The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has made repeated missteps when dealing with the issue of immigration. These include misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s teachings on refugees, mitigating the Church’s teachings on national sovereignty, downplaying the responsibilities of immigrants, and lambasting faithful Catholics for upholding national security and cultural identity. The latest example of the USCCB’s pontificating on the subject has drawn strong responses from numerous prominent Catholics, including the Pope himself! “We are punishing individuals…. But they are part of a system that for more than 40 years has been left broken by our leaders.” Earlier this month, America’s bishops issued a “special message” condemning President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, particularly mass deportations. In a press conference last week, the American-born Pope Leo XIV, who has generally avoided commenting directly on Trump’s policies, affirmed the Catholic Church’s teachings on immigration. “No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter,” the Pontiff asserted. He did, however, urge that illegal aliens in the U.S. who are seeking a legal pathway to permanent residency ought to be treated with dignity, even in the midst of enforcing immigration law. “If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that — there are courts, there’s a system of justice. I think there are a lot of problems in the system,” he suggested. “I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have.” Vice President J.D. Vance, a convert to Catholicism, also critiqued the USCCB’s message, echoing much of what the Pope said. “You may not know it, judging purely from the comments of some people on social media, but the Catholic Church’s views on this are actually quite clear,” Vance noted in an interview with Breitbart News’s Matt Boyle. “It’s that, yes, you must treat immigrants humanely.” “On the other hand, every nation has the right to control its borders. And obviously, how you strike that balance is very important, but there’s a lot of room there to actually control your own borders for the sake of your own people,” Vance continued. “My priority, my charge is to look after the people of the United States of America, and you cannot do that if you’re flooding the country with a ton of illegal immigrants and the drugs and the crime that they bring,” the vice president said, noting that illegal immigration often results in assaults on “dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves.” He added, “When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world.” Another Trump administration official, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) principal deputy assistant secretary for communications Nathaniel Madden, also offered a Catholic defense of the administration’s immigration policy. “We are upholding federal law that’s been in place for 60 years,” Madden told Catholic News Agency. “We are upholding federal laws that were justly and duly passed by the United States Congress, by the American people … and none of those laws are unjust,” he said, pointing to St. Augustine’s City of God, in which the Doctor of the Church clarifies that immigrants have a moral responsibility to respect and adhere to their host nation’s laws, while lawmakers and magistrates likewise have a moral duty to enforce just laws. “We have to take into account that laws were broken,” Madden said, addressing illegal immigration. He said that St. Augustine clarifies a “key distinction” in how to demonstrate charity “when you’re talking about people who have knowingly broken laws to get somewhere,” which is “a much different situation than dealing with the blameless poor who are citizens of the same country.” “This administration cares deeply about the intrinsic human dignity of everybody it comes in contact with,” Madden said. “Whether you are a citizen, whether you are somebody in our custody who is being removed from the country, you have that dignity … [and] that worth just simply by being made in the image of God and this administration respects and upholds that.” As an example of this, he pointed to the administration’s “incredibly humane” encouragement that illegal aliens “self-deport,” noting that the administration has offered self-deportees a small stipend and a legal pathway to return to the U.S. once complying with federal law, while immigration authorities focus on arresting and deporting “severe criminals,” illegal aliens convicted of murder, rape, human trafficking, child sexual abuse, terrorism, and other serious offenses. Conversely, Mexican-born Archbishop José Gómez, who has served as the archbishop of both Los Angeles and San Antonio, Texas, both major immigration hubs, offered a more nuanced defense of his brother bishops’ “special message,” rightly noting that mass immigration is an issue of great concern for Americans and threatens to fundamentally reshape American culture, economy, and life. “Immigration has become the defining issue of our times,” the archbishop wrote. “The election results [in 2024] were more than a reaction to the previous administration’s loose border enforcement policies. They also reflect growing anxiety and fears about how the global economy is reshaping local economies and communities,” Gómez continued. “Many of our neighbors see immigrants as threats to their livelihoods. They are worried about crime, if there will be enough jobs, if our education and welfare systems can handle more people, and if our country will be able to integrate so many who are coming from different cultures.” While he characterized the president’s mass deportation program as “disturbing,” Gómez also warned that such a drastic measure may seem like a necessity due to decades of increasingly liberal immigration law and lax enforcement policies. “We are punishing individuals; and it is true, they have responsibility for their actions. But they are part of a system that for more than 40 years has been left broken by our leaders,” the archbishop rightly noted. “Many who are here illegally came with the implied understanding that the authorities would look the other way because businesses needed their labor. Politicians, business leaders, and activist groups have long exploited this issue for their own advantage. That is why the problem persists.” READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Bishops Blast Trump on Immigration, but Not Biden on Abortion US Priests Remain Conservative but Diverge From Trump J.D. Vance Proclaims Christ as ‘The Way, the Truth, and the Life’

