Articles

Monday, February 17, 2020

How Lord of the Rings Brings Modern Day Orcs to England

Before The Hobbit movies could begin their trek through theaters, Warner Brothers and the Tolkien Estate had to settle their lawsuit over profits from the original movies for an undisclosed sum.

Christopher Tolkien, the now deceased son of the author, stated that the settlement would “allow The Tolkien Trust to properly pursue its charitable objectives."

The Tolkien Trust was founded by Tolkien’s children in the seventies to use some of the income from the estate of the celebrated philologist and author for charitable works. Two generations later, these works appear to have drifted quite far from anything that the conservative scholar might have wished.

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was a staunch Catholic, a monarchist and proudly provincial. The Tolkien Trust funds fairly few Catholic and many international human rights causes. Its English charities would often have been best left unfunded considering the great harm that they do to the ‘shires’ of his land.

In 2018 and 2017, the Tolkien Trust sent a total of 80,000 pounds to Asylum Welcome. AW welcomes "asylum seekers, refugees and detainees" coming to Oxford and Oxfordshire. It boasts of its accomplishments in bringing Sudanese, Somalis, and Syrians to Oxford.

The majority of AW migrants come from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea.

AW partners with six Oxford and Oxfordshire "community organizations". Two of them are Syrian, two Somali, and one Sudanese. Its Syrian Resettlement program notes its success in registering Syrian asylum seekers for "benefits". That, in the name of an author who once raged at government taxation.

Not satisfied with bringing Muslim migrants to Oxford, AW also runs services for detained migrants who are due to be removed and claims to have "played an important part in… facilitating their release".

Oxford, like many places in the United Kingdom, that have suffered from mass migration from some of these countries, has experienced its own sex grooming ring scandal. More recently, Salman Ahmad, a Muslim refugee, gang raped a woman in Oxford after only being in the country for four months.

The orcs are about in Oxfordshire.

The Tolkien Trust sent 80,000 pounds to RefuAid which funds Syrian migrants in the UK. RefuAid, among other things, urges supporters to lobby MPs to increase local resettlement numbers. 75,000 pounds were sent to Doctors of the World UK which advocates for helping refugees access the NHS. And pumped another 70,000 into the Koestler Trust which aids prisoners and immigration detainees.

60,000 pounds was sent to La Cimade, which aids thousands of migrants entering France. 50,000 was sent to SOS Mediterranee and 10,000 pounds to Pilotes Voluntaires, which help migrants reach Europe.

The Tolkien Trust not only supports hypothetical, but actual Islamic terrorists by dispatching 190,000 pounds in the last two years to Reprieve. The British group boasts of having “led the fight for access to the men held at Guantánamo" and of having "secured freedom for more than 80 men."

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's founder, represented among others, Moazzam Begg, who returned to the UK and went on to found CAGE, a pro-terrorist group, and to urge sympathy for Al Qaeda.

CAGE called Jihadi John, the ISIS killer of Britons like David Haines and Alan Henning, a “beautiful man”.

Reprieve is currently working to free Haroon Gul, a senior commander of the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin terror group, which has been allied with ISIS, and Towfiq Bihani, a member of an Al Qaeda family who knew the original head of ISIS and threatened beheadings and another 9/11 attack.

In a tragic irony, the Tolkien Trust is using the proceeds from Lord of the Rings to fund modern day orcs.

After September 11, some found inspiration in the invocation of the battle between good and evil of the films. Unbeknownst to them, the films may have ended up funding that very evil we were fighting.

Using the proceeds of Tolkien’s explorations of Middle Earth, the Tolkien Trust is spending a good deal of money on Muslim charities and on organizations doing a great deal of work in the Middle East.

In the last two years, the Tolkien Trust has sent 41,000 pounds to Basmeh and Zeitooneh, a Syrian refugee charity, 60,000 pounds together in the last two years to the Aladdin Project and Association IMAD, two Muslim dialogue organizations in France, and 300,000 pounds to Medecins du Monde and 400,000 to Medecins Sans Frontihres, the original group, for its work in Libya and Yemen.

While J.R.R. Tolkien was conservative, the Tolkien Trust’s spending on matters unrelated to its founder is similar to any other leftist trust. There’s 10,000 pounds for Greenpeace, 50,000 for Peace Brigades International, which has a history of supporting Marxists, and 110,000 pounds for another anti-war group. Considering Tolkien’s views of the Spanish Civil War, he would not have supported PBI.

This obsession with “international relations and peace building” would have been foreign to him.

There’s plenty of money for criminal charities like the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Shannon Trust, the New Bridge Foundation, and the Prison Phoenix Trust. And for homeless charities. Yet for an organization funded by the work of Tolkien, a devout Christian, it’s striking how few Christian organizations are funded by the Trust.

Last week, I wrote of how the Roddenberry Foundation was exploiting the funds of the Star Trek creator to subsidize Islamists and racists who hate this country, its achievements and its ideals. There is a similar tragedy in the work of another fantastic creator being used to fund agendas he would have loathed.

The Trust is funded by some US copyrights of Lord of the Rings, along with assorted other
translations and fragmentary works that Tolkien never chose to publish in his lifetime, but that have been used to feed a demand for Lord of the Rings material. No matter how unpublishable it really might be. And, perversely, those who buy books of Tolkien’s philosophical works and letters are funding the Trust.

J.R.R. Tolkien was profoundly suspicious of power, yet his Trust is used to fund the causes of a Sauronesque leftist political movement that believes in total power over all people for their own good.

"I am not a 'socialist' in any sense - being adverse to 'planning',” Tolkien wrote. “most of all because the 'planners', when they acquire power, become so bad—but I would not say we had to suffer the malice of Sharkey and his Ruffians here. Though the spirit of 'Isengard', if not of Mordor, is always cropping up.”

His Trust has imbibed the spirit of Isengard enough to embrace socialism and what comes with it.

In the Scouring of the Shire, the final struggle of Lord of the Rings, the hobbits return home to discover a devastated socialist landscape with lists of rules and ‘sharers’ collecting all the food, where the native farmers have been intimidated by “squint-eyed and sallow-faced” robbers acting as tax collectors.

If J.R.R. Tolkien were to return today, he would discover that his own Trust is filling the UK with orcs.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

2020 Democrat Nomination for Sale

In 2016, Donald Trump proved that money won’t buy you the Republican nomination. In 2020, his likely challengers are proving that not only can you buy the Democrat nomination, but it’s the best way.

Michael Bloomberg is making headlines for spending $300 million on advertising to buy third place. That doesn’t include the $10,000 spent on sushi, $250,000 on furniture, and six figure staffer salaries. With a $61 billion net worth, the billionaire just decided to buy the primaries. And his buying spree is working.

The Dems claim to hate billionaires, but two of them successfully bought into the race, Bloomberg and Steyer, while completely lacking the populist appeal that propelled Trump to the top. The Bloomberg-Steyer spending sprees have set off a dieback in the Dem 2020 race where only those candidates with lots of cash can even compete. Warren’s campaign is crumbling along with her financial prospects.

Steyer is cutting off Biden at the knees in South Carolina and Bloomberg will probably finish him on Super Tuesday. That will leave Buttigieg and Sanders as the only non-billionaires with a real shot.

What makes a socialist from Vermont and the failed mayor of a midwestern city competitive?

Money. Lots and lots of money.

Bernie Sanders raised $25 million in January. Buttigieg put together almost $3 million after Iowa.

While Bernie fulminates about the rich, he’s in second place and rising because he has so much more money to spend than his opponents, including Biden, do. That is the real secret of his success.

The socialist outspent his rivals by $15 million. He blew through $50 million in the final months of the year to buy the surge that put him over the top. In January, Bernie spent $8 million on ads, Buttigieg spent $6.5 million, Warren $5.4 million, while Biden was down to $2.4 million. Spending money doesn't ensure results, but it certainly helps. Buttigieg’s “surprise” was really spending a lot of money.

Bloomberg and Bernie are both elderly New Yorkers with unpleasant personalities and a lot of cash. The distinction between buying an election with your own money or grassroots fundraising is virtue signaling. What does matter is that the 2020 nomination is for sale to those with the money to buy.

Enough money can make otherwise non-viable candidates like Bernie and Bloomy into ‘contendahs’.

Bernie’s fans will argue that his money comes from “small donors”. But what that leaves out is that the small donors are privileged lefties with lots of money to throw at elections. It was enough to buy Iowa, but the caucus results also showed that Bernie has no crossover appeal and isn’t boosting turnout.

