Subscribe to FrontPageMag feed
A project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Updated: 3 hours 48 min ago

Where Are the Indictments of Obama’s Foreign Colluders?

12 hours 10 min ago

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.


The indictments are in. 

Team Mueller indicted a bunch of Russians associated with a troll farm for interfering with an election in the United States. Russian troll farms generally don’t follow United States law. But foreigners are not allowed to interfere with elections in the United States. Unless they’re named Christopher Steele.

The Clinton campaign employed a British foreign agent who used Russian intelligence sources to put together opposition research meant to interfere with the results of a United States election. Collusion between the Clinton campaign, Steele and the Russians doesn’t require an endless fishing expedition.

Foreigners interfering in United States elections are not a new phenomenon. Muslims in Gaza famously ran a phone bank for Obama. A Hamas political adviser had declared that he hoped Obama would win.

There was no investigation. Nor did anyone indict the Gazans running the phone bank.

The indictment states that, “the Federal Election Campaign Act… prohibits foreign nationals from making any contributions, expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements for electioneering communications.” But Obama had chosen to accept untraceable donations from abroad. He had failed to ask for proof of citizenship and his website had even allowed donations from Iran and North Korea.

The chair of Nigeria’s stock exchange had organized an “Africans for Obama” fundraiser. The Albanian Socialist Prime Minister had been accused of a scheme to transfer $80,000 to an Obama fundraising committee. Gazans bought and resold Obama t-shirts from the campaign website. And no indictments.

None of that counts as election interference. And none of it generated an investigation of Obama.

Indicting civilians covertly employed by a foreign government to engage in propaganda in the United States is an unserious act. But Obama Inc. responded in the same futile way to Chinese hacking efforts. Responding to cyberwarfare with toothless indictments is not how you head off the next attack.

But the indictments are also bad law. 

Facebook Vice President of Ad Product Rob Goldman noted that most of the Russian ad spending took place after the election

Specifically, "44% of total ad impressions" preceded the election while “56% were after the election.”

“We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election,” Goldman tweeted.

And that’s what this is still about.

The indictment and previous research showed that the Russian troll farm had run a variety of scams across the spectrum. They posed as Black Lives Matter and Republican activists, as militant feminists, outraged Indians, as Islamists and anti-Islamists at the same time. Did Russia actually care about Black Lives Matter or Trump? About as much as that “Nigerian prince” in your email cares about your politics.

The Russian troll farms covered Black Lives Matter for the same reason that Al Jazeera does. Qatar’s Al Jazeera, Russia’s propaganda networks and the other foreign foes trying to influence Americans have a core agenda that they package inside content that Americans care about, but that they don’t.

Qatar successfully packaged its campaign against Saudi Arabia’s struggle with Iran in Yemen by embedding its Yemeni famine myth inside a grab bag of social justice causes through Al Jazeera. Russia was doing the same thing with its online campaigns, embedding its pro-Assad Syria or anti-Ukraine propaganda by packaging it with a spectrum of partisan causes that Americans do care about.

Not only does the effort predate Trump’s entry into the race, but even the indictment notes that the Russian troll farm outline had urged employees to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).” Was there also collusion between Bernie Sanders and Russia? Despite Bernie’s Soviet honeymoon, this “support” had nothing to do with collusion.

The Russian troll farm was built on engaging the most politically active and dissatisfied Americans. Going after supporters of Sanders and Trump by pretending to share their views was most likely to pay off in social media shares and influence building. The Russian troll farm wasn’t trying to change the outcome of an election. It was piggybacking on a current political controversy while playing both sides.

And, whether it’s the anthem or gun control, they went right on doing it after the election was over.

But, as Facebook’s VP of Ad Product noted, it doesn’t fit the media’s collusion narrative. The central thesis of the post-election Dem conspiracy theory is that Hillary would have won if it weren’t for the Russians. (Not to mention misogyny, Comey and around three hundred other reasons.) There’s never been any evidence that the thousands spent on Facebook ads altered the outcome of the election.

But if the Russians weren’t trying to influence the election, then the conspiracy theory collapses.

The conspiracy theory that ate Washington D.C. and most of the media assumes that the Russians wanted to influence the election. And that they wouldn’t have tried to do so of their own accord if there wasn’t collusion. But Russian collusion had originated as a Clinton smear during the election. If you believe the foreign agent hired by the Clinton campaign, it may have originated with the Russians. 

That’s much better evidence that Hillary was colluding with the Russians than that Trump was.

And if the Russians were conspiring with Trump, why were they also backing Bernie Sanders? If this conspiracy existed, why did American forces just take out 300 Russian mercenaries? Why did Trump go much further in helping Ukrainian forces against Russia than Obama was ever willing to? The Russians didn’t spend much money on this conspiracy. They weren’t very consistent. And they didn’t get anything for it. That’s much more consistent with social media influence building than the Manchurian Candidate.

Mueller and the media know all this. And they don’t care.

Indicting the Russians for trying to influence the election is bad law, but it shows that Team Mueller intends to go after President Trump. The evidence that the Russians tried to interfere with the election is weak. The more conventional fraud charges would have made for a much stronger case.

But nobody gave Team Mueller millions just to find out that some Russians were engaging in fraud. The Russians are just the tools that the Democrats and their allies have weaponized to overturn the election.

Russian troll farms are not a threat to our elections. Despite the paranoid conspiracy theories, Russian Facebook ads had less impact on the election than Jill Stein. And if we’re going to indict foreigners who interfere in our elections, we can start with Obama’s international cast of donors and supporters.

The real threat to our system of free elections is the refusal of the Democrats to accept defeat. When George W. Bush won, the Democrats rejected the outcome, invented conspiracy theories and protested in the streets. They did the same thing again when Donald J. Trump won. There’s a consistent pattern here and it doesn’t involve Moscow or the Supreme Court. Those are just their excuses.

The Democrats have never accepted a Republican in the White House in this century. Forget the Supreme Court or Russia; it’s the Democrats who are the biggest threat to democracy.


Progs Love a Man in a Uniform

12 hours 12 min ago

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The “uniform” the eighties band Gang of Four was singing about is not the one our Armed Forces wear. Our military uniforms are the emblem of a superb professional fighting force that is accountable to Constitutional limits, and commanded by a civilian president elected by the sovereign people. No, progressives love the uniform worn by the “strong man,” the “man on horseback,” the “great leader,” what in Latin America is called a “caudillo,” or “cacique,” or more crudely, “El Gran Chingon,” the thugs with the gaudy Gilbert-and-Sullivan uniforms bedecked with rows of phony medals.

Hence the left’s admiration for Castro, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Chavez, and most recently Kim Jong Un’s sister, the head of propaganda for the North Korean terror state whom the left’s media lackeys effusively praised during her appearance at the Olympics. No matter how blood-stained, any tyrant can be an object of the left’s affection, as long as he or she is on the side of “revolution” against the hated capitalists and the repressed bourgeoisie. This century-long love affair explains the endless parade of useful idiots making pilgrimages to totalitarian hell-holes like Stalin’s Russia or Chavez’s Venezuela or Castro’s Cuba, there to swoon over the Potemkin heaven on earth. 

It also accounts in part for the surreal, cult-like worship of the tin-pot messiah Barack Obama, whose very trouser crease could thrill the starry-eyed pundit, whose banal rhetoric could send tingles down the leg of the most hard-bitten journalist. That’s why Obama’s use of Executive Orders and his “phone and pen” to subvert the Constitution’s separation of powers was celebrated by the same progressives who squeal about any Republican president’s “imperial overreach.” 

That’s because power is a good thing to the left––as long as it’s used by the right people to construct their egalitarian utopia and “get things done.” Just listen to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman swooning over China’s efficiency at “getting things done”: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.” This is the modern version of the cliché that “Mussolini made the trains run on time,” or the paeans to Stalin’s “miracle” of rapidly industrializing Russia penned by Walter Duranty or Lincoln Steffens. They seem to have forgotten that the power to command forced labor can build a lot of things, from pyramids to autobahns––and precisely engineered death camps.

That “pragmatism,” needing only enough power to build the “better future,” lay at the heart of early progressivism, just as it rationalized the excesses of Marxism and Nazism. Woodrow Wilson whined about the inefficiency of divided government and the inability of the president to make “good” laws. He fretted about superstitions like the balance of power and limited government, which proscribed the centralized power of a technocratic federal government that could run our society and economy more efficiently in order to achieve greater equality, social harmony, and prosperity. Several decades of serial bloody failures to make this pipe dream a reality has not deterred the true believes. They still long for the strong leader, a “soft” despot to be sure, one filled with therapeutic bromides, but still a despot who would not be stopped by antique Constitutional niceties, or concern himself too much with protecting our natural rights. 

This explains why Obama was the progressives’ dream boat, complete with the tinsel and gilt messianic aura that most “great leaders” peddle. And like them, he failed to fulfill the dream of “equality” and “social justice.” Obama did succeed, however, at “fundamentally transforming” America into a country dominated by the wannabe totalitarians who abused the Bill of Rights and turned government agencies and the coercive power of the state against the citizens they were supposed to serve. But the Constitution and the common sense of enough American voters proved strong enough, at least for now, to check this abuse of power, proving once again the brilliance of the Founders’ Constitutional architecture. 

There’s something, though, even more disturbing about the left’s fondness for the “man in a uniform”: the way it bespeaks an unhealthy love of power, and a sick fascination with political violence. How else do terrorists like Angela Davis or Bill Ayres get themselves reintegrated into society and living among us as celebrities, these two in universities that have “Peace” programs and preach non-violence? Or thuggish groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter get glowing media coverage and White House invitations? Or psychopaths like Che Guevara, who enjoyed personally executing political prisoners, become matinee idols? Or history’s greatest mass murderer, Mao, still decorate pop art and tee-shirts? Leftists love “a man in a uniform” because when they say, “I need an order,” to quote the Gang of Four again, he answers “Shoot! Shoot!”

Unlike our comfortable “caviar communists” parading their “radical chic,” the earlier more honest totalitarians admitted that brutal violence is necessary to sweep away the old order’s remnants, whose “false consciousness” impedes the creation of utopia. Karl Marx warned the Prussian government in 1843, “We are ruthless, and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.” Vladimir Lenin responded to a critic of his war of extermination against the Kulaks, “Do you think we can be victors without the most severe revolutionary terror?” Stalin was brutally laconic: “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” The logic is clear for the left: if the enemy is the bourgeoisie, then the violent elimination of the whole class is necessary. As the founder of the Soviet Union’s secret police said, “We are not waging war against individual persons. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class.”  

Our modern leftists and leftist-lite progressives may have lost their gumption for getting their own hands bloody, but they still have their attraction for the strong man who is happy to bathe his in blood up to the elbows. 

The problem with endorsing violence to realize political ideals is that human nature, with its conflicting passions and interests, is vulnerable to the corruption of power, an observation over a thousand years old when Lord Acton composed his famous aphorism in the 19th century. The Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions had acknowledged this tragic fact about human weakness. The Founders knew it too, and so made the limitation of power the foundation of our political order. And even then, they still worried about the tendency of political power to aggrandize itself and threaten political freedom and other rights. As Thomas Jefferson wrote,

Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

No matter how well-intentioned, no matter how lofty the ideals for which one sets out to kill one’s fellows, in the end the intoxication of power becomes too great, and those using it soon degenerate into murder and tyranny. 

This simple fact about the left is what made the hysteria over Donald Trump’s potential “fascism” or malign nationalism so preposterous. Progressivism and communism are the kissing cousins of fascism, and it is their adherents who admire political violence for noble causes––“any means necessary,” as the slogan went in the sixties. Today it is their devotees who get misty-eyed over the “great leader” who promises to sweep away the impediments––human rights, law, traditional morality, faith––that try to limit violence. That’s why today there is no Antifa on the right, no mobs trying to shout down speakers or intimidate them with violence, no murderers turned into specious martyrs, no terrorists living comfortably with university sinecures and book contracts, and no psychopathic criminals the subjects of sentimental Hollywood biopics.

That’s because genuine conservatism loves freedom more than power, and recognizes that all humans, no matter how smart or well-intentioned or idealistic, cannot be trusted with power for too long. And that in turn makes conservatives Constitutionalists, for our political order was built on that ancient wisdom, as was Western civilization itself. When we reject that wisdom and puff ourselves up with arrogance because we are better engineers, we pave the way for the hubris that Sophocles said breeds the tyrant, whose excesses provoke a murderous nemesis.


