Bezalel Smotrich was right: The term “Palestinian People” was created especially for us, only following the Return to Zion. It migrated here en masse from the end of the 19th century, unaware that it was either “Palestinian” or a “People”.
By Nadav Shragai. ILH. 03-28-2023

Israel’s minister of finance, Bezalel Smotrich, who only a few days ago shoved a similar historical truth in the face of the Palestinians – “There’s no such thing as the Palestinian People” – is in good company. Voll might have opted for a gimmick, but Israel’s late prime minister, Goldar Meir, used the exact same words fifty years ago, as did Newt Gingrich, a former Republican politician and speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Gingrich referred to the Palestinians as “an invented people who want to destroy Israel”, “Arabs who migrated to Israel during the Ottoman Empire period…”. When US President Obama disagreed with him, Gingrich scoffed at him, describing the administration as: “so out of touch with reality that it would be like taking your child to the zoo and explaining that a lion was a bunny rabbit”.

Even Arab and Palestinian leaders have been known to admit the truth in a slip of the tongue. Perhaps the most outstanding example of this is that of Zuheir Mohsen, one of the leaders of the as-Sa’iqa faction of the PLO, who was targeted by the Mossad, but left us with an unparalleled heritage: “The Palestinian people do not exist,” Mohsen explained to the Dutch newspaper Trouw back in 1977. “The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity…. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.”

And so Smotrich, even though his name is Smotrich, is absolutely right. “The Palestinian People”, as he put it, “is an invention less than one hundred years old”, and if anybody is genuinely entitled to the title of being Palestinian, then that would be his grandfather, a 13th-generation resident of Jerusalem, along with a number of other grandfathers and grandmothers with whom I am personally acquainted. The imaginary, or more correctly the late, or extremely late “Palestinians”, migrated here en masse in the late 19th century and throughout the years of the British Mandate, and they had no idea at the time that they were “Palestinians” or that they were a “People”.

From Egypt to MasterChef.

At the time, not a single one of them claimed, as did former Palestinian politician Saeb Erekat (who passed away two years ago) who lived in Jericho together with his family 3,000 years before the People of Israel came to the city under the leadership of Joshua. None of them regarded themselves as the descendants of the Jebusites or the Philistines. Many of the “Palestinian” migrants recognized the Jewish history surrounding the Land of Israel and the Jewish birthright to the land. At that time, they did not turn Jesus into a Palestinian preaching Islam rather than Christianity, as their current counterparts’ nonsensical claims would have us believe, and they never even contemplated making claims to be the original natives of this land.

How do we know this to be the case? It’s simple. They themselves talk about this on a thousand and one random and sometimes less random occasions. Take for example Ms. Salma Fiomi, a resident of the Israeli Arab town of Kafr Qassem, who demonstrated her culinary skills on the popular TV competitive cooking show MasterChef. On the show, Fiomi proudly presented her version of Koshari – a popular Egyptian dish of rice and lentils. “My family”, explained Fiomi, “came from Egypt, from Al-Fayoum, and I, Salma Fiomi, come from Al-Fayoum.”

Another prime example that doesn’t really leave much room for interpretation can be seen in the words of Fathi Hamad, the former minister of the interior in the Hamas government, who urged Egypt to provide help during IDF Operation Returning Echo in the Gaza Strip in March 2012. “When we call for your help,” he explained, “It is with the aim of continuing the jihad. Praise Allah – All our us have Arab roots, and every Palestinian in the Gaza Strip and throughout Palestine is able to prove his Arab roots, whether from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or anywhere else. We have blood ties… Personally, half of my family is from Egypt. Where is your mercy? More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians, and the other half are Saudis.”

Dozens of books and records left behind by visitors to the Land of Israel clearly illustrate that at the turn of the last century, the land was desolate and empty, and the alleged “Palestinian People” migrated here only following the renewal of Jewish settlement in Israel as part of the modern Return to Zion in the 19th century. This is the case in the famous research of Israel’s former President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi on the Ottoman period. This is also true of American journalist, Joan Peters, author of the book From Time Immemorial, who estimated that at the beginning of the First Aliyah in 1882, there were some 141 thousand non-Jews only living in the Land of Israel. The works of the Hebrew University’s Professor Moshe Ma’oz also support this view, underscoring the fact that for centuries the number of Arabs living here in Israel never exceeded 100 thousand.

Ze’ev Galili’s research further develops this approach, as he arrived at the following, logical conclusion: if towards the end of the 19th century, there were about 100 thousand Arabs living in Israel, this means that in the seventy years that elapsed from that point to 1948, the Arab population increased twelvefold, and the only way to explain such an increase is that it was the result of mass immigration from neighboring states.

