending it. You allow these professors to teach at your college,” Banks said. “You create a safe haven for this type of antisemitic behavior. You said something earlier about antisemitism being symbolic of the larger society. Your university is a hotbed of it. And one of the reasons that we’re seeing a rise of antisemitism… is an unsafe environment for Jewish college students all over this country. You’re largely responsible for it.” The House GOP Conference gave an opportunity for several Jewish students at Penn, Harvard and MIT to speak Tuesday before the hearing began. A senior at Penn, Eyal Yakoby, outlined an incident on campus he said happened less than 36 hours earlier. “I should not be here today. I should be studying for my upcoming finals. I should be taking in every moment, every experience as an undergraduate student in my senior year of college. So while I should not be here today, I am, because 36 hours ago, I, along
Michigan Gov Whitmer orders state government fleet to be 100% electric
Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive directive Tuesday forcing the state government’s entire fleet of vehicles, both light-duty and heavy-duty, to transition to zero-emission. Under Whitmer’s actions, Michigan’s state agencies must convert all state-owned light-duty vehicles to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) by 2033 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles by 2040. The governor said the move — which earned endorsements from clean energy groups, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and Detroit Regional Chamber — would reduce pollution and lead to lower costs in the state. “Michigan automakers are on the cutting-edge of the world’s switch to zero emission vehicles, and with today’s executive directive to transition our state-owned fleet by 2040, the State of Michigan is leading by example,” she said in a statement. “With today’s executive directive, I am directing state agencies to begin the process of converting vehicles owned and operated by the state to ZEVs by 2033 for light-duty vehicles and 2040 for medium and heavy-duty vehicles,” Whitmer added. “Getting this done will help drive demand of Michigan-made electric vehicles, lower gas and maintenance costs for the state since ZEVs cost far less to fuel and maintain and reduce air and noise pollution in our communities.” STUDY CASTS DOUBT ON ELECTRIC VEHICLES’ CLIMATE, COST BENEFITS: ‘WON’T ACHIEVE THE GOALS INTENDED’ The executive directive instructs Michigan state departments and agencies to prioritize purchasing ZEVs in their fleets, prioritize transitioning vehicles that travel the most miles first, and prioritize transitioning vehicles located in communities “historically impacted by higher pollution.” It also requires the installation of EV charging infrastructure in high-density areas. JOE MANCHIN GOES SCORCHED-EARTH ON BIDEN ADMIN OVER EV ACTIONS BOOSTING CHINA Whitmer’s actions come one week after she signed a landmark legislative package that requires state power providers to meet some of the most aggressive green energy goals in the country. And it comes amid her push for an increase in EV manufacturing in her state and greater EV ownership. “The UAW applauds the State of Michigan for showing that the electric vehicle transition doesn’t have to be a race to the bottom,” UAW President Shawn Fain said Tuesday. “We encourage the state to purchase union-made EVs for all state vehicles, giving America’s autoworkers their fair share of this historic moment for the American auto industry.” “Moving our state vehicles to clean energy propulsion systems is a significant step towards Michigan’s leadership as a clean energy economy,” added Glenn Stevens Jr., the vice president of automotive and mobility initiatives at the Detroit Regional Chamber. “Our state fleet will be a leading example of zero-emission vehicles on our roads and will help set a precedent for all public and personal transportation to move in this direction.” With the directive, Michigan joins other states like New Mexico in requiring the complete electrification of public vehicle fleets. In addition, in 2021, President Biden issued an executive order calling for federal vehicle acquisitions to be exclusively ZEVs by 2035, a plan expected to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming years. Every light-duty vehicle acquisition must be electric by 2027 under the order.