In November of 2005, Alan Dershowitz addressed a crowd of a few thousand Chabad rabbis gathered at their annual conference at the New York Hilton. He spoke about how he had been influenced by the last great leader of Chabad, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, who had passed away some 11 years previously. Starting with myself: I cannot surrender the freedom that God gives. And that must be devoted to leaving no one behind. Dershowitz has always been a person of strong opinions, ready and able to take on unpopular cases as long as he sees the need and the right. A highly accomplished barrister, he is used to persuading others, and not renowned for being easily persuadable himself. That is especially true if the matter at hand has to do with things dear to his heart. One of the dearest of things to Dershowitz’s heart has been the defense of his religion and of Israel. So when Dershowitz had seen in the papers that Chabad was honoring Senator Jesse Helms at an  affair in Washington, DC, Dershowitz was infuriated. Helms, he felt, stood against all he thought was best in America, and in particular, he was unfriendly to Israel. How could a Jewish group and its famous leader invite such a man as guest of honor? Dershowitz told how he took his anger directly to Rabbi Schneerson, popularly known just as the Rebbe. He admitted to the rabbis in 2005 that his letter was embarrassingly intemperate. He asked the “how could you?” — How could you, Rebbe, possibly honor a man who was so opposed to Jewish values and to the embattled Jewish state? Dershowitz summarized the Rebbe’s reply: And I received a letter back from the Rebbe, a very, very respectful letter; a letter that I cherish for its content. And he lectured me, but in the nicest way, telling me that you never give up on anybody. You never, ever give up on somebody. Today Jesse Helms may be against Israel, but tomorrow, if we know how to approach him and speak to him, maybe he will turn out to be a champion of Israel. Today, there a many who are experiencing turmoil and anger as both political parties are undergoing deep internal challenges about what they stand for. Each party is being challenged by a revived and assertive American antisemitism. The turmoil of our political opponents doesn’t bother us excessively, though, as Ben Shapiro wisely cautions, if the Dems go completely Mamdani, we are all one recession election away from a national disaster. What does bother us acutely, though, as it did Dershowitz, is when someone we believe to be on our own side seems to have moved away from what unites us and is acting in ways we passionately believe will bring us harm. This feels like betrayal, and it summons forth powerful anger. It’s a very real issue right now, and understanding how this works can help to clarify, to ourselves at least, what is happening. When figures who had been effective and courageous allies now seem to have deserted the allied cause, we must be one step ahead of the natural and powerful anger that is an instinctive reaction to betrayal. Anger takes over like a well-practiced soldier; reflection goes out the window and we jump into the split second to fight for our lives. To abandon to ourselves to this angry spiral endangers ourselves and our cause. Fundamentally so, for to cast off into the red-hot reaction that comes so naturally is to surrender our agency to our anger and hurt. There is no greater hurt to freedom than when we unnecessarily surrender our own ability to affect things for the better. We betray our own selves by putting on the red mask. This does not mean to be imprudent or worse, letting go of reality for the self-medication of wishful thinking. It may well be that we cannot bring about change, and we must vigorously act to protect our legitimate and rightful interests. But we won’t know what the real opportunities are if we haven’t seriously explored the possibilities for effective action due to giving ourselves over to reflexive anger. Addiction to anger is an all too common human failing. It is part of our own personal moral responsibility to break the power of that addiction. Its effect on our politics is observable and it isn’t good. There is an anger that is righteous. It is not the product of addiction. It is a proper and rational response to threats that cannot be addressed well without it. It is a powerful tool to be used with great care. It is the emotional equivalent to war — we must be prepared to engage in it, but we pray that our preparedness will deter our enemies and move the disagreement towards a less violent mode of resolution. It is rare that real friends suddenly morph into ruthless enemies who cannot be deterred short of war. What is much more common is that with an effort, we may be able to open up better and deeper lines of communication and relation than we have yet done or imagined. That is the message that the Rebbe gave Dershowitz in his reply. By not writing off Sen. Jesse Helms as an enemy, by keeping lines of communication open, he came around. As Dershowitz explains, “I had my doubts about it, but as they say, the rest is history. Although I still disagree with Jesse Helms on many issues, when it comes to Israel, he has become our champion.” When we think of great and successful politicians, we see they had a way of reaching people no one expected could be reached. Ronald Reagan reached the people the Reagan Democrats — common-sense working people and life-long Democrats who were buoyed by his confidence in them. He was a master communicator and he touched peoples’ hearts, and so won twice, the second time with the greatest landslide in the history of our presidency. Trump has done the same kind of barrier-crossing. Despite his prickliness, he cobbled together a winning coalition by his very different but still powerful communication skills. We can learn from Trump that expressing opinions on controversial matters is part of communication. We can make a deal that is real when the real issues that must be settled are there on the table for all to discuss. The Rebbe did not ask Dershowitz to abdicate his opinions. Instead, he focused on the key, an idea that is thoroughly biblical and central to our Western civilization — we have a loving responsibility to our fellows. This is true on every level. It starts in establishing a loving home, the basis of a living democracy, a home that is not only the training ground of future good citizens, but something prior to it — it is the place where the couple’s loving bond becomes so great that it brings new citizens into the world. From the home, this loving responsibility establishes a series of other relationships, less intensely intimate, but vital for a thriving society — local communities, religious associations, charitable organizations, and the like. And finally, our concentric circles of government — local, state, and federal. All are built on the foundational love that makes political freedom and self-government possible. All these concentric levels are animated by the hope that our biblical heritage inspires — no one can be left behind by us. People may deny themselves redemption — such is the nature of the freedom God gives humanity — but it is a cardinal duty of each person to refuse to be a party in that denial. And unconstrained anger, addictive anger, spurns that duty. I am animated by the same issues Dershowitz cited here. They are central to my concerns. They are at the religious core of my life. I feel deep emotion over the surge of antisemitism that is rising even among those who have been allies. I don’t pretend that a man who continuously espouses medieval conspiracy theories and who embraces the modern blood libel — that Israel’s defense of itself against the Hamas exterminationists is “genocide” —is