Friday, June 21, 2019

The History of the Israeli Community of Ramat Trump - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

War, peace and thousands of years of history.

At an elevation of over 2,000 feet, the road to Ramat Trump or Trump Heights at times appears to be climbing into the sky. The Golan Heights with its scrub and brush, the vast Mediterranean vistas, nature reserves and artsy cottages, interrupted by secluded villages with more livestock than people, could easily be mistaken for some rural part of California. But occasionally there is the distant sound of artillery or the sonic booms of Israeli or Russian jets reminding everyone that this is a war zone.

On the other side of the wineries and ranches isn’t California, but a murderous struggle between Sunni and Shiite Islamic terrorists battling each other and themselves for control of Syria. Factions on the other side include Iran, Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood. Ever since Trump won, the struggle has been dying down. ISIS has mostly been crushed. But the cows up here can’t count on the quiet.

The announcement that Israel would be naming a town after Trump, in appreciation of his recognition of the Golan Heights, was met with jeers and media cries that it would be an “illegal settlement”.

There’s plenty of history behind dismissing the notion of “illegal settlements” on land where Jews had lived for thousands of years. Ramat Trump will be under the authority of the Golan Regional Council based out of Katzrin, a Jewish village with an ancient synagogue dating back to at least the 4th century built by refugees fleeing the might of Rome, only for it and other small Jewish villages built on the Heights to encounter the Islamic invaders claiming the land not for the emperor, but for the caliph.

On the Syrian side, there are still jihadis hoping to invade and claim the land for another caliph.

The Democrats, activists and media hacks who condemned President Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights and who denounce Ramat Trump as an “Israeli settlement” haven’t explained what they want to see done with it. Do they want to turn it over to the Sunni or Shiite jihadists? To ISIS or to Iran?

The calm waters and scattered stones, the massive clouds slowly drifting across the sky and the breeze rich with the smell of growing things, belie the many battles that have been fought here.

And may be fought yet again.

After the next Israeli election, Trump Heights will slowly come into being near the community of Kela Alon named after the oaks that thrive here and which were referenced by the prophets in biblical times. A more recent landmark is Petroleum Road, the remnants of a pipeline which once ran from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon. The pipeline and the road have long since become defunct. One day archeologists will dig them up to unearth their secrets. But for now, Petroleum Road has another secret to tell.

On Yom Kippur, the holiest day of Judaism, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on the Jewish State. Some of the bloodiest battles for survival were fought here as a handful of Israelis held out against overwhelming odds.

On Petroleum Road, Lieutenant Zvika Greengold, 21, with one tank, held off an entire Syrian armored division. Greengold, who had been born in a kibbutz named after the ghetto fighters, destroyed 60 tanks in 30 hours of fighting. His tank was knocked out, his uniform caught on fire, but he never gave up.

Highway 98, off Petroleum Road, leads to the Valley of Tears. That’s the memorial for the Israeli soldiers who fought and died when 175 Israeli tanks stood against 700 Syrian tanks. Highway 98 isn’t just a road. The location was one of the objectives of the battle that left hundreds of enemy tanks in ruins.

Such lopsided battles defined the struggle for the Heights with outnumbered and overwhelmed Israeli forces building temporary walls out of enemy armor while waiting and praying for reinforcements.

The bloody lessons of those days have settled the question of the Golan Heights for virtually all Israelis.

The commanding heights that allowed Israeli forces to survive, to win battles by holding the line and preventing superior enemy forces from breaking through gaps, cannot be surrendered at any price.

You might as well have asked the 300 Spartans to surrender the Hot Gates to the Persians as to demand that the Israelis turn over the Kuneitra Gap and its lava beds to Iran’s proxies in Syria.

It’s been a long time since 1973. Old heroes have gone to their resting place. But the war waits.

Aside from the visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Ambassador Friedman to dedicate Ramat Trump, the area is quiet. The new community will rise out of an older community of Bruchim or Welcome. The symbolism is significant because when Bruchim village was pioneered back in the 90s, a furious Secretary of State James Baker had blasted Israel’s “provocative” actions in creating a “settlement”.

Three decades later, the few Soviet Jewish refugees who found welcome in these heights live quietly and provoke no one. Baker’s efforts at Israeli-Syrian peace talks not only failed, but were irrelevant. Syria, like much of the rest of the region, is not a country or a people, it’s a dictatorship welding together different peoples and tribes who would fight for dominance and independence any chance they get.

A deal with the Assad family is as hollow and meaningless as one signed with a drug cartel or Hamas.

President Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights disavows the fantasy foreign policy of both Bush administrations and of the Obama administration. Trump is a realist and how better to honor him than to recognize the reality on the ground. That’s the message that dedicating Trump Heights sends. 

Israelis have brought American diplomats and politicians to the Golan Heights for generations to show them how vulnerable the country is. They all nodded their heads as if they understood. But none did.

Trump Heights is named after the only man in the White House who understood how important it is.

James Baker III had represented generations of the old Republican foreign establishment. His protégé, Condoleezza Rice had carried on his work under Bush II. But Baker’s closest equivalent in the Trump era, Rex Tillerson, another oil company man, was gone and replaced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Pompeo is a realist not given to fantasy diplomacy, ambitious regional solutions or wishful thinking.

The old Arabist anti-Israel alliances have fractured and some of the Sunni Muslim oil powers would rather that Israel hold the Golan Heights than that Iran add another strategic region to its empire.

Trump Heights will not be a booming hub of commerce and technology. The Golan Heights are remote and not suited for huge bustling crowds. With 110 housing units planned, Ramat Trump will probably have fewer residents than most Trump hotels. Traffic will be light. And likely limited to tourists and artists staying for a while in the nearby cottages of Matsok Orvim or the Cliff of Crows.

But the vistas and the history here are too overwhelming for big buildings and shopping malls.

The Israelis who live in Trump Heights will not be wealthy. They will have few luxuries. But they will be determined. All Israelis live in a war zone. But some do more than others. All Israelis live close to heaven. But some heights are closer than others. The unyielding patience of history has formed the rock and dust here. And some of that quiet determination has made its mark on the land and the people.

The Heights are crowded with thousands of years of history, with the sounds of falling shells and screaming men, but also with a vastness of sky and earth that open the human heart to wonder. There are strange megalithic monuments that have never been explained, unexpected springs bounding from the earth, and massive waterfalls. And in the air is that intangible taste of a timeless eternity.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

U.S. drone shot down by Iranian surface-to-air missile, official confirms - Reuters

by Reuters

"It was shot down when it entered Iran's airspace near the Kouhmobarak district in the south," the Guards' website added.