Nations that must invent.

Anthony Smith, the renowned sociologist and Professor of Nationalism and Ethnicity at the London School of Economics, once distinguished between two types of national identity. The first type includes nations with a core identity based on culture and history, and the second – nations without any such nucleus that are required to invent everything from nothing.

We belong to the first type while the Palestinians belong to the second type. It is as simple as that. This is essentially what Smotrich said, and Smotrich, even though his name is Smotrich, was right on this occasion. The Al-Masri clan migrated here from Egypt, the Al-Mughrabi clan from Algeria, Al-Turki from Turkey, Al-Iraqi from Iraq who settled in Taibeh, and the Al-Ajami clan from Iran. The Kna’an family in Nablus does not hail from the historical Land of Canaan but rather from Aleppo in Syria. As the renowned researcher, Pinhas Inbari, has suggested, the Erekat family from Jericho originates from the large Al-Huwaytat tribe that moved from Medina and then settled in Jordan, as well as in Abu-Dis and in Jericho. Thus, it is clear that they all came from the immediate “neighborhood”.

The term “Palestinian People”, in relation to the Arabs living in Israel, appeared for the first time in 1964, in the PLO Charter. The outrageous UNRWA definition, according to which the minimum seniority required in Israel in order to define an individual as a Palestinian refugee (both him and his descendants) amounts to two years, still does not qualify to turn the Palestinians into a people.

The Palestinians have almost no unique defining trait. Neither religion nor language, and no common ethnic background or history and shared homeland. If you take the trouble to examine the long-winded, multi-clause definition that UNESCO contributed to the term “people”, you will also discover that the Palestinians do not meet the majority of them.

“The Palestinian People” was created especially for us, only following the Shivat Zion (“Return to Zion”) movement and the subsequent renewed Jewish settlement in Israel, in an attempt to wipe us off the map along with our unbroken, thousands-of-years-old bond with this land. There is really no need to waste any words on our roots to the Land of Israel, in stark contrast with the fake roots that the Palestinians have tried to put down. Our history is manifestly documented in the chronicles of history, in the Bible, undeniably etched in archeology and research. We have no need for inventions and historical forgeries. As the 19th-century British statesman and social reformer, Lord Shaftesbury, so aptly put it 180 years ago, we returned as a “people without a land to a land without a people”.

An American tourist stabbed by a suspected migrant in Dresden is speaking up about Germany’s dangerously lax migration policy.

Europe’s open-borders catastrophe has claimed another casualty. Last weekend, an American tourist was stabbed in the face by a man suspected to be a Syrian migrant in Dresden. John Rudat, a 21-year-old newly qualified paramedic and part-time model, was brutally assaulted when he stepped in to protect two women who were being harassed on a tram. Rudat got into a heated argument with the two male passengers, who first beat him and then later returned to attack him with a knife. 

Police arrested one man following the incident, a Syrian migrant with previous convictions for theft and assault. He was thought to be one of Rudat’s attackers, but not the man who actually wielded the knife. The stabber himself is yet to be apprehended. 

In a video posted to Instagram, a heavily bandaged Rudat claimed that his attacker is a notorious drug dealer in the area and is already known to the police. The other suspect was released from jail just 12 hours later because “there were insufficient grounds for detention” and “the knife attack cannot be attributed to him.” 

In a refreshing change from the usual ‘don’t-look-back-in-anger’ type responses from victims of migrant crime, Rudat took to social media to explicitly attack Germany’s lax immigration laws. “If y’all didn’t think Europe had an immigration problem, especially Germany, let me drop some knowledge on you,” Rudat said on Instagram. “It is 11:57 a.m. right now. In three minutes, that man that assaulted that young woman will be released from custody. He’ll be released from custody because he’s not a citizen of Germany, he’s not a citizen of the EU for that matter.” He went on to criticise the fact that “these people could just come in, swing knives and hurt, abuse, terrorise and oppress citizens of Germany.” The U.S. Embassy in Germany has echoed these concerns, calling on the German authorities to bring Rudat’s attackers to justice. “Safety is a collective responsibility—no one is safe until all are safe,” the statement said. Richard Grenell, Donald Trump’s envoy for ‘special missions,’ also came down hard on the German authorities’ lack of action. Writing on X, he said, “Friedrich Merz must understand that the German people are sick and tired of this weak and woke response.” 

