Articles

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Did the Russians Hack the DNC to Help the Left Take Over the Democrats?

The Russia conspiracy theory hinges on the single creaky claim that the Democratic National Committee hacks were a Russian plot to elect Trump. The theory and all its illegitimate stepchildren, including Robert Mueller and his infinitely expanding corps of prosecutors, lives or dies by the DNC hacks.

Trying to elect Trump by releasing damaging insider information from the DNC never made any sense. The DNC was already a dysfunctional organization that was being run by the Clinton campaign. Undermining its leadership had little impact on the election, but a great deal on control of the DNC.

There has never been any evidence that the DNC hacks swung the election. The vast majority of people never even heard of them. Only a handful of political insiders and watchers, already deeply and unpersuadably committed to one side or another, could name the contents of a single email.

When you want to understand the motive of a crime, follow the money. See who benefited from it, not casually, but deeply and significantly enough to justify the effort and risk of undertaking it.

The hacks targeted Clinton allies and sought to undermine their influence within the Democrat Party.

Russiagate’s fervent conspiracy theorists spin an unlikely scenario in which Moscow had picked Trump early on, and then abandoned him in a crowded field against 16 candidates, while assuming that he would naturally triumph. Instead of leaking Jeb Bush’s campaign emails or Marco Rubio’s, they bided their time and waited to release Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s and John Podesta’s emails.

That’s not a plan to help Trump win. It is a plan to take over the DNC.

Let’s look at what the Russians were actually doing during the election. They had set up fake Facebook sites aimed at the left on issues ranging from Black Lives Matter to the pipeline protests. That is not the behavior of a foreign intelligence operation that wanted Trump to win and the left to lose. Instead the Russians appeared to have allied with the left to push the Democrats even further to the left.

Targeting the DNC’s infrastructure also pushed the Democrats further to the left. The email hacks and leaks didn’t elect Trump, but did shake up the DNC. Bernie Sanders reemerged as the figurehead of a leftist movement to take over the DNC. Bernie’s boy, Keith Ellison, claimed the No. 2 spot at the DNC. And Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez, the left’s current crush, is the latest triumph for that machine.

The socialist left were the biggest beneficiaries of the DNC hacks. The stolen emails confirmed claims by the Bernie campaign that the process had been rigged against them. It justified their campaign to clean up the mess by taking over the DNC while wiping out key Democrats who had been opposed to them.

The left was also the political movement with the richest and deepest connections to Russian intelligence. The media claims that Putin and his old KGB comrades are the natural allies of the right, but the alliance between the far left and Russian intelligence agencies dates back almost a century.

Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the USSR. It’s hard to find a Marxist dictatorship backed by Russia that the elderly socialist hasn’t praised and supported at the expense of our national interests. Bernie praised Castro, he supported the Sandinistas, and his foreign policy was little more than a KGB wish list.

Certainly Russian intelligence services would have been aware of Bernie Sanders as a political sympathizer and maintained a file on him. On a visit to the Soviet Union, he would have interacted with KGB personnel or those reporting to them: as was true of any important foreign visitor at the time.

Is it really farfetched to believe that a lefty politician, who had a history of visiting and supporting Communist and Marxist countries, and their agendas, didn’t receive some support from Moscow?

The political movement that Bernie Sanders emerged from was notorious for its Russian ties.

As Discover the Networks notes, Sanders had worked as an organizer for the United Packinghouse Workers Union (UPWU) which was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities for its Communist ties. An article in Class Struggle magazine described UPWU as one of the "communist led or influenced unions". Sanders had also spent time at a pro-Soviet Kibbutz.

While the media pursued Trump over his ties to Russian businessmen, Bernie had direct ties to organizations controlled directly or indirectly by Russian intelligence agencies.

Bernie flew a Soviet flag outside his office. As Paul Sperry noted, “Sanders addressed the national conference of the US Peace Council — a known front for the Communist Party USA, whose members swore an oath not only to the Soviet Union but to ‘the triumph of Soviet power in the US.’”

Given all this, is it really implausible that the Russians were trying to help Bernie Sanders?

The media made a great deal out of a memo by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll factory, allegedly claiming, “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump--we support them.)” This memo likely had more to do with the Agency’s objective of blending in on the left and the right to embed pro-Russian content than with Moscow’s larger political objectives, but the media quickly skips over the Sanders part of that memo while treating the Trump part as damning.

But if the Russians were trying to back a politician, would Trump or Bernie have been their choice?

Trump favors a strong foreign policy based on our national interests. Bernie boasts of opposing our national interests. Trump wants a strong America; Bernie wants an international socialist alliance.

But the Russians didn’t believe they could rig an election. They wouldn’t have believed that they could make Bernie president or even a presidential nominee. However they may have rightly thought that they could push the Democrats further to the left and boost their political allies within the DNC.

The Democrat hacks did little for Trump, but they gave Bernie a shot at taking over the DNC.

If we assume that Russia’s project was well-planned, proportional and successful, which considering the track record of their operations in this country is a sensible assumption, then that is what happened.

The post-election Dems are obsessed with Russia, but they’ve also moved further to the left. And, regardless of the rhetoric, the Russians spent generations building up ties with the American left.

Whether it’s Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or any of the other socialists, the DNC hacks weakened the Democrat establishment and strengthened a movement that Russia once used as its hand puppet.

The Democrats have made plenty of cracks about Trump as a “Manchurian Candidate”. But the movie’s Manchurian candidate was publicly opposed to Russia while secretly benefiting from Russian election interference. That doesn’t describe Trump. It could describe Bernie Sanders. Or many others on the left.

Jill Stein, who initially cashed in by raising money for an election recount, fell afoul of Russiagate and is using recount cash to pay for the legal expenses of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian election interference. The money is going to the Partnership for Civil Justice, part of the International Action Center, and allegedly a front for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party.

The left has been crying, “Russia” and “Treason” on every network and in every newspaper. It might want to consider what a real investigation of its ties to Russian intelligence agencies will turn up.





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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Monday, July 16, 2018

The Incredible Inauthenticity of Bernie Sanders

"Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal," Bernie Sanders snapped. "You're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that."

"What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy,” he continued. "You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?"

That was three years ago.

Bernie’s final surrender came after dodging a question on CNN about abolishing ICE. After the backlash, he went even further, issuing a statement urging that we "abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today”. Open borders had gone from a right-wing position to a Bernie position.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie's rare successful socialist candidate, had already told Al Jazeera that, "We should grant people a safe and documented right of passage".

"Republicans try all these scare tactics. And they go ‘Oh, open borders.’ Because they’re trying to incite fear," she added.

Bernie’s immigration flip flop didn’t actually take three years.

After the backlash from the open borders interview, he adopted contemporary leftist positions. His platform was full of boilerplate language about Republican "anti-immigrant and xenophobic hysteria", mass amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens and ending the "militarization" of the border.

That was the new position of the candidate who once told MSNBC, “I don't think there is any candidate for president -- none -- who thinks that we should open up the borders.” The platform appears on the same Bernie site where an old article dubs open borders a “trendy libertarian idea” and calls for improving the economies of other countries so that their immigrants don’t come to America.

Even people who don’t like Bernie Sanders think that he honestly believes what he says. His views, they imagine, are so extreme that he might be wrong, but he must be authentic. But Bernie’s actual record reveals a pattern of cowardly flip-flopping in response to political pressure from the left.

Bernie 2.0, the formerly poor politician who has earned over $1 million for two years running, is a very different political animal than the crusty old socialist that Obama’s old lefty allies dug up in Vermont.

The left’s favorite Senator owes his seat to the NRA. He voted against the Brady Bill and was listed as the only non-Republican among the 25 top recipients of money from gun-rights groups. Hillary Clinton quickly zeroed in on gun control as Bernie’s weakness. And his response to her was praised by the NRA. And then, as usual, the flip-following followed the leftist backlash in the media and on social media.

