Articles

Thursday, August 22, 2019

How Trump Started a Civil War Between the UN and Hamas

Even within the United Nations, a sprawling multinational bureaucracy linked by luxury dining, corruption and complicity in terrorism, the UNRWA stands out for waste, corruption and terror.

The UNRWA’s abbreviation leaves out its full title, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and its heavy focus on Gaza. The UNRWA classifies 1.4 million or 73% of the people living in Gaza as “refugees” even though it’s an independent territory run by Hamas.

There are really two UNRWA agencies. One is a UN agency run by a small number of international staffers. Another is an arm of Hamas which employs thousands of “Palestinians”. Many if not most of these are members of Hamas. Some, like Suhail al-Hindi, the former head of the UNRWA union, who was also a member of Hamas’ leadership, serve in the upper echelons of the terror group.

While a handful of European UN employees act as the public face of UNRWA, the actual agency is run by Hamas operatives who control its schools, using them to recruit and to store weapons. The union representing UNRWA employees is controlled by Hamas and its employees implement Hamas policies.

Hamas had announced as much when its newspaper responded to a call to fire UNRWA Hamas members by writing, "Laying off the agency employees because of their political affiliation means laying off all the employees of the aid agency, because…they are all members of the ‘resistance.’”

The power struggle between the UN employees and Hamas was tested before during clashes over the teaching of the Holocaust in UNRWA schools and the use of UNRWA schools to launch attacks on Israel.

The real crackup came when the Trump administration cut off all funding to UNRWA.

On a Rosh Hashana call, President Trump told Jewish leaders that the free ride for terrorists was over.

“I stopped massive amounts of money that we were paying to the Palestinians," he announced. "The United States was paying them tremendous amounts of money.”

UNRWA leaders had reacted to the cuts by announcing that 250 employees in Gaza would be let go. Hamas UNRWA employees then seized control of UNRWA facilities and banished the international staff.

Mahmoud Zahar, the co-founder of Hamas, who had once declared that the Jews had "legitimized the murder of their own children" and that, "removing the Jews from the land they occupied in 1948 is an immutable principle because it appears in the Book of Allah", visited UNRWA’s Hamas members engaged in what they described as a "peaceful and safe sit-in".

“I am the captain of the ship which has 13,000 sailors on it and they have basically thrown me off the bridge and consigned me to my captain’s quarters,” Matthias Schmale, UNRWA’s director of field operations in Gaza, whined.

Schmale had never actually been the captain. Zahar and other Hamas leaders had been running things.

The UNRWA was forced to evacuate most of its 19 international staffers from Gaza, including its ten senior leaders, leaving behind only 6 international staffers. This made no practical difference as the UNRWA operation on the ground was actually being run by the 13,000 Hamas UN employees.

But the UN isn’t moved by protests or violence. It runs on reports. And soon a report arrived.

Al Jazeera debuted an internal UN report alleging corruption and misconduct by UNRWA leaders. Al Jazeera is an arm of Qatar. The Islamic terror state is currently the biggest backer of the Muslim Brotherhood, supports Hamas, and is extensively involved in Gaza. Al Jazeera’s barrage of stories on the UNRWA report was a clear signal that Qatar was targeting the UN agency on behalf of Hamas.

Al Jazeera claimed that it had obtained a copy of the report from agency employees “concerned” that action wasn’t being taken against an “inner circle” running UNRWA. The inner circle consists of the international leadership that Hamas is angry at for trying to fire hundreds of its people.

The report, aired by Al Jazeera, claimed that UNRWA boss Pierre Krahenbuhl had carried on an affair with his senior adviser, Maria Mohammedi, which “embarrassed” their colleagues and donors.

Krahenbuhl, a Swiss NGO vet, is officially married to Taiba Rahim, the head of an Afghan non-profit, and Maria Mohammedi, is an Algerian who was, at least in the past, married to Rashid Abdelhamid, a "Palestinian filmmaker", who is really an Algerian educated in France, and living in Gaza, and while this is all very multinational, it's also the sort of "international diplomacy" that the UN frowns upon.

But if the allegations are true, the Swiss humanitarian had just gone native by adopting polygamy.

The report is filled with allegations of bullying, nepotism, abusing travel vouchers, and, the worst possible sin in a bureaucracy, bypassing official channels. And it might be more serious if the behavior being described weren’t slightly eclipsed by the fact that the rest of the UNRWA, which likely includes the employees behind the report, is an Islamic terror group dedicated to murdering children.

But in the UN, using schools as munition dumps isn’t a serious issue, going outside official channels is.

UNRWA Chief of Staff Hakam Shahwan stepped down over some unstated allegations. Deputy Head of Human Resources Nadine Khaddoura, accused of colluding in nepotism, “had to be escorted from her office under vociferous protest”, according to a report in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, an anti-Israel, pro-terror outlet, founded by the former US Ambassador to Qatar.

The Swiss and the Dutch have announced that they’re cutting off funds to UNRWA until it’s determined just who had an affair with whom, and who got whose husband a top job at a UN human rights agency used as a pass-through to an Islamic terrorist group dedicated to killing Jews.

This will mean even less money going to UNRWA and fewer Hamas employees in Gaza.

But Hamas has deep-pocketed backers in Qatar. The power struggle is about establishing once and for all that the Muslim Brotherhood terror group is the dog and the 17 international staffers are the tail.

Suicide bombing a bunch of European and North African lefties who got into this to eat at 5-star restaurants would be counterproductive. Taking away their jobs with a smear campaign is far more effective. And that’s what Qatar and the Brotherhood, which excel at influence operations, are doing.

The power struggle will likely end with Hamas fully in charge of UNRWA while its international staff will learn to run all their decisions past the Hamas employees who are actually running the agency.

When I wrote, “Defund the UNRWA” in 2014, it was attacked as counterproductive by establishment figures. I was urged to withdraw it and stop proposing unrealistic and destructive policies. Then, four years later, President Trump went ahead and cut payments to UNRWA from $360 million to nothing.

The cuts have revealed what we knew all along, that UNRWA is really a Hamas front.

Hamas responded to the cutoff in US aid by trying to cannibalize the UN agency. As the money gets tighter, the Islamic terror group wants to make sure that more of it goes to it, and not to the Europeans who pretend to run UNRWA while discussing the evils of Israel over expensed lunches at steakhouses.

As the wall of separation between UNRWA and Hamas comes down, international donors will have to face the fact that they’re not funding a “modern, secular” humanitarian agency, as one laughable report by the Brookings Institute, a Democrat think-tank dominated by Qatar, claimed, but Hamas.

By cutting off UNRWA, Trump set off a clash between Hamas and the UN that is revealing the truth.








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.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Environmentalists Killed More Europeans Than Islamic Terrorists Did

"Do Americans Need Air-Conditioning?" a New York Times piece asked in July. Air conditioning, it argued, is bad for the environment and makes us less human. It ran quotes suggesting that, "first world discomfort is a learned behavior", and urging "a certain degree of self-imposed suffering".

If environmentalists ruled the world, air conditioning wouldn’t exist. And there’s a place like that.

90% of American households have air conditioning. As do 86% of South Koreans, 82% of Australians, 60% of Chinese, 16% of Brazilians and Mexicans, 9% of Indonesians and less than 5% of Europeans.

A higher percentage of Indian households have air conditioning than their former British colonial rulers.

Temperatures in Paris hit 108.6 degrees. Desperate Frenchmen dived into the fountains of the City of Lights with their clothes on. Parisian authorities announced that they were deploying heat wave management plan orange, level three, which meant setting up foggers in public parks and distributing heat wave kits. The kits consist of leaflets telling people to go to libraries which have air conditioning.

France24, the country’s state-owned television network, advised people suffering from temperatures rising as high as 110 degrees to take cold showers and stick their feet in saucepans of cold water.

A 2003 heat wave killed 15,000 people in France. And, in response, the authorities have deployed Chalex, a database of vulnerable people who will get a call offering them cooling advice.

The advice consists of taking cold showers and sticking their feet in saucepans of cold water.

Desperate Frenchmen trying to get into any body of water they can have led to a 30% rise in drownings. The dozens of people dead are casualties of the environmentalist hatred of air conditioners.

