Enter your keyword

Monday, May 23, 2022

ACLU Files Motion Denying Existence of Women

By On May 23, 2022 In
The ACLU claims that there’s a War on Women… and it’s fighting it.

"We're Not Stupid: Outrageous Quotes from the War on Women," the ACLU had headlined a post about its pro-abortion activism in 2013.

A decade later the ACLU is arguing in court that women don't exist.

Not only does the ACLU’s current abortion coverage eliminate any mention of women, but in response to a civil rights lawsuit by women, it actually filed a motion arguing they don’t exist.

Last year, the Women’s Liberation Front, one of the few remaining feminist groups that have rejected transgender intersectionality’s displacement of women, filed a lawsuit against California’s prison system over housing men who claim to identify as female together with women.

The feminist groups filing the lawsuit noted that, "of the incarcerated men seeking to transfer to women’s prison 33.8% — FULLY ONE THIRD — are registered sex offenders."

Krystal Gonzalez, one of four women being represented in the lawsuit, reported being sexually assaulted by a man who claimed to be “transgender” in prison. The California penal system however insisted that her male attacker was actually a “transgender woman with a penis.”

The ACLU, along with Lambda Legal and the Transgender Law Center, filed a bizarre motion in response denying that, “‘men as a class’ are defined and differentiated from ‘women as a class’ by their ‘anatomy, genitalia, physical characteristics, and physiology.’”

Are there physiological differences between men and women? Science says there are while the ACLU denies it in what may be one of the most surreal motions ever submitted to a court.

Denying sexual dimorphism is up there with a motion claiming that the earth is flat.

But the ACLU motion went on “to deny the allegation that ‘human beings’ are ‘sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]’”

Biology 101 is now an “allegation” to be denied in court.

Maybe the ACLU’s next motion will deny the “allegation” that the earth revolves around the sun.

The civil rights lawsuit the ACLU is fighting uses textbook terminology. Literally. The language of a basic biology textbook is being denied by a former civil rights group fighting against a civil rights suit by a sexual assault victim. The ACLU now hates science, women, and civil rights.

Not to mention free speech.

Within a decade the ACLU has gone from falsely accusing Republicans of a “War on Women” to waging an actual war on women in court. The ACLU has also switched from claiming that Republicans were tolerating sexual assaults on women to fighting women in court so that male sex offenders can continue to sexually assault them. That’s what a War on Women looks like.

It’s hard to know whether this is worse than the ACLU also throwing out freedom of speech.

Even while the ACLU files motions denying the existence of women in court, it still maintains the ACLU Women's Rights Project that was founded by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The ACLU denies that women are a class when filing a motion against a lawsuit by a woman who was sexually assaulted, and then argues that they are a class in employment law.

Women are apparently still a class when they’re being paid less than men, but they’re not a class when a man wearing a dress wants to sexually assault them in the prison system.

The ACLU Women's Rights Project claims that it “addresses the harms to women and girls caught up in the criminal and juvenile justice systems” even while its California chapters are fighting women who have been caught up in the criminal justice systems and suffered harm.

Even while the ACLU fundraises off defending women, it denies they exist. Its legal advocacy has begun to shift away from mentioning pregnant women to referring to “pregnant people”.

The ACLU promises to advocate for women while erasing them in court.

The former civil rights group accuses abortion opponents of supporting “forced pregnancy”, but women in prison have become pregnant while it insists on forcing them to live alongside male rapists. The actual agenda of the ACLU is even worse than its wildest accusations that it and its radical leftists allies have been hurling for decades at social conservatives.

In Washington, the ACLU went to court to stop the release of documents about the transfer of male prisoners, including a serial rapist, into the Washington Correctional Center for Women.

The men included Douglas “Donna” Perry, a serial killer who violently hated women, was charged with murdering three prostitutes and may have killed between nine and twenty women.

Douglas Perry explained that he killed women because he "couldn't breed" and the "women had the ability to have children".

A family member of one of his murder victims had specifically asked that Douglas be kept out of a women's prison so he would not be able to hurt any more women.

But in California’s progressive jurisprudence, only the rights of criminals matter to the Left.

The ACLU's male attorney went so far in that case as to file an injunction against the woman requesting information about the number of men being housed in women's correctional facilities.

“The War on Women 2.0: Do They Think We're Stupid?” the ACLU headlined its arguments a decade ago. The ACLU is waging a War on Women 2.0 and it thinks its supporters are stupid.

In the name of diversity, equity and inclusion, the ACLU wants to force women to live alongside a male serial killer who piled up their naked corpses near the Spokane River.

Douglas Perry was caught because a cold case investigation allowed a "forensic scientist… to be able to develop a male DNA profile from blood" found under one of the victim's fingernails.

Perry is still a man. He was caught because of a male DNA profile. That’s actual science.

But how long will it be until the ACLU argues that DNA evidence can’t be used to stop serial killers like Perry because he now identifies as a woman and therefore he can’t be the suspect.

Perry's defense for the murder of those women was, "I'm not going to admit I killed anybody, I didn't. Donna has killed nobody." When he was asked if "Doug did", he answered, "I don't know if Doug did or not, it was 20 years ago and I have no idea whether he did or did not."

What used to be insanity a mere eight years ago is now the official position of the establishment.

In an extraordinary document, the ACLU denies everything we know about biological science and it does so in the name of not only erasing women, but exposing them to sexual abuse.

The ACLU claims to be fighting to protect women even as it’s forcing them to share a space with serial killers, rapists and sex offenders. What else would you call that except a War on Women?