Antifa Thugs Target ICE

12 hours 15 min ago

The anarchist thugs of Antifa are branching out into obstructing immigration law enforcement, apparently no longer content with shutting down conservative speakers and beating up those they promiscuously label “fascists.”

A case in point was last Thursday, Feb. 15, when about 70 activists surrounded a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) van that was attempting to enter the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. The anarchists chanted “no more deportations,” “Trump and Pence must go,” “f--k ICE,” as well as slogans in the Spanish language.

Although the two ICE agents in the van at the time were unharmed and there were no arrests, the action was viewed by anarchists as a successful test of the tactic. Antifa intends to expand its use of the approach. Given Antifa’s ugly track record, this could mean violent, terroristic attacks on law enforcement.

The nighttime action was leftist retaliation for ICE officers doing their jobs by enforcing the law. ICE reportedly detained more than 200 illegal aliens in Los Angeles during a recent five-day enforcement sweep.

Radical leftist Rabbi Aryeh Cohen bitterly complained to the Los Angeles Times about ICE doing what it is supposed to do.

"The original goal was to really loudly proclaim that we're not going to stand for ICE destroying families … on Valentine's Day of all days," said Cohen, who is on the board of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, which helped to publicize the action.

"When the ICE/DHS van came, our group of people decided it was time to put their bodies in front of the machinery of deportation," he said.

Cohen is also “part-time Rabbi-in-Residence” in Southern California at Bend the Arc Jewish Action Inc., a George Soros-funded 501(c)(4) nonprofit social advocacy organization.

ICE had no choice but to carry out the raids, according to ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan.

Because sanctuary jurisdictions like Los Angeles prevent ICE from arresting criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail, our officers are forced to conduct at-large arrests in the community, putting officers, the general public and the aliens at greater risk and increasing the incidents of collateral arrests.

California, which is thought to be home to more than 2 million illegal aliens, has declared itself a “sanctuary state.” A state law took effect Jan. 1 that dramatically curtails the power of state and local law enforcement to hold, question, and transfer detainees at the request of federal immigration authorities. It also penalizes employers for cooperating with ICE.

The bizarre, almost certainly unconstitutional, law has been attacked as “unconscionable” by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions who is trying to block federal crime-fighting grants from flowing to sanctuary jurisdictions.

The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers call sanctuary jurisdictions "civil liberties safe zones." The phrase blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S. These sanctuary cities really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States.

Two local Antifa groups, the Koreatown Popular Assembly and the Los Angeles chapter of Refuse Fascism, participated in the picket line Thursday that eventually broke up after police ordered the crowd to disperse.

Antifa are the self-styled anti-fascists who embrace fascist tactics and have gained new prominence in the post-Obama era. They trace their roots back to Nazi Germany. Although they opposed the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Nazi storm troopers, they also used violence to intimidate political opponents and break up their meetings and rallies. It could be argued that the ideological distance between Antifa and the now-defunct National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated as NSDAP) or Nazi Party, is so slight it can be measured in millimeters.

Refuse Fascism held a rally in support of the action last week that was headlined by Refuse Fascism organizer Michelle Xia. Xia shouted into a megaphone, mustering an array of hoary agitprop clichés.

She said:

This regime that is in power right now is fascist and it is illegitimate and what they are doing right now is ethnic cleansing. It is not too extreme to call it ethnic cleansing. It is not too extreme to call it fascism. If we stay silent in the face of these attacks this is going to open up a pathway for these people to go after more and more people until they consolidate power and it looks like Nazi Germany again.

The Koreatown Popular Assembly organized the action against law enforcement in response to the Trump administration’s “mass escalation of raids by ICE” on so-called sanctuary cities “as punishment for not cooperating with immigration authorities,” according to an article attributed to the Black Rose Anarchist Federation on the anarchist website It’s Going Down.

This is why it is essential to organize a popular response and resistance to targeted raids which are intended to strike fear in and demobilize immigrant communities. Even the small act of blocking a single van with two officers inside shows that it’s possible to disrupt ICE’s activity in Los Angeles and organizers are looking to expand this tactic.

Employing the kind of language Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky used, the article held up the Koreatown Popular Assembly as an inspirational example of participatory democracy in action.

It is significant that these actions are not the efforts of stand alone activists or NGO [i.e. nongovernmental organization] directed staff but a result of discussion, debate and decision making by a base of everyday people choosing the priorities based on their immediate reality and needs. The Koreatown Popular Assembly is still small and embryonic but stands out as an example of how radicals can move beyond isolated projects and work to build popular power from below.

The Koreatown Popular Assembly used the same tactic of obstruction against ICE the month before, the article stated. It created a “Rapid Response Network that mobilized together with other groups on January 18 to surround a neighborhood 7-Eleven and prevent ICE from returning to the neighborhood to obtain documents from the store manager.”

Although the convenience store’s manager later met with ICE officials elsewhere, “the mobilization successfully prevented ICE from entering the neighborhood as a form of community intimidation.” This kind of mobilization constitutes “counter intimidation to ICE.”

In other words, this is a case of Antifa mob rule versus the rule of law.

The Koreatown Popular Assembly prepared for the 7-Eleven mobilization by canvassing local stores in search of illegal aliens seeking help. Flyers in Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, Bengali, and English were distributed. The Rapid Response Network operates a 24-hour hotline for reporting ICE enforcement activities.

The article performs a rhetorical sleight-of-hand by dubbing those conspiring to obstruct law enforcement as “first responders,” in a creepy attempt to confer a kind of legitimacy on network operatives. This dreadful euphemism is a perversion of language calculated to boost the image of these lawbreakers, and ought to enrage real first responders who save lives such as ambulance personnel, firefighters, and police.

The article states:

With over a year of preparation and training the hotline is staffed with around 30 dispatchers who volunteer to do two to three 4-hour shifts a week. In turn the network has trained nearly 100 first responders who are registered based on geographic areas and dispatched with text messages via an open source software platform.

Whether any of the “first responders” are themselves illegal aliens is unclear.

As for Xia’s group, Refuse Fascism, its goal is to overthrow the U.S. government through occupations and crippling strikes. The activists and their tactics are examined in Antifa, the third leg of the documentary film series, America Under Siege, by Dangerous Documentaries and Cohesion Films. (I am one of two executive producers of the series. Dangerous Documentaries is Capital Research Center’s movie studio.)

Refuse Fascism is a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party, according to KeyWiki, Trevor Loudon’s online encyclopedia of politics. Among its founders are Cornel West and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

Refuse Fascism prefers Kim Jong-un over Donald Trump, siding with the gulag-filled Stalinist hermit state of North Korea that has threatened to incinerate the American homeland with nuclear weapons. The group has organized demonstrations against the Trump administration that have turned violent, including those around Inauguration Day a year ago. The group also spouts pro-North Korean propaganda talking points.

George Soros funds the Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ), which accepted donations on behalf of the ultra-violent Occupy Wall Street movement as a so-called fiscal sponsor. Fiscal sponsors take in donations on behalf of unincorporated or small groups so that donors can deduct the donations from their taxes, charging the group receiving the donation a processing fee. AfGJ now serves as a fiscal sponsor for Refuse Fascism.

Antifa groups are going to need money if they wish to escalate their activities against ICE and the Trump administration.

Chances are, George Soros will oblige them.

Forget the Terrorists, What about Your Government, Mr. Sisi?

12 hours 15 min ago

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Reprinted from Coptic Solidarity.

It is one thing for Egyptian President Sisi not to be able to prevent surprise Islamic terror attacks against Egypt’s Christians, the Copts.  But what does one make of the fact that his own government also discriminates against and persecutes the Copts?

Most recently, a court sentenced 19 Muslim defendants to a one-year suspended sentence for attacking an unregistered church near Giza last December 22.  Then, dozens of Muslim rioters had gathered outside the building; they eventually stormed it and “destroyed the church’s contents and assaulted Christians inside.” 

Based on this sentencing (from a misdemeanor court no less), the defendants are not required to serve prison time unless they get into trouble again.  On the other hand, a Coptic Christian defendant was fined 360,000 Egyptian pounds (equivalent to $20,383) for setting up the unlicensed church.

The court’s logic is that, by using an unregistered building as a church, the entire incident is the Copt’s fault—for aggrieving local Muslims.  Meanwhile, the well-known fact is that getting a church permit in Egypt is as difficult as getting a mosque permit is easy—and explains why havoc ensues when Copts merely try to renovate a church, while ten mosques are opened every week. In other words, if the government did not make it so difficult for Copts to congregate and worship, they would not need to resort to using private homes and unregistered buildings.

This is hardly the first such incident to reflect the Egyptian authorities’ flagrant double standards. Muslim uprisings based on Copts meeting in private homes to worship or using unregistered buildings—with local officials ultimately siding with violent Muslim rioters—is a common occurrence in Egypt.  Last summer in the village of Kom al-Loufy in Minya, where some 1,600 Copts have for five years been trying to reopen their church, Muslims rampaged through the village, burning Christian homes to the ground, on a rumor that Copts were using one of the homes to meet and pray in.  

After waiting 44 years, the Christians of Nag Shenouda were issued the necessary permits to build a church in 2015.  According to a report, local Muslims rioted and burned down the temporary worship tent. When a Christian tried to hold a religious service in his home, another Muslim mob attacked it. Denied a place to worship, the Christians of Nag Shenouda celebrated Easter in the street.

Also after waiting years, the Christians of Gala’ village finally received formal approval to begin restoring their dilapidated church (see pictures here). Soon thereafter, Muslims rioted, hurling stones at Christian homes, businesses and persons. Christian-owned wheat farms were destroyed and their potato crops uprooted. The usual Islamic slogans were shouted: “Islamic! Islamic!” and “There is no god but Allah!”

Another church under construction in Swada village, Minya, was attacked by a mob consisting of at least 400 Muslims (believed to have been incited by local officials no less).   After the attack, and although the church had obtained the necessary permits required for construction, it was closed by the same officials.  Although comprising approximately 35% of Swada village, the 3,000 Coptic Christians there do not have a single church to serve them.

As in the most recent case from Giza, Muslim judges in all of the above incidences—and there are many more—gave Muslim vandals and rioters at most a “slap on the wrist,” while forcing the victims to pay penalties and sometimes even serve jail time.  

Much of this is consistent with the World Watch List 2018, which ranked Egypt the 17th worst nation in the world wherein to be Christian.  It found that “officials at any level from local to national” are “strongly responsible” for the “oppression” of Egypt’s Christians.   “Government officials,” the report adds, “also act as drivers of persecution through their failure to vindicate the rights of Christians and also through their discriminatory acts which violate the fundamental rights of Christians.”  While authorities themselves are sometimes the persecutors—as when Muslim soldiers beat several Christian soldiers to death on account of their faith, most recently in July 2017—they more often function as enablers, allowing a culture of impunity to thrive.

All this again begs the question: whereas it may be understandable that Sisi cannot eliminate terrorism—after all, terrorists operate surreptitiously and work “in the shadows”—what about the fact that his very own government (from local police and authorities to top department heads and courtroom judges) is openly biased against the Copts—and right under his nose?  


Aliens Who Didn’t Register Under DACA: ‘Lazy’ Or Committing Fraud?

