Michal Cotler-Wunsh @CotlerWunsh: There is NO genocide in Gaza.

There is war – waged by genocidal terrorists for whom human tragedy is the strategy; who use own people as human shields/sacrifices; who use int’l ‘humanitarian aid’ & civilian infrastructure to construct hundreds of km of underground hell.

A war that would be over on October 8 if the 251 human beings stolen & held in standing violation of law & morality – 4 of them since 2014 – were returned; & if Hamas war criminals were held to account & prevented from openly declared intent to perpetrate genocidal October 7 atrocities again & again.

But @nytimes will platform those that claim there is, partaking in systematic demonization, de-legitimisation, & application of double/invented standards to 🇮🇱’the Jew’ among nations.

Then again…they also publish blood libellous ‘facts’ from genocidal Hamas terror proxy of a criminal Islamic regime in Iran, including allegations that Israel struck a hospital killing hundreds 11 days after October 7 massacre…only to publish ‘retraction’ when it turns out it was an errant rocket launched by PIJ, another genocidal terror proxy of same murderous regime. #NeverAgainIsNow.
Quote:
Aizenberg@Aizenberg55
· May 20
🧵A strong consensus has formed: there is no genocide in Gaza. Over 50 leading international law, genocide & military experts have rejected the claim. A false narrative pushed by a minority of loud voices falls apart under factual and legal scrutiny. Detail & sources below: 1/

Senate Republicans are not happy with House conservatives they view as hijacking the congressional agenda to make the disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein-related files their burning focus.

GOP senators say the matter should be left to President Trump and the Department of Justice and want House lawmakers to pay more attention to finding a way to avoid a government shutdown at the end of September.

Instead, House Republicans on the Rules Committee have brought their chamber to a partial standstill by refusing to vote down Democratic amendments to force the publication of Epstein-related files.

“You can’t do anything because of Epstein,” one senio

GOP senator fumed. “Wow, what a way to shut it down. … How does it happen?

“We’re supposed to be focusing on governing the country. Let’s not get caught up in the tabloid exposé stuff. Let’s keep the government open. Let’s pass appropriations bills. Let’s do the boring stuff of governing and let other people get all ginned up about who’s sleeping with who,” the lawmaker said.

The House is about to leave town for a five-week recess despite having passed only two of the regular appropriations bills for fiscal 2026.

Senate Republicans are second-guessing Johnson’s effort to quell the controversy by sending his members away from Washington early to begin the August recess.

“I think that’s a silly reason to go home,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has called on the Trump administration to “just release the damn files.”

Tillis suggested Johnson is deluding himself if he thinks that the problem will simply go away by sending lawmakers away from Washington for an extended recess.

 PM by Kudsman

Member Services Advocacy Training and Events Newsroom About Calendar Store District Vacancies Contact Log In Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor could be a game changer for public education On Board Online • July 21, 2025

By Pilar Sokol Director of Legal Services

Just before the end of this year’s session, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which many have referred to as a game changer for public education.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the high court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who are in the process of challenging their school district’s refusal to excuse their children from classroom instruction that involves the use of certain books in grades K-5. Some of the books tell stories about same-sex relationships, including same sex marriages, and some involve the topic of gender identity.

The injunction requires the school board to restart a prior policy of giving parents advance notice of when the books would be used in the classroom and allowing parents to excuse their children from that instruction.

The court sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings consistent with the high court’s majority opinion. Still, the opinion foreshadows the Mahmoud majority’s disposition regarding resolution of the merits of the case. Thus, it is important to understand what the case is and is not about, and why the high court’s majority (five justices and one concurrence) determined a preliminary injunction was warranted in this case.

The district began incorporating the LGBTQ+ texts into the English language arts curriculum after determining the current books were not representative of many in their school community because they did not include LGBTQ+ characters. While books were included in grades PK-12, the Mahmoud decision involves only the storybooks assigned for use in grades K-5 (students ages 5-11).

The district expected teachers to include the storybooks in classroom instruction in the same way as other books. The district issued a guidance giving teachers suggested responses to potential questions from students and parents.

In response to parental push back regarding the introduction of the books, the district initially agreed to give parents advanced notice when any of the books in question would be used in classroom instruction and allow opt-outs. Due to a high number of opt-out requests, the district discontinued both the advanced notice and opt-out arrangement.

