CartoonDems

 

Federal judge sides against Jewish students who sued UPenn over antisemitism

Mitchell Goldberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against the University of Pennsylvania alleging the Ivy League school "permitted, tolerated and/or facilitated multiple antisemitic incidents on its campus that have created a hostile educational environment for Jewish students" in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel. 

Mitchell Goldberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, wrote in his ruling that the lawsuit -- which was filed by Jewish students attending the school – contains a 111-page amended complaint that "sets out a wide variety of general allegations, complaints, historical and current events, and alleged antisemitic incidents that allegedly took place not just on Penn’s campus, but elsewhere in the United States and the world." 

"The amended complaint also includes sweeping allegations of ideological, philosophical, religious, and political concerns and grievances, that have nothing to do with a federal lawsuit," he declared this week. "After review of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, I find that it fails to sufficiently allege the facts necessary to plausibly state viable claims under Title VI, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and for breach of contract." 

"While Plaintiffs spend an inordinate amount of space expounding on long-past injustices and incidents, some dating as far back as 1993, and complaining that Penn did not take the actions or respond to their reports, letters, or emails in the manner which Plaintiffs wanted, Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts showing either intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference on the part of Penn," Goldberg continued. 

Anti-Israel protesters stage an encampment at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in April 2024.  (Getty Images)

"Indeed, I could find no allegations that Penn or its administration has itself taken any actions or positions which -- even when read in the most favorable light -- could be interpreted as antisemitic with the intention of causing harm to the Plaintiffs," he also said. "At worst, Plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own." 

Penn students Jordan David and Noah Rubin and alumnus Eyal Yakoby filed the lawsuit on Dec. 5 with the nonprofit Students Against Antisemitism, according to the Jewish News Syndicate. 

"Although it is difficult to parse through the 312 paragraphs of allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, I find Plaintiffs have alleged various incidents where they were personally subjected to derogatory language, verbally harassed, and/or targeted because they were Jewish," Goldberg said in his ruling. 

"Because of these incidents, the numerous protests, and the Palestine Writes Festival, Plaintiffs assert they have been forced to miss classes and other campus activities and experiences, have felt threatened and/or unsafe in their residences, classrooms, and other places on campus, have felt as though they needed to refrain from wearing certain articles of clothing or jewelry or refrain from speaking out on matters of importance to them, and/or have otherwise felt as though they had to hide or obscure their Jewish identities," he added. "As a result, Plaintiffs aver they have lost educational and extracurricular opportunities and lost the value of the tuition and fees paid to Penn." 

An encampment was set up on the grounds of the University of Pennsylvania in April 2024. (Matthew Hatcher/AFP via Getty Images)

However, Goldberg also said that Penn has submitted "documentary evidence showing it has long had policies in place opposing antisemitism in all its forms on its campus," which also "allegedly establish that since October 7, Penn has developed action plans to address and ‘combat’ antisemitism and the expression of religious and racial hatred on its campus, and has increased its security measures to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its Jewish students." 

"Deliberate indifference is a very high bar and Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with Penn’s responses is not enough to establish there was an official decision by Penn to not remedy a Title VI violation and that this deliberate indifference effectively caused racial discrimination," Goldberg ruled. 

Students and faculty of Drexel University and University of Pennsylvania march from City Hall to the University of Pennsylvania campus where they erected an encampment against the war in Gaza on April 25, 2024.  (Matthew Hatcher/AFP via Getty Images)

"I will, however, provide Plaintiffs one last opportunity to amend its complaint, but only as to the Title VI and breach of contract claims," he also said. 

Greg Norman is a reporter at Fox News Digital.

 

Republican Rep Asks Dem Witness if She’s a ‘Covert White Supremacist’ – Her Answer Leaves Him Dumbfounded

Representative Brandon Gill (R-TX) tied a witness for the Democrats at a congressional hearing today in absolute knots, as she repeatedly refused to deny being a "covert white supremacist."

Diane Yentel, President & Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of Nonprofits, was testifying in support of NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) at a DOGE Subcommittee hearing titled "Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild."

Gill began his questioning by noting Yentel has "written a lot about anti-racism and white fragility" in the past, and offered her an opportunity to state whether or not she believes President Trump is a racist.

Yentel pivoted, unwilling to make such a declaration on the record. Undaunted, the Texas congressman pointed out that she has said on social media that the President is a "vile, despicable racist."

He also asked the witness if she found Trump's housing policies to be racist. Again, that's something she tweeted, and again, it was something she was unwilling to say at the hearing.