John Rudat is just the latest victim of Germany’s open-borders policy. In February, a Spanish tourist was stabbed by a Syrian asylum seeker at the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, leaving him severely injured and in a coma. The Syrian man later revealed he had been motivated by a desire to “kill Jews.” One month before that, an Afghan national had allegedly targeted a kindergarten group in a Bavarian park, killing a two-year-old Moroccan boy, as well as a German man who tried to intervene. Another Afghan man went to trial earlier this year after he allegedly attacked an anti-Islamist political rally in Mannheim last year. Motivated by Islamist extremism, the man is thought to have injured five attendees at the rally and killed a police officer. Not to mention the Solingen terror attack last year, in which three people died at the hands of a suspected Syrian Islamist, or the purposeful car ramming by an alleged Afghan terrorist in Munich last year, which left a two-year-old girl and her mother dead and 37 people injured. 

The whole picture is equally grim. Germany is experiencing an alarming rise in violent crime, and many public spaces no longer feel safe. Migrants are overrepresented as perpetrators in practically every category of violent crime in Germany. In knife-related crimes, foreigners accounted for 37% of suspects, despite making up 15% of the total population. Syrians specifically comprised the largest number of suspects in knife crime cases. 

Nor is the carnage restricted to Germany. Across the border, Austria is suffering its own knife-crime crisis, recording the highest-ever number of such crimes this year. As in Germany, foreigners are massively over-represented among the perpetrators of violent crimes, according to unofficial prison statistics. Over half of inmates in Austrian prisons are non-nationals, while accounting for just one-fifth of the general population. 

In the Netherlands, the story is the same. Migrants make up twice the proportion of violent- and sex-crime suspects than they do of the overall population. Here, a 17-year-old girl was stabbed to death just last week by a suspected refugee. The girl was cycling home from an evening out in Amsterdam when she was attacked by a man thought to be residing at a local asylum centre. The man is also a suspect in a separate rape case. 

John Rudat is unique in that—aside from thankfully living to tell the tale—he has a government that is willing to stand behind him. The same cannot be said for Germans and many other Europeans who fall victim to migrant crime. Their governments are quite happy to see them as ‘acceptable’ collateral damage in the open-borders project. German politicians, for example, are still determined to ignore the consequences of uncontrolled migration. This week, the former socialist mayor of Frankfurt (Oder), Martin Patzelt, dismissed the prospect of tightening border controls as “nonsense” and suggested that young Germans should take a year abroad in the home countries of refugees to “create an understanding of the problem.” For Patzelt, it apparently isn’t enough that Germans accept hordes of undocumented young men into their country—they ought to send their children off to the very countries these refugees have fled from. 

It’s time for Germans—and all Europeans—to get seriously angry. Governments are failing in their most basic duty of protecting their own citizens, allowing asylum seekers to take priority over natives. In attempting to create a safe space for refugees fleeing war, persecution, and disasters, European states have ended up turning their own countries into hotbeds of sexual assault, violent crime, and terrorism. 

At this rate, Germany will be more known for mass rapes and terror attacks than for beer and Lederhosen. Western Europe is already on the way to being globally shunned for its lax approach to crime and border control while ruthlessly persecuting right-wing dissidents. Europe can be safe again only when its leaders start taking their duty to protect citizens seriously. 

Lauren Smith is a London-based columnist for europeanconservative.com

• Tags: Germany, Germany knife crime, John Rudat, Lauren Smith, mass migration, migrant crime, Syrians

Until a few weeks ago, you were more likely to see a Palestinian, Ukrainian, or LGBT pride flag flying in London than to see any of the UK’s own colours. Now, thanks to a grassroots movement called Operation Raise the Colours, that could be changing. 

Union Jacks and St. George’s flags have been cropping up across the country over the last few weeks, being hung on lampposts by groups of patriots. The movement appears to have begun in Birmingham, organised online, before spreading to Norwich, Bradford, Newcastle, Swindon, and even London. 

As you might expect, the flags are being swiftly removed by local councils. Birmingham’s Labour-run city council started pulling them down last week, citing health-and-safety concerns. The flags, fixed to lampposts 25 ft in the air, apparently put the lives of motorists and pedestrians “at risk.” This might have been a believable, if idiotic, excuse had the same council not allowed Palestinian flags to fly across the city—which is almost 30% Muslim—unhindered since October 7th, 2023. This is also the same council that, just last week, lit the city’s library up in green and white to celebrate Pakistan’s independence day. Birmingham City Council officials were even caught admitting in leaked emails earlier this year that they were too scared to take down the Palestinian flags without police assistance. 

This week, the flashpoint for the flag wars was the East London borough of Tower Hamlets. The local authority, run by the pro-Gaza Aspire Party, has promised to remove any Union Jacks or St. George’s Crosses from council infrastructure “as soon as possible.” Tower Hamlets and its mayor, Lutfur Rahman, are certainly in more of a hurry to remove flags representing this country than they were to take down the many Palestine flags that lined the streets for months following October 7th. The council only (somewhat begrudgingly, it feels) removed these after Jewish residents complained the flags made them feel unsafe. 

