Subscribe to FrontPageMag feed
A project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Updated: 2 weeks 23 hours ago

We Need Criminal and Crazy Control, Not Gun Control

Fri, 08/09/2019 - 04:58

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

Mass murder is not a gun control problem.

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

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

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

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

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

A society with mass murder is experiencing a moral problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe we ought to try common sense instead.

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

Every single one.

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

Murder is a moral problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Gilroy to San Bernardino

Fri, 08/09/2019 - 04:53

On July 28 at the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, California, Santino William Legan began firing randomly into the crowd. His attack claimed three victims, including Stephen Romero, only six years old. Legan injured a dozen others before taking his own life. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism.

Legan had a target list that included religious groups, the Republican and Democrat parties, and government locations such as courthouses, but no names of people. Police also found a 75-round drum magazine with 71 rounds remaining, plus three 40-round magazines, including one found near him. A search of  his car yielded a shotgun, a rifle scope and additional ammunition.

On August 6, police had still not announced a motive for the killings. That invites a look at a mass shooting in California in which the motive was clear the casualty county much higher. 

On December 2, 2015, Islamic Jihadists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people and wounded 22 an office party at the Inland Regional social services center in San Bernardino. Bringing Calm to Chaos: A Police Foundation Review of the San Bernardino Terrorist Attacks provides a chilling description by those on the scene.

“Out of the blue, multiple popping sounds crackled outside,” the report says. “Several of the county workers thought fireworks had been lit, but others recognized the sound as gunfire.” The burst claimed two victims, then the terrorists headed inside, to a room decorated for a holiday party.

“Suddenly, a door swung open and a person clad in all black, with a mask shielding his or her face, stepped inside, wielding what appeared to be an automatic rifle. Without saying a word, the person, now believed to be Rizwan Farook (the male assailant), opened fire.” Then Tashfeen Malik followed. “She also wore all black and entered the room shooting. Together, the shooters fired more than 100 rounds.”  The carnage, one officer said, was “the worst thing imaginable.”

In the ensuing chase, the Muslims fired at least 81 rounds, wounding one officer, but police took down the terrorists with no collateral damage. Inside the SUV police found “an additional 1,879 rounds of .223 ammunition and another 484 rounds of 9-mm ammunition.” Police also found “trigger apparatus to detonate the secondary devices” at the Regional Center, a reference to bombs planted to increase the death toll among first responders, a terrorist calling card.

Farook and Malik murdered innocent people in the name of Islam. Yet from the start, the Washington establishment denied or downplayed that motive, and hesitated to invoke terrorism. When that could not be denied, the alibi armory broke out its Islamophobia incantation.

Benjamin B. Wagner then U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, referred to “the massacre” in San Bernardino and did not name the shooters. Wagner also failed to name a single one of the 14 victims, who included African Americans, Hispanics and immigrants. Even so, Muslims Farook and Malik were not called racists or anti-immigrant hatemongers.

President Obama famously refused to link terrorism with Islam. In 2009, when Nidal Hasan murdered 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, the president called it “workplace violence,” not even gun violence. Yet, after Farook and Malik’s mass murder in San Bernardino, the establishment media did not charge that the president’s rhetoric encouraged such attacks.

Trump’s rhetoric, the Democrat-media axis now contends, encourages mass shootings. A guest on MSNBC contended that when the president lowered flags to half-mast until August 8, that was a secret signal to white supremacists meaning “Heil Hitler,” with H being the eighth letter of the alphabet.

This is the sort of thing one expects from an escaped mental patient. The speaker was Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and now a national security contributor for NBC News.

At this writing, the Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, shootings have claimed 34 victims. On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock gunned down 58 in Las Vegas. For all the horror and carnage, these were not worst mass shootings ever to take place in North America.

On October 2, 1968, Mexican soldiers and police gunned down at least 300 unarmed students,  peacefully protesting in advance of the Olympics. Those responsible for the mass atrocity were never brought to justice and the coverup continues to this day. On the 50th anniversary last year, Mexican president Lopez Obrador kept rather quiet about the massacre.

After El Paso, AMLO directed foreign secretary Marcelo Ebrard to take swift legal action, and Ebrard denounced the El Paso attack as an “act of terror” against Mexican citizens. In 2016, Ebrard campaigned openly for Hillary Clinton and compared Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler.

In 2008, as mayor of Mexico City, Ebrard told reporters Mexican democracy “was intact largely because of the people who died” in 1968, and “Mexico had a duty to be grateful to them.” Ebrard claimed to support attempts to uncover the truth and get the Mexican government to accept responsibility.

That has yet to take place, so if anybody in the United States chooses to push back against this Clinton collaborator, it would be hard to blame them.

CAIR’s Far-Reaching and Destructive Tentacles

Fri, 08/09/2019 - 04:50

The “all-seeing eye” and multi-tentacled reach of CAIR is again on display, signifying just how intrusive this terrorist-linked Islamic organization that poses as a civil rights group has become in the U.S.’s efforts to defend itself against terrorism.

As previously noted, after inviting me to lecture on my recent book on the military history between Islam and the West, the US Army War College (USAWC) reneged because CAIR cried “Islamophobia” and “racism.”  In response, the office of Congressman Scott Perry—a graduate of the USAWC, which falls under his PA district—drafted a letter that was signed by nine other congressmen and delivered to the Commandant of the USAWC, John Kem. 

The letter expressed the signatories’ “grave concern” that the USAWC “capitulated to the unfounded claims of CAIR, and thus damaged the academic freedom and integrity of the high esteem in which the USAWC is held by many around the world….  Not only are we hearing from constituents—military and civilian—on this issue, but we’re extremely disappointed in the decision to cancel Mr. Ibrahim and his voice on a critical, current issue in our Nation.” (Read the complete here).

While the congressional signatories are to be commended for questioning the USAWC’s acquiescence to CAIR, another question has arisen: why did only ten out of 435 members of congress—that is, 2.3 percent of America’s representatives—sign this otherwise rational letter of concern?

Because on July 5, right after Perry’s letter was sent to fellow members of congress to sign, CAIR instantly sent its own letter to members of congress, urging them not to sign.

The only way for CAIR to have learned about the existence of an internal letter to congress is for a member of congress or their aides to share it with CAIR.  In other words, if nothing else, this demonstrates that CAIR’s agents are well entrenched in congress (which of course should be no surprise considering that CAIR’s members/allies are not just aids but actual members of congress, a la Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, et al).

CAIR’s renewed attack begins as follows:

On behalf of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) … I am writing to warn you of a factually-incorrect congressional letter to the U.S. Army War College being led by Representative Scott Perry.

The letter encourages the War College to reinstate a speaker, Raymond Ibrahim, who promotes a false and vitriolic view of Islam… 

[Ibrahim’s] utterly incorrect and medieval view is a direct contradiction and affront to the more than one million American Muslims living in the United States and contributing to our democracy…

Attached and copied below, please find a factsheet detailing various statements by Ibrahim that demonstrate his views on Islam…

Liam Foskett

Government Affairs Coordinator |

Tel: 202.646.6033 Cell: 404.697.8405

As might be expected, this same Liam Foskett apparently attended renowned apologist-for-Islamic-terror extraordinaire, Georgetown University, making him an ideal non-Muslim employee (or useful idiot) for CAIR.  (That said, fortunately for him his arrest record for possession of alcohol as a minor occurred in the U.S., not under the  culture which CAIR is devoted to whitewashing, and where such haram shenenagins are not well tolerated.)

CAIR’s attached and pasted document is titled, “Backgrounder: Raymond Ibrahim.”  After boasting how CAIR and allies got the USAWC to cave in to their demands, it complains that “Representative Scott Perry is now leading a letter in Congress calling on the college to reinvite Ibrahim. The letter also makes the completely false claim that CAIR has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

You be the judge if the assertion that CAIR is connected to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood is “completely false” (see here, here, here, and here; then do your own research/googling for much more).  As Perry notes in the letter to the USAWC, these are the reasons why “our ally, the United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist group.” 

Even more tellingly, CAIR doesn’t bother acknowledging or denying the absolute worst charge in Perry’s letter, that “CAIR is named by the Department of Justice as an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in the 2007 terrorist funding case against the Holy Land Foundation.”

In other words, terrorist-linked CAIR strains at gnats while expecting members of congress to swallow camels.

The rest of CAIR’s “backgrounder”  concerning my purported “Islamophobic” tendencies consists of random quotes I’ve made over the last 15 or so years and is meant “to give a better idea of Ibrahim and his views and to discourage signing Representative Perry’s letter.”  In another article I may parse through these quotes, all of which I still stand by.  For now, note how, as with its earlier attacks on me, CAIR does not mind misrepresenting my position to make its “backgrounder” points.  It quotes me saying:

When Muslim migrants go on church-vandalizing sprees in the West – many hundreds of churches, crosses, and Christian statues have been respectively desecrated, broken, and beheaded in just Germany, France, and Austria – very few understand that this modus operandi stretches back to and has been on continuous display since Islam’s first contact with Christian civilization.

I did not end that sentence with the word “civilization.”  The complete sentence, which appears at the very end of my book, Sword and Scimitar—which is at the center of CAIR’s offensive—reads “…this modus operandi stretches back to and has been on continuous display since Islam’s first contact with Christian civilization, as recounted in the preceding history.” 

CAIR clearly does not want members of congress to realize that there is an actual, documented history that can be consulted against my “controversial” words.  Accordingly, in its willful suppression of this fact, not only does CAIR not reproduce my six final words; it fails to indicate their omission with ellipses, as required by the rules of grammatical etiquette.

