Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Identity Politics and American Anti-Semitism

When Robert Bowers walked through the door of the Tree of Life synagogue with murder on his mind, he was propelled by identity politics. As a white supremacist, his brand of identity politics is more politically incorrect than the ones that led Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour of the Women’s March to support Louis Farrakhan, but it’s no more violent, racist or evil.

Before the massacre, the most recent high profile anti-Semitic attack had been carried out by a Muslim who was caught on video beating a Jewish man while shouting about, “Allah” and his hatred for Jews.

Another hate crime, also caught on video, was a violent assault with a baseball bat by a black man.

Such assaults are less devastating than the mass murder of eleven people, but also much more commonplace. They repeat from month to month and year to year. They make up much of the toll of anti-Semitic hate crimes so that they top the list of hate crime statistics every single year.

The Tree of Life massacre has been greeted with editorials mourning a “loss of innocence” by American Jews. Such editorials come from a bubble of privilege that is cut off from the way many Jews live.

In 1991, New York City’s first black mayor stood and watched while a violent mob whipped up, by among others, Al Sharpton, went on a violent anti-Semitic rampage in Crown Heights. The Crown Heights Pogrom, as it would become known, took three lives and terrorized a neighborhood.

Sharpton, the black supremacist linked to the anti-Semitic violence, went on to speak at the Democratic National Convention, host a show on MSNBC and become a regular visitor to the Obama White House.

The distance between Crown Heights and Squirrel Hill is more than mere geography, it’s social and cultural. Anti-Semitic violence by black supremacists and Muslim terrorists tends to happen in poorer, urban neighborhoods and is directed against a poorer and more religious class of Jews. White supremacist attacks tend to target more suburban, prosperous and less diverse Jewish areas.

Those are home to the same Jewish populations who are much more likely to write editorials about a loss of innocence. But innocence is a privilege that Jews in poorer urban neighborhoods never had.

There are Jews who live in proximity to neo-Nazis and those who live closer to admirers of Farrakhan and Hamas. (Though Farrakhan and Hamas both admire Hitler for killing millions of Jews.) The Jewish communities that endured a generation of race riots, and another generation of muggings, knockout games, rapes and murders, before often having to pack up and move out, from their American Anatevkas in major cities, have never had any innocence of anti-Semitism, only bitter experience.

It is no coincidence that the privileged are also more likely to be progressive. The hysteria over Trump is not born of experience of anti-Semitism, but inexperience. To believe that President Trump is anti-Semitic is a confession of privilege. It’s an admission that your experience of anti-Semitism is an abstraction, a series of theories and history lessons, rather than the awareness of an everyday reality.

It takes a great deal of inexperience of anti-Semitism to believe that it exists only on the side of the political spectrum furthest from you. Anti-Semitism is tribal. Those who hate Jews tend to be losers who are convinced of their own natural superiority and blame the Jews for their failure to achieve it.

You can find such people on the right side of the spectrum, but it is the left side of the spectrum that has been built for them. Hitler’s genius lay in taking the fundamental appeal of socialism, its state controls, welfare state security blankets, suspicion of meritocracy and appeal to mediocrity, and reframe them in racial and nationalistic terms. But he only emphasized the anti-Semitism in socialism, he didn’t invent it.

Identity politics does the same thing as National Socialism, combining the welfare state and anti-capitalist rhetoric with naked racial appeals, tapping into the supremacist convictions of failed groups, offering them special racial privileges, while blaming their failures on meritocracy and capitalism.

The biggest beneficiaries of the social mobility provided by both have often been the Jews.

There is very little difference between white supremacism and black nationalism. Indeed there was so little difference that Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam collaborated with the KKK and the American Nazi Party. There’s a much closer route between Obama and Hitler, than there is between Trump and Hitler. Just follow Obama’s photo with Farrakhan, the affinity of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, for Farrakhan, Farrakhan’s admiration for Hitler, and Hitler’s admiration for Islamic anti-Semitism and his role in inspiring the Muslim Brotherhood. But that’s a route that the progressives choose not to follow.

While progressive Jews may deny that black nationalism and white supremacism are the same thing, the mutual admiration society between them makes a mockery of their denials. Anti-Semitism is a tribal problem. Multiculturalism evolved into intersectionality, spawning more tribalism, more resentment, and an alliance of the resentful in which Jews are not full participants, but growing targets.

As a society becomes more racially and ethnically tribal, it grows more anti-Semitic. The white supremacist attack on a synagogue in Squirrel Hill is one symptom of a much larger problem.

The progressive Jews worry about the rare outbursts of white tribal anti-Semitism because that is the not particularly diverse population that these proponents of diversity live among. The working-class Jews of the inner cities worry far more about the daily diverse tribal anti-Semitism that surrounds them.

That is a ubiquitous anti-Semitism that their progressive brethren neither understand nor care about because it is inconvenient to their politics and alien to their experiences.

While Jewish communities around the world, from Crown Heights to Jerusalem, mourn for the massacre in Squirrel Hill, it often feels as if such outpourings of empathy are not reciprocated. When Jews were being stoned in Crown Heights by anti-Semitic mobs, the progressive Jews told them to stop embarrassing New York City’s first black mayor. When Rabbis were axed to death in a Jerusalem synagogue, the “innocent” progressives blamed Netanyahu and Israel’s imaginary ‘rightward’ drift.

They did not care that their tax dollars were being used to pay the terrorists murdering Jews. Nor do they care that the MSNBC news network that they were watching was paying a pogromist.

This “innocence” of theirs has a high price and for now, Jews in Brooklyn and Jerusalem are paying it. While progressive Jews live in the fading golden summer of the suburbs, working class Jews have lived through generations of looted stores, ransacked apartments, and random violent assaults. The dream of the former, their political policies and ideals, have been the waking nightmares of the latter.

But the age of innocence is coming to an end.

America is changing. The same forces that made Obama have also made Farrakhan relevant once again. Muslim migration will transform America the way that it did Europe. The cities will feel it first. But they won’t be the last. The combination of political radicalism and tribalism that is driving out the Jews of France, Sweden and now the United Kingdoms will not pass by the suburban shtetls of America.

White supremacism is one vector for anti-Semitism. Identity politics has created a dozen more.

The shootings at Squirrel Hill were not the worst of it. Unfortunately, tragically, and horrifyingly, the worst is yet to come. And when it comes, the old innocence will vanish as if it had never been.

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 above link.

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

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, November 11, 2018

God and Guns in the Synagogue

There are two types of synagogues: those that believe in G-d and those that believe in government.

After the mass shooting in a Pittsburgh synagogue, the government synagogues turned to the government with calls for gun control. And those that believe in G-d, turned to the Almighty.

And then, trusting in the Almighty to stand with them against danger, they went out and got their guns.

Morning services at the synagogue these days begin and end with guns, with talk of tactical courses, firing ranges and concealed carry permits. “If someone comes to kill you, get up early to kill him first,” the Gemara, the Babylonian Talmud, that massive encyclopedic work codifying Jewish law, advises.

In synagogues across America, the teachers, actuaries and small businessmen rising early for morning prayers are preparing for a mass shooting attack. Every synagogue I have been to lately has members who carry concealed firearms. Members are attending security courses, training to identify, disarm or kill active shooters, while also preparing for the ugly aftermath of another synagogue massacre.

CPR courses. Stop the bleed. Triage.

While one faction of American Jews, the noisesome lefty one, shouts about gun control, the quieter, religious one, is choosing self-defense over gun control, and preparing to face another attack.

After the Pittsburgh shooting, the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco recycled a gun control tract from 1999 warning that, "14 young people below the age of 20 are killed by guns in this country every day". That talking point about inner city gang violence had nothing do with the mass shooting of unarmed Jewish worshipers, but establishment politics tend to run on lefty autopilot.

But meanwhile in South Philly, far from San Fran, but all too close to the Pittsburgh massacre, religious Jews were going out and buying guns.

“I'm a daughter of a Holocaust survivor,” a 61-year-old Jewish woman was quoted as saying. “I lost all my aunts and uncles in the Holocaust, and I'm going to go down fighting. I'm not walking into a gas chamber. I'm not going to stand there like a sitting duck… and get shot at. I refuse.”