DUBAI/WASHINGTON - Iran on Thursday shot down a U.S. military drone that it said was flying over one of its southern provinces on the Gulf, increasing fears of military conflict as Washington seeks to isolate Tehran over its nuclear and regional activities.

A U.S. official said the drone was a U.S. Navy MQ-4C Triton and that it had been shot down in international air space over the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a third of the world's seaborne oil exits the Gulf.

A Revolutionary Guards statement said the drone's identification transponder had been switched off "in violation of aviation rules and was moving in full secrecy" when it was downed, Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported.

Sepah News, the website of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), said the "spy" drone was brought down over the southern Iranian province of Hormozgan, which is on the Gulf.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned what it called a violation of Iranian air space by the drone and warned of the consequences of such "illegal and provocative" measures.

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards, warned against any aggression and said the drone's downing carried a "clear message" to Iran's arch-enemy.

"Our air space is our red line and Iran has always responded and will continue to respond strongly to any country that violates our air space," Ali Shamkhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, told Iran's Tasnim news agency.

The MQ-4C Triton's manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, says on its website that the Triton can fly for over 24 hours at a time at altitudes higher than 10 miles (16 km), with an operational range of 8,200 nautical miles.

It was the latest in an escalating spate of incidents in the Gulf region, a critical artery for global oil supplies, since mid-May including explosive strikes on six oil tankers as Tehran and Washington have slid towards confrontation.

Iran has denied involvement in any of the attacks, but global jitters about the risk of a wider Middle East war disrupting oil exports have triggered a jump in crude prices. They surged by more than $3 to above $63 a barrel on Thursday.

Tensions flared with the U.S. pullout last year from world powers' 2015 nuclear accord with Iran and have worsened as Washington imposed fresh sanctions to throttle Tehran's vital oil trade and Iran retaliated earlier this week with a threat to breach limits on its nuclear activities imposed by the deal.

Upping the ante, Washington said on Monday it would deploy about 1,000 more troops, along with Patriot missiles and manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft, to the Middle East on top of a 1,500-troop increase announced after the May tanker attacks.

The U.S. sanctions net draped over Iran, designed to reduce its lifeblood oil exports to zero and sever it from the dollar-dominated global financial system, have wrought severe damage to Iran's economy.

U.S. President Donald Trump has dispatched forces including aircraft carriers, B-52 bombers and troops to the Middle East over the past few weeks. Iran said last week that it was responsible for the security of the Strait of Hormuz, calling on American forces to leave the Gulf.

Tehran has also said it will suspend compliance with the nuclear deal's curbs on its uranium enrichment, meant to block any pathway to nuclear weapons capability, and threatened to disrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's clerical rulers have rejected as "warmongering" allegations by the United States and its regional ally Saudi Arabia that Tehran was behind the tanker attacks.

But Trump and Iran's top authority, Shi'ite clerical Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have both said they have no interest in starting a war.

Heightened tension between Iran and the United States have fanned fears of increasing conflict in countries where Iran and its Gulf Arab regional rivals have been locked in proxy battles for predominance in the Middle East.

Trump says the 2015 nuclear accord signed by his predecessor Barack Obama did not do enough to curb Iranian interventions in other Middle East affairs or curb its ballistic missile program.

The Islamic Republic says its development of ballistic missiles and its regional activities are defensive in nature.

Tehran said on Monday it would breach uranium enrichment limits in 10 days, but added that European signatories still had time to save the nuclear deal.

Iran has rejected Trump's call to enter talks covering nuclear, missile and other security disputes unless Washington returns to the 2015 deal that lifted global sanctions on Tehran.

Saudi Arabia has also accused Iran of supplying Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement with missiles and drones used in attacks on Saudi oil pumping stations in May and on a civilian Saudi airport earlier this month.

On Thursday, the Saudi-led coalition battling the Houthis in Yemen said a projectile landed near a desalination plant in the Saudi province of Jizan, after Houthi-run Masirah TV said the group had fired a missile at a power plant there.



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Battle lines are drawn as two cable networks skip Trump kickoff - Howard Kurtz

by Howard Kurtz

The media is now acting as the opposition party

When President Trump kicked off his reelection campaign in Orlando, two of the three cable news networks chose to blow it off.

MSNBC didn't air any of the speech, and CNN dumped out of it after a few brief minutes (just as Trump started bashing the press and the crowd chanted "CNN sucks"). Instead, they had their own pundits and prognosticators talk throughout the event and spent yesterday critiquing the speech that they decided not to share with viewers.

This is an important moment.

In passing up the speech (which was carried in its entirety by Fox), the networks were, intentionally or otherwise, making a statement. They were saying that what we have to say is more important than letting you hear from the leader of the free world as he makes his case for a second term.

That, in my view, plays into the old Steve Bannon charge about the media acting as the opposition party.

I'm not saying that the cable news channels need to air every Trump rally, even though Fox carries many of them. And the Orlando speech did turn out to be highly partisan, with the president ripping not just the media but the Mueller "witch hunt," "18 angry Democrats," "Crooked Hillary," and "radical" Democrats "driven by hatred, prejudice and rage." That's how he chose to frame his launch, with little about what he'd do in a second term.

So run the speech and then your anchors, reporters, commentators, and analysts can rip it any way they want. If it's important enough to cover on program after program, why isn't it important enough to air?

Can anyone imagine CNN and MSNBC not carrying Barack Obama's reelection launch? When he held his first official 2012 campaign rally in Columbus, they covered it, along with Fox.

When Hillary Clinton gave her 2015 kickoff speech on New York's Roosevelt Island — I was there and part of the coverage — Fox carried it live along with the other news channels.

(In a mirror-image move, South Carolina Democrats have barred CNN, Fox and even C-SPAN from covering this weekend's party convention, giving exclusive rights to MSNBC. This is a dumb move that will limit the exposure of the 21 presidential candidates who are slated to speak.)

The whole question of air time and balance is going to be a tricky one for television networks and the press as this campaign unfolds. That's because Trump's mighty media megaphone is such a powerful force — and a dilemma for the Democrats.

The Washington Post has just documented Trump's dominance: 

"Through the first five months of the year, Trump has received about three times as much Google search interest in the United States, on average, as all his Democratic rivals put together.

"He has been having about 75 percent more social media interactions on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram than his rivals combined since February. 