Both Bernie and Buttigieg benefit from the same kind of money machine printed by an enthusiastic fan base. And the fan base sees the two men, less as viable presidential candidates, and more as a means of mainstreaming a larger campaign that they care about even more than winning an election. Bernie’s fans would trade losing the 2020 election for a takeover of the Democrats. That’s always the agenda.

And much of Buttigieg’s cash flow has come from gay donors who care less about him winning than about his presence on a national stage. Unlike the donors of the other 2020 candidates, who fold when their candidate stops being viable, the money machines funding Sanders and Buttigieg will never stop.

Much like Bloomberg and Steyer’s cash machines.

Bloomberg’s $61 billion fortune is formidable, but so is the net worth of Bernie and Buttigieg’s bases.

Biden’s donors have always been shaky. They’re investors, looking to buy influence, and aren’t going to sink good money after bad. They’re not going to keep spending money because they want to see Joe kissing little girls on the lips in Florida, groping matrons in Minnesota, or slurring speeches in South Carolina. Biden’s only real shot was sealing the deal out of the gate. And now he’s in trouble.

In the final quarter of the years, Sanders and Buttigieg both outraised Biden. Warren nearly did.

Where Trump had underspent his primary rivals, his prospective opponents are outspending them. And that’s good news for Trump and bad news for the Democrats who are going to be fighting a populist who got to the White House by beating money machines with another money machine candidate.

The Dem spending race is one reason why candidates who might have taken off with minority voters never got much traction. Building primary debates and fundraising around small donors allowed the passionate wealthy fanbases of Sanders and Buttigieg, or even Yang and Warren, to dominate the race. Meanwhile candidates who might have appealed to black voters never even got off the ground.

The two black candidates originally in the race, Harris and Booker, had little support in the black community, and had instead gotten as far as they did by cultivating wealthy white donors, Harris on San Francisco’s Nob Hill, and Silicon Valley and Manhattan for Booker, without ever building a black base.

They never did manage to pick up enduring black support in the race before their cash ran out.

If Biden collapses, the Democrats risk going into the 2020 race with a candidate who doesn’t appeal to black voters. That description covers Sanders, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg to varying degrees. And, without vigorous black turnout, the odds of a Democrat winning the White House are longer than long.

You can buy the nomination, but you can’t buy enthusiasm outside your narrow fanbase.

Bloomberg, at least, understands that and is going about buying the election in the most direct fashion. He’s avoided the debate stage until now, his campaigning is limited, and instead he’s spending a fortune on ads. He’s also paying influencers to tweet positively about him and, probably, buying endorsements.

The billionaire is trying to buy the nomination the same way his rivals are. He’s just not ashamed of it.

Bloomberg blew off the farce of the Iowa caucuses, the trek through New Hampshire diners, the pretense that this is about anything other than the thing he has more of than almost anybody else on the planet. Media bias? Bloomberg, the media outlet, is open about its campaign bias for its boss.

If this goes on, the 2020 primaries could narrow down to a battle between two deeply cynical campaigns headed by two New Yorkers, one a plutocrat and the other a socialist, with piles of money, and deep contempt for the process and the leadership of the party whose nomination they’re contesting.

Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat, except when running for the party’s nomination. Michael Bloomberg ran New York City as a Republican because the party was available and he bought it and a few others.

The 2020 Democrat nomination could very well come down to a race between two men who aren’t really Democrats, don’t care about the party, and are bypassing and trashing it at every opportunity.

The Sanders campaign is just the tip of the spear for a radical leftist takeover of the Democrats. Its base is animated by paranoia, malice and rage. Any primary Sanders loses must have been rigged. And every negative mention of Sanders is a neo-liberal conspiracy. They hate the Dems and the hatred is mutual.

At the 2016 convention, I spoke to Democrat delegates who, anonymously, voiced fear and distaste of the “crazy people”, as they often called Sanders supporters. Meanwhile, Sanders backers in Philly spoke of supporting the Green Party. No wonder, President Trump is cheerfully egging on the paranoia of the Sandernistas, convinced that the process is rigged against them, partly because it is, and partly because they’re projecting what they would do on to their opponents as totalitarian movements always do.

Bloomberg doesn’t have a campaign. He bought one by paying everyone working for him more. There’s no movement here. But, if Biden and Buttigieg fall, he becomes the default candidate of other Dems.

And Bloomberg’s political career comes down to spending enough money to be the default candidate.

In a field of terrible candidates, he aspires to be the boring candidate that the battered DNC spouses will settle for, who can buy a general election the way that he’s trying to buy the primaries. It’s cynical.

But so is the whole race.

What does it say about Democrats that they’re being bought? All the billionaire bashing, the attacks on Wall Street and Silicon Valley, the small donor qualifiers for the debate stage and the PAC virtue signaling were meant to establish that they weren’t about money, but about ideas and principles.

But much of the party, in poll after poll, appears to be willing to vote for anyone who will stop Trump.

It doesn’t matter if he’s a socialist or a plutocrat, or a guy with hair plugs deep in his brain. Democrats have shown that they have the same set of standards as any gold digger: a lot of money and a pulse.

In the polls, Democrats have shrugged off any interest in nominating a black person or a woman. They don’t especially care about policies. Their only concern is with electability and retaking the White House. And electability means a big campaign machine, a lot of ads, a lot of publicity, and a lot of money.

Billionaires are trying to buy the nomination because the Democrats prostituted their party. They put themselves up for sale to the highest bidder in a desperate effort to stop President Trump.

They didn’t expect a guy with $61 billion to show up.

But, after all the virtue signaling, just like any gold digger, they’re sending the message that he’ll do.






Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

An Al Qaeda Emir Came to America and Applied for Disability

After engaging in terrorism in Iraq, an Al Qaeda leader came to America as a refugee and applied for Social Security disability benefits because his “injuries” in Iraq had made it too hard for him to work.

In 2006, Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri was the Emir of an Al Qaeda terrorist group in Fallujah. The Iraqi city was the scene of brutal battles between Al Qaeda and America. It was where American soldiers had suffered the most casualties in any battle since the Vietnam War. Despite multiple defeats, Al Qaeda remained deeply entrenched in the city and was even able to seize a number of neighborhoods in 2014.

By then, Al-Nouri was living in Arizona.

Only 2 years after being the Emir of an Al Qaeda group, Al-Nouri had traded the deserts of Al-Anbar for the deserts of the Southwest. How was an Al Qaeda leader able to move to the United States?

Easy. He claimed to be a refugee from Al Qaeda.

In 2008, the United States raised the refugee admission celling to 80,000 to accommodate the surge of Iraqis applying to come to the United States. The Iraqis claimed to be fleeing terrorism, but some, like Al-Nouri were terrorists, and our refugee resettlement program was not interested in telling them apart.

A quarter of refugees that year were Iraqis. The Al Qaeda leader was one of 13,823 Iraqi refugees. The huge increase from 1,608 in 2007, made any real screening of the Iraqis all but impossible. And, worse still, Iraqis, like Al-Nouri, were in the top 3 refugee groups and their claims were processed 'in-country'.

"In-country processing", as noted by the Center of American Progress, makes "the process less onerous and cumbersome for Iraqis seeking asylum by allowing for in-country visa processing, making screening less restrictive." And what migrants from Al-Qaeda’s stronghold needed was less restrictive screenings.

The less restrictive screenings were one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s final immigration gifts to America. The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act was introduced by Ted Kennedy, backed by Grover Norquist, and co-sponsored by Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, Chuck Hagel, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez and Barack Obama.

The disastrous legislation cosponsored by Obama and Biden no doubt helped ease Al-Nouri’s path.

"The United States has a clear responsibility to support these brave Iraqis who have stood by us," Senator Ted Kennedy had insisted.

And Al-Nouri, like many other fake refugees, pretended to be one of those imaginary Iraqis. He did such a good job of pretending that under Obama, the Al Qaeda leader became a military contractor.

The Emir’s job was training American soldiers preparing to deploy to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq (the group that would eventually be known as ISIS) about Iraqi culture.

After arriving in the United States as a refugee, the Al Qaeda leader applied for Social Security disability. Refugees applying for Social Security disability payments is a popular scam that hurts Americans.

But Al-Nouri claimed to have been shot by Al Qaeda terrorists and that he had 20 bullets in his body.

The 20 bullets might have been real, but they likely came from either the Iraqi or United States forces that Al-Nouri might have fought. The Emir had not only contrived to come to America as a refugee, but to make taxpayers foot the bill for his bullet wounds that he had picked up while fighting for Al Qaeda.