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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 2 comments:
Tags: , , , ,

Sunday, May 22, 2022

Amazon’s Mega-Yacht Owner Funds $10 Billion “Great Reset" to Save Planet

By On May 22, 2022 In
Amazon’s founder and executive chairman announced a $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund. The billions will be spent by the Washington Post’s owner to save the planet from people.

The Bezos Earth Fund calls for "a great reset that will lead us all toward a more sustainable, prosperous future." The term, "great reset" became highly controversial after its embrace by the World Economic Forum and the Bezos Earth Fund is touted by the WEF.

The Bezos Earth Fund's version of the Great Reset argues that the "economy in 2030 must be dramatically different from what it is today" and insists that "radical changes will be needed" that will encompass "some 40 to 60 shifts".

Those changes however will probably not involve Jeff Bezos abandoning his mega-yacht, the 14th largest on the planet, which reportedly may require the dismantling of the historic Koningshaven bridge in Rotterdam just to get it out of the harbor.

The Bezos Earth Fund warns that most people will have to shift “transport modes (e.g., walking and public transport)”. Bezos will have his mega-yacht, you will walk or ride a bus.

While the Bezos Earth Fund calls for the "replacement of the internal combustion engine", his $500 million mega-yacht is powered by two diesel engines which together can deliver 12,000 horsepower in order to move it anywhere one of the richest men in the world wants to go.

Meanwhile, the Bezos Earth Fund proposes to use satellites to “identify methane pollution, hold those responsible accountable and highlight opportunities to manage and minimize oil and gas methane emissions. Actionable data will be produced and used to implement advocacy campaigns to spur regulations and secure commitments to reduce methane pollution globally.”

Will those satellites be tracking their boss’ colossal yacht?

Americans are facing impossible car and gas prices due to the environmental policies of the Biden administration. While the working class and middle class are being cut off from car ownership, the mega-yacht proletariat of the world are demanding even further crackdowns.

The Bezos Earth Fund claims that the economy needs to be "decarbonized". His mega-yacht has a second “support” yacht with a helicopter pad. The Fund says that "radical changes will be needed in the way we power our world”, “manufacture and consume products" and "grow our food". The Bezos yacht has its own swimming pool, and 25 rooms across three decks.

But everyone else can expect to live in a cramped urban gulag that “co-locates housing and jobs”. Perhaps entire families can occupy a room in an Amazon warehouse that will allow them to wake up and then shuffle out bed to sort packages with maximum efficiency.

The Bezos Earth Fund will also spend money forcing agriculture to comply with environmental demands and push non-billionaires to shift their “diets towards plant-based sources”. Bezos however reportedly enjoys a "Mediterranean octopus breakfast" with bacon. Even after the Great Reset, he’ll be able to eat whatever he wants. Ordinary Americans will get soy.

“The economy in 2030 must be dramatically different from what it is today,” the Bezos Earth Fund decrees. And in 2022, it already is, in no small part thanks to Jeff Bezos.

Amazon destroyed retail, wiping out countless businesses and jobs. It’s evolved into a platform for rapidly moving Chinese knockoffs of American products through third party sellers into this country in a move that will doom the last remnants of manufacturing in this country.

While 200,000 American businesses were destroyed by pandemic regulations, Amazon profits tripled. The vast wealth looted from the middle class is now being injected into calls for “systemwide transformations” and “environmental justice”.

Perhaps the staff at the Bezos Earth Fund could take a minute to discuss "environmental justice" with the Amazon delivery drivers who were killed during the collapse of its Illinois warehouse during a tornado.

The Bezos Fund’s version of “environmental justice” promises to focus on “women of color”,

The dead at Amazon's warehouse were four white men, a black man and a black woman.

The family of one of the victims, Austin McEwen, has sued Amazon claiming that there were structural flaws and no safe shelters. Maybe the Bezos fund can cut loose a few thousand from the $43 million it’s spending on “environmental justice” for “women of color” for actual justice.

Instead, the Bezos Earth Fund is moving $12 million to NDN Collective, a leftist activist group which calls for an “indigenous green new deal” while "uprooting white supremacy and colonial institutions".

Nothing like one of the richest white men in the world funding the uprooting of white supremacy.

Having already destroyed so many American businesses, the Bezos Earth Fund proposes to nuke what’s left from orbit by embracing the push to “accelerate progress among US financial regulators as they address climate as a systemic risk.” That means baking carbon taxes and offsets, and other gimmicks green investors are using to loot the economy into the business model, and forcing all businesses to shoulder the agenda items of the Green New Deal.

Failing to comply with the demands of environmentalists means your business is a “climate risk” while donating to politicians or organizations that oppose the Green New Deal can be defined as “fraudulent misrepresentation”.

The Bezos Earth Fund is funding a push to “mobilize commitments of banks and investors to net zero portfolios”, not to mention insurers. If your business doesn’t comply, good luck getting a loan, insurance, being listed on a stock exchange, or being allowed to operate.

Whether or not the Green New Deal or any climate accords get passed, they will be imposed by mega-yacht billionaires, banks, corporations, and their paid “grassroots activists.”

The Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk and Sustainability, which Bezos is funding here, also seeks to pressure food producers to reduce their "emissions". What that will mean is higher costs and less food for the rest of us while Bezos can pull into a seaside Miami eatery in two superyachts and order a dozen grilled oysters because he’s so worried about “emissions”.

Are these really the actions of a man who believes the world will end if we drive our cars?