12 hours 18 min ago
The President’s Chief of Staff, Gen. John Kelly, recently raised some eyebrows when he postulated that many illegal aliens who could have applied to participate in the Obama administration’s illegal DACA program may have simply been too lazy to apply for temporary lawful status when the program was in effect.
Although General Kelly had a highly successful and laudable record of service to our nation in the United States Marine Corps, he never enforced nor administered our nation’s immigration laws.  His lack of experience and subsequent lack of understanding about the challenges that confront those who enforce and administer our immigration laws have apparently caused him to come to a very wrong and, indeed, dangerous conclusion, which may have influenced President Trump’s decision to provide lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship to three times as many aliens as were covered by the Obama administration’s DACA program.
Gen. Kelly may not realize that many of those applicants may be successfully gaming the immigration system by committing immigration fraud.  They didn’t enroll not because they were lazy but because they weren’t present in the United States during the enrollment period and would falsely claim they were if a new program were to take effect.  Indeed, if this program is created, many applicants might enter the United States in the months ahead, but claim they have been here for years.
On February 7, 2018 Politifact posted an articleIn Context: John Kelly’s remarks on ‘lazy’ immigrants and DACA, that included this paragraph that was critical of Kelly and the President:
Kelly’s remarks drew criticism from lawmakers and advocates for immigrant rights who countered that the DACA population is hard-working and that the Trump administration is attempting to demonize immigrants.
That brief paragraph contains a major falsehood that, for decades, has permeated discussions and news coverage about the immigration crisis.  The article referred to “advocates for immigrant rights” who were angered by Kelly's statement, however, illegal aliens are not immigrants.  That bit of semantic “sleight of language” of referring to all aliens as “immigrants” was devised during the Carter administration, as I noted in a previous article.  The misuse of language is not about being “politically correct,” but about being Orwellian, employing Newspeak tactics to alter understandings and thoughts by altering language.
True immigrants already have “rights” in the United States. They are lawfully present and were placed on the pathway to United States citizenship the day that lawful immigrant status was conferred upon them.  In order to qualify to become naturalized citizens, should they desire to do so, they would have to meet certain other requirements such as meeting time requirements in the United States and possessing “good moral conduct” as established in the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
The reporter who described the motivation behind Gen. Kelly’s statement as seeking to “demonize immigrants” was so eager to hurl criticisms at the Trump administration that she ignored that Gen. Kelly was likely simply being naive and, in that naivety, Kelly overlooked the real problem: the fact that many of these aliens may be committing fraud and were not actually present in the United States during the enrollment program during the Obama administration.
General Kelly lacks understanding about immigration, not because he isn’t intelligent, but because he lacks the experiences in immigration that my 30 years with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have provided me.  This includes a one-year assignment to a pilot program with the unit that adjudicated the petitions U.S. citizens and resident aliens file for their alien spouses to receive lawful immigrant status in the United States.
To provide a bit of background, management at the INS in 1973 found that the number of such petitions had sky-rocketed and there were serious concerns about high levels of fraud being behind the surge in applications.  The idea behind the pilot program was to make certain the petitioners and their spouses were actually living in a marital relationship.  Aliens who were found to have been engaged in marriage fraud were immediately taken into custody and detained for deportation hearings.  Within a few months the numbers of applications plummeted as the aliens came to the understanding that there would be consequences for participating in a fraud conspiracy.  You could call this deterrence through enforcement.  Laws only matter when those who violate the law know that they will face severe consequences.
Today, however, the number of such aliens and hence the applications are so great, no in-person interviews would be possible.  No field investigations would be possible.  The Adjudications Officers would have to make their decisions solely by reviewing applications and supporting documents provided by “undocumented” aliens.  The veracity of these documents may be impossible to determine and, since nearly all of these documents do not include any biometric identifiers, it wold be all but impossible to know if the documents even actually relate to the alien applying for lawful status.
These aliens may well be imposters.
On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first congressional hearing.  The House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the issue of Visa Fraud and Immigration Benefits Application Fraud. When the Chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Lamar Smith, asked me if I had encountered a common problem during my tenure as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Examiner (the position now referred to as Adjudications Officers) and as an Immigration Special Agent, I replied by stating that imposters were a major concern.
Here we are more than twenty years after that hearing and we still have a huge and deadly problem created by our inability to always be certain as the true identities of applicants for visas and immigration benefits.
Incidentally, that hearing in 1997 was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in the United States in 1993.  In January 1993 a Pakistani national gained entry into the parking lot of  CIA Headquarters in Virginia and opened fire with an AK-47, killing two CIA officers and wounding three others.  The next month a bombing at the World Trade Center killed six innocent victims and injured more than one thousand people and inflicted an estimated half-billion dollars in damages and nearly toppled one of the 110-story buildings. 
Both attacks were carried out by aliens from the Middle East who had gamed various elements of the immigration system.  The apparent ringleader of the World Trade Center attack, Mahmud Abouhalima, as the Los Angeles Times reported on March 25, 1993, was the beneficiary of the 1986 Reagan amnesty. He gained lawful status under the Special Agricultural provisions of that massive amnesty program, which as principally authored and ram-rodded through Congress by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer.
These aliens may be in their mid-30’s, hence, there would be no way of knowing if they actually entered the United States before they were 16 years of age or entered the United States recently and are simply lying about their dates of entry.  No record of entry is created when aliens evade the inspections process at ports of entry. 
President Trump was absolutely spot-on in his insistence that the United States not admit aliens who cannot be vetted.  This was the fundamental concern behind his Executive Order that came to be labeled a “Travel Ban,” which should have been referred to as an “Entry Restriction.” Furthermore, these aliens are citizens from countries around the world, as reported by the DHS.
Let us not forget that aliens who run our borders do not enter “undocumented,” a term that could have been devised by Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.  These aliens enter the United States without inspection and without vetting.  Their presence in the United States remains unknown to our government until perhaps they commit a crime or participate in some other nefarious act.
Finally, an application for an immigration benefit can be approved in just minutes while the denial of an application can take days or longer.  Denied applications may be subject to an appeal and therefore denials require extensive paperwork, reviewed by government attorneys, in anticipation of such challenges. This creates a huge incentive to approve nearly all of these applications to keep up with the flood of applications.
All factors considered, as I noted my recent article, any DACA solution must heed the 9/11 Commission findings, which pointed out how our immigration system's vulnerabilities were exploited in the 2001 terrorist attacks. Fraud that will likely be committed by future DACA applicants, especially those who mysteriously failed to take advantage of the program while it was originally in effect, is a very serious concern that must be addressed with open eyes.  

Video: The Defectors

12 hours 19 min ago

With the establishment media's love affair with the North Korean dictator’s sister on recent full display at the Winter Olympics, Frontpage has found it fit to run Sky News' documentary about North Koreans who suffered years of brutality in North Korean prison camps. Sky's Asia Correspondent Mark Stone shares the astonishing and terrifying stories of those who have escaped one of the world's most brutal regimes. Don't miss it!


Lying About Gun Violence With Statistics

Fri, 02/16/2018 - 05:59

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, focuses on Islamic terrorism and the radical left.

Every time a Muslim terrorist shoots, stabs, bombs or runs over Americans, the default response is, “Let’s not jump to any conclusions”. That’s swiftly followed by media spin pieces claiming that the majority of terrorist attacks are really committed by white male Republicans and the Amish based on math so bad that even the world’s crookedest bookie wouldn’t go near it. And anyone who argues that the pattern of Islamic terror attacks is a call for common sense migration reform is regarded as a racist and a coward who wants to destroy the Constitution by blowing a handful of attacks out of proportion.

(And do you know how many people are hit by lightning or stung by killer bees every year.)

And whenever a suburban shooting happens, especially in a school, it becomes a clarion call to dismantle the 2nd Amendment. And that’s also backed by some of the world’s worst statistics.

The worst gun violence statistics trolls work for Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Bloomberg had bought Gracie Mansion out of the pocket change in his sofa cushion. But buying the office of mayor of New York City was a lot easier than his plans to buy the White House. Everytown was supposed to be a match for the NRA. But while the NRA represents gun owners, Everytown represents a lefty billionaire. And Bloomberg’s gun control trolls spent years dressing in drag to hide that simple fact.

There was Mayors Against Illegal Guns, but the group quickly began falling apart. Some members had to leave when they were caught misusing guns. Like Mayor James Schiliro who was arrested for waving guns around and demanding sexual favors from a young man. Then there was Ma Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action. None of it worked. And Everytown for Gun Safety isn’t working either.

What does a fake group like Everytown do? It spreads fake statistics.

Everytown jumped on the Parkland, Florida school shooting to claim that there were “18 shootings at schools in the first 45 days of 2018.” If that sounds like a lot, you’re right.

But Everytown was being literally true, and false in every other way. There were 18 shootings at schools: counting suicides, accidental firearms discharges and shootings in the general vicinity of a school even when the building is completely empty. In around half of the shootings, no one was injured.

But the media initially fell for the Everytown hoax because it fit the narrative.

Mass shootings haven’t actually increased. But the perception of them has. Criminologist James Alan Fox has repeatedly demonstrated that the hard numbers aren’t going anywhere. But real statistics are boring. And so fake statistics, whether from Everytown, Vox or Mother Jones, have proliferated instead.

Fake statistics like Everytown’s 18 school shootings create a sense of urgency. Nothing manufactures a crisis like statistics showing that the problem is getting worse when what is actually getting worse is the media coverage. The media’s obsession with mass shootings not only creates the perception that they are getting worse, but it also inspires a special class of mass shooters to aim for a new high score.

Guns don’t cause mass shootings, but media coverage does.

“The copycat phenomenon is real,” Andre Simons, of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, asserted. Even Mother Jones noted the Columbine Effect in which the infamous school shootings inspired 74 others. One group of researchers found that up to 20 or 30 percent of attacks can be influenced by previous attacks. Statements and writings by mass shooters serve as anecdotal evidence that the copycat effect is real. The media’s obsession with mass shooters creates more of them.

There is statistical evidence that teenage suicides spread. That’s why the media doesn’t cover them. The exception is when that teenager brings a gun to school and opens fire. Mass shooters want publicity and the media wants to dismantle the right to private gun ownership. Don’t blame the NRA, blame NBC.

 Guns don’t kill people, but sometimes cameras do. It would be foolish to treat the 1st Amendment the way that the media would like us to treat the 2nd Amendment. There is a constitutional right to media bias. Just as there is a right to own a rifle. And as long as madmen kill, the media will lie about them.

The bigger statistical hoax isn’t Everytown’s 18 school shootings. It’s the media’s unspoken equivalence of gun violence with mass shootings. Like serial killers, mass shooters are an aberration. Everytown’s hoax unintentionally reveals what gun violence really looks like. It isn’t Parkland: it’s suicides, accidental discharges and gang violence. Most gun violence isn’t the work of mass shooters, but gang members.

The suburban kid who goes to a school and opens fire will be on the news for weeks while the kid in the ghetto who shoots up a housing project in Chicago or St. Louis will never be more than a local crime story. But those local crime stories are what make Chicago, Baltimore and St. Louis uniquely dangerous.

The firearm crime rate has been steadily falling. Even as the population has grown, the number of incidents and victims have dropped sharply. Gun control conspiracy theorists obsess over the 2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. But the number of firearms incidents has been higher before it expired and has often been lower since it expired. Gun bans have very little to do with violent crime.

Violent crime is carried out by criminals. Banning guns doesn’t stop people who already operate outside the law. The French authorities seize some 1,200 “assault rifles” every year. Meanwhile in the capital of the European Union, you can get a “military weapon” for $500 in half an hour.

The “If we were more like Europe” argument is elitist posturing by wannabe expats who have never visited the seedier and grimier parts of Sweden, France or the United Kingdom after sunset. Most gun violence in America and Europe isn’t committed by legal gun owners, but by known criminals.

The media loves crazed lone wolf shooters, but they’re the exception, not the rule.

Most shootings are carried out by gang members against other gang members. Innocent bystanders can and do get hit in these battles. But they’re wars between rival organizations and soldiers. Gun control won’t stop them from obtaining firearms or settling their scores in the streets of Chicago.

Chicago, like most of the country’s bloodiest war zones, has tough gun control laws. The parts of the country where a weekend wraps up with six shootings are usually not the places with high percentages of legal gun ownership where you can browse through a selection of rifles at the local mall.

The media’s greatest statistical trick is mixing everything together.

Gang members shooting each other by the dozen over a Chicago weekend are added to the pot. But the meatloaf that comes out has the face of the latest suburban school shooter. The huge suicide rate is tossed in to inflate gun violence statistics. And audiences are left with the impression that huge numbers of people are being shot in schools across the country. Just look at those 18 school shootings.

We don’t have a gun violence problem. Parts of Chicago, Baltimore and St. Louis do. Parkland is an aberration. As was Sandy Hook. But the media would like to let Adam Lanza be the face of gun violence instead of the inner city kid from a permanent Dem district with a record longer than the Sears Tower.

The media wants to have a conversation about gun violence, good idea. We can start by asking why it’s more prevalent in Democrat areas, and why they would rather talk about the inanimate objects than the perpetrators pulling the trigger. We can ask Jimmy Kimmel how many guns his security detail carries and find out how willing Michael Bloomberg would be to walk through Baltimore without any armed guards.

But honest conversations aren’t on the table. Everytown is just doing its part to keep it dishonest.


Terror on a Train

Fri, 02/16/2018 - 05:55

In August of 2015, Moroccan national Ayoub El Khazzani boarded a Paris-bound train with an AK-47, a pistol, more than 300 rounds of ammunition, and a box cutter. The Muslim’s intention was to kill as many people as possible but American passengers Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alex Skarlatos disarmed and tied up the terrorist then they saved the life of the man he had shot. France hailed the three Americans as heroes.

