Day of remembrance for Holocaust victims
Israel came to a standstill on Thursday morning as a two-minute siren sounded nationwide at 10 a.m., marking Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom Hashoah). …
“We bow our heads in memory of the victims,” Netanyahu said during the ceremony. “Their legacy obligates us to defend our existence and ensure never again means never again.”
The words have taken on even more meaning since 10/7/2023.
I’ve written many many previous posts on the subject of the Holocaust, but for now I’ll direct you to this one as well as this one.
The gates of Vienna 2.0
What could not be accomplished by armed conquest can be achieved by other means. And so we have this:
According to newly released data from the City Council of Vienna for the 2024–2025 academic year, Muslim students now represent 41.2% of the population across primary, secondary, and vocational schools—making them the largest single religious group. By comparison, just 34.5% of students identify as Christian (including 17.5% Catholic and 14.5% Orthodox), while 23% report no religious affiliation.
[In the previous academic year, 39.4% of students were Muslim.]
This significant demographic shift should serve as a wake-up call for Austrians. If current trends continue, the nation may face a profound cultural transformation, with serious implications for its identity and future.
I would say they already face it, as does much of western Europe. And the differential birth rate indicates the disparity will grow more extreme.
More:
Bettina Emmerling, Vienna’s City Councillor for Education and a member of NEOS (the New Austria and Liberal Forum, a liberal political party), offered what many may view as a tone-deaf response to these growing challenges.
She acknowledged that “no one in Vienna should live their life according to the fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts that are hostile to women, minorities, the state, or democracy.”
Nevertheless, Emmerling appears to believe that these deeply rooted issues can be resolved by the addition of a mandatory class to the curriculum. “In light of these developments,” she said, “there is a greater need than ever for a compulsory joint subject, ‘Living in a Democracy,’ for all children starting from primary school. Democracy, values, and ethics education must take place on a common foundation.”
That’s fascinating. It’s the age-old question of how to effect cultural assimilation in a portion of the population that’s newly-arrived and has extremely divergent views from the mainstream population. When I think about cultural assimilation in the US, which has a much longer history of absorbing large numbers of immigrants from other cultures, I wonder whether we ever had the task of assimilating such a sudden influx of such a large population with views so starkly divergent from the mainstream – and in particular, a population many of whose members don’t want to assimilate. I don’t think we ever faced that, in particular the lack of desire to become part of American culture – and in the past we used to force quicker assimilation by not having bilingual education, for example. We have faced the problem more in recent years although on a smaller scale than western Europe for the most part. And we will continue to face it.
NOTE: I notice that, although not planned, the subject matter of this post overlaps slightly with the subject matter of this earlier post from today.
ADDENDUM: And I feel the urge to add this:
Elizabeth Warren tries to explain/deny the coverup of Biden’s cognitive decline, and utterly fails
Well worth watching, and it’s only about a minute long. Warren tries mightily but is defeated by the topic. Note her almost involuntary smile at 0:15, and the interviewer’s expression at 0:22:
If you watch a clip today, let it be this one of Elizabeth Warren stumbling all over herself as she’s repeatedly pressed on why she lied about Joe Biden’s senility. pic.twitter.com/pyMjQjAaUo
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) April 22, 2025
“The moral equivalence of racism”?
Commenter “Rick67” writes:
The exchange between Mrs Whatsit and Mac is interesting.
Mac replied “Religious people are in the position of arguing for the right to practice the moral equivalent of racism and have the public schools cooperate with them.”
Mac’s reply (which I anticipated) begs an important question. Are these objections the “moral equivalent of racism”? I fully understand that Americans of a more progressive persuasion see it that way. I encountered this line of reasoning during my time working at a church which had several members who were several steps to the left of me on political, cultural, and yes religious issues.
I do think we should be cautious about how much we play the “views contrary to mine are the moral equivalent of racism” card. Does it have a limiting principle? What social, cultural, political policies can it not impose on people?
I appreciate the comment above which says this isn’t or *should* not be about religious freedom. Unless “religion” in this context includes any deeply held convictions about how human beings should relate to each sexually and about gender identity (whether how and when boys can turn into girls).