According to district staff and the school board, the number of opt-out requests made the process unmanageable. The court commented in the majority decision that school districts “cannot escape free exercise [of religion] obligations by crafting a curriculum so cumbersome that a substantial number of parents elect to opt out.”

The parents argued that they have a religious duty to train their children according to their faith regarding what it means to be male or female and matters involving marriage, human sexuality and other related themes. They asserted that the district’s actions violated their right to the free exercise of their religion, and the high court majority agreed.

To grant a preliminary injunction, a court must make certain determinations, including the likelihood of the litigant’s success on the merits of the underlying claim. In that context, the court determined that the district’s actions “substantial[ly] interfere[d]” with the parents’ free exercise rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They also presented a “very real threat” of undermining the parents’ ability to instill in their children their religious beliefs, and this further imposed an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of those beliefs.

In the majority’s view, the district’s actions substantially interfered with the parents’ exercise of religious rights for a variety of reasons based on the combination of the introduction of the books, the district’s instructions to teachers and the discontinuance of the notice and opt-out option.

The court found the books were normative. That is, they presented “certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary [ones] as things to be rejected.” Teachers were encouraged to reinforce the values and beliefs to be celebrated, and children encouraged to adopt those specific views.

The district’s actions also posed an “objective danger” to undermining the parents’ teachings based on their children’s susceptibility to their teachers’ 

As to the imposition of an unconstitutional burden, the district’s actions, in part, conditioned the parents’ access to public education on their acceptance of a burden on religious exercise. Although the district had an interest in maintaining a safe school environment for all to learn in, their actions were not narrowly tailored to advance that interest.

So where do school districts go from here? As a starting point, school officials should examine whether their current policies or practices resemble any of the circumstances in Montgomery County. While creating an automatic, universal opt-out policy is an option, be sure to discuss practical implications with district administrators and the concept of a sincere religious belief with your school attorney. Your policy should be well-suited to local needs and realities, including demographics. Possibly with the assistance of your school attorney, identify any policies and practices that might be impacted by Mahmoud and may be in need of possible revision.

To learn more about the case itself, open questions and possible answers including its impact on curriculum, and future potential challenges such as the expansion of opt-outs into other areas, attend NYSSBA’s Summer Law Conference in person in Albany on July 31, or virtually on Aug. 5 and 6. In the meantime, feel free to contact NYSSBA’s Legal Department with questions you might have at legal@nyssba.org.

Go back | Show other stories Contact Us New York State School Boards Association 24 Century Hill Drive, Suite 200 Latham, New York 12110-2125 518.783.0200 phone 518.783.0211 fax Contact Us

US President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of “treason” in the Oval Office yesterday, July 22, 2025, during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Trump, without providing specific evidence, claimed Obama led an effort to falsely tie him to Russia and undermine his 2016 presidential campaign. He further stated, “They have him stone cold. And it was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, he’s guilty. It’s not a question. This was treason”. 

This accusation is reportedly linked to a recent report by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who claims it undermines a 2017 assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump. Gabbard has declassified documents that she alleges reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” by former Obama administration officials, claims that have been dismissed as false and politically motivated by Democrats. Previous investigations, including a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, have concluded that Russia did attempt to interfere in the 2016 election to favor Trump. 

Obama’s office responded with a rare statement, calling Trump’s claims “outrageous,” “bizarre,” and a “weak attempt at distraction”. Spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush noted that while Obama’s office usually doesn’t respond to “constant nonsense and misinformation,” these claims warranted a response due to their extreme nature. Rodenbush also stated that the documents released by Gabbard do not invalidate the conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election, although they didn’t successfully manipulate votes. 

Regarding the possibility of an arrest, while election interference has been established as an offense for former presidents, legal experts have expressed skepticism about the potential for Obama’s arrest based on these allegations. However, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has stated she has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice regarding charges against Barack Obama. 

It’s important to note the legal definition of “treason” in the US Constitution, which involves levying war against the US or aiding its enemies. Treason is punishable by death. While election interference has led to convictions in other cases, Trump’s accusations against Obama remain unsubstantiated by evidence and have been called baseless by Obama’s office. 

“Ahh, retirement—no more commute, no more responsibilities. I can’t wait!” The holy grail of retirement is the reward for a lifetime of accomplishment and faithful employment. But for some people it doesn’t quite live up to all it’s supposed to be.