To the annoyance of Tower Hamlets, Birmingham, and many other local councils, the British and English flags tend to go back up almost as quickly as they can take them down. They are being hung on lampposts, displayed out the windows of private homes, draped over motorway bridges, and even painted onto roundabouts. Over the last few weeks, a genuinely grassroots movement has sprung up, led by Brits who are tired of being told they should hate their country and their culture. 

not difficult to see what led us to this point. Our flags have become demonised and denigrated. The Union Jack has been turned into a symbol of impotent British twee at best and colonialism and empire at worst. St. George’s Cross has suffered a much worse fate, being written off as outright racist. Today, there is only one socially acceptable use for the English flag. As Keir Starmer’s official spokesman, when asked what he thought about the ongoing flag wars, said, “We put up English flags all around Downing Street every time the English football team, women’s and men’s, are out, trying to win games for us.” Outside of these permitted contexts, UK flags are considered by the great and the good to be a kind of right-wing dog whistle. Black studies professor Kehinde Andrews appeared on national television this week to explain that the St. George’s Cross apparently “represents racism” and is intrinsically linked to colonialism and oppression. 

No wonder Brits are fed up with having this nonsense rammed down their throats. For the best part of a decade, British people—like practically all other Western Europeans—have been taught to hate themselves. They have been lectured about their nation’s historic evils and the supposed worthlessness, even nonexistence, of their culture. It is impressed upon us, without any regard for historical accuracy, that practically everything Britain is today was actually built by foreigners. 

Celebrating diversity, we are told, doesn’t apply to the many regional and national identities native to the British Isles. Just last month, a young girl was sent home from her school’s Culture Celebration Day because she was wearing a dress with the Union Jack on it. Pupils were encouraged to come dressed in cultural costumes, with the aim of “recognising and celebrating the rich cultural diversity within our school community.” Except, the native British apparently weren’t included in that. The girl wasn’t allowed to give a prepared speech on British values and was told that her outfit was “unacceptable.” Other pupils were also sent away for wearing clothes representing various British cultures, including a boy with a St. George’s flag, a boy with a Welsh flag, and a boy sporting a traditional flat cap. Some cultures, it seemed, were more multicultural than others. 

Operation Raise the Colours is a genuinely brilliant initiative to fight back against this pathetic pit of self-loathing the UK has fallen into. For starters, it normalises the sight of the Union Jack and St. George’s Cross—something that, frankly, shouldn’t be unusual to begin with. An American walking down the street in his home country wouldn’t think twice about seeing the Stars and Stripes flying outside homes, on government buildings, or in public spaces. So why is it that a Brit daring to display the flag of his country so often provokes horror and outrage? Why is it easier to hang the flag of another nation, to express allegiance in a foreign war, than it is to show our own? 

That is the second victory of Raise the Colours—it forces the weirdos who hate Britain to explain exactly why this is the case. It’s a good thing that Kehinde Andrews has to go on TV and say outright that he thinks any display of the English or British flag is racist, because anyone with half a brain can see that this is an insane position to take. No one involved with Raise the Colours has declared this to be an exclusionary or hateful movement. The only people making this about race come decidedly from the woke Left. 

The saddest part about the flag wars is that they shouldn’t exist in the first place. It should never be controversial to fly your own country’s flag. Taking pride in where you come from and who you are should not be a privilege afforded only to those who come from certain approved, non-Western cultures. And yet, here we are, witnessing patriots play whack-a-mole with hostile local councils for the right to hang the national colours. 

Hopefully, Operation Raise the Colours wins and makes the Union Jack or St. George’s Cross a common sight in Britain once again. Normal Brits are sick and tired of all this self-loathing. 

Lauren Smith is a London-based columnist for europeanconservative.com

• Tags: British patriotism, Lauren Smith, Operation Raise the Colours, St. George’s flag, UK, Union Jack

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Trump administration continues to focus on apprehending and deporting the ‘worst of the worst’ illegal migrants.

In recent days, ICE officers arrested aliens who included “pedophiles, drug traffickers, abusers, and other violent thugs,” a senior Department of Homeland Security official told The Federalist in a statement.

“Day after day, ICE is going after the worst of the worst because under President [Donald] Trump and Secretary [Kristi] Noem DHS will always put AMERICANS first,” the senior DHS official said in the statement.

A DHS release provided exclusively to Newsmax last week said ICE had arrested Alejandro Lima-Ramirez, 46, a Mexican national and member of the violent Florencia 13 street gang.