not properly described as an antisemite. Henry Ford, who funded the fledgling Nazi party in the 1920s and who required everyone who wanted to do business with him to read a summary of the Tsarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also felt hurt when criticized as an antisemite, and was seemingly sincere in his hurt. Many people who have done bad things have been sincere. Our humanity is terribly complex. But I accept that my goal must be as the Rebbe said — you never give up. Starting with myself: I cannot surrender the freedom that God gives. And that must be devoted to leaving no one behind — we can expand our effectiveness at this most basic challenge as long as we are alive. This is not a weak refusal to deal with evil. We reserve the freedom to use anger if that is the only way to be true to our love of others who may be unjustly threatened — or if we ourselves are put in danger. It is rather an affirmation of our deepest freedom, the one that no tyrant can take from us. May we never give it up. And may God bless our effort so that, like Dershowitz with Helms, we may live to see our enemies changed into vibrant, leading members of our cause. READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Wendell Berry Shows Us How To Love in Loss Trivializing Religion Left Us Unprepared for Political Islam False Confidence Against Jihadism          

Women usually cannot naturally conceive past age 45. But MaryBeth Lewis wasn’t happy when her children grew up. At age 49, she decided she wanted more kids, and so she gave birth to twins through IVF. Doctors said it was a miracle she survived the birth, as she was put on a ventilator and given 21 units of blood. The company that went along with this madness, endangering Lewis’s life and the lives of the children, is CNY Fertility. It is quite proud of the fact that it has no inhibitions against impregnating anyone who walks through its doors. “We believe everyone has the reproductive right to the fertility care they need. While many clinics restrict treatment options due to age, BMI, and FSH/AMH levels, we accept everyone,” it explains on its website. In an essay this month from New York Times Magazine, David Gauvey Herbert related the totality of Lewis’s sordid tale. Lewis was not satisfied with her near-death experience of giving birth to twins three weeks shy of her 50th birthday. Three years later, she gave birth to another girl. But she wasn’t done. At age 55, she gave birth to twin boys. And yet, she wanted more children. At age 59, she gave birth to another set of twins. Still, she wasn’t done. At age 62, she gave birth to her 13th child. But still, she wanted more children. And in America, she could buy them… The woman is clearly disturbed. But still, she wanted more children. And in America, she could buy them for the small price of $160,000 by using the embryos she still had stored at a CNY Fertility clinic and paying a “surrogate” to give birth to the children, who are not related to Lewis. When Lewis was 66 years old, the set of twins was born to the “surrogate.” (RELATED: Designer Babies and a Brave New Biopolitics) Lewis went on to find herself in a host of legal trouble for the birth of the twins because she had forged her husband’s signature and impersonated him in a court hearing in order to impregnate the “surrogate” with them. The twins have been in foster care for the past two years, during which time the nearly 70-year-old Lewis has been engaged in a custody battle to become their legal parent. And now, according to the New York Times, it appears she is on the cusp of winning legal custody, even though it would mean separating the children from the couple in their 30s who have raised them since birth. This, of course, is the reality of IVF. Anyone can purchase a child. That was made clear earlier this year when a convicted sex offender who has committed sex crimes against children paid a “surrogate” to give birth to a child for him. (RELATED: Pedophiles Are Buying Children. Does Surrogacy Deserve More Scrutiny?) It would seem obvious that no 67-year-old should be able to purchase a child (let alone that anyone should be able to buy a child). Alas, the IVF and surrogacy industries are in the business of catering to exactly what adults want, all for the sake of money. Whether the children are going to live with a good family (that is often unrelated to them) or whether the children’s “parents” will even live to see them turn 18 is of no concern to them. (RELATED: Eugenics: The Dark Side of IVF) Unfortunately, MaryBeth Lewis’s case is not an isolated incident. In 2023, 1,200 American women in their 50s gave birth to a baby. Statistics aren’t published beyond the 50-54 age bracket. That is extremely dangerous to the mother and the baby. Women who use IVF later in life with “donated” eggs face a greater risk of “pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia, preterm birth, low birth weight, twin pregnancy, and prolonged labor requiring cesarean section.” Maternal death, early neonatal death, placental adherence with severe hemorrhage, and severe hypertensive morbidities are also linked to higher maternal age in women who give birth to children created with “donated” eggs (aka to children who are not their own). Hence, it makes sense that doctors said Lewis very nearly died when she gave birth to twins at age 49. Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth is just one example of someone who has taken on this risk. At age 50, she gave birth to a girl, Maile Pearl. Likewise, photographer Annie Leibovitz gave birth at age 52. Martin Scorsese’s wife, Helen Morris, gave birth at 52. And Singer Janet Jackson gave birth at age 50. If MaryBeth Lewis gets custody of the two children who are not related to her, she plans to make them take on new names of her choosing, despite the fact that they already answer to their current names. That is just a small example of how the whole IVF-surrogacy complex is about making adults satisfied, without regard for the well-being of children. READ MORE: Embryos Don’t Belong in Jewelry Eugenics: The Dark Side of IVF Surrogacy Scandal Puts 21 Children and Infants in Danger