Over the years, I’ve counseled many retired people. One of the trends I have observed, especially with couples who moved here from a busy urban area, is some degree of dissatisfaction expressed by one or both parties. It seems hard to understand at first. The dream of retirement has been fulfilled. Relaxation and freedom are finally in their grasp. So why doesn’t it seem to be enough?

I’m reminded of a classic behavioral experiment (every mental health professional learns this one in school) conducted with lab rats and their food. In the first part of the study, the animals’ food is buried under the ground. They quickly learn to dig for their dinner, working hard to reach that reward. After a period of time, phase two begins: The food is now placed on the surface, in full sight. But, interestingly enough, the little animals ignore the easy-to-reach meal, and continue to dig, as if the ritual of working for the food was unalterably linked to the reward. Aha!

Though we humans are more complicated than those tiny creatures, we also develop powerful habits. And going to work, along with the associated mental and social engagement, is no less a habit than any other behavior we repeat year after year.

The good news is this: As reasoning creatures, we can change our habits. For example, a newly retired person might automatically think, “I have to hurry up,” until she realizes she’s doing nothing more than taking a leisurely trip to the grocery store. At this point it makes psychological sense for her to stop and to say to herself: “What’s the hurry? What’s keeping me from taking my time? I’ll get there when I get there!” She has to modify her knee-jerk thoughts and get onto a new mental track.

And then there’s one of my favorites: The issue of guilt. Consider the retired person who feels guilty that he isn’t trudging to work. He feels vaguely anxious, like he “should be doing more.” Old habits die hard, and he hasn’t yet given himself the time to understand that he doesn’t HAVE to “dig for his food” anymore. But the anxiety and mental engagement associated with his job have become wrongly linked with the reward of his retirement. The more he sees the stress-free existence he has, the unhappier and guiltier he feels. He has to disconnect these two feelings so he can enjoy the new life he worked so hard to create.

Many people who retire at the beach do so with their spouses and partners. They have to realize that they’re two different individuals, especially when it comes to handling a major life change. Each will have his or her own process for going through the transition. Some will do so immediately, and for others it can take a while. Unnecessary problems develop when one partner fails to look objectively at what the other is going through. My suggestion is to give everything at least a year to play itself out, without jumping to conclusions such as, “This was the wrong decision.” If the original decision to relocate was carefully considered, then it probably just needs time to sink in.

Retirement isn’t for everyone. Many want to be productive to the end of their lives. This is perfectly fine. Just make sure that you’re being productive for your own pleasure, and not because you guiltily “feel like you should.”

Retirement shouldn’t feel like you’re “playing hooky.” It’s a long-awaited opportunity to guiltlessly do less — or more — of whatever you want to do. So, tie up loose ends and try different things. After all, you earned it.

Hunter Biden is a mental and moral cripple.

It seems that “f**kin” is Hunter’s favorite word. He loathes white people with such an intensity, referring to Trump voters as “f**kin White voters” that you have to wonder if coke-for-brains Hunter even knows that he’s white. Or maybe he loathes himself–no doubt with good reason.

“Luckily for the American people, a house cat has a better chance of being President than Hunter,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in response to Biden’s comments. “If anyone agreed with Hunter’s unhinged rantings, Kamala Harris would be in the White House right now. But the American people sent President Trump back to the White House because they wanted him to undo all of Joe Biden’s disastrous policies – including his open borders agenda that let countless criminal illegal aliens come into our country.”

Unbridled TRASH. The Bidens are the scum that scum go to in order to learn how to be scum.

Hunter should be locked into a room for 25 years with no cocaine, and no whores. Plenty of food and water.  That’s it.

Michael J. Hurd

Karl Marx: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”

Recent Breitbart headline: “Zohran Mamdanin Pushes for ‘Abolition of Private Property’”

Well, of course, the commies are already here; Marxism dominates the Democratic Party now, so Mamdani’s call for the abolition of private property is not surprising in the least. But that’s just my conclusion. Let me share with you some quotes from Karl Marx, and then you can decide if, or to what extent, his communist theory has infiltrated and/or taken over the Democratic Party. All the quotes below are from Marx. I’m going to provide these quotes without comment; you, the reader, can decide for yourself how well these ideas describe the current Democratic Party.

1. “My object is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.”

2. “Take away a nation’s heritage and they are more easily persuaded.”