Lima-Ramirez’s record includes 24 arrests across California and Oregon and 16 convictions for crimes ranging from drug trafficking and robbery to fraud and weapons charges.

Now comes news that ICE arrested Jung Choi, a 53-year-old California resident and South Korean national convicted in 2020 of voluntary manslaughter, according to DHS documents exclusively provided to The Federalist.

In 2017, Choi assisted a male companion who murdered his wife.

Choi was paroled Friday, when ICE agents apprehended her to begin the process of sending her back to South Korea.

“We are not going to allow this murderer and criminal illegal alien to remain in our country,” the DHS official told The Federalist.

DHS pointed out several other “worst of the worst” illegal migrants arrested during the past several days. They included:

• Marion Andres Gomez-Arenas, 41, from Colombia. His rap sheet includes 23 criminal arrests and 18 convictions in the state of Georgia, according to DHS. Charges against Gomez-Arenas included fraud, forgery, shoplifting, driving under the influence, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer.
• Zoilo Holguin-Tavarez, from the Dominican Republic. Convicted of possession of illegal substances with intent to deliver and carrying a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to DHS.
• Rigoberto Morales Hernandez, from Mexico. Convicted of illegal migrant smuggling in Albany, N.Y., according to DHS.
• Madai Perez-Perez, 33, from Guatemala. Convicted on a charge of willful poisoning of food on a person in Placer County, California, according to DHS.

Charlie McCarthy ✉

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics

David Harriman writes

The Democratic Party has become the Lunatic Party. Membership in the Party is evidence of a mental disease. The problem is more psychological than political.

We are witnessing hostility, envy, guilt, paranoia, and above all, indiscriminately directed hatred, on a scale that is shocking. If a person blames Hurricane Ian for “disproportionately affecting communities of color,” claims that “racism causes climate change,” that “white people have never invented anything,” and that “ownership is socially unacceptable,” are we supposed to debate these “issues”? Or should we simply recommend a therapist? When they advocate the sexual mutilation of children, transsexual strip shows for kindergarteners, abolishing fossil fuel energy, supporting militant Islam and MS-13 gang members, and defunding the police, are they expressing political views or hatred of America (and more generally, hatred of human life)?

I can’t believe that they will win future elections by public displays of hateful lunacy. But I’ve been wrong before.

I entirely agree. Only a therapist will not help. The lunatic will immediately fire any therapist who states or implies anything against the lunatic leftist Narrative. We cannot save the leftist. We must save ourselves.

LAFAYETTE, LA (KPEL) —A Lafayette woman says she was assaulted by a Popeyes manager when she requested a refund for her incorrect order.

Shena Decuir told KLFY News 10 that she suffered first-degree burns after the Popeyes manager allegedly threw freshly fried chicken at her during a disagreement about the mobile order she placed at the Johnston Street location in Lafayette.

I was assaulted. I was belittled. I mean, it was a horrible experience, and no one should have to go through that.

The shocking incident took place once Decuir returned to the drive-thru to inform staff about a mistake with her order.

The victim alleges that once she requested the correct order or a refund, that’s when the manager escalated the situation and became confrontational. Decuir says he was irritated because the store was nearing closing time.

Decuir says the manager demanded she give the food back and then requested a receipt for her order.

He was like, ‘well, give me the chicken’ and I was like, ‘can I have the receipt?’ Because I will be back for my money and to complain, and I don’t think he liked that I said that.

That’s when the manager threw the hot chicken at her, causing burns to her neck, chest, arms, legs, and feet. Decur called Lafayette Police, who arrived on scene with EMS.

According to KLFY News 10, Decuir is already recovering from an unrelated incident and said she felt alone and helpless, but also thankful that the confrontation was caught on camera.

What would’ve happened if there wouldn’t have been cameras? It’s unacceptable.(snip)

The Lafayette Police Department arrested and charged the manager with simple battery.

The Director of Human Resources told KLFY that they are preparing a formal statement in response to the incident.

For now, anyone looking for a job can apply for the manager position that is now listed.

KPEL and KLFY

Just days into his federal takeover of Washington’s police force, President Trump declared the problem solved.

“D.C. was a hellhole and now it’s safe,” he said. On Monday, he said he expected the same results in Chicago, the next city on his list for a federal crackdown on crime.

“We will solve Chicago within one week, maybe less, but within one week, we will have no crime in Chicago,” Trump told reporters on Monday.

Mr. Trump’s bold (and misleading) pronouncements expose a key strategy behind his tough-on-crime swagger. For the president, the idea of sending federal forces into American cities — exclusively in states or jurisdictions led by Democrats — is not so much about the complex and time-consuming work of rooting out crime.