"And when it comes to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel, Trump was mentioned nearly twice as often as the 23 Democrats last month."

The Democrats, the paper says, are trying to figure out how to get higher ratings, even if they're not at Trumpian levels.

The highest-rated town hall — Bernie Sanders on Fox — drew over 2.5 million viewers. But that pales next to the 24 million who tuned into the first debate between Trump and other Republicans, also on Fox, back in August 2015.

During that campaign, according to a Harvard study cited by the Post, Trump drew 63 percent of the primary coverage in a field of 17 candidates, and 15 percent more than Hillary Clinton that fall. I said over and over during that campaign that even negative coverage benefits Trump because it means he's dominating the agenda.

Guy Cecil, chairman of an anti-Trump super PAC, is quoted as saying: "We have a culture that rewards the clown show at the expense of real issues." But that's been true for decades, and successful politicians adapt to the culture.

The current crop of 2020 Dems is doing plenty of interviews, but these are diluted by the sheer size of the field.

They will have one advantage in the coming months: the Democrats will be engaged in a race, with no contest on the GOP side. But they'll still be competing for ink and air time with an incumbent president who can make news at will.

Footnote: Donald Trump has called much of the media fake, dishonest and treasonous, but he was outdone in Orlando by his "spiritual adviser." 

Paula White said, during an opening prayer no less: "Let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus."

Do we really need this kind of demonizing, literally, in the name of religion?

Howard Kurtz


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Leftists Have Always Lied about Auschwitz - Danusha V. Goska

by Danusha V. Goska

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's rhetorical strategy descends from Stalin himself.

On Monday, June 17, and again on Tuesday, June 18, freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that the "authoritarian and fascist" Trump administration "has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying." "Concentration camps are an institutionalized practice in the home of the free … a presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist."

I was a teenager the first time I visited Auschwitz. I grew up with one foot in New Jersey, and with one foot, through my parents' heartfelt stories, songs, recipes and reminiscences, in Poland and Slovakia. I met anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet resisters, victims of torture and rape, all members of my own family, when I was fifteen. I sat around the table and watched my strong, resilient, subsistence farmer aunts' and uncles' faces melt with shame and terror as they recounted Nazi, and then Soviet, occupation. I watched my mother, a monument to strength and stoicism, cry when she heard, firsthand, of the fate of her beloved Jewish neighbor who had saved her from drowning in the River Nitra. She had long known he was among the millions. She had read of his fate in letters. Now back in her village for the first time since her departure as a child, she just couldn't take it when they told her to her face, as she stood in front of what used to be his home.

After the visit to Auschwitz, I met both survivors of the camp and Polish citizens who had hidden Jews in their homes. These rescuers radiated a quality I can't quite capture in words but I can say that sitting in front of them and listening to them speak was comparable, for me, to sitting in front of Yosemite's Half Dome. These Poles, senior citizens in Soviet-era rumpled clothing, who spoke few and humble words, not lush vocabulary out of any epic saga but rather monosyllabic words focused on how to dispose of human waste without detection or how to manage to cadge enough calories while living under a genocidal occupation, conveyed the aura of massive natural wonders. These rescuers' souls seemed to have outgrown their human flesh and have already transcended to the ageless, the mythic.

It's the hardest country I've ever visited, but I kept going back to Poland, both in the flesh and in my publications. Several people whose parents had been in concentration camps became part of my day-to-day life. Some of these children of camp survivors are Jews, some are Poles, and some are Ukrainian. Another close friend is the son of a Nazi soldier who fought in North Africa with Rommel as well as on the Eastern Front, winning two Iron Crosses. Please forgive what I am about to say. People whose parents were in concentration camps are not easy. There is a raft of symptoms that all these friends, including the son of the Nazi, display. Touchiness. Paranoia. Outrage. Tilting at windmills. Self-sabotage. A terrible loneliness that can never be slaked. I love these people, I owe them much, and my life would not be the same without them. But they are not easy people.

All the survivors, rescuers, witnesses and children of survivors I know care about the suffering of immigrants. They care because they were all immigrants, of one kind or another, themselves. They all know hunger, bruises, humiliations, frustrations, and exclusion. They all, also, know hope and working hard toward a better future for the next generation.

I grew up a child of immigrants, and, inevitably, I went on to be an immigrant myself, living and working in Africa, Asia, and Europe. I held my mother's hand as she died, seventy-two years after her forced migration to America, and I can say that she never got over the trauma of that passage. She told me about walking to school along railroad ties because the ties hurt her bare feet less than the gravel between the tracks. She was barefoot so the "cardboard" shoes she received from the "Poor Board" would not disintegrate in her walk to school. She told me about being beaten by a nun who spoke Slovak but wouldn't speak it to her because it was her job, as a child immigrant, to sink or swim. She told me about the first time she ate that most American of foods, peanut butter, out of a half empty jar encountered while foraging in a garbage dump.

"Get me a Hunky; I need a donkey," was the refrain my father heard when showing up to be selected to tunnel his child's body into the narrowest passages of coal mines. "Hunky" was the word for immigrants like him. Beatings? Discrimination? Abuse? Tuberculosis? Unjust incarceration? Yes, all of those were part of my father's life, before he turned fifteen. Death? He witnessed death. His own father's death. I won't tell that story here; it's too hard, and it belongs to my cousins as well as to me, and I don't want to violate their memories. Let's just say that things were so bad, and his family was so hungry, that he joined the Army under someone else's papers when he was still underage. He fought in the Philippines and New Guinea and insisted that America was "the greatest country in the world."

So, yes, those of us familiar, even though handed-down stories from our elders about the Nazis, are also familiar with the burdens of immigration. This much we know. A decent person does not steal the vocabulary of one horror to discuss the discomforts and inconveniences, or even the heartbreaks and tragedies, of the other. As horrific as the black lung, the police chases, the incarceration, and the death all were, they were not those horrors as lived in Auschwitz, which was an experience so cursed you don't use the same vocabulary when speaking of the one about the other. You just do not do that.  

The term "concentration camp" existed before the Holocaust, and pre-Holocaust governments have set up what were called, at the time, concentration camps. During the 1899-1902 Boer War between Boers, or Dutch-speaking South Africans and the British Empire, the Empire drove Boers into concentration camps. Approximately 28,000 Boers, that is 25%, of Boers in these camps, and 10% of the overall Boer population, died of hunger and disease. Twenty thousand black South Africans also died.