Yonatan Stern, an IDF veteran running tactical training courses at Cherev Gideon (Gideon’s Sword), suggested that the demand is coming from the more politically and religiously conservative Jews.

Meanwhile at a lefty protest in Philly, Rebecca Hornstein, a member of the If Now Now anti-Israel hate group, who backed anti-Semites like Keith Ellison and Linda Sarsour, claimed that nobody wanted guns.

But quite a few real Jews did.

The debate over firearms in synagogues has reached into Jewish communities from New York City to Philadelphia, and from Chicago to Colorado Springs, where Mel Bernstein of Dragon Arms offered local Rabbis in the area free handguns or AR-15s, along with training and ammunition.

“You have to have the tool to fight back, and this is the tool,” the Jewish gun store owner said.

The local ADL branch was unhappy with Bernstein’s offer, claiming that armed clergy sent the wrong message. Five local rabbis however thought that it sent the right message and took him up on it.

“The 97-year-old Holocaust survivor did not have good people that carry firearms during the Holocaust. But there are good people that carry firearms in American now,“ Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, the former head of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement, declared. “They should bring them inside with them to protect the people who are there.”

“If you are a Jewish police officer and you are off duty, when you come to worship, you should come with your handgun. If you are a Christian police officer, when you are off duty,” he urged in a press conference outside a Jewish institution, “come with your handgun.”

"No. No. No," Council Speaker Corey Johnson tweeted. "This is not how we heal and move forward."

Assemblyman Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jewish politician from Brooklyn, however endorsed Adams' message and announced, "I am registering immediately for a gun license. And I encourage other Jews to do so to protect their institutions and synagogues."

David Pollock, the director of public policy and security at the New York Jewish Community Relations Council, however insisted that guns wouldn't work. "Having armed guards is not a panacea."

Rabbi Gary Moskowitz, a former NYPD officer and martial arts expert, who offers firearms training to Rabbis, has urged every congregation to arm its members.

“They tell me, ‘It’s not the Jewish way,’” he argued. “How can the rabbis say that it’s not the Jewish way when we just need to look at the Bible to see how David fought the Philistines?”

When Moskowitz had previously proposed allowing congregants in New York City to carry guns, he met with a cold response from local Democrats.

“We need fewer, not more, guns on the street, period,” City Councilman Mark Levine had insisted. “This would make us less safe, not more safe.”

But after Pittsburgh, unarmed synagogues increasingly don’t feel safe.

In Chicago, Jonathan Burstyn, the son of a volunteer policeman, guards his synagogue on the Sabbath and provides firearms training through Chi-Defense. A photo posted by Burstyn at the 2018 NRA Annual Meeting shows a group of Orthodox Jews touting some serious artillery.

In Virginia, Edward Friedman, the editor-in-chief of the NRA's Shooting Illustrated magazine, carries a concealed weapon to a Chabad Orthodox synagogue with the permission of the Rabbi.

“It’s something that’s incredibly important to me, and I think it should be to every single practicing Jew who goes to synagogue,” Friedman said.

At Temple Sholom, a small Reform synagogue in Springfield, Ohio, Rabbi Cary Kozberg took down the gun-free-zone sign. “Some realized that a gun-free zone can be an invitation.”

“I’m so not advocating that every Jewish person who goes to synagogue walk in with a gun,” he said. “But there are people who are OK with that, and those people need to be listened to.”

While an out-of-touch secular establishment still claims to speak for Jews on gun control, the growing number of religious Jews are far more comfortable with firearms. And after Pittsburgh, more places like Temple Sholom are willing to question the suicidal fanaticism with which the Left clings to gun control.

The choice between self-defense and gun control is at also a choice between dependency and independence. It’s the quintessential dilemma out of which the United States of America was born.

And more Jewish organizations are stepping forward to advocate for the Second Amendment.

“With all due respect, singing songs, lighting candles and posting the phrase 'Never Again', regardless of the number of exclamation points, is not going to stop anyone from killing Jews,” Doris Wise, the founder of Jews Can Shoot, wrote. “Fear of being shot by armed Jews. That’s what will stop them.”

“Self-defense is a God-given right. Here in America - all of America - we have the very good fortune to have the Second Amendment. Honor it, yourselves and all good people by making use of it.”

Jews Can Shoot is one of a number of rising Jewish organizations that connect Jewish civil rights to the right to bear arms.

The idea is not new to Jewish history.

Zionism began not with irrigating the desert, but with arming vulnerable Jewish populations. It’s a story that traverses Jewish history and goes back all the way to the very dawn of the Jewish monarchy.

When Shaul was anointed as the first Jewish king, the Philistines had disarmed the Jewish population leaving them without even a blacksmith, worrying, ”Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears” (1 Samuel :13:19), until King Shaul and his son, Yonatan, were said to have received spears from heaven.

Then they led the rebellion against Philistine rule and created the first Jewish kingdom.

After the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, the Book of Nehemiah relates that when the Arabs came to besiege Jerusalem vowing to kill the returning exiles and end the rebuilding of the Second Temple, the Prophet Nehemiah assembled the people behind the wall with “swords, spears and bows.”

And as they built the Temple, of which the present synagogues are only lesser models, struggling to raise the wall against the Arab invaders, they “worked with one hand, and held their weapon with the other”.

Today, the synagogues that believe in G-d, Jews are taking the prophet’s advice. "Do not fear them, remember the Great and Awesome G-d, fight for your brethren, for your sons and daughters, for your wives and your houses." (Nehemiah 4:8)

And after morning prayers, the men leave still talking of active shooter training and firing ranges.

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 above link.

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

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

Harvard's Racist Diversity

“Diversity and excellence go hand in hand," Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana had declared two years ago. “Diversity is at the heart of the mission of the College."

Now, at the trial over Harvard’s racially discriminatory admissions policy, Khurana was asked about a different type of diversity by a lawyer representing Students for Fair Admissions. The group representing 20,000 students, parents and others was challenging Harvard’s discrimination against Asian students.

“Don’t you actually think that Harvard’s class should have a socioeconomic makeup that looks a lot more like America?"

Khurana demurred.

“We’re not trying to mirror the socioeconomic or income distribution of the United States,” he insisted.

Why is racial diversity at the “heart” of Harvard’s mission, but not socioeconomic diversity?

The lawsuit against Harvard by Students for Fair Admissions has successfully raised that question.

"The admissions process is designed to identify those students who manifest the qualities, academic and otherwise, that suggest they will become engaged participants and leaders in an increasingly diverse, complex society," Harvard's lawyers argued.

But the complex diversity of this society is defined in an extremely simplistic way. Harvard would like to map the United States, but not by income, only by race. And only by certain races.

Asian students had the lowest Harvard admission rate of any group at 8.1%. White students were admitted at a rate of 11.1% and black students at a rate of 13.2%. In the early oughts, black student admission rates actually approached an unprecedented 20%.

Harvard’s 2019 class boasted a makeup of 11.6% black students, 21.1% Asian students, and 13% Hispanic students. The 2022 admissions numbers have hit 15.2% black students, and 22.9% Asian students: though these don’t reflect the final enrollment numbers which are likely to be lower.

Black and Hispanic students get recruitment letters if they score only 1100 on their SATs. For Asian students, it’s 1350. According to the Princeton Review, the current average SAT score is 1060.

Asian students applying to Harvard had average SAT scores of 726.2 across the sections of the exam. White students had average scores of 712.7. Asian students admitted to Harvard had average scores of 766.6 and white students had average scores of 744.7.

Meanwhile black students admitted to Harvard had average scores of only 703.7.

Black students admitted to Harvard were the only group with SAT scores lower than those of the average white student applying. Asian applicants had higher SAT average scores than every admitted student group, except white students.

“Given racial bias in standardized testing and endemic racial inequities in educational opportunities in primary and secondary school, Harvard must consider race if it is to assemble a diverse student body," a filing by NAACP lawyers on behalf of Harvard student and alumni groups claimed.

The groups being represented by the NAACP include the Kuumba Singers of Harvard College, the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, Fuerza Latina of Harvard, and the Harvard Islamic Society.

But why does this alleged “racial bias in standardized testing”, not to mention the endemic, epidemic and pandemic “racial inequities in educational opportunities” somehow pass Asian students by?