Despite the Al Qaeda leader’s supposed disability, he was able to work as a military contractor in California and to open a driving school, the A-Plus Driving School, in Phoenix.

1,050 Iraqi refugees were resettled in Arizona in 2008. Iraqis were the number one refugee group resettled everywhere from Alabama to Virginia. But Arizona had the highest share of Iraqis in any state outside Michigan's Islamic enclaves. Al-Nouri became one of 12,329 Iraqi refugees operating in Arizona.

When Al-Nouri came to this country, Arizona was accepting the most refugees per capita of any state. Money for resettling refugees poured into the state which was happy to take in Muslims from Yugoslavia, then Sudan, and Iraq. The Iraqi community in Phoenix boomed. Along with Al-Nouri.

And the problems have been growing.

Last month, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that Mohammed Mostafa Altayar, an Iraqi refugee, could be deported after he had threatened another man with a gun and assaulted him in 2014. But that sort of thing hasn’t stopped Arizona politicians, including Republicans, from demanding more refugees.

After the last September 11 anniversary, numerous Arizona representatives, including Republicans signed on to a Welcome Refugees 2020 letter, demanding that President Trump bring more refugees.

Meanwhile, in Phoenix, even as the Al Qaeda leader’s driving school was touting, “peace of mind”, the refugee belatedly attracted government attention after flying to Istanbul: a common ISIS travel route.

FBI agents questioned Al-Nouri and appeared to suspect that he might have traveled to Iraq.

Now, Al-Nouri was finally arrested for extradition to Iraq, where he is suspected of the murder of two Iraqi police officers as the leader of an Al Qaeda group operating in Fallujah. While having Iraq request his extradition may be a simpler process than trying to bring him to trial here, it’s far from easy.

Last year, the FBI busted Omar Ameen, an Iraqi refugee in Sacramento, for his role in Al Qaeda and ISIS. But efforts to send him back for trial to Iraq have been stymied by an aggressive media campaign with the New Yorker and CBS News, not to mention pseudo-conservative sites like Bill Kristol’s The Bulwark and The American Conservative, launching a campaign in the alleged ISIS terrorist’s defense.

There is every reason to think that Al-Nouri will benefit from the same defense.

Iraqis in Phoenix have already come to Al-Nouri’s defense, describing him as a popular figure in the community. They claim that they had no idea that he could have been an Al Qaeda terrorist.

That’s unlikely.

In a culture with massive extended families and tribes whose members do everything, whether it’s fighting Al Qaeda or joining Al Qaeda as a group, coming out of a major Iraqi city, Al-Nouri’s story would not have fooled everyone in his community. But Al-Nouri was far from the only terrorist to come to America as a refugee. We don’t know how many terrorists who pretended to be fighting Al Qaeda tricked the system to come to America. And we don’t know how many more are coming now.

The Pentagon, which had hired an Al Qaeda Emir to train troops deploying to Iraq, recently warned again that failing to bring Iraqi refugees to America will undermine our national security. Military brass complained that the FBI’s more intensive screenings were keeping too many Iraqi refugees out.

The number of Iraqis coming to America on special visas had dropped to a mere 3,000 in 2017.

The FBI found suspicious information on 87 out of 88 Iraqis who had been specially screened in 2018. Instead of praising the FBI for doing its job, the Pentagon complained that it was doing its job too well.

In a White House meeting, an unnamed senior Pentagon official proposed exempting Iraqis from President Trump’s lowered refugee cap.

The battle over Iraqi refugees pitted White House advisor Stephen Miller against the Pentagon. The outcome is 4,000 refugee slots for Iraqis, some legitimate refugees and some Islamic terrorists.

Most governors, Democrats and Republicans, have indicated that they will keep admitting refugees.

On a quiet desert lot, in Surprise, AZ, the horrible surprise of an Al Qaeda Emir living next door in a quarter-of-a-million house should come as no surprise. It’s just refugee resettlement at work.






Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

A Communist Paper That Praised the Rape and Murder of Jews Gets a Modern Makeover

On a bloody Sabbath in 1929, a Muslim mob massacred the Jewish community of Hebron.

The mob used knives, axes, and stones to kill men, women, and children. Many of the women were raped before being murdered. The Islamist atrocities committed against them defy comprehension.

Pierre van Paassen, the Canadian journalist, described seeing, "severed sexual organs and the cut-off women's breasts". A more recent summary notes, “Photographs from the time show a girl struck on the head by a sword with her brain spilling out, a woman with bandaged hands, people with their eyes gouged out, a man whose hand had been savagely amputated, and other grisly sights.”

Who, outside the perpetrators, could endorse and support such crimes? The Communist Party.

The Morgen Freiheit, the Communist Party's Yiddish newspaper in New York, headlined its article, “The Arab Uprising is Spreading - Zionist Fascists Have Provoked the Arab Uprising.”

"It is not innocent blood," the Communist paper insisted, of the murdered religious students, and
families, "It is the blood of people who went to war against another people on alien land."

A resolution praised the massacre of Jews as a "revolutionary uprising of the Arab masses in Palestine."

The Freiheit even held a rally in support of the mass murder, rapes and mutilations by its Muslim allies.

Jewish communities in New York and Chicago reacted by burning copies of the Communist rag, and setting fire to the newsstands that sold it. Many Jewish newspaper sellers announced a boycott of the Freiheit. No one would advertise in the paper and buying it became a badge of shame. Anyone with the least bit of decency resigned. The remaining staff were expelled, reviled, and even beaten in the streets.

Like other Communist papers, the Morgen Freiheit endorsed the Hitler-Stalin pact. In response, Jewish workers assaulted Communists who tried to defend their alliance with the Nazis, calling them, “Communazis”, and taunting them with chants of, “Heil Hitler.” Even Freiheit staffers who had defended the massacre of Jews in Hebron began to drop out of the Communist paper.

80 years after the Hitler-Stalin pact, Bernie Sanders wrote an editorial, “How to Fight Antisemitism” for the Freiheit’s latest incarnation, Jewish Currents. The magazine had not run in Yiddish for a long time. And, officially, it was no longer Communist. Instead, you could see articles like, “In Defense of Marxism”, “Raya Dunayevskaya and Marxist Humanism”, and “Why I'm (Still) a Marxist”. It was perfect for Bernie.

Like his Stalinist predecessors, Bernie stuck to the party line, and pretended that there was no such thing as leftist or Islamist anti-Semitism. He didn’t mention his position on the Hitler-Stalin pact.

The former Communist magazine had gotten a major relaunch last year under Jacob Plitman, a former deputy director of the anti-Israel group J Street U, to try and appeal to millennials who hate Israel. That meant fewer historical pieces about old Communists and Marxists, and more current hatred of Israel.

The reboot was funded by the Puffin Foundation run by the Rosensteins who also work with The Nation.

Now Jewish Currents is going back to its roots by bringing in Peter Beinart, who had called the murder of Jews by Islamic terrorists, “violent resistance”.

Terrorism, he had argued, was a “response to Israel’s denial of basic Palestinian rights.” And he suggested that, “the Israeli government is reaping what it has sowed."

Beinart is certainly reaping what he sowed as his career tumbles down into the media sewer.

In 2012, Beinart had partnered with the Daily Beast to launch Open Zion, an anti-Israel blog. It closed a year later after failing to find an audience for its hate. Beinart moved on to Haaretz, a red rag whose racist publisher urged “international pressure” to end, “Israeli apartheid”, whose world news editor boasted that he is an anti-Zionist, and whose former editor had urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to “rape” Israel. "It had always been my wet dream to see this happen," the leftist told her.

Is there anywhere lower Beinart could go?

After Haaretz, he appeared at The Forward, the Morgen Freitheit’s old rival, which runs headlines like, "3 Jewish Moguls Among Eight Who Own as Much as Half the Human Race” and "Why We Should Applaud The Politician Who Said Jews Control The Weather."

There, he accused Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel of being “blind to the harm Jews cause.”

Last year, The Forward dumped its editor and cut 40% of its staff. Instead of taking the advice of Haman’s wife, Beinart doubled down and joined its old even more anti-Semitic Commie rival.

"I think a tremendous need for a kind of American progressive Jewish publication," Beinart babbled, explaining that he wanted to "confront what I see as the kind of moral corruption of the American Jewish establishment and its complicity in various ways with some of the things that Trump is doing and the direction that Netanyahu is taking Israel.”