Only 5% of French households have air conditioning. Even in response to the crisis, the authorities are only deploying temporary air conditioning to kindergartens.

The 2003 heat wave killed 7,000 people in Germany. And, today, only 3% of German households have air conditioning. Germany’s Ministry of the Environment refused to back air conditioning as a response to global warming.

Temperatures in Dusseldorf hit 105 degrees. Officials in Dusseldorf had recently rejected proposals to install air conditioning systems because they’re bad for the environment.

The climate action head at Germany’s Institute for Applied Ecology explained that air conditioning wouldn't work because there's not much wind during heat waves, and the country can't end reliance on coal and run air conditioners at the same time. You can have air conditioners or save the planet.

But not both.

The issue isn’t poverty. in Greece, one of the poorest countries in Europe, 99% of households have air conditioning. What it comes down to is a willingness to choose comfort over environmental dogma.

In Europe, people are dying because they’ve been told that their sacrifices will save the planet.

The 2003 heat wave killed 70,000 people in Europe. That’s more than Islamic terrorists have.

When environmentalists claim that global warming is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they’re half-right. Global warming isn’t real, but the measures taken to fight it are killing thousands of people.

And it doesn’t have to be this way.

In 2007, only 2% of Indian households had air conditioning. Those numbers have more than doubled. India is expected to field a billion air conditioning units by 2050.

“I am not rich," an Indian laundryman earning $225 a month, who had just put in air conditioning, told a disapproving Agence France-Presse, but we all aspire to a comfortable life."

Some of us do.

The 2003 heat wave killed 2,000 Brits. The current heat wave has led to London being placed on a Level 3 health watch. But air conditioning in the UK still hovers at 3% of households. And every summer, the local media lectures Brits on the evils of air conditioning.

Every heat wave is treated as a compelling argument for reducing power to save the planet. The heat and its accompanying misery are treated as heralds of a global warming apocalypse. Soon, we are told, it’ll be hot all the time, the waters will rise, the icebergs will melt, and life will perish from the earth.

When a heat wave consumed Europe in 1540, leading to the hottest temperatures on record and the deaths of thousands, the people blamed a higher power. In England, where the River Trent dried up, the megadrought was blamed on Henry VIII’s sacrilegious crackdown on monasteries. Modern Europeans have a simple, rational explanation. Mother Earth is angry because we’re using air conditioners.

Or other people are.

China has 569 million installed air conditioners. More than any other country in the world. South Korea has 59 million air conditioners. That’s more than France, Germany and the UK combined.

Europe’s sacrifice is not only senseless, it’s also meaningless.

Vietnam has become a booming market for air conditioners. 17% of Vietnamese households now have one. Indonesia is leading its own boom in air conditioning. As is much of Asia and the Middle East.

Europe can go on letting its people die for the environment, but it won’t make any difference.

Air conditioning isn’t some American fetish, as European elitists sneer. It’s a worldwide movement. Every country that can manage it is getting air conditioners. Meanwhile people are dying in France.

While the rest of the world is cooling off, Europe is in thrall to a pagan pseudoscientific cult.

Its tenets insist that the planet is a living entity, but fail to understand its true implications. The climate is part of a living entity which changes on a timescale that challenges human understanding. For a thousand years of recorded history, Europe has undergone alternate warming and cooling periods. The Medieval Climate Anomaly was an example of how complicated those cyclical changes could be.

A heat wave isn’t proof that we’ve sinned against Mother Earth by heating and cooling our homes. It’s a reminder that the environment operates on an inescapable scale that is vaster than human beings.

We can cut down forests and build dams. But so can beavers. We cannot change the climate.

The bones of hippos have been found under Trafalgar Square. The Chauvet Cave in France includes pictures of rhinos. The Little Ice Age killed off England’s vineyards in the 14th century. The Thames began to freeze over in the 17th century. The Viking colonization of America collapsed under the wave of cold.

Air conditioning and heating are not how we change the climate. They’re how we cope with it.

Environmentalism has so hopelessly tangled human civilization and the environment that we are no longer able to understand the planet on its own terms, instead of as a luddite eschatology in which the climate is a deity punishing us for our civilizational ingenuity with hot weather and natural disasters.

And that makes it extremely difficult to adapt to the changes in a healthy way.

A century ago, Americans beat the heat by wading in fountains, sleeping on roofs and fire escapes, and escaping the city. Air conditioning has made it possible for us to live and work across the entire country.

In 1896, a heat wave killed thousands of Americans. New York City authorities resorted to the same measures as their modern Parisian counterparts, turning on fire hydrants and handing out ice.

Those temperatures amounted to a mere 90 degrees.

In 1902, Willis Carrier invented the air conditioner in Brooklyn. He imagined a world in which, “The average businessman will rise, pleasantly refreshed, having slept in an air-conditioned room. He will travel in an air-conditioned train, and toil in an air-conditioned office.” We live in that world now.

At the New York World’s Fair, while temperatures outside hit 90 degrees, Carrier debuted an Igloo display. Two giant thermometers contrasted “Nature’s temperature” with “air conditioning”.

It sold itself.

Air conditioning allows New Yorkers to shrug off 90-degree weather and go on living and working.

Today, New York is the home of the Green New Deal which believes in following Europe’s trends. If New York adopts Europe’s environmentalism, it will discover what living in 1896 really felt like.

Environmentalists have killed thousands of Europeans. They can kill thousands of Americans too.








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, August 20, 2019

Marianne Williamson Shows the Dems are a Cult

How did Marianne Williamson, the author of 21 Spiritual Lessons for Surrendering Your Weight Forever, and other stuff you might see on the bottom layer of a garage sale, end up on the 2020 debate stage?

The obvious answer is that she’s been there for a very long time.

Lefties love to claim that they’re the movement that believes in science. But the Third Law of
Thermodynamics isn’t something you believe in. Fermat’s Principle doesn’t give your life meaning.

Marianne teaching you spiritual lessons about weight loss on an episode of Oprah does.

Hillary Clinton held a séance in the White House. The seance overseen by Jean Houston, the author of The Hero and the Goddess: The Odyssey as Pathway to Personal Transformation, encouraged Hillary to contact Eleanor Roosevelt. Hillary and Houston hit it off after the Clintons invited self-help book authors to Camp David to help them cope with their defeat. The authors included Marianne Williamson.

Marianne Williamson had reportedly participated in some of Hillary’s White House seances.

Esquire claimed that Hillary Clinton had met her at a fundraiser where the New Age guru made such an impression that she was invited to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Where did Marianne Williamson come from? The White House and the Democrat Party.

Unlike Andrew Yang, Williamson isn’t a fringe character who somehow made it into the debate stage. When she ran for Congress, her backers included Dennis Kucinich, who told supporters, "You are the ones who are calling forward a reality by the name of Marianne Williamson", and Jennifer Granholm, the former Governor of Michigan, who headed a key Hillary SuperPAC.

Williamson is a crackpot, but her crackpottery fills the broken china closets of the Democrats. She got this far because the upper echelons of the Dems don’t believe in God, but do believe in crazy.

When Hillary Clinton wasn’t trying to commune with Eleanor and Gandhi, she appeared to share the obsession of John Podesta, her campaign chair, with UFOs. There was bafflement when former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid was caught earmarking $22 million to study UFOs. Earlier this year, Reid claimed that there was a UFO race between Russia’s KGB (which no longer exists), China and America.

$10 million went to a Dem donor interested in UFOs who had written Harry $10,000 worth of checks.

The UFO research quickly took a dive into the paranormal, which, according to a senior manager included studying, "bizarre creatures, poltergeist activity, invisible entities." The reports were subcontracted to a research team led by a psychic espionage researcher.

Compare that to President Trump being briefed on UFOs and dismissing them.

Remind me again which party “believes” in science?

Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to think that astrology is "very scientific". And the Democrats split equally down on the middle on whether astrology was or wasn't scientific.

Liberals were more likely to believe in astrology than conservatives. 43% of liberals believed that astrology was scientific, while only 26% of conservatives did. Only 48.6% of Democrats, compared to 62% of Republicans, were able to correctly answer that the earth revolves around the sun.