Beyond all the rhetoric, Bezos is moving millions into the same old leftist activist machine.

The Bezos Earth Fund directed $43 million to the Climate and Clean Energy Equity Fund. The CCEEF was created by George Soros' Democracy Alliance. $10 million is going to Green for All, which was created by Van Jones, whose work has been touted by Bezos, and has been funded by, among others, Soros and the Ford Foundation.

Millions more are going to Earthrise Media which operates alongside the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the dark money machine of the Left, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Mothers Out Front, and a variety of leftist groups in favor of the Green New Deal.

And, of course, the World Economic Forum.

"You will own nothing and be happy," a World Economic Forum video envisioned the great reset of the world in 2030.

Jeff Bezos is doing his part to make sure you own nothing while he happily owns everything.

That’s what environmentalism is. Behind the manufactured crisis, that’s all it ever was. You will be forced to give up everything to “save the planet” while the new feudal mega-yacht lords will build bigger mega-yachts and fund the activists demanding you give up whatever is left.






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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 5 comments:
Tags: , , ,

Thursday, May 19, 2022

The Washington Post Was Founded by Confederates. Now It Screams, "Racism".

By On May 19, 2022 In
The Washington Post recently decided to cancel George Washington, running an op-ed demanding that George Washington University be renamed.

"The university’s contentious colonial moniker must go. Even the university’s name, mascot and motto — 'Hail Thee George Washington'— must be replaced,” The op-ed demanded.

Conveniently the op-ed did not propose to rename the paper it was running in.

But the Washington Post has bigger problems than that. Its founder, Stilson Hutchins, like many Democrats, was a militant supporter of the Confederacy and even named one of his sons after Robert E. Lee. Long before he founded the Post, Hutchins had been editor of the North Iowan where he and other Democrats promised to defeat "Black Republicans".

During the Civil War, Dennis Mahony, Stilson's superior while working on the Dubuque Herald, was arrested over his support for the Confederacy. Stilson and Mahony later went on to found the St. Louis Star.

At the Herald, Stilson had editorialized, “Who wants Iowa covered with indolent blacks? Answer at the polls.”

Hutchins, in the words of a cheerful profile by the Washington Post, left after Reconstruction and then "launched a bold, possibly even reckless plan: to start a Democratic newspaper in the Republican-run capital of the United States."

The name, The Washington Post, came from Hutchins' managing editor, John Cockerill, a former Confederate drummer boy, who had gotten his start in the press working at the Dayton Empire under Clement Vallandigham, the Copperhead Democrat leader who was arrested and tried for treason during the Civil War. (Cockerill would later kill one of his critics in an exchange of gunfire.)

And, as the Washington Post noted, the paper's original "city editor was Frederick Aiken, who had been one of Mary Surratt's defense attorneys in her trial for conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln."

The Washington Post was founded, named, and run by Confederates and their Democrat allies.

The paper was also predictably racist. One editorial urged that Washington D.C. would be "wealthier, healthier and happier for an immediate exodus of 15,000 or 20,000 of her Negro population." Otherwise there would have to be "a firm, but benevolent movement on the part of the white race as a whole to disabuse the negro of the delusions which have been instilled in him during the last dozen years."

The same paper that has called for the heads, or at least the heads of the statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and countless other Founding Fathers and national heroes, has carefully avoided any kind of reckoning. It’s not that the Post’s people don’t know the history, they have just carefully avoided any significant discussion of their social justice rag’s ugly past.

There’s curiously little interest in the origins of one of the country’s two most influential papers.

Stilson, who later bought a former slave plantation, went on to marry a woman half his age who then tried to have him declared insane. Ownership of the Post does come with a history of insanity. Ned McLean, whose own descent into insanity was attributed to his ownership of the Hope Diamond, might have been more accurately attributed to owning the Post.

(McLean has also been blamed for using the Washington Post to help incite some of the violence during the 1919 race riots in Washington D.C.)

That’s bad news for Amazon's Jeff Bezos.

Five years after buying the Washington Post, Bezos broke up his marriage, left his job as Amazon's CEO, and has taken to blaming the exposure of his affair with a guest host from The View on a conspiracy involving the National Enquirer, Trump, and the Saudi monarchy.

At one point even the UN got involved in investigating the provenance of his genitalia photos.

Aside from the racism, the Washington Post seems to drive its owners mad. Literally. But the true insanity is the Post putting "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and then avoiding any discussion of its own dark past. A more accurate motto might be, “History Dies in Darkness.”

America is not systemically racist, but the Washington Post originated as one of the most racist papers in the country. The past is not the present and most people understand that. But the social justice paper insists on attacking the country and its people as a bunch of racists.

And it carefully avoids engaging with its own history.

The Washington Post came to life as a project by Democrat Confederates and Copperheads to avenge their losses in the Civil War and roll back Reconstruction. That doesn’t mean that the paper is doomed to be racist. Systemic racism, like racial essentialism and other assumptions that people individually and collectively are unchanging and unchangeable, is a racist myth.

But the Washington Post insists that everyone else can’t change, but that it somehow has.

All white people are racist, except its owner who has his own mega-yacht.

If the Washington Post really wants George Washington University to change its name, it should change its own. Not because there’s anything wrong with George Washington, but there was a whole lot wrong with The Post’s founders and its present management. The paper began as a racist rag and continues today as a racist rag. The only difference lies in the targets of its hate.