Here's where Gill's grilling turns into an absolute work of art. He reveals that one of her affiliate charities has expressed that "denial of racism"—something she just denied multiple times—"constitutes covert white supremacy."

 "Are you a covert white supremacist?" he asked flat out.

Yentel time and time again refused to say no, leaving Gill by his own admission "dumbfounded."

---

RELATED: Rep. Brandon Gill Destroys USA Fencing Chairman Smearing Parents Against Trans in Women’s Sports

Eric Swalwell Gets a Rude Awakening After Attempted Shaming of Texas GOP Congressman

---

"Are you a covert white supremacist?" Gill continued.

Yentel replies, "Can I talk about the work that nonprofits do?"

"No. I'm asking you if you're a covert white supremacist, which, according to one of your own organizations - again, denial of racism constitutes covert white supremacy," the congressman pressed. "Would you like to answer the question?"

The Democrats' star witness was left a sputtering mess.

After asking again, Gill stated, "I am utterly dumbfounded - you will - you are on record right now, and you will not say that you are not a covert white supremacist?"

It's at this point that Yentel takes the Ketanji Brown Jackson route, saying she does not know the definition of a "covert white supremacist" and thus, can not answer.

Gill finds her non-responses "astounding."

Gill, as my esteemed RedState colleague Sister Toldjah has pointed out, has been making a name for himself since being sworn into Congress in January. Eviscerating a Democrat witness is just the latest example.

Last month, he steamrolled USA Fencing Chairman Damien Lehfeldt during a Congressional hearing for smearing parents who don't want biological males to compete in their daughters' sports.

Now he's masterfully dismantled an expert witness Democrat lawmakers thought would defend NGOs, instead exposing her history of partisan and radical leftist posts on social media. 

Well done, Mr. Gill.

Dave Chappelle Reveals Hilarious Reaction SNL Writers Had to Trump Winning: ‘You Should Have Seen Them’

Comedian Dave Chappelle offered an inside look at the Saturday Night Live (SNL) writers' room after it was revealed that Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

 

A funeral would have been more lively.

Chappelle, speaking with fellow comic Mo Amer on Variety magazine's "Actors on Actors" series, recalled hosting the show on the first Saturday after that historic election. However, he also drew on the reactions of the writers and cast as they prepared during the week.

"Man, when they called Donald Trump the winner - that s*** shut the writers' room down," he said, promoting hearty laughter from Amer.

"You should have seen them in there - the first one - boy, they was crying ... They couldn't believe that this was happening."

(Warning - Language)

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at the time. The tears. The hugs. It, without a doubt, would have been the funniest thing SNL had produced in years.

They were sitting on comedy gold and didn't even know it.

Amer said he knew what was coming, but Chappelle admits, like most entertainers at the time living in a bubble, that he never saw the Trump victory as a possibility. That's what made it so delicious.

"Yeah, because you live in Texas and I live in Ohio, but at 30 Rock, it looked like Hillary Clinton was going to win. I don’t know what looks different from those windows," Chappelle joked. "But yeah, man, it surprised me."

---

RELATED: Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock: SNL's Election Night

Watch: Triumph Mocks Anti-Trumpers to Their Face - ‘Your Need for Contraceptives Is Purely Hypothetical’

---

Chappelle also spoke a bit about his opening monologue during that post-election episode, one in which he surprised viewers by bucking the trend in Hollywood and suggesting he'd like to give Trump a chance.

“I’m wishing Donald Trump luck,” he said at the time. “And I’m gonna give him a chance, and we, the historically disenfranchised, demand that he give us one too.” 

"I haven’t watched it in a while, but I remember it fondly," Chappelle said of that opening monologue.

The comedian, however, goes on to note that some of his comments didn't age well, but he has no regrets.

"Oh, I remember that part. But you know what? I look at it like a photograph. That’s what it felt like in that moment," he explained. "Now, if it ages well or not, I don’t get mad if I look at a picture because it’s not today. That’s what it was at that time."

"You might look at an old set and cringe, but you could just cringe because of how you were at that time."

It seemed to age just fine. Perhaps if others in Hollywood, the media, and the Democratic party had given Trump a chance from the word go, our country wouldn't have been so divided, ultimately leading to the chaos of the 2020 election and the next four years, which almost destroyed America.

SNL and its writers haven't learned much about giving the President and his supporters a chance. Earlier this year, they had Tom Hanks appear in a skit involving the actor portraying MAGA supporters as racists.

The skit in question involved Hanks playing a Trump supporter who was too terrified to shake the hand of a black man. because that's realistic.

I wonder how bad the tears were flowing when Trump defeated Kamala in November?