Be all this as it may, the fact remains: having successfully cowed the US Army War College into obedience with its hysteria and cries of “racism,” one can only guess just how many members of congress CAIR also cowed from signing Rep. Scott Perry’s letter in defense of free speech and academic inquiry in the context of U.S. security.  

Such is the extent of CAIR’s tentacles, the extent of the propaganda-jihad—one of many, legitimate forms of nonviolent jihad—at its finest.

How to Tell If a Trump Supporter Is Racist

Fri, 08/09/2019 - 04:12

Every non-liberal leftist — that is, nearly every Democrat running for president, New York Times and Washington Post columnist, CNN and MSNBC host, and your left-wing brother-in-law — labels every Trump supporter and, of course, President Donald Trump, a "racist."

And they don't stop there. Leftists don't only label the half of the country that supports the president "racist," they label all whites and America itself "racist." If your son or daughter attends or recently attended an American university, it is close to certain he or she was repeatedly told that America and all whites are racist. According to the left, whites are divided between those who admit they are racist and those who don't admit it.

Every conservative and many liberals know this is a big lie. The great question is: Do leftists believe it? It is impossible to know. But this we do know: If you repeat something often enough, and if your Weltanschauung (worldview) and that which gives your life meaning are dependent upon believing something, you will eventually believe it.

So here is a way to show it is a lie.

Ask any white conservative, including one who supports Trump, the following three questions:

1) Do you have more in common with, and are you personally more comfortable in the company of, a white leftist or a black conservative?

2) Would you rather have nine white leftists or nine black conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court?

3) Would you rather your child marry a black Christian conservative or a white non-Christian liberal?

A white racist would prefer the whites in each case.

I have asked these questions of thousands of Trump supporters at lectures and on my radio show. Not once has a white Trump-supporting conservative said he or she would be more comfortable in the presence of a white leftist than a black conservative, or would prefer an all-white liberal Supreme Court to an all-black conservative Supreme Court. Not once has a white Christian conservative said he or she would prefer their child marry a white non-Christian liberal to a black Christian conservative.

If you're an honest leftist, this should present a powerful challenge to your belief that all white conservatives are racist.

But it won't. Leftists have too much at stake to confront the truth about conservatives. Everything the left has ever believed has depended upon lying about opponents. From the day Stalin labeled Trotsky — who served as the head of the Red Army and who, along with Lenin, founded the Bolshevik Party — a "fascist," leftists have lied about their opponents.

Some liberals lie and some conservatives lie, but the truth is both a liberal and conservative value. It has never been a left-wing value. Any leftist who would commit himself to the truth would cease being a leftist. He would either become an anti-left liberal or an anti-left conservative.

"America is racist." "Whites are racist." "Trump supporters are racist." These are all big lies.

So, then, given how important it is to leftists to maintain the lie of conservative racism — along with xenophobia, misogyny, transphobia and Islamophobia — how would they rebut conservatives' answers to these questions?

Presumably, they would argue that every conservative who responds to these questions as I described is lying.

But these questions are important — no matter how much leftists ignore or dismiss them — because they perform an important service for conservatives.

I know this from Jewish history. There was so much Jew-hatred in the medieval Christian world that Jews sometimes wondered if there was any truth to the attacks on them. When a whole society denigrates a group, members of the denigrated group start wondering whether any of the attacks on them have any truth. But when the charge of blood libel — that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to bake matzos for Passover — arose, it liberated Jews from taking any of the anti-Semites' attacks seriously. Every Jew knew the blood libel was a lie — Jews never consumed animal blood, let alone human blood.

Every conservative knows his responses to these three questions are heartfelt and true, so these questions can help conservatives come to see the left's charge of conservative racism as medieval Jews came to see the anti-Semites' blood libel charge: as a lie.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in April 2018, is The Rational Bible, a commentary on the book of Exodus. He is the founder of Prager University.

Searching for the Next AOC

Fri, 08/09/2019 - 04:11

Justice Democrats (JD), the leftist organization that helped elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress last year, has announced its three latest endorsements for the 2020 elections to the House of Representatives: Alex Morse and Morgan Harper as primary challengers to Democratic incumbents Richard Neal (Massachusetts) and Joyce Beatty (Ohio), and Kara Eastman as a primary challenger to Republican incumbent Don Bacon (Nebraska). All three of JD's candidates – including Eastman, the nominal Republican – are leftists/socialists, as evidenced by JD's assertion that “we are honored to endorse these three candidates as part of a new generation of Democrats who will fight for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free college, and ending mass incarceration and deportation.”

Launched in Los Angeles on January 23, 2017, Justice Democrats is a federal political action committee aligned with the Democratic Party. The group was co-founded by several individuals who had been either supporters or staffers of Senator Bernie Sanders’ failed presidential campaign of 2016. These included: Cenk Uygur of the online news program The Young Turks; longtime Democrat operative Zack Exley; Saikat Chakrabarti, who would go on to become a key advisor and aide to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Alexandra Rojas (national digital field director of Sanders’ campaign); Corbin Trent (founder of “Tennessee for Bernie Sanders”); and Kyle Kulinski, the host and producer of the YouTube show Secular Talk. All except Kulinski had also been co-founders (in 2016) of the pro-Democrat organization Brand New Congress (BNC).

In contrast to BNC’s unusually ambitious goal of replacing all 435 U.S. House Members with political novices, JD deemed it wiser to support some incumbent Democrats and to direct its efforts chiefly toward unseating: (a) only those Democrats whose politics were unacceptably centrist, and (b) as many Republicans as possible. Over time, JD reasoned, this approach would help “change the Democratic Party from the inside out” by moving it ever farther to the political left.

JD believes that: (a) “racism and xenophobia have always been part of our country’s history”; (b) “African Americans and Latinos in particular, and people of color generally, have been targets in our nation’s continued assault against their rights, liberties, and humanity”; and (c) “a truth and reconciliation commission [should be empaneled] to investigate the generational harms caused by slavery and Jim Crow and [to] propose remedies.”

In 2017, JD launched a recruiting campaign whereby it held auditions for potential candidates who could run for various U.S. Congressional seats on its leftist political platform in the 2018 midterm elections. All told, more than 10,000 names were submitted to JD for consideration. One of those names was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Bronx bartender who was recommended to JD by her brother Gabriel. Upon meeting the young woman, JD perceived her to be someone whose charisma and persona could be harnessed very effectively for political purposes. Thus the organization made Ocasio-Cortez its top priority for the 2018 midterms. Toward that end, JD scripted and produced her campaign videos, while also coordinating all of her fundraising, social media, and voter mobilization activities.

In December 2017, both Cenk Uygur and JD’s treasurer, David Koller, resigned from the organization after it was learned that they each had authored blogposts in the early 2000s containing language that was degrading to women.

By February 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had joined Saikat Chakrabarti as a member of of JD’s board of directors.

All told, JD in 2018 endorsed 78 Democratic congressional candidates and recruited 12 to run for office, serving as a political consulting firm for those dozen. Ocasio-Cortez was the only one of the 12 recruits who went on to win her general election, though six additional JD-endorsed candidates — three incumbents and three freshmen — were also elected to the U.S House. Those six were: Ro Khanna, Raul GrijalvaAyanna PressleyRashida TlaibIlhan Omar, and Pramila Jayapal. Among the more noteworthy candidates who received JD’s support but failed to win their respective elections were Ben Jealous and Abdul El-Sayed.

To secure JD’s endorsement and support, candidates are required to openly embrace the organization’s political platform. Key planks of that platform include the following:

  • Enact a Green New Deal, environmental legislation whose mission is to rapidly eliminate all fossil-fuel use from the U.S. economy; create a basic income program and a federal jobs guarantee that would provide a “living wage” to every person who wants one; implement a government-run, single-payer health care system called “Medicare For All”; and replace free-market capitalism with a socialist framework.
  • Invest “trillions” of dollars in “rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, levees, airports, etc.”
  • “Mak[e] the top 1% [of earners] and multinational corporations pay their fair share” of taxes.
  • Provide free education for everyone attending public colleges and trade schools.
  • Increase expenditures for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which already consume, in aggregate, 62% of the federal budget.
  • Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, family leave, and childcare services for all American workers.
  • “Protect women’s rights” by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act, repealing the Hyde Amendment (which bars the use of public money to fund abortions), and “oppos[ing] Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood.”
  • Enact “sweeping and comprehensive policy changes” to a criminal-justice system that “currently targets Black and Brown people” with “inappropriate policing practices” and “unjust mass incarceration.”
  • “Invest more in jobs and education, less in jails and incarceration.”
  • End “the racist War on Drugs” that “has torn families apart all across our country” and disproportionately harms the black community.
  • Abolish capital punishment, an “indefensible” practice that too often “puts innocent people to death.
  • Place “a ban on assault weapons” (semi-automatic weapons) and “high-capacity magazines.”
  • Secure the “voting rights” of “every American citizen” by eliminating Voter ID laws allegedly designed “to disenfranchise [poor and nonwhite] voting blocks who have traditionally supported Democrats.”
  • Abolish the federal Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which “has turned into a state-funded terror group that regularly violates basic human rights.”
  • Implement “comprehensive immigration reform” that ensures a “path to citizenship” for millions of illegal aliens.
  • “Support the movement to provide statehood for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico” – places whose residents overwhelmingly support Democrats over Republicans – “in order to bring balance to the increasingly skewed Senate.”