No one objects to the use of the term "concentration camp" for discussion of the Boer War, or other pre-Holocaust atrocities. Why, then, do we express such revulsion when Ocasio-Cortez claims "concentration camp" to discuss facilities to house illegal immigrants?

The answer is obvious. The answer is history. In the same way that the word "apple" is heard differently in the post-Steve-Jobs world, the term "concentration camp" is heard differently in the post-Auschwitz world. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And to pretend otherwise is to camouflage a very real leftist agenda.

The left itself has a doctrine that should, if followed, obviate this lie. It's the doctrine of cultural appropriation. You do not take the cultural inheritance of another group and claim it as your own. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez knows about this doctrine. She was blasted for violating it on April 5, 2019, when giving a speech to Al Sharpton's National Action Network. Ocasio-Cortez, in an attempt to curry favor with her mostly African American audience, adopted a faux Ebonics rhythm and syntax. All leftist cultural appropriation stories are ridiculous; it's difficult to pick which is most exemplary of the trend. Perhaps Lena Dunham fretting over Oberlin college students' sushi consumption. Perhaps the height, or depth of cultural appropriation sermonizing took place after Keziah Daum, a Utah high school student, wore a Chinese-style dress to her prom and posted the photo on social media. In a frequently retweeted twitter post, Jeremy Lam accused 18-year-old Keziah Daum of colonizing Asians.

Since leftists preach against cultural appropriation, why are leftists now trying to appropriate the term "concentration camp" to talk about immigration? One of the most disturbing, and obvious, trends in today's Democratic Party is anti-Semitism. Not all Democrats are anti-Semites, but Congressional Democrats surrendered to the anti-Semites in their midst when, on March 7, 2019, they failed to sanction freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for her frequent and egregious expressions of anti-Semitism. Ocasio-Cortez made it a point to support Omar in the midst of that controversy. Ocasio-Cortez was also happy to mouth anti-Semitic tropes, tropes she clearly did not understand and could not support when exposed to questioning. In a July 17, 2018 appearance on PBS's Firing Line, Ocasio-Cortez said she objects to "the occupation of Palestine" and a "humanitarian crisis." When questioned what she meant by these terms, she collapsed, laughing, acknowledging, "I am not the expert on geopolitics … Middle Eastern politics was not exactly at my kitchen table every night." Why the Democratic Party is currying favor with anti-Semites is a topic for another piece, but that toadying is on display for all to see. Ocasio-Cortez's attempt to claim the term "concentration camp" for her very own is part of that agenda.

And there's more. Leftists have always lied about the Holocaust. I saw those lies firsthand, during my visit to Auschwitz. In those Soviet days, visitors were shown a film. I watched the Polish language version of the film. I listened for the word "Jew" – "Zyd." I never heard it. What I do remember hearing, over and over, was the term "victims of fascism." I recognized that I was being propagandized. I wondered how many viewing this film would not recognize that. "After the war internal politics led the Soviet leadership to erase the Holocaust from historical memory," writes historian John Klier in "The Holocaust and the Soviet Union." Soviet Russia and its satellite states systematically lied about the Holocaust from the end of the war till its toppling in 1989. Communists inflated the numbers of those killed at Auschwitz. They did so in order to minimize the number of Jews murdered there. 
Soviet Russians called Auschwitz "the ultimate capitalist factory where the workers were dispensable." "One of the least appealing aspects of the Soviet analysis of Auschwitz, now and later, was the downplaying of the scale of suffering endured by Jews." This downplaying constituted "a rift in historical interpretation between East and West concerning the operation of the camps that would not be resolved until the fall of Communism," writes Laurence Rees in Auschwitz: A New History. This downplaying of Jewish suffering occurred throughout the Soviet Empire. Thomas Haury writes that East Germany, "emphasized the workers, the party, and the Soviet population as having suffered most from National Socialism. The genocide of the European Jews was only one crime among many, to which the GDR hardly paid attention." Jews were also accused of crimes said to be "just as bad as the Holocaust." "Not only Holocaust deniers but also communists used Holocaust Equivalence early, aiming at Jews. In 1953, the Soviet Union's daily Pravda published alleged information about a conspiracy of mainly Jewish doctors to kill communist leaders through wrong diagnoses and sabotage in treatment," writes Georg von Rauch. Romanian textbooks emphasized Romanian suffering and downplayed Jewish deaths. People often criticize Poles for their apparent lack of awareness of Holocaust history. After all, Poland was the site of many concentration and death camps. But Poles, too, were taught a Holocaust history consciously distorted by Communism, and it is only post-1989 that Polish historians have been able to tell their own country's story without that distortion dominating their work. When perusing a Soviet-era history book about WW II, or watching a Soviet-era film about the liberation of Auschwitz, or listening to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's justifications for using the term "concentration camp," one must remember this core principle: "The truth is that which serves the party."

Czeslawa (ches WAV ah) Kwoka was a 14 year old Polish Catholic girl. She was murdered in Auschwitz. Wilhelm Brasse, as his name suggests, had some Germanic ancestry. But he was born in Poland and he self-identified as Polish. After the Nazis invaded, the SS "invited" Brasse to identify as German. He declined, and he was sent to Auschwitz, where he was forced to photograph prisoners. Later he was ordered to destroy those photos. Through subterfuge, he saved many of the photos.

Brasse took the photograph we have of Czeslawa Kwoka. He described the process to an interviewer, who said that Brasse trembled while speaking. "She was so young and so terrified. The girl didn't understand why she was there and she couldn't understand what was being said to her. So this woman Kapo took a stick and beat her about the face. This German woman was just taking out her anger on the girl. Such a beautiful young girl, so innocent. She cried but she could do nothing. To tell you the truth, I felt as if I was being hit myself but I couldn't interfere. It would have been fatal for me. You could never say anything."

I do not begrudge anyone the compassion they feel for immigrants. I do not begrudge anyone for actually extending aid to immigrants. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her leftist allies are not expression compassion, and they are not helping anyone, by appropriating the term "concentration camp." Rather, they are appropriating cultural material that does not belong to them, and that no decent person would want. They are doing this as part of the left's current and growing anti-Semitic program. Stalin, we are told, said that one death was a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. If the deaths of the eleven million leave Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her allies cold, I ask them to look into the face of Czeslawa Kwoka, who was murdered at 14 because she was the wrong ethnicity.