WASHINGTON — Six elected beltway Democrats with backgrounds in the military or intelligence are stirring the pot with a video in which they tell viewers, “This administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.” Then they tell the troops and spooks, in the words of one of the six, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.” You’ve heard of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here’s another term: Trump Exhaustion Syndrome. Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Penn., went further when he added, “You must refuse illegal orders.” Scary. There has been far too much political violence in this country over the last half-decade. I refer to — short-list version here — the 2020 riots that followed George Floyd’s death at the hands of police, the Jan. 6, 2021, violent stampede through the Capitol as supporters protested now-President Donald Trump’s 2020 loss, two failed assassination attempts on Trump, the firebombing of the residence of Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and the senseless slaying of conservative Charlie Kirk. Rather than calling for a calming of the waters, however, the six Democrats are turning up the gas burners. With a wink and an assist from social media, their campaign tells U.S. troops and spooks that they don’t have to heed Trump’s commands. The 2025 Democrat idea of national security: rules optional. “The truly troubling part of the video is no illegal order is mentioned. Instead, there are just implications and fabrications. It’s also concerning that these elected officials don’t understand that ALL military actions are scrubbed by Judge Advocates at the highest levels,” former U.S. attorney and Newsmax legal analyst Jay Town responded on X. So what is said in the video is literally nothing. However, what they imply is license for uninformed service members to question orders without any fulsome understanding of the law or the facts supporting the orders. That’s incredibly dangerous and could lead to courts martial of those who disobey what are LAWFUL ORDERS! “If this were Republican members of Congress who were encouraging members of the military and members of our United States government to defy orders from the president and from the chain of command, this entire room would be up in arms,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the briefing room Thursday. “But instead it is the other way around, and I think that’s quite telling.” It is quite telling. The worst part: The six Dems won’t say which “illegal orders” they think troops should feel free to disobey or why in the wide world they felt a need to act now. So the video is an empty stunt. “I think they’re trying to get inside Trump’s head,” Democrat politico and commentator Dan Turrentine offered on 2WAY’s The Morning Meeting Friday morning. The gambit succeeded spectacularly — and painfully for many of us — when Trump took to social media to vent. “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR punishable by DEATH!” the commander in chief responded on Truth Social. Later, Leavitt assured the press that Trump does not propose killing D.C. Democrats. As Trump’s first year back in office comes to a close, his unpresidential, over-the-top rants are getting old. These empty puerile threats diminish his considerable accomplishments, and, well, hurt Trump’s chances of winning a Nobel Peace Prize. “I’m not threatening death, but I think they are in serious trouble,” Trump told The Brian Kilmeade Radio Show Friday. “In the old days, it was death.” You’ve heard of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here’s another term: Trump Exhaustion Syndrome. A rump of Democrats decided to bring on an episode of said syndrome — and they don’t care what they do to national security to score that little point. READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: The Bonfire of the Academies Burisma, Meet Your Brother Binance Democrats’ Latest Epstein Play Falls Apart Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS  

A disturbing pattern has emerged in contemporary Jewish political behavior. According to exit polls, approximately one-third of Jewish voters in New York City supported Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist candidate who has been vocally critical of Israel and reluctant to condemn Hamas terrorism. Survey data indicates that 16 percent of U.S. Jewish adults believe Hamas’s reasons for fighting Israel are valid. Reports suggest that roughly 12 percent of Jewish students at Columbia participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests. Multiple Jewish organizations including Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, Neturei Karta, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, Jewdas, and Independent Jewish Voices have positioned themselves in opposition to Israel. Even segments of the Reform Jewish movement have adopted positions sympathetic to Israel’s critics. They may not understand that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Iranian regime explicitly seek their destruction. This phenomenon is remarkable. It rivals “Queers for Palestine” in its apparent contradiction, a coalition that ignores Hamas’s brutal treatment of LGBTQ individuals in Gaza. The comparison is not hyperbolic. Both represent groups supporting movements that would, by their own stated principles, oppose or harm them. Consider the absence of analogous behavior in other communities. One does not find undocumented immigrants cheering for ICE enforcement operations. It would be extraordinary to discover black Americans seeking membership in the Ku Klux Klan. During the Troubles, Irish Americans did not celebrate British policy in Northern Ireland. No descendant of the Aztecs sends charitable contributions to foundations honoring the Conquistadores. Why, then, do a significant minority of Jews adopt political positions that appear contrary to their community’s interests and even survival? We propose six hypotheses to explain this phenomenon. Hypothesis One: Secular Jews Are Committed to Liberalism, Not Judaism Most of these Jews are no longer Jewish in any lived sense, but liberals/leftists. Liberalism, and especially civil rights activism was, in effect, an accommodation secular Jews made with American life, a way to shed their ethnicity without reverting to religious orthodoxy. They largely retained their “Jewish” identities because doing so carried no penalty in America and even provided a certain aura of distinctiveness. Now liberalism, having shifted from equal rights to racial identity have turned on them, and they are just “white,” exploiting all of the privileges accruing thereto. As Jacob Savage wrote recently in Tablet, “American liberalism, our civic religion, has turned on us.” When the choice is forced upon them, they’re commitment is to liberalism, not Jewishness. Hypothesis Two: Lack of Information Perhaps these Jews simply lack awareness of the positions and goals of the movements they support. They may not have read the original Hamas covenant, which states: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'” They may not understand that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Iranian regime explicitly seek their destruction. We find this explanation insufficient. Jewish Americans are, as a demographic group, fairly well-educated and informed. They are disproportionately represented among professionals, academics, inventors, and intellectuals. The Ashkenazi Jewish population consistently scores among the highest on standardized measures of cognitive ability. It strains credulity to suggest that such a well-informed community simply fails to understand the positions of the groups they support. Hypothesis Three: The Influence of Progressive Academia Paradoxically, the high educational achievement of American Jews may contribute to their political positions. Jews are overrepresented not only among college graduates but among those with advanced degrees. And American academia, particularly at elite institutions, has become increasingly hostile to Israel. The professoriate at major universities leans heavily toward progressive and leftist ideologies. Few major universities could pass what might be