Last year, the Washington Post featured a video urging white people to take the blame for racism by “understanding your whiteness and the ways that white supremacy benefits you” and joining “white accountability groups.”

Despite its origins in actual white supremacy, the paper has yet to join one of its own groups.







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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 4 comments:
Tags: , , ,

All Wars Are Endless Wars

By On May 19, 2022 In
Over 70 days into the Ukraine war, no one knows how it’s going to end. But the one thing that we can be sure of is that it’s going to pick up again where it ends this time around.

The war is the latest episode of a nationalist territorial conflict going back centuries. And those don’t go away until the people fighting them do. Progressive theories of history spent the last century predicting that wars were on the way out in a more enlightened age. Then two world wars shattered the civilized world and nearly led to a third even more devastating conflict.

And yet westerners are still prone to believing that war, which has been around for as long as mankind, is one of those old-fashioned barbaric things, like mutton chops, disco, and Joe Biden, that is about to go out of style in the wonderfully enlightened world of tomorrow.

It’s not.

Very few of our conflicts are even new. Most are “endless wars” of tribe, race, religion or national identity that have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years.

The War on Terror is not a recent phenomenon in response to, as leftists and libertarians allege, the oil industry, Mohammed cartoons, colonialism or miniskirts.

It’s just the latest episode in the Islamic conquests that date back over a thousand years.

By the 7th century, the Arab Muslim invaders were fighting what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire. By the 8th century, they defeated Chinese forces during the Battle of Talas when the Turkic mercs joined the Muslim side. The wars have started and stopped since then, but they’ve never actually gone away. And it’s unlikely that they ever will. At least not for centuries more.

The 'Führerprinzip' fallacy assumes that wars are begun by leaders. In Ukraine, it’s tempting to attribute the conflict to Vladimir Putin. And while Putin’s desire for a quick legacy led to the massive overreach and a bloody war, any strong Russian leader would have done the same.

The Russians, like the Chinese and Arab Muslims, want the restoration of an old empire. And they’re not alone. While westerners decided that they wanted to move on to an exciting borderless future defined not by territory, but technology, the rest of the world does not.

Western weakness spurred the resumption of tribal conflicts all over the world. The United Nations, international law, the spread of democracy and other western solutions have not only failed to stem the violence, they have actually encouraged it. The international house of cards is built on the implausible notion that most countries and peoples don’t really want wars.

History, even the most recent history, makes it painfully clear that they do.

What does it mean to have a United Nations in a world where most nations have causes and grudges that they want to fight over? Spreading democracy couldn’t fix Iraq because the one thing most Sunnis and Shiites could agree on is that they wanted to kill each other.

We live in a world of endless wars. And it’s time that we faced that simple truth.

The Ukraine war is neither an ending nor a beginning, it’s a continuation. So is Afghanistan where history is repeating itself again. Look closely at the various global conflicts and you’ll see signs of the same cycle reasserting itself despite international law and our nation building.

That doesn’t mean that we should get involved or that we shouldn’t. What we should do is discard the old “war for democracy” or “war to end all wars” notions from the world wars.

War, like forest fires, tornadoes, human evil, and Barbara Streisand, is not going away.

We are not striving to reach the end of history. Nor should we get involved in wars to assert an imaginary international community or equally imaginary law, or right side of history. Nation building is a waste of time, resources, and energy. We can’t build countries. Only they can build themselves and every time we tried, we discovered we had no control over the outcome.

Japan and Germany, Iraq and Afghanistan, are what they are because of the choices that their people made, and all our money and efforts would not have changed the outcome one iota.

When we do get involved in the affairs of other nations, we should do so intelligently.

Our goals, in that order, should be to protect ourselves, to lend aid to those allies worth supporting, and to help manage global conflicts so that they don’t spill over to us.

We should not waste our strength or get involved in every regional quarrel, but when we do get involved, we should do so effectively and decisively. That’s the opposite of Biden’s actions in Ukraine which are heavy on the posturing and light on effectiveness. In a world forever at war, we must remember that we can never escape it and that we should encounter it carefully.

Americans often feel as if we exist outside history. And to a greater degree, more than most nations, we do. But the rest of the world is very much a part of a history that predates us.

That history is not going away just because we aren’t aware of it or aren’t paying attention to it.

9/11 was only a surprise because we were not paying attention to history. Likewise the invasion of Ukraine and China’s expansionism are not recent developments, but historical trends.

If America is to survive the pressure cooker of history, we must understand history, and we must decide on what terms to meet the rest of the world and how to manage the fallout of its conflicts.

We may have smartphones and all our information may exist in the cloud, we may drive to work in electric cars and get our news from bots, but history can’t be escaped with better gadgets.

The future it turns out is going to be a lot like the past.

We don’t exist outside the world, but neither do we have to be at its mercy. And the decisions we make will determine the conditions of our present and the possibilities of our future.






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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 4 comments:
Tags: ,

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Evil Lives Matter

By On May 18, 2022 In
In 1978, Deana Bowdoin, an Arizona State University college student, was raped and strangled. It would take thirty years to trace the murder to Clarence Wayne Dixon, a serial rapist whose criminal record began when he attacked a 15-year-old girl with a pipe.

By the time Deana’s murder was traced to him, Dixon was already in prison for kidnapping and raping another ASU college student.

He should have already been locked up during Deanna's murder because he had assaulted a 15-year-old girl with a pipe, telling her, “Nice evening, isn’t it?”, but future Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor deemed him "not guilty by reason of insanity".

Two days before the monster was supposed to go to a psychiatric hospital, he raped and murdered Deanna.