Instead, experts on policing say, it’s about being seen as fighting crime, then reaping the political benefits. Mr. Trump is far from the first politician to use crime as a political issue in an attempt to gain leverage over rivals. But few have done it before in such a way that is so often disconnected from crime statistics on the ground or without a long-term strategy to keep crime down after the show of force goes away.

“He’s not really taking on street crime,” said Jeffrey A. Butts, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “He’s using the crime issue for political posturing and political gain. He’s not alone doing that — a lot of politicians do that. He’s just doing it in ways that are much more dramatic and potentially harmful than other politicians.”

Mr. Trump is approaching the issue of crime with his typical rapid-fire style: issuing orders, deploying law enforcement officers and National Guard troops, taking on Democratic mayors and governors, all while making false and inaccurate statements.

He has claimed that crime in Washington is worse than ever, when statistics show crime has been falling. Mr. Trump claimed those statistics were rigged, but, days later, took credit for the drop in crime. He now says there is no crime in D.C. at all, which also is not true. The city continues to see robberies and motor vehicle thefts, among other crimes.

The problem of crime is all too real for residents who live in violent neighborhoods, but criminologists say the largest problem with Mr. Trump’s strategy is that he has shown little patience for addressing deeply rooted and complex problems or recognizing what cities and states have already achieved.

The Trump administration has canceled grants to local jurisdictions worth more than $800 million for hundreds of justice-related programs, including violence prevention and support for law enforcement — the very type of funding that local leaders say is necessary to keep crime down in the long term. And he has threatened to withhold other funding from leaders who publicly oppose him.

Still, many see Mr. Trump’s actions as smart politics or even long-overdue necessary steps. Adam Gelb, the president and chief executive of the Council on Criminal Justice, a policy think tank, said Mr. Trump’s actions could have a short-term effect, because “removing dangerous people and putting more eyes on the street can help.”

But he cautioned that without a long-term strategy, “whatever gains we’re seeing now will be fleeting.”

High crime rates have persisted in Washington, Baltimore and Chicago for decades. And while homicides in all three cities are down this year, residents readily acknowledge that crime is still too high.

The D.C. Police Union has backed Mr. Trump’s takeover of the police force.

“This town averaged one murder every other day for the last 20, 30 years,” Vice President JD Vance said in the Oval Office, “which means that in two short weeks, the president and the team have saved six or seven lives.”

The Trump administration said its operation in Washington had thus far produced 1,000 arrests, including the seizure of 111 firearms.

Asked whether he would send in the National Guard to cities located in red states, Mr. Trump said he would. “Sure, but there aren’t that many of them,” he said.

Several American cities, like Little Rock, Ark., and Virginia Beach, Va., have experienced a spike in homicides. But none of them, located in states with Republican governors, has yet been the target of federal force.

“The targeted cities are among the most violent in the country, but there are some very glaring omissions, especially Detroit, Memphis and St. Louis,” Mr. Gelb said. “It’s hard to escape noticing that the targets are in solidly blue states, but not in red or purple ones.”

Whenever Mr. Trump has found himself in a tricky political situation, such as blowback over a failure to release the so-called Epstein Files, he has tended to retreat to two issues he sees as political winners: immigration and crime.

Gregg Barak, an emeritus professor of criminology at Eastern Michigan University, called Mr. Trump’s actions “pretty transparent.”

“Crime is performance, crime is diversion,” he said. “If he was serious about crime, he’d restore the billion dollars he’s taken from the city; he would put in more law enforcement personnel; he would put in more local court judges, all of the things that you would do if you really wanted to address crime.”

Luke Broadwater covers the White House for The Times.

By Kevin Finn

These stories remind us that bankruptcy doesn’t have to be terminal — it can be a teacher. Rejecting discouragement unlocks potential. These examples should encourage us: from the depths of defeat, greatness awaits those who refuse to submit to failure.

Some leftists are now claiming that conservatives are foolish to expect President Trump, who once went bankrupt, to turn the economy around. As leftist claims frequently do, it shines a spotlight on their willful ignorance of history.

Our society glorifies overnight successes and flawless trajectories. But it’s worth refamiliarizing ourselves with the stories of individuals who have plummeted to financial ruin only to rebuild their careers and create successful businesses. These serve as powerful reminders of human resilience. Bankruptcy, a word synonymous with defeat, has marked the journeys of countless individuals who have refused to let it define them. Instead of wallowing in despair, they transformed catastrophe into catalyst, embodying virtues like perseverance and adaptability. When we examine the experiences of these figures, we see that failure is not a terminus but a forge for greatness. Learning from setbacks can propel one toward unprecedented achievements.