After telling the New York Daily News that firearms manufacturers shouldn’t face lawsuits from victims of crimes committed with firearms, he flipped his answer completely around at the debate. It only took a few weeks for Bernie to go from, "No, I don't" to "They have a right to sue, and I support them."

These days Bernie is hanging out with David Hogg and blaming a “three letter word” for gun violence.

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

But it’s Bernie who is too pathetically gutless to stand up to the bullying of his own political radicals.

In 2014, Bernie Sanders got into a shouting match at a town hall over his condemnation of Hamas. Two years later, he falsely claimed that Israel had killed 10,000 innocent people in Gaza. These days his public statements on the subject are often little better than Hamas propaganda.

Bernie 2.0 was shaped by a series of confrontations with key Democrat constituencies that sliced away whatever was authentic about him and left him one step closer to being a generic Democrat.

Black Lives Matter activists harassed Bernie Sanders until he adopted their platform. So did illegal alien activists. He sparred with the Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay rights lobby, and Planned Parenthood. Each confrontation followed a familiar pattern, a surly response from the Sanders campaign, followed by a quiet capitulation and a loud affirmation.

After running against an inauthentic politician with a wet finger in the wind, Bernie took on all her traits.

But Bernie is very different than Hillary. While Hillary Clinton was her own woman, Bernie is a puppet. Revolution Messaging plucked him out of obscurity because they couldn’t get Elizabeth Warren. Lefty consultants frozen out by the Clinton campaign and book publishers made millions off Bernie.

Bernie also cashed in. He’s up to three homes and has joined the 1 percent. His wife and stepkids have their own cozy arrangements. Officially he’s the leader of a movement. The reality is he’s a brand.

The inept Vermont socialist isn’t actually leading a movement. He’s just the face of one.

That movement, whose key figures are people like Keith Ellison and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have little in common with who Bernie was. The old socialist had tapped into traditional lefty strains in New England politics. His movement is top heavy with urban diversocrats like Ben Jealous and Stacey Abrams. It hasn’t tapped into anything except the radicalization and narrow identity politics of the Democrats.

Bernie Inc. helped mainstream the use of socialism. But despite the tingly feeling that saying, “Socialism” gave the left, its pitch isn’t all that more socialist than the Democrats already are. Buying minority votes with freebies has been the elevator pitch of the Democrats since LBJ. Free college isn’t some radical new idea. It’s a failed plan by Jerry Brown’s dad from back when Bernie was a deadbeat.

Despite the socialist moniker, Bernie hasn’t pushed anything too radical for the lefty billionaire Pelosi donors who actually run the party. His movement isn’t trying to replicate Bernie. Instead it made him over in its image and is propping him up, Weekend at Bernie’s style, as the figurehead for a movement built on trendy lefty identity politics causes that its namesake has trouble keeping up to date on.

The same candidate who dismissed identity politics has come to be defined by them. His economic message is funneled through the usual victim groups and the medium has become the message. Bernie, an old white leftist, is the awkward public face of a movement that puts forward minority leftists for political office, even as its base remains as white as Bernie’s hair.

Bernie Inc. bets on the ethnic and racial nationalism of local constituencies with the big wins coming from harnessing the Latino and African-American votes that eluded Bernie during the primaries. That’s why Bernie is now for open borders, drug dealers, Hamas and gun control. Bernie’s old socialism has been streamlined to match the safe identity politics of the Democrat multicultural coalition.

The media’s sudden love affair with Cortez is also a warning that the Bernie Sanders brand is shaky. Even Revolution Messaging, the original wizards behind the curtain, only took him because they couldn’t find anyone better. And Bernie has been careful to remain surrounded by even less charismatic figures.

Bernie Inc. is a typical leftist organization, militantly loud, internally poisonous, virtue signaling its altruism while really being motivated by conventional greed, clumsily mismanaged and yet aspiring to absolute power. Its figurehead is angry and erratic. A fraud who has sold his soul for ego and cash.

Bernie will never have his revolution. He’s flip-flopped so many times that even he can’t keep track of his compromises and betrayals. And the one thing that everyone thinks is true about him is a lie.

He’s not authentic and doesn’t stick to his beliefs. Instead he traded them for a seat in the 1 percent.





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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

More Democrats Believe in UFOs Than America

58% of Democrats believe in UFOs, but only 32% are proud to be American. Only 37% of Republicans believe in flying saucers, but a full 80% are proud of their country.

Almost twice as many Democrats are willing to believe in being abducted by space aliens than in their country. Hillary Clinton had promised that if elected, she would find out the truth about the little green men and suggested that the planet had already been visited by aliens.

"Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51," she suggested.

The chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, John Podesta, an obsessive UFO buff, appeared on an episode of Ancient Aliens which claimed that Hillary Clinton was defeated to suppress the truth about space aliens.

Like Podesta, the Democrat (space rather than illegal) alien obsession dates back to Bill’s era. When Bill Clinton appointed Webster Hubbell as his Associate Attorney General, he gave him two priorities.

"If I put you over at Justice I want you to find the answers to two questions for me," Hubbell recalled. "One, who killed JFK. And two, are there UFOs.”

Hubbell didn’t find any UFOs, but he had to resign after only serving a year and was sent to jail for fraud.

The Clintons may have picked up their flying saucer obsession from Laurance S. Rockefeller, a environmentalist UFO obsessive and major Clinton donor who got them involved in his UFO Initiative. Hillary may have just been grifting an old man who contributed to their legal defense fund, but there’s no reason to think a woman who responded to the Republican midterm victories of ’94 with a séance that consulted Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt doesn’t believe what most of her fellow Democrats do.

Laurance S. Rockefeller was a founding trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund which recently underwrote the push for a nuclear Iran while insisting that its nuclear weapons program didn’t exist.

According to the party that “believes” in science, Iranian nukes don’t exist, but flying saucers do.

All this helps explain why the Democrats were so quick to retreat into conspiracy theories after losing the 2016 election. Just as they did after the JFK assassination and the 2000 election. It’s natural for them to believe the worst of a country they already distrust. The left’s core beliefs are a series of conspiracy theories about class, race and gender. These conspiracy theories explain everything from crime rates to poverty to social problems. Most leftist programs are geared toward fighting a conspiracy by white people, by men, by the wealthy and the middle class that doesn’t exist except in the minds of the left.

America has been shattered by generations of social policies that completely bypass the problems they’re trying to solve from the inner city to the campus because they’re too busy getting revenge against the evil white male conspirators by making it harder for them to get into college or get a job.

That’s what happens when you turn over the country to Marxists watching the sky for lights and watching social statistics for any discrepancy that they can blame on the white male conspiracy. The inability to understand the difference between correlation and causation that trips up so many conspiracy theorists is also the disparate impact claim underlying the left’s allegations of discrimination.

And disparate impact simply means that all correlation must imply racist causation.

If a job requires a high school diploma, if there are laws against littering or if a standardized test is demanding, and more black people are disadvantaged by that, that is disparate impact. And disparate impact proves a racist conspiracy that requires state intervention. No matter how dubiously legal.

Adding new conspiracy theories to the central leftist conspiracy theory is easy. UFOs, Russians rigging elections and CIA Cubans killing JFK are small potatoes compared to the conviction, expressed in so many leftist texts from Marx’s Das Kapital to Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, that all the beliefs you grew up with are a lie and everything around you is the end result of a vast conspiracy.

Democrats are the party least likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. Only between 48% to 27% of the enlightened supporters of the Party of Science actually knew this.

45% of liberals believe in astrology. Only 23% are proud of America.

Three-quarters of Democrats believe that thoughts can influence the physical world. Over half believe in ghosts.

Almost a third of Democrats, twice as many as Republicans, believe in “spiritual energy”. 35% of liberals compared to 18% of conservatives are believers.

A fifth of Democrats fear the “evil eye”.

If you can name a superstition, knocking on wood, walking under ladders or stepping on a crack, polls show that Democrats are more likely to believe in it.

Democrats are 60% more likely to fear black cats than Republicans (so much for the anti-racist party) and 33% more likely to fear the number 13.