Former Justice O'Connor's shameful opposition to the death penalty should be seen in the context of Deana's murder. While O’Connor made headlines when she falsely suggested that the death penalty is unfair, it was her failure to hold Dixon accountable that was truly unfair.

Over 40 years later, Dixon’s defenders have gone back to claiming that he’s mentally unfit and that executing him is cruel and unusual punishment, but the true cruel and unusual punishment is the one suffered by Deana’s family who had to wait this many decades to see justice.

“Deana was a beautiful person, inside and out. She was only 21 and in her last semester at ASU when she was violently taken from my family. The last forty-four plus years of reliving Deana’s brutal murder as well as enduring the trial and appellate litigation has been nothing short of horrific for our family. As victims, the Arizona Constitution guarantees a prompt and final conclusion of this matter. Our parents wanted nothing more than to ultimately see justice for Deana. Unfortunately, they both passed away before punishment could be imposed," her sister stated.

The true cruel and unusual punishment was inflicted by a justice system on the family members of the victim because it has been unnaturally rigged by leftists to protect criminals over victims.

Deana, had she lived, would be in her late fifties today. The young girl would have started a family, built a career, and made an impact on the world.

Unfortunately she never had that chance.

Clarence Wayne Dixon has gone on living all these decades. He grew old under the care of the state. His apologists claimed that he couldn’t be executed because he had been declared legally blind or found to be suffering from this physical or mental ailment or that. His lawyers insisted that his determined pursuit of a bad legal strategy proved that he was crazy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed claiming that Republicans don't really care about life because they didn't spare the monster who raped and killed a girl.

Complaining about the leaked draft of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade, the op-ed insists that "ultimately, it isn’t about valuing human life but about how much each human life is worth. And in Arizona, a convict’s life seems to have very little value."

Evil Lives Matter.

Dixon placed so little value on human life that he took it casually. His defenders are equally casual about murdering babies. But they claim that defending a murderer while rallying for the right to kill babies means that they are the ones who truly value human life.

No, we don’t believe that all human life has value regardless of the individual. That’s a collectivist fallacy. The lives of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Clarence Wayne Dixon, all now fortunately dead, do not equate to the life of a single baby taken at a Planned Parenthood baby parts plant, let alone that of the millions who have perished in this gruesome way.

Believing in the value of life means fighting against those who would take lives.

The Washington Post op-ed complains that “Arizona’s Republican attorney general, Mark Brnovich” has "conservative values” that “don’t line up quite the same way. Brnovich is antiabortion, yes, but since the start of this year, he has been locked on a mission to resume executions — making Dixon and Atwood his first targets."

Frank Jarvis Atwood, a pedophile cokehead, who was out on parole for abducting an 8-year-old boy, kidnapped Vicki Lynne Hoskinson, an 8-year-old girl. He was then seen with blood on him. Despite having the best legal representation that his father’s money could buy, including a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, Atwood’s people claim that he never had a fair shake, and invented a new controversy over the potential use of a gas chamber.

Atwood, who is Greek Orthodox, had a mother who was Jewish by birth, and the media tried to transform him into the victim because he was offered a choice between gas and a lethal injection. The pedophile killer’s legal team also complained that due to his back issues he couldn’t be strapped to a gurney because “every second on that table will be agonizing.”

It’s been thirty-eight years since the murder. Every second of it was agonizing for Vicki’s family.

Meanwhile Frank Atwood has obtained several degrees, including one in comparative religion, gotten married, and written six books. Now the son of a cable company president from Brentwood will once again have his turn to play the victim. We’ll be told, over and over again, that he will have to be taken to the death chamber in a wheelchair.

Outside the prison where Dixon was being executed, protesters gathered waving, “All Life is Precious” signs. All life is precious except the lives of innocent men, women, and children.

“It would offend humanity to execute Mr. Dixon," a filing on behalf of Deana's killer claimed.

On the contrary, it would have offended humanity not to execute him.

To say that life is precious while doing nothing to protect it is how we once again became a nation with skyrocketing murder rates where criminals are no longer locked up.

Deana and Vicki were murdered by monsters who should have been in jail, but weren’t.

Thanks to Sandra Day O’Connor, Dixon was roaming on the loose after a violent assault, and thanks to California’s broken justice system, Atwood was out on parole even after his parents asked for it to be withdrawn. A young woman and a girl are dead who should have been alive.

The same thing is happening all over the country. Most of the killers whose crimes are sending homicide rates through the roof will never face justice. And that is why the killing will go on.

Conservatives believe life is precious and are willing to defend the lives of the innocent against the ravages of evil men. Leftists however believe that only evil lives matter.





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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 7 comments:
Tags: , ,

Monday, May 16, 2022

Who’s Paying Protesters to Harass Justices and Churches?

By On May 16, 2022 In
Supreme Court justices have faced harassment and intimidation after a pro-abortion group calling itself Ruth Sent Us posted a map to their homes.

Justice Alito and his family, who wrote the draft opinion on abortion that had been leaked by leftists, have had to go into hiding at an undisclosed location.

Had conservative protests outside the homes of Sotomayor and Kagan led one of them to go into hiding, the FBI would already be on the case and the media would be calling it an insurrection and a threat to democracy, but it’s not political terrorism when leftists do it.

So you can be confident that none of the leftists threatening Supreme Court justices will themselves face justice. And if a single one of them is arrested, they will immediately have the best lawyers and a media press campaign claiming that free speech is being silenced.