58% of Democrats compared to 37% of Republicans believe in UFOs. 35% of Democrats and 27% of Republicans believe they experienced the paranormal. 69% of Democrats, compared to 49% of Republicans, believe in ghosts.

That’s why Marianne Williamson is up there on the debate stage. The only surprise is that it took this long for an unabashed representative of what the Democrats really believe to finally show up.

At the 2020 debates, the Democrats are letting their leftist freak flag fly. They’re coming out of the closet about their support for taking away everyone’s health insurance, dismantling the border and freeing criminals. Why shouldn’t they come out of the closet about their New Age beliefs?

70% of Republicans believe in the God of the bible. Only 45% of Democrats do. 39% believe in some other power or spiritual force. 14% don't believe in any kind of higher power.

47% of white Democrats say that religion isn't really important in their lives. What do they believe in?

Spirituality. Auras. Energy forces. Karma. Battling dark psychic forces. Being attuned to the universe. They believe in, among other things, the founder of the Church of Today who lived in a commune, worked as a cabaret singer, ran a New Age bookstore, and became a fave of Oprah and Hillary Clinton.

"One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England," George Orwell wrote.

But do lefty politics draw in nuts and kooks for no apparent reason. Or is the insanity baked inside?

Are Marianne Wiilliamson’s crazy rants about dark psychic forces and force fields unrelated to her politics, or is the socialist conviction that the world needs careful management by the enlightened to cure us of our human nature exactly the sort of political philosophy that attracts quacks and kooks?

Behind the façade of reason, the light side of the Left, with its plans for a totalitarian utopia of resource management, speech policing, constant reeducation, and disposition of the unworthy, is a dark side of festering demons, spirits, ghosts, sorcerous powers, and invisible visitors from other realms. The light side claims that its ideas are the product of science, experts and modern thought, but the dark side is throbbing with magical thinking, hysterical outbursts, senseless cruelty, and cults of personality.

People don’t believe in what speaks to their conscious, but their unconscious.

The Left likes to claim that its plans come out of the light side, but history shows they originate in the dark. That’s why all the scientific plans never work out the way that they are meant to. The revolutions devolve into blood rituals. The economic plans fall into corruption and chaos. And when it’s done, masses of brutalized people wander in the shadows and wonder how all this could have happened.

The answer is that leftist politics only pretend to come from the conscious mind, but actually originate in the resentments, fantasies and terrors of the unconscious mind. Leftism isn’t reasoned, it’s rationalized.

Its politics are the wishes and the vendettas of the subconscious filtered through pseudoscience.

Marianne Williamson is unremarkable. After Trump’s election, tens of thousands of women like her swarmed the streets wearing pink hats to shriek at the sky and repel the dark psychic forces. This caucus of crazy white women, who underlie the leftist activist base, are spiritual rather than religious. They believe that they have special insight and are much too smart for organized religion. They are convinced that women are more spiritually attuned than men, that progressives are more sensitive than everyone else, and that they project spiritual forces through their activism that will change the country.

They believe in everything, ghosts, auras, energy forces, UFOs, and even angels, but no God.

That would be blasphemous because what they believe in, above all else, is themselves.

Marianne Williamson, like Obama and Oprah, speak to their inner specialness, to their egos and their conviction that they were put on earth to change the world and feel good about themselves. They assure them that all their inner conflicts can be resolved by directing their energy into politics and that they will be assured of immortality if their political activism puts them on the right side of history.

They are their own goddesses, their religion is narcissism, and the church is leftist politics.

Hillary Clinton, despite being one of them, never actually managed to speak to them. That’s one of the reasons why she lost. Even aside from Marianne Williamson, the 2020 field is full of Democrats trying out the rising cadences and long pauses of fake spirituality and impassioned vagueness. They use the borrowed poetry of religion to convey faith, but the only thing they believe in is themselves.

Williamson will lose this race. Just as she lost the race to represent Beverly Hills in Congress. But eventually the unofficial religion of the Democrat Party will get a guru as President of the United States.








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.

Monday, August 19, 2019

The Hijabs of Our Banana Republic

When a company runs into trouble, it tries to go forward or backward. And when Banana Republic faced a 3% decline in sales, it decided to go all the way back to the 7th century. Hoping to tap into the lucrative market of concealing bruises and strangulation marks, Banana Republic rolled out a line of hijabs for the discerning woman who knows better than to leave home without the permission of a male guardian.

While women in Iran were being beaten and imprisoned for taking off their hijabs, Banana Republic decided to celebrate the courageous spirit of those women who want to live as second class citizens.

But if the Gap brand thought that displaying some garments of female subjugation between its ugly purple purses and its eighteen-dollar scrunchies would win over Islamists, it had another thing coming.

Modern lefties iconize hijabs without having the faintest idea of what they mean or what they’re for. All they know is that to properly display diversity, you need to add a woman in a hijab between the gay guy, the Black Lives Matter guy, and the militant #resistance member ready to storm Starbucks; even though a hijab is as much a symbol of human liberation as a case of female genital mutilation.

But since Banana Republic couldn’t figure out how to market female genital mutilation to sophisticated urban consumers, it had to settle for trying to sell them hijabs. A hijab, BR execs thought, is just a 72x26 shmata. Our Vietnamese slave laborers can make one a minute before passing out from the toxic fumes. And we can sell them for 20 bucks while getting a diversity award from CAIR for our wokeness.

A cigar may sometimes just be a cigar, but a hijab is always a repressive way of life.

Instead of being cheered from Algeria to Afghanistan, Banana Republic was accused of cultural appropriation and insensitivity. The failing retailer had made an obvious and tragic error. Their model may have had every lock of hair encompassed by the fashion forward follicular prison, but she was showing off her elbows in a short-sleeved shirt. What’s the point of locking up the hair after the elbows are already out there? Does Banana Republic, despite its name, understand nothing about Islam?

"There are guidelines to hijab outside of just covering hair," the founder of Haute Hijab warned.

The guidelines of Islam cover women’s hair, elbows, sometimes faces and even one eye. The hijab is the most distinctive sign of subjugation, because hair is even more offensive than elbows.

The Islamic Republic of Iran's first president, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, warned that women's exposed hair emits rays that drive men mad. It's unknown if women's elbows also emit rays, but Islam approves of women's elbows no more than it approves of their hair. And Banana Republic soon repented.

The model in the black rectangular hijab print and the short sleeves vanished from Banana Republic the way she had from the republics of Afghanistan, Iran and ISIS. The very woke company replaced her provocative elbows with a cropped shot in which she no longer has elbows, arms or hair.

Just the way Allah intended.

But Muslim critics pointed out that the model in the blue soft satin square hijab has an exposed neck. And Allah is no more fond of the sight of women’s necks than he is of their hair and their elbows. Meanwhile the model in the unconvincing leopard print hijab is not only showing her neck, but has the first two buttons of her shirt open. The only thing more offensive would be is if she were also driving.

Banana Republic had banished the model with the dress slit below the knee, but it couldn’t keep up with the frenzy of demands for erasing all the parts of the female body whose existence Muslims object to.

"If people were on the fence about the short sleeves or exposed neck photos, no one could get behind the dress slit photos," Melanie Elturk, the founder of Haute Hijab, complained.

An American brand that claims to tap into the liberating power of fashion bet big on subjugation and discovered that no amount of subjugation is ever enough. The hijab is not just another twenty-buck shmata. Its origins go back to 7th century Arabia where Mohammed faced the same problem as his modern ISIS counterparts. He had to figure out how to tell apart his wives and his rape victims.

Or, as Islam likes to call them, concubines. Or, as the media likes to call them, underage sex slaves.

The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), like the Prophet Jeffrey Epstein (Prison Be Upon Him), sought to colonize the world with miniature versions of himself by capturing and raping innumerable young girls. Since the Florida Democratic Party did not exist in 7th century Arabia, Mohammed couldn’t just write a check to the Clinton Foundation, and instead had to recruit a gang of rapists with promises of rape.

A famous PBS documentary refers to this period as an Empire of Faith.

Since the various rapists also had wives, and since Islam frowns on Muslim men assaulting each other’s wives (the wives of non-Muslims however are fair game, as Koran 4:24 states, "And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess"), the hijab, the burka, the abaya and all the other exciting ways to repress women arrived.