As Michael Corleone said in The Godfather, that’s a terrific story, not the sort of thing you can make up. Director Clint Eastwood thought he would make a movie of it, using Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos instead of professional actors. So this would be a new kind of cinéma vérité

Actors do play the three Americans at the junior-high stage in Sacramento, California. Dramatically the back stories are flat spots, but Eastwood is at pains to show that these are basically three ordinary guys, none from what one would call a “privileged” background. All three have a mischievous side and two show interest in the joining the U.S. military.

In the Air Force, Spencer Stone finds himself disqualified for a position because of a problem with depth perception. He doesn’t get what he wants, but he still presses on.

The 15:17 to Paris doesn’t give the back story of Moroccan Ayoub El Khazzani, played by Ray Corasani (The Long Road Home) but the portrayal is also cinéma vérité. This guy did indeed board the train intending to gun down as many people as possible. Spencer Stone may have lacked depth perception but he showed plenty of guts when the Moroccan Muslim started shooting. 

The AK-47 misfired but the unarmed Stone tackled the terrorist before he could get off a round. The American gets cut up pretty bad but Skarlatos and Sadler join the fray and the trio prevail. The sequence isn’t as fancy as something from, say, True Lies, but it is authentic. The hogtied Ayoub El Khazzani isn’t going to kill anybody, and viewers see Stone applying his Air Force medical training to save a wounded passenger’s life.

Some critics call the film an experiment in “stunt casting,” and others charge that Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos, though clearly heroes, are out of their element as actors. After all, they have no previous experience.

On the other hand, viewers might wonder how many movie “action” stars, say Bruce Willis, Steven Seagal, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, ever dared to challenge a terrorist about to spray bullets from an AK-47. A ballpark figure would be zero, and director Oliver Stone is not going to make a movie showing Americans as heroes, even if they are.

The 15:17 to Paris shows French president François Hollande presenting the three Americans with the Legion D’honneur, and France’s highest honor is surely worth more than any Oscar. Hollande says Anthony Sadler summed it up best. In a situation like that, “il faut faire quelque chose,” and such situations are all too common in France.  

In January of 2015, two Muslim brothers killed 11 people at the Charlie Hebdo magazine to avenge cartoons they perceived as mocking the prophet Muhammad. In early 2015 Muslim terrorists also attacked a kosher market in Paris, claiming 17 victims, including two police officers. Jihadist attacks have killed 238 people in France since 2015 and militant Islam is a major issue.

The 15:17 to Paris alludes to World War II but this conflict is different. Unlike the Nazis, the enemy deploys jihadists to hijack civilian airliners, gun down civilians on passenger trains, and even run them down with trucks, like Uzbek Muslim Sayfullo Saipov in New York City last October.

Workers can attend an office Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, and find themselves facing Islamic terrorists Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who gunned down 14 innocents and wounded many others. In that kind of conflict, everybody is a potential victim, and combatant.

The United States has had no military draft since 1973, so the Armed Forces have to recruit. In recent years, the U.S. military ran television ads showing troops rushing into action and asking potential recruits, “which way would you run?”

When Ayoub El Khazzani leveled his AK-47, Stone, Scarlatos and Sadler ran at the terrorist and prevailed. With jihadsts still on the march, just about anybody could face a situation like that. To adapt a line from Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, “you gotta ask yourself, which way would you run?”

At 87, with more than half a century in the business, Clint Eastwood could be lounging on a porch swing with a cold drink. Instead he makes a movie about a true story, casting three Americans in their own heroic roles.

Whatever its faults, The 15:17 to Paris shows an actual victory for the good guys. That’s why, in the theater where this writer saw it, the people were clapping at the end.

German Activist Has Her Eyes Opened About Muslim Refugees

Fri, 02/16/2018 - 05:40

The must-read Vlad Tepes blog posted a lengthy but fascinating interview recently with a German artist, activist for the rights of indigenous peoples, and UN advisor Rebecca Sommer, posted by the Polish website EuroIslam.

As Vlad Tepes notes, "Rebecca used to support Muslim 'refugees' in Germany, and describes how her experience made her gradually change her mind over core issues." That's putting it mildly. Sommer's experiences were eye-opening enough that she is now unafraid to declare truths about Islamic mass migration that are unacceptable to the European elites who insist on accelerating their countries toward cultural suicide.

Among some of her revelations:

  • I have tried to justify these constantly repeated patterns of behavior and thinking, their way of perceiving the world – which are based on their religion, Islam, and their culture – for example, in such a way that they are new here. I believed that these medieval views would change over time. I placed great trust in our libertarian, equitable European values, and I naively thought that every person must delight in them and take them on.
  • I had to admit to myself that when it comes to Muslim refugees, they have grown up with completely different values, into which they have been brainwashed and are indoctrinated by Islam, and have no intention of adopting our values – worse, they look at us, unbelievers with superiority and arrogance.
  • It turned out that those people who dealt with everything who ate with me, drank, danced, laughed, did not pray, did not go to the mosque, did not observe Ramadan, mocked religion and deeply religious people, they, all while eating my food and sitting in my garden, they don’t talk about me other than “a stupid German whore”.
  • This freedom is very precious and very fragile, if we think about how many people are arriving here all of a sudden, with their “scarf in the head” [their Islamic mindset] and just because of their numbers everything changes here. We see it now. I became very cautious and extremely distrustful. I believe that those who really do not need asylum with us should seek asylum or seek a better life in Muslim countries, instead of trying to force their medieval values over us and over time simply hurt us all.
  • In a Muslim marriage, we have a lot of violence and rape. A woman has no human value, she is perceived as a sexual object and not as a partner. She is a worker and a birthing machine. This is her job as a good Muslim woman. Just like most Muslims don’t respect us, they don’t respect their own women.
  • Thanks to the existence of taqqiya Muslims are free from any responsibility towards the unbeliever – this is my warning for women who deal with them! But also especially for our politicians who enter into agreements with Islamic unions – no oath, even in the name of Allah, matters because of taqqiya, because Allah has dispensed his faithful from oaths towards unbelievers.
  • The sexual molesting of volunteers happens all the time, but none of us has ever reported such a case to the police because none of us wanted to be seen as an opponent of refugees and cause problems for the center.
  • Then there was a very unpleasant surprise when a friendly – until now – immigrant dragged her by her hair into the bathroom at the moment when she wanted to say goodbye. He cannot understand that she wants to go now, because why did the “whore” come alone to his room?
  • The courts here are rather leftist. Many judges are pro-immigrant and there are cases where immigrants and Germans with a migratory background receive a “cultural and religious bonus” and are favored. Among them are also female judges and I consider them particularly bad – women who are against women.
  • I am afraid that in the next election, in four years, we can see a new phenomenon – Muslims will establish their party and because they already have a large electorate, they will become unstoppable. With the help of the left wing and almost all parties, they will begin to change the rules and we will be the ones who will have to adapt.

It's worth reading the entire thing and sharing with anyone whose eyes are still closed to the threat of importing huge numbers of people into the West with values aggressively opposed to ours. Read it all here.


Fri, 02/16/2018 - 05:30

Scrolling the other day through Netflix's mostly unimpressive offerings, I noticed something entitled London Has Fallen, a thriller about a terrorist attack on the British capital. I hadn't heard of it before. I looked it up on Wikipedia. Released in early March 2016, it's a sequel to Olympus Has Fallen (2013), which is about an assault on the White House.

The A.V. Club, according to Wikipedia, picked London Has Fallen as its “worst movie of the year.” Variety called it “terrorsploitation” and “reactionary fear-mongering.” I had the sneaking feeling that it would be just my cup of tea.

I was right. It proved to be a rousing specimen of the genre, complete with terrorists armed to the teeth (machine guns, flamethrowers, hand grenades); shootouts and car chases; helicopters dodging missiles in the sky over London; and much else. Most important, the bad guys were the people who should be the bad guys, and the good guys were the people who should be the good guys. The picture even ended with Morgan Freeman, as the vice president, saying “God bless the United States of America.”

Hokey? Okay, if you say so. But also exciting and inspiring – precisely the kind of movie it takes to focus alpha males on the threat that jihadist Islam represents to all that they hold dear. Seen through a cynical postmodern lens, Mrs. Miniver was hokey, too. But it also, as Churchill noted, turned millions of Americans into fervent supporters of the British war effort.

After watching London Has Fallen, I went back online and read some of the reviews. First I looked at the Variety notice that Wikipedia had quoted. It was withering, accusing the film not only of “terrorsploitation” and “fear-mongering” but also of “American jingoism” and “flag-waving.” Its global box office, warned Variety, might suffer because of its focus on “American leaders and freedoms, at any cost to those of other nations.” What? The movie's whole point was that the thugs who threaten American freedoms also threaten the leaders and freedoms of other democracies. (Minor spoiler: among those wiped out near the start of the picture were the heads of Germany, France, Italy, and Japan.)

Variety's chief criticism was that London Has Fallen was “effortlessly racist” and exhibited “familiar Islamophobia.” The flick's bigotry, apparently, consisted in the fact that the terrorist mastermind was a Pakistani and not, say, a Hoosier. Variety was especially disgusted when the hero, Secret Service guy Mike Banning (Gerald Butler), told a terrorist: “Get back to F***headistan or wherever it is you’re from.” Mustn't offend the sensitivities of mass murderers!

Virtually all of the other reviews agreed. The Charlotte Observer chastized the director, Iranian-Swedish Babak Najafi, for “stereotyping people of his religion as murderers and criminals.” (Maybe Najafi, who fled Iran for Sweden, knows a bit more about “his religion” than some hack in North Carolina?) Calling the movie “paranoid,” the San Francisco Chronicle charged that it “feeds on...fears about Middle East folks.” The Los Angeles Times said that this “extra Trump-y” offering was targeted at audiences of “angry conspiracy theorists” and that its “good guys and bad guys” were “color-coded.” And the New York Times laughed at the “preposterous number of terrorists with an equally preposterous supply of guns and explosives.”

Preposterous? As noted, London Has Fallen came out in early March 2016. In a poll taken the next month, two-thirds of British Muslims said they wouldn't tattle to the authorities about fellow believers who were involved in terrorism. One-third of British Muslims refused to condemn violence against critics of their faith, and almost one-fourth admitted that they wanted the U.K. to be governed by sharia law. In 2017, moreover, it was reported that intelligence officers had identified no fewer than 23,000 “jihadist extremists living in Britain.” In short: if some well-organized British Muslim wanted to carry out a terrorist strike on the scale shown in London Is Falling, he wouldn't have much trouble finding recruits.

Just as the Times found the number of terrorists in the film “preposterous,” several critics sneered at the depiction of rogue cops by the dozen fighting for the enemy. But is this so farfetched, given the eagerness of British police departments to ignore Muslim grooming gangs and arrest critics of Islam?

No, it's not. But mainstream film critics don't want to face such disconcerting facts. When it comes to Islam and jihadist terror, they can't handle the truth. Audiences flocked to London Is Falling: it grossed $250 million worldwide. But the critics, with few exceptions, prefer politically correct flops that insist on the “moral ambiguity” of the struggle between the free West and jihadist Islam – or that explicitly paint America as evil and terrorists as victims.

Oh, and speaking of facts: just in case you forgot, on March 22, 2017, a little more than a year after the “paranoid” London Has Fallen came out, a British Muslim drove a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, killing four and injuring 49, then murdered a cop outside the Houses of Parliament. On May 22, a Muslim suicide bomber took 22 lives and harmed 250 people at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. On June 3, eight people were killed and 48 injured by three Muslim terrorists in a van on London Bridge.

Yes, the real-life death tolls were far lower than in London Has Fallen. So far, thankfully, London has been spared jihadist terror on the scale shown in the film. Key words: “so far.” With 23,000 potential terrorists running around, it's impossible to say that Britain won't soon experience anything like London Is Falling (the devastation in which, despite its daunting dimensions, still falls short of the reality of 9/11). And if London is spared such a fate, it'll likely be because the city is already so heavily Islamized that the would-be aggressors will decide that any attack would be redundant.

All of which is by way of saying that when the critics call a picture like this paranoid or preposterous, it may be because there's more truth in it than they care to deal with. Compared to the actual brutality of jihadist Islam, their leftist conceit that the real villains are American spies, soldiers, mercenaries, or oil barons is sheer comfort food. Hey, Variety, New York Times, L.A. Times, and all the rest of you: wake up! London is falling.