In summation, JD's objective is to make the Democratic Party ever-more radical in its positions and agendas, while simultaneously infiltrating the Republican Party with candidates who will help to push it leftward as well.

Israeli Archeologists Discover One of the World’s Oldest Mosques

Fri, 08/09/2019 - 04:05

The Jerusalem Post recently carried a story about the discovery of a very early mosque in the Upper Negev by Israeli archaeologists.

The ruins of a 1200 year old rural mosque, one of the earliest mosques in the world, were uncovered in an archaeological dig in the predominately Bedouin city of Rahat north of Beersheba.

“A local rural mosque from this early period is a rare find in the Middle East and in the world in general and especially in the area north of Beersheba in which a similar building has not been found until now,” said Shahar Zur and Dr. Jon Seligman, the directors of the excavation on behalf of the Antiquities Authority.

“From this period, there are large known mosques in Jerusalem and in Mecca, but here is evidence of an ancient house of worship, that seems to have been used by farmers living in the area,” they added. “We found the ruins of the open-air mosque, a rectangular building with a “Mihrab” (a prayer niche) facing south, to the direction of Mecca. These features are evidence for the purpose for which this building was used, many hundred years ago.”

A farm from the end of the Byzantine period (500-600 C.E.) was also uncovered in the excavations, as well as a small settlement from the beginning of the Islamic period (600-700 C.E.) with remains of buildings that were split into living spaces, open courtyards, storage space and places used for food preparation, including “tabbuns” (open-air fireplaces used for baking).

“These sites were part of the agricultural system that existed in the northern Negev in early times,” explained Zur and Seligman. “The soil was suitable for growing grains and the ground water in perennial streams attracted settlers here who wanted to cultivate the land.”

“This is one of the earliest mosques known of from the time of the first arrival of Islam in Israel, after the Arab conquest in 636 C.E.,” said Professor Gideon Avni, an expert in the period at the Antiquities Authority. “The discovery of the mosque next to an agricultural town between Beersheba and Ashkelon indicates the processes of cultural and religious change which the

“The uncovering of the town and the mosque next to it, significantly contribute to studies on the history of the land in this stormy period,” he added. “According to historical Islamic sources, the new Muslim government distributed plots of land to its senior officials, including Omar ibn al-Etz, an Arab military commander who took over the land of Israel and Syria. The continuation of excavations on the site will perhaps provide answers to the questions regarding the foundation of the settlement and the nearby mosque and its connection to the Arab conquerors of the land of Israel.”

The dig was headed by the Israel Antiquities Authority alongside Bedouin residents and youth from towns in the area as a new neighborhood was established in the city. An initiative by the antiquities authority engages organized groups of youth during the summer vacation in archaeological digs, allowing them to earn a fair wage, engage with the past and also collect experiences for their whole lives.

What strikes one first is the evident delight of these Israeli archaeologists in uncovering part of the Arab and Muslim past. They were pleased to be able to excavate not just the mosque, but two sites nearby. One was a farm, from the very end of the Byzantine period (circa  600 C.E.), and another, a small settlement from the early Islamic period (600-700 C.E.) near the mosque. They look forward to continuing the excavations, particularly of the Muslim settlement nearby, to try to figure out more about the ownership of the site, which they believe may have been given to to a Muslim military commander, Omar ibn al-Etz, for his services. They treated the Muslim site  as they would have any Jewish site, with the same satisfaction in increasing our knowledge of the past.

Second, there is the touching concern for the Bedouin and Arab young men whom the Israeli archaeologists employed as diggers on the site, giving them the opportunity “to earn a fair wage” — that is, the same wages as would be paid to an Israeli at the same level — and hoping, too, to stimulate their interest beyond wage-earning, to “engage with the past” and “to collect experiences for their whole lives.” These Israelis are not exactly the monsters that BDS, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Linda Sarsour, and Roger Waters have been malevolently presenting to the world.

Third, the treatment of Jewish sites by Arabs and Muslims has been quite different from the way Israelis have treated Muslim sites. When Jordan held East Jerusalem and the Old City from 1949 to 1967, it demolished or destroyed all 58 synagogues in the Old City. The Western Wall was transformed into an exclusively Muslim holy site associated with al-Buraq, the fabulous winged steed that Muhammad was said to have ridden up to Heaven. No Jews were allowed to pray at the Western Wall. In the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, 38,000 graves were systematically destroyed, and Jews were not allowed to be buried there. Some of the tombstones were used to line the floors of Jordanian army latrines. Thousands of them were ground into gravel, for use at building sites. Since 1967, when Israel came into possession of the Old City, no Muslim sites have been damaged in any way. And in order to prevent conflict, Israel has forbidden not Muslims, but Jews, from saying prayers anywhere on the Temple Mount.

When in 2015 the “Palestinians” in Nablus set ablaze Joseph’s Tomb, one of Judaism’s holiest sites, they were just doing what came naturally, following the Jordanian example, and that of many other Muslims, such as the Afghans who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, and the Islamic State militants who in March 2015 demolished the ancient archaeological site of Hatra and Nimrud. None of these pre-Islamic or non-Islamic sites have a right, in the view of devout Muslims, to exist. It was Muslim Turks, not Napoleon’s soldiers (as many in the West have mistakenly believed), who managed to shoot off the nose of the Sphinx. The Sphinx was pre-Islamic; it had no right to exist. Muslims demand respect for their sites, but offer only contempt for, and destruction of, the pre-Islamic and non-Islamic sites of others. If the most fanatical Muslims had their way, even the pyramids would be destroyed, but here they would face the fury of mainstream Egyptians who recognize what a colossal, even fatal, blow that would be to Egypt’s tourist industry.

Fourth, when have you ever heard of Arab archaeologists uncovering a single Jewish site? Jews lived all over the Middle East for several thousand years. Some 19th century scholars (Al-Bustani, Wüstenfeld) have suggested that Jews may even have established a state in the Hejaz.  There must be considerable evidence of their presence. But whatever newly-discovered physical evidence exists of Jewish life in the Middle East outside of Israel, it is not being excavated.

A well-travelled Kuwaiti once told me that he knew of several Jewish sites that had been discovered in western Saudi Arabia, but that the information about them was a state secret. If he was telling the truth, I suspect that such sites would by now have been quietly destroyed. The less physical evidence of an ancient Jewish presence in Arabia, as far as Arabs and Muslims are concerned, the better.

Meanwhile, the scrupulous, scholarly, kind-hearted Israeli archaeologists, working together with young Arabs who are treated with dignity, paid a “fair wage,” and given work that the Israelis clearly hope might kindle their interest in archeology, have uncovered one of the oldest mosques in the world and would no doubt be glad to find other evidence of early Islam. One more way — there are so many — to distinguish the Israelis from those who wish them ill.

Hansen Video: Killing Free Speech

Fri, 08/09/2019 - 04:01

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

This new edition of The Glazov Gang features filmmaker Michael Hansen, whose new film is Killing Free Speech

Michael discusses his new film and unveils how the powers-that-be are killing free expression — along with a film about the killing of Europe.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Michael focus on his film Killing Europe and on Europe’s Suicide in the Face of Islam. He also shares the Unholy Alliance‘s totalitarian effort to drown his film:

Follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

A President Consoles Two Grieving Cities

Thu, 08/08/2019 - 04:58

President Trump visited the two cities where last weekend’s mass shootings took place - Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas. He tweeted that he wanted to meet “with First Responders, Law Enforcement, and some of the victims of the terrible shootings.”  Before leaving for his Dayton visit, he declared to reporters his concern about any hate group,  “whether it’s white supremacy or any other kind of supremacy, whether it’s Antifa, whether it’s any group or kind of hate.” The president indicated his support for legislation strengthening background checks for gun purchases and keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.

Not surprisingly, President Trump was met with protests in both cities as well as vicious partisan attacks.

To her credit, the Democrat mayor of Dayton, Nan Whaley, greeted President Trump at the airport. She and Ohio Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown met with the president. However, prior to the president’s visit, Mayor Whaley had said she supported those who intended to protest the president, declaring that he's "made this bed and he's gotta lie in it. His rhetoric has been painful for many in our community and I think the people should stand up and say they’re not happy if they’re not happy that he’s coming.”

The president and First Lady Melania Trump visited a Dayton hospital to meet with patients who were victims of the shooting, as well as with emergency and hospital staffers. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the president told survivors at the hospital, "You had God watching. I want you to know we're with you all the way."

Protesters trailed the president and first lady as they arrived at the Dayton hospital. Some were chanting, "hey hey, ho ho! Donald Trump has got to go!" Some waved signs that said, “Dump Trump.” Some congregated in front of a “Trump baby” balloon. One of the protesters held a sign saying “End This Terror” and made an obscene gesture in the direction of the motorcade. A woman yelled, “Trump for impeachment.”

At least 200 people reportedly took part in the Dayton anti-Trump protests. Some Trump supporters showed up as well.  Fortunately, there was no violence.

The protesters no doubt had a good time venting their anger at President Trump. However, their blame game against the president was entirely misplaced. The Dayton shooter was certainly no fan of President Trump and was not motivated by any shared beliefs with the president or inspired by the president’s rhetoric. To the contrary, he reportedly was pro-Antifa as well as a supporter of Elizabeth Warren. The shooter was said to have tweeted at one point, “kill every fascist.” Yet there were no protests against Antifa, whose members have engaged in violence against those they consider “fascists.”