The rational and enlightened elite who want to make all our decisions are also 54% more likely to think that opening an umbrella indoors is bad luck.

A fifth of Democrats believe it’s unlucky to walk under a ladder. Nearly a fifth believe in fortune telling.

The left liked to think that dispensing with the old truths of G-d and country would make them smarter and more rational. Instead it reverted them to the paranoid superstitions of paganism.

Instead of moving forward to the fabled “right side of history”, they’re retreating into pre-history.

They haven’t replaced G-d with reason, but with flying saucers, storefront psychics, black cats, bad luck ladders and umbrellas, the wrath of Mother Earth, safe spaces, and the magical powers of dolphins.

They haven’t replaced nationalism with the enlightened embrace of the entire human race, but with a paranoid racial and political tribalism which is eager to believe the very worst of outsiders. Instead of transcending the nation for the world, they’ve become hostile toward most of the country. They haven’t become broadminded. Instead they’ve lost even the broadmindedness that Americans used to have.

Their policies not only haven’t made the world better, but they haven’t made them better people.

50 years after HUAC vanished into the mists of time, they’re finding Russians under every tree. 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, they’re frantically defending racial preferences in education. Their vaunted journalism has been reduced to an outrage machine feeding them insane conspiracy theories. One week, Trump is a Russian spy. The other, his family is in league with China. One week, he’s about to destroy us by going to war with North Korea. The next week, he’s selling us out to North Korea.

The Democrats have learned to love xenophobic nationalism in the service of tribal ideologism. The Party of Peace fears the rest of the world as much as the Party of Science believes in spooks and UFOs.

Democrats inhabit a demon-haunted world of superstitions and conspiracies. Instead of being enlightened, they were robbed of the confidence in the Creator and America that resounds from every patriotic Fourth of July anthem and song. They sold their birthright for the pottage of fear and hate.

They cower in safe spaces, fear the other and live their lives in the shadow of irrational terrors.

Unable to function as citizens of a society, they retreat into conspiracy theories and plot to bring down their country while replacing it with a utopia based on magical thinking and its sordid orgy of blood.

Having lost faith in G-d and country, it is easier for them to believe in flying saucers than in America.




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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.


Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Sex, Lies and the Deep State

At the heart of the effort to bring down President Trump were two affairs. Unlike the bizarre lies about Moscow hotel rooms and prostitutes in the Steele dossier that was used by the Clinton campaign and its allies to smear President Trump and generate an investigation against him, these affairs truly took place.

And they didn’t just expose the malfeasance of four people, but of a corrupt political culture.

The affairs between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in the FBI, and between Senate Intelligence Committee security director James Wolfe and New York Times reporter Ali Watkins, did more than betray the spouses of Strzok, Page and Wolfe. They also betrayed the duties of the two men and two women.

The affairs were not private matters. The two illicit sexual relationships were also illicit political arrangements. As the Inspector General’s report noted, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Clinton ally who has since been fired, used Page as his liaison with Strzok to circumvent the chain of command on the investigation. McCabe used Page as his conduit and Watkins’ media employers used the young reporter as a conduit to her older married lover and the leaked information he allegedly provided her.

BuzzFeed, Politico, the Huffington Post and the New York Times were aware of the Watkins affair. As the Times piece on Watkins coolly put it, “Their relationship played out in the insular world of Washington, where young, ambitious journalists compete for scoops while navigating relationships with powerful, often older, sources.” Usually it’s enemy governments that employ young women having an affair with older married government officials to extract information on Intelligence Committee proceedings.

But here some of the biggest names in the media were caught using the same tactics as the Russians.

How significant was the Ali Watkins and James Wolfe affair? Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, in her furious defense of Watkins, noted, "most crucially, the value of her journalism (her Carter Page scoop in BuzzFeed actually helped lead to appt of Mueller)." Strzok was forced to leave the Mueller investigation due to the exposure of his texts with Lisa Page. Watkins’ affair with Wolfe has been credited by a key media figure with helping create the monster that is the Mueller investigation.

At the rotten heart of the campaign against Trump lay the betrayal of private and public fidelities.

But the Strzok-Page and Watkins-Wolfe affairs were also crucial in bypassing formal lines of communication. Illicit affairs are popular espionage tradecraft not just because they provide blackmail material against influential officials, but because their very informality makes it easy to create covert networks within organizations as personal intimacy is used to maintain political intimacy.

McCabe allegedly used Page to create such a connection between him and Strzok. The media appeared to have used Watkins to create a link into the Senate Intelligence Committee. It’s unknown if anyone on Wolfe’s end was aware of the affair and using it to feed information to the media. But it would not be too surprising if the open secret of the affair was just as open on his end as it was on the media’s end.

It’s easier to piggyback one illicit secret on another. There were two layers of secret affairs here, one layer of intimacy between two couples, and another layer of illicit intimacy between organizations. The organizational affairs cover three key players in the campaign against President Trump: elements in the FBI, the media and the Senate Intelligence Committee who had adulterated their responsibilities.

When we talk about the deep state, what we really mean are these illicit networks within the government that have their own rogue agenda. These networks exist in every part of the government. Some are just corrupt, trading favors, cash and access. Others are political. Like enemy spy cells, their members coordinate privately to suborn organizations the way that these men and women did.

The arrest of the occasional spy ring gives us an insight into how they operate. The exposure of Strzok, Page and McCabe, of Watkins, Wolfe and the media, gives us an insight into how the deep state runs.

Corruption requires complicity. As every good spy knows, the best sources are those who have proven that they are willing to compromise their ethics in other areas, whether it’s gambling, adultery or theft.

The network that went after Trump was, at least in part, built out of such people. In their varied cases, mistresses and spouses served as crucial conduits to a public official such as the DOJ's Bruce Ohr whose wife Nellie worked to dig up dirt on Trump for Fusion GPS or McCabe whose wife Jill had received $675,000 for her political campaign through a close Clinton ally, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Spouses could be used to route financial benefits while mistresses carried information, as Watkins did from Wolfe and Page did from Strzok. Formal political affiliations, such as James Comey’s supposed Republican status, matter less than the private ones of his wife and daughters who are rabid Clinton supporters and Trump opponents. In Washington D.C., formal party affiliation is downstream from social politics. The career networks that matter are built in restaurants and cocktail parties, not polling places.

Up close the swamp is making friends who can help you move from the public sector to the private sector. It’s peddling influence, getting to know people and building transactional relationships. It’s players who know everybody hiring out to other players who need to know everybody. It’s also knowing how to bypass ethics rules, oversight and chains of command to be able to get the things you need to do done. That might be a contract, a subsidy, a sale or the overthrow of the United States government.

It’s just another day in the swamp.

The Mueller investigation rose out of that swamp and the Clinton-Steele dossier dived deep into it. The investigation of the investigations has only begun mapping the swamp. Underneath the turgid waters of the Potomac, the swamp dwellers have their own mores. The stately government buildings, cozy restaurants and dignified manors conceal twisted relationships between people and organizations.

In every society, the governors live by a different set of rules than the governed. In Washington D.C., infidelity to spouses, oaths, governments, voters and ethics is not an aberration. It’s the rule. Adultery to whatever you claim to hold true is the price of admission. It’s how you can be trusted to join the club.

The political side of the imperial city is a small town. And everyone knows all the dirty secrets. Call it the deep state, the swamp or just what happens when government becomes its own culture.

Government runs on rules, on knowing them, enforcing them and breaking them. At the lowest level of power, you know the rules. At the next level you enforce them. At the final level, you break them.

That final level of power is the deep state. It lives where the rules are meant to be broken.

The campaign against Trump ran on the parallel laws of Washington D.C. Its networks were covert alliances that ran on the social relationships of the swamp. That these networks included infidelity and political prostitution as a feature would only be natural. In a transactional town that traffics in relationships, running a coup piggybacked on an affair and prostituting a reporter are virtues not sins.