The only moral corruption is 91 years of Communists, Marxists, and Lefties justifying the murder of Jews.

The Hebron massacre had been urged on by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, later popularly known as Hitler’s Mufti for his meetings with the Nazi leader and alliance with the Third Reich. The Mufti, an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, paved the way for the Muslim Brotherhood’s arms in Israel, which include Hamas.

The Syrian Islamist terror leader, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, a Mufti ally, whose Black Hand group carried out attacks against Jews in Israel, became the model for Hamas, its Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

Beinart spent the last decade promoting ties to Hamas. In 2009, he had hailed, “Hamas” as “U.S. Diplomacy's Final Frontier”. In 2011, he had insisted, “A shift in US and Israeli policy towards Hamas is long overdue.” Last year, he compared Israel’s blockade of Hamas to Hiroshima and the Soviet gulags.

There is a sense of history coming full circle as Jewish Currents, the magazine twice renamed and spun off from the Morgen Freiheit, returns to its folly, as King Solomon wrote, a dog returns to its vomit.

The Morgen Freiheit had been the Communist rival to The Forward, a socialist paper, but one that nonetheless opposed the Islamist massacres of Jews in 1929 and the Hitler-Stalin pact. In those days, any leftist with a shred of conscience or decency had left the Freiheit and the Communist Party for more moderate publications and organizations. Some even became patriots and conservatives.

Beinart has traveled the opposite road. Back in his New Republic days, he wrote after September 11, “The left has proved remarkably creative over the years at blaming virtually any Middle Eastern malfeasance...on the Jewish State.” Then he became the hack he was describing to advance his career.

After decades of blaming everything on the Jewish State, the Crisis of Beinartism has arrived.

Once upon a time, Beinart was touted by the elderly anti-Israel donors and their organizations as the young voice of a new generation. But the voice of a new generation is pushing fifty. And scrambling in the political basement to revamp an ancient Communist magazine as the voice of a new generation.

Beinartism has taken him on the opposite route of the Jewish intellectuals who left the Communist Party for the New Republic. Instead, Beinart left the New Republic for the reds.

What’s next for the leading anti-Israel pundit in America? Al Jazeera? Jacobin? Pravda?

And yet Beinart isn’t entirely wrong about a moral crisis in the Jewish community. When the Communist newspaper that was his current platform’s predecessor defended the Islamic murder of Jews, it was boycotted, its leading figures were driven out of Jewish organizations, and its offices were besieged.

91 years later, Beinart knows that he’ll be invited to speak at conferences, organizations, and events. Nearly a century ago, Jewish workers who were just scraping by put their few pennies on the line to take a stand against the Freiheit. Now, Jewish Currents will be circulated by the Jewish establishment groups.

After the Hitler-Stalin pact, Peretz Markish, a leftist Jewish poet in the Soviet Union, met up with an old friend of his. The latter showed Peretz an editorial written by Moyshe Nadir, once a leading figure in the Morgen Freiheit, who had declared that he was leaving the Communist paper after the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

"Moyshe Nadir has revealed that he raised a snake around his neck," Markish replied. "Only he nourished this snake around his neck? Only he alone? And maybe all of us weaned the snake? And a time may come when this full-grown snake will choke all of us.... Yes, if it keeps going like it's been going, the time will come that the snake wrapped around our necks will choke us."

A few years later, he joined the Communist Party. Four years later, he received the Stalin Prize. A decade after that original conversation, he was arrested and charged with being a Jewish nationalist.

In 1952, he was secretly executed.

Two decades later, Esther Markish, his widow, wrote a courageous open letter, imploring for international pressure on the Soviet Union to allow her to leave for Israel, "Help us, our writers, the conscience of our people, help us to return to the soil of our holy homeland."

There are two sides. The side of the snake, of Beinart, of the Morgen Freiheit and Jewish Currents, and the side of those who will be choked by the snake, in Hebron, Moscow, or New York City.

When we pay dues to an organization or a synagogue that invites Beinart, when we subscribe to a magazine that publishes him, then we, like that long-dead poet, are feeding the snake.

Once upon a time, Jews were outraged when the murder of their people was excused and defended. Today they continue attending synagogues, paying dues, and funding the establishment that invites the defenders of their murderers to appear on panels, speak at podiums, and sell their books.

That is the true moral corruption of the American Jewish establishment. And it is unforgivable.






Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Monday, February 10, 2020

The Future Doesn’t Belong to China

In the 1980s, movies like Die Hard and Back to the Future 2 showed off a Japanese takeover of America. Japan had leveraged unfair trade policies, currency manipulation, and government subsidies to buy up American companies (it’s still happening, but few are paying attention) and was the wave of the future sweeping over America.

Everyone was driving Japanese cars, using Japanese electronics, and buying "Made in Japan." And Japan got there by stealing massive amounts of American intellectual property and reselling it to Americans.

By 1991, George Friedman’s book, The Coming War With Japan, was flying off the shelves.

Why doesn’t the future belong to Japan? There are economic answers. But there’s also a demographic answer. Japan entered the 1980s with an acceptably healthy 14 births per 1,000 people birth rate. The Japanese rate back then was only a little below America’s own 15 births per 1,000 people number.

But throughout the 80s, while Japan was supposed to be taking over America, its economy was impressive, but its birth rate was cratering at an even more impressive rate. By 1991, the future not only didn’t belong to Japan, but at a rate of 10 births per 1,000 people, it didn’t even have a future of its own.

Japan had entered the 1980s with a median age of 32. It left the decade with a median age of 37. By 2000, the median age was 40. Today, it approaches 50. The median Japanese age had passed fertility.

The Japanese had foreclosed their own future.

What were they doing instead of having children? Buying stuff. Lots and lots of stuff. Economic consumption rose and marriage dropped away.

The origins of Japan’s boom lay in the 70s with a marriage boom which led to a massive baby boom. The energized population seemed as if it might take over the world. But Japan’s ‘baby boomers’ instead decided to enjoy the good life. Today the marriage rate is less than half that. The Japanese went from marrying in their twenties to marrying in their thirties. Maternal age at birth also rose from the twenties to the thirties. The nation’s fertility rate is at 1.42. Far below replacement rate. That means no future.

The first part of this story should sound familiar. Just substitute the People’s Republic of China for Japan.

China's birth rate is down to 1.6. At 10.48 births per 1,000 people, it’s below America’s, 11.8. And while you might be inclined to blame the Communist dictatorship’s One Child Policy, the PRC trashed the OCP precisely because the regime is worried about its declining birth rate. The PRC’s poor birth rate has its origins in its poor marriage rate. China’s marriage rate sank down to 7.2 per 1,000 people.

That’s above America’s 6.5 rate, but it’s trending downward and in the same direction. And the average number conceals the full scope of the bad news. While the national rate was 7.2, in Shanghai it was 4.4. Meanwhile divorces in Beijing hit 39%. As China’s population moves from the rural to the urban, trading farm work for tech jobs, marriage rates drop, divorce rates rise, and birth rates continue their decline.

Like the Japanese, China’s rising middle class wants to enjoy the materialistic pleasures of consumerism.

What happened to Japan is exactly what happened to Europe. And what’s been happening to America and much of the first world. But the problem hits Asian countries harder because of the sharp transition from one kind of society to another, while the citizenry lack the moral cushioning of religious values.

The People’s Republic of China is vigorously fighting Christianity, but its own mixture of Communism and Confucianism has failed to meet the challenges of prosperity. The regular crackdowns on government corruption are only spurring more cynicism. And a social credit system will create an artificial digital pressure that, like any other totalitarian system, will be evaded and only generate more hypocrisy

Not even America’s Silicon Valley technocrats believe that the internet is a substitute for morality.

Whatever the Communist Party may command, China’s metropolitan populations, especially the women, are, like their Japanese counterparts, avoiding marriage and parenthood, with the same results.

By 2030, there will be more People’s Republic of China citizens over the age of 65 than under 14. With a declining workforce, the PRC will be unable to sustain its growth as its population ages. Its pension funds are officially projected to run out of money by 2035. The real figures are probably worse.

The PRC threatens other countries, but if its demographics continue their downward spiral, it will become unable to maintain control even over the territories that it already has. To understand China’s obsession with Xinjiang, look at its birth rate which is much higher than the rest of the country. That’s why the PRC keeps trying to figure out not only how to de-Islamize Xinjiang, but to reduce its birth rate.

