Category: Breitbart
Holocaust Museum Rebukes Tim Walz for Likening Minnesota’s Illegal Immigrants to Anne Frank
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on Monday rebuked politicians for comparing immigration enforcement to the Holocaust after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D.) on Sunday likened illegal immigrants to Anne Frank.
The post Holocaust Museum Rebukes Tim Walz for Likening Minnesota’s Illegal Immigrants to Anne Frank appeared first on .
Democrats Are Willing To Die To End Deportations. That Can’t Stop Law Enforcement
Law enforcement loses legitimacy the moment officials indicate they’re unwilling to engage in it because of political opposition — even when that opposition is fatalistic.
Democrats Are Willing To Die To End Deportations. That Can’t Stop Law Enforcement
Law enforcement loses legitimacy the moment officials indicate they’re unwilling to engage in it because of political opposition — even when that opposition is fatalistic.
West Virginia Librarian Charged With Recruiting People To Assassinate Trump
‘An active criminal investigation with documented and troubling concerns’
‘Repulsive’: Critics blast Walz for invoking Anne Frank, comparing ICE enforcement to systematic genocide
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) has repeatedly turned to the 1930s in search of potential analogs for those people and actions today that he finds disagreeable.
Walz smeared, for example, Holocaust survivor Jerry Wartski and the tens of thousands of other Americans who attended a campaign event for President Donald Trump in October 2024, comparing them to the Nazis who rallied at the location in February 1939.
‘Her story has nothing to do with the illegal immigration, fraud, and lawlessness plaguing Minnesota today.’
Walz claimed on May 17, 2025, that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — which was active during his former running mate’s tenure as vice president as well as during the Obama administration — was “Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.”
In the wake of 37-year-old Alex Pretti’s fatal shooting by a federal immigration agent on Saturday, Walz once again went in search of a damning reference. This time, he likened Minnesota children whose streets are being cleared of violent criminal noncitizens to Jews in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands who were faced with systematized mass murder.
After further vilifying federal immigration agents and reiterating his demand that ICE leave the Gopher State, Walz said during a press conference on Sunday, “We have got children in Minnesota hiding in their houses, afraid to go outside. Many of us grew up reading that story of Anne Frank.”
“Somebody’s going to write that children’s story about Minnesota,” added Walz. “And there’s one person who can end this now.”
Photographer: Jack Califano/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Anne Frank was a Jewish German girl whose family attempted to hide from Nazi forces in the secret annex of an Amsterdam residence. After two years of hiding, the family was captured after the Sicherheitspolizei raided the location in concert with Dutch police. Frank was taken to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945, where she and her sister died in 1945. Her father, Otto, survived Auschwitz, then later saw to the publication of Anne Frank’s diary.
Critics have suggested Walz’s comparison is indefensible.
Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the U.S. State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, tweeted, “Ignorance like this cheapens the horror of the Holocaust. Anne Frank was in Amsterdam legally and abided by Dutch law. She was hauled off to a death camp because of her race and religion. Her story has nothing to do with the illegal immigration, fraud, and lawlessness plaguing Minnesota today.”
“Our brave law enforcement should be commended, not tarred with this historically illiterate and antisemitic comparison,” added the rabbi.
Republican Rep. Randy Fine (Fla.) said that “comparing the removal of illegal immigrants to the Holocaust is antisemitic and repulsive.”
Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Jewish American activist and political commentator at PragerU, wrote, “One million Jewish children were killed during the Holocaust. Illegal immigrants are offered thousands of dollars to take a free flight home. Tim Walz is an evil retard.”
The White House’s rapid response account said that Walz is a “truly disturbed, unstable individual.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Why every conservative parent should be watching California right now
Well? Do you trust Sam Altman with your kids’ online safety?
Of course you don’t. It is a category error, like asking the fox to draft the henhouse bylaws. Nevertheless, the question is now quietly circulating in Sacramento, Silicon Valley, and soon, if history is any indicator, the rest of the nation.
The world’s most powerful AI company is no longer keeping itself to the building of machines. Now it is helping to write the rules that govern them. That alone should give any serious observer pause. When the referee starts co-authoring the rule book, something has gone wrong long before the first whistle blows. And these machines, of course, are like none other in human history.
California has long served as the Democrats’ preferred testing ground.