The Progressives’ Legacy: Debt, Deficit, and Entitlements

Fri, 02/16/2018 - 05:09

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Last week Senator Rand Paul briefly shut the government down in protest of the $500 billion spending bill recently signed by the president. This latest binge will by 2027 increase to $800 billion the already $300 billion we currently spend on servicing the $20 trillion national debt. And that projected increase assumes interest rates at 3.5%. The debt-driving deficits are again approaching $1 trillion a year, meaning the debt will continue to expand beyond 100% of GDP, reaching $30 trillion in a decade. 

But like Troy’s Cassandra, who for ten years accurately predicted the city’s destruction, Senator Paul was no more successful at alerting people to the coming calamity. Nor are any of the other fiscal hawks likely to do so either. The majority of citizens and politicians have no interest in our looming fiscal disaster, for they have become used to thinking that entitlements are “rights.” 

The fiscal problem is one of simple mathematics. We spend much more than we take in from tax-paying citizens, which leads to more and more borrowing to make up the shortfall. And we have made promises to the people––Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid––that we have not funded adequately, and that now account for nearly two-thirds of the annual budget. Social Security alone has unfunded liabilities of about $34 trillion, and that’s not as bad as Medicare’s $49 trillion. Worse yet, every day 10,000 Baby Boomers retire, meaning the beneficiaries will continue to expand. And right behind the Boomers are the 66 million Millennials. We’re looking at decades and decades of relentlessly increasing expenditures and the borrowing required to pay for them.

Most of the “solutions” to this problem are preposterous, functioning mainly as a political narcotic to numb the voters’ minds. The left thinks that raising taxes on the “rich” will generate enough money to fund these programs, even though confiscating all the wealth of America’s billionaires couldn’t fund the whole government for one year. The right thinks cutting taxes will create economic growth that will generate enough funds to put us in the black. But we can’t tax or grow our way out of this problem. Half the voters don’t pay federal taxes, nor do payroll deductions cover the whole bill for the average retiree, who will take more in benefits from Social Security and Medicaid than he paid for. Economic growth indeed increases revenues, but we typically spend the extra money instead of saving it so we can pay future bills or reduce the debt. 

The working solution, moreover, is political poison. According to one projection, making just Social Security solvent would require a one-third increase in the payroll tax, and a permanent reduction of 25% in benefits. Considering the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that accompanies suggestions that we reduce increases in benefits, most politicians go nowhere near such suicidal suggestions. And even those who do tend to have safe seats, or are certain that such fixes will never really happen, making their complaints mere rhetoric.

Beyond the dollars and cents, the entitlement state shows just how thoroughly both parties have endorsed the progressive dismantling of our political order. Starting a century ago the progressives pushed the notion that the modern world and its complexities required a technocratic elite to replace self-governing citizens. Power needed to be expanded and centralized in the federal government and its bureaus and agencies staffed by “experts.” Funding the new Leviathan would come from redistributing money appropriated from the “rich.” Programs would be created to transfer these funds, and borrowing could make up for any shortfalls. 

What the progressives ignored is the reality of human nature. Give people something for nothing, and they soon come to expect something for nothing as a right. And soon that “something” will metastasize into more and more expectations that also transform into “rights.” And the big government that redistributes money to fund those rights will be expected to keep up with the ever-growing list of goods to which the people are now “entitled.” As the Roman poet Martial said, some people have too much, but nobody has enough. 

This malign dynamic accelerated under Franklin Roosevelt, who in 1932 proclaimed “the age of enlightened administration has come,” and that the government should turn to the business of “distributing wealth and products more equitably.” To achieve these aims, the natural rights enshrined in the Constitution, which Roosevelt said had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness,” had to be supplemented by new “rights” created by government fiat. In his 1944 State of the Union, Roosevelt enumerated these rights: “a useful and remunerative job,” “adequate food and clothing and recreation,” a “decent home,” “adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” “adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment” and the right “to a good education.” 

Moreover, the federal government will mainly be responsible for protecting these “rights,” and subsidizing them through government revenues. Worse yet, enforcing these rights necessitates the growing power and expansion of federal agencies, which creates regulatory regimes eroding the freedom and autonomy of states, civil society, families, and individuals who once were responsible for seeing to the well-being of their communities and themselves. 

Finally, since governments do not create wealth, paying for this ever-expanding catalogue of “rights’ require redistributing money from some citizens and giving it to others: what Rudyard Kipling called “robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul,” thus ensuring that “all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins.” And when fleecing the rich does not provide adequate funds, the government has the power to spend more than it takes in, increasing the national debt.

What’s even more depressing is that political philosophy starting with the ancient Greeks had analyzed the danger to freedom of such an entitlement state. Only they called it “tyranny,” a concentration of power at the expense of freedom. The demagogue and tyrant came to power with the support of the masses, to whom they promised to redistribute wealth from the upper classes to the masses. As Plato wrote, “Do not the leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people?” Aristotle, linking this injustice to civic violence, said that “the demagogues, in order to curry favor with the people, wrong the nobles” by making “a division of their property, or diminishing their incomes by the imposition of public services.” And Polybius, likewise describing the degeneration of democracy into tyranny, describes how the people develop “both an appetite for bribes and the habit of receiving them.” Once “the people have become accustomed to feeding at the expense of others and their prospects of winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors,” the government degenerates into tyranny.

This history and philosophy had a major impact on the thinking of the Founders, whose principal aim was not “equality” of condition, a chimera, but the protection of political freedom and citizen autonomy as the best defense against tyranny. They knew that rights given by government can be taken away by government. They knew that autonomous free citizens and civil society was better able to manage their lives than a distant, autocratic government, no matter how “soft” its despotism. They knew that dependence on others corrupts character and accustoms people to getting something for nothing. And they saw the dangers in a people who have grown used to taking “the property of their neighbors,” who will not brook a diminishment of those transfers, and who will punish any politician who suggests that they can no longer expect such largess. 

So here we are 25 centuries later, proving the truth of this old wisdom. In the unprecedented fat years since World War II, we ceded to the government a lot of power over our lives and fates. Imagine what will happen in the lean years that are coming ever closer and closer. If we think we’re polarized now, wait until the hard choices will have to be made on diminishing the transfers of wealth which we have been trained to believe are sacred rights to which we are “entitled.” History suggests that it won’t be pretty.

Trump Stares Down Putin In Syria

Fri, 02/16/2018 - 05:04

On February 7, a large pro-Assad force of battalion-sized strength, equipped with tanks, rocket launchers and artillery approached a base housing U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the Deir-Ezzor region, and opened fire. The force was approximately 5 miles east of the so-called de-confliction line before mounting the attack. The offensive represented an attempt by the Russian-backed regime of Bashar Assad to secure areas that are currently not under regime control.

United States military advisers operate alongside the SDF, which was initially formed primarily to fight ISIS. The defeat of ISIS has made this anti-Assad force useful as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in Syria. After warnings to disengage went unheeded, the U.S. responded with overwhelming force to break up the attack. Air power and artillery were used to good effect. The force immediately turned tail and ran off without further interference by U.S. fighters.

According to U.S. sources, at least 100 pro-regime soldiers were killed and an additional 200 to 300 were injured. This wasn’t the first time the U.S. employed military force to thwart regime aggression in Syria. In June 2017, a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down a Syrian Su-22 after the latter dropped bombs on SDF positions, and U.S. airpower had been employed in the past to breakup menacing Syrian convoys approaching the de-confliction line. Moreover, just one week after the Deir-Ezzor engagement, a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) blasted a Russian-made T-72 battle tank operating near Al Tabiyeh in Syria. The tank had been firing on SDF positions. The fate of its crew and their respective nationalities were not known.

But the February 7, incident was markedly different in scope and has far greater ramifications than the other engagements. According to multiple Russian sources familiar with the incident, at least 200 and possibly as many as 300 Russian and pro-Russian Ukrainians were killed in the U.S. strikes. They were mercenary contract workers, employed by a shadowy outfit called Wagner, the Russian equivalent of Blackwater. Some of the Ukrainians had been doing Russia’s bidding in eastern Ukraine before they were shipped off to Syria.  

According to a report in Bloomberg News, they were hired by Assad or his allies to guard Syria’s energy assets. The Deir-Ezzor region is an oil-rich area and the likelihood is the Russian force was making an effort to seize oil-rich regions in the vicinity on behalf of the regime. These mercenaries may have also been hired directly by Russia to do their dirty work. A Russian Defense Ministry spokesman released a statement that made no mention of Russian mercenaries but condemned the American action in harsh terms and claimed that 25 Syrian fighters were injured. The Defense Ministry termed the U.S. military presence as “illegal” and accused the U.S. of “attempting to seize [Syrian] assets.” In a blatant display of abject hypocrisy, the Assad regime, which used sarin and other forms of poison gas against its own people, called the U.S. action “barbaric,” and a “war crime.”

We also cannot discount the possibility that these Russian mercenaries were bankrolled by the Iranians. Flush with $1.7 billion in cash ($400 million of which was ransom for the release of U.S. hostages illegally seized by Iran) as well as billions more in sanctions relief, compliments of Obama, the Iranians have been funding and sustaining numerous proxy armies across the region including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen and multiple proxy militias in Iraq. In addition, Iran has also recruited willing Shia mercenaries from impoverished failed states like Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The U.S maintains two primary interests in Syria. The first, the defeat of ISIS, has largely been accomplished. Unlike his predecessor Obama, Trump made the defeat of ISIS a priority and adopted a robust approach toward accomplishing this goal. Trump accomplished in one year what Obama could not accomplish in three.

The second goal is to prevent further Iranian entrenchment and expansion in Syria. In an absurd effort to curry favor with the mullahs, Obama turned a blind eye toward their nefarious regional activities and even considered them allies in the fight against ISIS. Trump however, is under no illusions about the malignant nature of the Islamic Republic. Shia and Sunni extremism pose equal dangers to Western civilization.

Trump’s approach toward Iran places him squarely at odds with Vladimir Putin, who regards the Iranians as indispensable allies in Syria. The death of at least 200 Russian contract mercenaries has almost certainly further heightened tensions between the U.S. and Russia. Nevertheless, Trump, by both word and deed has made clear that the U.S. will act to preserve its own interests in Syria regardless of any friction it may cause with Putin.

Notwithstanding Trump’s hardline approach toward Moscow in Syria and the impending imposition of new sanctions on Russia for its interference in the 2016 elections, Democrats led by oleaginous propagandists like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, and their allies in the Trump-hating establishment media continue to peddle the discredited narrative that Trump is Putin’s stooge. Their entire argument rests on a fully discredited, Russian-sourced dossier compiled by a shady ex-British intelligence agent and Hillary Clinton’s infamous “Black Ops” hack, Sidney Blumenthal. It should be clear to all that if anyone is Putin’s stooge, it’s Adam Schiff & Company.  




The Attack on Academia?

Fri, 02/16/2018 - 05:04

Aaron Barlow—a professor of “cultural studies” at the City University of New York and the executive editor of Academe Blog, of Academe, the journal of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)—recently referenced in a blog post of his to one of my Front Page Magazine articles on academic corruption.  

His comments are telling.  The critics of Big Academia couldn’t have asked for a better respondent to our critiques than Barlow. 

To hear Barlow tell it, far from controlling our academic institutions, he and his colleagues constitute an embattled class, the subject of a relentless barrage of legal and social attacks. 

Because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding the constitutionally questionable union practice of coercing members to contribute “agency fees” even on those occasions when members disagree with the causes to which their labor monopolies plan on deploying their dues, Barlow sides with a fellow Academe contributor who claims that this amounts to a legal “attack” on “social justice and fairness for all employees.” 

And who is behind this coordinated attack?  Among others, the nefarious…Koch brothers. 

It isn’t just legally that academics find themselves under “attack.”  Socially, on “social media,” academics, particularly those who “attempt to assert their own rights to free expression,” are under assault as well.  

Quoting another Academe contributor, Hank Reichman, Barlow cites as the proverbial textbook illustration of the beleaguered academic, George Cicciarello-Maher, the Drexel University professor who resigned from his tenured position following the backlash to his charming little tweet: 

All I Want for Christmas Is White Genocide.”  

Cicciarello-Maher “bravely stood up to the onslaught for as long as he could,” Reichman writes.

That Barlow and company select this professor as their heroic martyr speaks for itself:

First, Cicciarello-Maher is a caricature of precisely the kind of anti-intellectual, anti-white, leftist politicization of the academy to which its critics have been tirelessly calling the public’s attention.   