China’s median age is at 38.4. That’s about Japan’s median age when its house of cards began to fall. The PRC’s boom was powered by a population in its twenties. By the oughts, it entered the low 30s. It’s now sliding inevitably closer to the big four zero. By 2040, China’s median age will be 46.

That’s the same pathway which took Japan from a potential world power to a society of senior citizens.

China has a much larger population. But that just means it’s going to have a great many elderly people and childless singles who aren’t willing to sacrifice their consumer lifestyle to any greater purpose.

And why should they?

What larger purpose does China offer its younger generation except consumer goods? The Communist leadership avoided the fate of the USSR by turning into the factory and warehouse of capitalism. But a diet of technological conveniences doesn’t predispose the citizenry to anything more than comfort. Nationalism and xenophobia keep China’s population hostile to America and the outside world, but haven’t convinced its netizens to do anything more than post nasty comments about President Trump.

China currently has the surplus population for a war or a number of wars, but, as Russia and Germany could tell it, after the war, the surplus population is gone and there’s no more where it came from.

Japan had nothing but nationalism, xenophobia, and consumer goods to offer its citizens. That didn’t make Japan into a formidable superpower, but a nation of elderly singles with really great computers. China also has nothing to offer its population except nationalism, xenophobia, and consumer goods. And its cities are full of aging single women with some of the best smartphones and shoes on the market.

This isn’t just bad news for the PRC. It’s also bad news for the USA.

The decline of family and religion means that we are and have been headed to the same place for some time. Our demographics have been artificially inflated by mass migration, but the influx of cheap labor is no substitute for natural growth. And the stress of mass migration is cracking the country apart while providing few benefits except a population of unskilled laborers who, unlike China’s rural to urban farmers, aren’t fueling manufacturing, but propping up middle class lifestyles at taxpayer expense.

The problem in America, Europe, and Asia is that the wonders of the Industrial Revolution have been redirected to little more than personal conveniences, while our societies have shed everything else, religion, culture, purpose, and family, leaving behind comfortable societies with no future.

The People’s Republic of China is not going to take over the world. Its expansive ambitions are impressive, but they’re built on a materialistic decadence that will destroy them. Mercantile empires can be built on greed and a love of pleasure, but as the price grows too high, they fall the same way.

The free market is superior not because of some innate magic of the system, a hall of mirrors that some libertarians wander into and then never leave, but because it allows people to pursue worthwhile goals, whether it’s raising a family, inventing the airplane, or anything in between. When the only goal is waiting to buy an 8K television, then the market becomes a Skinner box that destroys those who use it.

Free markets are means, not ends. And a society needs some higher transcendent purpose. People need to believe that they exist for something more than a few immediate pleasures followed by death.

China’s demographics convey a society with no purpose except its own gratification. And, like Japan before it, the People’s Republic of China isn’t building an empire, it’s destroying a society.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Only 4 of Glasgow’s 71 Muslim Refugee Child Rapists Have Gone to Prison

By the summer of last year, Glasgow had the highest number of housed refugees in the UK with almost 10% of the "asylum seekers" setting up shop in the Scottish city. The overflow of refugees, many of them from Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, has brought in government money, but also violence and crime. Refugees whose requests for asylum are rejected refuse to leave and remain on in Glasgow.

Glasgow had been eager to cash in on asylum seekers, and in the last two decades was fundamentally transformed by the tide of migrants filling up its neighborhoods. As Pakistanis became the largest minority group in Scotland, 42% of the country's Muslim population took up residence in Glasgow.

By the 2011 census, a fifth of Glasgow's population was non-Scottish. In Pollokshields, a quarter of the population is Pakistani. Pollokshields is also where Kriss Donald, a 15-year-old Scottish teenage boy, was kidnapped in the spring of 2004, stabbed all over his body and then set on fire by a Pakistani gang.

"His violent death was a result of political correctness that has gripped the police in Scotland," Mike Liddell, a senior police officer warned. “Crime within Glasgow’s Asian community has been allowed to grow unfettered for years. Why? Because the police have been afraid to fight it in case they are accused of racism.”

Ayub Khan, a member of the Multi-faith Coalition group in Pollokshields, agreed, "people know that the police are too scared to come into the area and be accused of racism."

That was 15 years ago.

Last year, Mohammed Maqsood, had his appeal thrown out. Maqsood had been accused of the Kriss Donald murder, but had remained free until he raped an 18-year-old girl, who got into what she thought was a taxi in Glasgow, before she was brutalized and left half-naked in the street.

Mohammed then generously dumped her clothes in a charity bin to hide the evidence.

The assault was one of many that involved taxis and Glasgow’s growing Muslim community. The taboo topic has been the subject of multiple police investigations after reports began to circulate in the press.

A 2011 report in the Evening Times documented the story of a teenage girl who had been abused and prostituted by a man named Nasir.

“One minute I was a normal teenage girl, the next, I was being forced to have sex with these old men,” she revealed. “I had never even kissed a boy before – they completely took my innocence from me.”

Nasir raped her in front of his fellow gang members while they recorded the assault on their cell phones. After she was prostituted, harassment by the gang forced her family to flee from Glasgow’s immigrants.

In 2011, Operation Cotswold was set up to focus on the Muslim refugees who were abusing young girls in care homes, facilities for children from broken families.

The police identified 26 potential victims, but no one was prosecuted.

In 2013, Operation Dash tracked the role of Muslim taxi services and fast food places in the grooming and sexual abuse of young girls. It focused on the Strathclyde area, a center of the city's Pakistani population going back decades. That was where the police had launched and then shuttered Operation Gather a decade earlier because its focus on Muslim gangs had been deemed politically incorrect.

Operation Dash found that girls as young as 10 years old were being abused. 84 victims were identified and 27 suspects were reported. Only three were reportedly actually sent to prison.

And only one, Javaid Akhond, a refugee from Afghanistan working in a fast food place, was named.

Akhond got only 6 years in prison for grooming and sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl, grooming and sexually abusing her 13-year-old friend, sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl, and then, raping a 16-year-old girl who tried to intervene. Then, once he was locked up, he tried to pressure the 15-year-old from prison to name him officially as the father of her child so that he could avoid deportation from Scotland.

The Muslim refugee, like many foreign criminals, was hoping to rely on EU rules that prevent the deportation of even the worst criminals if they have left behind a child in a European country.

The Muslim refugee gangs aren’t just raping young girls, they’re using them as asylum requests.

In a familiar pattern, Cotswold and Dash turned up over 100 victims, but very few actual results.

Operation Cerrar, the latest successor to these operations, identified 56 members of a Glasgow grooming gang. The perpetrators were Pakistani, Iraqi, Egyptian, Turkish, and Moroccan refugees.

44 girls were abused by these refugees. Many were abused many times. Including one who was assaulted by 28 of the perpetrators and another by 23 of them.

14 of the abusers have been deported. Only 1 is in prison.

The police kept the investigation and its results secret. With results like these, it’s easy to see why.

After three investigations that have taken place over a decade with 154 identified victims, and at least 71 perpetrators, there have been seemingly only four actual prison sentences.

And the only one that has been made public amounted to a slap on the wrist.

If British authorities prosecuted Muslim grooming gangs as vigorously as they do ‘Islamophobia’, then the countless thousands of girls abused across major cities would sleep soundly in their beds at night.

Like many of these cities, Glasgow opened its doors to Muslim migrants for economic and political reasons. Labour and the Scottish National Party then fought eagerly over Muslim votes.

The 154 abused girls paid the price for the UK’s migration policies, for Glasgow’s eagerness for the economic benefits of opening up to migrants and refugees, and of the Scottish National Party’s desire to achieve independence for Scotland, even if it had to do it by submitting to the EU and Islam, and replacing the native population with a more reliable voting base for its social welfare and green energy.

In 2007, Bashir Ahmad became the first Muslim member of the Scottish Parliament for the SNP from Glasgow. He was followed by Humza Yousaf, his former assistant, who became the first Muslim cabinet minister holding down the justice portfolio and took his oath of allegiance in the Scottish Parliament in Urdu. Jahangir Hanif, a Glasgow SNP councilor, was caught teaching his children to fire an AK-47 at a training camp in Pakistan, near Kashmir.

The SNP’s Islamic squad came through the Muslim Brotherhood’s local outlet, the Scottish Islamic Foundation. And the SNP generously funneled money to the SIF in recognition of their support.

The SIF's boss, Osama Saeed, who has cheered a return of the Caliphate, was an adviser to former First Minister Alex Salmond, the SNP's dirty leader, who ran Scotland into the ground.