At the heart of these stories lies the virtue of perseverance — the refusal to surrender in the face of insurmountable odds. The early entrepreneurial venture of Abraham Lincoln, for example, crumbled in 1833. As a young storekeeper in New Salem, Illinois, Lincoln accumulated debts equivalent to about $28,000 in today’s dollars after his business partner died, leaving him solely liable. There were no bankruptcy protections at the time, yet he managed to repay his creditors over 17 grueling years. This ordeal did not deter him. Instead, it ignited his political ascent. From failed campaigns to eventual election as president in 1860, Lincoln’s steadfastness preserved the Union during the Civil War, cementing his legacy as one of America’s greatest leaders. His story demonstrates that perseverance can turn hardship into a foundation for enduring impact.

Similarly, Walt Disney’s story exemplifies perseverance and creative reinvention. Born into humble circumstances in 1901, Disney launched Laugh-O-Gram Studio in 1920, only to file for bankruptcy a year later after losing a financial backer. Despite being unable to pay staff or debts, he was undeterred. He borrowed from his family and began anew in 1923. His ambitious Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs project nearly bankrupted him again in 1937, ballooning to $1.5 million in costs — triple the budget. He acquired a last-minute bank loan that saved the project, which eventually grossed $6.5 million and launched Disney’s iconic empire. By the time of his death in 1966, his net worth soared to an estimated $5 billion (adjusted for inflation). Disney’s ability to pivot from animation failures to global entertainment dominance shows how adaptability — learning from missteps and innovating–can convert bankruptcy into triumph.

Entreprenurial risk taking, another key virtue, shines through in figures like Henry Ford and George Foreman. Ford faced bankruptcy in 1903 after his initial ventures floundered. Yet, this setback refined his vision, leading to the Model T and mass production innovations that revolutionized entire industries. His eventual net worth reached $188 billion (adjusted), proving that bold risks, even when they fail initially, pave the way for success.

After retiring to ministry and youth work, boxing legend George Foreman filed for bankruptcy in 1983. He staged a remarkable comeback at age 45, reclaiming a heavyweight title in 1994 — the oldest ever. After retirement, he pivoted to entrepreneurship with the George Foreman Grill, selling over 100 million units and netting $138 million from naming rights alone. The company is worth approximately $300 million today. Foreman’s journey celebrates risk-taking as a virtue that, paired with resilience, yields great prosperity.

These virtues can also be found in the entertainment realm, where financial mismanagement often precipitates downfall, only for determination to orchestrate revival. MC Hammer, the rapper behind the 1990 hit “U Can’t Touch This,” amassed $33 million at his peak but filed for Chapter 11 in 1996, burdened by $13 million in debt from lavish spending. Despite ongoing IRS woes, he rebuilt to a $1.5 million net worth through persistence in music and projects.

Cyndi Lauper’s 1981 filing preceded her $30 million music legacy, Willie Nelson settled a $16 million IRS debt through music and Elton John rebounded from a 2002 bankruptcy to $450 million.

Even modern icons like Donald Trump, who navigated multiple bankruptcies in the 1990s amid real estate turmoil, exemplify this. Trump’s tenacity rebuilt his empire to a $3 billion net worth, showing that strategic recovery from failure demands courage and vision.

The common thread among these individuals — from presidents and entrepreneurs to athletes and artists — is an early brush with poverty or dysfunction, which instilled determination. Perseverance, imagination, and willingness to experiment may be the “secret qualities” enabling phoenix-like rises. Bankruptcy, often stemming from tax issues or extravagant lifestyles, becomes a “bump in the road” when met with the refusal to quit. This resilience fosters innovation, benefitting not only the individual, but all of society. As these individuals expand their enterprises, they employ more people and ignite the economy.

These stories remind us that bankruptcy doesn’t have to be terminal — it can be a teacher. Rejecting discouragement unlocks potential. These examples should encourage us: from the depths of defeat, greatness awaits those who refuse to submit to failure.

In roughly three years, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established herself as one of the most recognized members of the Supreme Court — and not in a good way.

Despite being the most junior justice on the high court, Jackson has regularly gone out of her way to thumb her nose at her colleagues for upholding America’s constitutional framework. Whether it be through public comments or poorly written opinions, the Biden appointee has shown little respect for the longstanding traditions and collegiality that have defined SCOTUS for generations.

The latest example of this came on Thursday, when the Supreme Court temporarily stayed (in part) a lower court block on the National Institutes of Health’s bid to terminate DEI-related contracts. The court’s ruling was 5-4, with Jackson joining Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in siding against the Trump administration.