OpenAI has announced a partnership with Common Sense Media, a prominent children’s online safety group — founded by Jim Steyer, brother of Tom, the billionaire environmentalist and Democrat candidate for California covernor. OpenAI and CSM were previously at odds, each backing rival ballot initiatives to regulate how children interact with AI chatbots. Now? They’ve joined forces.
The result is a single proposal that could soon land on the California ballot — and, crucially, be marketed as a model for national standards.
California has long served as the Democrats’ preferred testing ground. Auto emissions standards were piloted there, then imposed nationwide. Data privacy followed the same path. So did labor rules, energy mandates, and environmental regulations that radically reshaped entire industries far beyond the state’s borders. Speaking of machines, this one has proven remarkably efficient. First comes the pilot. Then the precedent. Then the pressure. Boom — the heart of national policy is taken over from the fringe.
Once embedded, predictably, the rules harden. Especially when written into ballot initiatives, state constitutions, or dense compliance regimes that only the largest players can afford to navigate. Revision becomes politically radioactive. Repeal is painted as dangerous. Dissent is portrayed as moral failure, opposition as risky and reckless.
The stated purpose, to be sure, is unimpeachable. Protect children. Limit data collection. Add safeguards. Require age verification. Who could object? That’s precisely the point. The moral framing does the work before the policy ever does.
RELATED: Murder victim’s heirs file lawsuit against OpenAI
Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images
By the time questions about power, enforcement, and unintended consequences arise, the argument has already been won. After all, if you hesitate, what exactly are you saying? That children should be less safe?
But politics, especially California politics, is not about intentions. It has always been about incentives. And this arrangement raises an obvious, uncomfortable question: Why would the most dominant AI firm want to help draft the very regulations meant to restrain it?
Regulation, when shaped correctly, isn’t a burden on the powerful. Quite the opposite, in fact. It’s a moat. Compliance costs rise. Audits multiply. Smaller firms buckle. New entrants hesitate. The giants absorb the expense, hire the lawyers, tick the boxes, and continue unimpeded. In public, this is called responsibility. In practice, it’s market control with better manners.
There is also the question of timing. OpenAI and its peers are facing mounting criticism over how young people interact with AI systems. Lawsuits loom. Legislators grow restless. Parents are alarmed. Aligning with a trusted children’s advocacy group offers something priceless: moral cover. It reframes the company not as a defendant, but as a protector, a source of safety against irresponsible risk.
That shift matters.
Once a firm is cast as part of the solution rather than a leading source of the problem, scrutiny softens. Critics sound shrill, concerns are waved away as the ravings of cranks, and the company secures a seat at the table where future rules are written.
Far more mundane — and troubling — than a cloakroom conspiracy, this is regulatory capture conducted in broad daylight, wrapped up with a bow in the language of care. And you do care, don’t you?
Once California moves, the story writes itself. Headlines will hail “the strongest protections in the country.” Governors elsewhere will be asked why their states lag behind. Congress will be told a ready-made framework already exists. Why reinvent the wheel? Why delay?
And just like that, a system designed with the input of the industry it governs becomes the national baseline.
This is how power consolidates in the modern age. Forget force and secrecy. Who needs skullduggery when you have slickly deployed partnerships, press releases, and the careful use of children as moral ballast?
None of this is to deny that children need protection online. They do. The digital world is unforgiving, full of predators and rabbit holes that lead nowhere good. No serious person disputes that. However, safeguards crafted in haste — or worse, convenience — rarely age well.
In a brutal irony, though, a process meant to protect the young can instead shape a future where oversight is ossified, competition is stifled, and the most influential technology of our era answers primarily to itself.
California is once again the laboratory. The rest of the country is expected to follow.
So the opening question bears repeating. Do you trust Sam Altman, and companies like his, to help decide what your children are allowed to say, read, ask, or imagine? The question answers itself. What remains unanswered is whether the rest of the country will be given a choice.
Trump ‘reviewing everything’ following Minneapolis shooting
President Trump declined to say Sunday whether the Border Patrol agent who fatally shot 37-year-old Alex Pretti in a Minneapolis shooting this week did the right thing, saying his administration is “reviewing everything” and will reach a conclusion. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the president did not answer directly when asked twice whether he thinks the agent acted appropriately, even as members of his administration…