Salmond is currently on trial for assaulting 10 women.

The Scotland National Party's answer to Harvey Weinstein even stands accused of trying to rape a woman in Bute House, the official residence of the First Minister, and in the Scottish Parliament.

Is it really any wonder that Scottish authorities have managed to do an even worse job of tackling Muslim sex grooming gangs than their counterparts in Manchester, Rotherham, and Oxford?




Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, February 06, 2020

Should the Iowa Caucuses Have Been Decided in Mosques?

When the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) held its annual convention, only one of the presidential candidates who is campaigning in Iowa attended the event alongside an unindicted World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator and supporter of killing gay people.

Senator Bernie Sanders.

Bernie’s appearance at ISNA’s presidential forum was moderated by an Islamist who had described Hezbollah’s terrorism against Israel as “legitimate resistance”.

This wasn’t unusual. Bernie’s campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, had been a member of an Islamist organization in college where he had been accused of helping raise money for a Hamas front group.

And CAIR’s presidential poll demonstrates that Bernie’s Islamist outreach is paying off.

CAIR's poll of Muslim voters claims that 39% support Bernie Sanders, while only 27% back Joe Biden.

In Iowa, 5 mosques hosted caucuses as “satellite sites” meant as “safe spaces” for Muslims. Muslims in Iowa don’t need a safe space. No one is going to be assaulting them at Democrat caucuses. But holding these satellite caucuses in mosques gives Islamic organizations spaces under their control.

Iowa Democrats had decided to aggressively erode the boundaries of mosque and state and the caucuses went forward with voters having to remove their shoes if they wanted to caucus.

Of the ten satellite caucus facilities in Des Moines, only one is a church and four are mosques.

The first site of the Iowa satellite caucus was the Muslim Community Organization, also known as Masjid An-Noor, where there was widespread support for Bernie Sanders.

Imam Jaaphar Abdul Hamed of the mosque endorsed Bernie Sanders and welcomed Rep. Ilhan Omar, an Islamist and anti-Semitic Sanders backer. And 99% of the mosque caucus, caucused for Bernie Sanders.

That gave Bernie 9 delegates.

These were the kinds of tribal results you tend to see in elections in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now in Iowa.

"When the Prophet built his mosque, he didn't build it just for salah," Imam Hamed told Middle East Eye, an Islamist site linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. "The mosque is a place for everything that concerns Muslims."

And Mohammed’s theocratic elimination of the separation of mosque and state is in play in Iowa.

Abshir Omar, a Somali refugee and former CAIR-Iowa director, hired by Bernie Sanders as his Iowa political coordinator, described this as his mosque. Counterterrorism expert John Guandolo has said that Omar told him that Islam calls for the murder of gay people.

At the second mosque, the Al Najah Islamic Center, a majority came out for Bernie Sanders.

The actual caucus address is for the Tawba Islamic Center. This appears to be a largely Somali mosque. Pictures from the actual caucus show Bernie signs on the wall and a non-Somali Muslim crowd.

There is no explanation given for the discrepancy.

But it’s a pattern with the Muslim satellite caucus sites having either the wrong names or the wrong addresses listed, either in error or deliberately. Mosques are routinely listed as cultural centers. This raises questions about the credibility of the Iowa caucuses which the botched results only reinforce.

A majority at the Bosnian Islamic Center Zem Zem backed Bernie.

The name of the Islamic location is wrongly listed as “Zen Zen”. Islamic organizations are not very “Zen”. Despite its name, it is a mosque built by Muslim refugees.

The Islamic and Education Center Ezan was the fourth mosque. This is another Bosnian mosque decorated with the declaration, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet".

Not exactly the cradle of democracy.

While the Ezan mosque initially split between Bernie and Biden, Biden eventually won 6 delegates to 3 of Bernie’s because of his support for the Muslim side in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

The fifth was the Islamic and Cultural Center Bosniak in Granger. This is the megamosque built by the Center in Des Moines over in Granger because its Muslim attendees were too crowded in Des Moines. An imam from the mosque had previously been arrested for sexually assaulting a mother and daughter.

This caucus appears to have been won by Biden.

The satellite mosque caucus locations provide Islamists in Iowa with disproportionate influence. And that influence was used to benefit Bernie Sanders who has emerged as the Islamist candidate.

While Biden tended to perform better in the Bosnian mosques, Sanders was the Islamist winner.

This is not a wholly new development.

Bernie had also pandered to Islamist groups in 2016 and won 60% of the vote in Dearbornistan. The Arab American News had claimed that “Arab Americans voted 2 to 1 for Sanders in almost every east Dearborn precinct.” But in the 2020 race, he has effectively outsourced his campaign to Islamists.

Beyond Shakir, Bernie is campaigning with Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, two ugly names noted for their bigotry and support for terrorism, who came out to Iowa to campaign and hate.

Amer Zahr, a "Palestinian" Sanders surrogate, has ranted about a "Jewish Jihad", and endorsed BDS.

The list of Bernie’s Islamist surrogates tops out with Linda Sarsour, a Farrakhan admirer and former disgraced Women’s March leader, who had defended the Nation of Islam hate group, claimed that Israel is built on Jewish supremacy, has supported terrorists, including a woman who helped murder two Jewish college students, and supports BDS.

Sanders had also received the endorsement of Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, the only Muslim elected official in the Iowa House. Samad had chaired the American Muslim Alliance. The AMA has a history of co-sponsoring anti-Semitic events, including one which called Jews “pigs and monkeys” and another which had cheered the murder of Jews.

"Muslims, we will make a difference in this race; we will make a difference across this country," Samad had vowed, while standing next to Rep. Ilhan Omar.

In Iowa, pandering to Islamists appears to have paid off. While Muslims only make up a small percentage of Iowa’s population, the caucus system can allow small groups to exercise a disproportionate impact if they are willing to get involved. And in Iowa, mosques not only got involved, but were able to host 5 satellite caucuses. That’s not enough to shift the balance. But enough to have an impact. And that is what is truly worrisome. While the Democrats worried about Russian hackers, the real hacking in Iowa caucuses was being carried out by Islamists who were operating on the inside.

"The mosque should be involved because even during the prophet's time, all the decisions were made in the mosque," a mosque worshiper commented at a caucus that went almost entirely for Bernie Sanders.

Should the Iowa caucuses really be decided in a mosque?






Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, February 05, 2020

To Boldly Go Where No Islamist Racist Has Gone Before

Even before Picard had aired, CBS All Access’ latest pathetic attempt to compete with Netflix by monetizing the Star Trek brand, had telegraphed that it would be another social justice disaster.

Patrick Stewart had described the streaming series as "me responding to the world of Brexit and Trump". The response is a social justice tantrum that, like its STD predecessor, is a train wreck that takes the obligatory shots at President Trump, FOX News, Brexit, and our refusal to admit Islamic terrorists.

The latest ‘Woke Goes Broke’ entry though will still help finance the Roddenberry Foundation. And the Foundation, named after the original creator of the Star Trek TV series, will continue financing radicals.

The Roddenberry Foundation has already announced its 2020 class of ‘fellows’. The criteria are not scientific research or literary excellence, but shrill leftist tantrums and identity politics bigotry.

And the ‘class’ of those getting a $50,000 award includes Linda Sarsour: an Islamist bigot.

Linda Sarsour fills the coveted Roddenberry Foundation ‘anti-Semitic’ slot previously held by Charlene Carruthers, a Women’s March board member, anti-Israel BDS activist, and admirer of Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is the leader of the racist hate group, The Nation of Islam, who has praised Hitler.

The Roddenberry Fellowship announced Sarsour’s place in its 2020 class after the outcry over her leadership of the Women’s March due to her support for Farrakhan and anti-Semitism. Around the time of the Roddenberry award, Sarsour had made yet another bigoted remark, claiming that Israel, “is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else.” Not a problem for the Roddenberry Foundation.

There is a certain irony in a foundation named after a militant atheist promoting an Islamist who defends the abuse of women in Muslim countries. But it’s the same hypocrisy that transformed a leftist movement skeptical of religion into the biggest cheerleaders for a crude and violent belief system.

Where Gene Roddenberry had once ridiculed religious people, "for most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain" and "if people need religion, ignore them", the Roddenberry Foundation now funds Islamists who believe that the Koran must rule America.

Last year’s Roddenberry Islamist was Alia Salem: the former head of CAIR’s Dallas-Forth Worth branch. CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood organization with links to Hamas, has a theocratic vision of the future.

CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad had declared, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” And, presumably, throughout the galaxy and across the universe. If given a chance.

Salem was named in 2019, the same year that Charlene Carruthers had also been named as one of the Roddenberry fellows. Carruthers had praised Farrakhan as “wise and selfless”, accused Israel of “apartheid” and praised the “righteous fight for BDS.” While Roddenberry was not Jewish, many members of the show’s cast, writing, production, and technical staff were. It is unfortunate that the Roddenberry Foundation is using the proceeds from their creative work to subsidize hatred of Jews.

While Roddenberry has long since passed away, his resentment against the role of the Jewish figures involved in Star Trek had flared up in the past. “Gene was anti-Semitic, clearly,” Leonard Nimoy, the Jewish actor who had portrayed Spock, told a journalist. "I saw examples not only of him practicing anti-Semitism, but of him being callous about other peoples' differences as well.”

But the Roddenberry Foundation’s funding of bigots has less to do with Roddenberry’s own issues than with its embrace of militant identity politics. Another irony for a foundation funded with the proceeds of a series that had once condemned racial divisions and separatism as reactionary and destructive.

Carruthers is one of a number of black nationalists funded by the Roddenberry Foundation.

That includes Alica Garza, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, who had declared that, “whiteness has no shame.” In her twisted racist mind, “whiteness” is a mythical evil force which “attempted to de-fang the power of Black Lives Matter as a slogan and a rallying cry with All Lives Matter.”

The idea that all lives don’t matter is central to black nationalism as a supremacist ideology.

Garza had also agreed with Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic comments about Jews.

"My sister Ilhan correctly identified powerful forces, like AIPAC, that are shaping policy and practice not only in this country but all over the globe," Garza said. "So much so that this president began to attack our sister and call her anti-Semitic.”

This is the sort of gutter bigotry that the Roddenberry Foundation and the Star Trek brand now funds.

And yet it’s another paradox for a foundation named after a former member of the LAPD to embrace racists who hate the police. Gene Roddenberry hadn’t merely worked for the LAPD while trying to kickstart his entertainment industry career, he had based Spock on the LAPD’s Chief William Parker.

Parker, who made the LAPD what it is, has been a favorite whipping boy of contemporary noir LA movies. He’s also the man who called police, the “greatest dislocated minority in America”.

Roddenberry had written speeches for Parker during the Watts Riots and during later riots, had called in favors from old pals at the LAPD to protect his sets, and had even pondered using a phaser rifle from Star Trek to deter potential rioters. During an even later riot, he had reportedly carried an actual rifle.

If Roddenberry were around today, there’s little doubt that the people the foundation named after him funds would violently hate him. And, at some point, his name will have to come off the foundation.

That auto-cannibalism is a fundamental element of progressive politics which devours its founders.

Gene Roddenberry’s secular humanism is unfashionable in an age where progressive means embracing Islamism. His military and law enforcement background gave Star Trek a structure, but would soon be unfashionable even in his own time. His philandering feminism would set off #MeToo alarm bells today. Star Trek’s racial integration is equally outdated in an era when racial separatism is touted instead.

Today the Roddenberry Foundation funds racialist activists who want to dismantle the criminal justice system and consider police officers to be racist murderers. That is the legacy of leftist politics.

There is in the end no country, no planet, and no galaxy for dead lefties. Just their money.

The original Star Trek with its love of naval tradition and disdain for hippies, its vision of racial integration and scientific progress, is as politically unfashionable as its creator. It endures in the great intellectual property garbage bin of Hollywood, which is no longer capable of creating anything new, but obsessively recycles all the old names, Star Wars, Star Trek. Lost in Space, and attaches them to disposable rants about Trump, Brexit, and whatever political meme is ascendant this year.

And the money goes to fund leftist racists boldly going into a future where no bigot has gone before.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, February 04, 2020

The UK’s Dumbest Terrorist Tests the Dumbest Justice System a Third Time

On a summer day in the UK, Mohiussunnath Chowdhury left his Luton home, took an anime sword that he had sharpened, typed “Windsor Castle” into his phone, and then followed the directions on the map.

"Tell everyone that I love them and that they should struggle against the enemies of Allah,” the aspiring Muslim terrorist had declared. "The Queen and her soldiers will all be in the hellfire."

Instead of finding Queen Elizabeth II at the Windsor Castle, Mohiussunnath found that it was a pub offering “great real ales” and “fresh food”. The infidel phone had tried to divert the devout Muslim. Despite the Berkshire pub’s offerings of “grilled loin of pork” and Jägermeister, he didn’t attack it.

The Uber driver got back into his car, took along his anime sword, and this time made sure that the directions were pointing him to Buckingham Palace, not some sort of hellish booze palace. But the Queen wasn’t even there, the soldiers were on guard, and the police intercepted him outside the gates.

"It's all a bit f____d up," Mohiussunnath said, got out his anime sword, and shouted, “Allahu Akbar.”

The anime sword, unlike a real sword, had an enormous handle, which made it impractical to wield, and all too easy for the police to grab on to. The cops were able to wrestle it away from him even while he kept shouting, “Allahu Akbar”. Two cops suffered cuts before using tear gas to bring him to his knees.

Was it over? No, it was just getting started. The only thing more incompetent than Mohiussunnath was the British justice system which couldn’t convict a terrorist if he were attacking Buckingham Palace.

Literally.

In March, Muslim terrorists had attacked the British Parliament. In May, the Manchester Arena had been bombed. In June, Islamic terrorists had attacked London Bridge. Mohiussunnath had done it in August. The pattern in 2017 was so obvious that it would take two juries to deliberately unsee it.

Sure, Mohiussunnath had used an ISIS avatar on his phone, sent ISIS material over the phone, especially about the Islamic terror group’s sex slaves, and had sent a farewell message telling his sister, "They are the enemies that Allah tells us to fight. Please make dua for me that Allah accepts my efforts.”

But, according to Mohiussunnath’s lawyer, he was just upset and had never wanted to harm the cops. Like nearly every other Islamic terrorist, he was just suffering from depression and feeling lonely.

But the jury couldn’t reach a verdict. So a second terror trial was convened for the terrorist. A fellow inmate suggested that he pretend to be moderate and play the game by shaving off his beard.

In between trials, Mohiussunnath began drawing pictures of terrorist attacks in prison. One of the pictures showed Mo opening fire at a cop while shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.

Mohiussunnath told the second jury that he was depressed and trying to commit suicide. And also that he was just joking about supporting ISIS.

After 19 hours of deliberations, the second jury unanimously found him not guilty. Maybe they were unsure what the unholy spawn of Ali G and Four Lions meant when he described the UK as an ally of Satan and wrote that it was “Halal” to kill cops.

Right after getting out of jail, he set up an Instagram account under the name Jihad Fisabilillah and began posting about the virtue of killing infidels and training with his sister for his next sword attack. He posted on Instagram that the cop who had stopped him last time was a “cuck”.

“I need to practise decapitation techniques and it's not gonna be like you know what I mean you can't do it in the garden,” he told her last year.

He boasted of deceiving the British justice system and said that it had been “the Queen versus him.”

Mohiussunnath got a job in a fast food chicken place and boasted of trying to recruit some of the kids who came there. “They come in the shop and I start radicalising them.”

He began cultivating friends at the mosque, and choosing among potential targets like Madame Tussauds, Piccadilly Circus, or the Remembrance Day ceremonies. While still practicing with swords, he began looking into getting a gun or carrying out an attack in a car.

''Strike their necks until when you have inflicted slaughter upon them and then secure their bonds', meaning take them captive, yeah?” Mohiussunnath said, quoting the Koran’s murder instructions.

He told his new terror friends that just killing one British soldier would be, “instant paradise innit”.

When one of his new friends protested that he wouldn't kill pregnant women, Mohiussunnath shut him down. "It’s halal because it is not sacred. if they’re not Muslim then they’re fair game.”

Then he claimed that all non-Muslims "above puberty" could be killed.

Once again, the cops, who were his new terror friends, busted him. They had him dead to rights talking to his sister and his new friends about killing people. But Mohiussunnath ran the same play again.

Mohiussunnath told the court that he was just bragging and didn't actually want to kill anybody. "I wanted that validation, that acceptance. But I didn't want to actually do anything," he insisted.

That would have been more plausible if he hadn’t already tried to carry out one attack, and this time texted, “I'm doing another attack, bruv.”

It’s hard to misinterpret that one.

But the question is can the world’s dumbest terrorist get away with it a third time? While Mohiussunnath hasn’t made a particularly good terrorist, despite his careful memorization of all the Koranic quotes about killing infidels, he’s been able to successfully manipulate the British justice system.

Twice.

What happens when the world’s dumbest terrorist comes up against the world’s dumbest justice system? Like the opposite of an immovable object coming up against an unstoppable force, the inept terrorist collides with juries who place sob stories above mere evidence, and judges who fear the specter of Islamophobia more than tourists being moved down outside Madame Tussauds.

While Mohiussunnath hasn’t managed to do more than inflict light injuries on two of London’s finest, he has managed to waste years and countless pounds of the criminal justice system’s time and energy.

Will he be able to go on doing it until he finally manages to carry out a successful terrorist attack?

The case of Mohiussunnath brings attention to a very real part of the War on Terror. Some Islamic terrorists cause havoc through acts of mass murder. Others are simply a drag on the system. The costs they inflict are equivalent to the tax payments of a thousand taxpayers. And they divert attention away from stopping other terrorists who are either more subtle or competent than they have proven to be.

But often the difference between the horrifying atrocity and the comical ineptitude of a Mohiussunnath are timing, luck, and random chance. The World Trade Center bombing’s U-Haul refund, and the visa applications of the 9/11 hijackers, are reminders that even the worst terrorist attacks had ingredients of the same comical ineptitude as Mohiussunnath, the Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber and other losers.

The price of freedom isn’t just eternal vigilance against clever enemies, but the slog of years that it takes to drag worthless wankers like Mohiussunnath through the system, throwing resources, manpower, and money at one single idiot terrorist from Luton. Considering the birth rates in Luton, that’s unsustainable.

The alternative is to abandon the illusion that terrorism is a criminal matter, that it has nothing to do with the Islamic religion, immigration, or any uncomfortable topics, and that it is entirely under control.

The truth is the exact opposite of all that nonsense.

Brexit is an opportunity for Britain to reexamine more than its relations with Europe. The terrorism problem is mostly a product of the immigration system of the last generation. The damage can be reversed with time, effort, and a willingness to toss Mohiussunnath, his sister, who was in on it, his parents, whose quarrelling apparently required police intervention, and the whole lot of them out.

Either that or wait until Mohiussunnath figures out how to be a better Islamic terrorist.

Between the two of them, it may be safest and saddest to bet on Mohiussunnath.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.

Monday, February 03, 2020

Bernie Sanders is as Honest as Every Other Politician

"I'll probably vote for Bernie," Joe Rogan told listeners. "He's been insanely consistent his entire life. He's basically been saying the same thing, been the same thing his whole life."

The podcaster was repeating a popular myth about Bernie Sanders.

Sanders has been the same thing his entire life. A political activist or a politician. He graduated from the University of Chicago with a degree in political science and began his political career not long after moving to Vermont. He’s either been running for political office or holding political office for 48 years.

Over those nearly 50 years, he’s said a lot of insanely inconsistent things.

In 1971, he argued that it was a disgrace that there were so many millionaires in the Senate.

"Nobody should earn more than a million dollars," he said in 1974. When he first ran for the Senate, he called for a 100% tax on wealth of over $1 million a year. These days, that’s just how much he makes.

“I wrote a best-selling book,” he told off critics. “If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

Millionaires suck and should have all their money taken away. Until you become one.

But that’s just an inflation issue. Right? These days Bernie opposes billionaires instead of millionaires. And if he somehow became a billionaire, he would almost certainly give away all his money to the poor.

You can tell because the first year he made a million bucks, he gave a whole 1 percent of it to charity.

Bernie is a real 1 percenter.

But forget the money. Washington D.C. is full of guys who came there to fight corruption and then cashed in. Nobody’s too surprised when politicians find ways to cash in, like Sanders did with the Sanders Institute which employed his wife and stepkids to ‘institute’ whatever it is Sanders does.

What about his actual political beliefs? Has Bernie been saying the “same thing” his whole life?

Bernie Sanders moved from Vermont to Washington D.C. because a little organization called the NRA sent out a letter to its members telling them, “Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith.” Bernie ended up voting against a seven-day waiting period to buy guns, against the Brady Bill, and voted for a bill to protect firearms manufacturers from lawsuits.

And there’s nothing wrong with that except that now Bernie keeps talking about taking on the NRA.

But Bernie’s pitch to a gun rights group was, “I won’t change my views on the subject.”

That’s the same pitch that Joe Rogan fell for. Except that Bernie changes his mind when it’s politically convenient. And it doesn’t take 48 years for him to change his mind. Try a decade.

In 2005, he voted for The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a bill backed by the NRA to stop lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. In 2016, when it became an issue in the Democrat primaries, he agreed to cosponsor a bill to repeal that protection.

“If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen,” Bernie Sanders had argued in 2013.

Fast forward 5 years and Bernie Sanders blamed school shootings on a "three-letter word".

"It’s the NRA,” the elderly socialist ranted. “And it’s Trump and the Republicans who don’t have the guts to stand up to these people and that’s pretty pathetic."

Pretty pathetic indeed.

It’s not that Bernie Sanders evolved over his two generations in public life. Just as with the NRA, he adopted positions for political convenience and then jettisoned them when they became inconvenient.

These positions were often somewhat conservative, balancing out his socialist class warfare with common sense views that would help enlist the support of more conservative voters in Vermont.

Take immigration.

In 2015, when Bernie was asked about “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit”, he retorted with, “Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.” He went on to argue that, “It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state.”

That argument could have and would come from Donald J. Trump. And the backlash was severe. The transition from open borders opponent to open borders advocate didn’t take years, it took months.

His current immigration plan calls for abolishing immigration enforcement, breaking up ICE and CBP, ending detention of illegal migrants, ending border enforcement, legalizing sanctuary cities, and allowing migrants who come here for welfare and for just about any and every reason.

Who knew Bernie was one of the Koch brothers?

“One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics," Bernie had suggested in 2016. It didn’t take long for Bernie to embrace identity politics. He went from not wanting to talk about race, to compulsively running on race.

"Do I think we need some more jails? Yup. Do I think we have to get tougher in certain instances? Yes, I do," Bernie Sanders said, when discussing the 1994 crime bill that he supported. "So what you have is a balance here. You have more money going to law enforcement, more money going into jails. You have, on the other hand, significant sums of money going into prevention."

That’s another common sense position that he has completely disavowed.

These days, Bernie denounces the “prison-industrial-complex”, calls for an end to bail, and proposes cutting the national prison population in half, which would put dangerous criminals back on the street.

At a CNN town hall, he even suggested that the Muslim terrorist who set off a bomb at the Boston Marathon should be able to vote from prison.

Most people took that as a typically radical Bernie position. But it’s a radically inconsistent one.

Bernie has been an inconsistent flip-flopper on gun control, on immigration, on identity politics, and on crime. The only two places he has been consistent is on class warfare and national defense.

And even there, he’s been inconsistent on class warfare once he made it to the 1 percent.

Sandernistas launched his campaign by sharing pictures of him flying coach. Once the money began coming in, he was flying luxury jets as often as he could. The jets remained a sore point with other Democrats. As impeachment got underway, Bernie’s campaign plotted to use more private jets.

That’s not just personal hypocrisy, it’s environmental hypocrisy for the Green New Deal candidate.

When it comes to his own personal interests, Bernie can’t even consistently identify which party he belongs to. When he first ran for president, on the Democrat line, he denied that he was a Democrat.

"No, I am an Independent," he said.

By the summer, he'd come around. "I am a Democrat obviously," he told USA Today. "That’s where I am and that’s where I’ll stay."

"Do you consider yourself a Democrat?" he was asked next year.

"No, I am an Independent," he replied.

This year, he signed a DNC loyalty pledge, stating, "I am a member of the Democratic Party."

Meanwhile he also filed to run for Senate as an Independent.

That’s insanely inconsistent.

Bernie is whatever he wants to be. He can be a Democrat and an Independent. A millionaire and an opponent of millionaires. He can denounce open borders and support them. He can support more prisons and call for freeing all the inmates. He can support and oppose guns when convenient.

What the elderly socialist isn’t is principled.

Few politicians can spend 48 years in politics and remain principled. Bernie isn’t one of them. Like most politicians, he has a few pet issues he strongly believes in, but not when they interfere with his career. Between 2013 and 2020, he tossed away his positions on multiple issues without blinking an eye.

Bernie is no more principled than the other senators running in 2020. That’s just another one of his lies.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Thank you for reading.