The legitimate body of government tests for ethics. The parallel deep state tests for corruption. The men and women who went after President Trump didn’t just cheat on each other, they cheated on America.

These parallel networks, in government, in public life and in private life, are the conduits of corruption. To defeat the deep state, these parallel networks in government must be exposed to the light of day.

As long as the deep state remains deep underwater, the corruption will continue.




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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.


Monday, July 09, 2018

Diversity's War on Tests

Harvard lashed out at the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s withdrawal of Obama era letters backing extreme racist preferences in education by vowing to "continue to vigorously defend its right, and that of all colleges and universities, to consider race.”

To paraphrase the inaugural address of a noted Democrat: “Affirmative action now, affirmative action tomorrow, affirmative action forever.”

The right that Harvard is fighting for is the right to be racist. The same right that George Wallace, the KKK and nearly every single college in the country have been obsessed with protecting and preserving.

Harvard already stands accused of considering race in its admissions to such a degree that an Asian student's chance of getting in would go from 25% to 95% if she switched races and pretended to be black. Low-income Asian applicants were less likely to get in than wealthier black applicants.

"Make no mistake, this is the law of the land. Today’s announcement does not change that," Ted Mitchell declared, channeling segregationist rhetoric which also leaned heavily on the ‘law of the land.’

Holistic admissions are as much of a racist farce and a ‘law of the land’ as separate but equal.

Mitchell was Obama's point man in his war against colleges operating outside the traditional higher education model. These days he heads the American Council on Education, the lobby group of the higher education industry, the universities and colleges trading a fortune in debt for an increasingly worthless degree. Mitchell’s transition from educational hit man to educational lobbyist is a typical example of the self-serving agendas of the Obama administration and its lefty Educrat allies.

ACE is a defender of racial preferences which it benefits from not only politically, but economically. And the Educrats have a better plan to preserve their segregationist system than the segregationists did.

After Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court may be ready to strike down racial discrimination at colleges and universities. Without Kennedy’s Fisher v. University of Texas decision, which will go down in history with Plessy v. Ferguson, that would have already happened. Three of the letters being withdrawn by Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, involve Obama guidance to schools on Fisher.

And if affirmative action joins separate but equal in the racist dustbin of history, Ted Mitchell’s spurious appeal to the ‘law of the land’ will be as worthless as those of past defenders of legalized racism.

Statistics and merit are the smoking guns of racial discrimination lawsuits like the one that Asian students have filed against Harvard. But if you eliminate scores, then you eliminate the entire academic merit argument. And that leaves the system free to use the non-academic and non-merit based measures that Harvard allegedly used to occlude the straight academic merits of Asian applicants. Discrimination grows more difficult to prove as the selection criteria become more subjective.

Would the Educrats really burn down tests to protect the cantons of their academic apartheid state?

The University of Chicago is jettisoning SAT and ACT scores for applicants as part of its UChicago Empower Initiative. In addition to going “test-optional”, it will also allow students to submit a two minute video introduction “in lieu of the traditional college interview”. How “holistic” of it.

Going test-optional isn’t a new idea. But it’s been gathering steam. Chicago joins UTA, GWU, DePaul, George Mason and Old Dominion as a test-optional school. Others, like NYU and Drexel have gone “test flexible”. Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania are dropping the writing portions of the SAT.

And the movement isn’t stopping there.

The American Bar Association's Standards Review Committee called for making standardized tests optional for law schools. In response, UC Irvine School of Law’s African-American Assistant Dean warned that such a move would be disastrous for, among others, minority students.

“Students who are admitted on GPA alone or perhaps in conjunction with qualitative factors absent from a standardized test may borrow six figures for just their first year,” he pointed out.

The MCAT, the granddaddy of admission tests which will turn 90, is also on the target list. But the current system limits the impact of academic merit badly enough. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education warned that relying on MCAT tests without affirmative action would cause the percentage of African-American med students at the most selective schools to fall by 90%. And, it goes without saying, the percentage of Asians and other students who had been discriminated against would rise accordingly.

As the Trump administration moves against affirmative action, going test-optional or even test-free will be the modern equivalent of George Wallace’s stand in front of the doors of the University of Alabama.

Jettison any system of national or state standardized tests and the only metrics that will matter will be the dubious GPAs of the local high school and the racial biases of the university. GPAs will provide a fig leaf of merit while the rest will be made up for with key metrics like courage, likability and diversity.

Asians, who often lack either victimhood status or legacy links will be the biggest losers in this arrangement. Eliminate standardized testing and much of the evidence of disparate impact goes with them. And disparate impact on a general population won’t help an academically overrepresented population group. And it’s why Asian students are fighting racist destandarization measures the hardest.

But when merit makes way for political merits, we all lose.

Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who didn’t do well enough on his MCAT, but was scored really well on his perceived personal qualities by a panel of guilty white lefties scoring diversity points?

Opponents of standardized testing argue that there’s more to any profession than answering test questions. That’s true. But the dedication and ability to learn the material is far closer to an objective measure of merit than the subjective biases and political agendas of administrators and staffers.

A meritocracy is not immune to privilege. But it is also the least influenced by it of all the alternatives. And the most likely to produce results. Like democracy, it is the worst system, except for all the others.

And academic meritocracy is dying.

The standardized tests being denounced by education lobbies have already been watered down to an absurd degree. SAT scores rose after the test was dumbed down giving students more time, fewer choices, an optional essay and no penalty for wrong answers. New York’s Algebra 1 Regents offers a passing score for students who only get 30%. But even this grade inflation isn’t enough.

Grades, any grades, create a paper trail. Standardized tests in and across states are the first foe. But any measure of merit undermines the control of educrats by rewarding individual initiative. That is the very thing that the left has been fighting against under the guise of combating classism, racism and a thousand other ‘isms’ for over a century. To kill individual initiative, wipe out merit. And then the only metrics for a good education, a good job or a good anything will be the castes of identity politics.

Undermining standardized testing at the college level is a typical Cloward-Piven strategy creating a vocal and scholastically weak constituency opposed to tests on campus. Students who don’t come in on merit can’t be expected to stay in on merit. As standardized tests stop being a gateway to college, they will become irrelevant at the high school level. Under a system where the best student at a worst school is deemed as good as the best student at the best school, parents who once sought the best schools for their children will instead seek the worst schools where their son can perch at the top of his class.

The destruction of any objective measure of merit is meant to protect racial privileges. The Educrats of academia would rather destroy education than abandon their shameful racial discrimination.

The era of legal affirmative action, like legal segregation, may be coming to an end. But its academic perpetrators intend that it go on through stealth discrimination, holistic admissions and covert quotas.

Standardized tests will be eliminated to protect the academic suppression of Asian and white students.

Catherine Lhamon, Obama's former Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, complained that ending support for super-racial preferences “will discourage the lawful use of race to achieve diversity” and “our college and university campuses will become whiter and less diverse.”

‘Whiter’ is to the new segregation of safe spaces what ‘blacker’ was to separate water fountains. The “lawful use of race”, a term also redolent of segregationist sentiments, is the only thing protecting campuses from becoming “whiter”. And, it once again goes without saying, more Asian.

Don’t call it diversity. Call it racism.





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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.


Tuesday, July 03, 2018

The Iranian Spy Who Created Two Terror States in Israel

When the Oslo deal that would create two Islamic terror states inside Israel came up for a vote in the Knesset, the legislator whose vote helped it pass is the same man now accused of spying for Iran.

The strange story of Gonen Segev, doctor, Minister of Energy, drug smuggler, Nigerian exile and now accused Iranian spy, is also that of the dirty politics behind the peace process. It wasn’t idealism that made the deal with the PLO. It was dirty backroom deals with dangerously unprincipled politicians.

Segev's cousin had testified in court that he was "a pathological liar who makes excuses and evades responsibilities for his actions." But the same is true of the Israeli left which brought Segev on board.

The alleged Iranian spy began his political career on the right. But 3 years after he became one of the youngest members of Israel’s legislature, he aligned with the left and helped pass an agreement with the PLO that is the second biggest threat to Israel’s existence after Iran’s nuclear weapons.