There also were no protests aimed at far-left Elizabeth Warren, whose ideas were evidently shared by the Dayton shooter. Nor should there be. The Dayton shooter was solely responsible for his own heinous crime. He acted out the violent demons in his head. Indeed, the Dayton shooter had a long history of mental problems leading up to his shooting spree. His rampage might have been prevented with timely treatment and the reporting of his prior threats of violence to law enforcement agencies and to the gun background check database system.

President Trump extolled the victims, families, first responders, medical staff and law enforcement officers he met in Dayton. Even Mayor Whaley said she thought the first responders and victims were grateful to see President Trump at the hospital. However, President Trump was not pleased with what the mayor and Senator Brown had to say at the joint news conference they held after the president departed, in which they denounced the president’s rhetoric and pressed their demands for sweeping gun control measures. President Trump tweeted that their news conference was “a fraud,” which “bore no resemblance to what took place with those incredible people that I was so lucky to meet and spend time with.”

After Dayton, President Trump visited El Paso. Just before he arrived there, two city officials issued a statement demanding that the president “personally condemn racial terrorism by white supremacists, in no uncertain terms.” Otherwise, the statement claimed, “his continued depiction of immigrants and migrants as a threat to our nation will only place our community at greater risk for racially-motivated attacks.” Their irresponsible statement ignores the fact that President Trump has been clear in his condemnation of racial violence and the ideology of white supremacy that can fuel such violence. Moreover, the statement conflates legal and illegal immigration. The president wants to crack down on illegal immigration and gaming of the nation’s asylum laws, not those who come to this country legally.

The El Paso shooting is being treated as a hate crime and as a possible act of domestic terror. The shooting suspect is reportedly a white supremacist who absorbed the virulent, racist invective appearing on extremist social media sites. He is said to have posted his own hate-filled manifesto shortly before his shooting spree, claiming that his “ideology has not changed for several years” and that his opinions on immigration and other subjects “predate Trump and his campaign for president.” Nevertheless, taking individual words from the manifesto such as “invasion” out of context and trying to match them with words used by President Trump in his speeches about illegal immigration, Trump haters seek simplistically to link the president’s rhetoric and the El Paso shooter’s carnage in cause and effect terms.

The manifesto purportedly written by the El Paso shooter contained outright appeals to racism that came from his own twisted mind and the racist rants of other like-minded bigots. For example, the manifesto recommended dividing America into a confederacy of territories, with at least one territory for each race to eliminate the mixture of races. It mused about violence to combat what the manifesto characterized as the threat Hispanics pose to America’s identity. Only an imbecilic demagogue would ascribe such beliefs to anything the president has said about illegal immigration, crime-ridden inner cities, the far-left anti-Semites who presently sit in the House of Representatives, or any other subject.

Beto O’Rourke, whose hometown is El Paso, is one such imbecilic demagogue. Democrat Rep. Veronica Escobar, whose congressional district includes El Paso, is another. In a bid to reignite his flagging presidential campaign, O’Rourke accused the president of stoking racism, inciting violence and being a white nationalist himself. Rep. Escobar said, "Words have consequences.The president has made my community and my people the enemy."

Both O’Rourke and Escobar strongly opposed the president’s visit to El Paso. "We do not need more division,” O’Rourke said. “We need to heal. He has no place here." Escobar said that President Trump was "not welcome" in El Paso. He “should not come here while we are in mourning.”

With remarks like these, O’Rourke and Escobar are the ones sowing division and hatred. El Paso Mayor Dee Margo hit the right note when he tweeted, “We will stay united as we work through the long healing process.” Despite their differences over immigration policy, the mayor set an example to residents of El Paso who do not like President Trump by focusing on the tragedy in their city, not dislike of the president. The mayor welcomed President Trump to the city as a sign of respect for the Office of the Presidency.

Rep. Escobar declined to meet with President Trump, saying “I refuse to be a prop.” Instead, she and O’Rourke joined a protest at El Paso's Washington Park opposing President Trump's visit. Adri Perez of the El Paso ACLU told protesters that “we must come together and say, Donald Trump, your racism, your hatred, your bigotry are not welcome here.” He urged the crowd to turn their grief “into anger and our anger into action.” What “action” he had in mind was not clear. Protesters held anti-Trump signs such as “Trump is a racist,” “Trump is a lying, corrupt racist,” “F..k Trump’s hate speech,” and “Trump not welcome here.”

As President Trump and the first lady had done in Dayton, they visited a hospital in El Paso to meet with medical professionals and victims from last weekend’s mass shooting. Trump haters and supporters were outside of the hospital shouting at each other. Police with shields and assault rifles were present to try and keep the peace. As in Dayton, there fortunately was no violence.

Instead of hitting the pause button on politicizing the tragedies and allowing the country some space to heal from the wounds, contenders for the Democrat Party’s presidential nomination continued to add fuel on the fire. On the very day that President Trump sought to console victims of last weekend’s two mass shootings and honor first responders, Joe Biden accused the president of being responsible for “fueling a literal carnage” in America. President Trump declared the speech “Sooo Boring!” It would also be accurate to say that Barack Obama’s vice president maliciously slandered President Trump, forgetting about the carnage from 24 mass shootings that occurred on the Obama-Biden administration’s watch, resulting in 236 fatalities.

Biden evidently forgot the words of his boss after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting in 2012, in which Obama reminded Americans how such a tragedy "reminds us of all the ways that we are united as one American family."  Indeed, Biden himself issued a statement saying, “The prayers of an entire nation are with the victims and their families.” Obama’s Republican opponent in 2012, Mitt Romney, said in response to the Colorado mass shooting, “I stand before you today not as a man running for office, but as a father and grandfather, a husband, an American… we can come together, show our fellow citizens the good heart of the America we know and love.’’ There was no politicization of the mass shooting tragedy in 2012. Leaders of both parties urged unity and offered words of healing. Not so today. Democrats and other Trump haters relentlessly attacked the president even as he tried to use his visits to Dayton and El Paso to unite and heal the country. Then they criticized him for fending off the grossly unfair personal attacks.

After his El Paso visit, the president declared that it had been an “amazing day.” He tweeted, “Leaving El Paso for the White House. What GREAT people I met there and in Dayton, Ohio. The Fake News worked overtime trying to disparage me and the two trips, but it just didn’t work. The love, respect & enthusiasm were there for all to see. They have been through so much. Sad!”

With all the slings and arrows aimed at President Trump on the day that he sought to console and honor those affected directly by the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings, the president displayed true leadership. He valiantly upheld the dignity of the Office of the President. His detractors on this solemn day disgraced themselves.

Ilhan Omar Claims “White Men” Are Greater Threat Than Jihadis

Thu, 08/08/2019 - 04:55

The ever-controversial Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) recently claimed that “our country [in this case she meant the United States, not Somalia] should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.” She called for “profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.” As crazy as this sounds, it is a commonplace claim on the Left these days. But that doesn’t make it even remotely true.

No, they don’t. It is a false claim that “white men” or “right-wing extremists” are a bigger threat to Americans than Islamic jihad terrorists. As I noted in November 2018 when CNN’s Don Lemon made the same claim, this claim originated with an April 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that counted 106 people killed in 62 attacks by “far-right violent extremists,” as compared to 119 people killed in 23 attacks by “radical Islamist violent extremists.”

That’s it then, right? 39 more attacks by “far-right violent extremists” than by “radical Islamist violent extremists.” Although 13 more people were killed in the jihad attacks, this establishes definitively that America has a much bigger problem with the “far-right” than with jihadis, right?

No. One major problem with the Government Accountability Office study is clear on page 6 of its report, where you will see that the count of fatalities committed by “far right wing extremists” and “radical Islamist extremists” begins on September 12, 2001. Why was that day chosen for the beginning of the study? If the GAO had gone back one more day, the number of Americans killed by Islamic jihadists would have been several thousand more than those killed by “far-right violent extremists.”

Did the GAO start on September 12, 2001 in order to manipulate the results so as to exaggerate the terror threat from the “far-right” and minimize it from Islamic jihadis? Could there be any other possible explanation?

Another major issue: The study doesn’t take failed plots into account. At my site Jihad Watch, I’ve tracked jihad activity in the United States and around the world every day since October 2003. In the course of that nearly sixteen-year span, I’ve posted hundreds of reports on failed jihad plots inside this country. No one was killed or injured in those, and for that we can all be grateful. But if those plots had succeeded, there would have been hundreds and possibly thousands more fatalities of Islamic jihad activity.

Failed plots are quickly forgotten. They shouldn’t be. And it should be noted that there is nowhere near an equivalent number of foiled plots by “far-right violent extremists.” Most Americans have no idea how indefatigably jihadis are continuing to attempt mass murder inside the United States. Just last Monday, a Muslim in New York City shoved a commuter onto the subway tracks and screamed “Allahu akbar” when he was arrested. On July 8, a Muslim in Florida tried to stab a man with scissors at a Walmart and screamed while he was being arrested: “We are coming for you Trump. We are coming for you with knives. God will send angels to destroy you. I need Trump cut. I want to cut, two portions.” On Facebook, he had written: “Whoever knows why I came to America wait for the urgent news on television screens and victory is from Allah.”

And several weeks ago, two Somali Muslim “refugees” were arrested in Tucson, Arizona for plotting either to join the Islamic State (ISIS) overseas or carry out a jihad massacre in the United States. One of them declared: “I love jihad so much. If I go to Syria I want to be the beheading person, … I want to kill them so many I am thirsty their blood.”