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested,” Koran 33:59 states.

A commentator on the Koran adds, “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)” It’s always awkward when you confuse your wife, or somebody else’s wife with one of those roving slave girls.

Muslim women cover their hair and elbows to show that they’re the property of a Muslim man. Banana Republic had gone into the business of selling twenty-dollar social markers distinguishing their wearer as already belonging to a Muslim husband or father, and suggesting that he go “molest” someone else.

Maybe the purchaser of that Banana Republic purple purse who left her elbows shamelessly exposed.

The media can’t exactly fault the Old Navy’s cousin for advertising hijabs in a way that sends mixed messages to sex grooming gangs, so it instead threw out accusations of cultural appropriation.

Islamists had spent a generation whining about a lack of accommodation and representation. Restaurants weren’t open around the clock to break the Ramadan fast. Victoria’s Secret wasn’t hiring models in burkas. The police still treat synagogue bombings as a crime no matter what the Koran says.

And then Banana Republic debuts four hijabs and it’s cultural appropriation even though Islam appropriates cultures the way hot dog eating contest winners go through sauerkraut and brats. Huge chunks of the Koran are appropriated from Judaism and Christianity like a little kid trying to write his own comic book by taking all the best parts of all the books and movies he saw and mixing them up.

The Washington Post article concludes with a Muslim fashion blogger vowing to "stick to Muslim-owned businesses".

The Texas resident said that it is, "where my loyalty lies."

The question is where do the loyalties of the huge corporations which collude in the oppression of women lie? Is it with the women risking their lives to defy oppression or those who collude with it?

Banana Republic tried to collude with a theocracy of rape and discovered that no amount of erasing women is ever enough. And that’s a tough lesson for an American clothing retailer to absorb.

But when BR next relaunches its line of oppressive headgear, it’ll bring in CAIR advisers who will make sure that none of the models are showing any ankle, elbow, neck, or hair. And then the media will cheer. And there will be awards and an ad campaign.

Because we all live in a banana republic now.





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, August 15, 2019

Control Criminals and Crazies, Not Guns

Mass murder is not a gun control problem.

In 2003, Kim Dae-han, a middle-aged taxi driver, killed 192 people and left 151 others wounded, by setting a South Korean subway train on fire using paint cans filled with gasoline. In 2016, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a Muslim terrorist, killed 86 people and wounded 458 others by ramming a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in France. In 2001, Muslim terrorists killed 2,977 people and injured 6,000 more, by using box cutters to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

Guns are a tool. There are a whole lot of other devastating ways to kill lots of people.

American mass killers often use guns because they’re convenient and available. There are plenty of alternatives like trucks, boxcutters, pressure cooker bombs and paint cans full of gasoline.

Mass murder isn’t caused by the tools you use. The Nazis were not inspired to kill Jews by the invention of Zyklon B. The Japanese did not decide to kill hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians because of the availability of airplanes. The Soviet Communists did not commit their acts of mass murder because their arms stockpiles didn’t need a waiting period to obtain machine guns for their mass shootings.

Murder is not a technical problem. It’s a moral problem. It happens because of internal decisions made in the mind, not external tools. The tools are used to implement the decisions of the mind.

A society with mass murder is experiencing a moral problem.

America’s moral problem is more complex than that of Nazi Germany or its Communist counterparts. We don’t have a government that is actively killing people. Instead we have a government that has made it easy for killers to operate by dismantling the criminal justice and immigration systems, making it very difficult to stop the three primary categories of killers, gang members, terrorists and the insane.

And media corporations have been allowed to glamorize killers who seek fame through massacres.

Gun controllers insist that the Founding Fathers never anticipated the problem of mass shooters. That’s probably true. But they would have also never tolerated the conditions that brought them into being, a permissive criminal justice system, a failure to institutionalize the mentally ill, and a media that promotes these acts of violence under the guise of condemning them and clamoring for gun control.

The America of the Bill of Rights could have had modern weapons without constant mass shootings.

The Founding Fathers understood that murder was not a technical problem, a matter of tools, but a moral problem. The Bill of Rights was meant for a moral society. It cannot function in an immoral one.

"Government would be defective in its principal purpose were it not to restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who perpetrate them," Thomas Jefferson wrote in a Virginia criminal justice bill submitted a few years after authoring the Declaration of Independence.

It is not the purpose of government to control weapons, but to control criminals.

Western countries have instead focused on controlling guns, while failing to control criminals. This has led to absurdities such as ‘knife control’ in the UK and public bollards to control car rammings. Flying has become an experience once relegated to traveling to Communist dictatorships. Gun control measures encourage doctors to inform on their patients. Schools implement zero tolerance for pocket knives.

When criminals aren’t locked up, then everyone ends up in jail.

When we fail to lock up criminals, society becomes a prison. When we don’t institutionalize the insane, then society becomes the insane asylum. When we don’t stop foreign gangs and terrorists from entering our country, then we wake up to realize that we are living in El Salvador, Mexico, Pakistan or Iraq.

A moral society locks up dangerous people while a progressive society locks up everyone.

Gun control is a sensible measure in a society where criminals, madmen and terrorists freely roam the streets. This attempt to turn society into a prison won’t work because of the problem of scale. You can prevent guns from entering a prison of thousands of people, but not a country of millions.

“We should be more like Europe,” the gun controllers say.

But then why are French and Belgian soldiers deployed across major cities after Islamic terrorists carried out attacks with heavy firepower that killed over a hundred people? You can get a ‘military weapon’ in the capital of the European Union for $1,000 in under an hour. Gun control doesn’t work there. Or here.

There are two ways to cope with mass shootings and killings.

We can work to turn our societies into giant prisons in the hopes of impeding that 0.1% of the population which is inclined to violence over drugs, deranged fantasies or the Koran from shooting up malls, ramming cars into crowds, setting off pressure cooker bombs or flying planes into skyscrapers.

Or we can get rid of that 0.1% and actually have a free and safe society.

We’ve tried turning our country into a giant prison while failing to protect our borders, crack down on gangs or stop the psychos. And the experiment has devastated virtually every major city, cost tens of thousands of lives, made flying miserable, and brought our country to the brink of destruction.

Maybe we ought to try common sense instead.

Either that or we can pass the latest raft of “common sense” gun control laws that haven’t worked before while letting every Islamic terrorist and Latin American gang member enter the country, while letting every Chicago gang continue fighting its feuds, and while letting every deranged monster plot an attack while ignoring the warning signs until it’s too late. Surely gun control will stop all of them.

Every single one.

Constitutional conservatives often echo, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But they neglect the obvious corollary. “Don’t lock up the guns, lock up the killers.”

Murder is a moral problem.

When societies such as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan kill, it’s everyone’s moral problem. But when societies such as ours enable killers by failing to restrain them, that’s also true. A society engaging in mass murder has to remove its leaders. But a society where mass killers operate has to restore its morality by removing those, as Jefferson put it, “whose existence is become inconsistent with the safety of their fellow citizens.” Their existence is physically inconsistent because it’s morally inconsistent.

What unites mass killers, the terrorists and the psychos, the Neo-Nazis and the Antifas, the gang members and the drug dealers, is that their moral outlook is completely incompatible with ours.

Some criminals don’t have a moral outlook at all. Mentally ill killers may be so out of contact with reality that they are incapable of having a moral outlook. And terrorists have their own moral outlook, but one which would turn our society into a killing field and prison overseen by Islamists, Nazis or Communists.

The Left insists that we ought to take away guns and other freedoms equally from everyone.

We all ought to live in prison. Or none of us should live in a prison.

And we’ve tried it their way for three generations. We’ve built walls everywhere except around our borders. We share our communities with criminals and the insane. Every house has an alarm system. There may be as many as a million law enforcement officers in the United States. Are we better off?

The first prerequisite to any morality is understanding that actions originate within individuals. The Left is hopelessly immoral because it believes that actions originate within external social conditions. It insists that murder is caused by the social conditions of capitalism, the gun industry or poverty. It justifies its own massacres as attempts to remedy the social conditions of capitalism by force.

That’s why murder thrives under leftist governments, whether in Venezuela or Chicago.

If we want to stop mass killings, we have to restore a moral society based on individual responsibility. The alternative is living in one giant progressive prison with the killers, the psychos and the terrorists.

Either we control the criminals or we lose all control over our own lives.

The moral equation of murder wasn’t altered by the technology of the automatic weapon. The most ancient societies in the world have known how to deal with it. We chose to forget.

When Cain slew his brother with a rock, G-d drove him out of the civilized lands.

G-d did not ban rocks. He banned murderers.

If we want to stop killings, mass or singular, we have to drive our own Cains out of our civilization. Or reconcile ourselves to living in a society where Cain has a gun and Abel is always on the run.







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.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Nationalism and Idealism at the Border

The Border Patrol is to the millennial lefty what the Marines in Vietnam were to his grandpa. The problem with both is not that they wear uniforms and carry guns. A heavily armed force dedicated to policing carbon emissions, hate speech, and non-biodegradable straws would be entirely copacetic.

The trouble is that the Border Patrol and the Marine Corps are nationalistic forces. And nationalistic forces are the wrong kind of forces because they exist to secure the physical existence of America.

Idealistic forces that exist to protect ideas, like the evils of the industrial revolution, politically incorrect speech, or violations of UN human rights accords, from threatening the ideal society are good. Threats to our ideas about the world must be urgently fought. And reality is the greatest threat to those ideas.

The threatening thing about borders is that they define the nation as a physical reality, not an ideal.

Lefties prefer America as an ideal rather than a reality. The ideal nation is a mirror image of their politics. It is not defined by anything as grubby as citizenship or miles of land, but by ideas. Its true defenders aren’t men in uniforms with guns, but social justice activists lecturing about its evils.

When they speak of loving America, it’s not a love of the actual country, but of their own ideals.

"I believe, as an immigrant, I probably love this country more than anyone that is naturally born and because I am ashamed of it continuing to live in its hypocrisy,” Rep. Ilhan Omar claimed.

Lefties often pair love and resentment of America. They speak of loving an ideal, but loathing the reality.

This allegiance to America as an ideal becomes treason to the real America. But to lefties, it is the reality of America that is a betrayal of its ideal. The actual country has an objective existence. The ideal one exists only in the subjective vision of each individual. To be loyal to your subjective ideal over that of the actual nation in which you live is to give allegiance not to America, but to your own desires.

The immigration debate pits nationalists against idealists. To the nationalists, America is limited by physical realities, by the capacities of its land, its number of available jobs, and the limitations of its social fabric, while to the idealists, America is an unlimited space that is capable of anything.

We can absorb every single person who comes here. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

That is the fundamental difference between nationalists and idealists. Nationalists have strong ideals, but they believe that ideals derive from physical realities. Nationalists believe that America’s potential is inherent in its physical territory and in the physical realities of its citizens. Idealists insist that physical realities derive from ideals. America’s potential is not rooted in its territories or its people, but its ideas.

If you believe that we are only as limited as our ideas, then any objection that we cannot absorb unlimited migrants, and provide everyone with infinite free benefits, reveals a limitation of ideas.

Idealists denounce such limitations as selfish greed and reactionary bigotry.

When the Border Patrol is overwhelmed by migrants, idealists attribute the resulting conditions not to resource limitations, but to malice. That’s the same thing they attribute a refusal to implement universal health care, even though it can’t be paid for, or forgive all outstanding college loans, likewise impossible.

People who believe that ideas create resources reject the very concept of resource shortages. To them, there is never a shortage of resources, only a shortage of the ideas that allow resources to be shared.

The currency of real nations is money, but the currency of ideal nations is ideas. In real nations, policies have to be paid for. In ideal nations, free health care or education are the currency and pay for themselves. New immigrants create jobs. All spending, as Obama liked to say, is really an investment.

Idealists are unable to distinguish abstractions from realities. When President Lincoln said that America was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”, to them that is not a legal principle, as it was to Lincoln, but a factual reality that must be demonstrated as a fundamental truth of life.

Since to idealists, equality is primarily a moral principle, they are required to believe that all immigrants believe that everyone is equal, otherwise they themselves would be guilty of heresy. The baffling outcome of this delusional thinking leads them to dismiss Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism as a myth, otherwise she would be less than equal, and they would be bigots for even thinking such a thing.

The idealist error lies not only in mistaking the physical capacity of immigration, but its moral capacity.

They assume that America is a universal idea rather than a nation. Nationalists understand that America’s uniqueness lies in its ideas. But they view those ideas as emerging from a culture. The ideas that make America great emerged from a history of ideas within England and the West. To study the history of ideas is to understand their origin in a physical reality and to know their limitations.

To idealists, ideas are a religious revelation. Their origins are an interesting detail, but not a limitation. It doesn’t matter what country or culture originated John Locke. Much as to many the Jewishness of the prophets is incidental. The ideas of America are infinitely portable and transportable. They can be planted in Iraq or Afghanistan and function every bit as well as they do in Texas or California.

Nor, is there any reason for idealists to assume, that migrants from Iraq or Somalia are not as American as we are. If everyone is created equal, then really everyone is an American.

Except those Americans who resist accepting the insanity of that proposition.

If the essence of what it is to be an American is to believe in universal entitlements, which is what leftists have distilled the proposition of universal equality to, then everyone who believes that the government is required to give everyone free healthcare and college, is truly an American.

Rep. Ilhan Omar is a great American because she believes in the right of free things for all. And it is the Republicans who don’t believe in universal entitlements who are guilty of being un-American.

The two Americas, the nation of ideas and of citizens, are on a collision course at the border.

The second America, the one with borders, an economy and citizens, has interests. These interests are an expression of the physical needs of its citizens. The first America, the place of ideas, has no citizens, no economy and no borders. It is a phantom nation with no physical realities, only ideals and values.

Nationalists speak in terms of interests. Idealists blather about values. American interests are condemned as violations of American values. To protect the border is “not who we are”, they insist.

Our ‘whoness’ is not measured in the physicality of land and laws. America is not a real place, but a concept. Its borders are not policed with armed men, but hate speech codes. The integrity of its ideas matters far more than the lives of its people, the integrity of its borders or the worth of its economy.

Nationalists want to control the physical boundaries of the nation while idealists want to police its discourse. Both are protecting what they understand to be the essential truth of America.

But there can only be one America.

The citizenry voted Trump to protect America’s interests and the elites have vowed to destroy him to protect America’s values. The citizenry wants to build a wall on the border and the elites want to build a wall on the internet to silence opponents of migration. The outcome will determine whether America will be a free nation of citizens whose elected officials protect their interests or a tyranny of idealists.







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, August 13, 2019

What Happened to Jeffrey Epstein?

New York City’s Civic Center is a maze of courts, prisons, and offices that begins where Chinatown ends; past relics like a 17th century Jewish cemetery and an 1819 seaman’s church. Park Row is barricaded and blocked off by the brutalist infrastructure of One Police Plaza (which contains the remnants of a British prison used to house American prisoners during the Revolutionary War). Surrounding it are massive federal courthouses in front of whose facades the various important malefactors you see on the evening news are photographed, followed by the neoclassical facade of the New York County Supreme Court.

The placement of these buildings in what used to be the Five Points, New York City’s worst and most violent criminal slum run by gangs who made their own laws, where police never ventured, is not an accident. Nor is it an accident that these buildings blocked off the slum area from nearby Wall Street.

The massive gray and brown towers of Civic Center make a statement about the might of the law.

The Metropolitan Correctional Center is the most obscure of the Civic Center buildings (except to its inmates and their families), its brutalist mass huddling in a blockaded zone, even as it has housed countless famous inmates from John Gotti to Bernie Madoff, from the Blind Sheikh to El Chapo.

New York’s Alcatraz skyscraper has hosted some of the most dangerous and infamous criminals in the world, and its security is as painfully tight as its slitted windows. MCC inmates are bound for one of the federal courts in Civic Center. Some of them will testify. Many only reluctantly. And some of them will be the targets of international gangs, terror groups and crime families who don’t want them testifying.

Somebody did not want the inmate in a cell on one of the top floors of the MCC testifying, even though the job of MCC personnel isn’t just to lock them up, but to keep them from dying. Before Jeffrey Epstein, Mafia kingpins, drug lords and terrorists had come and gone. A helicopter rescue operation had failed.

And then Epstein had somehow managed to impossibly hang himself in his cell.

Epstein was in MCC’s Special Housing Unit. A former warden described the security in SHU or the “hole” or “box” as only second to those of supermax prisons. Inmates eat and shower in their cells. Their hands are cuffed behind their backs whenever they step outside. No objects that can be used to harm anyone fall into their hands. They’re not allowed to make physical contact with even their own lawyers.

According to a former MCC inmate, the sheets are paper thin, but somehow, Epstein supposedly hung himself with one of those.

But Jeffrey Epstein has a long history of being able to do what he wasn’t allowed to do in prison.

Instead of going to prison, after his original conviction, he spent time in the Palm Beach Stockade, checking himself out to go to his office, where he hired Palm Beach Sheriff’s Deputies to act as his security, referring to him as client, and keeping watch as women and girls went into his office.

"I am authorizing that his cell door be left unlocked," a county supervisor had written back in Florida.

In MCC, someone had authorized that Epstein be left alone in his cell while he died. Someone authorized that he be off suicide watch. Someone authorized that his guards be barely functional.

Someone.

MCC was supposed to be different. After suborning the justice systems of Florida, New Mexico, and New York, not to mention the Federal system, he was finally going to get what was coming to him.

And he did. Just not by way of the justice system.

Despite allegedly trying to commit suicide a few weeks ago, he was taken off suicide watch, again, where he would have been monitored in a special cell every 15 minutes for… reasons unknown.

Not only wasn't he monitored every 30 minutes, but he wasn't monitored for hours.

Reasons unknown ought to be Epstein’s epitaph. He wasn’t prosecuted by Florida or the Feds for raping numerous girls for reasons unknown. Three states failed to register him as a level 3 sex offender for reasons unknown.

Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed a vast amount of influence and discretion because of his connections. Wealthy men and women have gone to prison and even passed through MCC before. Epstein’s money and influence both came from sources that have yet to be sufficiently nailed down. And now never will be.

Isn’t that convenient?

But don’t worry. There will be investigations. In Palm Beach, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, has promised to investigate how Epstein was able to use his stockade as a hotel and his deputies as private security even though the logs have been destroyed.

There are investigations in New York City and you can bet they’ll be every bit as thorough and useless. They may find that logs are gone, emails deleted, and that the trail has gone cold. Guards working overtime will be blamed for decisions made at a higher level. There will be promises of reforms at the MCC that have nothing to do with why Epstein had been protected and why he died.

Systems are built on procedures and the problems and solutions will be identified as procedural. But Epstein had been able to evade procedures all his life. It is hard to believe that the pass he got from the justice systems of three states, and the federal government, were procedural happenstance.

Or that his death was procedural happenstance.

Epstein’s death was perfectly timed. His death ends the trial and buries all the remaining grand jury evidence in a file cabinet somewhere in Civic Center. And good luck ever getting to that cabinet.

Various authorities have promised to dig into the circumstances of his death and his crimes. But with Epstein gone, there will be no legal limits on them and no way to know where the truth lies. They can and will be able to present whatever claims and documents they like to the public. The lawyers for the victims will work to recover funds from the estate. But the truth has passed beyond recovery.

Ideally, a deal will be made with a few potential defendants, most notably Ghislaine Maxwell, his alleged fixer, there will be scapegoats, and firm reprisals for trafficking in girls, but any of the powerful men who may have benefited from them, will be in the clear. If Maxwell is tempted to refuse the deal or tell the whole truth, she'll remember how easy it is to die in federal custody.

The truth died on the top of a prison skyscraper whose administration and guards flagrantly violated their own rules, removing Epstein from suicide watch six days after a supposed suicide attempt, leaving him alone in his cell, and failing to check on him until it was too late. Blame will be passed around. Conspiracy theorists will cash in on it for years. And the questions will remain unanswered.

Who could possibly penetrate Manhattan’s most secure detention facility? Who had the political influence to manipulate events within MCC’s walls? Who could do what Chapo’s confederates couldn’t?

These questions join others, such as who in the DOJ had allegedly told Alexander Acosta that Epstein was protected by intelligence figures, and who had corrupted the justice systems of three states?

The answers are gone, but the damage to our political system will linger.

What little we can know is that Epstein’s political connections extended far beyond Palm Beach. At the height of his power, Epstein enjoyed the patronage of figures in the federal government. And now, when he had been brought down in an attack on a federal official, he died in federal custody.

Epstein had become collateral damage in an attempt to inflict glancing harm on President Trump. The campaign failed to accomplish much of anything, but it got Epstein on track to an actual trial.

A trial that will never happen now.

Someone at the federal level had protected Epstein. And someone at the federal level may have decided that he was better off dead. It would have taken a political network with access to career officials in the DOJ to have protected and killed Epstein.

But that’s speculation.

Perhaps Jeffrey Epstein did die by his own hand. And a chain of coincidences enabled it to happen.

Anyone can come up with conspiracy theories. But there is no escaping the fact that Epstein’s career was one long conspiracy of mysterious money, a private island, the subversion of justice systems in three states, and the federal system, followed by a death that should have been impossible.

A corrupt system enabled Jeffrey Epstein to abuse numerous girls. And now a corrupt system, somewhere in the shadowy maze of Civic Center, has drawn a final curtain over his death.

If you stand in an alley looking up at the dingy walls of the MCC, you can peer through the tiny black slits of its windows looking for answers. But the only thing behind the MCC’s windows is darkness.






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.


Monday, August 12, 2019

In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslims

At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

State prisons.

Take Maryland, which has an estimated 70,000 Muslims, making up over 1% of the population. But of Maryland's 18,562 prisoners, 5,084 were Muslims.

That's 27.4% or over 1 in 4 prisoners.

It would also mean that 1 out of 13 Muslims in Maryland may have been in a state prison.

Those are startling numbers, yet they come from Muslim Advocates, an Islamist legal advocacy group. Both MA’s numbers and the number of Muslims in different states may be miscounted, yet these figures raise serious questions about public safety and the toll that immigration is taking on our communities.

While Maryland’s numbers are some of the worst, MA lists similar figures for Washington D.C. where out of 5,219 prisoners, 1,232 were Muslims, so that once again 1 in 4 prisoners were Muslim.

D.C. does have one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, numbering between 2 and 3 percent. Even taking the highest estimate, 6.5% of the Muslim population in D.C. was in jail in 2017.

Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners.

Of the 48,438 prisoners in Pennsylvania, 10,264 were Muslim. That’s 8% of an estimated statewide Muslim population of 128,000, meaning that 1 in 12 Muslims in Pennsylvania were in prison in 2017.

In 5 states, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, Muslims make up 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 prisoners.

In another 4 states, Wisconsin, Missouri, Delaware, and Arkansas, they make up 1 in 10 prisoners.

That’s a total of 9 states in which Muslims make up between a quarter and a tenth of state prisoners.

The MA numbers are incomplete because the Islamist group only includes information from 35 states, but they do point to the scale of the problem of what Muslim Advocates call, “overrepresentation”.

Overrepresentation may be partially a product of the success of Islamic Dawah or missionary activity in prisons. Islamic prison Dawah has produced many converts and at least some terror plots. And it may serve to explain high Muslim prison numbers in some states, but not necessarily in others.

Delaware is a fairly small state with a population of under a million and a Muslim population of 10,000. Nevertheless, of its 5,235 prisoners, 516 were Muslims. That’s not only around 1 in 10 of the prison body, but also around 5% or 1 in 20 Muslims of the statewide Muslim population of the First State.

The Muslim settler population is usually at around 1% in the country and its varying states. But in only two states, South Dakota and Idaho, was the Muslim prison population at 1% or below.

The overall population, as MA noted in its partial numbers, was 84,882 or 8.9% of prisoners.

Combine all those Muslim prisoners into a city and you have a population larger than Youngstown.

The MA report also claims that 12% of federal prisoners are Muslims. (CAIR in the past had claimed that it was only 6%.) The current federal BOP population is 177,619. That would mean over 21,000 prisoners.

And over 105,000 Muslims are prisoners in state and federal prisons.

Using Pew’s growth estimate, which projects that the Muslim settler population will reach 8.1 million by 2050 (a severe underestimation of actual growth), that would mean a quarter million Muslim prisoners.

This is not just an abstract statistic. It’s a compilation of human misery, lives lost, futures taken, a litany of abuse, loss, assault, and the accompanying taxpayer expenditures on trials, prisons and free lawyers.

The current cost of incarcerating Muslim federal prisoners is taking $670 million a year from taxpayers.

By 2050, the cost could climb to over $1.5 billion.

In some states, inmate incarceration costs are much higher than they are in the federal system. In New York, inmate incarceration costs run to $69,355 per inmate. There were 7,838 Muslim prisoners in New York in 2018 at a cost that approaches $550 million. By 2050, New York would also be spending billions.

Maryland is already spending over $225 million on its Muslim prisoners. Michigan is spending an estimated $265 million. New Jersey is blowing through around $250 million on Muslim inmate costs.

Texas spends $191 million on its Muslim inmates. Wisconsin is on the hook for $113 million a year. North Carolina taxpayers face a $160 million Muslim inmate bill. Missouri taxpayers shell out some $70 million. In Illinois, it’s up to $180 million. Florida is blowing through $93 million. Georgia spends almost $30 million. And Connecticut is forced to spend over $100 million and Ohio spends $90 million.

Even tiny Delaware is stuck spending $20 million on its Muslim inmate population.

Pennsylvania taxpayers have the worst of it and are spending $438 million on Muslim prisoners.

These numbers however are based on average inmate costs. Muslim inmate costs may be higher due to their special needs and special circumstances.

Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood Jihadist who murdered 13 Americans, ran up $548,000 in costs.

But even these extremely incomplete numbers suggest that the federal cost plus the cost in 15 states approaches $3.5 billion. Assuming average state costs across the total population would mean a $2.8 billion cost to the states. (Although this is an extremely inaccurate means of calculating these figures.)

But it does mean that by 2050, the nationwide bill for Muslim incarceration would approach $10 billion.

Estimating the projected increase of Muslim prisoner populations can be tricky, but the rise in Muslim crime documented by the MA report still appears to be disturbing.

In Colorado, the Muslim share of prisoners doubled between 2010 and 2018.

In Utah, the number of Muslim prisoners doubled, and in Georgia, they tripled between 2011 and 2018.

In Michigan, the number of Muslim inmates rose by almost 1,000 even as the general prison population fell by 4,000.

In Missouri, the number of Muslim prisoners increased by over 800, even as the general population only rose by 600.

D.C., Indiana, and Minnesota, saw share increases of between a quarter and a third. In Kansas, the Muslim prisoner share rose by a fifth.

Texas added over 1,500 Muslim inmates even as its overall number of prisoners fell by 10,000.

These are worrying numbers in an era where crime numbers and arrests have been declining. And they forecast the future of states which have consented to refugee resettlement without calculating the harm and expense that migration will inflict on their people, their children and their future.

In British prisons, the proportion of Muslim prisoners rose from 8% in 2002 to 16% in 2018.

As a report to the British parliament noted, aside from Muslims, "no other religion had a higher proportion of representation in prisons than among the general population."

We have begun seeing similar numbers in the United States.

As the debate over immigration continues, we must ask ourselves difficult questions about the price we are willing to pay to welcome in one particular group without caring about the cost to ourselves.

How many thousands of lives, how many billions of dollars, are we willing to pay?

And is diversity worth the price?







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, August 08, 2019

Identity Politics Violence is Tearing America Apart

Three years ago, a bloody summer of black nationalist violence claimed the lives of eight police officers with the massacre of five police officers by Micah X. Johnson in Dallas and the murder of three police officers in Baton Rogue by Gavin Long.

Johnson had declared his support for the Black Lives Matter racial nationalist group and told police that he wanted to kill white people, and especially white police officers.

In the fall, Marc LeQuon Payne tried to run over Phoenix police officers. Next spring, Kori Ali Muhammad went on a shooting spree in Fresno, murdering three white men.

Muhammad and Long were both part of the Moorish Science Temple black nationalist movement. Muhammad had posted Nation of Islam content which claims that "white devils" are subhuman. Long had admired the killing spree by Johnson. Payne had posted that, “the Caucasian needs to be slaughtered like the pigs that they are right along with the niggas who serve and protect them.”

Long wasn’t alone in viewing Johnson as a black nationalist hero.

A former Miss Alabama had described the racial nationalist killer as a “martyr”. Babu Omowale, a co-founder of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, said, "The fact that Micah just got five of the bastards, that's what got you all upset right now." Yafeuh Balogun, another co-founder of the black nationalist group named after the founder of the Black Panther Patyu, wrote, "He shall be celebrated one day."

While the white nationalist shooters of this year have been banished to 8chan, Johnson, Payne and Long were radicalized and posted their rantings on Facebook. The outpouring of support for their acts of violence also took place on Twitter and Facebook with no effort at censorship by the social media sites.

The alternating mass shootings by white nationalists and black nationalists predated Trump. They’re part of a cycle of violence going back decades if not generations. The cycle of violence had largely died down until it was triggered by the resurgence of identity politics in the Obama administration.

The rise of a new age of identity politics was not a response to injustice, but a cynical political strategy.

Facing a more challenging political landscape after his original victory, Obama pivoted from universal appeals to racial nationalist rhetoric. “Punish your enemies,” he urged Latinos. Joe Biden told black people that Republicans would "put y'all back in chains." The racial nationalism became more strident as the political position of the Democrats weakened. Race riots were stirred up from Ferguson to Baltimore. The violence spiraled into mass shootings of police officers and white people.

Violence was only the most explosive symptom of a deeper racial polarization. White nationalist hate groups, long considered a joke, experienced their biggest revival in decades. Black Lives Matter protests convulsed major cities. Christian churches were vandalized with graffiti reading, “Negroes Are the Israelites,” while two synagogue shootings and a rash of swastika graffiti exploded into the news.

The hate group revival was tapping into polarized racial attitudes. Their growth was not an outlier, but an expression of the deeper sickness of identity politics. Polls showed that perceptions of race relations on both sides had cratered. Politics had become driven by naked appeals to racial interests. America had become a fractured country whose inhabitants identified as members of warring tribes.

The identity politics fracturing of the country was motivated by the political roadmap of the Democrats.

Trump had performed better with black voters than Mitt Romney, but black voters had become a larger share of the Democrat base, and the Democrats relied largely on racial appeals to mobilize their votes. These appeals highlighted a classic racial nationalist message that that pitted blacks and whites against each other with black people depicted as being the enslaved and oppressed victims of white people.

Such messages only deepened the racial polarization on both sides. And the political racial polarization limited the options of the Democrats who had become inescapably dependent on the black vote, yet knew no other way to speak to black voters except through conspiracy theories of racial victimhood.

The Democrats feared losing the black vote and the only way they knew how to keep it was by doubling down on the racial polarization that had divided the country and hollowed out their political party.

Conspiratorial messages of racial victimhood were meant to stem the defection of black voters and increase turnout by spreading racial paranoia and hostility toward white people and Republicans.

By 2014, what had been a cynical and divisive political strategy became a killing field as violence exploded in major cities, initially by mobs, and then through acts of racial nationalist terrorism.

The gunmen spreading terror and death are the manifestation of the identity politics strategy.

Racial violence is a deliberate effort to polarize the country by sowing racial hatred. The gunmen in their manifestos often speak of a desire to radicalize and divide the country along racial lines. The objective of the killers attacking churches, shopping centers and public streets is another brand of identity politics.

White and black racial terror plays into stereotypes and hostilities on both sides. Beyond inspiring a small group of potential imitators, the shooters also reinforce the racial nationalism of the other side. They play into the identity politics conviction that beneath the surface, a racial civil war is underway.

Identity politics was born out of an effort by leftist activists to identify and mobilize potential supporters by breaking down a sense of national solidarity along the lines of group victimhood. Every act of terror breaks down national solidarity further and strengthens the appeals to race over nationality.

Lessons about tolerance, white privilege and racial consciousness don’t end racism. They spread it.

What inhibits racism isn’t leftist politics, it’s nationalism. We are less likely to view each other as the enemy if we are all on the same team. When nationalism declines, then tribes arise. Identity politics is the politics of tribalism. Its group nationalisms are not positive affirmations of a common strength, but negative identifications of a common enemy without and a common weakness within the victim group.

And it’s only natural for warring tribes, taught that they are the victims of oppression, to turn violent.

Nations make war on rival nations. When a nation fractures into rival nations warring with each other, acts of racial terror become commonplace. That is what is happening to the United States of America.

The only way to stop racism is by rebuilding our common purpose as a nation.

Without nationalism, different groups will find their own purpose through a lens of group identity. These identities will be innately hostile to each other and to the country they were formerly part of. They will reject its founding principles for failing to serve the interests of their tribes and they will destroy them.

Democrats and their media eagerly denounce these behaviors when they manifest in white nationalism, while upholding them when they appear in black nationalism. And that’s the problem. The politics of racial nationalism are either good or bad. They can’t however be good for one race and bad for another.

When you divide a country along racial lines, the divide will cut along both sides, not just your side.

The resurgence of racial nationalist violence won’t end until we affirm the centrality of the nation over the identity politics that has fractured our political and cultural life. Until we get rid of identity politics, racial nationalist violence will continue tearing apart communities across a divided United States.







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.



Wednesday, August 07, 2019

No City for Old Commies

A Russian Communist painter spent decades defacing San Francisco with ugly social realist art. The son of a Russian Orthodox priest who had left his faith and found a new one, Victor Mikhail Arnautoff depicted a world of stolid ugliness, of shapeless men and women crowding a foreshortened world.

Arnautoff did not like America. And he was a bad painter. His people are soulless representations of an objectified working class. No one smiles in these murals. They occasionally frown and grimace. Their world, like the people in it, has no dimension or depth. Even the revolution will not save them. Only transform them from one type of routine into another in a hopeless world without beauty or meaning.

To social realists like Arnautoff, people were a type of machinery. Society was a factory. Human bodies were just lumpy misshapen industrial architecture. Life was work and work was a struggle.

But the WPA era was a golden age for leftist muralists whose ugly social realist art still scars buildings and lobbies across the country. The Federal Art Project littered Marxist dogma across countless government buildings, often encoded into murals of Washington, Lincoln, and other great Americans.

Arnautoff had assisted Diego Rivera, but his own murals were, until now, far more obscure. And the mural whose fame outlived the Communist, who died in Leningrad in the 70s, had been painted on the walls of an American high school. Generations of high school students had passed it without caring.

Until now.

When Victor Arnautoff took on the job of depicting George Washington’s life for the walls of George Washington High School in San Francisco, he mixed his usual bad style with anti-American dogma. The Communist Party member depicts Washington as a slave owner and a murderer of American Indians. His America was an imperialist nation built on the oppression of minorities and exploitation of workers.

Few noticed. Time passed.

Arnautoff moved to the Soviet Union in the 60s after being investigated by the House Unamerican Activities Committee. He continued to produce ugly but unknown murals in the USSR.

And then modern identity politics leftists, to whom Arnautoff was just another dead white man, noticed the George Washington High School murals and decided that they were racist and must be destroyed.

After a vote by a San Francisco school board, $600,000 will be spent destroying the anti-American mural.

The irony of a Communist artist’s anti-American art falling victim to contemporary anti-American activists shows that even long after Stalin’s death, the purge of Soviet artists still continues. The battle over the mural has pitted old lefties, who understood what Arnautoff was trying to accomplish, with a new generation of identity politics crybullies who monetize their brand by crying about their trauma.

Old lefties have begun pursuing a ballot measure to save the mural.

At an ILWU meeting, celebrating Arnautoff ‘s participation in the labor movement, a small group of young lefties took the meeting hostage to protest the mural, while elderly lefties shouted, “Shame” at them. The sight of scraggly bearded reds in open collar shirts practically weeping as a new generation of cultural revolutionists refused to listen to their explanations of the mural was tragically hilarious.

The revolution was not only devouring its own children, but even its own grandparents.

Here was a HUAC martyr being unthinkingly dismissed as a white racist because he had depicted Washington as a slaveowner and Indian killer, without understanding that was his whole point. San Francisco’s ILWU, an organization with deep Marxist roots, was fighting #PaintItDown, a group of middle-class women in the education industry, chanting about decolonization and cultural trauma.

The ILWUers depicted the #PaintItDown protesters as “rightists,” and Willie Brown, the former San Francisco mayor, compared them to Trump supporters, but both are radical lefties. The mutual incomprehension and hostility just show a culture clash between two ideological generations.

The ILWU speaks in the hoary language of class warfare. It venerates a radical history going back over a century. To #PaintItDown, the history of a white labor movement is irrelevant. What matters are the voices of minorities. And some of its loudest white women claim Indian descent, making them indigenous. While everyone else in the country, including the elderly Marxists, are “settlers.”

To the elderly radicals reciting the tales of ancient strikes and protests, the angry lefty soccer moms are bourgeois rightists, and to the anti-mural protesters, the ILWU’s lefties are a bunch of white settlers.

And the future does not belong to elderly Marxists, but to hashtag social justice activists.

The Nation, whose history goes back to the days of the Arnautoff mural and beyond, betrayed its comrades, and took the side of the middle-class teachers, therapists and social justice soccer moms.

San Francisco school board President Stevon Cook compared supporters of the mural to “defenders of the confederate flag or those who fought to keep up the prominent statue of Robert E. Lee.” Suddenly, a Communist artist was Moses Jacob Ezekiel and the ILWUers were the Daughters of the Confederacy.

Cook probably hates America no less than Arnautoff did. At his first board meeting, he jettisoned the Pledge of Allegiance for a Maya Angelou quote. To the mural’s defenders, history matters. To its opponents, the past is irrelevant. Not just the past embodied by George Washington, but also the one embodied by Victor Mikhail Arnautoff and the aging Stalinists watching faded filmstrips of the USSR.

Lefties never seem to grasp that destroying everything about America means their own destruction. They thought that the revolution would mean destroying the White House, the Chamber of Commerce, the Bank of America, the Constitution, bourgeois values, marriage, and golf courses, but would leave their world of radical bookstores, cafes, history books, concerts, murals, and positions intact.

Now in San Francisco, the revolution has come for them.

"I just wonder how some of our local residents who claim to be progressive, yet still advocate to keep the mural, are feeling when they see the likes of the National Review and Tucker Carlson come to their defense," Cook wrote.

He has a point.

The true progressive has no past. Like a figure in a social realist mural, he is trapped in a dimensionless present which he cannot escape except by dreaming of an impossible utopian future. Even the Marxist with the scraggliest beard has a conservative streak. There is some part of the past he would preserve.

When Marxists fight to preserve the past, they are conserving something. They are being conservative.

Socialism demands the elimination of property, and yet there is always some trinket that the collectivist clings to, that he hides away, because it makes him human. The right side of history mandates the destruction of the past, but the men and women who fought for utopia cling to the past because it gives them meaning. We are only as human as we distinguish ourselves from the collectivist leftist herd.

Leftist ideology demands that its members give up their humanity. But humanity always finds a way. The inhuman demands of leftist ideology eventually come up against the demands of our humanity.

Toward the end of his life, Victor Arnautoff returned to the Soviet Union where he drew pictures of Vladimir Lenin and Felix Dzerzhinsky, the monstrous founder of the Communist secret police. He continued producing school murals depicting an idealized Communist utopia. Many did not survive the fall of the Soviet Union a decade after his death. Even in the USSR, his style had become antiquated.

Arnautoff claimed that art was only as legitimate as its “social” purpose. But leftist social politics is always changing. Beauty and truth endure. There was neither beauty nor truth in Arnautoff’s work.

It was always doomed.

The story of Arnautoff’s mural is not that of George Washington. It is the story of a destructive political movement that destroys itself. The Left likes to claim the future. But, like Arnautoff, it has no future.

When you have no past, you have no future.

George Washington’s work lives on. Victor Mikhail Arnautoff’s work is already gone.






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.