Small Business Republicans demand answers from Biden admin on 90-day gun export pause
FIRST ON FOX: The House Small Business Committee chairman and four of his GOP colleagues sent a letter to the Biden Department of Commerce demanding answers on the 90-day pause on issuing gun export licenses. Chairman Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas, led the letter to Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Alan Estevez regarding the department’s pause on issuing gun export licenses. “The Biden Administration is continuing its relentless attack on small businesses with yet another decision that will only make our entrepreneurs’ lives more difficult,” Williams told Fox News Digital. SECOND AMENDMENT GROUP TO URGE CONGRESS TO OVERTURN ATF PISTOL BRACE RULE “Moreover, this decision could very well be in violation of our Second Amendment – which I will not stand for,” Williams said. “I am eager to hear from the (Bureau of Industry and Security) on this issue and hope to have a detailed response with their justification.” In the letter, the lawmakers warned that the 90-day “prohibition places a substantial burden on those businesses and individuals that rely on exporting as a source of income and for manufacturers of weapons and ammunition.” “It appears that the Department of Commerce and [the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)] may not have properly considered the impact of this decision on American businesses, especially smaller entities, nor sufficiently rationalized its decision to comply with the Constitution and its principles,” the lawmakers wrote. “The Committee is unsure of how to properly characterize the document the BIS made its announcement with, as it is listed as a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) document. A FAQ document hardly seems like the proper venue for announcing a restriction that touches and concerns a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. “Further, this announcement does not adequately explain the basis for why such a prohibition is necessary.” LIBERAL ACTIVIST SHAREHOLDERS SET TO SUE SMITH & WESSON AS PART OF ESG PUSH TO CRIPPLE GUN MANUFACTURERS The lawmakers pointed out that the “FAQ document’s only rationale for this action is that it ‘will enable the Department to more effectively assess and mitigate risk of firearms being diverted to entities, or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities.’” The Republicans also wrote that while “these reasons could potentially be sufficient if fully explained, BIS has not articulated why these things are of concern, to what extent an issue exists, nor does the BIS tie this action, either directly or indirectly, to any ongoing foreign policy issues.” “Additionally, in this order the BIS did not prohibit licensure for the export of Torture Devices. … If the BIS’s order is based on the fear of human rights abuses, this seems a more obvious place to start,” the lawmakers wrote. The lawmakers wrote that BIS’s actions “are not rooted in a delegation from Congress” as in legal precedence, and that “the document contains far too little information to support a claim of unilateral executive authority.” “What’s more, this FAQ document borders on carrying the force of law, meaning it may require an actual rulemaking to effectuate lawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act,” the lawmakers noted. They referenced a D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling that found “that a guidance document issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which outlined when and how it would accept applications for plans to conduct certain types of waste disposal, carried the force of law, and required a rulemaking.” “Rulemakings which have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities are required to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and explain the rules impact on small entities,” the lawmakers wrote. “Additionally, this ‘pause’ serves as an outright ban on new, potentially small exporters entering the market,” the lawmakers warned. “Additionally, the FAQ document lacks important details and is difficult to find on the BIS’s or Department of Commerce’s website. “It is unclear how the BIS anticipates businesses, especially smaller businesses, would even understand that this moratorium has been put in place, let alone understand how to comply.” The lawmakers peppered Estevez with questions regarding the pause, including one seeking an “explanation of the constitutional basis and rationale used by the BIS to determine it had the authority to establish this prohibition.” Joining Williams on the letter are fellow GOP committee Reps. Tracey Mann of Kansas, Mark Alford of Missouri, Eli Crane of Arizona and Aaron Bean of Florida. The Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
State abandons effort to take back Fairfield Lake State Park land
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will stop pursuing eminent domain to take over the former park property south of Dallas. A private developer plans to turn it into a luxury subdivision.
Biden trolls DeSantis, Haley, Trump with giant billboards ahead of fourth GOP presidential debate
EXCLUSIVE: President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris aren’t sitting idly by this week and letting Republican presidential hopefuls dominate the airwaves with multiple prime-time events without having their own say. In coordination with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Biden-Harris campaign is doing a bit of its own trolling by erecting giant billboards across Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the site of Wednesday’s fourth Republican presidential debate, targeting the top-tier GOP challengers on their healthcare policies. “No to healthcare repeal. No to slashing Medicare and Medicaid, No to extreme abortion bans,” the billboards read, alongside unflattering photos of either former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. KEVIN MCCARTHY, MATT GAETZ TRADE JABS AS FIERCE RIVALRY CONTINUES: HE ‘BELONGS IN JAIL’ The billboards went up early Tuesday morning across Tuscaloosa, near the University of Alabama where the debate will be held, and will remain in place through the debate on Wednesday night. The effort by the Biden-Harris campaign and the DNC aims to shine light on the expressed opposition by those candidates to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as “Obamacare,” which Democrats say would leave more than 40 million Americans uninsured and millions more facing higher healthcare costs. The campaign also wants to highlight that Alabama, a reliably Republican state, is one of only 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid under the ACA. BIDEN USES TRUMP’S OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM IN BID TO RECAPTURE THIS MAJOR VOTING BLOCK FOR DEMS IN 2024 “Tomorrow’s debate is a reminder of the choice facing voters next November: President Biden’s plan to protect Americans’ health care and their fundamental freedoms, or the extreme MAGA agenda that would rip away health care coverage, jack up families’ health care costs, and ban abortion across the country,” DNC National Press Secretary Sarafina Chitika told Fox News Digital. “Let’s be clear: If Donald Trump and the other 2024 Republicans had their way, they’d implement an extreme, unpopular agenda to end the ACA’s protections for preexisting conditions, kick young people off their parents’ health insurance, and strip reproductive freedom away from as many women as possible,” she added. According to one DNC aide, the effort to tackle Republicans’ healthcare policies head-on is a continuation of the Biden campaign’s focus on what it says is Trump’s vision for America in 2025, the year he would take office if victorious over Biden. ERIC ADAMS’ FATE RESTS WITH FELLOW DEMS AMID BREWING POLITICAL STRUGGLES REMINISCENT OF ANDREW CUOMO: EXPERT The aide added that the debate is an opportunity to frame Alabama as ground zero for what another Trump term would look like, including no Medicare expansion, hundreds of thousands of Americans without healthcare as a result, near-total abortion bans and laws that make it easier for criminals to carry firearms. They added that the campaign would be focused on that message throughout Republican debate, as well Trump’s appearance in a Fox News town hall, which will be hosted by Sean Hannity and will air Tuesday at 9:00 p.m. ET. A number of Biden surrogates will also be in Tuscaloosa on the day of the debate to make the administration’s case, including principal deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks, former Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., and Democrat Alabama state Sen. Barbara Drummond. Trump will not be participating in Wednesday’s debate. Haley and DeSantis will be joined at the debate by entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.