called the “ideological diversity test“: finding even 10 (not 10 percent, but 10 individuals) faculty members who identify as conservative or libertarian. This ideological monoculture has embraced a framework that categorizes Israel as a colonialist oppressor state and Palestinians as an oppressed indigenous population. Through exposure to critical theory, postcolonial studies, and intersectionality frameworks, Jewish students and intellectuals have absorbed an analytical lens that casts Israel as the villain in the Middle East conflict. The concepts of affirmative action, DEI initiatives, and “decolonization” discourse have been applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ways that delegitimize Israel’s existence. Jews who have spent years in this intellectual environment may have internalized these frameworks even when they contradict their own community’s interests. Hypothesis Four: Universalist Ethics and Particularist Tensions Jewish intellectual tradition has long emphasized universal ethical principles, justice for all peoples, and skepticism of tribal loyalties. The prophetic tradition called for justice even when it contradicted immediate national interests. Tikkun olam, the imperative to repair the world, has been interpreted by many progressive Jews as requiring support for all oppressed peoples. This universalist ethical commitment can create a genuine tension. Some Jews believe that supporting Palestinian national aspirations, even while opposing Hamas, represents the consistent application of their values. They may distinguish between criticizing Israeli government policies and supporting Israel’s enemies, even if outside observers conflate the two positions. However, this explanation fails to account for Jews who explicitly support Hamas or march alongside those calling for Israel’s elimination. There is a difference between advocating for Palestinian rights and supporting organizations committed to Jewish genocide, (though those lines are now increasingly blurred). The line has been crossed when Jews join movements that celebrate October 7th or chant “from the river to the sea.” Hypothesis Five: A Modern Stockholm Syndrome Jews constitute approximately 0.2 percent of the world’s population. Throughout history, they have been expelled from host countries, subjected to pogroms, and faced systematic persecution. The Holocaust represents only the next most recent and systematic attempt at their annihilation. Even today, Israel faces more United Nations condemnations than all other countries combined. In 2022, the UN General Assembly passed 15 resolutions against Israel compared to 13 against all other nations. Numerous countries accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide. Antisemitism surges on both right and left. Jews face attacks on campuses, in North American and European cities, and online. The libertarian movement, once welcoming to Jewish intellectuals, now includes prominent voices that have turned against Israel and ostracized pro-Israel libertarians. In this environment of near-universal hostility, some Jews may experience something analogous to Stockholm Syndrome. Feeling besieged, isolated, and vulnerable, they identify with their accusers. By joining the chorus against Israel, they hope to be seen as “the good Jews,” distinct from those deserving of hatred. It is a survival strategy born of fear. Hypothesis Six: Anticipatory Appeasement This hypothesis extends the previous one. Some Jews may calculate that antisemitic violence is inevitable and prepare for it through political positioning. They reason that when Hamas supporters or others come calling, they can point to their political credentials: “I voted progressive. I supported Mamdani. I marched with Palestinians. I wore the keffiyeh at campus protests. I was among the Harvard students who condemned Israel on October 8, 2023, before the IDF even responded.” The implicit message: “I am one of the good ones. Pass over my door and find another Jew to attack.” This strategy has historical precedent. The Association of German National Jews (Verband nationaldeutscher Juden), founded in 1921, had between 3,000 and 10,000 members who believed they could accommodate themselves to the Nazi regime. In a 1934 manifesto, they wrote: “We have always held the well-being of the German people and the fatherland, to which we feel inextricably linked, above our own well-being. Thus, we greeted the results of January 1933, even though it has brought hardship for us personally.“ They believed that by demonstrating loyalty to Germany and distinguishing themselves from Eastern European Jews, they would be spared persecution. They were not. The organization was dissolved in November 1935, its founder was arrested by the Gestapo, and most members and their families were ultimately murdered in the Holocaust. A Pattern Without Precedent These six hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. The phenomenon of Jewish anti-Zionism likely stems from multiple, overlapping causes. The influence of progressive academia combines with universalist ethical commitments. The psychological pressure of isolation and hostility intensifies the temptation toward appeasement. What remains clear is that this political behavior is historically anomalous and potentially catastrophic. Jews supporting movements that explicitly call for their destruction represent a form of political self-sabotage without parallel in other communities. Whether driven by misguided political beliefs, miseducation, ideological commitment, psychological vulnerability, or calculated appeasement, the result is the same: Jews providing legitimacy and support to those who would destroy them. The question is not whether these Jews have the right to hold these positions. In free societies, they certainly do. The question is whether they understand the historical pattern they are repeating and the consequences that have always followed. READ MORE: Who Is to Blame for Civilian Deaths in Gaza? It’s Not Fair! Disproportionate Deaths in the Middle East When Seeing Race is Helpful

I’m looking for ways to win Sydney Sweeney over. I thought about sending her flowers, but that’s far too conventional. I looked into the price of a Times Square billboard, but these days any idiot advertises there. I wrote her a poem, but tossed it into the fireplace because it was unbearably corny; only I would try to rhyme love with fudge or glance with marzipan. In the romantic-era courtship manuals I collect, they insist the best way to woo a lady is by serenading her under her balcony. I’ve also considered the pragmatism of love — meaning, asking Jonathan Davino directly how he managed it — but I’m not sure he’d be willing to collaborate with me. Ex-boyfriends these days are strangely unwilling to play matchmaker for their ex-girlfriends. I read that, in ancient times, lovers showed their devotion by sending each other locks of hair. But I wouldn’t want Sydney thinking her secret admirer is a hairless cat. I suppose I could dedicate an entire column to her, inviting her on a date, but I tried that once with Jana Hocking and the result was catastrophic: her blatant indifference still stings. Anyway, I