Further, the GAO study doesn’t take into account the fact that there is a global network of Islamic jihadis. They are found on every inhabited continent. Major jihad organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have repeatedly called upon Muslims to murder Americans.

By contrast, there is no global network of “right-wing extremists,” and they have not called for the indiscriminate murder of American civilians.

This propaganda is everywhere, but all the repetition of these lies doesn’t make them true, even when Ilhan Omar is repeating them to the ecstatic ululations of an adoring media.

Banana Republic Can’t Cover Up Women Fast Enough to Sell Them Hijabs

Thu, 08/08/2019 - 04:35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just the way Allah intended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghani Citizen and Former U.S. Military Interpreter Charged With Alien Smuggling

Thu, 08/08/2019 - 04:20

With all of the emphasis on the lack of security along the U.S./Mexican border, most Americans have forgotten that the immigration system consists of many elements and that failures of the immigration system may profoundly impact nearly every challenge and threat that America and Americans face in this dangerous and challenging era.

To be clear, the Mexican border must be secured against the un-inspected entry of aliens and contraband,  however, this is not an “either/or” problem.  We also must also understand the other ways that multiple failures of the immigration system endanger our safety and wellbeing.

Indeed, the lack of integrity to the entire immigration system is a reflection of the lack of integrity of our politicians.

On August 2, 2019 the Justice Department posted an extremely worrying news release, Afghanistan National and Former U.S. Military Interpreter Charged for Role in Human Smuggling Conspiracy.

Here is an excerpt from the DOJ press release:

Mujeeb Rahman Saify, 32, is an Afghanistan national who received a Special Immigrant Visa and became a U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident in 2009, after serving as an interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan.  Since 2009, Saify has resided in New York and Newark.  Saify was charged in the District of New Jersey with conspiracy to smuggle aliens to the United States, encouraging and inducing alien smuggling, and attempting to bring aliens to the United States.

According to the indictment, between July 2016 through January 2017, Saify conspired with members of an Afghanistan and Pakistan-based smuggling network to smuggle two Afghanistan nationals to the United States.  The Afghanistan nationals did not have prior authorization to enter the United States and one had been denied a U.S. visa.  The indictment alleges that Saify made contact with the aliens and arranged meetings with the co-conspirators to discuss smuggling arrangements.  Further, according to the indictment, Saify received payment, gave instructions to the aliens to facilitate the smuggling venture, and he used email and phone communications to facilitate and coordinate the criminal operation.

Additional information about this case was provided on that same day in the Washington Times article, Afghan Immigrant Indicted For Trying To Smuggle Migrants Through Mexico Into U.S.

Here is a salient excerpt from that Washington Times report:

Authorities have publicly identified two migrants they say Mr. Saify was responsible for smuggling, including Wasiq Ullah Hedayat, the man flagged for security issued when he was encountered at the U.S. border in Texas. Like Mr. Saify, Mr. Hedayat was a translator for U.S. troops, but was fired in 2014 and was barred from even entering any U.S. base, according to court documents.

He later applied for a visa to the U.S. but was denied.

One of the migrants had applied to come to the U.S. before but had been denied a visa. It’s not clear if that was Mr. Hedayat or the other smuggled migrant, who was not named.

Prosecutors said Mr. Saify worked for a Pakistan-based smuggling network. He charged Mr. Hedayat $10,000 for his journey, while the other migrant, identified in court documents by initials A.H., paid $6,000.

Mr. Saify arranged for his customers to fly to Brazil, where they then made their way up Latin America to the U.S.-Mexico border, and attempted to enter.

This particular case involves multiple extremely serious issues.

To begin with, Saify is currently a lawful immigrant who was granted his lawful immigrant status because of his work as an interpreter, overseas, for the U.S. military.

That he stands accused of smuggling aliens into the United States calls into question the vetting process that preceded Saify’s employment by our military as an interpreter.  It must be presumed that he had been granted a security clearance.

All of the cases in which he provided his “services” must now be carefully reviewed to make certain that he did not mislead our officials.

Interpreters have access to extremely sensitive national security materials that may well include documents, informants and agents.

Interpreters act as the “eyes, ears and mouths” of the members of the military and intelligence and law enforcement agencies requiring that they interact not only with the government personnel but with informants and those individuals who provide what is referred to as “human intelligence” and also have access to documents that need to be translated and/or used in conjunction with an interview/interrogation.

A malfeasant interpreter may not only become aware of the individuals who provide intelligence, placing those people and their families in mortal danger, but may also not provide accurate translations of the discussion they participate in.  This would enable such a bad actor to lie and thus provide disinformation while learning the information pertaining to national security that our governing is seeking.

This can endanger the lives of informants and cooperators as well as members of our armed forces and or the lives of government agents and law enforcement officers and, long term, may enable terrorists to carry out deadly attacks not only abroad, but inside the United States.

Moving on to the fact that he is accused of smuggling aliens through Brazil is of particular concern.  As I noted in an earlier article, Jihadis And Drug Cartel At Our Border the “Tri-Border region of Brazil (at the junction of the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay) is known for terror training camps run by Hezbollah and likely al Qaeda and other Middle-Eastern terrorist organizations and was the focus of the paper, Islamist Terrorist Threat in the Tri-Border Region that was published by Jeffrey Fields, Research Associate, Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

While there have been no published information about whether or not the aliens in this case went to those training camps, the fact that they were moved through Brazil is of great concern and should be of great concern to our political leaders.  Let us also not lose sight that these aliens are citizens of “Special Interest Countries,” that is to say, countries associated with terrorism.

What has also been disclosed in news reports about this case is that one of the aliens Saify is alleged to have attempted to smuggle into the United States had also been employed by the U.S. military as an interpreter until his position was terminated and he was barred from entering U.S. military bases when it was discovered that he was purportedly working for a hostile government.

If the allegations prove to be true, it must be presumed that the goals of these aliens included undermining our national security.  This betrayal could not possibly more serious or dangerous.

Finally we need to focus on how, incredibly, Democrat presidential candidates have openly called for the dismantling of ICE and the decriminalization of our immigration laws that would, in effect, eradicate the borders of the United States even as huge quantities of narcotics, members of transnational gangs and international terrorists flow across our borders each and every day.

The late and very effective and resourceful criminal defense attorney, Johnnie Cochran who is probably best remembered for successfully defending O.J. Simpson admonished the jury in that case, “If you cannot trust the messenger, you cannot trust the message.”

Today I would suggest that we should flip that bit of advice sideways and apply it to those politicians who seek to undermine border security and immigration law enforcement- if you cannot trust the message, you cannot trust the messenger!

Was Trump Right About Baltimore?

Thu, 08/08/2019 - 04:09

Here's what President Donald Trump tweeted about Baltimore's congressman and his city: "Rep. Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is far worse and more dangerous. His district is considered the worst in the USA."

"As proven last week during a congressional tour, the border is clean, efficient and well run, just very crowded," Trump added. Cumming's "district is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place."

President Donald Trump's claims suggesting that Rep. Elijah Cummings' Baltimore-area district is "considered the worst run and most dangerous" has been called racist. But whether Trump's claims have any merit is an empirical matter settled by appealing to facts. Let's look at a few.

In 2018, Baltimore was rated one of the "Rattiest Cities" in the nation by pest control company Orkin. According to Patch Media, although there has been progress in the last few years, Baltimore ranks ninth in rat infestation, down from its sixth position two years ago on Orkin's list.

What about safety? In 2017, St. Louis had the nation's highest murder rate, at 66.1 homicides per 100,000 residents. Baltimore came in second, with 55.8 murders per 100,000 people. The unpleasant fact is that predominantly black and Democratic-run cities have the worst records of public safety. The Trace, an independent nonprofit news organization, using 2017 data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, listed the 20 major U.S. cities with the highest homicide rates. After St. Louis and Baltimore, Detroit was third, with 39.8 murders per 100,000 people. Other cities with high murder rates included New Orleans; Kansas City, Missouri; Cleveland; Memphis, Tennessee; and Newark, New Jersey. With 24.1 murders per 100,000 residents, Chicago ranked ninth in the nation, followed by Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Washington, D.C., was 17th.

What about education in Baltimore? In 2016, in 13 of Baltimore's 39 high schools, not a single student scored proficient on the state's mathematics exam. In six other high schools, only 1% tested proficient in math. In raw numbers, 3,804 Baltimore students took the state's math test and 14 tested proficient. Citywide, only 15% of Baltimore students passed the state's English test. Money is not the problem. Of the nation's 100 largest school systems, Baltimore schools rank third in spending per pupil.

Baltimore's black students receive diplomas that attest that they can function at a 12th-grade level when in fact they may not be able to do so at a sixth-, seventh- or eighth-grade level. These students and their families have little reason to suspect that their diplomas are fraudulent. Thus, if they cannot pass a civil service exam, they will accuse the exam of being racist. When they get poor grades in college and flunk out, they will attribute their plight to racism. The information that these black students have is that they, just as white students, have a high school diploma and the only explanation they see for unequal outcomes is racism. The same story of poor education outcomes can be told about most cities with large black populations.