Second, Cicciarello-Maher invited the firestorm by tweeting something that he knew in advance was sure to ignite it.

Third, neither academics nor anyone else is entitled to be shielded from responses to those of their remarks that they decide to make public.  Or is Barlow suggesting that only academics, or only those academics who share his hard left ideology, should have “freedom of expression?”

Finally, Cicciarello-Maher, a tenured professor, resigned. He was not fired.  

In the Front Page essay of mine that Barlow cites, I discuss Donna Riley, the Purdue University professor who repudiated the notion of academic “rigor.”  Barlow reinterprets her stance as a call to academics to simply consider that “‘rigor’ can have the result of narrowing academic pursuits with its generally unspoken adherence to the ways of the power structure.”  “As citizens of a racist patriarchy…‘rigor’ is something we need to constantly re-examine,” Barlow writes.

Barlow’s reinterpretation is revealing of the thought-bubble within which he and his colleagues reside. It is also less than fully honest. 

“Power structure,” “racist patriarchy”—in just a handful of words, Barlow lays bare the talking points of the dominant ideology of the university, proving that, fundamentally, intellectual diversity—and, for that matter, intellectual heft—is virtually nonexistent in the academic universe.  This is the first point to grasp.

The second is that, contra Barlow, Riley was not merely encouraging the continual “re-examination” of the concept and practice of rigor. She explicitly says that rigor “accomplishes dirty deeds”—including the “dirty deed” of “demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege.” 

For this reason, it needs to be “relinquished” entirely. Riley is adamant: “This is not about reinventing rigor,” but “doing away with the concept altogether.” 

Barlow insists that my disagreement with Riley is rooted in my animus against those, presumably those like himself, who are trying “to fight racism through academia[.]” Those on “the right” resent these efforts because “the right…relies on racism (the new ‘opiate of the masses’) to gain and maintain power[.]”

Idiotic though it undeniably is, this comment is gold insofar as it is all too predictable, unveiling the modus operandi of your average academic: When the ultimately anti-Western ideology that is the Groupthink of academia is exposed, to say nothing of critiqued, its self-styled guardians simply accuse the critic of being…“racist!”

Yet Barlow also claims that “people like Kerwick, [David] Horowitz and the battalions of politicians who make up the Koch army” employ “a typical tactic of the right against higher education” inasmuch as “the right” “create[s] a divide between what goes on on campus and what goes on in ‘regular’ American lives [.]”  While he admits that academics “do tend to be liberal,” Barlow maintains that this “has no more significance to what goes on there than does the fact that most in corporate America tend to be conservative has on the ways of doing business.”   

Most academics are “liberal” (leftist) but this “has no significance” for how affairs are conducted on campus.  

So, a belief-system is irrelevant to how those who endorse it will conduct themselves?  This is preposterous.  If Barlow really bought this, then he shouldn’t think that the religiosity of academics at a seminary or a Christian college should have any relevance to its climate.  Yet one could be forgiven for suspecting that Barlow would be upset indeed if his employer began hiring Evangelical Christians and Eastern Orthodox Catholics.  

I reluctantly confess to experiencing some measure of Schadenfreude knowing that Barlow thinks that “the right” has got the militant academic left on the ropes.  I’m also flattered that he thinks that this non-tenured 45-year-old philosophy instructor, inhabiting an infinitesimal location in the academic cosmos at a little community college, has as much influence as he attributes to me.  

Tragically, both ideas are but further evidence that Barlow is profoundly self-delusional.  That the left remains solidly, overwhelmingly in control of academia is self-evident to anyone who is so much as remotely aware of its current state.

Within academia, what Barlow calls the “right” is the David to the left’s Goliath.  

There is one final point. 

I have no interest in “attacking” academics, as Barlow would have readers believe.  I am an academic. And I love it. I remain as impassioned as ever about philosophy, my subject matter, and I am equally passionate about teaching it to my many students. I love helping students realize their potential while familiarizing them further with the civilization—the Western civilization—that is their inheritance.  

However, it is exactly because I remain staunchly committed to the traditional ideal of a liberal arts education that I am just as motivated about calling out those who would undermine that ideal by writing it off as a legacy of, well, something like a “racist patriarchy.”  

There is an attack on academia.  Yet the enemy is within.  The relatively few of us who refuse to succumb to the Groupthink and who are determined to continue calling out the abuses are academic dissidents motivated by a desire to protect liberal learning from those who would destroy it.    


When Susie Met Comey

Thu, 02/15/2018 - 05:59

January 20, 2017, was inauguration day for president Donald Trump and last day on the job for national security advisor Susan Rice. At 12:15 p.m. that day, Rice sent herself an email about a January 5 meeting with POTUS 44, FBI boss James Comey, deputy attorney general Sally Yates, and vice president Joe Biden

In this meeting, Rice wrote, “The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” From a national security perspective, however, the president “said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Grassley, among others, found the email highly unusual. Former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler countered that Rice was simply “memorializing an important discussion for the record.” The discussion did not involve the Steele dossier and “any insinuation that Ambassador Rice’s actions in this matter were inappropriate is yet another attempt to distract and deflect from the importance of the ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in America’s democracy.” Others offered a different explanation for Rice’s eleventh-hour message. 

“She’s obviously trying to rewrite history,” Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News. “She’s trying to make it look as if something happened that didn’t happen.” Those present “learned something between January 5th and January 20th which caused them to want to change the narrative about this meeting.” 

As the FBI’s Trump-hating Peter Strzok and Lisa Page said in their texts, “potus wants to know everything we are doing,” in their various investigative capers during 2016. Those doubtless concerned the “insurance policy,” the lovebirds discussed in the office of Clinton crony Andrew McCabe, deputy director of the FBI. So perhaps that was the narrative Susan Rice wanted to change on January 20, 2017. With her proven experience, she was the right woman for the job.

On September 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. compound in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew it was a planned terrorist attack but told the world it was all part of a spontaneous protest over an internet video. Susan Rice, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, dutifully echoed that narrative on national television. 

As national security advisor, Rice spun the narrative that turncoat Bowe Bergdahl served the United States with “honor and distinction.” As Rice told CNN, “I’m upfront with the American people and I always do my best on behalf of my country and I do my best to tell the facts as I know them.” 

On the Benghazi episode, Rice said she provided the “best information” the government had at the time. “I regret that the information I was provided was wrong, that I delivered to the American people,” she explained. “That doesn’t make me a liar. That makes me a public servant trying to say what we knew at the time.”

As Shirley MacLaine said in Being There, “I reveal myself to myself, and I am drenched and purged.” To the nation, on the other hand, Rice revealed herself as a professional liar, though not particularly convincing. As it happens, her January 20, 2017 attempt to retrofit POTUS 44 as a by-the-book champion of propriety is part of a long tradition. 

In the 1995 Dreams from My Father, strategic information always comes from the ladies. At the prestigious Punahou School, teacher Miss Hefty says, “Barry Obama’s father is here, and he’s come all the way from Kenya, in Africa, to tell us all about his country.” Aunt Jane calls from Nairobi to explain: “Listen Barry, your father is dead. He is killed in a car accident.” 

Auma, the Kenyan Barack Obama’s daughter, shows up in Chicago. “You know, the Old Man used to talk about you so much!” Auma tells the American. “He would show off your picture to everybody and tell us how well you were doing in school.” 

In his massive Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow explains that Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or autobiography. “It was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question, a work of historical fiction.” (Garrow’s italics) And “its most important composite character was the narrator himself.” 

With collaboration from the establishment media, that composite character became the 44th president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, for eight full years. Since he left office, evidence has been mounting that POTUS 44 corrupted the FBI and DOJ to ensure the election of his chosen successor. When Hillary Clinton lost, the president tasked FBI and DOJ bosses to frame Donald Trump on charges that he colluded with Russia.

POTUS 44, James Comey, Sally Yates and the whole Deep State squad weren’t exactly acting “by the book.” As Judge Napolitano said, Susan Rice is “obviously trying to rewrite history.” The American people should see it as another backward masking of a president who, unlike all the others, wasn’t exactly who he claimed to be.

Florida’s High School Spree-Killing - as Democrat Fundraising Opportunity

Thu, 02/15/2018 - 05:58

After a disturbed former student shot and killed at least 17 people yesterday afternoon at a Miami-area high school, the gun-grabbing Left demanded even more regulation of firearms, which, despite constitutional protections, are already the most heavily regulated consumer good in America.

President Trump expressed sympathy for the victims. “My prayers and condolences to the families of the victims of the terrible Florida shooting. No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school,” Trump tweeted.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) described the attack as “absolutely pure evil.”

The Valentine’s Day massacre took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. At least 14 people have been hospitalized.

The alleged spree killer is Nikolas Cruz, 19, who had previously been a student at that high school but was expelled because of a fight. After using what was described as an AR-15-style rifle on those in the facility, Cruz walked out of the school with other students and was briefly at large before he was captured by law enforcement, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel (D) told reporters. Cruz was reportedly in the school’s Junior ROTC program and was apprehended wearing an ROTC shirt.

Students who knew Cruz described him as a volatile loner whose odd behavior lost him friends.

Authorities are looking at Cruz’s social media activity in an effort to piece together a motive for the deadly atrocity.

His Instagram account registered under the user name “cruz_nikolas” was taken down soon after the incident. One of the photos there displayed a screen shot of a Google search for “what does Allahu akbar [mean],” as well as what appear to be photos of Cruz, his face covered, posing with weapons.

On a second Instagram account under the user name “nikolascruzmakarov” the profile photo showed a person wearing a “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, his face covered by a bandana. Makarov is a semi-automatic pistol that was the Soviet Union's standard military and police sidearm.

“Nicolas Cruz” reportedly registered as a Democrat to vote in Oakland Park, Fla., but it may not be the same person. Apart from the spelling of the first name, Cruz is, after all, a popular Latino surname in a state with a huge Latino population.

On social media, some claimed Cruz was a so-called DREAMer who benefited from President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) deportation-withholding program but this is unproven.

On cue while the bodies were still warm and the dead still unidentified, left-wingers across America ghoulishly welcomed the death and suffering in Parkland as a convenient opportunity to push their policy agenda.

One of the most disturbing and contemptible comments came from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), a member of the Communist-linked Congressional Progressive Caucus and a close ally of the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Instead of focusing on the real problem, that is, the fact that the high school in question was a gun-free zone that left 3,000 students at the mercy of a crazed killer, the lawmaker insinuated that Republicans were somehow responsible for the murders, tweeting:

Republicans should pray for forgiveness, for not only their complacency and dereliction of duty, but in contrition for the men, women and children we continue to lay to rest because of senseless gun violence and the cowardly inaction from Congress.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), pretended to care about gun safety because the concept is a left-wing crowd pleaser. At 5:32 p.m., he tweeted:

Another day, another shooting, indeed, multiple shootings today, while Congress sits in the grip of the NRA, incapable of making the slightest gesture toward reasonable gun safety.

On CNN, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said “enough is enough,” adding people need “to start thinking about such things as background checks.” Background checks, of course, are already mandatory, but this deceitful talking point never seems to go away.

Sen. Chris Murphy, (D-Conn.), long an enemy of the civil rights protected by the Second Amendment, dusted off tired old statist arguments on the Senate floor as he lamented the mass shooting that no new anti-gun regulation could have prevented.

“This happens nowhere else other than the United States of America," he said. "It only happens here not because of coincidence, not because of bad luck, but as a consequence of our inaction. We are responsible for a level of mass atrocity that happens in this country with zero parallel anywhere else."

The attack in Florida came hours after shots were fired when the driver of an unauthorized vehicle attempted to enter the secure campus of the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Md., about 30 miles outside the nation's capital.

An NSA police officer, a civilian bystander, and the vehicle’s driver were injured but not by gunfire, Gordon Johnson, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Baltimore field office, told reporters outside the National Cryptologic Museum. “I cannot emphasize enough that we believe there is no indication that this has a nexus to terrorism,” Johnson said.

The investigation is ongoing.

We’re From the International Community and We’re Here to Help

Thu, 02/15/2018 - 05:08

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

“I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help,” Ronald Reagan famously said. But the most terrifying words in every other language are, “We’re from the international community and we’re here to help.”

In Haitian Creole that would be, "Nou soti nan kominote entènasyonal la e nou isit la pou ede."