Commenter “Mac” replies:
I should make it clear btw that I’m totally on the side of the parents in this dispute. I’m just pointing out the way their views appear in light of current progressive doctrine, which in the case of gay rights and gay marriage is also the law of the land.
That racism and disapproval of homosexuality are not different in any meaningful way is hard dogma among progressives. Ask yourself how these parents would fare with the courts and for that matter with widespread opinion if they were objecting to depiction of interracial marriage. They may prevail with the Supreme Court as presently constituted, but it wouldn’t take much for that to change, especially as some of the conservative judges are quite willing to go with the progressive view on sexual matters.
There’s little question in my mind that a future Court could rule in a more “progressive” manner. But for the purposes of the discussion I’ll just stick to the legal reasoning I think underpins the parents’ position and makes it quite different from racism.
Religious freedom of parents – and the right to teach a child one’s religion – is protected in the US unless there’s a situation where a child is endangered or taught something criminal. For example, there’s a body of case law forcing parents whose religion forbids blood transfusions to give a child a life-saving transfusion against the parents’ wishes. I think we can safely say there’s no analogy with the situation in the case presently before SCOTUS involving teaching young children in the public school system materials about homosexuality and transgenderism. Also, unlike racist views, these have long been considered bona fide subjects on which people have a religious point of view that considers them sins, and that hasn’t been a fringe view. Progressives are free to think such views are tantamount to racism, but in my experience progressives tend to think that about just about any point of view that doesn’t line up with their own is tantamount to racism.
Nor are these religious parents advocating that their own views against gay marriage be taught in schools, or that their children be taught by the school system to discriminate against people who practice gay marriage. They are asking that their children be allowed to opt out of this sort of pro-gay marriage pro-trans instruction for their own children. The opt-out approach is very commonly protected for a host of issues and their argument is that there is no good reason why this couldn’t be one of them, especially given the religious freedom aspects.
There is another issue that comes to play here that has no analogy to racism, and that is the sexual content of the material. Many parents could object to that as inappropriate for younger children regardless of the parents’ religious beliefs or even the parents’ own support or lack of support for gay marriage itself. But once objections get outside the realm of religious freedom, one runs into difficulty. A local public school system makes a host of decisions about the content of teaching, and it would be too disruptive to allow parents unlimited ability to opt out of anything and everything within it. So it’s a question of where to draw the line. However, the issue of age-appropriateness for sexual content also has no analogy with teaching about racism.
Open thread 4/24/2025
Predictions are that SCOTUS will require that parents be allowed to opt out of gay content in public grade schools on grounds of religious freedom
The issues are as follows:
This case concerns the Montgomery County School District, the largest in Maryland, and whether they should be able to prevent parents from opting their kids, as young as 3-4 years old, out of school curriculum describing, among other things, drag queens, gay sex, and other topics including transgenderism. After a group of parents sued, the case made its way to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, and the Carolinas. That court said no. No opt-outs. …
Anyway, the “Question Presented” in the case, or, in other words, the exact legal question the Supreme Court has to decide is:
Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?
This isn’t about the teaching of math or science or other subjects in a traditional curriculum. These are young children, and these are matters that until very recently were considered to be a family’s private business and matters on which religions often have had strong moral differences and objections. When I was growing up, and even when my son was growing up, I don’t recall public schools mentioning these topics one way or the other. They were not considered matters for public school instruction, either approving or disapproving, and were not considered suitable matters to discuss with pre-pubescent children.
In the present legal case, the school originally had an opt-out but – get this – so many parents requested it that the school had trouble dealing with that and therefore refused to allow any opt-outs. That’s quite a solution.
Roundup
(1) WEF founder Klaus Schwab is being investigated based on allegations in a whistleblower’s letter:
The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the probe, said an anonymous letter sent last week to the WEF’s board raised concerns about its governance and workplace culture, including allegations that the Schwab family mixed their personal affairs with the forum’s resources without proper oversight.
Schwab denies wrongdoing.
(2) Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has announced he won’t be running for re-election in 2026. Durbin – who’s been in the Senate for nearly thirty years and is eighty years old – is one of the most abominable Democrat senators, but I would bet a large amount of money that his replacement will be a Democrat who is as bad or worse. In Illinois, there is virtually no chance of Republican victory.