Just to add bigoted intimidation of houses of worship, Ruth Sent Us also called for protests at Catholic churches. “Stand at or in a local Catholic Church,” it urged on its Twitter account.

While over the past two years, Big Tech companies have suspended or deplatformed conservative groups over the encouragement of political protests, including against lockdowns, Twitter has no problem with leftists encouraging the harassment of houses of worship.

“Do you dare to chant in your local churches?”

Abortion activists dressed like characters from the faltering Hulu TV show The Handmaid's Tale disrupted prayer services while chanting their support for the murder of babies.

Despite the harassment of justices and churches, Ruth Sent Us retains all of its social media accounts. Neither Facebook, TikTok nor Twitter have deplatformed the hate group.

Who is behind Ruth Sent Us?

It certainly isn't Ruth Bader Ginsburg, after whom the group is named, who would have been disgusted by the harassment of her colleagues. Ginsburg had been a good friend of the late Antonin Scalia and had been critical of Roe v. Wade's unsustainable expansiveness. Alito’s leaked draft even quotes her. While Ruth Sent Us falsely claims that Gingsberg believed that, "black lives matter", the former justice was actually harshly critical of anthem protests.

She would have been even less fond of harassing justices in their homes.

Ruth Sent Us is meant to appear grassroots. In reality, it’s interlinked with a much larger network of leftist organizations. The site was registered by Sam Spiegel, the director of digital media at an anti-Trump PAC known as Unseat whose email contact is listed as Vigil for Democracy.

Unseat and Vigil for Democracy also appear to share a post office box in Palo Alto, California.

Vigil for Democracy, another anti-Trump group, had organized previous Supreme Court rallies.

Ruth Sent Us promotes activism through something called Strike for Choice which its Twitter account describes as "one of the national strikes under the Vigil For Democracy umbrella."

Strike for Choice solicits donations to pay protesters, asking potential donors "would you commit to donating $58 [$7.25], $80 [$10] or $120 [$15] to support a person giving up paid work?"

The protest fundraising is being conducted through Open Collective, a leftist financial sponsor, which had previously partnered with the Digital Infrastructure Fund backed by $605,000 from the Ford Foundation, $50,000 from leftist Persian billionaire Pierre Omidyar, and $100,000 from George Soros' Open Society Foundation.

Most early Vigil for Democracy events took place in San Francisco and the group still appears to be centered around the Bay Area. Vigil appears to be obsessed with "desegregating Foothills Park", also the particular fixation of Vara Ramakrishnan, a tech CEO's wife and a member of Raging Grannies who had organized previous protests, and has been described as a Vigil for Democracy “volunteer”. While her husband only made a single political donation to Kamala Harris, Vara is a frequent donor to Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Both Obama and Hillary have yet to condemn the attacks on the Supreme Court.

While the Vigil for Democracy people have engaged in frequent protests, Ruth Sent Us is a significant escalation, harassing multiple justices and an entire religious denomination.

Ruth Sent Us are not the only leftists promoting the harassment of churches and justices.

A protest at Justice Alito’s house for example was promoted by Shut Down D.C., a group linked to environmentalists and unions.

It’s unclear exactly who is behind Ruth Sent Us and the network of organizations around it, but that network is able to utilize the tools of left-wing groups and is fundraising to pay protesters.

What is clear is that like so much of the leftist radicalism in this country, the attacks on justices and churches are being organized out of the Bay Area. And the Biden administration has repeatedly refused to condemn the harassment and intimidation by its political backers.

Much as Black Lives Matter was able to stage nationwide riots that destroyed neighborhoods, assault innocent people, and take lives without facing any consequences, Ruth Sent Us and other pro-abortion leftist radicals enjoy immunity from trying to stop a judicial ruling.

Threatening judges in ordinary civil and criminal cases leads to harsh sanctions. Mere witness tampering alone is a serious matter. But here leftists are threatening the highest court in the land in order to force it to change its ruling in a case and they are doing so under the protective political and economic umbrella of the White House, of Big Tech, and of the media.

They’re harassing the highest court in the land because they know that nothing will happen to them. It’s not an “insurrection” when leftists do it.






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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 6 comments:
Tags: , , ,

Sunday, May 15, 2022

Global Warming Was Going to Destroy Skiing, Then the Snow Fell

By On May 15, 2022 In
Vail, Colorado concluded its skiing season on May 1 a year after the Denver Post warned that "climate change is shrinking the Colorado ski season".

It’s almost as if some higher power has made a point of mocking doomsday predictions by climate pagans who think the weather can be changed by raising taxes and driving Teslas.

But like a Gore-Tex parka, the climate consensus is impermeable to mere snowfall.

A week after Vail Mountain announced that it was extending its skiing season for "the longest continuous season in Vail Mountain history" just after 9 inches of snow fell in early March, a local news station wondered, "With warmer winters, what will happen to the ski industry?"

It may have to extend to June.

In February 2022, Denver broke weather records to hit the coldest temperature in 109 years. At a balmy -7 degrees, the latest outbreak of global warming plunged the city down to a low that had not been seen since 1899.

Still not done mocking Al Gore, March temperatures at Denver International Airport broke a new low with -3. The last time that happened was 1932. Or back before Gore Sr. had even graduated from law school to begin his family’s long slimy political career.

Talk about an inconvenient truth.

Even as activists and resort owners were crying to the media that the entire skiing industry was about to disappear because there would be no more snow, it snowed for the first 9 out of 10 weeks of the year. That was the most starting snow that there had been in 63 years.