3. “Keep people from their history and they are easily controlled.”

4. “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions.”

5. “Communism begins where atheism begins.”

6. “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”

7. “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

8. “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.”

9. “A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism.”

10. “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

11. “As socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part.”

That’s a sampling. More could be added, but this article can’t be a book. A wise person can either already perceive the above ideas deeply embedded in the Democratic Party, or certainly, they are in germ form. All of the above, of course, can easily be detected and demonstrated from countries (e.g., the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) that accepted and applied Marx’s doctrine in the 20th century. There is no reason to believe that the Marxists in the Democratic Party won’t do the same things if given the total power they crave.

Richard Wurmbrand was a Romanian pastor who spent 14 years tortured for his faith in a communist prison camp. Thus, he experienced Marxism, not just theorized about it. He wrote, “There is no support for the view that Marx entertained lofty social ideals about helping mankind. Marx hated any notion of God or gods. He determined to be the man who would kick out God.” Read quote number 1 above again for the theoretical verification of what Marxists actually practice. The Democratic Party’s current hatred of Christians, Jews, and all things religious (they don’t like Muslims, either, but currently find them useful because of their opposition to Judaism and Christianity) is a clear manifestation of this Marxist dogma.

Let’s try to understand a little bit more about Marxism and its origins, thus the underlying foundation of the modern Democratic Party. Very few people comprehend this; I suspect 99.9% of the people who vote for Democrats have no clue about it (and probably wouldn’t care). But it’s important; as Marx implied (quotes 2 and 3 above), historical ignorance is very helpful to propagate his theory.

The great basic thought of George Wilhelm Frederich Hegel, borrowed by Marx and his companion Frederck Engels, was “the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes.” Not stable, unchanging verities and virtues, but an ever-evolving “process.” Once this central notion of Marxian dialectics is grasped, we realize that, to Marxists, there are no “final” solutions, nothing fixed, absolute, eternally true, or right or wrong. There are no eternal truths in Marxism—hence, it’s hatred of religion. Each stage [of the historical “process”] is necessary and therefore justified by the time and conditions to which it owes its origin.

When new, higher conditions develop, the old things lose their validity and justification. Nothing is forever “normal.” Again, for it [dialectical philosophy, i.e., Marxism], nothing is final, absolute, or sacred. Historical justification is thus the only justification for determining “normal” or “weird,” “right” or “wrong.” Even slavery and incest (and capitalism) were considered to be historically justified—“normal”—at given stages of history.

It’s an ever-evolving process with no fixed, absolute truths.

Marx owed much of this, not only to Hegel, but also to Charles Darwin, to whom Marx wanted to dedicate one volume of his massive tome, Capital. Evolutionary theory (which Marx saw as the “scientific” basis for his “scientific socialism”) obviously fits Marx’s theory nicely—everything is evolving, changing, in flux, nothing is final or absolute.

So, how do we define true “normality?” Man, a million years ago, was a knuckle-dragging, hairy ape-like creature. What was “normal” back then? Man is what he is today. Surely what was “normal” a million years ago isn’t “normal” today. And what will man be like a million years from now? No one knows because, by definition, naturalistic evolution is random and directionless. Thus, clearly, what is “normal” today probably won’t be “normal” to whatever “humanity” is a million years from now.

Therefore, putting tampons in boys’ bathrooms and having XY chromosomed humans beating up XX chromosomed humans isn’t “weird” to people who believe in the ever-evolving Marxian ethics and morality. It’s only weird to J. D. Vance and his ilk.

That’s Marxism, folks. That’s Zohran Mamdani, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, AOC—that is the underlying philosophy of the Democratic Party. And we can see it in action, in many ways. They are coming. They are already here. We need to be prepared.

Mark Lewis, Townhall

Ever since regime change in Syria last December, the country had not exactly offered safety to its minorities, despite President Ahmed al-Sheraa’s (al-Julani) fine words that he is the head of all Syrians, not just Sunnis.

Druze have been murdered in the town of Suweida, there has been massacre, mutilation and humiliation.

In fact there are suspicions that Al-Julani’s own forces slaughtered the entire staff at Suweida’s hospital along with their patients and carried out extrajudicial executions.