The problems that black people confront are immune to who is the president of the U.S. Those problems were not ameliorated when Barack Obama was president. Those problems are not going to be ameliorated by Trump's presidency, though the black unemployment rate is considerably lower. The lesson for black people is that politicians and government handouts are not solutions. If they were, at a public expenditure that tops $22 trillion over the past half-century, black people would not be confronted with today's problems.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

* * *

Photo by urbanfeel

Prager U Video: New 'Offensive Speech' Rules on College Campuses

Thu, 08/08/2019 - 04:05

Prager University is back with another short video commentary on the state of the culture. This time, Isabel Brown discusses the latest list of words and phrases deemed "offensive speech" on college campuses. So long, "food coma." Peace out, "Freshman." Goodbye, "America" (Yes, America). Check out the video below:


From El Paso to Fort Hood

Wed, 08/07/2019 - 04:58

Last weekend, Patrick Crusius shot down 22 victims in El Paso, Texas. Ten years earlier in Fort Hood, Texas, some 500 miles to the east, U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan was planning a deadly attack, similar in some ways but decidedly different in response from the media and political establishments. Unlike the El Paso shooter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, then headed by Robert Mueller, was on to Hasan from the start.

On May 31, 2009, the Muslim army psychiatrist, a self-described “soldier of Allah,” contacted  terrorist mastermind Anwar al-Awliki, probing whether it was okay to kill American soldiers by suicide bombings and such in order to help fellow Muslim combatants. “This logic seems to make sense to me,” Hasan replied. These and other emails between the two were in the hands of the FBI at that time.

In June of 2009, the FBI’s Washington field office responded “WFO does not currently assess Hasan to be involved in terrorist activities.” The FBI promptly dropped the case until November 5, when field agents said: “You know who that is. That’s our boy.”

As it emerged in the 2012 congressional hearings on Lessons from Fort Hood: Improving our Ability to Connect the Dots, their boy Nidal Hasan, “walked into the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and shouted the classic jihadist term ‘Allahu Akbar’ and opened fire on unarmed soldiers and civilians. He killed 13 and wounded 42 others. This was the most horrific terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.” That was accurate, but did not capture the details. 

Using privately purchased handguns, Major Hasan chased down wounded soldiers and shot them in the back. He gunned down Pvt. Francheska Velez, pregnant with her first child. He would have killed more unarmed American soldiers if civilian police officer Kim Munley had not wounded Hasan after taking three bullets from the shooter. His victims included Hispanics and African Americans but the commander in chief of U.S. armed forces did not call Hasan a racist or the attack a hate crime.

President Barack Obama, the Democrat formerly known as Barry Soetoro, did not call Nidal Hassan’s mass murder an act of terrorism or even gun violence. He called it “workplace violence,” which did more than downplay the Islamic terrorism on display in the mass murder. Since it was “workplace” and not combat, it also prevented the victims from getting medals and the medical treatment they deserved. The president also declined to receive victims at the White House and field their complaints.

One of the victims, Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, noted that Hasan got better medical treatment than he did, while the shooter continued to draw his pay. At the time, it did not emerge that the FBI had  dropped the ball on Hasan and did nothing to stop him. The policies of POTUS 44, who refused to link Islam and terrorism, had enabled Hasan to complete his deadly mission.

As the 2012 hearings revealed, during his medical residency Hasan demonstrated “evidence of violent extremism,” sympathy for radical Islam, and even wrote papers defending Osama bin Laden. “Yet no action was taken. Instead, Major Hasan was rewarded for his work and promoted.”  In reality, “Hasan was barely a competent psychiatrist, whose radical views alarmed his colleagues.”

So the Army and FBI looked the other way when the terrorist committed mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas. Those who find this disturbing might jump ahead to 2019 in El Paso, Texas.

Imagine if, under President Trump, the FBI had full knowledge of Patrick Crusius’ plans to gun down innocents, yet did nothing to stop him from killing 22 people. Imagine if President Trump declined to call this an example of evil, mass murder, a hate crime, or even gun violence, and instead said it was “workplace violence” or some equivalent.

Imagine the outcry if President Trump had made such an absurd designation to prevent victims from getting the medical treatment they needed, and declined to meet with the wounded. And consider the response if President Trump took no action against those who knew of Crusius’ plans yet did not thing to stop him.

By all indications, the FBI bosses who failed to take action against Nidal Hasan have never been named. It remains uncertain if any action was taken against them, and whether any still work for the FBI in any capacity. The dynamic was different in those days. 

The political and media establishments blamed President Obama for nothing. They now blame President Trump for everything, including the attacks in El Paso and Dayton. Like the “workplace violence” designation, this is fathomless absurdity for the ages.

Authorities in El Paso plan to seek the death penalty for Patrick Cruisius, and in Texas, death sentences tend to be carried out. By contrast, Nidal Hasan was sentenced to death in 2013. He remains an unrepentant soldier of Allah and in prison expressed a desire to join ISIS.

November 5 will mark ten years since this terrorist murdered 13 Americans. As President Trump likes to say, we’ll see what happens.

Identity Politics Violence is Tearing America Apart

Wed, 08/07/2019 - 04:55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prager U Video: The Charlottesville Lie

Wed, 08/07/2019 - 04:47

Did President Trump call neo-Nazis “very fine people” during a famous press conference following the Charlottesville riots of August 2017? The major media reported that he did. But what if their reporting is wrong? Even worse, what if their reporting is wrong and they know it’s wrong? CNN political analyst Steve Cortes explores the facts in this critically important video. Don't miss it!


China’s Spies in U.S. Universities

Wed, 08/07/2019 - 04:47

In May of this year, in a commentary titled “United States, don’t underestimate China’s ability to strike back,” Wu Yuehe, a journalist at the People’s Daily, had this to say:

We advise the U.S. side not to underestimate the Chinese side’s ability to safeguard its development rights and interests. Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

A few weeks later, two Chinese professors at Emory university lost their jobs. Li Xiaojiang and Li Shishua, who were conducting research in the field of genetics, failed to disclose grants they received from nebulous institutions in China. 

Two questions:

[1] Why were two scientists employed by an American university receiving grants from China?

[2] Why were the pair so reluctant to disclose the grants?

The answers to both questions are as simple as they are worrying. FBI Director Christopher Wray recently told senators that China is engaging in a concerted effort to steal its way to economic dominance. As I write, there are more than 1,000 investigations underway on intellectual property theft. Every single one of these investigations leads back to China.

The Chinese have been engaged in this sort of nefarious activity for years, and American institutes of education appear to be their prime focus. In August 2015, an electrical engineering student based in Chicago sent an email to a Chinese national titled "Midterm test questions." Two years later, the email was the subject of an FBI probe in the Southern District of Ohio. Law enforcement agents suspected the student was actually a plant, an intelligence officer who was sent to the United States for one reason only: to acquire technical information and share it with defense contractors in China.

Though investigators took note, they took no action. In 2018, however, Ji Chaoqun, the email’s author, was arrested in Chicago for allegedly acting within the United States as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China.

This arrest was long overdue. In 2013, Ji arrived in the United States on an F1 Visa, for the purpose of studying electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. In 2016, according to a Department of Justice report: “Ji enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as an E4 Specialist under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program, which authorizes the U.S. Armed Forces to recruit certain legal aliens whose skills are considered vital to the national interest.”

Interestingly, as the report documents, in his application to participate in the MAVNI program, Ji specifically denied having had contact with a foreign government within the past seven years, which we now know was a blatant lie.

China gathers valuable research from U.S. universities by using nonconventional collectors, including professors, scientists, and students. According to a recent piece by Spectator’s Cole Carnick, the National Institutes of Health, a government agency that funds public health research at US universities,

found the Chinese government has developed systematic programs to unduly influence and capitalize on US-conducted research, with Chinese scholars divulging exclusive research to Chinese intelligence.

In March, according to a Wall Street Journal report, Chinese hackers targeted research on maritime technology at several universities, including the University of Hawaii, the University of Washington, Penn State, and even MIT.

Understandably, FBI officials have advised universities across the land to review ongoing research involving Chinese individuals that could have militaristic applications.

Aside from infiltrating scientific research, the Chinese party actively attempts to influence campus discussions about China through student organizations. As a 2018 Hoover institution report noted, the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA), the official organization for overseas Chinese students and scholars registered in most colleges, universities, and institutions outside of China. takes directives from the Chinese government and develops close ties with China’s consulates. Worryingly, as the report notes, when campus events focus on Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or the Uighurs, CSSA representatives contact officials in China, who then ask (or demand) the given university to silence any distasteful discussions.

Two years ago, the University of California San Diego extended an invitation to the Dalai Lama. Unsurprisingly, the university quickly received requests from the campus CSSA and China’s consulate in Los Angeles to rescind the invitation. Thankfully, the university refused to acquiesce. Chinese officials, clearly unimpressed, prohibited future scholarship funds for Chinese students studying at UCSD.

As Jeanine Frost once wrote,

There is only one way to fight, and that's dirty. Clean gentlemanly fighting will get you nowhere but dead, and fast. Take every cheap shot, every low blow, absolutely kick people when they're down, and maybe you'll be the one who walks away.

Chinese officials, clearly fans of Frost’s work, are prepared to fight dirty. They are prepared to lie, steal and cheat.

China, not Russia, is the existential threat to the United States.

America's failure to realize this fact could prove catastrophic.

Remembering the First and Forgotten Armenian Genocide of 1019

Wed, 08/07/2019 - 04:45

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

Last April 24 was Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day.  Millions of Armenians around the world recollected how the Islamic Ottoman Empire killed—often cruelly and out of religious hatred—some 1.5 million of their ancestors during World War I.