Danusha V. Goska is the author of Save Send Delete, Bieganski, and God through Binoculars.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What the fight for slavery reparations tells us about today's Democratic Party - Tucker Carlson

by Tucker Carlson

Actual official racial discrimination of the kind embodied in Jim Crow ended half a century ago. But as it recedes with living memory, it becomes even more important to the Democratic Party.

Let's say somebody committed some sort of horrible crime against you, a horrifying crime --  shot your dog, burned your house down, kidnapped one of your children. Let's say the person who did it escaped and then died before being punished. You'd be frustrated, of course.
But how would you feel if the police arrested someone else -- an innocent person -- for the crime, someone who just happened to look like the criminal, and then sent that person to prison? Would you be happy with that? Would you consider it justice?
If so, you probably agree with Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, that we need to reparations for slavery. Jackson Lee held hearings on the subject in Congress on Wednesday. She described a version of American history in which the Civil War and Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement and the war on poverty --  indeed, the last 150 years -- never happened.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas: The role of the federal government in supporting the institution of slavery and subsequent discrimination directed against blacks is an injustice that must be formally acknowledged and addressed. I just simply ask, "Why not?" And why not now? God bless us as we pursue the final justice for those who lived in slavery. 

Of course, that very same federal government also lost more than 600,000 men fighting slavery. So it's slightly more complicated perhaps than Jackson Lee presented, but she wasn't interested in details.

Nobody in the room was; the hearing quickly became a circus. Anyone who questioned reparations was booed and heckled by the crowd.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas: It is important that we know our history, and we not punish people today for the sins of their predecessors in the Democratic Party. 
Unidentified male: You lie. 

Gohmert: I just stated all facts. And again, we have people who are denying history. 
Even black witnesses drew boos when they dared question the concept of reparations.


Coleman Hughes, writer: So the moment you give me reparations, you've made me into a victim without my consent. Bill H.R. 40 is immoral and a political mistake. Thank you. 


Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.: Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Chill, chill, chill, chill. He was presumptive, but he still has a right to speak. 

"He was presumptive." What does that mean? Maybe it means he disagrees with the Democratic Party's orthodoxy.

Eugene Taylor Sutton, the Episcopal Bishop of the State of Maryland, told the committee that white people must support racial reparations, he suggested, to save their souls from damnation.

"When I'm talking for reparations, I'm talking about those left behind, but I'm actually talking to my white brothers and sisters," he said. "You need this more than we do. You need this for your soul. You need this to be able to look black persons in the eye and say, 'I acknowledge the mistake, and I want to be part of the solution to repair that damage.'"

Bishop Sutton was not the only person using rhetoric like this Wednesday on Capitol Hill. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker made a guest appearance at the hearing. He claimed that the same country that has made him one of the most powerful figures in the land, is, in fact, incorrigibly racist.

"We as a nation have not yet truly acknowledged and grappled with racism and white supremacy that has tainted this country's founding," Booker said. "It continues to persist in those deep racial disparities and inequalities today."

So in the same country, that's the point at which the entire room would have burst out laughing when Senator Booker said that, precisely because of his title. Really, Senator Booker?

Cory Booker's parents were highly paid IBM executives. He grew up in a rich, all-white neighborhood, by the way. He attended Stanford. Then he had a Rhodes scholarship, went to Oxford, then he got a law degree from Yale. He is currently a senator from New Jersey. He will win re-election pretty easily in 2020 if he seeks it. And Jersey is one of the richest states in this country. It's also majority white.

So, if white supremacy were a huge problem in America, how did Cory Booker become a senator? And yet somehow he did. America has given Cory Booker amazing opportunities precisely because it's not the hateful place he pretends it is. Cory Booker is one of the most privileged people in the world. He is living proof.

But it doesn't matter. Actual official racial discrimination of the kind embodied in Jim Crow ended half a century ago. But as it recedes with living memory, it becomes even more important to the Democratic Party.

In a religious procession earlier this year, half a dozen Democratic presidential candidates prostrated themselves before professional race hustler, Al Sharpton and vowed to seek reparations if they were awarded the presidency. From Sens. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren to Beto O'Rourke and Julian Castro, they all kissed the ring of their moral leader, Al Sharpton -- hilarious.

But on one level, it's not funny. As we're often told, correctly, America is a diverse country now and becoming more so. A diverse society can only survive by finding shared values and shared goals and pursuing them collectively.

However, when a country collapses into a feud between racial or ethnic or religious factions, that country fails -- every time. Warring tribes -- that is where this is pushing us.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on June 19, 2019.

Tucker Carlson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cyberattacks: A new age in warfare - Julio Rivera

by Julio Rivera

Online attacks can now cause damage equal to traditional military aggression.

According to a bombshell report from the New York Times, the United States has ramped up attacks against Russia’s power grid and other unnamed targets, signaling a new investment from Washington towards inserting American malware into high leverage segments of the Russian infrastructure.

The speculation is that these attacks are in response to heightened Russian cyber aggression and the noted political meddling that was a major theme of Robert Mueller’s almost two-year special counsel investigation of the Trump 2016 presidential campaign.

While the report did not get into specific tactics and targets aside from Russia’s power grid, it stated that unnamed officials claim that “US malware has the potential to cripple Russia’s electric infrastructure and is unprecedented in terms of its reach and aggressiveness.” The Times’ also claims that a senior intelligence official states that U.S. activity against Russia “has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year,” and that America is “doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.”

President Trump was livid with what he customarily refers to as the ‘failing’ New York Times for disseminating the report. In his Twitter feed, Trump initially reacted to the report by saying, “Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia. This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country…”

While Trump did not confirm or deny the Times’ report in his first attempt to address it, he would go on to seemingly deny the authenticity of the report a couple of days later when he tweeted, “The story in the @nytimes about the U.S. escalating attacks on Russia’s power grid is Fake News, and the Failing New York Times knows it. They should immediately release their sources which, if they exist at all, which I doubt, are phony. Times must be held fully accountable!”

But regardless of unconfirmed reports from anonymous sources and the subsequent denials, further disclosures and spin that's expected to come, the fact remains that the so-called ‘“cybersphere” is the future (and present) theater of warfare. Just last month, after members of the terrorist organization Hamas attempted to execute a cyberattack on Israeli targets, the IDF traced the attack to a building in the Gaza Strip and executed an air raid on the location.

In addition to that, last summer, Chinese government backed-hackers compromised the networks of a naval contractor working on a submarine and an underwater programs project for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center based in Newport, Rhode Island. This attack was merely one out of hundreds of known hacks executed by the Chinese against the U.S.