Again, No One Believes You, Joe

Joe Biden and his family are pushing back against the mountain of evidence that he’s basically unalive. His mental decline has been well-documented, along with a now-exposed and accepted cover-up from Democrats and members of the media, some of which have ironically written books about the scheme whilst being neck-deep in it. How the media gets away with it remains truly amazing stuff. 

It's over, man. We all know your brain is fried. What was that ABC News poll again? Almost 80 percent of the country felt you were too old to run again in 2024, and you proved those people right when you imploded on CNN against Donald Trump. Joe’s mouth agape as Trump creamed him at every turn by simply speaking in complete sentences and not looking aloof was a crucial 2024 event. It killed your campaign, Joe. So, when you issue statements like this:

Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false. 

We know you’re lying. Also, did you write this, or was it your wife, Jill?

 

 We’re at a point, old man, where we need video footage of you having any part of this statement because you likely didn’t. We know that you were zoned out, drooling during your interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, who was justified in his assessment that Biden was an old man with a failing memory. He didn’t remember when his son, Beau, died.  

You’re an old, middling, and failed braindead president, Joe. You’re not coming back. You won’t be president again. Just go away, and please, when you have periods of lucidity, tell your miserable wife that. 

Also, don’t you, for a second, think that we’ve forgotten about how your people likely hid your prostate cancer during your presidency? 

Trending on Townhall Videos

 

The Courts Are Courting Disaster by Alienating Conservatives

The problem with the courts is the same as the problem with many of our other institutions. Called the Skinsuit Phenomenon, after the great @Iowahawk’s famous tweet that perfectly sums up the leftist approach to marching through our society: “1. Identify a respected institution. 2. Kill it. 3. Gut it. 4. Wear its carcass as a skinsuit, while demanding respect. #lefties.” The courts are supposed to have respect because they’re supposed to do their job, but, as is so common these days, they’re not doing the job, yet they still expect the respect. That’s just not in the cards. Things are going to change. It’s just a matter of how they change. They could change back to when the courts acted like courts, or they could change to where the courts get kicked to the curb.

The courts fulfill several functions. Courts resolve disputes between individuals and entities – we call that “civil law,” which I did for about 30 years. Courts also resolve criminal disputes, where the government charges that someone committed a crime and the accused denies it. These are the most common things that courts do, the routine work that allows society to function. However, there is another role that courts play. Courts determine limitations on government power, and that’s where we have problems. In the first two roles, courts certainly screw up on a regular basis, but it’s not a systematic problem. With some exceptions – hello, family law in general, insane plaintiffs’ verdicts, and government persecutions like the J6 pogrom – the courts generally function adequately. You can be fairly certain you will be heard and fairly certain that the courts will apply something that is at least somewhat similar to the law to your case.

But then you get to political cases, and everything goes crazy. Take it from a lawyer – the kind of antics that go on in political cases have nothing to do with the normal law that goes on day-to-day in other courts. Procedurally, you don’t have crazy things like ex parte motions to certify a class filed at 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning and granted within 15 minutes without allowing opposition. This doesn’t happen. And substantively, you don’t have courts ruling on matters where their jurisdiction has been expressly removed by legislation or otherwise ignoring the clear text of the Constitution and the applicable statutes. In normal cases, judges hate to be reversed by the courts of appeal. In political cases, lower court judges seem to wear reversal like a medal and run hog wild.

The courts have stopped doing what the courts are supposed to do as an institution. The courts are now doing what the employees of those institutions want to do, following their own (leftist) political agenda instead of the law. It’s the Skinsuit Phenomenon. They’re not doing their job, but we’re supposed to keep respecting them, and respecting them, I mean, allowing them to exercise power.

Where should the courts get their power? From doing their job. They don’t have any other power. They have no police to send out to arrest anybody, nor any Army to go conquer the defiant. They have the power we give them, and they’re supposed to earn it by performing their function adequately. Remember, these folks are not elected. In the federal system, they serve for life, so they’re not accountable to the voters. But even though they’re not doing the job they were appointed to do – apply the law neutrally – they still expect to have the power they would have if they were actually doing the job they were appointed to do and applying the law neutrally. 

But that doesn’t work. What they’ve done is convert the courts from a branch that is not political into one that is, without adding the critical characteristic of accountability. In other words, we can’t vote them out of office like we can other politicians. Congress is a political branch. If you don’t like what your current representative or senator is doing, you can vote for someone else – and you should in 2026. And if you don’t like what our current president is doing – in which case, you’re a dork – you can vote for whichever communist weirdo the Democrats nominate in 2028. 