(3) The government has filed RICO charges against members of the Tren de Aragua gang:
The Justice Department on Monday filed multiple federal charges against 27 members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang. The charges include racketeering, narcotics, sex trafficking, robbery, and firearms offenses. DOJ officials said in a press release that this marks the first time RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges have been filed against the Venezuelan prison gang.
Seems highly appropriate to me.
(4) Here’s the Trump administration’s peace proposal for the Ukraine War. I make no predictions except to say I’m not optimistic about it and I hope I’m wrong on that.
(5) Stocks closed up somewhat today:
US stocks rallied Wednesday after President Trump said he has “no intention” of firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell, easing Wall Street fears over the central bank’s independence. Meanwhile, Trump also softened his tone on tariffs, hinting that eye-popping duty levels on Chinese imports would ultimately be scaled back.
Terrorist attack in Kashmir
At least 26 people were killed and 17 others wounded when unidentified gunmen opened fire on a group of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Tuesday, the worst assault in years targeting civilians in the restive region, which is claimed by both India and Pakistan.
India describes militancy in Kashmir as Pakistan-backed terrorism. Pakistan denies the allegation, and many Kashmiris consider the militants to be part of a home-grown freedom struggle.
It may seem petty of me, in the face of such carnage, to carp about the words used. But words matter in helping to form perceptions. So when “gunmen” fire on tourists it is by definition terrorism, whatever their goals and whatever their complaints.
India’s reaction:
India on Wednesday closed a border crossing, suspended a water-sharing treaty and downgraded diplomatic ties with rival Pakistan, blaming its neighbor for a militant attack the previous day that killed 26 people in the Indian-held portion of Kashmir.
A terrorist attack.
Attacking tourists almost certainly has the goal of hurting the region economically:
New Delhi has vigorously pushed tourism, and the region has drawn millions of visitors to its Himalayan foothills. Indian officials have claimed that as a sign of normalcy returning, despite the presence of ubiquitous security checkpoints, armored vehicles and patrolling soldiers. Until Tuesday, tourists were not targeted.
Attacking tourists is the modus operandi of Islamist jihadi groups in some mideastern countries – such as, for example, the Luxor attack in Egypt in 1997:
In the mid-morning of 17 November, six gunmen killed 58 foreign nationals and four Egyptians. The assailants were armed with knives and automatic firearms and disguised as members of the security forces. … With the tourists trapped inside the temple, the killing went on systematically for 45 minutes, during which many bodies, especially of women, were mutilated with machetes. The body of an elderly Japanese man was also found mutilated. A leaflet was discovered stuffed into his body that read “no to tourists in Egypt” and was signed “Omar Abdul Rahman’s Squadron of Havoc and Destruction—the Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Group”. …
The tourist industry in Egypt, and particularly in Luxor, was seriously affected by the resultant slump in visitors and remained depressed until sinking even lower with the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the 2005 Sharm El Sheikh bombings, and the 2006 Dahab bombings.
The massacre marked a decisive drop in terrorists’ fortunes in Egypt by turning public opinion overwhelmingly against them
RIP.
Open thread 4/23/2025
Due process for illegal aliens: how far does it go?
This is a huge question and I’m not going to be dealing with it in great depth at the moment. I do plan to write more on it in the future, but for now I’ll alert you to an article Jonathan Turley wrote on the subject in 2018 during Trump’s first term.
I suggest you read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:
Under current procedures, undocumented persons are dealt with under either §1225(b)(1) or §1225(b)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) allows for deportations for those who enter through fraud, misrepresentation, or without valid documentation. Under the first provision, deportation can be ordered by ICE officials “without further hearing or review” under an expedited removal process. §1225(b)(1)(A)(i). If Trump were speaking of that group, he would be correct so long as there is not an asylum claim. There can be a return without a hearing or judge. Only about 15 percent of undocumented persons have hearings and the Obama Administration aggressively pursued expedited deportations without hearings. However, if an alien “indicates either an intention to apply for asylum . . . or a fear of persecution,” the ICE officials must make a threshold determination if the claims is credible, and, if it is credible, “the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Other federal law mandate specific protections. Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 it is mandated that “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government,” and “the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the Government …” …
There is clearly an ability for the Trump Administration to both shift to a criminal enforcement policy and to expedite deportations. To that end, Congress is moving to add judges and resources to the border. However, the blanket call for deportations without due process would be difficult to square with this prior authority. It is also difficult to square with our values as a nation for those with a legitimate fear for their lives and a history of persecution in their nations of origin.