A leaked NSA document obtained by NBC News in 2015 revealed “more than 600 corporate, private or government “Victims of Chinese Cyber Espionage” that were attacked over a five-year period, with clusters in America’s industrial centers,” according to the report.

These attacks included hacks against critical infrastructure. Infrastructure in particular will continue to be targeted by countries at a militaristic disadvantage against countries like the United States. Infections including Triton malware have been deployed against the industrial control systems (ICS) that are critical to the safety and operation of many segments of American Infrastructure, including energy and utilities, causing irreparable damage.

In an effort to dissuade or seek retribution for these types of attacks against America, National Security Advisor John Bolton has said, “we’re now opening the aperture, broadening the areas we’re prepared to act in,” and threatened that the U.S. “will impose costs on you until you get the point.”

The revelations brought to light by the New York Times may have been the first exposure to these new methods of engagement for many, but those paying close attention will recall the September 2018 speech by former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen that included the line, "DHS was founded fifteen years ago to prevent another 9/11. I believe an attack of that magnitude is now more likely to reach us online than on an airplane."

The question is no longer if an online attack can cause damage equal to traditional military aggression, but what can the Trump administration do to prevent the next occurrence of one. 

Julio Rivera is a NYC based writer, news personality, columnist and business consultant. His writing, which is concentrated on Politics, Cybersecurity and Sports has been published by websites including Newsmax, The Washington Times, Breitbart, The Toronto Sun, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, Western Journal, LifeZette, Townhall, American Thinker, Real Clear Markets, PJ Media and many others. He is a fixture on cable news talk shows, making regular appearances on American and International television.


Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

K–12: Red Ed - Bruce Deitrick Price

by Bruce Deitrick Price

Why do we see so many socialists swarming over the Democratic Party and the country generally? Short answer: Red Ed.

If you want to understand the mystery of why we spend so many billions of dollars and get crummy schools, here are some options. You can read a hundred books. You can spend many years earning a Ph.D. in history. You can try to bribe the director of the CIA — or consult a psychic. Alas, you probably won't find the truth.

I suggest you spring for the lazy-man, two-word explanation: Red Ed.
Arguably, that's what we've got.

The almost comical thing about the U.S. is that most people persist in believing that the top educators are harmless, nice, pleasant, typical Americans. But the field of education has been a whirlpool or cesspool of socialist-communist-collectivist thinking for more than 120 years. Throughout that time, these subversives operated covertly but belligerently. They were the tireless termites in our basement.

At first, John Dewey wanted to call himself what he was, a socialist, but he realized that the public wasn't ready for the S-word. He urged the Socialist Party of America to change its name. Dewey ended up calling himself a Progressive, a Liberal, or a Democrat. Point is, explicating American history is difficult because the Left was always hiding and lying.

Suffice it to say that the far Left was a growing force in America by the late 1890s, years before the Communist Revolution. These "change agents" quietly wormed their way into foundations, newspapers, universities, everything not well defended. The best example of big, fat. and undefended was the public school system.

John Dewey's ideologues seized a lot of power before World War I, and the pace accelerated after the Russian Revolution. In 1921 the USSR launched the Communist International, AKA the Comintern. The plan was to seize the planet by out-tricking and out-working everyone else. There were many hundreds of front groups; only sophisticates knew they were communist. (If a group called itself a league, union, or council, it was probably the enemy. Americans tend to name their groups Lions, Optimists, and Moose.)

Indeed, there was a famous private school in Manhattan, the Little Red School House, founded in the busy year of 1921. Everybody on the Left got the joke. "Red, get it?" Somebody actually said those three words to me in the 1980s.

Here's a quick summary of the 20th century in the United States. On the surface, if one asked scholars and survey-takers, virtually everyone was an American of some ordinary stripe. The malcontents and revolutionaries were a tiny sliver of the population. But it was this fraction of 1% that was more and more shaping the country. How is that possible? By the muscular device of infiltrating the command structure of any organization you encounter. Universities. Businesses. Churches. Foundations. Political organizations. Publishers. Media. Showbiz organizations. If you see any possible political or propaganda benefit, try to take over.

Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov has explained to American audiences how cunning the Russians were at psychological warfare, subversion, and manipulating Western society. The KGB thought they needed only about 20 years to undermine and destroy most countries.

Sometimes it seems that Russians love deception more than victory itself. They love what spies call "the game." If they could fool Americans into surrendering their country, Russia would win the biggest duel in history without firing a shot. For the rest of eternity, they could brag about how smart they are and what clueless dopes the Americans are.

A small example known as the Diamond Technique illustrates Russian ingenuity. Only four people, correctly arranged, can control a crowd. One person in front, one in back, one on the left, one on the right. People in the audience hear the same opinion coming from every direction and assume that this is the popular opinion. Russians dote on such tricks.

One small incident tells the big story. Premier Khrushchev, at the U.N. in 1960, bragged: "We will bury you." Many claimed that Khrushchev banged his shoe. In any case, he was loud and aggressive. Ask yourself, how could he be so confident in 1960 that his much weaker country would win? Because Khrushchev, more than anyone else on the planet, knew how totally his spies and apparatchiks, his front groups and agents of influence, his pseudo-educators and corrupted politicians, had penetrated every nook of this country. The USSR was running the USA as a puppeteer makes puppets dance. When today we see how ineffective the Republican Party is, we have to wonder who is really in control.

There was a period doing World War II when super-spy Alger Hiss sat almost knee to knee with President Roosevelt day after day. Influencing FDR, safe to say. And each night, Hiss sent his observations by courier to the Kremlin. Each morning, Stalin knew everything that had happened in Washington, D.C. the day before.

Relentless intrigue and redundancy — these were always the key ingredients in the Russian juggernaut. Russians had spies in the State Department; that goes without saying. They also had spies in the Treasury Department, the Agricultural Department, and all the rest. Why? Because secret files passed back and forth over every desk. Surely, there was something valuable in almost every one. Of course, the Russians had their people throughout the media, unions, and education. There's always an acrid sense of overkill. Anything remotely an obstacle had to be conquered again and again.

I Led Three Lives, a television drama in the mid-1950s, captures the hothouse atmosphere. The main character was simultaneously an ad executive, a Russian spy, and an FBI double agent. Watch even 10 minutes of any episode, and you get the whole picture.