Tuberville ends blockade of most military promotions after months-long abortion fight
Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., announced on Tuesday he is finally backing down from his hold on hundreds of military promotions to protest the Pentagon’s abortion policy. Tuberville’s blockade of military promotions was over a dispute about a Pentagon abortion policy. The Alabama Republican said Tuesday he’s “not going to hold the promotions of these people any longer.” Almost 400 military nominations have been in limbo due to Tuberville’s blanket hold on confirmations and promotions for senior military officers. It’s a stance that has left key national security positions unfilled and military families with an uncertain path forward. The Associated Press contributed to this report. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Stefanik grills Harvard president over students calling for ‘intifada,’ rampant antisemitism on campus
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., laced into Harvard University President Dr. Claudine Gay during a House committee hearing on the rise of antisemitism on college campuses on Tuesday, challenging that the Ivy League school’s leader answer for students chanting for violence against Israel. “Harvard students calling for the mass murder of African-Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?” Stefanik asked, leading to her point. The New York Republican demanded that Gay respond to the “yes or no question,” before asking the Harvard president if she was familiar with the term “intifada.” Stefanik cited multiple instances of Harvard students chanting, “There is only one solution. Intifada, Revolution,” and, “globalize the intifada,” since Hamas’ October 7 massacre and Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza that followed. “The use of the term intifada in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against, civilians and the genocide of Jews,” The House GOP chair stated. Gay admitted she had heard the term before and said, “That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.” HARVARD, MIT AND UPENN PRESIDENTS PRESSED ON ‘RACE-BASED IDEOLOGY OF THE RADICAL LEFT’ AT ANTISEMITISM HEARING While Gay admitted that speech calling for intifada, and therefore genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, was “at odds with the values of Harvard,” she deflected when pressed by Stefanik if those sorts of remarks were against Harvard University’s code of conduct. “We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying,, harassment, and intimidation” Gay said before Stefanik interjected. “Does that speech not cross that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel?” Stefanik pressed. “When you testify that you understand that is the definition of intifada, is that speech according to the code of conduct or not?” “We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a wide berth to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, outrageous, and offensive,” Gay said in response. Stefanik cited a report stating that Harvard ranked “dead last” when it comes to freedom of speech on college campuses in America. “Will admissions officers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say, ‘From the river to the sea,’ or ‘intifada,’ advocating for the murder of Jews?” Stefanik pressed, to which Gay responded, “As I’ve said, that type of hateful, reckless offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me.” But Stefanik demanded to know what action will be taken specifically against “students who are harassing and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard’s campus?” Gay said could not go into details of any ongoing actions due to privacy concerns. HARVARD WHISTLEBLOWER POINTS TO ‘UNDISGUISED CALLS FOR THE MURDER OF JEWS’ AFTER LAUNCH OF FEDERAL PROBE Unable to get an answer from Gay on specific actions taken against students accused of antisemitism, Stefanik concluded by asking what the number one hate crime in America is. “I know that over the last couple of months there has been an alarming rise of antisemitism, which I understand is the critical topic that we are here to discuss,” Gay said. “That’s correct. It is anti-Jewish hate crimes,” Stefanik responded. “And Harvard ranks the lowest when it comes to protecting Jewish students. This is why I’ve for your resignation and your testimony today, not being able to answer with more clarity speaks volumes.” At their press conference earlier Tuesday, the House Republican Conference heard from multiple students from Harvard, UPenn and MIT before the hearing. Harvard student Jonathan Frieden said, “Mulitple times a week on my way to class, I walk by mobs of people chanting ‘From the river to the sea’…I talk to my Jewish friends on campus every day. They tell me how afraid they are to go to class…” “President Gay’s willingness to call chants of ‘Intifada’ and other hateful antisemitic speech ‘abhorrent’ is reassuring, but the next step is action. When students are saying ‘from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab’ and clearly calling for violence against Jewish communities – and even interrupting classes to do so – we need to hear Harvard clearly state how it will discipline those who are voicing these hateful views,” another student, Charlie Covit, who leads the Israel on Campus Coalition, said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
Texas woman asks judge to let her terminate pregnancy after lethal fetal diagnosis
In an emergency request, the Center for Reproductive Rights is asking a judge to allow Kate Cox to terminate her pregnancy after she received a lethal fetal diagnosis.