And if America is suffering from a pandemic of racial inequities in education, how is it that black students are able to get into America’s most elite institution with SAT scores that would get a middle- class white student from Brooklyn or Boston, who isn’t a legacy, laughed all the way out the door?

Harvard’s policy of racial quotas invalidates its own arguments in favor of those quotas.

The only racial minority suffering from “racial inequities in educational opportunities” is the one suing Harvard over it. If there were racial inequities at Harvard toward black students, the NAACP lawyers would be suing Harvard, instead of filing briefs in defense of the racial inequities that benefit them.

And if Harvard privileges black students, are we supposed to believe that the institution that asserts that it produces the nation’s leaders is an outlier in discriminating in favor of black students, rather than that it sets the tone for educational policy across the country?

The success of Asian students exposes the racist lie on which all the claims of white privilege are built. If America is a racist society that excludes non-whites, why do Asians succeed and thrive in it?

America is not a white supremacist society. It’s a fair and just society whose meritocracy has only been compromised by affirmative action. The lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions reveals what racism in America really looks like. If you want to see institutional racism, skip the trailer parks where the last of the KKK wizards collect their food stamps, and look at Harvard’s affirmative action quotas.

Asian success represents a unique threat to the cult of diversity. Affirmative action is essentially a collectivist scheme for redistributing college admissions, jobs and business opportunities by race. To be in favor of it, and of any socialist scheme, you have to believe in your inability to succeed on your own.

The Harvard racial quota debate has divided Asian students between those fighting for their rights and those embarrassing themselves by supporting a system of racial discrimination against themselves.

At a Harvard rally in support of racial quotas that discriminate against students like her, an Asian student can be seen holding up a sign reading, "Yellow Peril Supports Black Power."

The Left builds its systems around ideas that seemed radical and relevant generations ago. After the rising middle class made Marxism seem like a quaint joke, the system of racial privileges that replaced it was born in an era when America’s racial conflicts were black and white. It was never meant for a world in which Asian students outperform white students.

Intersectionality has struggled to patch the holes in the bipolar origins of diversity, throwing in a goulash of identities, and privileging some at the expense of others. But that provides little satisfaction for the successful groups in the intersectional gulag, Asians, white women, gay men, who increasingly don’t need the quotas, and are being berated about their privilege by the beneficiaries of their discrimination.

The Harvard lawsuit asks Asians and every other identity group in America whether, as individuals and a community, they benefit or lose from opting out of meritocracy in exchange for group privileges.

That’s the essential question of the old debate between capitalism and socialism through the lens of identity politics. Some groups are willing to suppress individual merit for collective privileges even though accepting them sharply caps their individual ability to succeed. Others want off the plantation.

Socialism offered to cap individual potential in exchange for collective security. Affirmative action offers racial groups the same poisoned gift. It claims to do this in the name of fighting white privilege and institutional white supremacy. But what better tool of white supremacy could there be than seducing racial minorities into abandoning their best and brightest by offering them racial quotas and caps.

As the data out of Harvard shows, racial quotas work both ways. They reward a minority group as long as it performs poorly. But once it succeeds, they start punishing it for its success.

The fundamental flaw of affirmative action is the same flaw as that of welfare state socialism. It punishes hard work and rewards a refusal to work. No white supremacist plot could have done more damage to the minority communities that foolishly accepted the poisoned gift of affirmative action.

The Harvard lawsuit is waking up Asian-Americans to the real cost of affirmative action. That’s the true lesson being taught at Harvard and at countless educational institutions across the country.

Racial quotas help you when you fail. They punish you when you succeed.

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.

Sunday, November 04, 2018

A Leftist Hatefest in Pittsburgh

As President Trump arrived in Squirrel Hill to pay his respects to the 11 Jews brutally murdered in the Tree of Life synagogue, If Not Now, a leftist anti-Israel hate group notorious for targeting Jewish charities, unleashed an ugly hatefest that defiled the solemnity of the day.

Keffiyahs, a symbol of Muslim anti-Semitic violence, SEIU shirts and multicolored wigs were visible in the mob. A handful of protesters misused ‘shofars’, a religious ritual item sounded on the holiest Jewish days of the year, and not meant to be desecrated in street protests. Despite attempts to appropriate Jewishness, there was nothing Jewish about the ugly hatred and exploitation of murdered Jews.

Even though three police officers had risked their lives and were wounded trying to stop the gunman, the If Not Now flyer for the event condemned the “police state” and touted the black supremacist hate group, Black Lives Matter, alongside Free Palestine. An If Not Now speaker bizarrely bleated, “More cops in shuls will not make us safer. More cops in schools will not make us safer.”

Where were If Not Now members while the officers, Daniel Mead, Michael Smidga, Anthony Burke and Timothy Matson, were being shot at in the Tree of Life synagogue? Blogging about intersectionality? Tweeting anti-Israel memes? Plotting their next hate rally targeting police officers and Israeli soldiers?

When the shooting was over and it was safe, they convened a hateful rally to attack Jews, Israel, Trump and the very police officers who had saved lives and stopped the rampage of a murderous gunman.

Batya Ungar-Sargon with The Forward, an anti-Israel leftist paper, claimed that the protesters, rather than Rabbi Jeffrey Myers of the Tree of Life synagogue who graciously welcomed the president, represented, "who the majority of American Jews are".

If Not Now represents Jews the same way that Robert Bowers, the Tree of Life gunman, represents Americans. It's a marginal hate group, animated by its animosity to the Jewish State and to Jewishness. A leading If Not Now figure, Rafael Shimunov, had even used The Forward to defend a leftist Washington D.C. politician who had accused Jews of controlling the weather.

Many of the marchers exploiting the murder of Jews, and claiming to speak for Jews, weren’t Jewish.

Putting the lie to Ungar-Sargon’s Forward fake news, the Pittsburgh City Paper noted that, "participants at the event were from a diverse background, including members of several progressive groups, residents of all races, and Latino and Black activists."

“Queer Catholic Protects Jews: End White Supremacy,” one sign read.

“We are here to send the message today that we don’t want you here,” Monica Ruiz of Casa San Jose ranted. "Trump, you are not a good neighbor.”

Casa San Jose is a Latino activist group defending illegal aliens.

Tracy Baton, the African-American director of the Women’s March, denounced Trump for inserting politics, “into a city in mourning, before the dead are buried, is unacceptable.”

Except that was the entire purpose of the rally, which even ended with a call to vote in the midterm elections. It was a power grab by marginal groups and a vile attack on a president paying a condolence call. While the president was laying flowers at makeshift memorials, a leftist mob was screaming hate.

And Baton was cynically appropriating Jewish pain while representing an anti-Semitic hate group.

The Women’s March leadership had become notorious for anti-Semitic rhetoric by Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory.

Both women are supporters of Louis Farrakhan who had praised Hitler and compared Jews to termites.

Sarsour had urged Muslims to dehumanize Jews, and Tamika Mallory had responded to Jewish protests against her support for Farrakhan by tweeting, “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!” Then she targeted the ADL over its criticism of her anti-Semitism.

Baton had appeared with Tamika Mallory.

If there’s anything more inappropriate than a protest rally before the dead are buried, it’s an anti-Semitic hate group hijacking murdered Jews for its own political agenda.

One of the few "Jewish" speakers at the hate mob was Diana Clarke, an organizer for the If Now Now hate group. When Clarke isn't disrupting condolence calls for the Jewish dead, she is researching the evils of the Jews. Namely, "the way Ashkenazi Jews accessed whiteness by participating in the white settlement of Native lands and violence towards Native people."

No doubt the hate group activist trolling a condolence call for the dead has plenty of insights into how the “Ashkenazi Jews” murdered at Tree of Life “accessed whiteness” as they were being murdered by a white supremacist.

Clarke also appeared to have signed on to a letter by an anti-Semitic hate group calling for a boycott of Jewish Israeli theater.

Also there was Arielle Cohen, the surly co-chair of the Pittsburgh chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, who is also associated with the If Not Now hate group.

The DSA has supported at least one openly anti-Semitic candidate, Maria Estrada, a Farrakhan supporter, who had accused Jews of committing atrocities out of the belief that as "one of 'God's chosen people'" they feel "superior and justified". When rebuked for her anti-Semitism, Maria told a Jewish Democrat, “try keeping your party, your religion and your people in check".

The DSA’s 2017 convention featured representatives of anti-Semitic European leftists, including Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and France's Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a Holocaust denier. The Mélenchon issue offended even some of the DSA’s Jewish collaborators. But it didn’t stop them from continuing to collude.

The If Not Now march joined forces with another march by Bend the Arc. The media had initially misreported a statement by the leftist group that President Trump was not welcome in Pittsburgh as a declaration by “Jewish leaders”. In reality, Bend the Arc is headed by Stosh Cotler, an anti-Israel activist and former sex club dancer. Its PAC was set up by the son of George Soros

It was only fitting that the few Jewish participants in this deranged hatefest would be far more anti-Semitic than its non-Jewish participants. Jews who participate in anti-Semitic movements invariably feel the need to demonstrate that they belong by being more anti-Semitic than their non-Jewish peers.

The bizarre freakshow finally concluded at the Sixth Presbyterian Church, its ending every bit as Jewish as its beginning.

As President Trump arrived at the Tree of Life synagogue, Rev. Susan Rothenberg, a Presbyterian minister (pictured above), began screaming, “You are not welcome here!”

The Presbyterian Church has become notorious for its support of BDS and its affinity for anti-Semitic terrorist groups.

Earlier this year, the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh had cut ties with the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary for hosting a co-founder of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center whose rhetoric was "theologically loaded" with anti-Semitism.

In an example of Sabeel anti-Semitism cited by the ADL, was the blood libel that, “Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him…The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily.”

The Sixth Presbyterian Church has welcomed BDS events targeting the Jewish State, including appearances by Sabeel speakers. It has advocated for BDS. Just this year, it promoted a boycott of HP over its ties to the Jewish State.

And so a march, supposedly against anti-Semitism, featuring an anti-Semitic hate group, wrapped up at an anti-Semitic church.

It couldn’t have been a more fitting end to a disgraceful orgy of leftist hatred.

This was not, as its participants insisted, a vigil. It did not mourn, it hated.

There was nothing Jewish about it, despite the disgraceful attempt to misappropriate Jewish phrases and rituals for political purposes. If Not Now activists rallied the crowd to sing, “Olam Chesed Yibaneh”, but ignorantly mistranslated, “Chesed” as “Love”.

They stepped over the bodies of dead Jews to lead a mob of anti-Semitic lefties to serve an anti-Semitic agenda. And they ended their orgy of hate at an anti-Semitic church.

“This evil, anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us. It is an assault on humanity. It must be confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its ugly head. We must stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters to defeat anti-Semitism and vanquish the forces of hate. Those seeking their destruction, we will seek their destruction,” President Trump said.

The hateful rally that greeted him is a reminder that those hateful anti-Semitic forces are everywhere.

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 above link.

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

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

If the Synagogue Shooter Were Muslim, the Media Would Be Defending Him

Two types of people plot attacks against Jewish synagogues and community centers: Nazis and Muslims.

In 1999, Buford O. Furrow, a white supremacist, opened fire at a Jewish Community Center in the Los Angeles area. He wounded three little boys, their teenage female counselor and an elderly female receptionist. He told the FBI that he wanted this to be "a wake-up call to America to kill Jews."

While Furrow was carrying out his attack, President William Jefferson Clinton was in the White House.

In 2000, Ali Hassan Abu Kamal and Mazin Assi attempted to firebomb a synagogue in New York.

“A bias-motivated attempt to firebomb a synagogue?” the New York Times wondered. “Or a misguided message critical of Israeli policies against Palestinians?”

In 2006, Naveed Afzal Haq used a teenage girl as a hostage to force his way into the Seattle Jewish Federation where he shot 6 women. The Muslim attacker shouted, “You Jews” at the non-Jewish marketing director and shot her in the stomach. The bookkeeper went into cardiac arrest, died at the scene, was revived and died again on the operating table and still lived to testify at Haq's trial.

"I want these Jews to get out,” Haq could be heard shouting on the phone.

The media attempted to portray Haq as mentally ill. The local alternative paper insisted that his “his anti-Semitic rhetoric” was just a “veneer” on “a man disturbed by feelings of inadequacy and rejection.”

In 2009, James Wenneker von Brunn, a white supremacist, opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. His rhetoric, claiming that Obama was controlled by the Jews, closely echoed the more recent Squirrel Hill synagogue shooter’s rants about Trump being controlled by the Jews.

This would be one of two major anti-Semitic attacks by neo-Nazis during the Obama years.

That same year, another major anti-Semitic terror plot was broken up by the FBI. But this time the perpetrators were Muslims and the media coverage couldn’t have been more different.

“Look at the Jewish guy. You’re not smiling no more, you f___r. I hate those bastards. I hate those m______s. Those f____g Jewish bastards. I’d like to get one of those. I’d like to get a synagogue. Me. Yeah. Personally,” Abdul Rahman, also known as James Cromitie, had ranted.

The targets of the Muslim terrorists known as the Newburgh Four had been two synagogues. And the media took the side of the anti-Semitic terrorists.

"Newburgh Four: poor, black, and jailed under FBI 'entrapment' tactics," The Guardian had wept. NPR, The Nation, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed all wrote sympathetically of the synagogue terrorists.

Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept simpered over Cromitie as "an impoverished African-American Muslim convert" who "had never evinced any inclination to participate in a violent attack".

That’s quite a description of the man who had bragged, “With no hesitation, I will kill 10 Jews.”

HBO aired a documentary, The Newburgh Sting, supportive of the synagogue terrorists. It won a Peabody Award.

In 2011, Ahmed Ferhani was arrested after plotting to blow up “the biggest synagogue” in Manhattan. Along with Mohamed Mamdouh, he had considered dressing up as a Hassidic Jew and attacking a synagogue with a gun and a grenade.

“I intended to create chaos and send a message of intimidation and coercion to the Jewish population of New York City,” Ferhani admitted at his trial.

Ferhani was defended by Linda Sarsour and many on the Left. Just two years ago, The Nation headlined a sympathetic piece about the synagogue terrorist as, “A Muslim Man Was Ensnared in a Terror Plot by the NYPD—He Just Attempted Suicide”. The Huffington Post ran a post titled, “An Entrapped Muslim Man Just Attempted Suicide, But Does Anyone Care?”

Both media outlets have accused President Trump of somehow being complicit in the latest synagogue shooting when they are actually the ones who continue to be complicit in anti-Semitic violence.

“The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting Is the ​Inevitable Result of​ Trump’s Vile Nationalism,” The Nation shrieks. This is the same vile rag which has repeatedly defended Muslim synagogue terrorists.

In 2014, Frazier Glenn Miller, a white supremacist, opened fire at the Overland Park Jewish Community Center. He murdered three people. Afterward he shouted, “Heil Hitler”.

Miller had earlier stated, “I have a great deal of admiration Louis Farrakhan,” and admired Iran’s leader because, “he tells the truth about the Jews.”

The only thing he regretted is that all of his victims turned out not to be Jewish.

All this happened under Barack Obama. And Miller had expressed a certain implausible liking for Obama. Like Miller, Obama also had an affinity for Farrakhan, having posed with him, and for Iranian leaders.

There are two groups that plot terrorist attacks against Jewish synagogues and centers in America and Europe: Nazis and Muslims.

The media unequivocally condemns Nazis, but equivocates when the attackers are Muslims.

When a Nazi attacks a synagogue, the media blames Republicans. But when a Muslim attacks a synagogue, the media will claim that he was a mentally ill man entrapped by the FBI. Buford O. Furrow and Robert Bowers are monsters, but Abdul Rahman and Ahmed Ferhani are victims.

President Trump has never expressed an ounce of sympathy for Bowers. Instead he firmly demanded justice. “Anybody who does this deserves the death penalty. When people do this they should get the death penalty and they shouldn’t have to wait years and years. Now the lawyers are going to get involved and we’ll be ten years down the line. Anybody that does this to innocent people who are in temple or in church, should pay the ultimate price.”

It’s the media which has repeatedly expressed sympathy for synagogue terrorists.

The same media busy blaming the Squirrel Hill synagogue attack on Trump would have been defending the terrorist if his name had been Rahman instead of Robert.

And the media has two things in common with the Squirrel Hill synagogue shooter.

Robert Bowers hated Trump. And he hated the Jews in the Trump administration. “Trump is surrounded by kikes,” he complained.

The media responded to Bowers’ attack by going after Jews.

The Atlantic decided to publish an execrable blood libel by Franklin Foer which called for "shunning Trump’s Jewish enablers. Their money should be refused, their presence in synagogues not welcome." Julia Ioffe, who had previously been fired for a Trump incest tweet, but was hired anyway by GQ, accused Trump of being responsible for the synagogue shooting. But not before blaming pro-Israel Jews.

The media isn’t just exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Trump. It’s even sickeningly exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Jews.

That isn’t opposing anti-Semitism. It’s engaging in it.

When you oppose anti-Semitism, then you oppose the murder of Jews. By Nazis and by Muslims.

By anyone. Period.

The Left’s position on the murder of Jews is wholly politically opportunistic. It opposed the murder of Jews by Hitler, and supported the murder of Jews by Stalin. And now it opposes the murder of Jews by neo-Nazis and supports the murder of Jews by Islamic terrorists.

Its moral preening after the Squirrel Hill shootings is the posturing of a depraved movement.

The same journalists and activists lecturing on Trump’s complicity in the massacre were outraged when he cut funding to the Palestinian Authority terrorists who are being paid to murder Jews.

On a November four years ago, two Muslim terrorists entered a synagogue in Har Nof, Jerusalem.

They used axes, knives and a gun to murder four Rabbis, three of them Americans. Photos showed a floor covered in blood and torn prayer books.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine which took responsibility for the attack is popular on college campuses. Its signage is often displayed by campus hate groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. British leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn was photographed with the attack mastermind.

And the payments to the terrorists continued, paid for with foreign aid from the United States.

President Trump has called for ruthless action against the Muslim and Neo-Nazi murderers of Jews. If the media wants to sincerely oppose anti-Semitism, it could take a lesson from him.

Or it can go on exploiting the Neo-Nazi murder of Jews to promote the agenda of the Islamist murderers of Jews.

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, October 29, 2018

A Brief History of Leftist Political Violence in 1 Year

On September 9, Rudy Peters, the Republican running for Congress in the 15th District in California, was attacked by a knife-wielding man shouting, "F___ Trump".

The attacker, Farzad Fazeli, an Iranian Clinton supporter, had previously posted, “Don Trump won’t clean his own house, so he’s too dirty to know right from wrong. Impeach/incarcerate him before more children die. P.S. complacency is worse than being the shooter.”

Next month, Shane Mekeland, a Republican running for the Minnesota House of Representatives, suffered a concussion after being punched in the face at a restaurant. “You f____g people don't give a s___ about the middle class,” his assailant had shouted at him.

Mekeland is back on the campaign trail, while still recovering from the assault. “The media and the likes of Maxine Waters, Hillary, and Eric Holder as of late is driving this behavior," he warned.

"If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, at a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere," Rep. Maxine Waters had urged an angry leftist mob.

Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general and a possible 2020 candidate, had urged, “When they go low, we kick them." He had tweeted at Democrats, urging them to, “Use the rage.”

Hillary Clinton had told CNN, "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about."

Senator Hirono had refused to condemn the harassment of Republicans, telling CNN, "This is the kind of activism that occurs and people make their own decisions. If they violate the law, then they have to account for that.”

That same month, also in Minnesota, State Rep. Sarah Anderson, a Republican, was punched by a man when she tried to stop him from vandalizing her campaign signs.

Also in October, Kristin Davison, the campaign chief for Adam Laxalt, the Republican candidate for governor in Nevada, was left with pain and bruises after a confrontation with a Democrat operative. Her alleged assailant faces a charge of misdemeanor battery.

Three violent attacks on Republican political figures in just one month alone earned almost no coverage in the media.

Instead the media egged it on. Even the country’s leading leftist papers urged greater displays of rage.

October editorials, columns and op-eds in the New York Times included headlines such as, "Get Angry, and Get Involved," "Tears, Fury or Action: How Do You Express Anger?", “Fury Is a Political Weapon And Women Need to Wield It.”

The explosion of violence against Republicans in October was the culmination of a climate of crazed hatred, which lead to death threats, and when those were unaddressed, to actual physical violence.

In the two months from May to June, 30 Republican members of Congress were attacked or threatened.

These included, Christopher Michael McGowan who warned Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s staff, "I am not making a joke. I will kill him." It included Steve Martan, a "pacifist", who threatened to shoot Rep. Martha McSally.

E. Stanley Hoff was arrested for leaving a message for Rep. Steve Stivers warning the Ohio Republican, "We're coming to get every g_____n one of you and your families. Maybe the next one taken down will be your daughter."

Messages aimed at Rep. Tom Garrett threatened, "This is how we're going to kill your wife", and "This is what I'm going to do to your daughters."

And Rep. David Kustoff was nearly run off the road.

In the middle of June, James Hodgkinson, a passionate Bernie Sanders supporter, opened fire at a Republican charity baseball practice, seriously wounding Rep. Steve Scalise, and Zack Barth, an aide to Rep. Roger Williams. Even though Hodgkinson had a hit list of conservative Republicans, Rep. Mo Brooks, South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan and Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Jim Jordan, Tennessee Rep. Scott DesJarlais and Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith, the FBI denied that it was a political assassination.

In August, Carlos Bayon was arrested for threatening House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. “We are not going to feed them sandwiches, we are going to feed them lead,” he declared.

Law enforcement found bomb and assassination manuals in Bayon’s house.

Around the same time, DeReal Finklin, a registered Democrat, was charged for sending death threats to Rep. Christopher H. Smith. DeReal had also posted, "Anybody outside of my blood in Monmouth or Ocean County on my Facebook account, you are dead."

In June, Laurence Wayne Key, a Democratic Party of Marin County volunteer, was arrested for threatening to kill Rep. Brian Mast’s three children.

“I’m going to find the Congressman’s kids and kill them. If you’re going to separate kids at the border, I’m going to kill his kids,” the Planned Parenthood supporter threatened.

In Florida, in June, Steve St. Felix was charged with threatening to kill Rep. Jose Felix Diaz.

“Ill kill your ass and you better not show up to the next rec meeting,” St. Felix, who can be seen grinning widely in his booking photo, warned.

In July, in Tennessee, Clifton Ward was indicted for threatening to kill Rep. Diane Black. In New York, Martin Astrof allegedly tried to run over one of Rep. Lee Zeldin’s campaign workers who had been recognized for feeding rescue workers at Ground Zero after 9/11.

Ian Nicholas Nix was arrested for threatening to kill South Carolina state Rep. Steven Long. Nix called Long “right-wing scum” and warned him, You’re a ____ dead man.”

Also in July, a man who threatened to chop up Senator Rand Paul and his family with an axe was

After months of this, the media did not relent. It poured more fuel on the fire. The death threats of summer then became the violent assaults of fall.

The media called this “activism”. It denounced Republicans for warning of “angry mobs”.

And now the very same media has suddenly decided that threatening and assaulting people whose politics you disagree with is wrong. As long as the political figures being assaulted are Democrats.

But it doesn’t work that way.

Democrats and their media allies have sanctioned violence against Republicans. They’ve defended harassment and even assaults as activism. They have embraced and celebrated hate groups. The mob culture they have brought forth is fundamentally changing the rules of American politics.

Once political terror is unleashed, it can’t be controlled or compartmentalized.

Leftists, who have written a bloody history of political terror from Europe to South America, from the Middle East and across Asia, and right back to America, ought to know that better than anyone else.

The Left has made it its mission to destroy America. This is what destroying a country looks like.

In academia, there is glib talk of overturning Western civilization. But without civilization, there is only savagery.

The mad toll of death threats and assaults, of shootings and harassment was unleashed by the Left. The hectoring media has made millions from it. Fortunes have poured into the war chests of radical Democrats. They can make it stop. Or they can go on feeding the beast while blaming conservatives.

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, October 25, 2018

A Historic Threat to Women

"Donald Trump represents a historic threat to women everywhere," Phil Murphy had declared.

Murphy was running for governor of New Jersey against a Republican woman. And he had decided to fully back the Women's March, a rally of radical leftists led by Farrakhan supporters, one of whom, Linda Sarsour, had been accused of covering up sexual abuse and harassment in her old workplace.

"Women aren’t afraid to fight back — and neither am I," bragged the leftist Democrat. "I’ll fight to stop sexual harassment and assault."

3 months later, Al Alvarez, a top Murphy aide, originally in charge of Muslim and Latino outreach, allegedly tried to rape one of the feminist candidate’s campaign volunteers.

According to Katie Brennan’s account, the Murphy aide got into her home by claiming that he needed to use the bathroom. He then forced her down on a couch, partially undressed her, undressed, groped her and tried to rape her. Brennan fled into the bathroom, locked the door and called her husband.

She went to the police, was evaluated for sexual assault, and waited for prosecutors to do their job.

A recent Wall Street Journal expose revealed that top Murphy officials, including his chief of staff, were aware of the allegations against Alvarez. Murphy won the governor’s race and, according to his communications director, “Mr. Alvarez received an offer of employment in state government.”

Meanwhile the Murphy team was touting its feminist credentials.

“For the first time in New Jersey’s 242 years, the majority of a Governor’s Cabinet appointments are female,” Governor Murphy boasted. “While it has taken too long to get to this first, I am proud to stand with this diverse group of leaders, all of whom are committed to building a stronger, fairer New Jersey that works for everyone.”

Everyone except the women sexually assaulted by Murphy staffers.

Katie Brennan was offered $15,000 and a non-disclosure agreement. She had repeatedly contacted the campaign about Alvarez. In June, she directly emailed Phil and Tammy Murphy.

Earlier this year, Tammy, New Jersey’s new First Lady, had appeared at the Garden State’s edition of the Women’s March to discuss her own alleged sexual assault as a college student.

According to Tammy Murphy, her assailant had tried to undress her, much as Alvarez allegedly had, and tried to silence her by stuffing an apple in her mouth. “If there has been a silver lining in the past year, it is in the thousands upon thousands of women who have found their voices to fight back. We will no longer accept the actions of men who believe they hold power over us, or our bodies,” she tweeted.

Except that her husband’s administration not only accepted Alvarez’s actions, it went on paying him.

And after the Wall Street Journal expose, Tammy lent her name to her husband for a joint statement full of damage control legalese. "We are confident that this allegation was handled appropriately by the administration and that current policies and procedures were properly and promptly followed,” it said.

Tammy had gone from, “we will no longer accept” to “this allegation was handled appropriately.”

After Katie wrote to Governor Murphy, the New Jersey Dem responded with, "Hang in. We are on it."

Almost half a year later, Katie grew tired of ‘hanging in’ and began talking to the media. Only then did Alvarez resign from his job as chief of staff of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.

Murphy had accused President Trump of being a “historic threat to women everywhere”, and allegedly guilty of "sexual harassment and assault", but it was the lefty Democrat pol with a walking smirk who was the one who had failed to take action against an accused rapist operating within his campaign and then his government. This potentially put women working for both his campaign and government at risk.

At September’s end, Governor Murphy threw a tantrum over the Kavanaugh hearings. He praised the “extraordinary courage” of Christine Blasey Ford for coming forward while ignoring one of his own people who had come forward with a clear and much more recent story of sexual assault.

"The presumption that you're guilty as a woman who raises her hand and says something happened to me ought to have all of our hair on fire," Governor Murphy ranted. "It angers me deeply.”

Murphy had known for a long time now about Alvarez, yet he hypocritically demanded that Kavanaugh, "ought to just pack up and leave town."

The only reason Alvarez had to pack up is that the Wall Street Journal did what Murphy wouldn’t.

Alvarez’s case is the third time that one of Murphy’s aides embedded in New Jersey’s notoriously corrupt educratic complex got him into trouble.

Murphy had hired Marcellus Jackson, a former Passaic councilman convicted of attempted extortion and sentenced to 25 months in prison, to work for the Department of Education.

After admitting his guilt, Jackson had declared, "I shall return." And return he did to a $70,000 job.

Governor Murphy tried to defend this grotesque abuse of power by playing the race card.

"It is invariably a person of color we’re talking about. This is New Jersey. It’s 2018. We have to get over ourselves," he whined. "We have to get to a better place and give folks — Marcellus and generations to come — a second chance.”

The “person of color” in question was a corrupt politician who had taken bribes to steer contracts.

Murphy also claimed that the information that Jackson was a convicted criminal had failed to come up during the legal review, and only somehow came to light later.

All they had to do was use Google.

Stories about Jackson’s conviction had appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post and countless local newspapers.

Then an aide was suspended for posting that the Trump administration consisted of “evangelical a---s”, and “molesters, liars, drunks, racists, heartless, bigots”.

Part of that rant seemed like a more accurate assessment of the Murphy administration.

Murphy, a smirking former Goldman Sachs executive, had picked up an ambassadorship to Germany, and had been named as the “largest personal giver to all federal candidates among nominees to date”. Personally backed by Obama, he had also served as the DNC’s finance committee chair.

Since seizing the governorship, the Murphy regime has ricocheted from one scandal to another.

Planned Parenthood had billed Murphy as “the candidate for women”. And Murphy had returned the favor by basing his claim that Trump posed a “historic threat to women” on Planned Parenthood.

It wasn’t the first time that Planned Parenthood had crawled into bed with dangerous politicians.

Planned Parenthood had backed Senator Al Franken, San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, Rep. Keith Ellison, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman , Senator Ted Kennedy, President Bill Clinton and other alleged rapists, gropers and abusers of women. Its promise that a politician will fight for women is more often a threat. But Planned Parenthood made just that promise about Governor Phil Murphy.

"New Jersey women need a governor who will stand strong to protect them," the abortion group wheedled.

But Phil Murphy didn’t protect women. He allowed his Muslim and Latino outreach aide to continue working for him, on the campaign and in the government, despite a rape accusation.

He didn’t protect Katie Brennan. And he didn’t protect Madison Wells.

The 16-year-old girl was stabbed to death by a Guatemalan illegal alien last month. Governor Murphy had declared, "We will stand up to this president. If need be, we will be a sanctuary not just city but state.” New Jersey became a sanctuary state. And a teenage girl lost her life. Others were raped.

Murphy accused Trump of representing a “historic threat to women”. There’s nothing historic about Murphy’s threat to women. It’s the same old threat of leftist politics which reduces the rights of women to the right to a speedy abortion after being raped by one of Murphy’s aides or one of his illegal aliens.

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, October 24, 2018

Khashoggi and Our Islamist Media

In 2014, Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post’s Tehran Bureau Chief, was arrested and spent two years in prison. Iran kept him in one of its worst prisons, he slept on a damp concrete floor, was denied medical treatment, experienced hallucinations due to sleep deprivation and was abused by his captors. His wife was told that her legs would be cut off and her husband would be thrown off a cliff if she didn’t confess.

While Jamal Khashoggi has often been misidentified as a Washington Post journalist, all he did for the radical leftist paper owned by Amazon’s CEO is write editorials promoting the Muslim Brotherhood agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood leader and former Bin Laden pal was never a journalist. The closest he came to it was acting as a terrorist propagandist in Afghanistan, glamorizing Osama bin Laden, on behalf of a man listed by the Treasury Department as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers.”

And yet the arrest and abuse of Jason Rezaian didn’t touch off a fraction of the outrage from his own paper as the possible death of Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of the Saudis. The media went through the usual formal protests, but the outrage was muted and there was no talk of sanctions. Instead, Rezaian, along with some other hostages, was illegally ransomed after two years by Obama for $400 million.

The media did not vigorously campaign to break off relations with Iran, as it now is with Saudi Arabia.

It didn’t push too hard out of fear of spoiling Obama’s dirty nuclear deal with Iran’s terrorist regime. And even the arrest may have taken place, according to some sources, because of Rezaian’s closeness with some regime figures.

The New York Times showily announced that it was suspending its pricey Saudi tours over Khashoggi, but it never stopped its Iranian tours, not over Rezaian’s imprisonment, or the killing, torture and rapes of Iranian protesters.

The Washington Post rolled out a special Jamal Khashoggi edition, but there was no special Jason Rezaian edition. There were fewer news stories about Rezaian’s imprisonment after two years than there have been after a week of Khashoggimania. The Post and the rest of the media did far less for Rezaian, one of their own, than they were willing to do for Khashoggi, a shady Islamist activist.


The answer has everything to do with the media’s political agendas. It is not concerned with human rights. And it’s even less interested in freedom of the press. It has no principles, only allegiances.

The media will always favor Islamist movements over non-Islamists.

The media underreacted to Rezaian’s arrest because it supported Iran’s Islamist government. It overreacted to Khashoggi’s disappearance because he is an Islamist leader. And under Mohammad bin Salman, the Saudis, once the hub of regional Sunni Islamism, turned against the Muslim Brotherhood.

The media is raving against Mohammad bin Salman because he opposes Iran and the Brotherhood. It repeats every piece of propaganda from Turkey and Qatar because they back the Muslim Brotherhood.

If the Saudis turn around and support the Muslim Brotherhood, the media will happily let them kill as many reporters, journalists, hacks and pundits as they like. The media does not care about human rights. It cares only about the triumph of Islamist political movements and it will tell any lie on their behalf.

The scandal of the Khashoggi case is not whatever the Saudis or anyone else did to Osama’s old friend. It’s that the Washington Post provided space for a Muslim Brotherhood leader to push the agenda of America’s enemies, and is colluding in a political campaign to overthrow the Saudi government.

The Washington Post is not “investigating” Khashoggi’s death, it’s spreading smears from the Turkish regime’s pet media while pressuring American lobbyists to drop the Saudis. Khashoggi’s death is just another tool for implementing regime change in Saudi Arabia and replacing its king with another ruler who will return the oil power to its usual stance of supporting Islamic terrorists and fighting Israel.

That’s what Khashoggi wanted. It’s what the Washington Post and the rest of the media want.

The truly disturbing thing is not Khashoggi’s death. It’s his life. Khashoggimania exposes an alliance between the media and the Islamists. Human rights is the cover for this red-green alliance, just as it was in the Iranian Revolution and the Arab Spring. The differing media reactions to Khashoggi and Rezaian, parallel the differing reactions to the Green Revolution and the Arab Spring, to human rights abuses in Egypt under Morsi and under Sisi, and in Turkey under military rule and under Erdogan.

There is a consistent pattern, not of human rights principles, but of Islamic expediency.

The media will occasionally report on human rights abuses by Islamists. But it will do so in a cursory fashion, without incendiary outrage or calls to action. It’s only when reporting on Islamist protests against non-Islamist regimes that the media will shift from being bystanders to becoming activists.

When human rights abuses occur in Islamist countries, such as Iran, the media will emphasize the importance of liberalizing them by maintaining ties with them. But when Islamists claim human rights abuses at the hands of our allies, such as Egypt, the media will urge us to break ties with them.

Saudi Arabia is only the latest to fall afoul of this ubiquitous double standard.

When the Saudis were sponsoring Islamist terrorists, including Al Qaeda, we were repeatedly lectured on the importance of maintaining relations with them in order to liberalize them. But once the Saudis actually began making some small steps toward liberalization, the media wants to break ties with them.

Like Khashoggi, the media does not want actual liberalization. When Khashoggi talked about democracy, human rights and freedom of speech, he meant those as political tools for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. And then, just as in Erdogan’s Turkey or Morsi’s Egypt, they would end.

Khashoggimania has proven beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that the media thinks the same way.

When the media wanted Saudi Arabia to liberalize, it didn’t mean women driving cars. It meant just enough political liberalization to enable Khashoggi and the Muslim Brotherhood to take over.

The media wants to do to Saudi Arabia what it did to Iran, and what it did to Egypt. When the media talks about, “liberalization” in the Middle East, read it as, “Islamization.”

The media did not form an alliance with Islamists of its own accord. Its pro-Islamist agenda is not the work of mere lobbyists, as some have claimed in the past, otherwise the Saudis would be riding high. Khashoggimania casts light on a deeper alliance between the red elites of America and the green elites of the Middle East, between Qatar, Turkey and Iran, and between a radical establishment in America.

Both the red and the green elites fuse revolutionary ideological movements with state power. Our red media echoes the conspiracy theories and talking points of the green media of Turkey and Qatar. Neither are a free or independent press in any truly meaningful sense of the term. The Washington Post and Al Jazeera are just two sides of the same coin. Khashoggimania is a shared regime change operation.

Every Islamist regime change operation has been advanced under the guise of human rights. It’s time that we stopped being fooled by the same lies, and started asking some hard questions. After the Iranian Revolution and the Arab Spring, those questions are more urgent than ever.

The media has spent the better part of a year regaling us with conspiracy theories about foreign collusion. Why is it colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood on regime change operations by lying to Americans, just as it did in Egypt, Libya and Syria, and how will it be held accountable?

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, October 22, 2018

The Plot Against the Supreme Court

Why did the Democrats launch an unprecedented smear campaign against a Supreme Court nominee?

The matrix of motives centers on a cynical midterm ploy to boost turnout, appeal to suburban female voters in swing states and, hopefully, defer the nomination to a Dem Senate.

But that’s the short game, not the long game.

The attack on Brett Kavanaugh was not just an assault on a man, but an attack on an institution.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old and Stephen Breyer is 80 years old. Presidential incumbents tend to win reelection. Even if the Democrats take the Senate, the odds are good that they won’t be able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until 2025.

That’s a long time away, and a lot can happen until then.

Even if Breyer and Ginsburg manage to stay in the game until a Democrat makes it into the White House, with Kavanaugh’s appointment the Supreme Court has taken on a 5-4 conservative tilt for the next seven years. It’s been a century since the Supreme Court has been this conservative.

Conservative justices have less power than lefty justices. The latter can create laws, in defiance of the constitution, while the former eliminate them, in deference to the constitution.

But those seven years can still undermine a great portion of the big government project. And, along with other judicial appointments, can neuter the radical judiciary’s effort to block President Trump’s policies.

Stopping Kavanaugh was always a longshot. But the real target was the Supreme Court.

The Democrats have a plan for taking the White House. It’s called Mueller. They have a plan for taking the House and the Senate. It’s identity politics. But they don’t want to take the Court, they want to kill it.

The Supreme Court was meant to serve as a check on the power of the other branches. That makes it the least useful branch of government. The Court is most useful to the Left when a Republican is in the White House. But it’s also most dangerous when a Republican is in the White House because he could potentially appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.

During much of the previous century, the risk of a Republican president appointing conservatives to the Court was slight because the Democrats often controlled the Senate and the GOP judicial bench was often drawn from a liberal establishment that had defined the Republicans of the past. But the rise of the Federalist Society, the increasing conservatism of the GOP and the willingness of voters to back single party control of the executive and legislative branches have been changing all that.

The Democrats had largely used the Supreme Court as an unelected legislature. Legislating through the Court was more useful because it has the fewest checks against it of all the branches of government. But as the checks against legislative and executive abuses come apart, the Left has less need for the Court.

That’s why there’s now open talk on the Left of getting rid of it.

Such schemes range from relatively modest assaults on the constitution, such as a revival of the court packing schemes that FDR and Obama have threatened to wield against the Court’s constitutional independence, to more grandiose cries for term limits or the abolition of the Supreme Court.

The Democrats have staked their long-term bet on the emergence of a new majority-minority voting bloc that will fundamentally transform America. They complain that the equal representation of small and large states in the Senate impedes the rise of this bloc, which is more present in California than Wyoming. They whine about the Electoral College, rather than the popular vote, making presidents.

And they fume that minority turnout in midterm elections still remains weak. That’s why their Kavanaugh midterm gambit was aimed at radicalizing gender, not race.

Had this been a presidential election, Kavanaugh would have been accused of being a racist. Since it was a midterm election, the Left smeared him as a rapist. The campaign had been politically calculated from its first Roe v. Wade messaging down to the final mass of unproven and unprovable smears.

The Supreme Court, with its small bench and lifetime appointments, its White House nominations and its Senate chokepoint, is the body most resistant to populist whims. To control the Supreme Court, the Left has to get past the Electoral College and the Senate, and it doesn’t think the work is worth it.

Why put in all the effort to legislate from the bench, when you can just legislate?

The existence of the Supreme Court used to offer more reward than risk. Now it’s more risk than reward. The Left used the Court to build the infrastructure of big government. The House and the Senate have made hardly any dents in that infrastructure. Most Republican administrations and legislatures have only built it up instead. It’s the Supreme Court that has occasionally demolished it.

The Supreme Court is unique of all the branches in enjoying the least benefit from the power of government, beyond the vicarious ideological thrill of moving it to the left or to the right. The executive and legislative branches create powers that they exercise when they expand the scope of government. The indirect power of the Court shields conservative justices from the corrupting effects of power.

(Not wholly or completely, as history and current events have shown us, but less than the others.)

Big government has become so large that conservative justices can now wield more power by undoing government, than radical justices can by building it, reversing the equation of risk and reward.

And so, it’s safer for the Left to neuter or get rid of the Supreme Court.

The attack on Brett Kavanaugh was not an assault on a man, but on an institution. The Left did not really expect to keep him off the bench. What it truly sought to do was to tarnish the Supreme Court.

This was not just an act of petty ideological spite.

If the Left can’t have the Supreme Court, it will do its best to destroy it. Attacking nominees in very ugly personal terms sets the state for delegitimizing the institution by delegitimizing the men. It opens the door to the next stage of the plot against the Court, investigations of justices and a push for term limits.

The Left has made it abundantly clear that after Kavanaugh, it intends to pursue both courses.

When conservatives bitterly opposed Supreme Court decisions, they were advised to play by the rules, wait and change the composition of the Court. And that’s exactly what they have successfully done. But the Left does not play by the rules. It will not wait around for 2025. It has a plan and it is already acting.

The Left made it clear after Trump won that it wouldn’t wait until 2020 or 2024. It’s not going to wait for the Supreme Court either. Its answer to Trump’s victory was the Mueller investigation and blatant obstruction of his authority at every level of government still controlled by its apparatchiks.

Individuals are being attacked to undermine institutions. Destroy Trump and you destroy the legitimacy of presidential elections. Go after Kavanaugh and you crush the standing of the Supreme Court.

And then all that’s left is a baying media mob dispensing its talking points to angry activists.

That’s not just how they came after Trump and Kavanaugh. It’s how the Left wants to run this country with no process and no laws beyond those of the lynch mob, the media and an unelected bureaucracy.

The smearing of Kavanaugh is a plot against the Supreme Court and a conspiracy against 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.

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

Thank you for reading.

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Planned Parenthood Endorsed Him, Then He Bit a Woman

State Senator Jeff Woodburn was the New Hampshire Senate Minority Leader, a frequent Trump critic and the former chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

Planned Parenthood’s New Hampshire Action Fund endorsed Woodburn. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England put money behind him. And Woodburn declared that he was “proud” to have the abortion organization’s support and to be a “strong advocate for women's health.”

Except maybe the health of the woman whom he is accused of biting and punching in the stomach.

A progressive politician, Senator Woodburn had regularly voted for abortion, gun control and repealing the death penalty. He cosponsored a bill to prohibit discrimination based on “gender identity” and pushed for legalizing marijuana. When the Democrats rolled out their Russian conspiracy theories after losing the election, he demanded a crackdown on vodka sales in New Hampshire.

"I didn’t realize there were so many Russian vodka connoisseurs," he fumed.

At the 2015 New Hampshire Democratic Convention, Woodburn spoke alongside Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and many other top national Dems. ”Onward! We need a Democratic Senate in the next election,” he bellowed at a joyless room of frowning millennial Bernie supporters and frumpy Clinton ‘H’ banner wavers. “We’ll get things done. We’ll serve the people!”

Hillary for New Hampshire held an open house with Senator Woodburn who led “a discussion on Hillary Clinton's plan for a vibrant rural America”. After the Access Hollywood tape came out, Woodburn urged, “It is time for each state Senate candidate to condemn, withdraw support for Donald Trump.”

And then in August, Senator Woodburn was arrested for allegedly biting a woman. The progressive politician was also accused of punching her, the first female County Democrat chair, in the stomach.

The feminist politician allegedly punched his fiancé, a social worker, former Dem chair and mother of two sons, in the stomach on Christmas Eve while she was wrapping Christmas presents.

New Hampshire Democrats had previously touted the woman allegedly assaulted by Woodburn as, “the first female in Coos history to become a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.”

But the Dems appear to be much less interested in the 35-year-old Bernie supporter now than when she was in a relationship with Woodburn, a party top dog twenty years older than her, who backed Hillary.

She’s no longer making their kind of history. Instead she’s making the wrong kind of history.

According to her account, as relayed by the attorney general’s office, “the victim said to him, ‘You just punched me in the stomach’ and he reportedly replied something to the effect of ‘oh did I hurt you…I’m sorry’ in a mocking manner.”

The biting allegedly happened when Woodburn tried to grab the wheel of the car as his fiancé was driving the drunken Democrat back from his birthday party which also doubled as a political fundraiser. After pulling over, “The victim said that Mr. Woodburn then proceeded to bite her left hand in the area of the palm and wrist as she reached for his phone.”

Photos of her hand have been released. They appear to show significant bruising and swelling where the Planned Parenthood endorsed politician allegedly bit her.

Senator Woodburn is claiming self-defense.

Despite Senator Woodburn’s arrest and trial, the nine domestic violence charges, four counts of assault, his progressive party is sticking with him. He is no longer the Minority Leader, but otherwise he isn’t going anywhere.

So much for believing all women.

“No one present supported calling for the Senator’s resignation,” acting county party Chairman Theodore Bosen said. And, a press release stated, “No one present believed he would fail to be re-elected or that his pending charges would hurt the party’s prospects this fall.”

They were right.

Woodburn easily won the Democrat primary against a write-in candidate with over 65% of the vote. The alleged domestic abuser took over 2 votes for every 1 by his female challenger.

"They’ve given me the job and they’re the only ones who can take it away," Senator Woodburn had said, explaining his refusal to resign.

And the Democrats chose to stand by their man while ignoring their woman.

Senator Woodburn had previously defeated Republican Dolly McPhaul by a sizable margin in 2016. He beat a previous female Republican challenger in 2012 by an even bigger margin. And it seems likely that, despite his upcoming trial, Woodburn will win again. Because the Democrats will stand with him.

The left likes to claim that it believes women. That its political movement is feminist and stands against abuse. Even while a tour featuring Bill and Hillary Clinton is becoming the hottest ticket in town.

The investigation of Keith Ellison’s allegations of domestic abuse has been rigged. Anthony Weiner, a close Clinton ally, is due to leave prison early for good behavior. Eric Schneiderman, another top New York Democrat, had gotten away with choking and abusing women for years.

One of his alleged victims wrote, “Three of my close friends told me to keep quiet because Eric's work was so important to the progressive cause.”

Schneiderman, like Woodward, Franken, Filner, Ellison and Ted Kennedy, and many other alleged abusers of women, was close to Planned Parenthood. And even after the allegations went public, Planned Parenthood attacked Kellyanne Conway for criticizing him. Democrats will drop abusers, when their abuses go national enough to become an embarrassment, but otherwise they will stick by them.

New Hampshire Democrats have played the same double game with Woodburn, as some national Democrats are doing with Keith Ellison, condemning him in word, but doing nothing about him in deed.

Woodburn, Schneiderman, Filner, Franken, Ellison, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton were able to thrive because the Democrats made their victims, their friends, the media and any potential allies feel that they would be betraying the cause of women’s rights if they made these accusations of abuse public.

The twisted logic of the left demanded that women accept their abuse to protect “women’s rights”.

Democrat abusers have frequently drawn their victims from the ranks of leftist activists. That was true of Ellison, Franken, Schneiderman and Woodburn. Their politics aren’t incidental to their abusers; it’s how they attract their victims. They tout their Planned Parenthood credentials before the chokings, the beatings and the assaults begin. And they are enabled by a party that believes all women.

Except those women who accuse their own leaders.

When attacking President Trump, Senator Woodburn wrote of his empathy for his more felonious constituents. "With most of the state’s incarcerated men being in my district, I’m a regular visitor to our prisons. I recall touring the hobby shop, where long-term inmates learn the skills to craft beautiful things."

Perhaps one day, Senator Woodburn will also learn to craft beautiful things.

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.