It’s only fitting that Gonen Segev, whose political life hit its terrible peak with the PLO deal, should climax his post-political criminal career by standing accused of spying for Israel’s worst enemy.

And the former politician and defrocked doctor has the same excuse for the latter crime as for the former one. He wanted to be a hero. But Gonen Segev doesn’t have a history of being a hero.

What he does have is a history of being willing to do anything for money.

No matter what the Iranians offered him, the biggest bribe that Israelis will remember Segev for was the time that he became the Minister of Energy in a left-wing government. Segev had no qualifications for the job. Except one. He had a crucial seat in the Israeli Knesset as the deal with the PLO was up for a vote. The idea of giving Arafat and his band of murderous killers a state was so politically toxic that even some members of the ruling Labor Party couldn’t bring themselves to vote for it. But he could and did.

Gonen Segev was a nobody. He was a doctor in a country full of them. But he happened to be living in the community of Tel Adashim. Aside from its history, Tel Adashim or Lentil Hill, wasn’t very interesting. But it was the home of Rafael Eitan, an irascible former general and fierce critic of appeasing terrorists. Eitan was right about fighting terrorists, but his ability to run a political movement was minimal.

As the Israeli casualties of Islamic terrorism mounted, the former general’s political movement grew popular. But it was peopled with opportunists. When Tzomet, his political party, stormed the Knesset, it was filled with legislators who, like Gonen Segev, had been the former general’s own neighbors.

Israeli voters had sent Gonen Segev and other Tzomet members to the Knesset to fight terrorism. Instead some defected to the other side. When the crucial vote on the deal with the PLO came up, it was the candidates elected by anti-terror voters who, perversely, were the ones to vote for terror.

The political faction that split off from Tzomet was known as Yiud or Mission. Its mission was obvious.

Of the three Knesset members who joined the left and took their votes along, Gonen Segev became Minister of Energy and Alex Goldfarb was appointed the Deputy Minister of Housing. Goldfarb, a Romanian immigrant, had been an electrician and a union activist.

The terror sellout passed 61-59.

Yiud fractured. Segev became its only remaining member. There was no long term career for the only member of an imaginary political party that had betrayed its original voters. As the PLO deal continued to take Israeli lives, the left lost power. And Netanyahu’s victory all but ended the rule of the left.

But Gonen Segev didn’t give up easily. He was accused and seemingly cleared of corruption. He allegedly developed contacts in China. Most Israelis forgot about him, but then he was suddenly back in the news.

The man who helped give Arafat a state had been caught in Amsterdam with thousands of ecstasy tablets in boxes of M&Ms. The former Minister of Energy tried to claim diplomatic immunity by showing airport security a diplomatic passport from 2000 which he had clumsily tried to change from a ‘0’ to a ‘6’. Then he insisted that he really thought they were candy and was just doing a favor for a friend.

The bizarre case finally ended with Segev pleading guilty to trying to smuggle 32,000 ecstasy tablets into Israel. That came after he was convicted of credit card fraud for having his ex-wife claim that his credit card had been stolen in Hong Kong even as he withdrew over 20,000 shekels.

Segev’s downfall attracted the attention of the Israeli right which saw it as a clear case of poetic justice. But it also put the former politician on Iran’s radar. The Islamic terror state claims to be a shining example of morals, but funds its international terror network through drug trafficking. Hezbollah, the Shiite Lebanese terror group that is its greatest stalking horse, grows rich drug crops of Lebanese Gold in the Bekaa Valley, moves heroin to Australia and smuggles cigarettes around the United States.

It’s also deeply involved in the West African drug trade. And that was Segev’s next stop.

The former doctor had lost his medical license in Israel. So he set up shop in Nigeria. And Nigeria has long been a home for Hezbollah drug and terror operations. Just as in the United States, Lebanese businessmen serve as Hezbollah’s agents, moving money, weapons and drugs around the country.

Few Israelis have been corrupted into spying for Islamic terrorists. But those who have were usually reached through the drug trade. People corrupt enough to turn to drug dealing and smuggling are the type willing to do anything for money. And that certainly described Gonen Segev’s debauched career.

As the worst sort of exile, Gonen Segev was working as a doctor in Nigeria. In 2016, he asked Israel to reinstate his medical license. “I’ve decided I’m not coming back to Israel unless I can return with my head held high as ‘Dr. Gonen Segev’,” he insisted.

By that point he was already allegedly working for Islamic Republic of Iran.

The lurid tale now unfolding has Segev traveling to Iran, secretly receiving orders from Iranian officials and passing along Israeli contacts to Iran’s intelligence network. And his excuse is the same.

The thrice disgraced politico wanted to be a hero.

And Gonen Segev is a hero. He was a hero to the left, to the PLO and a hero to the Iranians. But never to Israelis. Former members of the conservative political party he betrayed want to see him rot in jail.

Former Tzomet MK Pini Badash described him as a "paranoid megalomaniac who went from being the party’s most right-wing MK to selling out Israel for the bribe of a seat in Rabin’s cabinet.”

“It’s amazing that Oslo passed because of bribing him. This shows how illegitimate Oslo was."

But the Oslo deal that created two Islamic terror states inside Israel was the work of men like Segev, opportunistic megalomaniacs driven by ego and unwilling to consider the consequences. Uncaring of the catastrophes they unleashed, they stumbled from one treason to another leaving the dead and wounded, shattered homes, blown out buses and growing cemeteries in their wake.

There is no counting the lives that Segev’s actions cost. Countless children lost their fathers and mothers. And parents lost their sons and daughters. Even long before the former doctor had allegedly gone to work for the Iranians, entire hospitals could have been filled with the casualties of his vote.

Many speeches have been given about the price of peace. In Israel, there were two prices of peace. One was paid by the thousands of wounded and the dead. The other was paid out to Gonen Segev.

The price of peace is terror and treason.










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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.


Sunday, July 01, 2018

The Media's Collusion With Enemy States and Foreign Hackers

On Tom LoBianco’s LinkedIn profile, the former Associated Press reporter self-identifies as a “White House reporter covering Trump Russia probes.” At CNN, LoBianco writes that he “covered the 2016 presidential race and the Russia probes.”

Now LoBianco is in trouble for reasons having nothing and everything to do with the Russia probe.

Earlier this year, Elliot Broidy, a Trump ally and Republican fundraiser, was targeted by Qatari hackers. Broidy had been sharply critical of the terror state which has been linked to everything from 9/11 to Iran. And his emails were quickly peddled to media figures who spun them into pro-Qatari hit pieces.

When Broidy struck back with a lawsuit targeting Qatar and its lobbyists, phone records showed that LoBianco had spoken three dozen times to a registered foreign agent of the Islamic terror state.

LoBianco’s stories were nakedly hostile to Broidy, the Saudis and the UAE to the extent that they were hard to distinguish from Qatari propaganda. And they were aimed at what LoBianco and his collaborator deemed a “secret campaign” to “alter U.S. foreign policy and punish Qatar.” LoBianco’s story accused Broidy of not registering as a foreign agent, but he was the one allegedly colluding with a Qatari agent.

In his story, LoBianco wrote of a "cache of emails obtained by the AP." The emails are described as having been "anonymously leaked." A more factually accurate term would have been "hacked" or "stolen." And LoBianco and the AP had no problem with posting these stolen emails online.

There was nothing unusual about that. Media organizations routinely publish stolen emails while describing them as ‘leaked’: a term associated with classified government or corporate documents, not stolen private correspondence. Like LoBianco’s stories, they emphasize the role of the news organization in “analyzing” the “documents” while evading the question of how they came into their possession.

Stolen emails have become typical tools of political warfare. But colluding with foreign agents and receiving stolen emails from foreign hackers is at the center of the Russiagate allegations. Yet the same reporter investigating Russiagate appeared to be involved in his own Qatargate. And he wasn’t alone.