The international community has been conspicuous by its silence: no Jews, no news. The international media have reverted to form, obscuring who are the real aggressors and blaming Israel for de-stabilising Syria. They have deflected from Syrian atrocities against the Druze by decrying Israel’s symbolic bombing of the Ministry of Defence in Damascus.

Only one country has rushed to intervene to save their Druze blood brothers: Israel.

The Druze are an ancient offshoot of Islam but are viewed by Islamists as heretics. Israel is committed to protecting its 150,000-member Druze minority. They serve in the IDF, often with distinction, and in the security services.

But there is a wider significance to Israel’s intervention – the Jewish state has taken on the mantle of champion of Middle Eastern minority rights.

Until the destruction of the Jewish communities of the Arab world, Jews were one of the oldest indigenous minorities in the Middle East, itself a rich tapestry of different tribes, religions and sects. Yet people insist on viewing political rights in the region as belonging exclusively to Arab Muslims: 22 Arab states were created by European colonialists (who drew arbitrary lines on a map). Only Zionism is treated and rejected as a a creature of western colonialism.

Mesmerised by the romance of the Palestinian cause, the West routinely ignores the plight of other minorities. There are five times as many Kurds as Palestinians, but where are the calls for their rights?

While disproportionate attention has been paid to the Balfour Declaration’s call for a homeland for the Jews, it is often forgotten that Kurds, Assyrians and other non-Arab minorities also sought self- determination the wake of World War One. They were betrayed by colonial powers, who broke their promises and surrendered to the demands of the pan-Arab nationalists.

Instead of giving minorities the right to be different the nationalist ethos has invested a predominantly Arab Sunni elite with power, and oppressed Berbers, Assyrians, Baloch and Kurds.

Religious minorities – Copts, Druze, Baha’i’s, Yazidis, Mandaeans – do not aspire to self-determination but do deserve to have their rights protected. The record of Arab regimes here has been abysmal. It’s a safe bet that even if Israel had not existed, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahais and Copts would continue to have been pushed out of the Middle East.

This is because, to quote the great historian Bernard Lewis:’ in the Muslim world view it is right and proper that power should be wielded by Muslims and Muslims alone. Others may receive tolerance, even the benevolence of the Muslim state, provided they clearly recognise Muslim supremacy.’

Israel stands out as the only sovereign non-Muslim state in the Middle East (Lebanon was carved out of Syria by the French as a safe haven for Maronite Christians, but these are now a dwindling minority in a fragmented state until recently dominated by the Iran-backed Hezbollah.) Without an army, Israel would be as vulnerable to massacre as the Yazidis – who were targeted for rape, massacre and forced conversion by ISIS in Iraq.

This could conceivably have been the fate of Mizrahi Jews, 99 percent of whom have fled the Arab Middle East. In his essay ‘Mizrahi Nation’, the Israeli journalist and author Matti Friedman writes: “The construction of the state of Israel, in which Mizrahi Jews have been partners of numeric equality (if not other forms of equality) for over 66 years, provided the stateless Jews of the Middle East with self-determination in their native region and turned them from an endangered minority into half of a majority.

Indeed, as Friedman puts it, having your own sovereign state and the power to defend it is the only way to survive in the hostile environment that is the Middle East. His words have never been truer.

Lyn Julius

Isn’t it strange how some of the most notorious white supremacist groups — the same ones that idolize Hitler and celebrate the Holocaust — suddenly claim to care about brown “Palestinian” Arabs?

Their selective outrage is telling. The very people who glorify real genocide now pretend to oppose a fake one — using the term “genocide” only when they can aim it at Jews.

Let’s be clear: the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, which doubles as a propaganda arm, manipulates casualty figures while ensuring civilian suffering by using human shields and obstructing aid. This isn’t about humanitarian concern — it’s about weaponizing lies to demonize Israel.

The hypocrisy is staggering. These extremists don’t care about Arab Muslims. They care about attacking Jews. And they’ve simply found a new banner to march under.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

Watch how these liars pose to care for the “Palestinian” Arabs who are 97% Muslim.

We just completed a massive Deal with Japan, perhaps the largest Deal ever made. Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 Billion Dollars into the United States, which will receive 90% of the Profits.

This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it. Perhaps most importantly, Japan will open their Country to Trade including Cars and Trucks, Rice and certain other Agricultural Products, and other things.

Japan will pay Reciprocal Tariffs to the United States of 15%. This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

President Donald J. Trump