Ironically, most people, including most Armenians, are unaware that the first genocide of Christian Armenians at the hands of Muslim Turks did not occur in the twentieth century; it began in 1019—exactly one-thousand years ago this year—when Turks first began to pour into and transform a then much larger Armenia into what it is today, the eastern portion of modern day Turkey.

Thus, in 1019, “the first appearance of the bloodthirsty beasts … the savage nation of infidels called Turks entered Armenia … and mercilessly slaughtered the Christian faithful with the sword,” writes Matthew of Edessa (d.1144), a chief source for this period.  Three decades later the raids were virtually nonstop. In 1049, the founder of the Turkic Seljuk Empire himself, Sultan Tughril Bey (r. 1037–1063), reached the unwalled city of Arzden, west of Lake Van, and “put the whole town to the sword, causing severe slaughter, as many as one hundred and fifty thousand persons.”

After thoroughly plundering the city—which reportedly contained eight hundred churches—he ordered it set ablaze and turned into a desert. Arzden was “filled with bodies” and none “could count the number of those who perished in the flames.” The invaders “burned priests whom they seized in the churches and massacred those whom they found outside. They put great chunks of pork in the hands of the undead to insult us”—Muslims deem the pig unclean—“and made them objects of mockery to all who saw them.”

Eight hundred oxen and forty camels were required to cart out the vast plunder, mostly taken from Arzden’s churches. “How to relate here, with a voice stifled by tears, the death of nobles and clergy whose bodies, left without graves, became the prey of carrion beasts, the exodus of women … led with their children into Persian slavery and condemned to an eternal servitude! That was the beginning of the misfortunes of Armenia,” laments Matthew, “So, lend an ear to this melancholy recital.”

Other contemporaries confirm the devastation visited upon Arzden. “Like famished dogs,” writes Aristakes (d.1080) an eye witness, “bands of infidels hurled themselves on our city, surrounded it and pushed inside, massacring the men and mowing everything down like reapers in the fields, making the city a desert. Without mercy, they incinerated those who had hidden themselves in houses and churches.

Similarly, during the Turkic siege of Sebastia (modern-day Sivas) in 1060, six hundred churches were destroyed and “many [more] maidens, brides, and distinguished ladies were led into captivity to Persia.” Another raid on Armenian territory saw “many and innumerable people who were burned [to death].” The atrocities are too many for Matthew to recount, and he frequently ends in resignation:

Who is able to relate the happenings and ruinous events which befell the Armenians, for everything was covered with blood. . . . Because of the great number of corpses, the land stank, and all of Persia was filled with innumerable captives; thus this whole nation of beasts became drunk with blood. All human beings of Christian faith were in tears and in sorrowful affliction, because God our creator had turned away His benevolent face from us.

Nor was there much doubt concerning what fueled the Turks’ animus: “This nation of infidels comes against us because of our Christian faith and they are intent on destroying the ordinances of the worshippers of the cross and on exterminating the Christian faithful,” one David, head of an Armenian region, explained to his countrymen. Therefore, “it is fitting and right for all the faithful to go forth with their swords and to die for the Christian faith.” Many were of the same mind; records tell of monks and priests, fathers, wives, and children, all shabbily armed but zealous to protect their way of life, coming out to face the invaders—to little avail.

Anecdotes of faith-driven courage also permeate the chronicles. During the first Turkic siege of Manzikert in 1054, when a massive catapult pummeled and caused its walls to quake, a Catholic Frank holed up in with the Orthodox Armenians volunteered to sacrifice himself: “I will go forth and burn down that catapult, and today my blood shall be shed for all the Christians, for I have neither wife nor children to weep over me.” The Frank succeeded and returned to gratitude and honors. Adding insult to injury, the defenders catapulted a pig into the Muslim camp while shouting, “O sultan [Tughril], take that pig for your wife, and we will give you Manzikert as a dowry!” “Filled with anger, Tughril had all Christian prisoners in his camp ritually decapitated.”

Between 1064 and 1065, Tughril’s successor, Sultan Muhammad bin Dawud Chaghri—known to posterity as Alp Arslan, a Turkish honorific meaning “Heroic Lion”—“going forth full of rage and with a formidable army,” laid siege to Ani, the fortified capital of Armenia, then a great and populous city. The thunderous bombardment of Muhammad’s siege engines caused the entire city to quake, and Matthew describes countless terror-stricken families huddled together and weeping.

Once inside, the Islamic Turks—reportedly armed with two knives in each hand and another between their teeth—“began to mercilessly slaughter the inhabitants of the entire city . . . and piling up their bodies one on top of the other. . . . Beautiful and respectable ladies of high birth were led into captivity into Persia. Innumerable and countless boys with bright faces and pretty girls were carried off together with their mothers.”

The most savage treatment was always reserved for those visibly proclaiming their Christianity: clergy and monks “were burned to death, while others were flayed alive from head to toe.” Every monastery and church—before this, Ani was known as “the City of 1001 Churches”—was pillaged, desecrated, and set aflame.  A zealous jihadi climbed atop the city’s main cathedral “and pulled down the very heavy cross which was on the dome, throwing it to the ground,” before entering and defiling the church. Made of pure silver and the “size of a man”—and now symbolic of Islam’s might over Christianity—the broken crucifix was sent as a trophy to adorn a mosque in modern-day Azerbaijan.

Not only do several Christian sources document the sack of Armenia’s capital—one contemporary succinctly notes that Muhammad “rendered Ani a desert by massacres and fire”—but so do Muslim sources, often in apocalyptic terms: “I wanted to enter the city and see it with my own eyes,” one Arab explained. “I tried to find a street without having to walk over the corpses. But that was impossible.”

Such is an idea of what Muslim Turks did to Christian Armenians—not during the Armenian Genocide of a century ago but exactly one thousand years ago, starting in 1019, when the Turkic invasion and subsequent colonization of Armenia began.

Even so, and as an example of surreal denial, Turkey’s foreign minister, capturing popular Turkish sentiment, recently announced that “We [Turks] are proud of our history because our history has never had any genocides. And no colonialism exists in our history.”

Note: The above account is excerpted from Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West — a book that CAIR did everything it could to prevent the U.S. Army War College from learning about.

Fear of Muslims Leads to Prison Conversions to Islam

Wed, 08/07/2019 - 04:14

A report was issued in early June in the U.K., telling us what we already knew: that prisons are being taken over by Muslim gangs, who force non-Muslim inmates to convert by threatening them with violence.

Muslim prison gangs are forcing inmates to convert to Islam and follow religious practices or face violent repercussions, according to a government report.

The report, carried out by the Ministry of Justice, surveyed 83 male prisoners and 73 staff at three of the eight high-security prisons in the country. It found that large gangs of Muslim men were using intimidation tactics to force conversions and rules on other prisoners. The gangs were made up of multiple ranks including leadership, foot soldiers, recruiters, and enforcers.

Those who had committed terrorist activities were said to hold key positions of influence among the gangs, as well as those who can speak Arabic and recite the Quran.

It was said that the gangs were establishing Islamic rules within the prisons such as underwear having to be worn in the showers and banning the cooking of bacon.

The report highlighted the fact that Muslim gangs were the only serious organised gang threat within the prisons surveyed and that as a result, they wielded considerable influence and power over their fellow inmates.

Though Muslims are only 18-20% of the prison population in the U.K., the Muslim gangs are the biggest, best-organized, and most violent of the gangs behind-bars. And they are single-mindedly dedicated to converting as many non-Muslim prisoners as possible and imposing Muslim rule behind bars.

One non-Muslim prisoner said: “There is an underlying pressure for people to convert and join the gang. The tactic they use is to befriend someone when they come in. If they don’t convert they will then start spreading rumors about them, that the person is a snitch so that they will be ostracised. Then the beatings will follow.”

Meanwhile, a Muslim prisoner spoke of the pressure on other inmates to convert, saying that they could not even escape by moving prisons. “They know they’re only going to three other jails and they know there will be brothers waiting there to stab them,” the prisoner said.

There is no escape from the pressure to convert, for Muslim gangs exist in all of the prisons, ready to use violence against any non-Muslim prisoners who refuse to convert. The threat is everywhere. No prison is safe.

The study echoes a report from The Sun from 2016 which alleged that at one prison, HMP Gartree in Leicestershire, Muslim prisoners had turned sections of the prison into ‘no-go zones” for non-Muslim inmates, even imposing sharia law.

One source said at the time: “It is so bad non-Muslim prisoners are refusing to move there as they feel intimidated. There is huge pressure put on them to convert and a threat of violence if they don’t. The Muslim gangs have their own rules and use Sharia law to sort out disagreements. In effect, they are setting up their own prison within a prison. There have been stories about non-Muslim inmates being barred from putting up topless pictures of women in their cells and even showering naked.”

In 2018, the Ministry of Justice reportedly blocked an independent three-year report from being carried out into the impact of Islamic gangs in UK prisons because of fears of the results. One source said: “The corporate culture of the service is defensive and they will have been concerned about what this proposed project will discover.”

The British officials who blocked the earlier report on Islamic gangs in prisons, in order to hide the horrific reality from the public, ought to be discharged. The British public needs to know about the situation in the prisons, which provide an especially dangerous pool of potential converts, for these convicts  were already violent when they entered prison, and after their forced conversion, Islam now provides them with a justification for their violence, which upon their release they can visit upon the Unbelievers.”

Last year, a Christian pastor who worked as a prison chaplain also claimed that prisoners were being coerced into converting to Islam in exchange for protection from gangs. Pastor Paul Song said of the culture in Brixton prison: “If someone is secular and in prison and they want to lead a peaceful life in prison they need to become Muslim. That way they are protected.”

There is no way to prevent Muslims from intimidating non-Muslim prisoners within the  present system. Prisons lack sufficient personnel to monitor every threatening encounter of Muslims with non-Muslims. Non-Muslim prisoners are threatened in two ways. First, they are directly threatened with violence from Muslim gangs if they do not convert. Second, Muslims threaten to circulate false stories about them — as, for example, that they are “snitches” who deserve to be attacked — to put them in danger of violent retribution from other prisoners, including non-Muslims. The fear is palpable; few non-Muslims can resist these threats; the prisons have thus become a main source of converts to Islam.

There is only one way to prevent these forced conversions. That is to make sure that Muslims are confined to Muslim-only prisons. Some Muslim groups will undoubtedly protest that this is unacceptable segregation, an expression of “islamophobia” and “racism,” that it was unfair to single out Muslim prisoners, and that in any case, prisoners should not be denied the opportunity to learn about Islam, which has “nothing to do with violence, as Pope Francis has said,” and which can provide a structure, and bring stability, to their lives.

The objections of these groups should be ignored. The facts about prison conversions cannot be disputed. Muslims in prisons are using whatever weapons they can — the threat of spreading false stories, the threat of violence, the actual infliction of violence — to force non-Muslims to convert. This is not the peaceful “opportunity to learn about Islam” that Muslim apologists describe. The prison personnel are unable to stop the threats from these Muslim gangs. The converts to Islam in prisons pose a special danger, as they are already prone to violence and antisocial behavior. Islam provides them with a religious justification for such behavior, and when they are released, they can renew violence against Unbelievers, this time enjoying the favor of the faith.

As for Muslims claiming that freedom of religion includes the freedom to proselytize, that does not apply when the proselytizing consists not of theological argument but of the threat, and infliction, of violence. It’s a travesty to describe prison conversions to Islam as voluntary acts; non-Muslims in prison have become terrified of the biggest, baddest gang — the Muslims — whom they must join to ensue their own safety.

But how do Muslims manage to attain such power in prisons, if they are still such a small proportion of the general population? In every Western country, it turns out that the percentage of prisoners who are Muslim far exceeds their numbers in the general population. In the United States, 1% of the population is Muslim, but they constitute 15% of the prison population. In France, they are 8% of the general population but 70% of the prison population; int the U.K., they are 5% of the total population, but almost 20% of the prison population. And apparently these percentages are more than enough to give Muslims the power to rule the roost in prisons.

These Muslim-only prisons would prevent forcible conversion of non-Muslims. To the argument that this would deprive non-Muslim prisoners of the opportunity to convert, the answer is clear. Any non-Muslims who wish to read Islamic  texts (Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira), or to meet with Muslim chaplains, would have the freedom to do so. They are only being protected from systematic campaigns of forced conversion through violence, which are an offense to true freedom of religion. Should any of these non-Muslims choose to convert, they could then be moved to Muslim-only facilities. Freedom of religion remains protected; non-Muslims are not prevented from studying Islam, or from converting, but they would no longer be subject to the forcible conversions to Islam that are now, in British prisons, and in many other Western prisons, not the exceptions but the disturbing rule.

Trump Condemns Hate-Based Violence and White Supremacy

Tue, 08/06/2019 - 04:58

Denouncing the killing sprees by two gunmen in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio that took the lives of at least 31 innocent people in two separate attacks over this past weekend, President Trump called out white supremacy by name for specific condemnation. The El Paso shooter, who is responsible for 22 deaths so far, had reportedly revealed himself in an online posting as an anti-Hispanic bigot who wanted to kill as many Mexicans as possible. The motives of the Dayton shooter, whose murder victims included his own sister, were less clear.

In his remarks Monday on the shootings, President Trump implored the nation to “condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.” He added, “These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America, hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul. These barbaric slaughters are an assault on our communities, an attack on our nation and a crime against all humanity. We are sickened by this monstrous evil, the cruelty, the hatred, the malice, the bloodshed, and the terror.”

President Trump also expressed the grief of the nation as consoler-in-chief and asked for unity of purpose as a nation to “honor the sacred memory of those we have lost by acting as one people.” The president acknowledged the need to address the gun access issue, but linked it to the problem of guns getting into the hands of mentally ill people who should have been red-flagged beforehand. “Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” he said. The president also pointed to the “dark recesses of the Internet” and “gruesome and grisly” video games that help twist impressionable minds.

President Trump not only tried to offer an honest diagnosis of the contributing causes of mass shootings. He suggested some solutions for which he urged bipartisan support. He urged stronger mental health laws that could enable troubled individuals with serious mental health issues to “not only get treatment but when necessary, involuntary confinement.” He recommended addressing the "glorification of violence" in our culture, as exemplified in certain video games.

The left is disgustingly exploiting the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings for crass political purposes. Playing the race card and their white nationalist bogeyman yet again, the demagogues have their knives out for President Trump as the prime cause of the massacres. Several of the candidates seeking the Democrat Party nomination to run against President Trump in 2020 have shamelessly politicized the tragedies.

Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke said, for example, that President Trump is “not tolerating racism, he's promoting racism. He's not tolerating violence, he's inciting racism and violence in this country.”

“Such a bulls**t soup of ineffective words,” tweeted Senator Cory Booker, in response to President Trump’s remarks calling for unity and bipartisan action.

 “Mr. President: stop your racist, hateful and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Your language creates a climate which emboldens violent extremists,” tweeted Socialist-Democrat Bernie Sanders.

“Donald Trump says hate has no place in this country — Donald Trump has created plenty of space for hate,” said far-left progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren. “He is a racist. He has made one racist remark after another, he has put in place racist policies, and we’ve seen the consequences of it.”

Joe Biden also got in on the act. Following President Trump’s call for the nation to condemn in one voice racism, bigotry, and white supremacy, Biden tweeted, “Let's be very clear. You use the office of the presidency to encourage and embolden white supremacy. We won't truly speak with one voice against hatred until your voice is no longer in the White House.”

Left-wing media and academia also sought to make the president the villain, rather than the shooters themselves.  

CNN so-called “analyst,” for example, accused the president of often trafficking “in some of the same language as white supremacists like the one who killed 22 people in El Paso.” The CNN Trump-hater wrote that he found it “jarring” to hear the president “suddenly and tersely condemn hatred.”

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a darling of leftists who wish he was on the Supreme Court, accused the president of “inciting white nationalist terrorism.” Tribe also tweeted, “The longer we tolerate this diseased presidency, the more we will be complicit in the hateful violence it stokes and spawns. It’s now a matter of life and death.”

These insane anti-Trump tirades fuel more division and hatred in a country already torn apart by more than two years of reckless Russian-Trump collusion conspiracy theories. Hoping that something will stick against the president, his haters are replacing “Russian agent” and “traitor” with “racist” and “white nationalist” labels.

When the loony leftists are not blaming the president for the mass shootings, they blame the lack of effective gun control measures. Democrats even insisted that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bring the Senate back from vacation for an emergency session to pass their preferred gun control legislation.

Every death from a mass shooting is a tragedy, but such killings did not start with President Trump and will not end when he leaves office. During the last year of former President Obama’s administration, for example, there were 66 deaths in the U.S. from mass shootings from January through July 2016, according to data compiled by Mother Jones’ investigation into mass shootings. From January through August 4, 2019, counting this past weekend’s two massacres, there were 59 deaths in the U.S. from mass shootings.

Moreover, trying to solve the gun violence problem without directly addressing related mental illness issues will be a futile exercise. A study published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, entitled “Mass shootings in the United States: Understanding the importance of mental health and firearm considerations,” documented the linkage between mental illness and mass shooters that President Trump had alluded to. The researchers analyzed a total of 102 media-reported mass shooters in the United States between 1982 and 2018. More than 80 percent of the shooters had obtained their guns legally. The researchers found that mental illness was reported in slightly more than half of the cases and that about 25 percent had spent some time in a mental facility or program.  

“Our findings suggest that mass shooters with suspected mental health issues, yet who lacked formal diagnosis, tended to be more violent. This potentially implies that formal contact with mental health professionals or formal awareness of mental health might provide some buffering effect on violence among mass shooters,”  one of the authors told PsyPost.

The Secret Service issued a report last month on mass shootings. The study found that in 2018 “two-thirds of the attackers…experienced mental health symptoms before the attacks. The most common symptoms observed were related to depression and psychotic symptoms, such as paranoia, hallucinations, or delusions. Suicidal thoughts were also observed...Nearly half of the attackers…had been diagnosed with, or treated for, a mental illness prior to their attacks.” 

The report did not blame mental illness alone as the cause of mass shootings. “The violence described in this report is not the result of a single cause or motive,” it said.  However, the report noted the importance of trying to “identify warning signs prior to an act of violence." It said that “targeted violence may be preventable, if appropriate systems are in place to identify concerning behaviors, gather information to assess the risk of violence, and utilize community resources to mitigate the risk.”     

President Trump has tried to bring the country together in the wake of the weekend mass shootings. He has called for bipartisan solutions to address the underlying causes of a phenomenon that long preceded his presidency. Trump-haters, however, have no interest in tackling all the causes of mass shootings, including mental illness and this country’s long-standing glorification of violence, reinforced by hateful social media sites and hideous video games. They are shamelessly demagoguing the tragedies in a bid to seize power so they can advance their far-left political agendas.