The stolen emails were distributed to and written up by a variety of mainstream media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and the New York Times. The campaign against Broidy using stolen and altered emails was misleadingly described by LoBianco and other outlets as an investigation. But the investigation allegedly consisted of foreign agents handfeeding stolen emails to reporters. And then seemingly setting out a pro-Qatari and anti-UAE narrative that those reporters slavishly abided by.

And LoBianco went from writing up Dem claims that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russians on the hacked DNC emails to writing up hacked Republican emails from the Qataris. The New York Times and McClatchy claimed to have broken stories about Trump, Russia and the hacked emails. They also appear to have trafficked in emails stolen by Qatar to go after one of President Trump’s allies.

Now the hacks are the subject of an FBI investigation. And the interactions between the media and Qatari agents have become a crucial link in unraveling the motives behind the crime.

Whether the media has the right to collude with enemy nations and publish stolen emails in order to undermine American foreign policy is a serious question. But it certainly has no right to pursue an extended campaign to destroy an elected official over allegations of behavior that it engages in.

That is the typical double standard which the media left deploys against the political right. Its corrosive effects have leached ethics and integrity out of public life and replaced them with a zero sum game.

The entire trade in hacked emails, by domestic or foreign actors, only exists because of the media. Whether it’s Sarah Palin’s emails, the DNC emails, Broidy’s emails or Podesta’s emails, the practice wouldn’t exist without the collusion and complicity of media outlets with the hackers and their agenda.

If the media wants to investigate someone for colluding in email hacks, it can look in the mirror.

The media was eager to peddle the same stolen emails that it wants to blame on Trump. The Washington Post and ABC News are still cashing in on stories about the hacks garnished with lurid clickbait headlines like, "Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC's leaked emails" and "The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump". Did Trump force them to run those stories?

To paraphrase Casablanca’s Captain Renault, “I am shocked to find that email hacking is going on here!”

What began with ‘whistleblowers’ passing government documents to reporters turned into the mainstream media launching a vigorous defense of Gawker publishing Hulk Hogan’s stolen sex tape. The distinction between journalists holding powerful institutions accountable by publishing documents that should have been public and humiliating anyone they don’t like by doxing them has entirely vanished.

The legitimacy, provenance and chain of custody of the stolen documents have also ceased to matter.

After the Broidy lawsuit, BuzzFeed published an outraged piece warning that Broidy’s lawsuit threatened the First Amendment and the confidentiality of sources. But the First Amendment and shield laws were never meant to protect criminal activity. The media had been quick to argue that attorney-client confidentiality shouldn’t have protected Trump and Cohen for that reason. Yet the media still believes that shield laws should protect its criminal activity, including possible collusion with enemy states.

It’s the same old double standard.

The distinction between journalism and opposition research vanished some time ago. The Trump investigation was based on the work of FusionGPS, a smear shop run by former reporters that passed along its smears to reporters and government agencies alike while working for Hillary Clinton. The intersection of foreign and domestic actors in generating the Trump investigation has its echoes in Broidy’s case where foreign governments, lobbyists and hackers used the media to do their dirty work.

Like an iceberg, most of the media operates underwater. The fixers who feed and sometimes write the media’s stories are the invisible men and women of journalism. It takes subpoenas, like those of House Republicans or Elliot Broidy, to drag them out of the shadows of Manhattan and D.C. restaurants and into the glaring light of day. That’s what journalists used to do. Now it takes lawyers to expose them.

The media needs to decide whether colluding with enemy states and foreign hackers to influence American politics is a praiseworthy act or the worst form of treason imaginable. And then, instead of going back and forth whenever it’s politically convenient, it needs to pick one and stick with it.

That’s an unrealistic expectation in an age where all standards are politically relative. Sexual assault, racism and treason are all excused when practiced by a progressive. But it’s equally unrealistic of the media to think that it can bring down Trump with conspiracy theories about a crime that it’s guilty of.

The media has made a fortune accusing Trump of its own crimes. But as the FBI investigates the Broidy hack, the bill for the media’s hypocrisy may be coming due.










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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.


Thursday, June 28, 2018

A Tale of Two Deep States

“Why the hell are we standing down?"

That was the question that the White House's cybersecurity coordinator was asked after Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, issued a stand down order on Russia.

Testimony at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian interference in the election once again raised the central paradox of the Russia conspiracy theory. If Russian interference in the election represented the crisis that we are told it did, why did Obama fail to take any meaningful action?

The White House’s own cybersecurity people wanted an aggressive response before being told to stand down. Obama issued a bloodless warning to Russia while his people deliberately crippled our offense.

Democrats and the media blamed the Russian hacking on Trump. But it was Susan Rice who had told the cybersecurity team to “knock it off” and Obama’s people who hadn’t wanted him to be “boxed in” and forced to respond to Russian actions. Was this just the usual appeasement or was there more to it?

Why didn’t Obama and his team want to stop Russian hacking? Because they needed the Russians.

The 2016 election is really the story of two deep state intelligence operations that dovetailed neatly with each other. One was an ongoing Russian operation that took advantage of a weak president to sow chaos in America and Europe. The other was a domestic political operation utilizing counterintelligence resources in the United States and Europe to spy on, undermine and try to bring down Trump.

Contrary to claims made by Obama operatives, the Russian operation was not new. Russian hackers and spies had done enormous damage to America’s intelligence community. But they had succeeded so well because the mission of the intelligence community had shifted from deterring foreign adversaries to suppressing domestic political opponents. And this new mission made the Russians attacks irrelevant.

The Russian attacks on the formerly formidable NSA were so easy to accomplish because it was no longer countering the Russians. Instead Obama viewed it as a police state tool for spying on pro-Israel activists, members of Congress and Trump campaign officials. The NSA’s opposite numbers in Russia, posing as rogue hackers, were no longer hammering rivals, but a twisted and crippled organization.

Obama didn’t want to fight the Russians, but the Russian attacks were very useful because they justified the NSA’s powers, which he was abusing not to go after the Russians, but after American political rivals. And the Russian election hacks played perfectly into his hands by justifying the counterintelligence investigations supposedly aimed at the Russians, but really aimed at domestic political opponents.

The Mueller investigation is only the latest of these disguised counterintelligence police state gimmicks.

Without the Russians, Obama’s people would have just been nakedly abusing their powers to spy on Americans. But as long as the Russians were active, his deep state had the excuse that it needed.

The two intelligence operations, the Russian one and the Obama one, were interdependent. Their deep state symbiosis was possible only because neither side threatened the core interests of the other.

The Russians were a national security threat, but Obama’s people didn’t care about national security. And Obama’s counterintelligence operation was aimed at domestic political opponents rather than the Russians. It’s still unknown if the Russians and Obama’s people actively colluded in these operations, but it’s likely that seasoned professionals on both sides had a quiet understanding of their respective roles.

The Russians had not set out to alter the outcome of the election. Nor did they have that capability. Their attacks followed the pattern of the Dulles Plan, a fictional piece of Soviet propaganda which attributed any anti-Soviet activity to an American conspiracy to undermine Communism. The KGB veterans running Russia as an actual deep state sought to undermine the American political system by feeding extremism, creating panic and discrediting elections. And that also fit the Obama agenda.

Obama’s people had spent eight years dismantling political norms and undermining America. The KGB deep state conspirators in Russia and their leftist counterparts in Washington D.C. had emerged from the same ideological school. Their aims and allegiances had diverged, but the ex-Communists in Moscow and Adams Morgan Socialists in Washington D.C. shared a common hatred for America and its values.

There was no reason to interfere with the Russian interference. Obama and his people did not believe that the Russians would significantly affect the election. But if his efforts to eavesdrop on Trump officials came to light, the Russians had provided him with an alibi. Susan Rice, as national security adviser, was at the center of the eavesdropping effort and had every reason to protect the Russian operation.

Protecting the Russians also protected the Obamas.