"It's supposed to snow in Denver -- but maybe not quite like it has this year," a local media outlet reluctantly conceded.

This is what happens when the weather makes a mockery of the climate consensus.

The climate must “hate science”.

So what’s a good lefty to do? Ask Facebook and Twitter to deplatform the sky? Fact check the winter? Denounce the disinformation on the slopes? Ask the UN to condemn the snowpack?

Just ignore the facts and continue lobbying to outlaw cars, home heating, and all life on earth.

"Climate change threatens the future of ski resorts," Quartz warned in January.

"A business-as-usual path to a warming planet impacts industries beyond fossil fuels. At this point, there are about as many jobs in coal mining as there are jobs at snow-sports facilities. Coal miners, however, have an outsized influence in US politics," it grumbled.

O, those mighty coal miners, and the poor oppressed ski resort owners who are furiously lobbying to destroy Appalachia to save Aspen.

The National Ski Areas Association had already demanded a "transition to an equitable clean energy economy" by taxing those filthy carbon emitters. Since all life on earth, except members of the NSAA, emit carbon, that would be bad news for you and me. And our survival.

The industry, which has almost as many minorities as a Burlington Communist Party meeting, also demanded "justice and equity" for "communities of color".

Auden Schendler, the VP of "Sustainability" at the Aspen Skiing Company and board chair of Protect Our Winters, ranted to the New York Times, “The outdoor industry is bigger, wealthier, crazier and more influential than the N.R.A. We need CEOs and trade groups and leadership to wield that power ruthlessly."

Protect Our Winters is fighting against domestic drilling so that Americans can pay $6 a gallon for gas. Eliminating car ownership by the poor and the middle class to protect Aspen is a hell of a platform. Almost as compelling as protecting the home values of Oprah and Jerry Seinfeld.

"Home values in mountain towns like Vail and Aspen are some of the highest in the nation, and those values are at risk. By 2050, home values near ski resorts could drop by at least 15 percent due to warmer winters," CNBC warned during what turned out to be the 5th coldest winter in Colorado’s history.

Ignoring the science of reading thermometers, CNBC instead quoted a worried realtor who sells “multimillion dollar homes in the Vail area” who was deeply concerned about his “livelihood”.

“So we do certainly worry that we wouldn’t be able to sustain one or two or three consecutive years low snow volume due to climate change,” he complained. “And as far as the real estate business that I own and that I also am a broker within, what will happen? You know, where is my livelihood in the future, in three to four, five years?”

That was in 2019. Housing prices in Eagle County, where Vail is located, shot up 54% since 2019. Over February alone, there were $347 million in real estate transactions.

Would that things were as good in coal country as they are on slopes of the rich and famous.

The Left wants to economically destroy some of the poorest parts of the country in Appalachia to protect some of the wealthiest, like Vail and Aspen, from a crisis that isn’t even real.

Now that’s actual class warfare.

The good news is that snow, like Aspen real estate values, isn’t going anywhere. The bad news is that neither are the lies.

In 2000, an article in The Independent claimed that "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past"

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, was quoted as saying that in the United Kingdom, "within a few years winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event'".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he falsely claimed.

Dr. Viner has since become a lead author for the UN's IPCC climate change reports, considered the official scientific consensus for governments, businesses, and unhinged climate lunatics.

Next time the media hypes an IPCC report about the end of all life on earth, go look at the snow.

Over the next decade, not only did British children still retain the lost knowledge of what snow is, but the UK was hammered with record snowfalls. Eight years later over 3,000 schools had to be closed and much of the country was shut down by the heaviest snowfall in 18 years.

Snow is still very much around, but the article has been removed from The Independent’s site.

In 2018, the isles were hit by the "heaviest snowfall in decades". The New York Times described "Mediterranean beaches blanketed in white", "blizzards and 'life threatening' conditions in normally snowless areas of Britain", and dozens of people dead in a "Siberian weather pattern."

“It was like coming in from a ski resort," one Briton trying to get to London described.

Instead of ski resorts looking like cities, cities are looking like ski resorts.

But two years later, the BBC and the Met Office falsely claimed that "snow will virtually disappear for much of the UK by the end of the century because of climate change."

The Met Office's Lizzie Kendon told the BBC that, "We’re saying by the end of the century much of the lying snow will have disappeared entirely."

It’s not the snow that’s lying.

But like any good doomsayers and conspiracy theorists, the warmunists have learned to postpone the apocalypse to a distant future when everyone will be dead.

Meanwhile springtime in London was interrupted by a March snowstorm.

And in April, Denver recorded the coldest temperature since 1953, of only 10 degrees.






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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 6 comments:
Tags: , ,

Thursday, May 12, 2022

Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy

By On May 12, 2022 In
Free speech on the internet endangers democracy, Barack Obama told Stanford University.

The widely hailed speech at Big Tech’s favorite university claimed that autocrats are "subverting democracy" and that democracies have "grown dangerously complacent". In the slow parade of teleprompter clichés he even warned that "too often we've taken freedom for granted."

To Obama, the threat to democracy doesn’t come from government power, but the lack of it.

“You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won,” he summed up.

Like every Obama speech, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm” didn’t offer anything new, just a distillation of familiar talking points and misplaced assumptions.

The assumption at the heart of Obama’s speech and that of the range of arguments depicting free speech as a cultural and national threat is that the purpose of discourse is state power.