But you don’t get to vote on federal judges even when they act like politicians. If a branch is going to be political, it has to be accountable. Today, we have courts that want to be political but not accountable like politicians are. What use are the courts for resolving disputes over government power if they are just going to act like politicians but not have the limitations put on politicians in the form of having to face the voters?

What’s the moral argument for compelling obedience to a bunch of people who you will never get to vote for or against in the future? Why do we even need a third political branch? I keep hearing about how important “Our Democracy” is, so how does that work when the people who are making the decisions are outside of our democratic processes? Well, it doesn’t. It’s just a power grab. It’s a skin suit. Why must we obey the courts as if they’re neutral arbiters who only care about the law even when they are manifestly not neutral arbiters and do not care only about the law?

The left killed the courts, gutted them, and is wearing the resulting skin suit around town demanding respect. That might’ve worked for a while, but that’s not going to happen anymore. We’re hip to the scam, and we’re getting more and more angry. The current configuration of the courts just isn’t working for us. We’re getting tired of the status quo.

Just look at what happened earlier this week. The Supreme Court had the chance to take on two Second Amendment cases, one where a bunch of communists imposed magazine capacity limitations and another where the pinkos tried to ban AR-15s. The argument for doing the latter was, seriously, that the most common rifle in America does not fall within the category of “arms,” as in the right to keep and bear the same. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, with Brett Kavanaugh saying that the Court might get around to hearing the matter in a year or two. Hey, what’s the hurry? It’s only a key enumerated right under the Constitution?

Sure glad we had Kegger’s back, huh?

But when a bunch of illegal alien Third World gang members might get shipped back to where they belong, suddenly the Court has got to act right now, right away, no time to wait, immediately, to protect the fair rights of those scumbags. Normal Americans having their actual rights violated? No biggie. Maybe we’ll find time to take care of that in a couple of years. Maybe.

The left has spent years trying to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court to stop the lower courts from their skin-suiting. John Roberts thinks he can play footsie with these people, while they will gut him and wear his pelt like his skin suit the second they get the chance. His problem is he thinks he can cleverly play off the left and the right and preserve his institution and that he can do it by making political rulings. But that’s not so. The only way for the Court to restore its reputation for neutral application of the law is by neutrally applying the law. No, that’s too easy. No, John Roberts has to be clever. And in doing so, he’s alienated the only faction in American politics that might have supported him.

You have probably heard of the Federalist Society. That is a group of law nerds that was generally associated with the right because it wasn’t actively leftist. It believes in originalism, the idea that you should apply the original understanding of the Constitution and the laws instead of filling in legal Mad Libs like the living Constitution leftists. Basically, it was an argument between what the law was meant to say, associated with conservatives, and what the law needed to say to reach a policy goal, associated with liberals. 

Trump famously appointed Federalist Society judges in his first term. We ended up with Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett. None of them are reliably conservative. That’s what we want: reliable conservative votes. Why? Because the judiciary has become a political branch, and you can’t shut your eyes real tight and try real hard as you continue to apply your arcane legal theory while the other side’s judges are doing whatever they need to do to get the result they want. It doesn’t work.

As usual, the Fredocons are out in force, telling us to ignore reality and pretend that the norms are still in effect. That’s not a skin suit – that’s a real pelt! But we’re not playing that anymore. We’ve accepted that the judiciary has become a political branch, and we’re going to deal with it on those terms. This means no more Federalist Society judges who, through a faulty application of their academic ideology, might end up supporting the left. Since it’s now a political branch, we want judges who were going to get us our preferred political result. Hey, prospective judge, I don’t want to hear about your ideology. I want you to vote my way every time because that’s what the courts do now.

Of course, this raises the question of why we need courts at all to resolve questions about government powers. If it’s going to be just another political branch, that’s superfluous when we already have a legislature and an executive. What function does having a third branch, consisting of unelected people in funny clothes pretending to read legal briefs, provide? None. There’s no reason for it, and it deserves no moral deference. It’s just another set of politicians, and we ought to consider getting rid of the courts’ participation in such issues if we are not going to return it to its proper role. But in the meantime, we should accept things as they are. That means no more Federalist Society sissies, only hard-core conservatives. If the courts are just another political arena, I say we go full Maximus and fight to win.

Follow Kurt on Twitter @KurtSchlichter 

Chuck Schumer rebrands Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ to the ‘We’re All Going to Die Act’

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) attends a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on June 04, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer characterized President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” to the “We’re All Going to Die Act,” due to the legislation’s perceived Medicaid cuts.