For me, the most bizarre thing about Russian history is that starting around 1920, the Russians pretended that the Russian Revolution had ushered in a higher stage in Russian consciousness. Then I read a book about Ivan the Terrible, roughly 1550. Nothing had changed in 400 years. Everything that defines Ivan's Russia — dictatorial rule, secret police, torture, people disappearing, distinct social classes where the vast majority were serfs — was institutionalized in the USSR. 

If you want to understand how all these influences flowed through our society, read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and remember that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton idolized Alinsky. Consider that almost every American attended public schools created by people like these three radicals. Arrogant and manipulative — that's the type. 

Why do we see so many socialists swarming over the Democratic Party and the country generally? Short answer: Red Ed.

Bruce Deitrick Price's new book is Saving K-12: What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them? He deconstructs educational theories and methods at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

New Israel Fund supports US legislation against 'annexation' - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

NIF appeals to supporters to support Senate legislation against application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

The New Israel Fund appealed to its supporters abroad to join the legislative initiatives led by J Street in the Senate against the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

"The settler movement has a friend in the White House who is leading Israel to a dangerous future, and we join American organizations that we partner with and ask you to help the Congress say no to annexation," the NIF said in its appeal.

"On June 8, the US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, spoke of Israel's 'right to annex part of the West Bank'. But there is no such right".

"Annexing the West Bank is not only illegal under international law, but will also lead to the encouragement and expansion of the occupation and to the violation of the human rights of the Palestinians," the NIF added.

"The grantees of the New Israel Fund, organizations such as Breaking the Silence, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and other Israeli human rights organizations, have long been against the occupation, and the fact that extremists are in power, both in America and in Israel, is an unprecedented threat to Israeli democracy.

"We join the calls to put up a red line against the annexation, and you must turn to the senators who represent you and ask them to support Senate resolution 234 on this matter."

Btzalmo CEO Shair Glick said that the New Israel Funds's appeal "crosses a red line. The NIF always prides itself on being an Israeli organization operating inside Israel, but it now turns out that it is employing outsiders to exert external pressure against Israel."

"I call upon the government of Israel to declare the severing of any contact with this organization, which is a foreign corporation operating against the interests of citizens and the State of Israel," Glick added.

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The deconstruction and breakdown of US education: AOC as a product - Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer

by Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer

AOC is so very much like so many tens of thousands of young Americans who now receive an education that costs families $40,000-$60,000 per year and yet fails to teach how to think instead of spouting the false narratives they are taught.

“The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border. . . .‘Never Again’ means something.”

- AO-C
"Concentration camps were places where Nazis inflicted slave labor, torture and death upon innocent Jews removed from their homes at gunpoint and transported there in cattle cars. To use Holocaust terminology regarding the refugee situation at the border is deeply offensive, and for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to first use the term 'Never Again' and then deny making the comparison is compellingly dishonest."
- Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer, Chairman of the 1,000-member Rabbinic Circle of Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV)

"Trivializing the Holocaust is a form of Holocaust denial. Jews were not sneaking into countries illegally, nor did they anticipate incarceration like these illegals do. Neither are illegal immigrants forced into labor or tortured, much less being systematically murdered. It is doubly shameful that she is trying to excuse or justify her statement, rather than apologizing."
- Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, CJV Senior Rabbinic Fellow

1. The Difference Between Teaching Law and Being a Life-Tenured Marxist College Professor of the Social Sciences
Among my roles as law professor, I teach a course in California Civil Procedure. Although that course entails teaching lots of fascinating chess-like theory and strategy, it also includes conveying mundane rules. One must serve a complaint within 60 days of filing. One must answer, object, or otherwise respond to that action within 30 days of being served. An opening brief should not exceed 15 pages and must be received by the opposing party at least 16 court days before the hearing. Stuff like that. Lots of stuff like that.

I have to teach the right law. I cannot just throw in my own law, like “Hey, serve whenever you like. Don’t sweat deadlines. And if you feel you need 19 pages to tell Your Truth, then take the darned extra four pages. Big deal! And, geesh, serve that opening brief eight days before the hearing because, what the heck!”

I cannot get away with that, and I never would contemplate doing so. I have to teach the right law, the correct law.

Now let us shift to a tenured college professor in political science. He / She / It / Ze basically can say whatever the moment feels like. Tenured college professors cannot get fired, no matter how incompetent, deathly boring, and intellectually stale, as long as they (i) do not say the “N word,” and (ii) do not sexually violate a student. So a tenured college professor can tell a class that the Soviet Union was a model of freedom, that Stalin is completely misunderstood because he really was as kind as Mother Theresa, that AmeriKKKa is the center of fascism and Nazism, that up is down, in is out, and Trump is a Nazi.

2. Morons? Idiots? Or Ignoramuses Victimized by the Deconstruction of American Higher Education?
We all have seen the televised street interviews: Jay Leno “Jaywalking” at Universal Studios, Jesse Watters, all the others. The first reaction we have when we see those is to say: “Oh my L-rd! Where do they find such idiots?” But we are missing a point when we react that way.

Many of those people, particularly those under 30, are not as stupid as they seem. That is, their abstract intelligence is not lacking. Give them squares and circles, and many of them will be able to figure out which shapes fit into which cut-out segments on the board that accompanies the pieces. There is something deeper going on than “Stupid.” The problem is that they are being taught ignorance.

If you take a smart mind and teach it nonsense, it will spout forth nonsense for many years until the sheer experience of life itself ultimately teaches otherwise. There is a reason that all polls find that voters become more conservative as they mature. If you go through four years of Columbia University without ever learning American history, after not having it learned it through the prior twelve years, you will not know it. If — even worse — you do not learn from objective books but instead from the jaundiced lectures of life-tenured Marxist professors of “soft sciences” like political science, sociology, philosophy, and “Identity Studies” — tenured professors who call themselves “Socialists” but actually are “Marxists” or “Communists” — then you come out learning what they teach you to memorize and to spout back to them on final exams and in term papers.

Less than she is a person, Ocasio-Cortez is a Specimen. (AOC, if you are reading this, a “Specimen” is not someone who flies to the moon.) The Left Media and their Democrat patrons make a grave error when they present O-Cortez as a person of thought. She is not an original thinker. Rather, she is a metaphorical Laboratory Rat who demonstrates repeatedly what happens when someone born with a mind that seems capable of operating properly emerges from the present-day American university system. Thus, she is not an “idiot” or “moron” in the objective sense — not unless she truly has come up with all her “ideas” on her own, a highly doubtful proposition. Having observed O-Cortez’s public communications for a year, I am more convinced than ever that she simply is the product of a broken education system that deconstructs facts and reality, teaching instead that there are no facts at all. Rather, I have “My Truth,” and you have “Your Truth.”

