Jewish Yale University student journalist reporting on an anti-Israeli protest at the Ivy League school Saturday night was stabbed in the eye with a pole holding up a Palestinian flag‚ while her Muslim assailant has gone unpunished. NY Post (h/t Marvin W) Stop Antisemitism‚ a nonprofit watchdog group‚ has shared an image Tartak took of […]

No musical instruments ever used‚ just the incredible a cappella voices of the Maccabeats. Originally formed in 2007 as Yeshiva University’s student vocal group‚ the Maccabeats have recently emerged as both Jewish music and a cappella phenomena‚  with a large fanbase‚ more than 20 million views on YouTube‚ numerous TV appearances‚ and proven success with […]

California’s Public Utilities Commission will soon vote on whether to adopt a fixed electricity charge. It looks like it will be based on income. The Sentinel reported this in March‚ and now it’s here. Their big brilliant plan is if you make more‚ you will pay more. It’s so very socialist of them with its […] The post California’s Closing In On the Electricity Income Tax appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Only 20 percent of eligible voters think that the United States has control of its own borders‚ a recent poll found‚ making it the latest survey find Biden underwater on the critical election-year issue. The poll of 1‚500 eligible voters‚ performed by Redfield and Wilton Strategies on behalf of Newsweek‚ found that just 20 percent of respondents said that the United States has control over its border‚ marking a significant decline over the past several months. The number has plummeted since August‚ when 34% of respondents said that the country had control over its own borders. When asked “Do you believe the United States has control over its borders&;#63;” a full 63 percent said “no‚” while another 13 percent said “don’t know.” A plurality of all age groups surveyed in the poll‚ which was performed on April 11th‚ agreed that the U.S. does not have control over its borders‚ including 47 percent of Generation Z‚ which was defined as those born between 1997 and 2002. A majority of those who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 (53 percent) also said that the U.S. does not have control over its borders. The survey also asked voters their thoughts on the government’s current handling of illegal immigration‚ with 52 percent saying that they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied‚ while only 21 percent said that they were satisfied or very satisfied. Another recent poll found that only 36 percent of voters approve of Biden’s handling of immigration‚ making it the incumbent Democrat’s lowest issue-specific approval rating for the fourth month in a row. Even polls from blue states like Colorado and Massachusetts found that voters say immigration is the biggest issue facing their respective states. The polls’ findings come as the country has seen a seismic surge in illegal immigration‚ with officials recording about 9 million nationwide encounters and 1.7 million estimated gotaways since President Joe Biden took office. The figure poses a sharp contrast with the 415‚000 total reported gotaways for 2018‚ 2019‚ and 2020 under the Trump administration. Former President Donald Trump appears to be gaining on Biden in the polls‚ no doubt in part due to widespread disapproval of the Democrat’s border policies. One recent poll found that Trump now leads Biden in Wisconsin‚ one of seven crucial swing states. Previous surveys found that the former president was in the lead in all six of the other seven swing states. 