don’t want a date with you anymore, Jana; my eyes are only for Sydney now. Your time’s up. I’m sorry you missed your chance to meet the greatest sex symbol in national journalism — a pot-bellied sex symbol suffering alarming hair loss, but a sex symbol nonetheless. I hope you’re happy now with Charles Gasparino, Adam Brodsky, Douglas Murray, or whoever else writes for the Post. Back to my platonic love: in France and Italy, couples seal their affection by hanging padlocks on bridges. In Rome, they’ve had to reinforce more than one bridge to prevent them from collapsing under the weight of millions of locks. As a tribute to Sydney, I’ve hung a padlock with both our names on a pair of jeans — very original, I know — but I’m not sure it’s enough to conquer the heart of the beautiful actress. In the romantic-era courtship manuals I collect, they insist the best way to woo a lady is by serenading her under her balcony. I’ve tried it at her mansion in Summerland Key, but unless her security team opens the damn gate, I’ll need a sound system like the Rolling Stones use on tour just so she can faintly hear me from her bedroom — roughly three hundred million miles away from the estate’s entrance. I could compose and record a song in her honor, but I’m trying to win her heart, not convince her to hire a team of hitmen to kill me. I saw a TikToker perform a strange ritual to attract Brad Pitt: she put a piece of paper with his name on it inside a jar of honey. Even though my Christianity keeps me from believing in silly superstitions, I tried it with Sydney. She didn’t show up, obviously, but ants from the entire neighborhood did, because I forgot to close the jar. I also put a small cardboard picture of her in my pocket, pierced by ten needles bearing my name, following an ancient ritual of the Gugu-gugu tribe. I don’t know whether she received any omens in her dreams, but I do know it’s very dangerous to sit down when you’re carrying ten needles in your pocket. The worst part was explaining the source of my testicular pain to the doctor. She looked at me, very seriously, and said: “Stabbing your testicles doesn’t seem like the best way to start a romantic relationship.” Thank you, doctor. I hadn’t thought of that. I’m starting to lose faith in this love story. Maybe we should call it quits, Sydney. But every time I see her on television or read something she says, I fall in love all over again. I suppose you think it’s because of her obvious physical beauty — and yes, that plays a role. But what truly excites me is when Katherine Stoeffel tries to lecture her on moral superiority in GQ, urging her to retract her jeans commercial, and Sydney looks at her with that sweetness that can split you in two and tells wokeism to go to hell in the most elegant, sensual way we’ve ever seen: “I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.” Let’s admit it took a lot of work to tear down the wall of woke darkness that haunted us for years, but now we live in times of genuine beauty and happiness. Besides, I can’t imagine any way of being a man in this world without being profoundly in love with Sydney Sweeney. And that’s all for today — I’m off to stalk her for a while, to see if I can decipher some secret wink in which she confesses her love for me. Or at least her sense of humor. READ MORE from Itxu Diaz: How Much More Attention Span Do We Have Left to Lose? Today’s Teens: The Generation We’ve Totally Annoyed Bill Gates Has Discovered Something More Profitable Than the Climate Apocalypse

Have you ever interrupted some axe-grinder mid-rant by asking “Who is the ‘they’”? The latest in editorial pandemics  brings up the question: “Who is we?” All over the e-zines and some print media, readers are hit with titles beginning “what we get wrong about …. “ — you name it. Taking the bait won’t pay off in any enlightening revelations. Clicking onto one about Davey Crockett and the Alamo revealed the very same facts I got out of Robert Penn Warren’s “Remember the Alamo” in 5th grade. It was published in 1958. What they misunderstand is that dangerous felons only understand overwhelming physical subjugation. Stale facts are bad enough. This literary affliction gets worse as it moves up the food chain. In the case covered here, an expert explains to the laity that deadly violence is one big misunderstanding. Zohran Mamdami called The New Yorker “The greatest magazine in the world” recently. If he could hold that larcenous streak down to only stealing lines, the city might have a chance. Does the mayor-elect know that the original editor of the periodical, Harold Ross, beat him to it by nearly a century? Of course, Zo and Harold could mean two different things. Ross said it when the weekly was owned by yeast fortune heir Raoul Fleischmann. In the clutches of Conde-Nast, Eustace Tilley is taking on the look of Alfred E. Neuman stripped of the wit. Sounding like a school-marmy noodge without a clue is a fate that would worry Alfred E. himself. What We Get Wrong About … The once revered non-fiction force, Malcolm Gladwell, pulled the cord on the brainiac bus with: “What We Get Wrong About Violent Crime.” Gladwell focuses on the fatal shooting of Jeremy Brown in Chicago’s south side June 2023. A woman named Carlishia Hood, Brown found, was taking too long ordering her burgers at Maxwell Street Express. Jeremy, whose local nom-de-guerre was “the Knock-Out King,” went off on the lady. When she answered back defiantly, the soon-to-be victim started landing blows on her. The King was busy meting out his discipline when Hood’s 14-year-old son unleashed the leaden brand of retribution at 750-feet-per-second. Anybody who wasn’t raised Mennonite, like Gladwell, might have found this end inevitable for a guy with no qualms about publicly pummeling a woman in south Chicago. What “we” don’t get, Malcolm patiently explains, is that this is an example of “System 1 thinking.” The term comes from a high-brow breakdown of violent interaction by University of Chicago Economics professor Jens Ludwig in the book “Unforgiving Places.” Put simply, in momentary heat people do less thinking and that’s when they hurt people. And, when you’ve got a system going on, can it really be their fault? You see Brown, “made an immediate egocentric assumption: if he knew that special orders were a norm violation, then Hood must know, too. “Given that System 1 assumption,” Ludwig explains, “from there it is natural that Brown believed the person in front of him was deliberately holding things up.” Alas, if Maxwell Street had adopted the jingle — “Special orders do upset us” — a life might have been saved. Speaking of “assumptions,” how “natural” is it to assume beating someone — even a man — to a pulp for being a slowpoke, is anything less than criminal pathology? Gladwell thinks: “Neither Jeremy Brown nor Hood’s son was evil.” Did Brown’s nickname mean anything to this author? Did he think the dead man had spent time in the ring? We — oops — have all considered throttling nuisance customers ahead of us in line. Anyone who actually assaults human speed-bumps while enduring this kind of frustration needs caging. Decent people rarely even say anything. If you don’t believe the ivory tower has risen to oxygen deprived heights, listen to this: Ludwig argues that this is what most homicide looks like. Much of what gets labelled [sic] gang violence, he says, is really just conflict between individuals who happen to be in gangs. We misread these events because we insist on naming the affiliations of the combatants. Imagine, he suggests, if we did this for everyone: ‘This morning by Buckingham Fountain, a financial analyst at Morningstar killed a mechanic for United Airlines.’ Naturally you’d think the place of employment must be relevant to understanding of the shooting, otherwise why mention it at all?’” If Ludwig pulled his head from the clouds and read a newspaper once in a while, he’d know they do mention it. Physicians, like Sam Sheppard and Jeffrey MacDonald, got rivers more ink than any Mafioso who was caught. We expect gangsters to maim and kill. When people from the mainstream establishment do it, it’s far more of a circulation boost. Does this academic, director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, have any idea why gangs even exist in the first place? Is it just a ritualistic way to make bromance and male bonding more meaningful? The cultural distance between Rhein-Main, were Ludwig comes from, and the U.S. generally is further than miles or kilometers can describe. Before reading this, who knew that the war in Ukraine is really just a conflict between people who happen to be in countries? Whatever you think of Gladwell’s treatment, it’s hard to beat the comic relief. At one point the article maintains the incident might have been averted by calming talk. Maybe, if the one doing the talking looked formidable to Jeremy Brown. At another, we hear that without the gun on hand deadly bloodshed would have resulted in fisticuffs. Sure, a 14-year-old boy up against The Knock-Out King is a fair match to a Neumanized Eustace Tilley. The gun was probably procured because Brown’s type was not uncommon enough in the neighborhood. The article suggests environmental improvements and maintenance can help cut down on the body count. Possibly, but that is small comfort when confronted by people with codes of honor and decorum that senselessly threaten other people’s safety. Society can only be protected from subjects prone to wanton violence by the presence of capable authority. Brown doubtless slipped through cracks many times before a kid settled things. A man capable of delivering a full force punch, or even a pulled one, on a woman over such a trifle did not belong on any street. Ludwig cites FBI stats that “concluded that only 23 per cent of all murders [over 20 years] were instrumental.” By “instrumental” he means planned, so-called rational murders. “77 per cent … were some form of expressive violence.” Culture, of course, colors most expression. The toleration in certain cultures of everyday rage and casual physical altercations, has no threshold. Culture Matters When hollering at strangers is a norm and abandoning civil discourse is condoned, human interaction is apt to become amped up, rowdy and hostile. In such environments, some individuals will draw their own lines of appropriate behavior. Dismissing breaches of civility as “culture” is what is putting people in the ground. In the 2012 Trayvon Martin incident CNN reported: Zimmerman said he was heading back to the vehicle when Martin jumped out, asking him, “What the f***’s your problem?” He said he told Martin, “I don’t have a problem,” but the youth replied, “Now you have a problem,” and attacked him. He said he fell backward after being punched in the nose, and “he was whaling on my head.” A woman writing for Slate found this exchange “implausible.” It’d be interesting to find out how many fights she had seen or been in. It sounds exactly like things I’ve heard before fists flew, more than once. It would be shameful to assail Gladwell for coming out of a decorously peace-loving background. But it hardly qualifies him to write with such certainty about violence. In 1939 after the invasion of Poland, Senator William Borah (R-Idaho) said: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler — all this might have been averted.” Gladwell and Ludwig believe if they could only fine tune social engineering, maniacal bullies will be pacified. What they misunderstand is that dangerous felons only understand overwhelming physical subjugation. Handcuffs, hands on cops, a few years behind iron bars, and a no nonsense judge would have vastly improved Brown’s chances of long-term survival. READ MORE from Tim Hartnett: Trashing the Culture Remember the College Treachery A Tale of Two Films  

Okay this is absolutely wild. In all my years of reporting I have never heard of this happening. A football player at the University of Alabama at Birmingham allegedly stabbed two of his teammates shortly before the Blazers were set to hit the gridiron. BREAKING: UAB Football Player Daniel Mincey Stabs Two Teammates in Training Facility Hours Before Their Game Against South Florida Today pic.twitter.com/bbkpFbuLnd — TaraBull (@TaraBull) November 22, 2025 AP broke the story and reported more details on the stabbing: The two wounded players were in stable condition, interim head coach Alex Mortensen said at the postgame news conference. He added that the team decided to play to honor graduating seniors in the last home game of the season, though several players understandably opted to sit it out due to the incident. The teammate suspected in the stabbing was in custody, the university said. The school did not release the names of the players involved. Daniel Mincey, an offensive lineman who transferred to the school in May, was arrested and booked on charges of aggravated assault and attempted murder in the afternoon, according to Jefferson County Jail records. He was in custody in Birmingham and appeared to be the only UAB player who was arrested Saturday. It was not immediately clear if Mincey had legal representation. Attempts to reach family members for comment were not immediately successful. Here’s the mugshot: Daniel Mincey, a 20-year-old, 6’3″, 315 lb. redshirt freshman offensive lineman, has been arrested for aggravated assault / attempted murder and is currently in the local county jail after allegedly stabbing two teammates this morning at a UAB athletic facility.Here’s Mincey’s… https://t.co/kzhCIfcTUn pic.twitter.com/nHG58QhPXx — michael j. babcock (@mikejbabcock) November 22, 2025 ESPN reported more details on Mincey and reported on the final results of UAB’s game against the University of Southern Florida: The team’s online roster lists Mincey as a 6-foot-4 redshirt freshman from Pompano Beach, Florida, who was previously at the University of Kentucky. Mortensen said that once the team decided to play, the Blazers focused on their normal game-day routines. He also said counseling was being made available for players who want it. The coach declined to share further details about the incident, citing the ongoing investigation. The stabbing occurred on campus at the Football Operations Building. The Blazers lost 48-18 to USF to fall to 3-8 this season and 1-6 in the American Conference. Their last game is Nov. 29 at Tulsa.

It’s been quite a hectic month for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Last week the Representative from Georgia made national headlines after President Trump announced he was withdrawing his endorsement from her. Just days after Trump axed his endorsement, Greene announced she would be resigning from Congress at the beginning of next year. The move shocked many of her supporters due to the fact it was so sudden. Following Greene’s announcement that she was resigning from office, Time reported Greene’s sudden move may be linked to her running for president in 2028, per Time: Marjorie Taylor Greene is leaving Congress, but that may not be the end of her political ambitions. The Georgia lawmaker has privately told allies that she has considered running for president in 2028, according to two people who have spoken with her directly about the prospect and three others familiar with her thinking. The possibility comes amid the dramatic rupture in Greene’s relationship with President Donald Trump, which contributed to her decision to announce on Friday that she would resign from the House of Representatives in January. Greene did not respond to multiple calls and text messages seeking comment. A spokesperson for the congresswoman also did not reply to multiple requests for comment. NOTUS previously reported that Greene was telling people she wanted to run for president. A hard-right firebrand who built her name as one of Trump’s fiercest defenders, Greene has become an unexpected critic of the President in recent months. She has challenged Trump’s insistence that costs are falling, criticized his handling of the U.S.–Israel relationship, and, most provocatively, pushed him to force the Justice Department to release the Epstein files over his initial objections. Trump responded by calling Greene a “traitor” and publicly disowning her. “I am withdrawing my support and Endorsement of ‘Congresswoman’ Marjorie Taylor Greene, of the Great State of Georgia,” he wrote on Truth Social. “I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support.” If Greene ultimately decides to run for president, House GOP members familiar with her thinking say they suspect she could play a role akin to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2024: a candidate capable of siphoning off votes from the GOP nominee, positioning her to leverage that political capital into a possible role within a future Republican administration. In response to Time’s report, MTG’s daughter Lauren Greene said the report was a lie. Take a look: This is a lie. https://t.co/wNpnvzQDIe — Lauren Greene (@LaurennGreeneS) November 22, 2025 AP reported more on MTG’s sudden resignation: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a loyal supporter-turned-critic of President Donald Trump who faced his political retribution if she sought reelection, said Friday she is resigning from Congress in January. Greene, in a more than 10-minute video posted online, explained her decision and said she didn’t want her congressional district “to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the president we all fought for,” she said. Greene’s resignation followed a public falling-out with Trump in recent months, as the congresswoman criticized him for his stance on files related to Jeffrey Epstein, along with foreign policy and health care. Trump branded her a “traitor” and “wacky” and said he would endorse a challenger against her when she ran for reelection next year. She said her last day would be Jan. 5, 2026.

Okay, Donald Trump Jr. has some explaining to do… A recent video of Donald Trump Jr. kissing the feet of an idol in India has gone viral on X. In a video posted by CNBC-TV18, Donald Trump Jr. is seen entering the Ganpati Temple in India and proceeding to kiss the feet of an Indian idol. His new girlfriend was also seen kissing the idol’s feet. Watch the moment it happened here: US President Donald Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr visited Vantara in Jamnagar. Accompanied by Anant Ambani, he toured the facility & offered prayers at the Ganpati Temple inside the premises Trump Jr had earlier visited the Taj Mahal in Agra#DonaldTrump #Trump #TrumpJr… pic.twitter.com/VSa1dAn9HM — CNBC-TV18 (@CNBCTV18News) November 21, 2025 Here’s how users on X reacted: MAGA is going to go into a mental breakdown https://t.co/0Gufs9cxho pic.twitter.com/tipshP3ybq — Sidharth (@Cloudwatch199) November 21, 2025 Don Jr. offering alms and prayers to the famous H-1B statue in India on behalf of his orange father https://t.co/xV30VKngRi — Starbage (@TGP144) November 21, 2025 NDTV explained why Donald Trump Jr. was in India in the first place: Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend, Bettina Anderson, shook a leg to the beats of a Bollywood song at a grand wedding in Udaipur. The occasion was the sangeet ceremony of Netra Mantena, the daughter of US billionaire Padmaja and Rama Raju Mantena, and Vamsi Gadiraju, co-founder and CTO of Superorder, in the city of lakes. The three-day star-studded festivities kicked off on Friday (November 21). The sangeet, hosted by Karan Johar, was a night to remember, with performances by top Bollywood stars, including Ranveer Singh, Shahid Kapoor, Kriti Sanon, and Varun Dhawan. But it was one moment that truly took the spotlight – Ranveer Singh getting Trump Jr. and Anderson to groove to his hit number “What Jhumka?” from Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahaani. The guests went wild as the actor playfully pulled them onto the stage. The video of the impromptu dance, which has now gone viral on social media, shows Trump Jr. and Anderson dancing together before Ranveer made them dance to the Hindi song. Bettina looked stunning in a gold lehenga-choli, while Ranveer shone in a black formal suit. He also got everyone on stage to dance to Simmba’s song “Aankh Maare” and entertained the guests by singing Gully Boy’s “Apna Time Aayega”. Honestly this was a bad look for Don Jr. What do you think about it? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below!