When an earthquake hit Haiti in ’10, everyone who was anyone in the international community quickly showed up. Bill Clinton had been appointed as the UN Special Envoy for Haiti a year earlier where he had touted the “unique opportunities for public and private investment” in Haiti. The earthquake opened up those opportunities to Clinton Foundation donors.

A year later, Bill Clinton was touting a $45 million new hotel owned by an Irish cell phone tycoon who was a close pal as the only thing a country with a million homeless needed. A CNN puff piece claimed that the hotel would house “aid workers, potential investors and other visitors”. Like Anderson Cooper, who needs someplace to take a hot shower after standing waist deep in water for 5 minutes on camera.

Haiti was a gold mine for the Clintons. Literally. Hillary’s brother was added to the board of a small company that got a gold mining permit at half the standard rates with a 25 year renewal option. Tony, Hillary’s brother, is a college dropout who had worked as a repo man and a prison guard.

The Clintons not only turned a disaster into a slush fund, but even got Hillary’s idiot brother a gig.

But inflicting the Clintons on Haiti wasn’t the worst thing that the United Nations did to the impoverished island. The worst thing that the UN can do to any country is send in the blue helmets.

Before the UN peacekeeping mission arrived, Haiti was a disaster. After it left, it was a disaster with cholera. The UN peacekeepers brought the disease with them and spread it around, killing 10,000 people and infecting at least 800,000 others. None of them could get into a Clinton luxury hotel.

Before the UN showed up, Haiti had 99,000 problems, but cholera wasn’t one of them. Then UN peacekeepers spread their multinational fecal matter into the Artibonite River. Soon the UN was trying to raise $400 million to clean up the national disaster that it created on top of an existing national disaster. It asked its staff for money and those donations added up to $6K or a week in the Presidential Suite of the Royal Oasis, Haiti’s first 5-star hotel, with financing from the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund.

But say what you will about the Clintons, unlike the UN, they’ve never given anyone cholera. (That we know of.) So far the UN has only come up with a few million. And everyone is demanding that the United States pay for the cholera that the United Nations spread even though we are already a cholera importer, bringing in top grade cholera from Latin American outbreaks to New York, Kansas and Virginia.

But that’s globalization for you. In a flattening world, Nepalese peacekeepers bring an exotic strain of cholera to Haiti. Refugees from Haiti bring it to America. Hillary Clinton’s brother tries to get in on a gold mine. And a horse breeder in Kentucky and a plumber in Michigan have to pay for the UN’s cholera.

But it would be a slow day at the United Nations if all it did was start a cholera epidemic that infected hundreds of thousands of people, lie about it for years, then pretend to take responsibility, refuse to actually pay for it, and then try to blame the whole thing on Trump who had been hosting Season 10 of The Apprentice back then. Unlike the UN, The Apprentice never infected 800,000 people with cholera.

Since it was the UN, it also had to sexually abuse children to give Haiti the full multilateral experience.

"One boy was gang raped in 2011 by peacekeepers who disgustingly filmed it on a cell phone. What do we say to these kids?" UN Ambassador Nikki Haley asked.

Those were the Uruguayans. The Sri Lankans had their own child sex ring of some 134 peacekeepers paying children 75 cents to abuse them and the Nepalese gave most of the country cholera.

That’s the international community for you. If it doesn’t get you one way, it’ll get you another way.

It’s hard not to look at that and conclude that the United Nations is its own war crime and that the best possible punishment is to put everyone involved on trial in one of the UN’s patented multi-generational war crimes tribunals that only end when everyone dies of old age. After 11 years, the Cambodia tribunal managed three convictions. Two others died of old age. That’s how the UN coddles those monsters it wants to punish. Haiti is an example of how it treats those victims it claims to want to help.

The UN might be more effective the other way around. Just imagine if North Korea’s Kim Jong Un had to worry about being “helped” and “protected” by sex-crazed and cholera-infected UN peacekeepers.

But it wasn’t just the Clintons and the United Nations living it up in Haiti.

The latest scandal has hit Oxfam. The leftist alliance claims to want to fight poverty, but it spends more time denouncing the rich. Its global inequality report is a staple of leftist talking points. Its Even It Up campaign is a blatant call for wealth redistribution. The anti-Israel group’s spat with actress Scarlett Johansson over her endorsement of Israeli products led to, what its boss called, a “PR disaster”.

But Oxfam had no idea what a real PR disaster was until the lefty charity’s own Haiti scandal hit.

Oxfam’s Haiti director was using the villa rented by the charity to host prostitutes. Senior Oxfam aid workers had exploited women and possibly even children. Oxfam had covered up the scandal in ’11 and tried sweeping it under the rug. And now it’s offering awkwardly unconvincing apologies.

While the Haitians suffered, Oxfam aid workers lived it up in a style worthy of Bill Clinton and the UN. “These girls wearing Oxfam T-shirts, running around half-naked, it was like a full-on Caligula orgy. It was unbelievable. It was crazy,” a London Times source stated.

Even it up indeed.

An Oxfam spokesfiend explained that the cops hadn’t been called because it was “extremely unlikely that reporting these incidents to the police would lead to any action being taken.” Fear that the police will do nothing is generally why organizations don’t report crimes committed by their members to the authorities. That and a deep concern that their donors will stop subsidizing their child rape villas.

"I don’t think it was in anyone’s best interest to be describing the details of the behaviour in a way that was actually going to draw extreme attention to it,” Oxfam’s boss said.

It certainly wasn’t in Oxfam’s interest, but it might have been in the interest of the Haitians it was claiming to help. The interest of those same people for whom Bill Clinton raised all that money, whom the UN sent in peacekeepers to protect and on whose behalf Oxfam had fundraised. But it was never really about the Haitians. It was about the gold mines, child sex rings and villa orgies. It was about the Clinton Foundation, the UN budget and all the money to be made from promising to save the world.

“We’re from the international community and we’re here to help.”

The lefty politicians and professional activists who rushed to Haiti were as enthusiastic about helping the Haitians as the Congressional Black Caucus is about lowering black unemployment. The left isn’t a charity. When it shows up to help, there are going to be luxury hotels, villas and sex rings involved.

And the people it claims to be helping will be even worse off than they were before.


UNRWA Fails its Students -- but Still Wants More U.S. Money

Thu, 02/15/2018 - 05:07

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has hired a public relations firm,, to bolster its image after the Trump administration cut back sharply the amount of contributions the United States will be making to the agency. The Trump administration reduced the expected 2018 U.S. contribution of more than $360 million to about $60 million. As part of its Dignity Is Priceless global fundraising campaign to help make up for the shortfall, Scott Anderson, UNRWA’s Director of West Bank Operations, and Peter Mulrean, Director of UNRWA’s Representative Office in New York, spoke to reporters at UN headquarters last week.

The UNRWA directors pitched the importance of UNRWA’s humanitarian work. They said that the current financial crisis is in on a scale unlike any that UNRWA has experienced in the past, calling the cutback an “existential” threat to UNRWA’s ability to continue serving the needs of the Palestinian people. They complained that the United States government has not explained the rationale to UNRWA for its action. All that UNRWA’s leadership should do is to look in the mirror for the answer.

The truth is that continuing to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to UNRWA is throwing good money after bad.  Mr. Anderson, UNRWA’s Director of West Bank Operations, unwittingly pointed to the fatal flaw in the educational program UNRWA offers to its students, consuming about half of UNRWA’s regular budget, which he described as the most important service that UNRWA provides. UNRWA, he said, must teach the “host” country’s curriculum, which UNRWA considers to be the curriculum that the Palestinian Authority creates. Mr. Anderson said that it treats the Palestinian Authority for this purpose as representing a “sovereign” nation. Based on this fiction, UNRWA contends it has no choice but to use a curriculum designed by the Palestinian authorities that has been found to indoctrinate Palestinian children to hate Jews and to believe that Israel has no right to exist. A study released last year by the Center for Near East Policy Research, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Middle East Forum found that textbooks used in UNRWA schools during 2016 and 2017 have continued instilling anti-Israel, anti-Jewish hatred.

UNRWA cannot change the Palestinian Authority’s curriculum, according to Mr. Anderson, although it can develop “enrichment” materials to help teachers introduce tolerance lessons that “conform to UN values.” When UNRWA tried to do just that, however, it faced fierce resistance from the Palestinian Authority because it perceived the new materials as too favorable to Israel. Last year, the Palestinian Authority Education Ministry issued a statement complaining that “[A]ny distortion of the Palestinian curriculum is a flagrant violation of the laws of the host country, and any change to any letter to appease any party is a betrayal of the Palestinian narrative and the right of the Palestinian people under occupation to preserve its identity and struggle.” UNRWA’s added materials were condemned as an “affront to the Palestinian people, its history and struggles.” The ministry said that the Palestinian Authority’s suspension of cooperation would continue until the UN agency’s “positions are corrected.”

UNRWA appeared to cave to the Palestinian Authority’s demands. UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl promised that "UNRWA is completely committed to the Palestinian curricula, and that no change will be made in these curricula." Even then, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education would allow no wiggle room. According to an article published on November 8, 2017 by the official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, “The [PA] Ministry of Education and Higher Education reiterated its complete opposition to any step or attempt that UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) or any international body are liable to make against the Palestinian curricula – whether by omitting, changing, or adding any materials in contradiction of the philosophy of the [PA] curricula and in contradiction of the contents of the schoolbooks in everything connected to the national identity and cultural, social, and national heritage of our people.” The article quoted from the ministry’s November 7, 2017 notice that “all of the materials that UNRWA is interested in adding must be complementary and consistent with all of the contents of the schoolbooks.” In other words, UNRWA cannot stray from the Palestinian Authority’s hate-filled curriculum.

Mr. Anderson said that UNRWA was just beginning to roll out its “enrichment” materials, but was deliberately vague as to what that really meant, given the Palestinian Authority’s use of hate-filled indoctrination as part of its curriculum. He gave no timetable for the rollout, or any indication whether the teachers in UNRWA’s schools would have to use the additional UNRWA-produced materials in their classrooms. The only example he offered of an UNRWA lesson in tolerance had to do with gender equality.

Until the Palestinians stop using UNRWA schools to poison the minds of Palestinian children with hate, the Trump administration should continue its cutback of funding for the UN agency. Rather than hire an expensive public relations firm to polish its image, UNRWA should fundamentally reform its ways.

25 Disturbing Facts About Refugee Resettlements from Somalia

Thu, 02/15/2018 - 05:02

Of the 11 countries included in President Trump's refugee ban, one stands out -- Somalia.

That ban expired two weeks ago and the U.S. has begun accepting refugees again from Somalia and 10 other high-risk nations.

Although Trump promises "extreme vetting," many Muslim refugees come as children and become radicalized years later.

Somali crime rivals Somali terrorism as a major problem, and the two clearly blur into one another. The problem is leaking from Minnesota into South Dakota -- as Lutheran Social Services has resettled more than 4,500 Somalis in Sioux Falls. Many of the Somalis have migrated from Sioux Falls to the city of Aberdeen in search of work at Demkota Ranch Co.'s beef-packing plant.

South Dakota State Senator and GOP congressional candidate Neal Tapio is leading perhaps the nation's most aggressive effort to expose the danger and fraud of refugee resettlements. Tapio has introduced several bills that seek to rein in high-risk resettlements in his state.

"While many people see compassion to serve the less fortunate, the truth is the Somali community has not been able to assimilate and has proven to be a major terror threat in the United States," Tapio said.

Consider the following 25 incidents that should raise red flags about refugee resettlement from this perpetually war-torn country:

[1] The Somali man who knifed two men in November at the Mall of America was not involved in an attempt to steal clothing – a false narrative put out by Bloomington police – but was actually carrying out jihad. He admitted it in a detailed statement to the court. Mahad Abdiraham said he went to the mall that day to "answer the call for jihad.”

[2] A Somali refugee who had just arrived in Aberdeen for a meatpacking job was convicted last year of trying to sexually assault a wheelchair-bound woman at a group home. Liban Mohamed, 39, found the vulnerable woman sitting outside the home and he was caught reaching up between her legs.

[3] Also in Aberdeen, Abdirhman Noor, 24, shot at two men outside the Foxridge Apartments, wounding one critically. Noor, who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was charged with attempted murder and released on $50,000 bail. He never showed up for his March 2017 court hearing and remains at large.

[4] A 73-year-old Meals on Wheels volunteer was dropping off meals at a homeless shelter in Shelburne, Vermont, when she was attacked by 32-year-old Somali migrant Abukar Ibrahim with a machete in early January 2018. She sustained multiple injuries including a severe leg wound.

[5] Tnuza Jamal Hassan, a 19-year-old woman from either Somalia or Ethiopia (Minneapolis police wouldn't release her status), was arraigned last month on charges of first-degree arson after she allegedly set fires on the campus of St. Catherine University. Hassan told police she "wanted the school to burn to the ground" and that her intent was to "hurt people,” according to charges filed in Ramsey County District Court. Hassan told police she had written a letter to her roommates containing “radical ideas about supporting Muslims and bringing back the caliphate.” The prosecution further alleges "[s]he told the police and fire investigators ‘You guys are lucky I don’t know how to build a bomb because I would have done that,’” the Star-Tribune reported.

[6] Morgan Evenson, 24, was attacked just before Christmas while walking home from work in Minneapolis. She was stabbed 14 times by a man described as Somali. That man remains at large and the Minneapolis police falsely described the attack as a failed robbery. Evenson said he never reached for her purse.

[7] On July 15, 2017, a Somali refugee serving as a Minneapolis police officer, Mohamed Noor, shot and killed an unarmed woman, Justine Damond, who had called 9-1-1 to report a rape taking place outside her apartment. No charges have been filed against Noor, who had three previous complaints about his treatment of women while on patrol.

[8] Dahir Ahmed Adan stabbed 10 shoppers at the Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, on Sept. 17, 2016. The refugee asked shoppers if they were Muslim. If they said “no,” he attacked them with his knife, until he was shot dead by an off-duty cop.

[9] In December 2016, Somali refugee Mohamed Ayanle, 22, was charged with first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct after he allegedly raped a woman while riding a bus through Polk County, Minnesota. Ayanle reportedly forced her to have sex with him at knifepoint in the back of the bus. Ayanle had just arrived in Minnesota from Somalia three months prior to his arrest.

[10] Davee Devose, a promising 21-year-old black student at St. Cloud Technical and Community College, was stabbed to death at a house party in June 2015 by then-16-year-old Muhiyadin Mohamed Hassan, a Somali refugee who violated his juvenile probation and has since been moved to the adult system.

[11] In 2008, the government revealed thousands of Somali families had fraudulently entered the U.S. as "refugees" by lying on their applications that they were to Somalis already living in the U.S. The Wall Street Journal originally reported on how this fraud was uncovered by DNA tests, which led to a four-year closure of the so-called P-3 family reunification program for refugees coming from East Africa. The program was eventually restarted and none of the thousands of Somalis proven to have entered the U.S. by these fraudulent means were ever deported.

[12] On the day after Memorial Day, May 31, 2016, in Lawrenceville, Georgia, a Somali refugee woman, Aisha Ibrahim, 31, appeared out of the woods wearing a burqa and beat an American woman with her own American flagpole.

[13] A federal appeals court in December 2016 upheld the conviction of Mohamed Mohamud, the Somali refugee sentenced to 30 years in prison for plotting to bomb downtown Portland, Oregon, during the annual Christmas-tree lighting.

[14] In 2013, Somali refugee Omar Mohamed Kalmio in North Dakota was sentenced to life in prison for the 2011 murder of a Native American family he had become involved with.

[15] In November 2016, Abdul R. Ali Artan, an 18-year-old Somali refugee and student at Ohio State University, wounded 11 people at OSU in a car and knife attack. Minutes before his attack, Artan posted on Facebook his hatred for the United States.

[16] In April 2011, Somali refugee Said Biyad was sentenced to life in prison for murdering his four children in Louisville, Kentucky. He avoided the death penalty by taking a plea agreement.

[17] In July of last year, Somalia native Abdinzak Ahmed Farah, 29, was arrested and charged with threatening his fellow Minnesotans with a knife. According to an eyewitness, Farah was eating raw beef with the knife and holding it out to patrons, asking them to play games. In a July 25 article, the Faribault Daily News reports a complaint filed in Rice County Court alleges Farah was pointing a knife and threatening to kill anyone who called police. Witnesses said Farah was twice told to leave, but began chasing several people and threw the knife at them.

[18] At least 40 Somali refugees have left the country to join overseas terrorist organizations such as al-Shabaab in Somalia and ISIS in Syria, the FBI has confirmed. Dozens of others have been charged and/or convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

[19] One of the top terror recruiters for ISIS in the U.S. was Mohamed Hassan, a Somali refugee with roots in Minnesota. He turned himself in to authorities in Somalia in late 2015, after leading dozens of Somali-Americans to join ISIS. He also played a role in the terror attack on Garland, Texas, in which two Muslims planned to kill participants in a "Draw Muhammad" contest and behead activist Pamela Geller.

[20] Dozens of large-scale khat busts have taken place in recent years, such as this seizure of 69 pounds of khat at the Philadelphia airport bound for Minneapolis, and this one sending nearly 20 pounds to Minneapolis. Khat is a stimulant chewed by Somali men.

[21] In June 2016, residents of the Linden Hills community in Minneapolis were terrorized by a Somali mob for three straight days. They raided the waterfront community and pretending to shoot women on the beach, ran their cars over lawns while screaming "jihad," threatened to rape one woman and beat one resident's dog. Police were called repeatedly but never could make it to the scene before the Somalis disappeared.

[22] Minneapolis Police Department has for years tolerated an active Sharia cop, who married a Somali woman and patrols the Cedar Riverside area making sure Somalis are complying with Islamic dress codes and other Sharia rules.

[23] Liban Haji Mohamed, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Somalia who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was named to the FBI's list of Most Wanted Terrorists in January 2015. Mohamed, who worked as a cab driver in northern Virginia, was charged with providing material support and resources to al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab.

[24] In May 2015, a UK media outlet broke the story that one of the Islamic State's major recruiters turned out to be a female journalism student in Seattle who liked football, cheeseburgers, and convincing women in Syria and the EU to wage jihad. The student, a Somali named Rawdah Abdisalaam, was discovered to be working as a senior recruiter while living the good life in Seattle.

[25] In January 2014, Somali refugee Ahmed Nasir Taalil, living in San Diego, was sentenced to six years for his part in a conspiracy to funnel money to al-Shabaab. Among Nasir-Nasir's co-conspirators were cab driver Basaaly Saeed Moalin, who was sentenced to 18 years, Mohamed Mohamud – a Somali imam at a local mosque – sentenced to 13 years, and Issa Doreh, who was sentenced to 10 years for working at a money-transmitting business that helped move the illegal funds.

Refugee proponents, many of them working for resettlement agencies that receive government tax dollars for every refugee they bring into the U.S., continue to allege that Somalis are an asset to the communities in which they live. But those communities deserve security too. Now that the refugee ban has expired, it is time that the clear issues of lack of assimilation and terror risks posed by many Somali refugees are taken seriously.

Video: Taking Justin Trudeau’s ‘Peoplekind’ to its Logical End

Thu, 02/15/2018 - 05:01

In his new video below, comedian Owen Benjamin takes Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's ‘Peoplekind’ to its logical end and unveils the deranged world the Left wants to build. Don't miss it!



When Ellison Broke Bread With Farrakhan

Wed, 02/14/2018 - 05:58

After publicly repudiating his former colleagues at the Nation of Islam, DNC deputy chairman Keith Ellison dined with the group’s notorious leader Louis Farrakhan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in 2013, according to reports.

The jihadist-friendly Ellison, a Democrat congressman representing Minnesota, is a former co-chairman of the Communist-linked Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Although Ellison was not a senior Democratic Party official in 2013, now that his DNC post makes him much more than a fringe figure in his party, the meeting takes on a greater, darker significance for Democrats, putting them in bed with raging genocidal anti-Semites, Muslim terrorists, and other enemies of the United States.

The private Sept. 24, 2013, event at the One UN Hotel in Manhattan, across the street from the United Nations complex, was reported in the Oct. 2, 2013, issue of the Nation of Islam newspaper, Final Call. Rouhani was in New York for the 68th UN General Assembly. “The dialogue revolved around the Iranian president’s speech and how to move forward in regard to relations with the United States,” according to the newspaper. “Translators were included in the meeting to facilitate communications in English and Farsi.”

"Abdul Akbar Muhammad, international representative of the Nation of Islam, and Supreme Capt. Mustapha Farrakhan were part of the Nation of Islam delegation," the report stated.

Democrat lawmakers attending the event included Ellison, a Muslim, Andre Carson of Indiana, also a Muslim, and Gregory Meeks of New York. Ellison’s participation in the 2013 event was referenced by the Wall Street Journal last week, based on the Final Call article.

Rouhani is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which conducts daily “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” rallies, and maintains a repressive police-state apparatus to crush dissent. Members of religions other than Islam are persecuted in Iran and homosexuality is punishable by death. Ellison, of course, is an outspoken supporter of Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

Farrakhan makes no effort to hide his racism, viewing it as an essential component of his religion and as something of which one should be proud.

He has spoken of "white devils" and of “the white man” as the “anti-Christ.” Whites are “vicious beasts” and “the skunks of the planet,” according to Farrakhan. “White people are potential humans ... they haven’t evolved yet.” In a 1997 interview on “Meet the Press,” he stated, “It is not accidental that the black male is in the condition he is in,” and he claim there was a “conspiracy of our government against the black male.”

Farrakhan calls Jews "bloodsuckers" who in his view somehow undermine American blacks. He calls Judaism, which antedates Islam by at least 2,000 years, a "gutter religion," and describes Adolph Hitler as "a very great man."

Farrakhan is an intellectual inspiration to Ellison. Not surprisingly, Ellison has a long, well-documented history of defending Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, which have been tracked by Discover the Networks.

As early as 1989, Ellison was denying the Nation of Islam was racist. In the 1990s, he served as a spokesman for the group.

In a 1995 column, Ellison heaped praise on Farrakhan:

Minister Farrakhan is a role model for black youth”; “is not an anti-Semite”; “is a sincere, tireless, and uncompromising advocate of the black community and other oppressed people around the world”; and is regarded by “most black people” as “a role model for youth and, increasingly, a central voice for our collective aspirations.

But Ellison’s political ambitions forced him to disavow Farrakhan and his group, insincerely, as it now turns out.

In 2006 during a run for Congress, Ellison tried to distance himself from his past involvement with the Nation of Islam, writing a letter to a Jewish group. He apologized to Jewish leaders, writing, "I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam." In the letter he falsely claimed he had been involved with the group for a mere 18 months around the time of the Million Man March in 1995, when in fact the period was closer to 10 years in duration. He also claimed not to have known about the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitic views, saying he “did not adequately scrutinize” those views, and added that he had never expressed or defended such views. Around that time, he reportedly used the aliases Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad.

In 2016 while he was running for the DNC chairmanship, he tried to turn the tables on his critics, accusing them of trying to smear him by bringing up his association with Farrakhan and Nation of Islam.

Reports of his ties to Farrakhan were “bad reporting” and a distraction, Ellison said with a straight face on MSNBC. "I have a 10 year record in Congress," he said. "It is just that kind of reporting that is not quality and doesn't help people understand the real issues."

"What does he have to do with anything going on in this race?" Ellison asked about Farrakhan. "Absolutely nothing."

"We're talking about something that happened in 1995. This is a year when the Million Man March took off -- people were attacking it. I was very proud to be a part of it. But here I am having to answer questions about this, and I'm not talking about what our country needs to do and what the Democratic Party needs to do, because of this smear campaign from 20 years ago."

Left-wing radicalism, anti-Americanism, and sympathy for Islamofascism aren’t exactly new in Democrat circles, but it is unusual for someone as high in the hierarchy of the Democratic National Committee as Ellison now is to be so associated with odious racist figures such as Farrakhan and the president of a country committed not only to the extermination of Jews, but to wiping the United States and Israel off the map.

But times have changed, and not for the better. Nowadays those who urge the extinguishing of American democracy and the murder of police officers are considered legitimate activists. Over the years Ellison has defended Kwame Ture (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael), as well as cop-killers and leftist icons Mumia Abu Jamal, Assata Shakur, and Geronimo Pratt.

Last month Ellison implicitly expressed support for the use of violence against President Trump in a tweet as he posed for a selfie with the cover of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, by Mark Bray. “I just found the book that strike[s] fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump[.]” Antifa is short for anti-fascist. Members of the movement use physical violence against conservatives and anyone else they lump in with the purported fascists they claim to oppose.

Ellison’s deficient character, as well as his ties to very bad people who want to hurt Americans, should worry patriots, especially with polling showing Democrats may be on the verge of recapturing Congress this November.