In addition to signing onto Roberts’ opinion, Jackson penned a 21-page screed — which is longer than all the other justices’ opinions combined — denouncing the majority’s decision to partially grant the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. Employing the writing style of a left-wing activist, the Biden appointee claimed that her colleagues’ decision is the “newest iteration” of the high court’s “lawmaking on the emergency docket.”

“Stated simply: With potentially life-saving scientific advancements on the line, the Court turns a nearly century-old statute aimed at remedying unreasoned agency decisionmaking into a gauntlet rather than a refuge,” Jackson wrote.

While it’s not uncommon for justices to explain their disagreements and problems with the opposing side’s legal rationale in their opinions, Jackson’s dissent (and this isn’t the first time) takes on another level of snide that’s unbecoming of a junior justice. She went on to effectively accuse her colleagues in the majority of abandoning all semblance of proper jurisprudence and respect for the law in order to bend over backwards for the Trump administration.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”

It’s pretty telling that none of the other justices in the dissent signed onto Jackson’s tirade. While they may share ideological similarities, even Sotomayor and Kagan recognize the importance of respecting and getting along with their conservative-leaning colleagues — especially given that these are lifetime appointments.

But for Jackson, that seemingly matters very little.

What’s become vividly clear is that Jackson isn’t writing about her “feelings” to persuade her colleagues — or more importantly, the American people. She’s writing for a wholly unethical media that practically worships the ground she walks on.

The more ill-informed and incoherent her opinions get, the more fawning coverage the media provides her.

Contrast this apparent mindset with that of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has often spoken about how his primary audience when authoring opinions is the American public. During a 2018 interview at the Library of Congress, for instance, the George H.W. Bush appointee emphasized the importance of using language in his opinions that is accessible to the everyday American, as they have a right to understand how the Court is ruling on any given subject.

“One of the things I say … is that genius is not putting a … 10-cent idea in a $20 sentence. Genius is putting a $20 idea in a 10-cent sentence. It is to make it [as] accessible as possible to average people,” Thomas said. “I think we owe it to people.”

That’s an example Jackson would be wise to adopt if she ever wants to be taken seriously as a justice. Until then, Americans will continue to treat her rambling temper tantrums as the jokes that they are.

The more ill-informed and incoherent her opinions get, the more fawning coverage the media provides her.

Contrast this apparent mindset with that of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has often spoken about how his primary audience when authoring opinions is the American public. During a 2018 interview at the Library of Congress, for instance, the George H.W. Bush appointee emphasized the importance of using language in his opinions that is accessible to the everyday American, as they have a right to understand how the Court is ruling on any given subject.

“One of the things I say … is that genius is not putting a … 10-cent idea in a $20 sentence. Genius is putting a $20 idea in a 10-cent sentence. It is to make it [as] accessible as possible to average people,” Thomas said. “I think we owe it to people.”

That’s an example Jackson would be wise to adopt if she ever wants to be taken seriously as a justice. Until then, Americans will continue to treat her rambling temper tantrums as the jokes that they are.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

President Trump went on a late-night attack against NBC and ABC News on Sunday, deriding them for what, in his view, was “biased” coverage and said he would be in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revoking their licenses.

The Republican president said the news outlets had given him negative coverage on “97%” of stories.

It wasn’t clear from where Trump was citing the “97%” figure. A study released earlier this year by the conservative media watchdog group, Media Research Center (MRC), found that coverage of the president’s first 100 days in office was “92% negative.”

“IF THAT IS THE CASE,” Trump wrote in his characteristic use of all caps, “THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED.”

Trump said he would be “totally in favor” of the move because – according to him – these outlets are “so biased and untruthful, an actual threat to our Democracy.”

The president followed up with another post attacking both outlets as “FAKE NEWS” and “two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the world.”

Trump questioned why both entities aren’t “paying Millions of Dollars a year in LICENSE FEES.”

“They should lose their Licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!!” Trump wrote. “Crooked ‘journalism’ should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!”

Fox News Digital has reached out to both ABC and NBC News for a response to Trump’s posts.

Being national networks, ABC and NBC News do not hold FCC licenses for news content but provide programming for local affiliates across the country.

TV stations pay fees and annual regulatory fees based on station type and market, while cable outlets pay their own regulatory fees. Only congress has the authority to impose and collect such fees, which are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. 

Any move to revoke licenses based on real or perceived news bias would run afoul of First Amendment protections. Similar attempts in the past have been struck down by the courts. 

This is not the first time Trump has attacked broadcast outlets or threatened to strip their licenses. Last year, Trump settled a defamation suit against ABC for $15 million, and he famously hosted “The Apprentice” on NBC before entering the world of politics. 

And earlier this year, Paramount Global and CBS agreed to pay out a settlement over the president’s election interference lawsuit against the network.

Bradford Betz, FoxNews