The Trump administration has repeatedly explained that the reforms to Medicaid are meant to root out waste, fraud, and abuse by implementing measures to deny coverage to illegal immigrants and by denying certain procedures and hormones for transgender-identifying individuals — while further enhancing eligibility checks.

“For many Americans, health care coverage is the difference between life and death,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) stated on Wednesday.

Schumer’s revision of the bill is in reference to a comment by Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) made at a recent town hall event. Ernst had responded to an individual in the crowd who claimed that people were going to die due to the bill’s health care cuts, to which she responded: “Well, we all are going to die.”

“According to Ernst, ‘Fear not. We’re going to die anyway.’ Tell that, the American people have heard. Let me be clear. Democrats are ready. We are ready to fight,” Schumer continued.

“We are doubling down. We’re ready to show Americans what’s really at stake here, because this fight won’t be won in just the Capitol. As Abe Lincoln said, public sentiment is everything. And when public sentiment hears about this ‘We’re All Going to Die Act,’ they’re going to hate it, and they’re going to tell their senators they hate it. And if the senators think they can get away with a yes vote and explain it, they’re sadly mistaken. The cuts are too deep. The cuts are too real. The cuts are too devastating for people.”

“Why are they being so mean? Why are they being so cruel? And why are they being so politically tenured at best, suicidal at worst? All to give tax breaks to billionaires. They are in total obeisance. Donald Trump is, and his colleagues are to very very, the small group of very wealthy, greedy people who say, ‘I don’t care what you do to everyone else, cut my taxes. And by the way, get rid of any regulations,’” he added.

UNHINGED: @SenSchumer says "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" if we pass the largest tax cut in history, block illegals from taxpayer-funded health care, and cut the deficit.

These are NOT serious people. pic.twitter.com/AFeiDuaYjR

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 4, 2025

Is this the most unhinged speech Chuck Schumer’s ever given?

Subscribe to OAN LIVE for more news like this https://t.co/fj1s5hurlY

In a bizarre and seemingly morbid rant, Schumer lashes out over a Republican health care bill—calling it the "We’re All Gonna Die Act" and warning… pic.twitter.com/40y3gbAF16

— One America News (@OANN) June 4, 2025

Soon after, Ernst later clarified her comments, arguing that the Democrats are attempting to “fearmonger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid.”

“I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth. So, I apologize,” she stated. “I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well.”

“While Democrats fearmonger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid, Senator Ernst is focused on improving the lives of all Iowans. There’s only two certainties in life: death and taxes, and she’s working to ease the burden of both by fighting to keep more of Iowans’ hard-earned tax dollars in their own pockets and ensuring their benefits are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse,” an Ernst spokesperson added.

Despite the Trump administration explaining the reasoning behind the Medicaid cuts, Schumer still argued that the GOP president “is just lying about the bill.”

“Let me tell our Republican Senate colleagues what will be enacted is not Donald Trump’s soothing words, but the actual reality of harsh cuts where people lose health care, where people’s premiums go up, where hospitals close, nursing homes close, and people are laid off,” Schumer stated. “So anyone who thinks they’re voting for the nice words of Donald Trump will face a harsh reality when this is implemented.”

Stay informed! Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

 

Federal judge temporarily blocks deportation of Boulder attack suspect’s family

Denver District Judge Gordon Gallagher

A Biden-appointed federal judge has temporarily blocked federal immigration officials from removing the family members of Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the suspect accused in the targeted terror attack against pro-Israel supporters in Boulder.

Denver District Judge Gordon Gallagher has issued a brief relief for the family of the suspect in order to preserve the court’s jurisdiction over the case. 

“Moreover, the court finds that deportation without process could work irreparable harm and an order must be issued without notice due to the urgency this situation presents,” Gallagher wrote.

The judge had also scheduled a hearing for a temporary restraining order on June 13^th at the federal courtroom in Denver.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced on Tuesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had taken Soliman’s wife and children into custody and that they are currently undergoing removal proceedings due to their unlawful presence in the United States.

Four of the suspect’s children are minors, while the fifth has already reached the age of maturity at eighteen.

According to federal immigration records, the wife and children are being kept in a federal detention center in Dilley, Texas.

Soliman, an Egyptian national, and his family illegally entered the United States in August 2022. However, he only recently applied for asylum in September, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The 45-year-old defendant is accused of committing a hate crime attack against a group of pro-Israel supporters who were participating in a walk to raise awareness for the remaining captives in Gaza.

He is now facing 16 charges of attempted murder, two charges of use of an incendiary device, and 16 charges of attempted use of an incendiary device.

According to the New York Post, the 45-year-old Egyptian national expressed support for the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni Islamist organization, on his Facebook page.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts