Thursday, May 17, 2018

The Religion of Racism

Obama once called slavery, “America’s original sin”. Jim Wallis, a member of Obama’s White House Faith Council, has a book out titled, "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege".

Accusations of sinfulness usually tell us more about the values of the accuser than the accused.

If racism is America’s original sin, then its redemption lies in anti-racism. For liberal theologians, Christian and Jewish, who no longer believe in the traditional biblical sins, racism is a godsend. It provides the moral drama of damnation and redemption, confession and absolution, in a way that is compatible with the larger secular culture and their own political ambitions.

Fighting racism isn’t just a cause, it’s a religion. And all that remains of major religious denominations.

The most resonantly dramatic events for Christian and Jewish liberal denominations remain the fight against slavery and the struggles of the civil rights movement. They revisit and recreate them ceaselessly. And each protest movement, whether it’s Muslim migrants at airports, illegal aliens from El Salvador at the border or Black Lives Matter racists at coffee shops, is a religious revival experience.

The trouble is that the hunt for this particular sin has come to pervade our legal system, taint workplaces, terrorize campuses and unleash social media mobs on random offenders. We are not in a libertine age just because sexual morality is as dead as disco and drugs are on the verge of being legalized. The sins of traditional morality have been replaced by an even more ruthless moral code.

Employees, employers, students and businessmen still fear being fired, expelled and hounded out of society for offending the sensibilities of a fanatical sect and its zealous enforcers. They hide behind hypocrisy, denouncing others while living in terror that their own private offenses will be outed.

A drunken tweet, an indiscreet joke or a mere implication can end even the most respected career.

The religion of racism has become a twisted creed that has perverted its own origins. What began as a unitary effort to bring together different races around religion has instead become a cult that uses its beliefs to divide us with white people as perpetual sinners and black people as unstained saints.

Its fetishization of black victimhood is bad for black people and its conviction that white people are inherently sinful is bad for everyone. As real racism has diminished, its conviction in the ubiquity of this particular sin has not. Fighting the overt discrimination of segregation turned into hunting for covert bigotry by working backward through disparate impact creating a guilt through lack of association.

If black people weren’t visiting national parks or living in sufficient numbers in Utah, it was evidence that national parks and Utah were racist. Racism was no longer something to be discovered by witnessing its presence, but by noting the absence of some ideal multicultural diversity statistic. Civil rights shifted from lifting state sanctions that mandated discrimination against black people to imposing state sanctions that mandated discrimination on behalf of black people. Like the segregationists, they were abusing government power to impose the version of the ideal racial balance that they wanted to see.

The absence of the realization of this vision became its own evidence of racial sinfulness.

One fundamental difference between a free society and an oppressive society is that the former punishes bad behavior while the latter punishes the absence of good behavior. A free society, such as America, punishes theft. An oppressive society, such as the Soviet Union, punished the failure to work.

When civil rights shifted from punishing mandatory segregation to punishing the lack of integration, it ceased to be a movement pursuing freedom and instead became a totalitarian movement.

Racism diminished, but the religious, emotional and financial need for its existence on the part of the religion of racism did not. Their mission became manufacturing racism. The most mundane interactions were reinterpreted through the discriminating eye of the microaggression. Otherwise neutral institutions were accused of pervasive whiteness. Racism ceased to be an observable interaction between individuals and became the unseen gluonic binding block of all social matter in America.

The religion of racism had reached its logical conclusion. It was no longer the absence of black people, but the presence of white people that was racist. Racism was America’s original sin. White people carried it everywhere with them like radiation. To be white was to have your body and your mind, your thoughts, your writings and even the inanimate objects around you be infected by racial radioactivity.

Racism was no longer an objectively measurable phenomenon. It had taken on all the characteristics of metaphysics. It was everywhere and yet undetectable. It was transmitted by the immutable nature of race, a phenomenon that was paradoxically a construct and yet inflexibly inescapable.

Every tragedy, grievance and outrage was ultimately attributed to this primal evil and original sin.

Political opposition to Obama, poor water management decisions, infant mortality rates, environmental shifts, the vagaries of entertainment industry casting, gun violence and a thousand others could be put down to racism. The religion of racism, like all religion, had found something that explained everything.

To understand America, all you had to do was understand racism. And then you would know that we were a country perpetually divided between privileged white people and powerless minorities.

Implicit bias is the final catechism of a faith in racism. It is a pseudo-religious ritual whose purpose is to force its victims to confess their sins and assert its doctrinal belief in the innate racism of white people. Like all cults, it does this through the familiar brainwashing process of challenging and breaking down identity, through twisted reasoning and emotional abuse, and then reconstructing it in its own image.

To its believers, implicit bias is the truth that we are all racist. But that we can be saved from our racism by confessing it. Activism is penance. Denounce others and you too can make it to multicultural heaven.

The religion of racism has the right to believe in its hateful creed. What it does not have the right to do is enforce it on others. And yet the left has made a mockery of the separation of church and state by making its own secular religion, obsessed with planetary and racial damnation, into a national creed.

And, like all efforts at imposing a religion, it has led to a religious war which some call a culture war.

The religion of racism is less concerned with actual racists, than with racial unbelievers. The ultimate heresy, the one it’s rooting out with implicit bias and extreme prejudice, is that racism isn’t everywhere. And it’s not a burning national crisis that requires handing out unlimited witch hunting powers.

The theocrats of social justice prefer opposing views to skepticism. The existence of racists reaffirms their belief in the defining power of racism. It’s the skeptics of racism who are the real threat.

If you don’t believe that racism is significant, you challenge their entire reason for being.

And the religion of racism meets these challenges by manufacturing a racial crisis as it strings together anecdotal incidents from a Waffle House to a New York City apartment to a student dorm to a coffee shop, to support its unified field theory of universal bigotry and suppress skepticism about its powers.

The puritanical panic has less to do with fear of racism than the emotional needs of the witch hunters. Informing on your neighbors, denouncing fellow students and becoming the center of attention is emotionally fulfilling for the same psychological reasons that it was for the Salem accusers, the Parisian mobs of the French Revolution and the rampaging Communist students of the Cultural Revolution.

But beyond the twisted psychology of the activist accusers, the judges of kangaroo courts and the town criers of the media eager for scalps, the human sacrifice of the purge releases social tensions. This was the social function of human sacrifice. The shocking spectacle of bloodletting, the mob psychology and adrenaline release, relieved the fears and anxieties bedeviling society and left them feeling cleansed.

The constant hunt for scapegoats is a feature of an anxious society fearful for the future. Social justice scapegoating gives a generation on the edge of history a temporary sense of control by abusing others.

The left likes to believe that it’s a positive movement, defined by its utopian aspirations, not its brutal tactics. But it is a movement built on fear and hate, on a historical inevitability that is premised not on human progress, but on human collapse, on inescapable problems and necessarily ruthless solutions.

The religion of racism isn’t unique to America. But there is something special about it in this country. It stinks of the soured beliefs of liberal religious denominations, their loss of faith in God and man, and their growing conviction that salvation lies only in men wielding the unlimited power of their governments.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the following link 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, May 16, 2018

Attacking Israel for $100, Defending it for $13

Hamas supporters in Gaza held the world’s first peaceful protest with hand grenades, pipe bombs, cleavers and guns. And Israeli soldiers peacefully defended their country leaving multiple Hamas attackers at peace. The Great Hamas March of Return came with instructions to, "bring a knife, dagger, or handgun, if you have one, and to leave them under your clothes and not use them or show them, except if you identify one of the soldiers or settlers."

"We will tear down the border," Hamas Prime Minister Yahya Sinwar had peacefully vowed. "And we will tear out their hearts from their bodies."

But the only hearts his terror thugs tore out were already bleeding with sympathy for Islamic terrorists and bile for the Israelis they were there to kill with those knives, daggers and guns.

The Hamas mob chanted, “Allahu Akbar” and the genocidal racist threat of, “Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud," a reference to the primal Islamic massacre of the Jews. While IDF soldiers held back the invaders, the jets of the IAF targeted the snake’s head striking Hamas compounds and outposts. By 5.30 PM, the Hamas organizers changed course and began urging the thugs away from further fence attacks.

Hamas had offered $100 to every rioter. During previous violent assaults back in April, the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group had been offering $200 to anyone shot by Israelis, $500 for severe injuries and $3,000 to the dead.

$100 a day may not seem like a lot, but the Israeli teen soldiers they’re trying to kill, earn $13 a day.

The Hamas supporting thugs are depicted as helpless, starving victims who can barely lift the firebombs they’re throwing at Israelis, but they make ten times as much as the Israeli soldiers they are there to kill.

Hamas can write all those checks to its aspiring killers because the cash is coming from Iran.

Last year, Senwar, whom Israel had released in exchange for captured Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit, had boasted that Iran was once again "the largest backer financially and militarily".

That comes out to an estimated $100 million a year.

With as many as 50,000 Hamas supporters in Gaza participating in the day’s attacks at $100 a head, over 1,000 allegedly injured at least $200 each, and another 52 allegedly killed at $3,000 each (there is no reason to treat Hamas casualty figures coming out of Gaza as anything other than propaganda), the whole thing cost Hamas and Iran $5.3 million. The unmarked cargo plane filled with foreign currency that Obama dispatched to Iran carried $400 million. That was part of a known $1.7 billion cash payment.

But the total Obama terror payments to Tehran may go as high as $33.6 billion.

Despite media misreporting, the Hamas mass fence attacks began back on March 30 and even though their Great March of Return was supposed to end in mid-May, the show proved to be unexpectedly popular in Tehran, Brussels and Berkeley, and the attacks will continue through at least June.

Even a single one of Obama’s cash smuggling runs to Iran is enough to fund attacks just like these for two and a half months. And the $100,000 that an Iranian group offered to anyone who blows up the embassy? That illegal cash run can pay for bounties on every American diplomatic facility in the world.

Lefties bemoaning Israel’s moral authority can look up and follow the money trail from Iran’s IRGC (the terror mothership whom Obama resisted sanctioning), to the unmarked cargo planes from Obama, and to their own greasy little fingers that pushed the button or marked the ballot for him. The Israeli teens in IDF khaki with rules of engagement for using force longer than some graduate thesis papers are dealing with a problem from hell created by Democrat voters who wanted to feel inspired by Obama.

The cost of that inspiration today ran to dozens dead. If the Israeli teens shooting in self-defense lack moral authority, where is the moral authority of the Obama voters whose votes financed the attack?

Those Israeli teens in green earn $408 a month if they're in a combat unit. Before a raise a few years ago, they weren't even earning $300. Support units earn $327 and rear units $225. Not only is that far lower than the average civilian salary, but if often hardly covers living expenses. Dodging the draft isn’t hard these days. The average red-shirted hipster does it easily, putting in a few years at a fake startup before heading to Berlin to protest Zionism. And those who serve know if that they make a single mistake, if they shoot an attacker who turns out not to be armed, Israeli leftists will see them jailed.

Hamas supporters charge at them for $100 a day. And IDF soldiers hold the line for $400 a month.

So why for $400 a month, do Israeli soldiers face down mobs of tens of thousands of Hamas supporters baying for their blood? The average IDF soldier who reports for duty comes from one of the Judean communities (slurred as settlements) under attack by Hamas or from development towns in the north under attack by Hezbollah. He is often a religious settler who sees the hand of G-d in the high hills or a descendant of Mizrahi immigrants whose recent ancestors were oppressed under Muslim rule.

When your family lives under fire, holding the line on the Hamas mob isn’t an abstract idea of duty.

The Hamas invaders were there to kill Israelis. The Israeli soldiers were there to protect Israelis. The attackers were invading someone else’s land while the defenders were protecting their own country.

That’s why Hamas has to pay its rioting thugs ten times as much as Israeli soldiers earn to attack them.

While the $100 a day thugs threw rocks and firebombs, the professional terrorists hung back waiting for a breach in the fence. Some were caught planting bombs. And killed. They are among the 10 known Hamas terrorists killed in the Gaza fighting and bemoaned by the media as victims of a Jewish massacre.

The $400 a month Israeli teenager with a rifle is there as the front line in case the fence is breached. Hamas wants to take more hostages to free more terrorists. If it can’t do that, it will kill them. And if the attackers make it past the soldiers, they will hit Israeli towns and villages hoping to kill anyone they find.

While the fence holds up, the Hamas terrorists and their supporters sent flaming kites in the hopes of setting Israeli farms and fields on fire. One such attack had already destroyed 400 acres of wheat.

A sympathetic New York Times piece from last week described the "flaming-kite squadrons" prepping hundreds of fire kites, but unfortunately, "The wind was blowing the other way."

“The wind is still against us,” Ismail al-Qrinawi whined. “We are waiting for it to pick up so we can fly tens of kites and burn their crops." Instead, "the direction of the wind not only thwarted the kites, but also blew copious amounts of Israeli tear gas toward the protesters."

Pharaoh and his legions had the same bad experience with the wind. G-d must be an Islamophobe.

Hamas organized the invasion. It urged its human shields to head to the fence telling them that the Israelis had run away. That was the same way Egypt’s Nasser had tricked Jordan’s King Hussein during the Six Day War. Instead of defeating the Israelis and salvaging Gaza, Nasser’s scheme led to the liberation of Jerusalem, along with Judea and Samaria by the indigenous Jewish people. And it also had disastrous consequences for this latest attempted invasion by Egyptian-Jordanian settlers into Israel.

While the Hamas supporters were destroying their own crossing point infrastructure, as they had previously trashed their own gas lines, the United States was inaugurating the opening of an embassy in Jerusalem. Despite media misinformation, the riots predated the embassy and will postdate it.

The media used contrasting photos of the embassy opening and the Pallywood fake photos of protesters crying for the cameras and pretending to limp on crutches to smear Israel and America. And as usual they missed the real story. While Israelis and Americans were building something, Muslim terrorists were destroying everything they could get their hands on. While Rabbis and Pastors blessed, Imams cursed.

Hamas Sheikh Iyad Abu Funun had sworn on the Koran that, "We will not leave a single Jew on our Islamic land." It did not matter, “whether left-Wing, right-wing, secular, religious, or extremist.”

That is what this is about.

The dedication of the embassy is a leap of faith. Faith in building rather than destruction. Faith in life instead of death. Faith in the G-d who watches over Jerusalem, not the Allah for whom Gaza burns.

UPDATE: New Israeli information states that it's a $100 subsidy per family for rioters.

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, May 15, 2018

How Not To Get Shot by a Soldier

The following is intended to serve as a useful guide to various activists, protesters and other completely non-violent folk who happen to be packing knives, guns, rocks and grenades. You will encounter various law enforcement and military personnel-- this is how not to get shot by them.

First of all it's important to remember that if you attack an armed man in a uniform, he will very probably shoot you.

Even given the most restrictive Rules of Engagement in the world which forbid him from opening fire unless he is outnumbered 600 to 1, and only when he has been given specific authorization by the UN to use deadly force-- there will still come a time when he will open fire on you. This will occur when he feels that he or his comrades are in danger. At this point there will be bullets headed your way, and no matter what you learned at your Madrassa or in Protest Studies at Evergreen State High University, you are not bulletproof. Really, you're not.

The good news is that there is a very easy way not to get shot.

Step 1. Don't attack soldiers.

Step 2. When in doubt, see Step 1.

That means not trying to disembowel them with your peaceful knife and not throwing rocks at their head. Because while you might think that legal activism includes attempted murder, the men in uniform think that attempted murder should result in sudden death. And when that happens you will realize that fanatical passion for your poorly thought out cause and a medieval weapon are no match for trained soldiers who have guns and know how to use them.

The thing to remember is that while just about every revolution you read about does involve a crowd of people rushing at armed men, those people usually end up dead or in a lot of pain. You should expect to have the same thing happen to you. Putting on a Kefiyah or a pair of Birkenstocks does not exempt you from the laws of physics, or the code of common sense. Putting your wacky beliefs about a pedophile who rode a flying horse in a dream aside, if you attack someone, you should expect them to respond. And if they have a gun, they will respond with bullets.

At that point you will either become a martyr or the world's ugliest man.

Since the dawn of time, men have guarded the borders of their nations. The border indicates that the lands within are the possession of their tribe and their chieftain. That border may only be crossed with the permission of the laws of the people who rule over it. To cross that border without their permission is to invite war, or at least a shower of arrows, spears or more lately, bullets. To cross that border for hostile purposes is to take your life in your hands. And unless you have an army with you, those hands are slick, greasy and operated by a mind completely devoid of common sense.

Similarly since the dawn of time men have responded blow for blow, rock for rock and fist for fist. If you claim to be non-violent, that may remove from you the risk of suffering preemptive violence, but it does not give you license to engage in violence yourself under the dubious shield of words. Because words are only good for fighting other words. Once you have a weapon out, then you have put words such as "non-violence" or "pacifist" or "youth" aside. You have given up the moral protection of presumed innocence, for a life and death struggle. And if you do not have the stomach for the consequences of that struggle, then you should not raise that knife or that stone. Because there will be no use complaining afterward about disproportionate violence.

It is also written in the codes of common sense, that only the attacker can be guilty of disproportionate violence, not the defender.

It is the business of the defender only to repel you with as little damage to himself as possible. If you have a rock, you should not expect him to put down his gun, and throw rocks at you. And if you have a knife, you should not expect him to set aside his gun for a sharp blade. This is not a duel of honor, but an exchange of force intended to result in injury or death. His business is not to mete out an equivalent level and method of force to yours, but to dispatch you as quickly as possible. Prior to your attack on him, his concern was for your safety. After your attack on him, his concern is only for his own.

What you need to understand is that for you violence is political. To soldiers and law enforcement officers, violence is only a tool. In your mind, your attempt to kill is noble, while his attempt to kill you is vile and cruel. In his mind however there is an equation, violence set against violence.

He does not particularly care what you believe, just that you not attack him while you are believing it. To you he is only a rage puppet in a political or religious narrative. To him, once you attack you are nothing more than a moving target. Understanding this will help you to not get shot. Failing to understand this is how martyrs are made. But the thing about martyrdom is that the health plan is terrible and there's no long term prospects to it at all.

The difference between terrorists and and soldiers, is that terrorists want to kill people, but lack the necessary skills to do it well. While soldiers have the skills to kill people, but would rather not do it. When angry people with rocks, knives, crowbars and a few guns attack trained personnel with guns, the victory goes to the people who are trained to kill, not to those who want to kill. And when the blooded radicals complain about disproportionate force, what they're really doing is whining about how surprisingly hard it is to kill people.

The average radical, lefty or Islamic, is as stupid as he is vicious. His cleverness exhausts itself in invective and rhetoric, which he discovers has surprisingly little application in a firefight. What is left is a would be murderer who rather late in the game discovers that he is trying to kill people, who are better at killing than he is. And that he came woefully unprepared for the encounter. Part of his misguided thinking is the belief that a knife or a rock are more moral weapons than a gun. They are not. A gun is the most moral weapon invented because it is efficient, quick and deadly. Killing a man with a knife is positively horrifying compared to shooting him in the head. Soldiers and law enforcement officers understand this. Subconsciously so do radicals, which is why they long for the knife, the rock and the nail studded bombs. If they kill, they prefer to be brutal and cruel about it.

The terrorist is utterly terrible at the art of war, but excels at the art of making his innocent victims suffer. The soldier dispatches his targets quickly and cleanly. For the terrorist however, inflicting agony is the sadistic purpose of the entire exercise. The suicide bomber gives himself a quick death, while mutilating those in his vicinity. He spreads horror and shock. And of course terror.

But the media finds something awful about the soldier who executes his target with one round to the head, and something faintly heroic about the suicide bomber "making a statement" by taking away the arms of a 13 year old girl. Because the media radicals admire murderous passion, but find something horrible about the detachment of the soldier just doing his job. To kill horribly because of passion is somehow better in their eyes, than to kill cleanly and dispassionately to keep the people around you safe.

But terrorists only exist when they are tolerated. And they are tolerated by people who do not think like soldiers, but think like the media. Who want to find ways of making terrorists less angry, rather than finding ways to make more terrorists dead. Such people write narrowly restrictive rules of engagement, prosecute soldiers for defending themselves, and are outraged when a bullet prevents a massacre, rather than being outraged by the planned massacre instead.

But let us be clear about it. When you pick up a knife or a rock or a gun, you are not facing the politicians or the generals who answer to them. You are facing men who bear you no particular ill will, but do want to get home to their families that night or that month or that week. And if you do anything that risks interfering with that, they will shoot you.

They are just guarding the front lines. They are not politicians. They just have guns and know how to use them. And if you attack them, you will die. And in that moment you will realize that neither your moving poems or your Koran, will do you the least bit of good. Because while you have the passion, they have the training. And the best to not be shot by men trained in the art of violence, is to put down the knife, the rock or the gun and walk the other way.

(A Spanish translation of this article kindly undertaken by Rafael can be found at his blog here)

Monday, May 14, 2018

The Incredible Narcissism of Hillary and Comey

Hillary Clinton is 5’4. Former FBI boss James Comey is 6’8. But they have one important thing in common.

Both Clinton and Comey put themselves first.

Hillary launched her spiteful book tour without any regard for what it would do to her party. No amount of frustration from her fellow Democrats would dissuade her from cashing in and lashing out at her enemies. And no amount of frustration from fellow FBI agents, including Comey’s own Bureau confidants, could dissuade him from cashing in and lashing out at Trump across a thousand talk shows.

Hillary Clinton’s book tour damaged Dem prospects. Comey’s book tour harms the investigation. Its entire existence violates FBI rules. Much as Clinton’s book hurt her likely Dem successors.

But both bitter book tours are the work of selfish, spiteful and egotistical people who don’t care how much damage they do to the allies who trusted them as long as they make money and settle scores.

It’s only fitting that Comey is using the same excuse that Hillary did for his leaks of classified information. “It wasn’t classified when I sent it.” It’s also inevitable that Comey, like Clinton, takes refuge in the same sort of legalistic technicalities to justify his wrongdoing. Did he leak the documents? No, he gave them to someone else to pass on to the media. Is that leaking? No, because he was already a “private citizen.”

Meanwhile Comey goes on claiming ignorance of the origins of the Fusion GPS dossier.

"When did you learn that the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele’s work?" FOX News's Bret Baier asked Comey.

Like Obama, Comey claimed to have only found out about the dossier's true origins from the media. After being pressed by Baier, he finally declared, "I wanted to know what I knew."

The technical term for that is, “Plausible deniability”.

Or the most honorable and principled plausible deniability that $10 million can buy.

Comey, like Clinton, always sounds like he’s answering questions at a deposition, even when he’s at a media interview, and his replies are littered with lawyerese like, “Not to my recollection” and “my understanding”.

Spot which ‘understanding’ answers in a television interview came from Comey and Clinton.

"Well, my understanding of what happened is that the State Department had e-mails that they gave to the committee that was formed."

"Okay, my understanding was the activity was begun, that, that Steele was hired to look into was first funded by Republicans."

Yes, they both speak the same way.

“My understanding” means that I’m going to put forward something that is misleading while limiting my liability for doing so because I can claim that I ‘misunderstood’ its actual meaning. “Not to my recollection” means that I’m going to lie, but if you catch me, I’ll claim that I forgot about it. Oops.

Or as Comey put it, when asked if he’d told Obama about the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier.

“No, not to my recollection.”

Comey’s recollections have been known to change over time. As have Hillary Clinton’s.

Mr. Comey, like Mrs. Clinton, doesn’t know anything, whether he’s testifying in the Senate or to CNN. But when a public official answers, “Not to my recollection” and “my understanding” in TV interviews, he or she is reflexively answering questions in a way that avoids legal liability even when there isn’t any.

Comey and Clinton both suffer from the same brand of legalistic paranoia of career cover-uppers. It’s why Comey circulated the Clinton draft among people like Strzok and got him to do the dirty work. It’s why Comey passed on a memo to his pal, who was also a lawyer, to be leaked to the media. (Expect that fake attorney-client relationship’s confidentiality to be honored, unlike that of Trump and his actual lawyer. But much like that of Hillary Clinton and her non-protected relationship with Cheryl Mills.)

Every decision that Comey made was done to protect his own career. He allowed Obama and Hillary allies to run their version of Watergate against Trump as long as his own fingerprints weren’t on it. Comey wanted to benefit from an election rigging without ever being accountable for it. Letting McCabe get his hands dirty would allow him to claim that he didn’t know anything about what was going on.

When McCabe’s antics threatened that state of affairs, Comey authored the Weiner letter. He didn’t believe the letter would stop Hillary from winning, but it would protect him in case she lost.

And it did. For a little while.

But Comey couldn’t keep balancing the impossible demands of Democrats to bring down Trump, with Trump’s demands to be informed of what was going on. And so Comey tried to weasel out of it by leaking materials to the media and making it clear that there would be a price to pay for firing him.

Comey wasn’t loyal to a higher duty. His higher duty was always to his career. Just like Hillary.

“A Higher Loyalty” is a shameless effort by Comey to spin his self-serving actions as honorable. But a principled and honorable man would have wanted to know where the Steele dossier came from.

"I wanted to know what I knew,” is the answer of a cynically dishonorable man. The sort of man who would kick off his comeback by posing with the Statue of Liberty after violating all that she stands for.

Honor and loyalty to Comey are just more forms of plausible deniability. Duty and principle are another version of, “My understanding” and “Not to my recollection”. To paraphrase, Walter Sobchak, "Say what you want about the Democrats, but at least it's an ethos." McCabe, Strzok and the rest of the gang believed in something. James Comey only ever believed in covering the bureau of his behind.

That’s why he collided with Hillary Clinton. He couldn’t commit all the way to helping her, because they were two of a kind. Hillary would sell out anyone. And so would Comey. Just ask McCabe.

What happens when an unstoppable careerist hits an immovable bureaucrat?

Comey wouldn’t put Hillary ahead of his career. And Hillary won’t put the Democrats ahead of her grievances. That’s why her people are taking potshots at Comey even though he’s helping the Dems.

Neither Comey nor Clinton have any higher loyalties. Their books are written in praise of themselves.

Egomaniacs and narcissists have no sense of proportion. Their own happiness is the greater good that the world revolves around. It takes an egomaniac to produce “A Higher Loyalty” or “What Happened”.

Both books are fueled by a grandiose conviction in the moral heroism of their authors. But that delusion is constantly being undermined by their self-serving lawyerly defenses of their actions.

And by the final fact that neither Comey nor Clinton can conceive of a good greater than themselves.

Stripped of their pretensions, “What Happened” and “A Higher Loyalty” lay out a quest by two Washington D.C. insiders for their careers and everyone they blame for losing their jobs. Comey and Clinton want us to believe that their Russian conspiracy theories somehow ennoble and justify them.

They don’t.

The Russian conspiracy theory has always been a self-serving effort by the Clintons and their government allies to justify a ruthless campaign against their political opponents. Its tautological politics dress up the self-serving abuses of the conspiracy theory’s inventors and promoters as patriotism. They justify any assault and abuse to defend against a threat invented by Clinton and promoted by Comey.

When Comey replies that he didn’t want to know that the Steele dossier originated with the Clinton campaign, it’s not the answer of an honorable man, but of a coward who didn’t want to know whose dirty work he was doing. An honorable man isn’t someone who can tweet someone else’s quotes about integrity, it’s a man who is accountable for his own deeds.

Honor isn’t found in how harshly you treat your political opponents, but how sternly your view yourself.

Clinton and Comey take responsibility for nothing and assign responsibility for everything. Even when they talk about accepting responsibility, they mean they’re about to blame it on someone else.

“A Higher Loyalty” and “What Happened” share a common thesis. It’s someone else’s fault.

Hillary blamed Comey. Now it’s Comey’s turn to shift the blame.

Both of them deserve each other. America doesn’t deserve them. Or deserve what they’ve done to it.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the following link 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, May 13, 2018

Liberating Our Jerusalem

When Jordan's Arab Legion seized half of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansed its Jewish population and annexed the city-- the only entity to recognize the annexation was the United Kingdom which had provided the officers and the training that made the conquest possible. Officers like Colonel Bill Newman, Major Geoffrey Lockett and Major Bob Slade, under Glubb Pasha, better known as General John Bagot Glubb, whose son later converted to Islam, invaded Jerusalem and used the Muslim forces under their command to make the partition and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem possible.

The Jews living in the free half of Jerusalem continued to be killed by Jordanian Muslim snipers. The victims of those years of Muslim occupation included Yaffa Binyamin, a 14-year-old girl sitting on the balcony of her own house and a Christian carpenter working on the Notre Dame Convent.

Under Muslim occupation, while Muslim snipers were cold-bloodedly murdering their children, the Jewish residents living under fire couldn't so much as put in an outhouse without being reported to the UN for illegal construction. In one case a UN observer organization held four meetings to discuss an outhouse for local residents before condemning Israel for illegal construction.

It did not however condemn Jordan when one of its soldiers opened fire on a train wounding a Jewish teenage girl.

Not very much has changed.

The hysterical condemnations of “illegal construction” did not end when the Muslim occupation did. The great outhouse of the United Nations and the smaller outhouses of the foreign ministries of countries whose leaders tremble whenever Muslims grow agitated over a cartoon or a YouTube video fill the air with the vilest of substances whenever a Jewish family moves into a home in Jerusalem.

It would be inconceivable for the international community to denounce an ethnically cleansed group which survived attempted genocide for moving back into its own city. It is, however, standard policy at the State Department and the Foreign Office to denounce Jews living in those parts of Jerusalem that had been ethnically cleansed by Muslims, as "settlers" living in "settlements," and accuse them of being an "obstruction to peace."

Peace being the state of affairs that sets in when an ethnic cleansing goes unchallenged.

What we are talking about here is not peace, but ethnic cleansing. In 1948, the Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem to Islamize the city. Their synagogues were blown up by the Muslim occupiers. Their tombstones were used to line the roads traveled by the racist Muslim settlers. In 1948, the Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem to Islamize the city. Whether they were Zionists or anti-Zionists did not matter. They were not Muslims. That was all that counted.

“For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter,” Abdullah el-Talal, a commander of the Muslim invaders, had boasted. “Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible.” In his memoirs he wrote, “I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty…. Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it.”

Every politician who denounces Jews building houses in Jerusalem, but not Muslims doing the same thing is endorsing Abdullah’s genocidal vision and all the terrorism that goes with it.

In 1920, racist Muslim settler mobs in Jerusalem had chanted "Mohammed's religion was born with the sword", “Death to the Jews” and “the government is with us” as Muslim policemen under British colonial rule had joined with them in the rape and murder of the indigenous Jewish population.

Too many governments are still with those who wave the sword of Mohammed and cry death to the Jews. They encourage them, defend their agenda and issue weak rebukes when blood is spilled in the name of Islamization in Jerusalem, as it is in Kobani by ISIS and a thousand other places. Those who endorse the Islamization of Jerusalem cannot escape responsibilities for the crimes of the Islamizers.

Describing Jewish homes in Jerusalem, one of the world's oldest cities, a city that all three religions in the region associate with Jews and Jewish history, as "settlements" is a triumph of distorted language that Orwell would have to tip his hat to. How does one have "settlements" in a city older than London or Washington D.C.?

To understand that, you would have to ask London and Washington D.C. where the diplomats insist that one more round of Israeli compromises will bring peace.

They say that there are three religions in Jerusalem, but there are actually four. The fourth religion is the true Religion of Peace, the one that insists that there will be peace when the Jews have been expelled from Judea and Samaria, driven out of their homes in Jerusalem, and made into wanderers and beggars once again. Oddly enough, this religion's name isn't even Islam-- it's diplomacy.

Diplomacy says that the 1948 borders set by Arab countries invading Israel should be the final borders and that, when Israel reunified a sundered city in 1967, it was an act of aggression, while, when seven Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948, it was a legitimate way to set permanent boundaries. When Jordan ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem, it set a standard that Israelis are obligated to follow to this day by staying out of East Jerusalem. To violate that ethnic cleansing endangers peace.

When Muslims move into a Jewish town, there's no clamor. When Muslim countries fund Muslim housing in Israel, there are no angry statements. Muslim housing in Jerusalem or anywhere in Israel is not a problem. Only Jewish housing is.

The issue is not Israel. If it were, then Arabs with Israeli citizenship would also be condemned. It's only the Jews who are the problem.

The entire Peace Process is really a prolonged solution to the latest phase of the Jewish Problem. The problem, as stated by so many diplomats, is that there are Jews living in places that Muslims want. There were Jews living in Gaza before 1948, but they were driven out, they came back, and then they were driven out again by their own government in compliance with international demands. Now only Hamas lives in Gaza and it's as peaceful and pleasant without the Jews as Nazi Germany.

But there are still Jews in the West Bank and they have to be gotten rid of. Once enough Jews have been expelled, there will be peace. That's not a paragraph from Mein Kampf, it's not some lunatic sermon from Palestinian Authority television-- it is the consensus of the international community. This consensus states that the only reason there still isn't peace is because enough Jews haven't been expelled from their homes. The ethnic cleansing for peace hasn't gone far enough.

There will be peace when all the Jews are gone. That much is certainly undeniable. Just look at Gaza or Egypt or Iraq or Afghanistan, which has a grand total of two Jews, both of them in their seventies. Or Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria where peace reigns now that the Jews are gone. Some might say that violence seems to increase proportionally with the number of Muslims, but we all know that would be Islamophobic. On the other hand suggesting that violence increases with the number of Jews living on land that Muslims want, that's just diplomacy. A common sense fact that everyone who is anyone in foreign policy knows to be true.

How will we know when the Muslims have gotten all the land that they want? When the violence stops. Everyone knows that agreements mean nothing. No matter how many pieces of paper are signed, the bombs and rockets still keep bursting. The only way to reach an agreement is by groping blindly in the dark, handing over parcel after parcel of land, until the explosions stop or the Muslims fulfill their original goal of pushing the Jews into the sea.

That's the wonderful thing about diplomacy if you're a diplomat and the terrible thing about it if you are anyone else without a secure way out of the country when diplomacy fails. And diplomacy in the region always fails. Camp David and every single agreement Israel has signed with Muslim countries aren't worth the paper they're written on. The only peace treaty that counts is the one made by tanks and rifles. It's the one made by Israeli planes in Egyptian skies and Israeli soldiers walking the border. It's the one made by Jewish farmers and ranchers, tending their sheep and their fields, with rifles strung over their backs. The only peace that's worth anything is the peace of the soldiers and settlers.

In 1966, Jerusalem was a city sundered in two, divided by barbed wire and the bullets of Muslim snipers. Diplomacy did not reunite it. Israel pursued diplomacy nearly to its bitter end until it understood that it had no choice at all but to fight. Israel did not swoop into the fight, its leaders did their best to avoid the conflict, asking the international community to intervene and stop Egypt from going to war. Read back the headlines for the last five years on Israel and Iran, and you will get a sense of the courage and determination of the Israeli leaders of the day.

When Israel went to war, its leaders did not want to liberate Jerusalem, they wanted Jordan to stay out of the war. Even when Jordan entered the war, they did not want to liberate the city. Divine Providence and Muslim hostility forced them to liberate Jerusalem and forced them to keep it. Now some of them would like to give it back, another sacrifice to the bloody deity of diplomacy whose altar flows with blood and burnt sacrifices.

As we remember Yom Yerushalayim, Jerusalem Day, it is important to remember that the city is united and free because diplomacy failed. The greatest triumph of the modern state happened only because diplomacy proved hopeless and useless in deterring Muslim genocidal ambitions. Had Israel succumbed to international pressure and had Nasser been as subtle as Sadat, then the Six-Day War would have looked like the Yom Kippur War fought with 1948 borders-- and Israel very likely would not exist today.

Even as Jews remember the great triumph of Yom Yerushalayim, the ethnic cleansers and their accomplices are busy searching for ways to drive Jews out of Jerusalem, out of towns, villages and cities. This isn't about the Arab residents of Jerusalem, who have repeatedly asserted that they want to remain part of Israel. It's not about peace, which did not come from any previous round of concessions, and will not come from this one either. It's about solving the Jewish problem.

As long as Jews allow themselves to be defined as the problem, there will be plenty of those offering solutions. And the solutions invariably involve doing something about the Jews. It only stands to reason that if Jews are the problem, then moving them or getting rid of them is the solution. There is less friction in defining Jews as the problem, than in defining Muslims as the problem. The numbers alone mean that is so.

Yom Yerushalayim is a reminder of what the real problem is and what the real solution is. Muslim occupation of Israel is the problem. The Islamization of Jerusalem is the problem. Muslim violence in support of the Muslim occupation of Israel and of everywhere else is the problem. Israel is the solution. Only when we liberate ourselves from the lies, when we stop believing that we are the problem and recognize that we are the solution. Only then will the liberation that began in 1967 be complete.

Only then will we have liberated our Jerusalem. The Jerusalem of the soul. It is incumbent on all of us to liberate that little Jerusalem within. The holy city that lives in all of us. To clean the dross off its golden gates, wash the filth from its stones and expel the invaders gnawing away at our hearts until we look proudly upon a shining city. Then to help others liberate their own Jerusalems. Only then will we truly be free.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Trump Ends Iran's Hostage Crisis

Jimmy Carter began the first Iranian hostage crisis and Reagan ended it. Obama began America’s second Iranian hostage crisis.

President Trump just ended it.

On January 12, 2016, Iran's IRGC terror force seized 2 US Navy vessels, extracted classified information from their crews at gunpoint, broadcast images of American sailors on their knees and forced an officer to read an apology. A day later, the Islamic terror state released its American hostages.

Three days later, Implementation Day lifted sanctions on Iran. By next month, Iran was claiming that it had received over $100 billion in sanctions relief.

It was not the last ransom payment linked to the nuclear deal.

On January 17, Obama illegally airlifted $400 million in foreign currency on unmarked cargo planes to the IRGC as a down payment on a $1.7 billion ransom for four American hostages being held in Iran.

Since then, Iran has taken more American hostages.

President Trump made it clear that there will be no more dirty deals and payoffs. "America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail."

The hostage he set free was American foreign policy. Obama didn’t ship $1.7 billion to Iran because he cared about the four American prisoners or the Navy sailors. They were just icing on the yellowcake. Iran wasn’t able to dictate to the White House because it was holding American prisoners as hostages, but because it had imprisoned Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize and was holding his beloved legacy hostage.

Obama allowed Iran to take over Syria, Iraq and Yemen to protect the nuke scam. He let the terrorists of the IRGC, which he had protected from sanctions in the Senate, humiliate our sailors while one of his minions, John Kirby, currently working as a CNN analyst where he’s doing his part in the echo chamber to defend the deal, claimed that our Naval personnel weren’t protected by the Geneva Convention.

(And that’s from an administration which believed that the Geneva Convention protects terrorists.)

The billions he poured into Iran rescued the regime and allowed it to hold off the next wave of political protests. The Iran deal killed Iranians, Yemenis, Syrians, Iraqis, Americans and Israelis. It shredded our national security while putting the political power of the White House behind our greatest enemy.

Obama allowed Iran to get away with anything and everything because after the failure of the Arab Spring’s gamble on Sunni Islamists, he bet his whole foreign policy on the Shiite Islamists of Iran. He alienated our allies, waged a political war against Israel, used the NSA to spy on domestic opponents of the deal, including members of Congress, and lied repeatedly to the American people about the deal.

Now it’s over.

Years of lies, betrayals, payoffs and crimes, the fortunes spent by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Ploughshares, the Ben Rhodes echo chamber deployed across the media, died in one afternoon. On the anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, President Trump defeated another totalitarian ideology.

And he did it with the weapon that leftist liars fear the most, the truth.

In 1,251 words, President Trump destroyed every lie uttered by Obama Inc. about the deal.

Iran’s government isn’t moderate. It’s "the leading state sponsor of terror". The deal doesn't stop Iran from getting a bomb. "Even if Iran fully complies, the regime can still be on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time."

It doesn't stabilize the Middle East. "If I allow this deal to stand, there would soon be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Everyone would want their weapons ready by the time Iran had theirs."

The deal isn’t working because the, “inspection provisions lack adequate mechanisms to prevent, detect, and punish cheating and don’t even have the unqualified right to inspect many important locations including military facilities” so that we have no idea what Iran might be doing.

And the deal funds Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile program and terrorism around the world.

In the hours and days before the announcement, Obama Inc.’s Iran Firsters frantically filled the airwaves with dire warnings about what will happen if we pull out of a worthless agreement. An agreement that they tell us is “working” even while the details of the deal and its inspections are classified so that no one except Iran, the IAEA and a psychic in a Venice Beach storefront knows what’s really going on.

If the deal were working, it wouldn’t need to be secret. The only reason to hide every meaningful piece of information is to cover up the truth that Iran’s nuclear program continues to tick ahead every day.

The deal doesn’t stop Iran from getting a bomb. It ensures that Iran will get a bomb.

As President Trump put it, “The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Withdrawing means that the United States will no longer be a party to that lie. The cover-up is over. Our credibility, integrity and foreign policy will no longer be held hostage to a worthless promise in Tehran.

But it’s not just a symbolic cleansing.

President Trump made it clear that he intends to force Iran into a deal that will actually shut down its nuclear program. And he’ll do it the same way that he did with North Korea, by restoring credibility and applying pressure. Pulling out of the deal restored credibility. Until Trump’s statement, Iran and its allies, the Europeans and the Russians, could have believed that the Obama status quo would continue.

The speech sent a message that the free ride is over.

America does not negotiate in bad faith. We’re not suckers, stooges or patsies. And we will walk away from a bad deal. That message isn’t just for Iran. It’s also for North Korea. We’re through being played.

“The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them,” Trump said.

North Korea got the message. Iran got it. And the Europeans got it. So did our allies.

America’s word means something again.

Obama protested the move by posting on Facebook that dumping the nuke scam, “turns our back on America’s closest allies.” But it was his corrupt regime that turned its back on our closest allies.

By joining up with Iran, he betrayed the vast majority of our allies in the Middle East who opposed it. And when Israel protested his betrayal, his administration spied on Prime Minister Netanyahu, attempted to tamper with his reelection, insulted him in public, used anti-Semitic rhetoric against Jewish domestic opponents and employed the NSA to eavesdrop on their conversations.

Obama turned his back on Israel. He turned his back on America. And on the truth.

He turned his back on Iranians fighting for freedom. He turned his back on women courageously removing their hijabs in the streets of Tehran. He turned his back on the Kurds. He turned his back on every victim of Iranian terror. And he turned his back on the oath he took on a cold day in January.

President Trump honored that oath, faced the tough truth and turned his back on Obama’s dirty deal.

"There has been enough suffering, death, and destruction, let it end now," President Trump concluded.

Let it end.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the following link 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, May 07, 2018

The Real Border Problem is Bigger Than a Wall

The invading caravan from Central America finally reached the United States. Some members of the caravan crossed the border illegally and were arrested. Others may have made it through undetected.

Still others openly applied for asylum and had their applications processed at the San Ysidro port of entry at the border. They were selected by the radical anti-American group, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, as the best representatives of their invasion of the United States. Others just headed straight for the hills.

The Goat Canyon area has one of the biggest gaps and is a popular crossing spot for illegal migrants. There’s an 8-foot tall fence in poor condition and a woefully incomplete secondary fence. Fencing in the area dates back to Operation Gatekeeper in the 90s which reduced migrant traffic, but didn’t stop it. After leveling hills and building miles of fencing, the area is still a dangerous illegal alien magnet. Chemical and sewage dumping from Mexico made parts of the area too hazardous to patrol. It’s so bad that Border Patrol personnel have become ill and an environmental group called off a cleanup because of the high fecal content. One agent experienced chemical burns in his lungs while checking a grate.

Goat Canyon is one of the most compelling arguments for Trump’s wall. And for more than a wall.

Migrant alien males can cross illegally. Families usually turn themselves in to the Border Patrol and are quickly released because there are no local facilities to detain them, turning border patrol personnel into coyotes. But this time the Justice Department decided to send a message to the illegal caravan.

11 members of the caravan who crossed illegally were charged. Many were arrested crossing in groups with other illegal aliens from around the world. 6 out of 7 arrested by one agent were from El Salvador, the home of the violent MS-13 gang which has been taking over parts of America. Another arrest took place with three illegal migrants from India. Goat Canyon had previously hosted large groups of gypsies.

The DOJ had made it clear to caravan members that they would be arrested. But because of the law, they can only be charged with a misdemeanor. Only Olvin Herrera-Romero, who was identified as having been previously deported to Honduras in 2008 through his fingerprints, can be charged with a felony.

Under Obama, the U.S. Sentencing Commission made changes that generally cut sentences for illegal reentry. The average sentence for illegal reentry is 18 months. Even hardened criminals usually come away with lighter sentences than the guidelines might indicate. Deportation is a revolving door and the Sentencing Commission’s report found that 38% of illegal reentry offenders had a previous illegal entry conviction or deportation. 62% had been convicted of at least one criminal offense after illegal reentry.

Building a physical wall is important. But so is building a legal wall.

Illegal entry should not be a misdemeanor. A petty misdemeanor has no meaningful deterrent effect. Illegal migrants, their lawyers and overwhelmed courts view the matter as a routine formality. The sentences are almost the same as those from almost a century ago when the problem was different.

But the biggest hole in our immigration security is still asylum law. And a wall alone can’t fix it. Immigration law allows any alien to show up at the border or at an airport and apply for asylum. Ramzi Yousef, the Islamic terrorist behind the World Trade Center bombing, flew into JFK Airport, applied for asylum and was released into New York City. And you can’t build a wall around JFK Airport.

And even with a wall, illegal migrants will still be able to show up at the border and apply for asylum.

The roots of the problem go deep. United States asylum law derives from the United Nations. The 1951 UN refugee convention and the 1967 protocol, to which we became a signatory in 1968, have been baked into our legal codes. Article 3 precludes a Muslim travel ban, Article 16 mandates free legal aid for refugees, Article 17 requires allowing a refugee to work, Article 22 mandates free education, Article 23, welfare, Article 26, travel anywhere within the United States, Article 28, travel outside the country, Articles 32 and 33 make deportation very difficult, and Article 31 prohibits imposing, “penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”. United States courts have debated how to interpret these articles, but a leftist Supreme Court could easily use Article 33 to open up our borders.

And we would be obligated to process and possibly take in every refugee anywhere in the world.

When Germany's Angela Merkel said, “The right to political asylum has no limits on the number of asylum seekers,” she was indirectly referencing the legal obligations of the UN Convention.

All it would take to reduce America to Germany would be for the courts to force our government and laws into full compliance, instead of only partial compliance, with a UN convention we signed on to.

Our refugee approach is based on our good intentions after WW2 and during the Cold War. When we opened our doors to refugees, we meant to take in people fleeing Communism, whether it was Czechs, Hungarians, Cubans, Jews or other authentic refugees. Today, refugee usually means economic migrant from a non-democratic country, a country suffering from natural disasters, a civil war or crime.

That’s most of the planet.

And refugee resettlement is big business. It’s also a means for eroding the voting rights of Americans.

California took in so many migrants and refugees that it no longer has free elections. It’s a corrupt one-party state teetering toward bankruptcy that outside its wealthy tech and entertainment enclaves has more in common with the banana republics south of the border. The latest caravan will only make it worse. More people are leaving California than coming in. And the problem is spreading to other states.

One of the detained caravan illegals planned to head to Virginia. Illegal migration has inflicted a serious MS-13 gang problem on the state while tilting it further toward Democrat rule. The two go together.

Building a wall will make it almost impossible to cross the border (at least from Mexico) but unless we build a legal wall against asylum, today’s detention center inmates will soon be running the country. Physical barriers are important, but legal barriers matter even more. Most of the members of the illegal migrant caravan didn’t head for Goat Canyon, instead they began claiming political asylum.

We can use physical barriers to keep border crossers out, but until we tear the United Nations out of our legal system, we will never be able to keep our borders and our future safe from the invasion.

When the United States signed on to the convention in ’68, LBJ and his people lied to the Senate and to Americans and assured them that it wouldn’t change anything about our system. The convention however is the most damaging piece of immigration law that doesn’t carry Ted Kennedy’s name.

"Accession to the Protocol would not impinge adversely upon established practices under existing laws in the United States," LBJ had claimed. "State laws are not superseded by the Convention or Protocol."

He described it as a "symbolic element" in his message to the Senate.

There’s nothing symbolic about it. And until it’s gone, our borders can never be secure.

We must build a wall of concrete, of sensors, drones, agents and lights. But we must also build a wall of laws. Bad laws have been far more effective than coyotes and broken fences in the invasion.

Today, the United Nations controls our border. Tomorrow, the United States must take back the border.

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Starbucks Fights Racism, Bows to Anti-Semitism

When a Philadelphia Starbucks manager called the police after two black men refused to leave, the chain of events ended with the burnt taste of the overpriced coffee chain colluding with anti-Semitism.
Starbucks reacted to the brief arrest by blaming the police, but Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, who is African-American, initially said that his officers, “did absolutely nothing wrong”. But then he was forced to offer a bewildering apology to the arrested men, the officers and the entire city.
“It is me who in large part made most of the situation worse than it was,” he announced.
But that wasn’t Ross. It was Black Lives Matter and other black nationalist groups which targeted the coffee chain, chanting, “Starbucks coffee is anti-black”. And to appease them, Starbucks rolled out a major company retraining effort overseen by former Attorney General Eric Holder, along with Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative, Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP, Heather McGhee of Demos and Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL. Greenblatt was the only non-black civil rights leader on the list.
And, like a cup of overpriced Starbucks coffee, the burnt taste got worse the deeper you went.
In February, Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam had delivered a violently anti-Semitic speech to an appreciative audience that included Tamika Mallory. "White folks are going down," the hate group leader had declared. "And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew."
Farrakhan had praised Mallory and the Women’s March leader had dubbed him the greatest of all time. Nor was she the only Women’s March leader with a crush on the black nationalist bigot. Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez had their own Farrakhan fandom. And despite pressure, the radical leftist org had refused to condemn Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, but continued to defend the hate group.
In the Greenblatt era, the ADL had become even more tentative about challenging anti-Semitism on the left. It had been largely absent in the battles over campus anti-Semitism, had defended some forms of BDS and had attacked Jewish civil rights activists, such as Canary Mission, for fighting for Jewish rights.
But the ADL took credit for condemning Mallory’s attendance and support for Farrakhan. The Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism had been widely denounced. And the ADL didn’t think it was taking much of a risk.
When Starbucks made its retraining announcement, Mallory and her allies were quick to pounce. They berated the coffee chain for working with an “anti-black” organization. The dispute split the left between black nationalists and establishment groups. Mallory was joined by Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, while Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress, called them out.
“Women of color who promote anti-Semitism -- defending Farrakhan and attacking ADL - are deserving of criticism and I say that as a woman of color.” Tanden had retorted sharply.
But the brief shining moment of decency on the left quickly vanished as Starbucks dumped the ADL.
In the dispute between black nationalist Farrakhan fans and the ADL, Starbucks chose anti-Semitism. The coffee chain was spending money buying immunity from protests by Tamika’s allies. There was no reason for it to continue working with the ADL if the organization not only couldn’t protect it from angry protesters, but if its Jewish associations might actually incite even more attacks on its businesses.
And the rest of the Starbucks social justice deck would have been more likely to lean toward Mallory.
As Attorney General, Eric Holder had become notorious for his collaboration with black racist and anti-Semitic groups, including The New Black Panther Party and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund had participated in the Women’s March. And the NAACP has its own troubling history with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
Tossing the ADL overboard, the corporate leadership of Starbucks showed that it would fight racism, but collude with anti-Semitism. And it wasn’t the first time Starbucks had colluded with anti-Semitism.
In 2014, Starbucks had issued a bizarre statement assuring Muslims that it didn’t fund Israel.
"Neither Starbucks nor the company’s chairman, president and CEO Howard Schultz provide financial support to the Israeli government and/or the Israeli Army in any way," the press release assured.
It stated that its Israeli stores were closed and that its business plans for the region would be developed with a Kuwaiti family. Kuwait has been known to boycott companies doing business with Israel.
The press release insisted that Starbucks is "a non-political organization." Except that’s a lie.
Starbucks had pushed for gun control, cheered gay marriage and refugee migration. The coffee chain hadn’t been worried about the resulting boycotts. It was only concerned about offending customers with certain views. Those views have always included anti-Semitism.
The politically correct coffee chain dropped the ADL for the same reason it had disavowed Israel.
It would have been unthinkable for Starbucks to have put out a press release assuring the KKK that it didn’t do business with black people. Or that it didn’t donate to gay marriage or to Muslim groups.
It’s never been proven that the Philly Starbucks had racist motivations, but the entire company has a consistent history of blatantly pandering to anti-Semites that is as bitter as its dark roast. 
The Starbucks double standard on anti-Semitism is the same one that pervades the left.
From Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson to the Women’s March, civil rights has required a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with anti-Semitism. Al Sharpton led a race riot through a Jewish neighborhood and was rewarded for it with a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention, an MSNBC show and easy access to Obama and Holder. Mallory had been photographed with Farrakhan, but so had Obama.
And then there’s the NAACP, whose legal defense fund had also been enlisted by Starbucks.
NAACP leaders have repeatedly appeared with Farrakhan. Benjamin Chavis, who had become notorious for convening a summit with the Nation of Islam, later joined the hate group. Ben Jealous, currently running for the governor of Maryland, appeared at forums attended by Farrakhan.
Muslim advocacy has followed the same pattern with groups such as CAIR, whose leaders have made anti-Semitic statements and who have hosted Neo-Nazis, being elevated while their bigotry is ignored. 
That’s how we ended up with Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour. And Louis Farrakhan.
The post-King era has erroneously conflated racial tribalism with civil rights. Its civil rights leaders are invariably black nationalists and that’s why they find it so hard to resist Farrakhan’s racist supremacism.
Starbucks could have rejected both racism and anti-Semitism. But that’s too much work. Like most corporations, it doesn’t partner with racial healers, but racial dividers. They’re the ones who threaten its bottom line. And they’re the ones who are seen as having credibility with the radicals on the street.
The real lesson here is for the ADL which tried to have it both ways. Under Greenblatt, it wanted to belong to the social justice axis while paying lip service to the fight against anti-Semitism. It did the least that it could do to challenge anti-Semitism on the left. And even that proved to be too much for the left.
There’s no room on the left for even the mildest criticisms of anti-Semitism from the left.
Like Starbucks, the ADL will have to choose between fighting anti-Semitism and pandering to the left. And, like Starbucks, it is likely to drop anti-Semitism as the price of admission for staying on the left. 
Starbucks will go on touting its commitment to fighting racism even as it colludes with anti-Semitism. And the ADL will criticize anti-Semitism from white nationalists, but not black nationalists, from the right but not the left, and hope that the overpriced coffee chain will welcome it back with some burnt coffee.
 Because there’s no price to pay for anti-Semitism, but there is a bitter price for fighting anti-Semitism.

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, May 02, 2018

The Media's Correspondents' Dinner Orgy

While President Trump rallied working class voters in Michigan, the Media-Industrial complex in Washington D.C. threw itself a narcissistic orgy known as the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

The Dinner is, in theory, a charity event. But the only people who know that are reporters and Jeopardy trivia champions. In between the celebrity appearances and the obscene taunts aimed at women who work in the Trump administration, the media orgy is supposed to be fundraising to send kids to college.


The White House Correspondents’ Association went from spending 60% of its take on scholarships in 2009 to 23% in 2015. This year, the WHCA boasts that it’s spending $134,500 on scholarships.

That’s comparable to its executive compensation.

The Correspondents’ Dinner sells tickets. Buy a ticket and you get to sit next to a celebrity while listening to another unfunny Daily Show alum yell obscenities at the president and his staffers. It’s for charity.

"The dinner is not about the president, it's not for or against the president," Margaret Talev, the WHCA boss, insisted on CNN. “It's about elevating good journalism and embracing the first amendment."

I haven’t heard this many lies in one sentence since Hillary Clinton’s last book tour.

The Dinner does much better when the president shows up. That’s why the media is fuming that Trump stood them up twice. If the President is a Dem, he merits a bootlicking. If he’s a Republican, then his daughter gets compared to a box of tampons.

The WHCD and the WHCA have the same relationship to good journalism that vampires have to sunlight.

Since Talev loves “good journalism” so much, here’s what her dinner is actually about.

In 2016, the Dinner’s gross receipts were $806,250. It spent $452,817 on facilities cost as part of the $553,719 spent on the dinner. The entertainment came to $24,191. That was the year Larry Wilmore (unfunny Daily Show alum #8), wrapped things up by telling Barack Obama, “You did it, my n___!”

That’s what you see if you watch the highlights on YouTube. But Washington D.C. insiders know that the circus at the Hilton is just the hub for parties across town with numerous special interest sponsors.

The theme of the Correspondents’ Dinner this year (and every year) is the First Amendment. So the Beer Institute held a Toast to the First Amendment with lots of free booze. And if you really love the First, you can join CNN at the Playboy party with bunnies and more booze. “We’re here to celebrate the First Amendment and freedom of the press,” Hugh Heffner's son said.

It began with Creative Artists Agency (CAA) hosting “WHCD Kickoff Cocktails”. The mega-agency had been famously at the center of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein #MeToo scandals and was dubbed by Rose McGowan as a “company of pimps that sent so many into the monster’s lair.”

But no need to ask tough questions when the booze is flowing. It’s all for the First Amendment.

The diseased media orgy concluded on Sunday with CNN's "Alice in Wonderland" Political Hangover brunch with giant cards featuring distorted pictures of Trump and 4,000 roses forming the CNN logo.

The venus flytrap might have been more apt. Once the truth gets into CNN, it gets trapped and dies.

This is what the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is actually about and it has less to do with the First Amendment than Don Lemon posing with Playboy bunnies. The Dinner is an excuse for D.C. jornos to stumble drunkenly through parties, network, mingle and say nasty things about President Trump.

It’s a Roman orgy tailored to manufacture new #MeToo scandals months and years from now.

It’s a series of parties, many of them hosted by big media institutions like the Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN that are sponsored, in part or whole, by trade groups, lobbies and corporations. The violations and conflicts of interests are almost as bad as the unwanted drunken gropings in Adams Morgan bars.

How much does all this stuff cost? Millions? Tens of millions? Who’s paying for it and what are they getting in exchange from their media partners? Don’t ask. Questions like that might be journalism.

But it’s for the children, the First Amendment and the dolphins (probably).

The media-industrial complex fumed that President Trump had the temerity to skip out on this wholesome family entertainment. He wasn’t even in the audience when Michelle Wolf (unfunny Daily Show alum #11) compared his daughter to an empty box of tampons. How dare he miss out?

Imagine the way the hungry Roman lions might have felt if the Christians just hadn’t shown up.

"Historically presidents have felt that it's important to send the signals, both to Americans and to the rest of the world, that they support this sort of quintessential part of American democracy,” the WHCA’s boss said reprovingly.

Do we really want the world to get the impression that we support the quintessential democracy of huge media corporations getting their talent very drunk while insulting the judgment of the voters? The Correspondents’ Dinner doesn’t embody the First Amendment. It’s the dumpster fire of a powerful oligarchy that decided sometime around 1962 that with enough power and lies it could run the country.

The signal the White House should be sending is to hell with it and the vomit-coated Uber it rode in on.

Who decided Michelle Wolf should be the public face of the WHCD? Wolf has a Netflix show coming up and her agency, UTA, also represents a horde of big jorno names, including Anderson Cooper, Chuck Todd, and Don Lemon. UTA also threw a pre-party titled, “Celebration of America’s Journalists”, that will celebrate its media clients and Wolf. And Wolf’s new notoriety means big bucks for UTA.

“We are seeing that the intersection between politics, entertainment, and news is stronger than ever before, and we want to be at the center of that," Jay Sures, UTA's co-boss, declared.

There is no journalism or news, it’s all entertainment.

According to Sures, the number one concern among his clients is that “they are regarded as ‘fake.’”

Why would anyone thinking that talking heads sitting on a high chair and reading off a teleprompter before going off to get drunk while their assistants bash Trump from their Twitter accounts are fake?

Michelle Wolf is as much of a newsperson as Don Lemon or Anderson Cooper. The only difference between the Daily Show alums and their CNN/MSNBC counterparts is that the Dailys practice goofy grins in the mirror while the CNNers try out grave expressions, but both use the same faux outraged look.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner perfectly captures the media-industrial oligarchy in flight.

It’s not about journalism, truth or the First Amendment. The same oligarchy partying the entire weekend for the First Amendment has been doing everything it can to crush the opposition press. Its members believe that Playboy is journalism and the conservative media outlets they’re fighting to banish from Facebook and Google aren’t. And that is how the media approaches all its “reporting”.

The crooked media of a corrupt party knows its business. Smear the opposition and get feted.

Democrats exist only to be praised and Republicans only to be crushed. The Correspondents’ Dinner licked Obama’s wingtips while taking cheap shots at Trump, his staff, his family and anyone who ever met him in the last twenty years. And then its talent sleep off their hangovers and whine that Trump’s refusal to show up to be insulted by UTA’s latest moneymaking bid is an attack on the First Amendment.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is a corrupt institution that hardly anybody reports on because it embodies a corrupt media-industrial complex choking on its own conflicts of interest, abuses, ethical violations, sexual assaults, lies, frauds and utter lack of credibility with 90% of the country.

Or, as the media describes anything that tells those truths, an attack on the First Amendment.

Saving the First Amendment means freeing the press from the corrupt oligarchy choking it to death. The free press has been tied up and locked in the basement of a Washington D.C. and New York clubhouse whose stories are brokered by shadowy fixers and fed to them by organizations like Fusion GPS.

If you want to understand the dismal state of the free press in this country, imagine if the only news that 90% of Americans got came from the press releases and lobbyists of GE, Amazon and UTA.

That’s exactly the situation in America today. Only some of the names are different.

Freedom of the Press will not return to this country until the last girder falls from the last media-industrial corporate headquarters on the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

But until then you can stop by the Reuters WHCA brunch where the stars of Top Chef will serve members of the press. And then it’ll be time to push the Mueller coup against the 2016 election.

Don’t worry. It’s all for the First Amendment.

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, May 01, 2018

How the Dems Killed #MeToo in Their Party

A funny thing happened to the #MeToo movement in the Democrat Party.

While #MeToo burned a fiery trail through the media, leaving behind the wrecked careers of top talent, after suffering some initial losses, the Democrats built a firewall by ruthlessly targeting activists.

Their approach was eerily similar to that of Harvey Weinstein. But they understood the political problem in a way that the movie mogul hadn’t. The Democrats didn’t go after the victims. Instead they made an example out of the activist female politicians within their own party who championed the accusations.

And Harvey could only envy their track record.

Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT), once a #MeToo advocate, is retiring and won’t run again. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who had built her 2022 brand on fighting sexual harassment and who had belatedly condemned Bill Clinton, abandoned her position after pressure from donors. And California Dems are preparing to finish off Cristina Garcia, an assemblywoman who had challenged their sexual harassment.

The Democrats may have lost Senator Franken and Rep. Conyers, but they’ve stopped the bleeding. And their damage control technique cracked a problem that had bewildered Hollywood’s spinmeisters.

How do you fight accusations of sexual harassment? With more accusations of sexual harassment.

Rep. Etsy had called for Rep. Conyers to resign. Then she was forced not to run again after accusations of sexual harassment against her chief of staff. Cristina Garcia has been accused of groping a male staffer.

The initial wave of #MeToo accusations caught Democrats by surprise and split the party. Some wanted to clean house while others threatened to purge fellow Democrats who denounced their own.

The pressure by donors and threats by insiders generally remained covert. But one top Democrat donor went public with her threats. Susie Tompkins Buell, a top Hillary donor and Democrat supporter, lashed out at Senator Gillibrand and other female Senators who had called for Senator Franken to resign.

“As for Gillibrand, unfortunately, I believe she miscalculated and has shot herself in the foot,” Buell wrote. “I have supported her for many years. Will I going forward? To be determined.”

That wasn’t the only financial hit that Gillibrand took. And it explained why she backed away.

Buell was just saying what many top Dem donors were thinking. Franken had been popular with the lefty donor class which viewed condemnations of sexual harassment as empty virtue signaling. On email lists and Facebook groups, hard core Dems traded ‘Frankentruther’ conspiracy theories claiming that Franken had been framed and that the senators who urged him to resign had sold out to the GOP.

In Franken’s home territory, even #MeToo women who had never condemned him were purged.

Lindsey Port had spoken out about sexual harassment by a Democrat Farmer-Labor state senator and her story led to the resignation of her alleged harasser. Donor pressure then ended her political career.

“Knowing now what’s happening, and feeling like I’ve been blackballed and there are these economic repercussions, those women don’t feel like they can speak out," Port said.

Port may have been undone by a whispering campaign in Minnesota, but in California, the #MeToo backlash took an uglier turn more in line with its political culture.

Cristina Garcia had been featured as one of Time Magazine’s ‘Silence Breakers’ after angrily calling for the resignations of legislators accused of sexual harassment, including Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima) and Senator Tony Mendoza (D-Artesia). As the chair of the Women’s Caucus and one of the original signatories of We Said Enough letter denouncing a “pervasive” culture of sexual harassment, she had become an icon. But, like Esty, the accusations of sexual harassment were turned against her.

The former #MeToo movement leader stands accused of everything from groping to homophobia, racism and playing spin-the-bottle. And the State Building & Construction Trades Council is raising money to defeat her. The union was a significant donor to Bocanegra, Mendoza and the Calderon clan.

The politics involved are complicated in the way that they usually are in a corrupt political system.

An accusation that Raul Bocanegra had groped former Senator Ron Calderon’s staffer had resurfaced. Calderon had continued to support Bocanegra. At least until Calderon was raided by the FBI in a corruption investigation. Calderon was the leading member of an eponymous political dynasty.

Garcia took office by beating Tom Calderon, Ron’s brother, who would also be jailed. She had demanded that Calderon resign. Last year, she campaigned against his early release, arguing in a press release, “It's bad enough that he walked away with a mere 42 month sentence when his crimes dictated 396 years.”

The groping accusation against Garcia came from a former staffer of Ian Calderon, Ron’s nephew, who relayed it to Ian, who then passed it along.

It’s hard to know where the truth lies. And Garcia is not the only California #MeToo member whose career was harmed because she supported the movement’s insistence on ending harassment.

The meeting between #MeToo and the Democrats is a familiar story about how abstract reforms become much less appealing when you have some skin in the game. Fighting sexual harassment had always meant combating it somewhere else. But it was never supposed to hurt the virtuous Democrats.

“’There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women.' And I believe that,” Susie Tompkins Buell had trumpeted in a campaign to fight sexual abuses in the military. Buell had even allegedly been willing to fund payments to Trump accusers through Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer.

But it was very different when the sexual harassment and scandals were coming from inside the house.

Virtue signaling convinces the left of its own unimpeachable morals. When push comes to shove, it rejects guilt for any of its wrongdoing and attributes such allegations to conspiracy theories.

The same mental evasions that led Dems to ridicule the women assaulted by Bill Clinton made the Frankentruthers into a significant voice within the activist and donor circles of their movement. Sexual harassment elsewhere is an outrage. Sexual harassment in their own ranks is a right-wing conspiracy.

And any women who disagree and try to expose it are obviously traitors helping the Republicans win.

Hollywood killed #MeToo by sucking it into a cyclotron of feminist virtue signaling. #TimesUp changed the conversation from sexual harassment by industry figures to pay hikes and gender quotas. The Dems killed #MeToo with a combination of donor blacklisting and targeted attacks on #MeToo advocates.

And what started out as a call for reform ended, as it always does, with a cover-up.

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

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

Thank you for reading.