A cop whipping out a pregnancy test during a traffic stop — this is the highlight of a new abortion ad California Governor Gavin Newsom shared this week. The Democratic governor posted the eyebrow-raising clip to X on Sunday. This ad claims that women are being pulled over and given pregnancy tests by police in Alabama. Just absolute unhinged lunacy. But it will be persuasive to the same crowd of morons who think Florida passed a bill banning residents from saying the word gay. https://t.co/UxcnGkvzCp — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) April 22‚ 2024 The ad shows a young blonde woman nervously trying to drive across Alabama’s state line to obtain an out-of-state abortion. “We’re almost there. You’re going to make it‚” her friend says as they pass a “State Line 1 Mile” sign. Suddenly sirens blare‚ and a police car pulls the girls over. “Miss‚ I’m gonna need you to step out of the vehicle‚ take a pregnancy test‚” a state trooper tells the woman in a thick southern accent. The officer taps a pregnancy test on the window. The woman is then shown being handcuffed and bent over the cop car as she looks at the camera with a pained expression. “Trump Republicans want to criminalize young Alabama women who travel for reproductive care‚” the ad’s narrator says. The ad calls on viewers to “stop them” and directs people to a link for Newsom’s Campaign for Democracy political action committee. The issue at the heart of the ad is about minor girls traveling for abortions‚ not women. Three states‚ Tennessee‚ Oklahoma‚ and Alabama are considering bills that crack down on minors traveling out of state to get an abortion without parental consent‚ the PAC’s link explains. Nevertheless‚ the PAC’s website references “women” multiple times. “They want to lock women and girls down completely‚ taking away their constitutional right to travel‚” the website reads. “These are states that basically want to imprison women and young girls‚” the PAC adds. “It’s a backdoor nationwide abortion ban‚ denying women the opportunity to go to a freedom state.” The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh reacted to the ad on Monday. “Just absolute unhinged lunacy. But it will be persuasive to the same crowd of morons who think Florida passed a bill banning residents from saying the word gay‚” Walsh posted on X. Democrats and mainstream media outlets have made range of dubious claims about the repercussions of state abortion bans‚ saying they affect everything from miscarriage care to ectopic pregnancy removal. However‚ the details of the individual cases often do not support viral allegations that women are failing to get the care they need in states that have implemented abortion bans. As the presidential election cycle heats up‚ Democrats have made abortion a key issue‚ especially the many state bans that took effect in the wake of Roe vs. Wade’s demise. Newsom has personally hammered the abortion issue for months‚ signing more than a dozen new abortion laws and urging women in states with bans to come to California to get their abortions.

Just two months after the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States‚ Columbia University’s president Minouche Shafik remarked that terrorism was a “form of protesting against a system‚” according to a video unearthed by The Daily Wire.  Shafik‚ who was a vice president at the World Bank at the time‚ was asked about the economic roots of terrorism in developing countries during an event with the University of California-Berkeley’s Institute of International Studies. While she condemned “extreme views” held by terrorist groups‚ she said the reason they are popular is because terrorism is a “protest.” “You’ll always have individuals who will have extreme views‚” Shafik said at the November 2001 event‚ “but what’s really troubling in the region is that there’s actually quite a broad base of society which has some sympathy for the terrorists‚ not so much because they approve of their methods‚ but it’s a form of protesting against a system which is not delivering for them on the economic or the political front.” FLASHBACK: At an event just two months after 9/11‚ Columbia University's current president Minouche Shafik remarked that terrorism &;quot;is a form of protesting&;quot; pic.twitter.com/UkSP4iqDZu — Brent Scher (@BrentScher) April 22‚ 2024 She also added that “economic stagnation and political authoritarianism” create “fertile ground on which terrorist seeds can flourish.” Video of the full event can be viewed here. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)‚ who has led calls for Shafik to resign as anti-Semitic demonstrations take over the Ivy League campus‚ told The Daily Wire that she believes this view of terrorism is informing her response to the chaotic anti-Israel protests taking place under her watch at Columbia. “This video of Columbia University President Dr. Minouche Shafik saying she can understand why people sympathize with terrorists right after 9/11‚ and calling it a form of protest‚ is just further evidence that placating the pro-Hamas unsanctioned mob currently taking over Columbia is part of her core beliefs‚” Stefanik said. “Shafik must either immediately resign or be fired by Columbia’s Board‚” Stefanik said. A Columbia spokesman told The Daily Wire that Shafik condemns terrorism. “President Shafik condemns terrorism‚ full stop‚” spokesman Ben Chang said. “To intimate otherwise is dangerous and a complete misrepresentation of what she said.” Shafik’s 2001 comments echo the sentiment professed by defenders of the Hamas terrorist massacre on October 7 that left more than a thousand Israelis dead. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) a day after the attack‚ for example‚ said that Israel’s “blockade” and “occupation” of Gaza led to the terrorist attack. “The path to that future must include lifting the blockade‚ ending the occupation‚ and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating‚ dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance‚” Tlaib said. “The failure to recognize the violent reality of living under siege‚ occupation‚ and apartheid makes no one safer.” House Republicans‚ including Stefanik‚ demanded Shafik resign in a Monday letter‚ citing the anarchy and anti-Semitism erupting on the New York City Ivy League school’s campus. “Over the past few days‚ anarchy has engulfed the campus of Columbia University‚” the lawmakers wrote. “As the leader of this institution‚ one of your chief objectives‚ morally and under law‚ is to ensure students have a safe learning environment. By every measure‚ you have failed this obligation.” “The situation unfolding on campus right now is a direct product of your policies and misguided decisions‚” they added. “As Representatives from the State of New York‚ many of our constituents are directly impacted by the unfolding chaos on Columbia’s campus. Based on these recent events and your testimony in front of Congress‚ we have no confidence in your leadership of this once esteemed institution.” During her testimony last week — while the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” was just beginning — Shafik said anti-Semitism has “no place on our campus” and that she was “committed to do everything I can do to confront it directly.” Since last week‚ the encampment on Columbia’s campus has been the scene of antisemitic chants‚ arrests by NYPD officers‚ and heightened tensions. Despite nearly 100 students initially being arrested and others suspended‚ the Columbia administration has decided to move classes virtually and let the encampment continue. Columbia sent a campus-wide announcement on Sunday announcing new safety measures‚ including more security guards‚ improved ID checks‚ and more security for The Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life during Passover — which will begin Monday night. 

Here’s a statistic that‚ if you have a job in corporate America‚ may be the single least surprising piece of information you’ll hear all year. It turns out that every single one of the Fortune 100 companies — 100% of them — has made a public commitment to DEI on their website. There isn’t a single outlier in the top 100 companies in this country. Chris Rufo looked into this‚ and he found that they all have a stock DEI page. Whether you go to Amazon or Target or Dell or Verizon or Home Depot‚ or banks or insurance companies or anywhere else‚ you’ll find the same platitudes — boilerplate about the importance of the alphabet people‚ parental leave for birthing folks‚ outreach to historically black colleges‚ and so on. This total uniformity took hold relatively quickly‚ within just the last few years. Publicly‚ the explanation for this change is that all of these companies are suddenly very concerned about racial justice. They’re upset about George Floyd and so on. But privately‚ there’s another very clear reason for it. The leadership of all of these companies understand very well that if they stop practicing DEI — if they‚ say‚ start hiring all of their employees based on merit instead of skin color — then the federal government will try to destroy them. This is a dynamic that normally plays out behind the scenes‚ away from public scrutiny. But this week‚ in one very dramatic case‚ it spilled out into the open. The convenience store chain Sheetz‚ which has more than 700 locations all over the country‚ was just sued by the Biden administration after they rejected the federal government’s attempt to shake them down with a settlement. What was Sheetz’s crime‚ you ask&;#63; Did they sell bad gasoline&;#63; Poisoned hot dogs&;#63; Did their name violate communications decency laws&;#63; According to the Biden administration‚ Sheetz broke the law by refusing to hire applicants who failed a criminal background check. Apparently‚ the Biden administration believes this is a racist policy because many of the people who fail these background checks are nonwhite. And to be clear‚ that’s the entire accusation. The Biden administration is not claiming that Sheetz intentionally discriminated against anyone on the basis of race‚ or any other legally protected characteristic. They’re not claiming that Sheetz used these background checks as part of a racist white supremacist scheme. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show Instead‚ the Biden administration is using a theory of discrimination known as “disparate impact‚” which was enshrined into civil rights law many years ago. Under this theory‚ a lack of discriminatory intent doesn’t matter. All the government has to show is that a policy disproportionately affects members of certain racial groups‚ without a clear business purpose‚ in a manner that could reasonably be avoided. In a moment‚ I’ll get into the lawsuit‚ and I’ll explain why it’s a complete farce‚ even if you buy into the whole “disparate impact” theory. First‚ however‚ I want to contrast two local news reports about what’s happening to Sheetz. The first one is from WCNC in Charlotte‚ North Carolina‚ and the second one is from CBS 17 in Durham. Watch: You’ll notice that the CBS News report doesn’t even mention what Sheetz is accused of doing‚ really. They don’t talk about the background checks at all. They just lead you to believe that Sheetz is accused of discriminating against “black‚ Native American and multiracial” people‚ with no context whatsoever. So maybe you’re starting to see how the shakedown works. The federal government shows up to a major corporation. They accuse them of racism based on no evidence whatsoever. And then they demand millions of dollars‚ including back pay for a bunch of employees. And if the company doesn’t comply‚ then the administration sues them‚ and the media basically accuses the company of racism. This is why many companies choose to head off the whole problem in the first place‚ by openly discriminating against white people. If you do that‚ then the Biden administration won’t touch you. Let’s get into the specifics of the case because that’s the only way to truly understand how insane this is. Within the last few months‚ a couple of job applicants at Sheetz filed complaints with the E.E.O.C.‚ saying they’ve been discriminated against under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And the E.E.O.C.‚ which is a federal agency‚ agreed with them. Here’s what the Biden administration wrote in their lawsuit: [Sheetz] committed a continuing‚ companywide practice in violation of Title VII with respect to a class of Black‚ American Indian/Alaska Native‚ and multiracial job applicants who did not pass [Sheetz’s] criminal justice history screening by failing to hire them for all positions because of race. … For instance‚ Black job applicants have failed Defendants’ criminal justice history screening‚ and consequently are denied employment‚ at a rate exceeding approximately 14.5%‚ while White job applicants have failed Defendants’ criminal justice history screening‚ and consequently are denied employment‚ at a rate of under approximately 8%. The complaint notes that the number of Indians and multiracial applicants who are denied on this basis is roughly the same. A few points here. First‚ given what we know about black crime rates‚ these numbers are actually a lot closer than you’d expect. Nationally‚ according to FBI data‚ black people make up more than 26% of total arrests‚ and the imprisonment rate for black Americans is over five times the rate for whites. But the Sheetz data only shows a disparity of around 7%. And according to the EEOC‚ Sheetz is looking at both convictions as well as arrests when it runs its background checks. More importantly‚ notice what’s being conflated here. The complaint states that Sheetz is failing to hire these applicants “because of race.” But what they’re really saying is that Sheetz isn’t hiring applicants who failed a criminal background check. Any reasonable person can see that those are two very different rationales. And indeed‚ on its website‚ the E.E.O.C. makes this distinction clear. They state: The lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz was motivated by race when making hiring decisions. This is the sort of madness that the legal theory of “disparate impact” breeds. The Left knows that it can’t find any examples of actual direct discrimination against black people in this country anymore — and certainly not at Sheetz. So instead‚ the Left has invented this notion of disparate impact to create discrimination where it doesn’t really exist. The problem is that literally everything — every policy‚ every rule‚ every standard‚ in every context — will have a “disparate impact.” The impact felt by any individual or group will vary according to their situation. If we cannot have standards that create a disparate impact‚ then we cannot have any standards at all. Which of course is the point. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP Supposedly‚ there are limits to this legal theory of “disparate impact.” The DOJ lists these exceptions on its website. For example‚ it’s acceptable to have a policy that yields a “disparate impact” — if the policy is “important” and justified by the organization’s mission. This is an exception that clearly applies to this situation. There is a blindingly obvious reason why a convenience store wouldn’t want to hire criminals: They don’t want to get robbed. This is a point that should not need any elaboration whatsoever in a sane society. But we don’t live in a sane society anymore‚ so I will elaborate. Also‚ it’s an excuse to show one of the best videos to come out of Georgia this year. This is footage of a robbery at a convenience store that may be the single worst inside job ever recorded on camera. Watch: “It’s unclear if the robber’s fist actually connected to Patel’s face.” That’s the polite way of putting it. It takes the cops a little while but they eventually blew the whole scheme wide open — mainly because the accomplice was hanging out right outside the store when they arrived‚ and cash started falling out of his pocket when they questioned him. In any event‚ the point is that if this clerk applies to Sheetz‚ they should be able to reject him because of his criminal history. His ethnicity does not matter. The fact he’s a criminal matters. Convenience stores get robbed all the time — including by their own employees. It’s clearly “important” to the business of a convenience store to root out criminals. I read the entire complaint from the Biden administration‚ and I couldn’t find a single argument to the contrary. Instead‚ they fault Sheetz for failing to contact applicants to request additional information after they fail their criminal background checks. The Biden administration doesn’t say what “additional information” might be relevant‚ but they say that Sheetz is racist because they don’t request it. Additionally‚ the Biden administration faults Sheetz for failing to name the “specific condition” that’s the basis for their decision‚ when applicants have multiple criminal convictions. And apparently‚ Sheetz doesn’t have a whole committee making these decisions‚ nor is there a “procedure” for appeals. None of this is remotely relevant to racism‚ nor does it disprove the obvious fact that hiring criminals is a bad idea for a convenience store. So it doesn’t really address the relevant legal issues in any way. You get the sense that Sheetz was stunned by the Biden administration’s claims to the contrary. The federal government’s complaint goes on to state that: The Commission engaged in communications with Defendants to provide Defendants an opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices. … [but] the Commission was unable to secure from Defendants a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission. In other words‚ Sheetz didn’t back down in the face of this blackmail. So now they have a massive lawsuit to deal with‚ along with defamatory media coverage.  Obviously‚ this is one of the more egregious examples you’ll ever see of the soft bigotry of low expectations — or the soft bigotry of no expectations‚ in this case. If I were black‚ I would be highly insulted by the idea that a criminal background check presents some kind of insurmountable hurdle for me specifically. It’s a lot like saying black people can’t possibly obtain voter identification‚ which is another common claim you’ll hear from the Biden administration. What the Left is effectively saying is that there’s simply no chance for black‚ Indian‚ or “multiracial” job applicants to stop committing a disproportionate amount of crimes. So‚ instead of doing anything to get them to commit less crime‚ we have to pretend that business owners are the real criminals. If they refuse to hire nonwhite applicants for any reason‚ they’ll get a lawsuit. But of course‚ they can continue to discriminate against whites all they want. Sheetz seems to understand that. And there are already signs they’re going to cave. In response to this lawsuit‚ Sheetz issued a statement saying:  Diversity and inclusion are essential parts of who we are … We take these allegations seriously. We have attempted to work with the EEOC for nearly eight years to find common ground and resolve this dispute. It’s not exactly a full-throated defense of their position‚ which is obviously the correct one. And as their statement notes‚ this has been going on for a long time — eight years in fact. So there’s some history here. I looked into it‚ and it turns out that this isn’t the first time the EEOC has filed a lawsuit like this. Back in 2019‚ the EEOC under the Trump administration sued Dollar General for: …denying employment to African Americans at a significantly higher rate than white applicants for failing the company’s broad criminal background check. What was the