Nor did the Obama deep state have any particular allegiance to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Obamas and the Clintons loathed each other. Though both factions were leftists, their approaches were as much at variance as Bolsheviks and Trotskyists. Obama had been forced to make a deal with the Clintons to secure his hold on the Democrat operation. But his support for Hillary Clinton was only an endorsement of the lesser evil. Her defeat left him and his political allies in total control of the Democrat operation.

And the chaos and violence of his anti-Trump resistance achieved his goal of radicalizing the Democrats.

The Russians didn’t hack the election. That conspiracy theory remains wishful thinking. But the allegation proved very useful in enabling everything from the pre-election eavesdropping on political opponents to the post-election sabotage of the Trump administration to the move away from electronic voting to paper ballots which enable the old-fashioned kind of Democrat ballot stuffing.

But like an iceberg, the most troubling development of the Russian conspiracy is mostly underwater.

After 9/11, the intelligence community was revived with a new purpose. That purpose was fighting Islamic terrorism. During Obama’s two terms, the intelligence community was compromised, crippled and transformed into a domestic deep state aimed at suppressing the political opposition. Tragically, it came to resemble the KGB, with its domestic surveillance and investigation of political opponents.

This transformation of law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not emerge out of thin air.

The Founders were rightly cautious of the power of a strong central government. And a national law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure was always ripe for the worst big government abuses.

The FBI’s record of political tampering under Hoover was no secret. And it didn’t end there. Everything in Washington D.C. is political. Especially the apolitical. Its engine of careerism runs on networking and connections. The apolitical bureaucracy is a buzzing hive of ambition and backstabbing. Every agency has its own Machiavellian subcultures with courtiers, saboteurs, spies and manipulators. And every agency culture has a leftist ideological component, among its other agendas, some more than others.

The Obama years politicized everything from the food you ate to the clothes you wore. Certainly no arm of government survived those terrible two terms without being substantially transformed.

As the cold winter sun set on another year in Washington D.C., the deep state was reborn.

The Democrats have spent two years accusing Republicans of colluding with Russia. But as usual they were accusing their political opponents of their own crime. Republicans had not undermined national security. The Democrats did. A Republican president hadn’t sat across from Putin’s agent and assured him that he would have more flexibility to make deals after the election. A Republican president hadn’t let the Russians hack our national security secrets to provide a casus belli for targeting his opponents.

That was all Obama.

Barack Obama and Susan Rice sabotaged efforts to stop the Russians because their deep state domestic spying program depended on Russian collusion, both the reality and the allegation. Everything from the original allegation, Clinton campaign opposition research which drew on claims by a Russian intelligence operative, to the Mueller counterintelligence investigation, which has done nothing to actually stop the Russians, but has gone after Republican campaign pros, needed the Russians as its stalking horse.

Russian hacking didn’t change the election. But Obama’s exploitation of Russian hacking nearly did. We still don’t know what materials were gathered by the eavesdropping operation. Or who saw them. Information is the ultimate weapon in national security and election campaigns. Obama used the former to tamper with the latter. And all these years later, we still don’t know what damage was done.

While Mueller prowls around pursuing Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theories, those crimes remain unexplored. But we do know that the Russians didn’t do anything that Obama didn’t allow them to do.

Any serious effort to investigate Russian election hacks must begin with the man who let them to do it.







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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.


Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Prohibitionism in a Civil War of Values

“Prohibitionism never works” is a cliché. And like most clichés, it’s true and not true at the same time.

Everyone believes that prohibitionism works and never works. The progressive advocating for drug legalization believes just as fervently in the power of gun control as in the futility of banning pot. He doesn’t see the contradiction, because he knows that the drug laws never stopped him from getting high. But he would never want to buy guns, legally or illegally. So banning them should work.

The first law of prohibitionism is that banning things other people want seems easy. But banning the things that you want appears impossible. Prohibitionism never works for you, but works for him.

We ban all sorts of things. Many of them, like nuclear bombs or lethal toxins, are things that few would want. So prohibiting possession of them works fairly well. But when there’s significant demand, then no amount of legal and social sanction can stop a black market from continuing to operate in the shadows.

Prohibitionism won’t entirely wipe out that black market. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

Nothing is as reviled in our society as the sexual abuse of children. Hardly anyone in the United States, on the left or the right (Some of Europe’s Green parties have tried to legalize pedophilia, and the New York Times and Gawker, in its glory days, had pieces defending it) will advocate legalization.

Operation Broken Heart recently made 2,300 arrests for everything from child pornography to child trafficking. The investigation, which ran from March to May, received 25,000 tips. Those are horrifying numbers. And they show that, as the cliché goes, prohibitionism doesn’t work. It hasn’t stamped out traffic in the vilest crime that we can possibly imagine. But that also shows the limits of the cliché.

No law will ever entirely wipe out certain crimes. But prohibiting them limits their prevalence. And it reduces the number of innocent victims. 2,300 or 25,000 are both horrifying numbers. But imagine how high they would be without prohibitionism. The laws we take for granted today weren’t always there. 19th century moralists campaigned hard for them by exposing the abuse of children in London and Paris.

Prohibitionism has a strong moral component. That’s why it doesn’t work without social sanction.

Social sanction and law enforcement can banish a behavior to the shadows. But without social sanction, the behavior reemerges into the daylight. And the calls for legalization swiftly follow. The enforcement of laws that aren’t backed by social sanction turns hollow and becomes a curious historical relic.

Like Prohibition era cops raiding speakeasies and smashing barrels of moonshine with sledgehammers.

The left dismantled social sanctions on drug use and gay marriage, but has spent three times as long trying and failing to impose social sanctions on gun ownership. That’s because dismantling social sanctions is easy. All it takes is demonstrating that a significant section of society practices the sanctioned behavior with no consequences. And is perfectly happy to go on doing so indefinitely.

Social sanctions can’t be imposed on a divided country. And that’s just as true for the left’s sanctions.

The left has failed to realize that it is much harder to build values in a divided society than to take them apart. If Kansas can’t change Hollywood, why should Hollywood be able to change Kansas? The cultural elites wanted immunity from the community values of the heartland. But having won all those battles, they hypocritically turned around and tried to impose their own values on the heartland.

Hollywood has replaced the Hays Code that governed what could be shown on the screen with its code that, like the Hays Code, is designed to socially engineer values throughout the entertainment industry. This Hollywood Code, with its codicils about diversity, environmentalism, hostility to the military and endorsement of progressive values, is only faintly codified. But virtually everything you see projects it.

But it is even more difficult to embed values remotely than it is to govern a country from far away. Making policy for the whole country in the Washington D.C. bubble backfires. Making values for the country in the Hollywood, Harvard and Manhattan bubbles is an even more doomed political project.

The left’s moral panics, over gun control or global warming, are amplified through the megaphones of popular culture, academia and the media. They are dressed up in the traditional images of victimized children and total catastrophe. Not to mention the lab coats of science. But each time the panic comes up against the existence of the gun owners and truck drivers of the other half of the country.

Our values reflect how we live. And people in Iowa and Nebraska are not going to live like New York or San Francisco no matter how much they’re scolded and hectored by their bicoastal betters.

Moral panics are directed at populations, not behaviors. Prohibition targeted liquor at a time when that was the substance of choice for those on the lowest rung of the ladder. These days it’s drugs. But it was the social problems caused by that population living on the lowest rung that was the real issue.

When a society is united, then its moral panics are aimed at pockets of misbehavior in the lowest and highest social spheres. But when it’s divided, then the moral panics are aimed broadly at the way the other half lives. And these panics serve only to reinforce the sense of superiority of the panickers. Every failed gun control bid ends with blue state lefties sighing in relief at their infinitely better way of life.

Punitive prohibitionism in a divided society is just tyranny. All it does is deepen the existing social divide.

Social sanctions don’t work when a society can’t agree on a common set of values. Attempting to impose them anyway leads to a social civil war of the kind that made President Trump a reality.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand," Lincoln famously observed. Political divisions can be endured, but sustaining moral divisions in a single country requires an even greater compromise. And the left is not about to accept the same moral libertarianism that it had demanded throughout the twentieth century. It is convinced that it won. And winners don’t compromise. They take everything.

But the left didn’t actually win. It just wrecked the house. It didn’t unite the country under its values. Instead its social catastrophes are destroying the very idea of values around the country and the world.

Our values originated in religion. And that is declining across the country. They originated in communities that are being fractured by nationalization, globalization and the internet. And the left’s ideology will never replace religion and community for more than a tiny fraction of the population. Its experiments in the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba and Europe have shown that.

While the 1% of the leftist cult actually run a society, the other 99% retreat into hollow pursuits. Birth rates fall, suicide rates rise, alcohol and drug abuse run rampant as people lose any sense of purpose.

We are beginning to see the same situation in the United States of America.

While the left rants about gun violence, suicides far outnumber homicides. Our suicide rate continues to rise for reasons having nothing to do with the left’s moral panic about gun owners, but everything having to do with a lack of purpose and meaning. The loss of purpose and meaning is killing Americans.

Prohibitionism represents a failure of values. Sometimes these failures are local. Other times national.

Even the most morally divided society can still occasionally agree on things so reviled that they must be prohibited. But our society is losing its values and those we have are increasingly not the ones we have in common. The civil war tearing apart this country has its origins not in violence, but in values.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Illegal Aliens Fatally Separate American Parents and Children

In 2008, Colorado separated a Jewish boy from his parents.

Marten Kudlis was separated from his parents while waiting for his mother to bring him his ice cream. The 3-year-old boy who had just been playing in the park never got his ice cream.

Instead Francis Hernandez, an illegal alien driving 81 miles an hour, slammed into a pickup truck, killing the two women inside, and smashing it through the glass wall of the Baskin Robbins.

Blood and broken glass covered the floor. Little Marten, who had just learned to ride a bike, died of a slashed jugular vein and was buried with a teddy bear.

Francis Hernandez had been arrested 16 times in 5 years without ever being turned over to immigration authorities. That failure to enforce immigration law separated a little boy from his family forever.

Advocates for illegal migration claim to be outraged by family separation. They want illegal alien invaders like Francis to go on separating American children from their families. What the fake news media falsely calls family separation is just arresting illegal aliens like Francis instead of releasing them. When previous administrations failed to enforce border security, they separated American children like Marten and many others from their parents forever. And the blood of those children is on the hands of the posturing politicians, activists and pundits who want to unite illegal aliens and separate Americans.

In February 2018, the United States government separated Grace Aguilar from her parents.

Grace was a bright and cheerful 6-year-old girl. While she was sitting by her favorite tree in the front yard of her family home, Maximino Delgado Lagunas, a Mexican illegal alien who had already been deported twice, ran her down.

The illegal alien's blood alcohol limit was three times the legal limit. He had been arrested before for a DUI, but was put back on the street by local cops instead of being turned over to immigration authorities.

Sanctuary city policies separated Grace, whose parents had tried to have children for 8 years, from her parents. The illegal alien who killed her had been deported twice, once under Bush and once under Obama. The combination of lax border security by these two administrations and local sanctuary policies permanently separated the little girl and her parents. Unlike the illegal migrants whose plight is playing out on every cable news channel, the Aguilar family will never get their daughter back.

16-year-old Kayla Cuevas and 15-year-old Nisa Mickens were separated from their parents when they were battered with baseball bats and butchered with a machete in a suburban cul-de-sac by illegal alien MS-13 members.

The brutal illegal alien assault left the bodies of the African-American teenage girls, who had been out celebrating Nisa's birthday, barely recognizable.

“There are days where you feel like you want your world to end, just like your child’s,” Kayla's mother said. “Then you realize you have a new purpose: to fight, so that your child’s death is not in vain.”

10-year-old Alena Clay was separated from her family while walking down a bike lane with her 16-year-old sister and two other girls. Juan Carlos Ortega-Santos, an illegal alien, had no driver's license, no insurance and his blood alcohol level was far over the limit. 16-year-old Tyeisha Lacy, Alena's sister, pushed an 8-year-old girl out of Juan's way. But Juan slammed into the two Lacy girls killing them both.

"He will never know the extent of the damage he did," Lakeenya Lacy, Tyeisha's mother, said in court. "You did not just take their lives. You took other people's lives with them."

4-year-old Ellie Bryant and 22-month-old Grayson Hacking were separated forever from their mother when Margarito Quintero Rosales slammed head on into their car. Ellie, Grayson and Courtney Hacking's husband, Peter, were all killed.

Rosales had been previously deported and had no license. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

15-year-old Genesis Cornejo-Alvarado was separated from her parents when two illegal alien MS-13 gang members killed her in a satanic ritual after previously raping her and a 14-year-old girl.

11-year-old Abigail Robinson and 6-year-old Anna Dieter-Eckerdt were separated from their parents while playing in a pile of leaves. Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros, who ran them over, was an illegal alien and one of Obama's DREAMERs. Despite killing the two girls, she was released from jail and allowed to apply for a Social Security number and a work permit. And that is exactly what illegal alien advocates want.

When illegal aliens separate a child from her parents, no power on earth can undo that separation.

The sheriff's department and volunteers searched hundreds of acres for 14-month-old Owen Hidalgo-Calderon. The body of his mother, 18-year-old Selena Hidalgo-Calderon, had already been found.

Evarardo Donoteo-Reyes, a Mexican illegal alien who had already been deported twice, and convicted once of illegal entry, was charged with moving her body.

10-year-old Kayla Gomez-Orozco went missing after church. Her body was later found in a well. The accused murderer was Gustavo Zavala-Garcia, her previously deported illegal alien uncle, who allegedly sexually assaulted her, beat her with a blunt object, choked her and then drowned her in the well.

But sometimes illegal aliens don’t even bother separating parents and children. Marco Tulio Hernandez Ramirez was driving his employer’s van when he slammed into the Cannon family's Toyota Camry.

His blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit, he didn’t have a license and was driving on the wrong side of the roadway. But the illegal alien survived to become a 40-year burden on taxpayers. 5-year-old Rose Marie Cannon didn't. Neither did Katherine Cannon and Russell Cannon.

Rose Marie had been given a dollar to spend as the family headed out to do their Christmas shopping.

“And she died with that dollar in her hand," Louise Cannon, Russell's mother, said. "That's the most heartbreaking thing."

"He gave them the death sentence," she said of Ramirez.

But it wasn’t only Ramirez who did that. Ramirez had been deported before, but there he was back again. The failure to enforce immigration laws separated Rose Marie forever from her family.

America is full of angel dad and moms whose children were separated from them by illegal aliens.

Ray Tranchant was separated forever from his 16-year-old daughter Tessa, when Alfredo Ramos, a drunk illegal alien, slammed into the back of their car.

"My idea of heaven", Tessa had written in her journal, "is a nonstop vacation on a tropical island … all the people I love would be there with me."

Ray Tranchant has been fighting to prevent other American families from being separated from their child.

And he’s not alone.

The victims are all around us. These are only a handful of their stories. They are members of every race and religion. Some were born in this country and others came here as legal immigrants.

We have a choice to make.

Either we can detain illegal migrants crossing the border or we can let them all in. We can take the Merkel way out and hope that the family that pays the price for illegal migration isn’t our own.

There are no apologies or excuses necessary for detaining illegal aliens who illegally cross the border. Even if we set aside minor matters like national sovereignty and the rule of law, the stories of these murdered children provide ample justification for arresting every single illegal migrant.

Either we separate illegal migrants from this country. Or they will go on brutally tearing families apart. And if we allow them to use children as human shields, then American children will pay the price.

President Trump has called the media the “enemy of the American people.” It’s not just the enemy. Its manicured hands are covered in the blood of American men, women and children. The media advocates for drug dealers, for Islamic terrorists and for illegal aliens. The more Americans they kill, the more the media cheers them on. The media’s lies aren’t just tearing apart the country, they’re killing children.





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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.