That’s why, this time, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act.
The problem is clear. In recent years the left got very clever, and illegal aliens availed themselves of the information the left provided: it became common knowledge that if an illegal alien claimed he or she needed asylum, that claim must be heard and there were so many illegal aliens coming over that effectively it would mean it would take many years for the claim to be heard. In the meantime, there were plenty of benefits to be had here.
The Trump administration is dealing with a situation now that I don’t think these laws ever envisioned. I think the time is ripe for a new approach that is more in line with the reality that enforcing these laws means the US effectively has no borders.
How the Democrats got us here
At some point during the 20th century in America, racism became the biggest sin or at least one of them. This may have occurred during the 1960s, to the best of my recollection. But at any rate it occurred – and the Democrats, who had previously been upholding and institutionalizing racism (especially in the South) managed to pin the “racist” label on the GOP. How that occurred is a long story, but the gist of it can be found here.
Once that was done, by the time Obama campaigned for president he was escalating into what I called “playing the pre-emptive race card” (I describe it in this post, with links there to earlier posts of mine). Obama specialized in accusations of racism against the GOP opposition before any had occurred, and also of redefining all criticism of himself or his policies as racist. That seemed a real turning point to me.
Once it became racist to criticize him in any way, the idea spread that criticizing any black Democrat was racist. Strangely, that “racist” accusation didn’t apply when Democrats criticized black people on the right, because by definition those conservative Republicans were allying themselves with racists and were therefore race traitors and fair game.
Once all of that was established, when the Tea Party movement – which had zero to do with racism – came into being, it was also labeled racist.
As presidential candidate in 2015 Trump was immediately labeled racist , and MAGA hats were considered the equivalents of swastikas soon after. His “rapists” remarks were made a big deal of (see this as well as this), and then of course there was the twisting of his Charlottesville remarks into support for white supremacists. Once it was established that Trump and MAGA were Hitler and the Nazis, it became necessary to oppose everything he did. That opposition immediately established a person as virtuous, and so Democrats moved further and further into disapproving of commonsense popular policies and allowed – just to take one example – cities to burn in 2020, and biological men to play in women’s sports.
With Trump’s second term that dynamic has become even more apparent, if such a thing is possible. Here’s an article about that:
Politics is a game of numbers, and in a democracy, the most effective way to win is to align yourself with the majority. That’s where 80/20 issues come in—those political fights where 80% of Americans agree on one side, while only 20% back the other. The party that stakes out the 80% position secures a commanding political advantage, while the party clinging to the unpopular 20% is left flailing.
For the past decade, Republicans have increasingly found themselves on the winning side of 80/20 issues, while Democrats, blinded by ideological purity and activist pressure, have dug in on losing ground. This dynamic is shaping electoral outcomes, pushing independents toward the GOP, and forcing Democrats into an ever-smaller corner of American political life.
That’s it for the moment, anyway; I will never discount the possibility of its reversing itself through missteps on the right and/or the workings of the huge pro-left propaganda machine that is the MSM.
And periodically, Trump gives them ammunition, at least rhetorically. For example, he did that just the other day with his remarks about deporting “homegrown” criminals to a place like El Salvador. Was he referring to citizens when he used the somewhat ambiguous term “homegrown”? Or was he referring perhaps to non-citizens who were nevertheless raised here, as opposed to recent arrivals? Every article I’ve read about his remarks criticizes them using the assumption that he meant citizens – which, by the way, is an understandable assumption. But what did he actually say?
This is the sort of thing I found, which really doesn’t explain at all. He also says he’ll follow the law and is looking into it:
What’s going on here? Is he joking? Trolling? Serious? Is it about citizens? I haven’t yet seen a clear explanation from the White House, which seems to me to give the left a golden opportunity to criticize him on solid grounds. It seems like an unforced error to me.