result&;#63; A $6 million settlement and a three-year consent decree. According to a top EEOC attorney at the time‚ This case is important because Dollar General is not just providing relief for a past practice but for the future as well. … If the company plans to use criminal history‚ it must retain a criminologist to develop a fair process. Unlike other background checks based on unproven myths and biases about people with criminal backgrounds‚ Dollar General’s new approach will be informed by experts with knowledge of actual risk. It’s hard to believe it’s a real quote. They’re saying it’s an “unproven myth and bias” to believe that someone with a previous history of criminal behavior is more likely to commit other crimes in the future. You don’t need any statistics to know how absurd that is. You just need common sense. But here are the statistics anyway. According to the DOJ’s own numbers: … at least half of citizens released from incarceration will recidivate in some way following release.  And according to other estimates‚ including a survey from Prison Policy‚ roughly a third of people who are arrested report that they’re re-arrested for another offense within a year. There are about a million other data points you can find. But suffice it to say‚ it’s not a “myth” that criminals are more likely to reoffend. It’s an extremely basic and obvious fact. And yet the EEOC pretended it’s not real. Now Dollar General needs an “expert” to tell them they’re being racist if they reject a black guy with five prior convictions. How did that go completely unnoticed at the time&;#63; Why didn’t the Trump White House override what the EEOC was doing and fire everyone involved&;#63; Who knows. The most likely answer is that the White House wasn’t aware of it. And if that’s the case‚ it’s hard to think of a better argument that the federal government needs to be cut in half immediately‚ for starters‚ and most of these unelected bureaucrats need to find new jobs. They have gone rogue and they’re implementing policies that defy all logic‚ and they should be fired en masse. That should be the first executive order if‚ in fact‚ there is a second Trump administration. With the Sheetz case‚ the Biden administration is trying to shake down yet another company in order to erase the distinction between criminals and noncriminals. This is economic sabotage. And it simply can’t be allowed to succeed.

Five for Fighting lead singer John Ondrasik opened up about why he wrote his latest song “OK (We Are Not Okay)” following Hamas’ terror attack in Israel on October 7 of last year. Speaking to The Daily Wire‚ the 59-year-old singer said “the world has gone mad‚” and he called out artists who have been silent amid the anti-Semitism raging on college campuses — like the current chaotic scene unfolding in places like Columbia University‚ where pro-Palestinian protestors have made Jewish students feel unsafe. “Like so many of us‚ we were horrified by the events of October 7‚” Ondrasik told us. “Frankly in many ways it brought back memories of 9/11. But I think what really inspired me to write the song was the aftermath of Oct. 7.” “The collapse of so many of our institutions‚ the moral collapse‚” he added. “Certainly the media very quickly started spouting Hamas propaganda. Now‚ literally as we speak‚ the raging anti-semitism on college campuses.” “And to members of Congress‚ like Rashida Tlaib  (D-MI)‚ who could not condemn the beheading of babies — that really scared me‚” he continued. “The whole theme of ‘We Are Not Okay’… it’s really about the fight for civilization against those who want to tear it down. That’s what this song is about‚ it’s really about good vs evil.” The singer then compared the response of artists after September 11 attack —many of whom worked to unite and call out evil — to what transpired after the October 7 attack. Ondrasik says when he played The Concert for New York City after 9/11 “every icon in the music business” was there “condemning Osama bin Laden. But after October 7‚ it is crickets.” “There is a hell of a lot of complacency going around right now‚ especially in the arts. Musicians like to laud themselves for being on the front foot of human rights and all that is good in the world‚” the singer said. “I’m ashamed of my industry. The world has gone mad. Many of those artists are Jewish and I think one reason my song resonated so much was because Israel feels abandoned by the arts. Because it has been.” When asked about the silence from his industry‚ he said‚ “They’re scared for their families‚ they don’t want their concerts protested. It’s disgusting. It’s disgraceful and I think many musicians of conscience will look back on this moment and be ashamed that they did not join the right side of history.” Ondrasik‚ who is not Jewish‚ talked about recently traveling to Israel for the first time after writing the song to “show them that they are not alone in this.” He said the trip and the people he met just solidified his support for Israel — and that it had changed him. “I don’t think I’ll ever get over it.”  “I had no idea I’d be ending up playing the song (‘OK’ and ‘Superman’) in Hostage Square (on 4/13) three hours before Iran attacked‚ but I am glad I did‚” the artist said‚ noting how surreal it was playing in the square and hearing the announcement over the loudspeaker beforehand telling people what to do “in the event of a missile attack.” Humbled to perform “OK (We Are Not OK)” at Hostage Square‚ in Tel Aviv‚ hours before Iran’s attack on Israel. There are no words to express the meetings I had with hostage families. May we hold them in our hearts as well as all innocents suffering due to the evil that is Hamas. pic.twitter.com/pq9K6auLyO — John Ondrasik (@johnondrasik) April 21‚ 2024 He also reflected on getting to meet and play with some of the injured soldiers during his visit‚ and said the thing that blew him away was how positive they all were. Ondrasik also spoke briefly about meeting with the hostage families‚ and said “he has no words to talk about” the “agony” those families are going through. Ondrasik said‚ after spending time and speaking with them‚ he came away understanding why they feel “abandoned‚ that the world’s forgotten them.”  “When was the last time you heard [President] Joe Biden mention the hostages‚” the singer said. “The names of the American hostages. The world has abandoned them in many respects. I wish every American calling for a cease fire could sit for a half hour with these hostage families and see what reality really looks like.” The lead singer‚ who previously spoke out about Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan‚ added‚ “This Administration has a lot of responsibility for the world being on fire.” “When we abandon our allies and our citizens to the Taliban I think that was an opening to all the evil actors in the world‚” the singer shared. “And we even talked about the next dominoes to fall. We knew [Russian President Vladmir] Putin would have no hesitancy to go into Ukraine.” In addition to writing his “OK” song and performing in Israel‚ Ondrasik says he’s organizing some concerts for the college campuses that have been dealing with anti-Semitism because‚ as he says‚ this is a “generational fight … You don’t win this war without the arts.”

New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft has announced that he will no longer provide funding to Columbia University until the “school can protect its students” amid “extreme anti-Semitism” from pro-Palestinian protestors. In a message posted on Monday on X‚ the Patriots owner — who’s the founder of The Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCASorg) — wrote that he’s “deeply saddened at the virulent hate that continues to grow on campus” at his alma mater Columbia University and “throughout our country” following the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel. “…The school I love so much — the one that welcomed me and provided me with so much opportunity — is no longer an institution I recognize‚” Kraft’s statement read. “I am no longer confident that Columbia can protect its students and staff and I am not comfortable supporting the university until corrective action is taken.” “It is my hope that Columbia and its leadership will stand up to this hate by ending these protests immediately and will work to earn back the respect and trust of the many of us who have lost faith in the institution‚” he added.  A statement from @FCASorg Founder Robert Kraft. pic.twitter.com/6fmTGFx06e — Stand Up to Jewish Hate #🟦 (@StandUp2JewHate) April 22‚ 2024 “It is my hope that in this difficult time‚ the Kraft Center at Columbia will serve as a source of security and safety for all Jewish students and faculty on campus who want to gather peacefully to practice their religion‚ to be together‚ and to be welcomed‚” the NFL team owner’s statement concluded. On Monday‚ the New York City university moved to remote learning out of safety concerns stemming from pro-Palestinian protests that have unsettled the Ivy League school’s Jewish population as the Passover holiday is set to begin‚ as previously reported. Minouche Shafik‚ the president of Columbia University‚ announced the move in a statement calling for a “reset” after a rabbi for Columbia and its partner school Barnard College urged Jewish students to go home due to the “extreme antisemitism and anarchy” that the university and New York Police Department could not contain. “To deescalate the rancor and give us all a chance to consider next steps‚ I am announcing that all classes will be held virtually on Monday‚” Shafik said early Monday morning. “Faculty and staff who can work remotely should do so; essential personnel should report to work according to university policy. Our preference is that students who do not live on campus will not come to campus.” Daniel Chaitin contributed to this piece.