Remember: She attended Boston University on a John F. Lopez Fellowship. She interned in Ted Kennedy’s office and was smart enough never to ride in a car alone with him. She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics. Because she got good grades, she clearly reflects the “education” she received. If you are served the most wonderful steak imaginable, and then they pour a gallon of grabage on it and grind that garbage into it, you better like garbage because that is what your steak will taste like. Her grades mean that she absorbed the pablum she was spoonfed.

Thus, in one apparent self-parody, her revealing PBS interview with Margaret Hoover, O-Cortez condemned Israel — one of the Five Basic Food Groups of American College Education (along with condemning Trump as a Nazi, berating America as the World’s Perscutor, prasing Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib as “Misunderstood,” and recognizing that “Gender Is Fluid”). Ms. Hoover probed gently beyond the college slogans, asking O-Cortez to explain her “thoughts.” Dead silence. Crickets. Deer in the headlights. And then The Hyphen found the words that a college professor had pre-programmed in her years earlier: Y’know, uh, the Settlements, whatever. Watch her here for the minute and a half that she demonstrated the point.

She did it again recently when she told a packed room of clapping seals at an MSNBC Forum that the American Constitution’s 22nd Amendment had been passed by right-wingers trying to prevent Franklin Roosevelt from seeking reelection: “They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure that Roosevelt did not get reelected.” Go ahead — treat yourself here to these 22 seconds. Now for reality: FDR already had won four terms, and O-Cortez was taught that a right-wing conspiracy stopped him from more. She was not stating an opinion but what she saw as a fact. An opinion entails thought; a fact is teachable and can be spoonfed. For example: 1492 is when Columbus sailed. 1776 is when America declared independence. And 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982 are adjoining rooms in the Palestine Hilton.

Rather than see O-Cortez’s MSNBC Forum comments about FDR and the 22nd Amendment as “stupid,” she really was more the Laboratory Rat with Makeup and Lipstick proving what happens when a higher education aims at deconstructing facts, obfuscating reality, and granting unbridled authority to spout “Your Truth” no matter how absurd. As older Americans who went to school in prior decades know, FDR died April 12, 1945 while in office. The 22nd Amendment was proposed well after his death on March 21, 1947. It was ratified February 27, 1951.

Thus, we have a John F. Lopez Fellow, majoring in international relations and economics, replicating itself/herself/zerself by the dozens as a room of nodding, assenting clapping seals drink in her ragweed and nod their agreement, thanking her for teaching them history.

Thus, there is something going on with O-Cortez that transcends “stupid.” Rather, she is so very much like so many tens of thousands of young Americans who now receive an education that costs families $40,000-$60,000 per year and yet fails to teach:
1. How to think logically
2. The imperative of checking facts before pronouncing them to audiences
3. The skill of thinking critically and incisively, transcending the surrounding Groupthink and Mass Media Hysteria
4. The courage to disagree with Common Wisdom and to challenge Totalitarian Indoctrination
If college professors can spout any foolish, false narrative they wish, safe in the knowledge that their life tenure grants them a safe harbor to mislead, to lie, and to brainwash their defenseless minions who must get good grades in their courses, it is not surprising that O-Cortez emerged as she did. She can string sentences together coherently when she speaks. She can communicate in 140 characters. Her problem is not that she is “stupid” per se but, rather, that she is emblematic of too many peers among a generation that spouts nonsense as “My Truth,” peers who do not know what they are talking about, and — much worse — lack the humility to recognize that they do not know that they do not know what they are talking about.

3. On Concentration Camps and “Never Again”
Her latest trick in the Rat Laboratory came this week when The Hyphen commented on the humane and lawful facilities in which the United States temporarily detains people who brazenly defy America’s laws and break into the U.S. illegally, overwhelming all available resources. America provides the Illegals with food, shelter, and health care at taxpayer expense. The Illegals are held only a few days before being released. But The Hyphen compared those facilities to “concentration camps.” Earlier above I invited you to view The Hyphen for ninety seconds as she demonstrated her ignorance of Israel and then for twenty-three seconds as she spouted ignorantly on FDR and the 22ndAmendment. I am not going to invite you now to watch Claude Lanzmann’s ten-hour movie, Shoah, nor even to visit a Holocaust museum.

I have warned for thirty years that, when you build Holocaust museums, you end up teaching ignorant people just enough so that now they can place their lesser issues alongside the martyrs of Dachau and Auschwitz. Thus, Climate Extremists screech that advocates of American energy independence, oil and gas exploration, and hydraulic fracturing are bringing a Holocaust because the “whole world will end in twelve years.” Suddenly, amid such madness, temporary shelters for Illegals become denominated as “concentration camps.” I wonder what The Hyphen will say when she learns they have showers in them. Donald Trump gets called a Nazi. Police and other protective “First Responders” are called Storm Troopers. And in such an insanely deconstructed reality, I guess Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes Anne Frank.

Is O-Cortez an idiot? Maybe. An imbecile? Maybe. A moron? Maybe. Technically, those who have an IQ between 0 and 25 are idiots; IQs between 26 and 50 are considered imbeciles; and those who have an IQ between 51 and 70 are considered morons. So, maybe.

But more reasonably, when she starts invoking a term like “Never Again” to characterize “concentration camps” that are nothing of the sort, The Hyphen demonstrates what American university education now is producing: Young people who are utterly ignorant beyond tears, have no concept of historical reality, are unable to compare and contrast reasonably, and yet who are all-too-willing to pontificate “Their Truth” on any bullhorn or into any cable camera that will provide the makeup, the lipstick, the wardrobe, and the hair-arranging needed.

The added irony, of course, is that the O-Cortezes who populate the Left Media and their Democrat Patrons always protest against “Cultural Appropriation” any time a Caucasian makes the mistake of wearing a kimono or eating Mexican food or attending a culture-themed party. “You are stealing our culture, our symbols!” Well, honey, the term “Never Again” is not yours. This book may not have been on the John F. Lopez Fellows Reading List, but it will begin your education as to the term’s origins. From there, try this. Or this. Or this.

Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer is adjunct professor of law at two prominent Southern California law schools, Senior Rabbinic Fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, congregational rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California, and has held prominent leadership roles in several national rabbinic and other Jewish organizations. He was Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerked for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and served for most of the past decade on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. His writings have appeared in The Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, and Israel National News. Other writings are collected at .


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter