Articles

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Fake Atomic Scientists Warn Not Believing the Media Will Destroy the World

Every year, Rachel Bronson, President and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who has a degree in political science from Columbia, gets up in front of a fake clock to announce that the world is doomed.

And the media eagerly covers the annual imminent warning of doom as if it came with an open bar.

Bronson is not an atomic scientist. Or any kind of scientist. Unless you believe politics is a science. And if politics is a science, then Bronson is the Lysenko of the field, predicting doom out of bias and ignorance.

This year, the Doomsday Clock had its hands set forward to 100 seconds to midnight. After setting the clock at 2 minutes to midnight in honor of President Trump two years ago, it’s all out of minutes.

Now it’s down to seconds. At this rate the fake clock will soon be down to negative numbers.

If you don’t believe Rachel, maybe you’ll listen to Jerry Brown, former California governor and executive chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Jerry is not an atomic scientist, but he did nuke California.

According to Jerry, "If there’s ever a time to wake up, it’s now.”

But Jerry doesn’t want people waking up. He wants them to go back to sleep. And stay that way.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, led by atomic scientists like Rachel and Jerry, demand that, “the international community should begin multilateral discussions aimed at establishing norms of behavior, both domestic and international, that discourage and penalize the misuse of science.”

Like people claiming to be atomic scientists when they’re actually political hacks?

The Bulletin had been set up by lefties who were actual scientists to warn of a nuclear war. But, no matter what Rachel does with her big clock, a nuclear war is less likely than ever. So, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is short on atoms, scientists and apocalypses, threw in global warming.

But global warming isn’t enough. The Doomsday Clock is at 100 seconds to midnight because of the threat of nuclear war and global warming, also fake news, deepfakes, AI, the internet, the Space Force, and mainly President Donald J. Trump. We’ve gone from nuclear scientists warning of nuclear war to political scientists warning that “national leaders have increasingly dismissed information with which they do not agree as fake news.” I wonder whom the Bulletin of the Political Scientists could mean.

“Leaders intent on blurring the line between fact and politically motivated fantasy—are a profound threat to effective democracies,” the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warns.

That’s ironic because the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a politically motivated fantasy.

Speaking of fake news, the Bulletin’s Editor-in-Chief, John Mecklin, had previously helped launch Key West Magazine. He is not an “atomic scientist”. Neither is Dan Drollette, who has an MA in science journalism from NYU. Nor is Elizabeth Eaves, a former opinion editor at Forbes.

Who else would be convinced that calling media lies fake news moves us 100 seconds to doomsday?

The current issue of the magazine that no one reads begins with warnings about nuclear doom by John Mecklin, which must be more exciting than writing about events at Key West, another by Alexandra Bell, a Center for American Progress alum with an MA in International Affairs from the New School.

Also featured is James N. Miller, an Obama admin vet with a BA in Economics from Stanford "where he played tennis for a team that won several national championships", along with Bruce G. Blair with a BS in Communications from the University of Illinois and a PHD in Operations Research from Yale. Also contributing is Brad Roberts who has a PhD in International Relations from Erasmus U, and Matt Korda who boasts an MA in International Peace & Security. If only tennis and political science were atomic.

The best of the bunch is Hans Kristensen, a former Greenpeace activist, who went on to become a special advisor to the Danish Defense Commission, a senior researcher at the Nautilus Institute, a consultant to the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and finally, the Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

The most impressive thing about Hans' resume is that his education seems to have concluded at a Gymnasium: the Danish equivalent of high school.

Not only don’t you need to be an “atomic scientist” to write for the Bulletin, but you can even run the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists because you finished high school.

The Bulletin’s doomsday bulletin warns that the “political antagonism toward science and a growing sense of government-sanctioned disdain for expert opinion” is driving the world to an apocalypse.

But this is what “expert opinion” and “science” looks like. Experts means a bunch of people with degrees in political science, in communications, or in nothing except agitating for Greenpeace.

Expert opinion and science have become shams used for political purposes by radical ideologues.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a bizarre relic of another time when “atomic scientist” was a job description and children were taught to crouch under desks in the event of a nuclear war. But, like the NAACP or HIAS, whose names alone make their complete irrelevance in 2020 clear, it won’t go away.

Why go on using the name? Because, “Former Key West Editor Predicts End is Nigh” would sound silly.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, its fake clock, its fake scientists, and the media’s uncritical repetition of its talking points shows why the public doesn’t trust expert opinion and science.

And why it’s right not to.

The skeptics are right. And the CNN viewers and New York Times readers who take the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists seriously because they assume anything with that name must be real are fools.

Expert opinion is a house of cards. The experts who are paraded in front of the cameras, who sign open letters, and write op-eds, are facades in the opening of an old western. They look good on a short cable news segment, but once you open the door, there’s nothing inside. And there never was.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is right to be worried. The clock is even closer to doomsday than 100 seconds. The world is about to be destroyed. Not our world, but their world.

"The internet provides widespread, inexpensive access to worldwide audiences, facilitating the broadcast of false and manipulative messages to large populations and enabling millions of individuals to indulge in their prejudices, biases, and ideological differences," the Bulletin complains.

The internet allows people to get news from outside the media bubble. It allows them to find out that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and its Doomsday Clock are a bunch of empty nonsense.

And that’s scary if you’re one of the clan of Washington D.C. experts who are unemployable outside their exclusive field of bashing President Donald J. Trump and warning of the end of the world.

“The international security situation is now more dangerous than it has ever been, even at the height of the Cold War,” the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists claims.

Is the security situation more dangerous than when the human race was on the verge of destruction?

To the hacks of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the destruction of all life on earth is less of a threat than the destruction of their own credibility. The development of the hydrogen bomb (2 minutes to midnight) is a lot less scary than public distrust of the media (1.4 minutes to midnight.)

“Focused attention is needed to prevent information technology from undermining public trust in political institutions, in the media,” the Bulletin demands.

Too late.

Why would anyone believe political institutions and a media that promote a fake clock by a fake organization? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is the best argument for distrusting the media.

Turn the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds or zero. The atom has been split, the shockwave is spreading across the media’s high skyscrapers in New York City, and the fallout of fake news is raining down.





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.

Saturday, January 25, 2020

A Tale of Two Englands

Call it a tale of two girls. And a tale of two Englands.

One is an actress who grew up to marry a prince, lavished with luxuries, amassing a fortune, before her tantrums and antics drove her to depart her newfound royal family for a Canadian billionaire’s manor.

The other was put into foster care when she was only 8, by the age of 13 she was being raped by a Muslim sex grooming gang, and by 15, Victoria Agoglia was already dead of a heroin overdose injected by the 50-year-old Muslim pedophile who had been abusing her. Today, she would have been a woman.

Unlike Meghan Markle, Victoria never got the opportunity to marry a prince or even grow up. And while the media weeps for Markle, who is departing for Canada because of some tabloid tales, the story of Victoria, once again in the news because of the release of an independent report on the sex grooming gangs of Manchester, shows what true social injustice looks like. It’s not bad publicity for a celebrity.

It’s a girl who was abandoned to the worst imaginable abuses because intervening would have been politically incorrect.

The report chronicles how Operation Augusta was launched and then scuttled after her death in 2003, despite identifying 97 suspects and 57 victims. The victims were, “mostly white girls aged between 12 and 16”, and the perpetrators were, “mostly men of ‘Asian heritage’”. By ‘Asian’, the report means “predominantly Pakistani men” though at least one of the perpetrators was apparently Tunisian.

Constable B, the anonymous cop responsible for some of the most revealing quotes in the report, said, “What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.”

Mohammed Yaqoob, the pedophile who had forcibly injected Victoria with heroin and was cleared of manslaughter charges, was not the sort of pedophile the Manchester cops were supposed to find.

A meeting at Greater Manchester Police headquarters “acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men” and worried over “the incitement of racial hatred.” There were concerns about “the damaged relations following Operation Zoological.” Those were the police raids targeting Iraqi refugees involved in an alleged Al Qaeda plot to bomb a soccer stadium in Manchester.

Some in the GMP didn’t see the point to stopping the rape of young girls because of cultural differences.

“There was an educational issue. Asian males didn’t understand that it was wrong, and the girls were not quite there. They were difficult groups to deal with. We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” Constable B said.

And so they didn’t.

More young girls and women were raped. Some of the perpetrators were later arrested. The full scope of the abuse and the cover-up will never be known. The independent report tells us a little of the horror.

The Muslim sex grooming gangs in South Manchester targeted girls from broken families who were taken to care homes. This was not accident or chance. As the report notes, the “offenders understood that a specific children’s home in Manchester was used as an emergency placement unit for children entering the care system and this maintained a steady supply of victims.” And the Muslim sex groomers made sure to be on hand and ready so that the “children were befriended as soon as they arrived.”

These were some of the same tactics used by Muslim sex grooming gangs in Rotherham, Bradford, Huddersfield, Rochdale, Aylesbury, Oxford, Newcastle, Bristol, and Telford, suggesting some level of coordination between grooming gangs from various cities. Possibly over the internet. It’s an angle that the authorities have shown no interest in following up because of its potentially explosive nature.

Some previous Muslim sex grooming gangs were set up among taxi drivers. This gang, according to the report, was based out of the “Asian restaurant and takeaway trade.” Again, by Asian, they mean Indian, Afghan and Pakistani cuisine, kabobs and curry, not Egg Foo Yung and General Tso’s Chicken. These traditionally Muslim businesses served as coordinating networks for the rape and abuse of children.

The migrant populations that destroyed the English working class, displacing them and taking their jobs, leaving men without purposeful work, wives without husbands, and children with broken homes, then completed the hat trick by drugging, raping, and killing the daughters of the working class. And the authorities shrugged because the girls were the worthless leavings of broken homes and a declining populace, the Mohicans and Incas, the Bushmen and the Picts, ragged remnants of defeated tribes brokenly making way for a new conquest, their daughters subjugated by the arrogant colonizers.

There are brief snapshots of the horror of this New Britain: notes from a lost investigation into lost lives.

“Carers reported to police that a child had provided information stating that she was being pursued/threatened/coerced into having sex by two men who were Asian,” a brief summary mentions. “A child begged her carers to get her away from Manchester as she was too involved with Asian men. She disclosed that an Asian man known by his nickname ‘made her do things she didn't want to do’”.

While girls have been the focus of many of the stories, some of the predators also went after boys.

“Child 14 was a male looked after child who regularly went missing,” the report also notes. There were “references from other young people that he was being prostituted by Asian and gay men.”

Despite its thorough documentation, the report ends in a bureaucratic sea of missing information.

In 2005, senior officers of the Greater Manchester Police and Manchester City Council members attended a meeting at Manchester Town Hall and announced the shutdown of the investigation. The report mentions that, "The review team has requested a copy of the minutes for that meeting but neither GMP nor Manchester City Council was able to provide a copy."

It’s no doubt been logged and filed in the same place as Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide videos.

Constable B’s rough answers tell us certain truths about the cover-up. The investigation of Muslim sex grooming gangs was too likely to offend the wrong people. And the behavior of the Muslim pedophiles, who abused young girls and addicted them to drugs, was attributed to cultural differences.

The nameless Constable B tells us the true scope of the problem. Manchester cops like him know that this is habitual and that it’s taking place on a level vastly beyond the scope of Operation Augusta. It’s not 57 girls or 97 suspects. It’s thousands. “We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” he said.

That’s what you say about vast social issues that involve entire communities and a way of life.

Muslim sex grooming gangs, like drugs or prostitution, are too widespread to be enforced out of existence because, like college students and pot, the culture doesn’t accept that they are wrong.

The police did nothing because these were not isolated crimes by criminals, but clashes of morals and values between two communities, one of which does not believe that child rape is wrong because its sacred texts tell it that Mohammed married Aisha and consummated his marriage when she was 9.

There are nearly 2 million child marriages in Pakistan. The notion that a woman’s consent to sexual relations matters is an utterly foreign concept in a culture where unaccompanied women are fair game.

The child rapists did not believe that their actions were wrong under Islamic law. And they weren’t.

The Manchester City Council and the GMP just accepted this reality as they have accepted it so often. They buried the minutes, shut down the investigation, and walked away from the screams of the girls.

They did it for multiculturalism, integration, and community relations. They did it for social justice.

We know that no real action was taken because the girls were troubled. They didn’t matter. And their bodies and lives could be sacrificed for the greater good.

The real tragedy is not that the rapists didn’t understand it was wrong. It’s that the UK no longer does.

As the media moans over Meghan Markle, sob stories rolling in of the injustice of tabloid headlines and the prejudice of the Brits, it is worth remembering those nameless girls who were sacrificed to progress.

They were not worked to death in factories. The brand of progress is no longer Dickensian. Instead it’s Markleite. It demands that we look away from the broken bodies in the chimneys of social justice, to bury away these cinderellas of the postmodern age until Blake’s angel comes with his bright key.

The princess of social justice is in. And the cinderellas who never get asked to the ball, who never grow up or meet their prince, who are taken by taxi to drug dens, shot up, abused, and then turned out, are obstacles to the brand of progress that Markle, Stormzy, and the rest of the social justice crowd of the ‘Cool New Britain’ that is quick to stomp on offensive speech and quicker to look away from the horrors of the new golden age of acid attacks, sex grooming gangs, and nail bombs at teen girl concerts, represent. There is no fairy godmother for them. Only little black coffins and filing cabinets.

Bodies are buried in coffins and the truth is buried in filing cabinets, along with the unasked questions

There is a red Mercedes linked to four of the young girls. Who was behind the wheel of the car “used in the procurement of the victims”? Where did it go? Who knows.

Ask the GMP. Ask the lost and the dead.

The notes and minutes are missing. The truth has been buried in little black coffins along with the bodies of young girls like Victoria. England might once have been theirs. Now it belongs to their abusers.





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, January 22, 2020

The Women's March Fails Miserably

Three years ago, the Women’s March brought a million anti-Trump protesters to Washington D.C.

This year, 25,000 people signed up online. That was unrealistically optimistic because organizers had only obtained a permit for up to 10,000 protesters. And they only ended up with thousands.

Impeachment should have encouraged a bigger turnout, but the snowflakes couldn’t handle the snow.

The first person quoted in D.C.’s WUSA9 report explained that she couldn’t come because, "it’s supposed to be really cold and snowy and that is definitely a factor for me."

There were few pink hats among those who did show up and a lot of black and brown winter gear. Among the few march attendees to wear pink was a bedraggled dog in a pink halter, pinks slacks, white socks and Mary Janes, while her owner waved a sign reading, “Public Cervix Announcement.”

Another dog, missing two legs, looking utterly miserable, was draped in a coat and a pink wreath while trying to move forward over the slick street on wheels while wearing a, “I’m With Her” sign.

A third dog’s sign read, “Fight like a dog for equality.” If the dog were equal, it wouldn’t be here.

At times it seemed as if there were more dogs than people burdened with trite feminist signs. And more vendors selling march paraphernalia than there were march attendees to actually wear it.

The Women’s March had not lost its capacity for its feminist bookstore brand of embarrassing stunts, but the people weren’t showing up, and the participants were being reduced to animal cruelty.

And then a blindfolded Chilean feminist collective in red jumpsuits disharmoniously performed a song in Spanish to remind everyone that the Women’s March was also capable of human cruelty.

There were the expected feminists wearing red Handmaid’s Tale costumes and the drag queens because nothing says fighting for women’s rights like a man in a wig dressed up to look like Marilyn Monroe.

The Women’s March was there to attack President Trump. But he wasn’t in D.C. No one really was.

And the weather wasn’t kind to the marchers who had come out to protest against not only President Trump, but global warming. The sleet turned their paper and cardboard signs into brightly colored mush. Only the truly dedicated hard-core Communists could keep going in the snow and sleet.

A Washington Post reporter tweeted a video of a group of Revolutionary Communist Party marchers singing their song and carrying a banner praising Chairman Bob Avakian while incorrectly identifying them as "Virginia residents" who were "celebrating the ERA vote."

That’s like describing a Nazi rally as local Munich residents protesting against the outcome of WW1.

But the media has always deliberately mischaracterized the political extremism of lefty protests, calculatedly refusing to report on the Trotskyists and assorted professional cranks who fuel them. Coverage of the decline in attendance at the Women’s March due to revelations about anti-Semitism and support for Farrakhan among its former and current leaders has been sparse.

USA Today quoted Carmen Perez, a Farrakhan supporter who serves as co-chair, without mentioning anti-Semitism. It is inconceivable that a conservative organization whose leaders had pledged allegiance to David Duke, Richard Spencer, and the Groypers would have gotten that kind of pass from the media.

But it was hard to cover up the fact that the Women’s March in D.C. had gone to the Commies and the dogs, and could barely manage to turn out a fraction of the million activists it had once unleashed.

With Jews and blacks both boycotting the Women’s March (Black Lives Matter is feuding with its fellow hate group), all that was left were the angry WASP Communists descended from the Mayflower who had to listen to a Chilean feminist collective while cold sleet ran down their pink hats and black signs.

The weather wasn’t on the side of the Women’s March in New York City either.

The New York’s Women’s March was such a disaster that it made the D.C. march look like a success.

In 2017, the Women’s March in New York City had boasted of 400,000 attendees. This year, 400. Media accounts described “hundreds” of attendees. That surely wasn’t what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had been expecting when he arrived at the event to shake hands while wearing black gloves.

Schumer might have been afraid of the cooties of the pink hat brigade. But, more likely, the snow.

Once again, the winter weather defeated the Gaia worshipers who believe that everything from Australian wildfires to the election of President Trump is the expression of Mother Earth’s wrath.

It was cold. It was wet. And there were two competing Women’s Marches in Manhattan.

This year, the two competing marches, one against the organization’s racist leadership and the other for it, were supposed to come together and unite. The weather however had other plans and it began to snow. Just like in D.C., snowflakes began to pepper the snowflakes who wanted to fight global warming.

And the reunion of the two marches at Times Square, where the dueling feminists and racists of the two Women’s Marches could have competed for attention with the El Salvadoran illegal aliens dressed as Disney characters who mug tourists for photos and spare changes, never did take place.

Since there were only a few hundred of them, the illegal aliens dressed as Elsa would have won.

Instead hundreds of marchers had to settle for Senator Schumer waving a red Planned Parenthood sign as the wind tried to tear it out of his hands before he made his way out of the small crowd of white lefties while his African-American bodyguard looked skeptically at them.

Other Women’s Marches didn’t even try.

In Denver, the Women’s March was cancelled. In Akron, the snow forced it indoors. In Eugene, Oregon, the old march of 7,000 had been pared down to 40 people who didn’t have a permit. The Chicago march was noted mainly for its celebration of Leila Khaled, a PFLP terrorist who participated in the Dawson’s Field hijackings of four airplanes that were seen as an inspiration for the attacks of September 11.

It could have been worse. But it’s hard to see how.

The Women’s March ought to be having its moment as the impeachment that the hate group had long demanded is underway. But instead, like so much of the anti-Trump activism, it’s fading away. The Women’s March gained its power from raging suburbanites, as they pull back, the crazies remain.

And, whether they’re waving Communist banners in D.C. or terrorist banners in Chicago, they’re harder to ignore without the protective camouflage that the useful idiots at previous marches offered.

Once the cover was pulled back from the Women’s March leadership, the end was not long in coming.

The weather, the snow, rain, and sleet, didn’t help attendance at this year’s events. Neither did the bigotry of the Women’s March leadership. But the larger story may be the onset of TSD fatigue.

The media and activist groups have spent four years whipping up Democrats into a frenzy of Trump Derangement Syndrome. After a week in which the media was promising the onset of WWIII, without actually delivering, there wasn’t much enthusiasm for the fourth iteration of the march.

All the marchers know that impeachment is doomed. The Impeachment rallies failed. Now the Women’s March, the grandma of all the anti-Trump rallies, failed along with them. And the activist groups and funders behind these hate rallies face a terrifying prospect. What if TDS burnout has set in?

Imagine a political and media landscape in which selling hatred of Trump no longer works?

There’s a reason this year’s big Women’s March drama involved old photos of them in the National Archives, not Trump. The marches are winding down and the participants are worrying about how history will remember them.

Their TDS world is ending and they know they’re history.






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, January 21, 2020

Obama Vs. Bernie

In November, Barack Obama paid a call on George Soros. After maintaining a low profile since leaving office, the former chosen one showed up at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Washington D.C. where the Democracy Alliance was having its annual conclave to decide how to destroy the United States.

After a long Friday afternoon of hearing from assorted minions, members of the Democracy Alliance, who had contributed at least $200,000 to be part of Soros’ real-life SPECTRE alliance, minus the white cat, trooped into the Grand Ballroom for a “fireside chat” before a private dinner with Valerie Jarrett.

And Obama had a simple message for the mandarins in the Mandarin Oriental who had spent fortunes to elect lefties and transform the country. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it,” he told his radical audience. And warned that the Democrat agenda should not be driven by “certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.”

Soros and the Democracy Alliance’s activist wing elected Obama to implement a radical agenda. Now he was warning his old backers that they were in danger of backing agendas that were just too radical.

The outreach was striking because Obama had tried to keep his distance from George Soros. In an interview, Soros had complained about being frozen out by Obama. “He made one phone call thanking me for my support, which was meant to last for five minutes,” the leftist billionaire whined.

Obama had no interest in letting Soros set his agenda. But now he was trying to set Soros’ agenda.

His sudden call for moderation had a target.

A Politico writeup in November, ‘Waiting for Obama’, noted that, “Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him.”

“If Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don't think that's likely. It's not happening,” an anonymous Obama adviser said.

Bernie supporters furiously shot back. Headlines like, "The Real Barack Obama Has Finally Revealed Himself", popped up on Jacobin: the Sandernista equivalent of Pravda, Der Sturmer, and Al Jazeera.

That same month, Deval Patrick, a favorite potential candidate of Valerie Jarrett and other Obamaworlders, suddenly and disastrously jumped into the 2020 race. With a Patrick event attracting two people, Obama switched his focus and began working behind the scenes to support Warren.

By December, Obama was urging Wall Street donors to back Elizabeth Warren. It didn’t work.

Bernie Sanders shot up to second place. And Obama was not counting on Biden to stop him. “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden," he had privately observed.

It’s January and Obamaworlders keep grousing about how to stop Bernie. And going nowhere.

“The strongest argument against Bernie will be showing that you can defeat Donald Trump,” one recently complained. “And he cannot.”

That’s certainly one problem.

Bernie Sanders has zero appeal to anyone except the white lefties who once backed Obama. Meanwhile Obama’s black voters remain solidly behind Biden. Obama’s only real way to stop Bernie would be to call on black voters to solidly support Biden creating a deep racial divide within an already divided party.

But there’s also the personal element. It’s not just Hillary who hates Bernie. The average Democrat operative views the socialist as a foreign element who undermines the party when he doesn’t need it, and is bringing in a ragged mob of radicals to take it over and fundamentally transform it. And, unlike Obama’s radicals, they have no social skills and little interest in working together with anyone else.

The Bernie base views Obama as a sellout. His signature policy trashes ObamaCare. And Obama cares.

Bernie’s rise is Obama’s nightmare. A race between Bernie and Trump leads to two bad outcomes. Either Trump wins, becomes a two-term president, and trashes Obama’s legacy. Or Bernie wins, and trashes Obama’s legacy while purging his allies and staffers from the DNC and the government.

The return of Bernie divides the party the same way he did in 2016. Either he loses and many of his voters stay home. Or he wins and more moderate Democrats become the ones to sit out the race.

And yet the man who had turned the party into his own cult can’t stop the next cult of personality.

The lightworker, the anointed one, the messiah has discovered that not only George Soros, but the earnest young lefties who once swooned for him have moved on. The arc of history is no longer his.

Obama’s comments at the Democracy Alliance’s shindig also a reflect tactical difference between his preference for remaking the system without tearing it down, and Bernie’s call for socialism now. It’s the same old division between working within the system or destroying it that divided the American Left.

The Obama era was the greatest triumph for the radicals, including the Weathermen, who ultimately decided that they could achieve more by working within the system than by setting off bombs. It was also the subject of that ancient argument between Vladimir Lenin and H.G. Wells about revolutions.

That consensus bypassed Bernie, once an obscure socialist crank, whose political life got a new lease when some ex-Obama marketers decided they need a way to cash in when Hillary wouldn’t hire them, and who was then embraced by a new generation of radicals who saw Obama as insufficiently radical.

Bernie’s political philosophy has been massaged to make it more appealing for a new era. But underneath the new embrace of identity politics and open borders, things he once opposed, he’s an unreconstructed radical with no interest in tactics, strategy, and how things work in the real world.

He just wants a revolution. That revolution threatens the hard work of Obama, Soros and many others.

And what does George think?

Earlier, Soros had been hinting that he might support Elizabeth Warren. He picked Hillary over Sanders in 2016. But Our Revolution, Bernie’s dark money organization, planned to solicit money from Soros. Due to the secrecy of both Soros and Our Revolution, it’s hard to know whether Soros ponied up.

But we do know that Our Revolution got its largest contribution of $100,000 from the Sixteen Thirty Fund which is partly funded by George Soros. And the activists powering Sanders, like Zack Exley, have often come through Open Society and other Soros network organizations.

Obama’s pitch to Soros and the rest of the radical donor class was that Bernie’s approach was outside the comfort zone of most Americans. Bernie, in George’s terms, was a bad investment who wouldn’t connect with voters and would hand President Trump another four years in the White House.

Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the squad, and the rest of the old new and new old radicals don’t actually do anything except talk. Bernie’s Medicare-for-All scam was so inept that it unintentionally brought down the campaigns of Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Kamala Harris.

Our Revolution lost a quarter of a million to an email scam. So much for that investment.

The single real-world accomplishment that Cortez has to her name took place outside the House, when she helped scuttle Amazon’s New York City HQ and the tens of thousands of jobs that came with it.

George Soros likes to invest in organizations and people who get things done. Obama wants a successor who will lock in and expand on his legacy. Neither of the two men are likely to get what they want.

Soros has already suggested that he won’t be supporting a primary candidate. Obama has tried two.

Obama is testing the waters. He’s hesitant to act openly because if he comes out against Bernie, and Bernie still sweeps through New Hampshire and Iowa, his credibility will be in ruins. Ever since leaving office, Obama has secretly nurtured the idea that he is the wise man and kingmaker of the party.

But what if he’s not?

Obama’s very real fear is that he’s irrelevant. Black voters will still follow him. Few others will. An endorsement from him would not be a profound game changer, but worth a few percent at best.

Coming out against Bernie would mean testing his brand against, not only Bernie, but Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar, and dozens of radical Bernie proxies scattered across social media. While Obama vacationed, millennials like Cortez built social media cults of radical narcissism.

And Obama, the former radical narcissist-in-chief, has been out-radicalized and out-narcissicized.

The man who had once defined a political generation of Democrats has, like Bill Clinton, grown old and tired. The routines that Barack and Bill once pulled to seem hip, are passé. The celebrities they posed with are yesterday’s news. Their attempts to revive Kennedyesque political cool have become as antiquated as Jackie Kennedy’s pillbox hat and JFK’s preppy yachting outfits.

Worse still, Barry hasn’t been bypassed for a younger politician, but a formerly obscure elderly radical.

When your power is rooted not in ideas or principles, but hipness, then you live by the trend and die by it. George picked up Barry as his boy toy when he was a young crush. Now Barry’s old and only good for sonorously reciting clichés in the Mandarin Oriental while Soros uses him to collect another few million.

Obama so often spoke of the future, whom it would belong to, and whom it wouldn’t. Now he faces the fact that the future has passed him by. Whomever the future belongs to, it will not belong to him.





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.

Saturday, January 18, 2020

California’s Environmentalist Democrats Force Children to Swim in Diluted Sewage

California’s gold rush began when gold was discovered on a fork of the American River. Its end can also be found on the American River which no longer contains gold, but instead high levels of E. coli bacteria.

The cause of the contamination is only a mystery to the political establishment in the nearby capital.

"A grocery sack containing what appeared to be human feces hung from a branch over the American River," a recent Sacramento Bee story began.

The American River had been named by John Sutter. The Swiss immigrant went bankrupt when his land was overrun by gold prospectors. The new invaders aren’t trying to get rich. They already are. The benevolence of the state’s government in Sacramento means that they get everything for free.

Sutter’s son had founded Sacramento. And Sacramento’s Democrat majority is ‘unfounding’ California. Now the filth of its social welfare policies is fouling the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers, where explorers once marveled at an expansive landscape, vagrants have set up tent cities.

E. coli levels at beaches are supposed to be at 88 or below, and anything over 1,000 is supposed to lead to a beach closure. At 500, there’s a 10% chance of gastroenteritis and a 4% risk of febrile respiratory disease. But at Discovery Park, the numbers went as high as 2419.6 in December 2019.

The E.coli levels had climbed so high that labs could no longer even properly measure them.

Discovery Park is a convenient getaway for Sacramentans. More recently however, visitors describe mountains of trash, waste, and needles. “Don't walk, wade or swim without shoes, used needles have been strewn throughout the park,” one Californian wrote. “I found crack heads, hookers, and crazy people screaming obscenities and throwing punches at anyone who came too close,” another described.

"I have been threatened by homeless trying to hit me, bitten by a homeless person’s dog," one intrepid visitor reported. "I have seen cleanup crews load as many as 4 bins the size of railroad cars with trash and it still isn't enough."

Sacramento County has put up signs warning people to wash their hands after touching the water and not to drink the water or even swim if they have open cuts, while blaming the E. coli contamination on bacteria from the “intestines of mammals – from wildlife to humans”. While that’s scientifically true, it isn’t the bears or the beavers that turned the river into a foul stew of bacteria. It’s the people.

Californians are swimming and tubing in water that Democrat politicians have made hazardous.

The environmental movement was built on claims of pollution, real or false, before leaving behind the field of actual health risks to people for science fiction fantasies about planetary destruction, ice ages and global warming. Meanwhile at Tiscornia Beach, at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers, the EPA’s threshold, a level of contamination that would make 32 out of 1,000 people sick, had been repeatedly exceeded. A professor referred to samples of the river water as “diluted sewage”.

That’s a problem considering that the American River is used to provide drinking water to Sacramento.

But officials will spend the next three to four years gathering samples to understand the problem.

What can happen to the swimmers, campers, and boaters while the officials spend years gathering samples and shifting blame for the problem?

This summer, a Shigella outbreak infected multiple people on the Santa Ana River. Shigella is potentially fatal. The Downey Park area was shut down for a week over the summer. After a week, the authorities insisted that there was probably nothing wrong with the river, but warned everyone to wash their hands after touching the river. Just not in the river which has homeless encampments nearby.

One obvious concern is that the Santa Ana River is used for drinking water across Orange County. While that water supply in Orange County is unlikely to be affected by the water pollution near Downey Park, the contamination is a warning that the homeless problem is not just a threat to campers and swimmers. Rivers like these are vast and have natural cleansing mechanisms, but everything has a limit.

The Sacramento River provides 31 percent of California’s water supply. The American River is a crucial elements of Sacramento’s water supply. The Santa Ana River is vital to Orange County’s water resources.

No part of any body of water from which drinking water is drawn should consist of “diluted sewage”.

The San Diego River is the largest local source of drinking water for San Diego County. Homeless encampments began to pop up alongside the San Diego River leading to piles of garbage and waste.

Earlier this year, the San Diego Water Board asked local agencies to, in the words of the local FOX affiliate, “curtail the flow of human fecal matter into the San Diego River.”

"It was surprising to find out there was actually a lot of human waste present in the San Diego River water shed," David Gibson, the Executive Officer of the Water Board, said. "There are organisms like noroviruses that cause massive illnesses on cruise ships that we're finding in our own water.”

Tracking the spread of infections caused by homeless waste is difficult. Most people don’t even associate bouts of stomach problems with a recent weekend swimming or boating on the water.

Or surfing.

In one study of 654 surfers, researchers noted a 3-fold increase in ear infections and a 5-fold increase in infected open wounds. Exposure to seawater had come to mean exposure to human fecal matter.

Surfing, the quintessential Californian sport, has been endangered by the state’s homeless policies.

The California lifestyle of beaches, swimming and surfing, hiking and camping, increasingly means risky contact with human waste. And the illnesses, from the merely gastrointestinal, to even more serious disease outbreaks, reflect the transformation of a prosperous state into a Third World country.

Environmentalists once obsessed over Love Canal. Today they ignore the contamination of California and the environmental hazards for families, especially children, because it’s politically incorrect.

While movies like Dark Waters depict corporate villains who cover up environmental catastrophes that harm families, in California, it’s the party of the environmentalists that has overseen an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that has affected some of the state’s major rivers and drinking supply.

And it’s the Democrats and their leftist organizations who have been covering up the threat.

No state is more obsessed with environmental virtue signaling than California. From windmills to solar panels, from plastic bag bans to straw bans, from a refusal to construct dams to putting fish ahead of farmers, Sacramento has imposed an environmentalist dystopia on its progressive populace.

Meanwhile Democrat social policies have left local children swimming in water that is diluted sewage.






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, January 15, 2020

Democrat Backing for Anti-Semitism is Killing Jews

After a black nationalist attack on a Jewish supermarket in Jersey City, a member of the Jersey City Board of Education defended the murder of two Jewish people and a Latino employee.

"Drugs and guns are planted in the Black community,” Joan Terrell Paige ranted on Facebook.

The two Black Hebrew Israelite killers, the former community organizer wrote, “went directly to the kosher supermarket. I believe they knew they would come out in body bags. What is the message they were sending? Are we brave enough to explore the answer to their message? Are we brave enough to stop the assault on the Black communities of America?"

While some Democrats called on Joan Terrell Paige to resign, others defended her hatred of Jews.

The Hudson County Democratic Black Caucus argued that "her statement has heightened awareness around issues that must be addressed."

“She said nothing wrong. Everything she said is the truth,” declared Carolyn Oliver Fair, the head of the North Jersey Chapter of the National Action Network. The NAN is Al Sharpton’s organization and has been addressed by every important Democrat from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi to Elizabeth Warren.

Virtually every 2020 Democrat has appeared at the National Action Network including Warren, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders despite its ugly history even before Fair’s support for murdering Jews. Sharpton had been the central figure in the Crown Heights Pogrom, he has a history of anti-Semitic slurs, and the NAN has blood on its hands.

Unlike many contemporary hate groups, the National Action Network has the unique distinction of being the destination of choice for every major Democrat and for its role in the murder of 7 people.

Those were the 7 who died in the Freddy’s Fashion Mart fire, 5 of them Latino women, who were killed when a black nationalist gunman ordered black people to leave before opening fire and burning the store. The worst racist hate crime in New York City was preceded by Sharpton denouncing the store owner as a, “white interloper”.

Morris Powell, who had been on trial for breaking a Korean woman’s head during a previous protest, had headed the National Action Network’s Buy Black committee. Powell had chanted, “Don’t give the Jew a dime”, outside the store and praised the killer as, “A Black Man who struggled for his people to be free.” The New York Times headlined its piece on the black nationalist killer as, “A Life of Resistance.”

The sympathetic profile of a racist monster who murdered seven people would never have been run about Dylann Roof or Robert Bowers. Nor would a racist massacre have been described as “resistance”.

But the New York Times quoted an Imam in the Believers Mosque in St. Petersburg who praised the racist arsonist as "the type of person who would encourage people to get involved." A former senior advisor to the Mayor of Tampa and Democrat campaign consultant described the killer as one in "a long line of people who thought it was up to them to stop talking, stop begging and start acting.”

Those comments closely echo Paige’s justification of the Kosher market attack. It’s why it ought to surprise no one that she has not resigned from the Jersey City Board of Education. And isn’t likely to.

Instead, John Flora, a Democrats running for Congress, defended her and urged other elected officials to “be prepared to demonstrate empathy. Was she still processing the event? Did it traumatize her?”

Flora is running for Congress on a bold platform of the Green New Deal, gun control, legalizing drugs, abolishing the electoral college and hating Jews.

With the backing of local Democrats, it appears that Paige isn’t going anywhere. And Democrats won’t stop appearing at National Action Network events. Not even after the murders of 7 and 3 people.

The underlying problem is that the Democrats don’t oppose racism or racial nationalism. They believe that under circumstances, such as a Jewish store in Harlem or in Jersey City, it might be justified.

They have one standard for white nationalism and another for black nationalism.

Had Dylann Roof been a black man shooting up a synagogue, we would be reading about his “life of resistance” in the New York Times.

The tragedy of the Jersey City attack taking place on a street named after Martin Luther King is that while there are streets in every major city named after the civil rights activist, civil rights has fallen to identity politics. Where civil rights called for equality, identity politics is nationalism and supremacism.

Democrats have used racial hatred for two centuries to appeal to a fractured electorate convinced of its own superiority and the unfairness of the system. That the electorate shifted races is a minor detail. The truly important thing to understand is that since 1828, the Democrats have gained and held on to power by convincing narrow groups that the deck is stacked against them and that only they can save them.

This poison killed numberless black and white people across two centuries. It also brought countless wealth into the pockets of the politically connected. From slavery and segregation, to the fire at Freddy’s and the shooting in Jersey City, countless acts of racial violence were perpetrated so that Democrats could keep their hands on the pork and graft that really makes government, local, state and federal, run.

Radical politics added an ideological motive. But all politics, whether radical or moderate, from the Dixiecrat to the Communist, is ultimately about the acquisition of money and power. Racism, white or black, is just a means of tribalizing the struggle for money and power by playing on racial fear and hate.

The victims of identity politics, killed and wounded in random lynchings, are the collateral damage of progressive racism. A few dead people, in this case Jews, are a small price to pay for power.

The rise in anti-Semitism is not mysterious. It is what happens when political factions back fringe groups convinced of the fundamental unfairness of society and the need to bring it down, whether it’s black or white supremacists, or Islamists, as weapons in a political war for control of the country.

People are dying in racial violence across the country so that the Democrats can win elections.






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, January 13, 2020

Environmentalists Want To Take Your Food, Your Home, And Your Children

At CNN's Climate Town Hall, which set out to save the world by having ten of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, their staffers, drug dealers, and mistresses fly out to appear in the fake news network's facilities, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed saving the planet by killing the children.

A concerned questioner at a forum being held in a green mega complex built on the site of a former slaughterhouse, appropriately enough, urged Sanders to discuss the importance of "educating everyone on the need to curb population growth."

"Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?” the anti-kids schoolmarm demanded

Once upon a time, environmental activists claimed that they wanted to save the planet for the children. Now they want to save the planet from the children.

"The answer's yes," said the socialist politician who has a poor relationship with his only son. Then he suggested that this brand of environmental eugenics really ought to be applied to "poor countries around the world."

Poor countries being any country in which the socialist millionaire doesn't own three homes.

Saving the planet from the children is a popular environmental cause.

The World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency letter published in the Bioscience journal boasted the signatures of 11,000 scientists lending the full weight of their useless degrees to order that "the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity."

Reducing populations for social integrity was the specialty of such innovative environmental activists as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mohammed.

“There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez announced on an Instagram video. That's where most scientific consensus debut. “And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it okay to still have children?”

How many resources do children consume versus the resources consumed by streaming video via Instagram's massive array of Facebook server farms in places like Alabama, Singapore, or near the Arctic Circle, to millions of people around the country? But if AOC were forced to choose between having 2.5 kids and being a celebrity living in a luxury building with an infinity pool, a rooftop dog park, massage rooms and a wood-fired pizza oven, which is especially good for the environment, it's an easy choice.

Hello infinity pool, goodbye kids.

But the competitive 2020 race to ruin everyone's life for the environment is just getting started. While Bernie and AOC want to get rid of other people's kids, Senator Cory Booker wants to get rid of meat.

This radical position allowed him to stay in the race while Senator Kamala Harris, who just wanted to ban straws, had to drop out.

"We’ve seen this massive increase in consumption of meat produced by the industrial animal agriculture industry," Booker, who claims to be a vegan whose "spirit" won't allow him to have an omelet, insisted. "The tragic reality is this planet simply can’t sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture."

There are too many kids and burgers for the planet. And if you take a kid out for a burger, you might as well be running over polar bears in a Hummer or holding a Climate Town Hall in Manhattan.

And just think about what that will do to Cory Booker's spirit animal chickens.

No plan to make the planet miserable to save it from having fun can go without being endorsed by a few hundred grant grifters who had spent six figures of taxpayer money to buy themselves a PhD in busybodying.

And so a letter in Lancet Planetary Health by assorted scientists, grad students, people who claim to be scientists, and people who once watched an episode of Cosmos, demanded that meat consumption drop by 2030.

Not that it matters. Rep. Alexandria Cortez had claimed,"The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."

If we're all going to be gone by 2031, the final year of the fall of man, why not go out with a burger and a glass of wine?

Speaking of wine, that's also on the list.

Or, as the New York Times recently inquired, "How Does Your Love of Wine Contribute to Climate Change?” . The Times never gets around to asking its readers how their love of lies printed on the skin of dead trees is killing the planet.

Coffee? Forget about it.

A large cappuccino, the kind that pays Starbucks to indoctrinate staffers on their white privilege for asking crazed vagrants to stop shooting up heroin in the non-gendered bathrooms, has a carbon footprint of 235g.

That's the equivalent of driving from Cleveland to Toronto. And if you get a large latte, that's like a car trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

I didn't make that up. Environmentalists did.

Will those ecos at least let you have some bread and water? Even the living standard of medieval prisoners is too much for our green barons.

The ecos have been waging a long bitter war on bottled water. "A million bottles a minute: world’s plastic binge ‘as dangerous as climate change," a typically non-hysterical Guardian headline bleats.

Since the ecos also tell us that climate change is worse than WW2, you can understand why Roger Hallam, the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, a bunch of shrieking grad students who spray red paint on things to spread awareness of what a bunch of wankers environmentalists are, dismissed the Holocaust as no big deal.

Who can be expected to care about gas chambers when the bottled water catastrophe is upon us?

Your daily bread? Forget about it.

One loaf of bread puts out 1.7 pounds of carbon dioxide. That's like tying a whale to a jet liner, basting it in gasoline, and having it along with some bottled water through a plastic straw.

An estimated half a percent of the UK's imaginary carbon emissions are caused by bread. The obvious answer is a bread ban.

At least Marie Antoinette would have let the people eat cake. Her latter day successors in the UK won't even let you have a loaf of bread, a bottle of water, coffee, wine, or anything except soy and more soy. Or Soylent Green.

Forget about eating or kids. What about being left alone to live in your house?

Hah.

"If we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership," The Nation clamors

"We need another kind of escape route—away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities,' the socialist rag argues.

If you're keeping track, you can't have kids, a house, a glass of wine, a burger, or anything.

The real question is what in your life will environmentalists allow you to keep?

The answer is nothing.

The environmentalists claim that if they're not allowed to have their way, the planet will be destroyed. And if they are allowed to have their way, they will take everything from us that makes life worth living.





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.

Friday, January 10, 2020

Jane Fonda Saves the Planet From Herself

Last year, Jane Fonda sold her “eco-conscious” Beverly Hills mansion, with its 7,102 square feet on a 36,000 square foot lot enclosing a his and her master suite, a glass elevator, 5 bathrooms, glass walls, fireplaces, a fountain, a meditation garden, a fully stocked gym, a pavilion with heat lamps, and a huge pool for $8.5 million after she found no takers at its original $13 million sale price.

“This was the first time in my 79 years,” Fonda enunciates with the deep pathos of an orphan finally getting a full meal as the camera zooms through the cavernous interior of a walk-in closet the size of some people’s homes , “that I have had a closet that you could walk in and see everything you have.”

As Gaia is my witness, If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill, I’ll never go without a walk-in closet again.

Heartfelt music more appropriate to the reunion of a lost child and her mother plays in the background as the socialist actress describes her “amazing glass elevator, it’s like a gem”. Then she gushes about having a party with 150 people in the house. “We could have had another 50,” she brags. Then there’s her pool. “It’s so beautiful at night when it’s lit up.”

Fonda didn’t sell her mansion because she suddenly realized that two people living on a 36,000 square foot estate was bad for the environment. Even if the pool was solar heated. She had just broken up with her record producer boyfriend and was looking to scale down by getting something for the single life.

And so, the environmentalist activist went all the way down from a 7,102 square foot mansion to a 6,679 square foot luxury townhouse. The $5.8 million three-story home has 4 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms, and a semi-subterranean three car garage which no doubt only stock Teslas. The master suite has its own fireplace, two walk-in closets, a marble bathroom, and its own balcony. There are staff quarters for the servants. And an elevator for a convenient way to get around the three-story condo.

The complex also offers indoor and outdoor swimming pools, and a tennis court. For the environment.

Every so often, Fonda leaves her Century City luxury condo to fly 2,311 miles to Washington D.C. to protest for the environment. Each of these trips by Fonda generates more CO2 than an average person in Madagascar produces in one year. At these ‘Fire Drill Fridays’, she arranges to get herself arrested (with all the CO2 emissions that entails) along with other California celebrities to demand that everyone save the planet by submitting to the poverty, misery, and destruction of the Green New Deal.

Fonda urged protesters to “take the next step beyond individual actions to reduce our carbon footprint”. She could have reduced her carbon footprint by getting rid of 6 of her 7 bathrooms.

But that wouldn’t have gotten the haggard leftist has-been another 15 minutes of fame.

“These are life-and-death decisions,” she falsely claimed before a silent meditation, three “hi-yahs”, and the vanity arrests in a city already overburdened by crime that largely affects its poor population.

Also arrested was Ted Danson, who last year bought a second compound next to his first compound in Santa Monica with a walk-in wine cellar (don’t call it a cave), he already owns a cottage in Nashville, a ten-acre place in California, and a six-acre multi-residence spread on Martha’s Vineyard. The Cheers star and blackface impresario is naturally concerned about the environment. He owns so much of it.

Brooklyn Decker, the Sports Illustrated model, also came to D.C. to fight for the environment. Decker and her husband have two homes, a 7,300 square foot mansion in West Austin, Texason 15 acres of land with an infinity pool, and the other, a 4-acre spread with 7 bedrooms in North Carolina.

Joining them in the Legion of Environmentalist Mansion Crusaders was Rosanna Arquette, an actress who lives in aPacific Palisades 1.36 acre ocean-view walled and gated estate with 7.5 bathrooms, floor-to-ceiling glass walls, and a 10,000-bottle wine cellar with its own tasting room.

"As Greta Thunberg said, 'Our House Is On Fire', and we need to act like it," Fonda wrote.

Or our 10,000-bottle wine cellar anyway.

“You see this coat? I needed something red and I went out and found this coat on sale. This is the last article of clothing that I will ever buy," she boasted at a Capitol Hill rally while showing off a $500 luxurious red coat. The red coat is appropriate for the nation’s most famous celebrity traitor who flew to show solidarity with the Viet Cong who were murdering Americans with nary a carbon offset in sight.

“‘We don’t need more stuff,’ then I have to walk the walk too. So I’m not buying any more clothes.”

And to prove it, Fonda wore the same black sequin suit to the Glamour Women of the Year Awards in New York City and then to the GCAAP Empower Party in Atlanta three days later. How did she get from New York to Atlanta in three days? Probably teleportation. And buying new clothes in Atlanta would have had less environmental impact than dragging her sequin suit on a flight from New York to Atlanta.

But it’s not about actually making a difference. It’s about pretending to.

You can have your indoor elevators, wine cellars, and massive estates, and look good by getting briefly arrested to show how much you care about the environment, even while heating, cooling, and powering houses and lands that consume more energy and emit more carbon than millions of third worlders.

“Proud of @Janefonda’s commitment to save our planet,” an environmentalist site tweeted.

An actual commitment would have meant moving to a 1,500 square foot apartment. Instead of commuting between California and Washington D.C. (not to mention Atlanta and New York City) while also having a place in D.C. While the media has widely reported on her temporary sojourn in D.C., none have bothered to ask or report on what sort of environmentally sustainable quarters she’s occupying.

“I made personal changes,” Fonda said. “Electric car, get rid of single-use plastic, less meat — cut it out altogether — recycle, all those kinds of things.”

But keep the 6,679 square foot luxury home. And have your luxury coats shipped over from China.

“I decided that the last article of clothing that I will ever buy is a red coat. Sure enough, I found one at Neiman Marcus on sale for $500. And that's the coat," she had insisted. "I'm speaking out against consumerism and so I have to walk the talk. And so that's the last thing I'll buy."

By Fonda’s standards, paying only $500 for a coat is a protest against consumerism.

There’s nothing like protesting consumerism by buying a $500 coat “on sale” at Neiman Marcus when you live in California.The coat, worn exclusively by Meghan Markle and working-class comrades of the Viet Cong, normally sells for $750, is virgin wool with lambskin trim and imported from China.

There’s nothing like buying a discounted $500 slave labor coat that had to be shipped all the way over from China to protest consumerism and fight for the environment. This is Fonda’s single greatest moral statement since she sat on a Viet Cong anti-aircraft gun while hanging out with America’s enemies.

China has been known to get its lambskin by skinning lambs alive. And its leather often comes from dogs and cats boiled alive. But it’s not as if Fonda cares about the planet, animals or anyone except herself.

Fonda’s only doing these protests until her Netflix series, Grace and Frankie, starts shooting again. At a protest that came too close to the resumption of shooting on her TV series, she avoided being arrested.

"I have to be careful not to get to a point where they're going to keep me for 90 days, because I have to begin preparing for Grace and Frankie in January,” the heroic activist explained, after previously saying, “Everybody's gotta get used to this new normal, getting beyond our comfort zone.”

It’s one thing to get headlines for being arrested. Just so as long as it doesn’t interfere with your closeup and the millions of dollars that allow you to afford the good things in life that you want to take away from the rest of the country. Fonda wants her 7 bathrooms and tiny hovels for the rest of us.

After Fonda returned from collaborating with the enemy in Vietnam, she slandered American POWs as “hypocrites and liars”. But she’s always been the real liar and hypocrite. The pampered celebrity posing with Communist killers and cheering on the murder and torture of American soldiers because it was good for her career. And now championing the Green New Deal while commuting to her massive home, and getting visibly arrested, so long as it doesn’t interfere with her Netflix shooting schedule.

Fonda spoke glowingly of the Communists of Vietnam in propaganda broadcasts. The Green New Deal promises a brutal revolution, with cold and hunger, the breakdown of industry and life, that appeals so much to leftists who believe that people deserve to suffer for social justice. And Jane Fonda hopes to enjoy it from the balcony of her master suite and its fireplace if it gets too cold in Los Angeles County.






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, January 07, 2020

The Russians Used the Media to Influence an Election for the Left

A funny thing happened on the way to the Kremlin.

Before the UK election, Hillary Clinton took her book tour to the UK, where she joined the chorus of
false claims accusing Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative party of being Russian stooges. Christopher Steele, the British operative hired by her campaign to smear Trump as a Russian asset, had already paved the way with yet another report accusing Johnson of being cultivated by the Russians.

The media began falsely claiming that the Tories were covering up this damning report.

“I find it inexplicable that your government will not release a government report about Russian influence. Inexplicable and shameful,” Hillary Clinton huffed to the BBC. "Every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens.”

The BBC did not bother to inform its viewers that Hillary had been paying one of the report’s sources.

The Steele 2.0 report was obsessed with Russian influence on the Brexit referendum and the previous election. But then the Russians actually shaped Labour’s entire election strategy in this election.

And they used the media to do it.

With Jeremy Corbyn’s numbers tanking due to everything from his support for terrorists to his anti-Semitism and general unpleasantness, the leftist leader unveiled documents claiming to show evidence of a secret deal with the United States over Britain’s failing socialized medicine NHS.

“We have now got evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale. He tried to cover it up in a secret agenda and today it has been exposed," Corbyn whinged. “We are talking here about secret talks for a deal with Donald Trump after Brexit.”

Corbyn was blatantly lying about the documents and what was in them. The false claims about an NHS sellout became the central thrust of Labour’s political campaign in the 2019 election.

But what was more interesting was where those documents had come from.

The documents had first appeared on Reddit. In early December, Reddit announced that in coordination with law enforcement and experts, the accounts behind the leak were taken down as part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The sources of these claims, Graphika and the Atlantic Council, were the same as the ones that had been used by the media as credible sources on previous Russian campaigns.

And it wasn’t Johnson and the Tories the Russians were trying to help, but Corbyn and Labour.

A Twitter account using the same name as the Reddit account had even tagged Corbyn in a link to the materials from the Russian disinformation campaign.

When Labour refused to state how they received the documents, the media just shrugged.

The repeated refusals of Labour figures associated with Corbyn to explain the source of the documents was as good as an admission that they had not obtained them from legitimate sources.

Asked in an interview where the documents came from, Corbyn insisted that it didn’t matter and then claimed that the documents leaked by the Russians showed “why the prime minister has refused to release the report on Russian interference in British politics.”

The Russian interference in British politics wasn’t in the report, it was in his own house.

The Russian campaign calculatedly tried to stir up animosity between the US and the UK in order to sabotage Brexit, prevent a trade deal between the US and the UK, and help Corbyn perform well enough to retain his leadership role in Labour. Why the Russians might have wanted those things is obvious.

A dysfunctional EU serves Moscow’s purposes better than an independent UK able to set its own defense and foreign policies. Frustrated leavers would become radicalized, making them useful targets for provocateurs with ties to Moscow. And Corbyn’s Momentum was part of a British Left that had longstanding ties to the Soviet Union whose old KGB operatives were now running Russia. And were eager to tap into the old networks of fellow travelers that had been cultivated in the Communist days.

The Russians hadn’t been cultivating Johnson. They had been cultivating Corbyn for a long time.

Last year, Ján Sarkocy, a Cold War Czech spy working in the UK under cover as a diplomat, had come forward to accuse Corbyn of being a paid informant who had supplied information to the enemy.

“He was our asset, he had been recruited. He was getting money from us,” Sarkocy said.

Documents substantiated contacts between Corbyn and Sarkocy. Corbyn's codename allegedly had been COB and had allegedly tipped off the Communists to actions by British intelligence.

Worse still, Sarkocy claimed that Corbyn had been recruited "under Russian supervision."

"All the information we received, not only from him but also from another, supporting source, was regarded in Moscow as first-rate,” Sarkocy claimed.

Unlike Steele, Sarkocy had been in a position to actually know what he was talking about. But the media hurriedly rushed to clear Corbyn of the charges even as they went on insisting that the secret Steele influenced report would prove that Johnson was a Russian asset. While the charges against Johnson were farfetched, like Bernie Sanders, Corbyn’s sympathy for the Soviet Union was no secret.

Corbyn had appeared at the 40th Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain to urge disarmament in the face of the Soviet Union. More recently, the alleged Marxist had claimed that “NATO was founded in order to promote a Cold War with the Soviet Union.” And, keeping the special relationship alive, he blamed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on American expansionism.

His roster includes Andrew Murray, a former member of the Communist Party, and his chief strategist, Seumas Milne, had mourned the fall of the Berlin Wall, and defended its leaders against claims of atrocities, arguing that, “Communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment.”

And the Communists had announced that they wouldn’t run candidates, but try to help Labour win.

After Corbyn’s extensive ties to Communists, allegations by a former spy that he was a paid informant, the Russians tried to help Corbyn with a disinformation campaign and leaked documents, and the media insisted that the Russians couldn’t have been trying to help Corbyn. And that Corbyn knew nothing.

The same media outlets smearing Trump and Johnson as Russian assets based on nothing, who had falsely claimed that Trump’s victory and Brexit were the work of the Russians based on deliberate misrepresentations about Russian ad campaigns, refused to make the obvious connections between an alleged former Russian asset, his circle of former Communists, and a Russian campaign to help them.

The media wouldn’t know an actual Russian asset if it went out and voted for one.

After years of entertaining us with scary stories about Russian election interference, when it actually happened, the outlets that had cried wolf, actually helped the Russians, and then tried to cover it up.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Kremlin, the Russian election interference was helping the same old Marxists that the old KGB men running Moscow had built longstanding relationships with.

In the UK, Russian election interference had been meant to aid Momentum’s Labour Party takeover. Meanwhile in the US, after the collapse of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and his clique of socialists has a real shot at taking over the Democrat Party. Whom did the leaked emails help in the 2016 election? It wasn’t Trump. Voters didn’t care about internal Democrat dirty laundry in the national election.

But Bernie and his people used the fallout to gain influence in the DNC. He now polls at number two.

The internal Democrat conflict between Clintonites and Sandernistas, different factions of the Left, was used to frame Trump and Republicans when the real beneficiaries were Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, her squad and the rest of the Corbynized inner circle of Berniestan.

The Sanders and Corbyn campaign share the same stable of activists. If the Russians were helping Corbyn, it’s a good bet that they were helping the socialist who honeymooned in the USSR.

How much support could Sanders expect from Moscow if he becomes the nominee?

The media can spot Russian election interference from a mile away when it isn’t there. It won’t touch actual Russian election interference even when it’s up to its eyeballs in the real thing.






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, January 05, 2020

Obama's Benghazi in Baghdad

When Shiite members of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) attacked the American embassy in Baghdad, in a deliberate recreation of the attack on our embassy in Tehran that had ushered in a new age of Shiite terror, the media was quick to label it 'Trump's Benghazi'.

The parallels are certainly there.

In both Benghazi and Baghdad, Islamist terror militias who we thought were our allies turned on the United States. In both cases, there was nothing surprising or unexpected about this inevitable development to anyone except foreign policy experts and the media.

And, in both Benghazi and Baghdad, the Obama administration's policy of cultivating Islamic terrorists had come home to roost.

The Islamists who attacked the embassy were not Trump's allies, but Obama's allies.

When Hadi al-Amiri, the head of the Badr Brigade, the former military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, came to the White House, it was in 2011, not 2017.

The close IRGC ally was welcomed by Barack Obama, and played a role in the embassy attack. The IRGC, Iran's global terror hub, had been listed as a terror group by President Trump, a move resisted by Barack Obama dating back to his time in the Senate.

Once in the White House, Obama's policies so empowered and enabled the IRGC that in one of the most infamous incidents in American history, members of the Islamic terror group captured and humiliated American sailors. There is little doubt that the IRGC was the hidden hand behind the embassy attack in Baghdad through its PMF proxies.

The rise of ISIS and the attack on our embassy in Baghdad had their roots in Obama's backing for Iraq's Shiite dominated government in Baghdad. The Bush administration had tried to unite Sunni and Shiite Muslims into a political system that would sideline Al Qaeda on the Sunni side and Iran on the Shiite side. Iraqi civil society was probably always doomed, but Obama's Iraq policy was to turn the country over to the terrorists.

Obama wanted to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. His plan for a quick pullout was to allow Iran a free hand in Baghdad. Iraq's central government dominated by Shiite Islamists loyal to Iran allowed Islamic militias backed and trained by Iran to execute gays and impose Islamic law in the streets. The Sunni tribal leaders who had made the 'awakening' against Al Qaeda possible were ignored when they came to D.C. seeking support against Iran.

While the media went on touting Obama's incredible successes in Iraq, the country split into two terror camps. While the Popular Mobilization Forces rolled up Shiite areas, Al Qaeda in Iraq reinvented itself as ISIS.

Unlike President Trump, Obama chose not to hit ISIS hard. Instead, after Iraq's military collapsed, his administration's anti-ISIS strategy relied heavily on supporting the Shiite PMF militias which included embedded Iranian forces.

Obama had helped birth the Islamic State by backing Iran's takeover of Iraq. Forced to fight ISIS, he doubled down on the same strategy. And that completed the takeover.

The marginalization of the Kurds, whose attempts at creating an independent state were crushed by the Shiite regime in Baghdad, and the Sunnis, who had been caught between Iran and ISIS, ended military opposition to the Iranian takeover of Iraq.

But political protests against the Iranian puppet regime broke out, leading to violent clashes between protesters and PMF thugs, PMF attacks on Americans, American retaliation against PMFs, and the attack on the United States embassy by the PMFs.

Iran's takeover of Iraq, like its involvement in Yemen's civil war, in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, had been funded by the wages of Obama's nuclear sellout. The billions that the Obama administration had directly and indirectly handed to the terrorists of Tehran were used to fund soft and hard influence across the region.

The Iran deal didn't just mean that the terror regime was able to continue building up its nuclear program, but that it could increase its financial commitments to Hamas, help build up Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the PMFs in Iraq.

Iran had four things to offer its Shiite (and occasional Sunni fellow travelers ranging from Hamas to Al Qaeda) Islamist allies. These were weapons, training, a global network, and money. Of these money was the most generic, but also the most important.

Islamic terrorism is only partly built on the suicidal fanatics willing to die for Allah. It's mostly built on amateur and professional killers who want to get paid.

Choke off the money and recruitment drops

Under Obama, billions in foreign currency were illegally flown into Iran on unmarked cargo planes, but Trump cut off the cash.

The cash crunch not only weakened Iran's regime, where fresh protests arose, but its terror networks, including in Iraq, began facing their own cash shortages. And so Iran's rulers, their IRGC hidden hand, and their Islamist PMF proxies decided to send America and the protesters a message.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration had sanctioned the South Wealth Resources Company (SWRC), allegedly a key conduit for the IRGC's ability to smuggle weapons and money in and through Iraq.

The sanctioning of the IRGC itself had met with anger from the Badr Brigade and Hadi al-Amiri. The conflict escalated with Kataeb Hezbollah, a PMF, attacking Americans. The death of an American contractor in a Kataeb Hezbollah rocket attack raised the stakes. President Trump struck back with airstrikes against Kataeb Hezbollah. And Kataeb Hezbollah attacked the embassy.

Kataeb Hezbollah is another project of the IRGC and is led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who was part of the attack on the embassy. Muhandis is the Deputy Commander of PMF who is linked to the 1983 truck bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait which, had it been better planned, could have destroyed the facility.

After the airstrikes, Al-Muhandis warned, that “the response to the Americans will be harsh."

But who helped build up this terrorist infrastructure? The Obama administration did. Beyond its illegal foreign cash shipments to Iran and the sanctions relief, the PMFs benefited from US foreign aid directed through Iraq's Interior Ministry.

Even as Iraq's Interior Ministry was headed by a Badr leader trained by Iranian forces who had been arrested for smuggling explosives used to attack American soldiers, our foreign aid kept flowing through an Iraqi ministry run by terrorists.

The Obama administration was funding terrorists to fight terrorism. It was the same disastrous scenario that had led to the massacre in Benghazi.

The only difference was that the blowback took longer to arrive in Baghdad than it did in Benghazi.

Obama's foreign policy operatives and the media have blamed the embassy attack on Trump's pressure on Iran, rather than on Obama's appeasement of Iran.

This is a variation of the same cynical Obama administration strategy which manufactured a fake intelligence community consensus blaming Benghazi on a protest over a Mohammed YouTube video, instead of a coordinated transnational wave of Islamist attacks coordinated well ahead of time to coincide with September 11.

The Obama administration may be history, but the damage it did still revebrates through the region as the Islamist forces it unleashed continue to tear apart nations and to threaten American lives.





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.