Obama, like many post-liberal lefty critics of free speech, reduces speech to its social impact and its social impact to its political impact. This holistic integration is so fundamental to Marxists and many lefties that they don’t even think twice about the idea that everything we do is reducible to a move on the great abacus of social justice. The food you eat, the car you buy, and the words you say have the potential to either save or damn the planet and humanity.

This quasi-religious conception of mass social mobilization pervades American society. It’s the precondition for wokeness because the only possible moral justification for terrorizing random people on social media is the conviction that governance isn’t political, it’s social, and that the only way to avert climate change and social inequality is by controlling what everyone believes.

Wokeness collapses the distinction between the private and public spheres, and between government and individuals. In a national social crisis, the only conceptual framework through which the Left ever really governs, there’s no time for such liberal niceties as private spheres.

Obama’s speech neatly illustrates the fascism at the heart of this panopticon political project.

Introduce disagreement and you “raise enough questions” that people “no longer know what to believe” and then “lose trust in their leaders”, “mainstream media” and even “truth”. Stripped of all the Brookings Institute globalist prose, what Obama is really saying is that individual disagreement undermines the state. And that truth is dependent on public faith in the state.

This is a value system utterly at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one which envisions an intimate link between individual speech and state authority that would have horrified King George III, but absolutely delighted Hitler or Stalin.

It assumes that there can be no other legitimate points of view other than the official one and that there should be no leaders except those who share them. Limiting the range of opinions is necessary to protect state power because there is no distinction between them and the state.

Or as a certain Austrian artist once put it, "One people, One state, One leader".

When he was promoting his last book two years ago, Obama made the same arguments. "If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work."

The assumption that the democratic process leads to truth rather than choice, absolute rightness rather than people power, is an undemocratic paradigm. Its inevitable conclusion becomes that of Obama, that democracy must be protected by controlling the people.

Not only elections, but ideas, are too important to be left to the public.

Obama doesn’t want a marketplace of ideas because people might get the wrong idea and vote him and his political allies out of office. The explicit goal of internet censorship is to control election outcomes by filtering what information the public is able to access.

Like the provenance of a certain Delaware artist’s laptop.

Narrowing the range of acceptable information in order to narrow the range of acceptable opinions, candidates and political systems is the first fundamental trick of tyrannies. It takes a certain chutzpah and a stock of Orwellian buzzwords to redefine that as protecting democracy.

Obama complains, "China’s built a great firewall around the Internet, turning it into a vehicle for domestic indoctrination" and proposes a democratic firewall around the internet under a "regulatory structure" to be designed with "communities of color" to slow "the spread of harmful content." The democratic people of color firewall will be so much better than China’s firewall.

Pro-censorship elites have the same assumptions as China about the interaction between speech, society, and the state which is why they, like Obama, arrive at the same conclusions. They can dress up those conclusions in buzzwords about “democracy” and “people of color”, but those are differences of style, not substance. The trains all end up at the same station.

Obama speaks about “bugs” in the Constitution. While he is always happy to critique America, the particular totalitarian bug here is deeply embedded into the leftist worldview which denies that people have individual agency, insists that everyone is a prisoner of their social context, and contends that the purpose of the society and the state is an enlightened intertwining. The bug, which is really more of a feature, directly leads to the same outcome as in China or Stanford.

A free society requires healthy breathing spaces between politics and life.The difference between a politicized society and a tyranny is only time. The question at the heart of this debate is “What is discourse for” which is really the question of, “What are people here for?” To believe, as the Left does, that people primarily exist as vehicles for political change is to enslave them.

That’s why every leftist revolution invariably slides toward tyranny along the same worn tracks.

The Founding Fathers believed that people would self-define their purposes. That was why America’s revolution uniquely led to freedom and why leftist revolutions lead to tyranny.

America defined freedom as individual power while lefties define it by the power of the state.

Obama is simply replaying what happens when liberation is treated as a collective enterprise, a journey toward rather than from, that can only be achieved collectively, through the exercise of state power rather than individually through personal choices. The internet, once individualistic, has become collective, and social media, the ultimate embodiment of that collectivism, has become the battleground between individualist expressers and collectivist censors.





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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 8 comments:
Tags: , ,

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Biden Warns Israel Against 'Freedom of Worship'

By On May 11, 2022 In
The Biden administration has announced that its titular head will be visiting Israel within a few months. Biden’s last high profile visit to the Jewish State in 2010 ended with him staging a diplomatic incident and refusing to leave his hotel room for an hour to attend an event with Netanyahu. The Israelis have little reason to be optimistic about this Biden expedition.

After Muslim rioters disrupted Passover by engaging in violence at the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, the administration urged "all sides to exercise restraint, avoid provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve the historic status quo on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount." The “provocation action” in this case is Jewish prayer.

It’s 2022 and the White House is warning Jews that their prayers are “provocative”.

The “historic status quo” Biden demands that Jews comply with exists only because Muslim conquest deprived non-Muslim minorities, especially Jews, of the right to pray at their holy sites. That’s like telling black people riding buses in Alabama to accept the “historic status quo” or urging Ukraine to accept a “historic status quo” in which it was ruled by Moscow.

Or suggesting that Washington D.C. should take orders from Queen Elizabeth.

Behind the scenes, the Biden administration and its officials have been warning the Israeli government to stop talking about "freedom of worship" and defer to Islamic supremacism.

As one reporter described, "cognizant of how talk of 'freedom of worship' can be interpreted, US officials have sought to push Israel to avoid using the phrase and instead focus solely on affirming their commitment to the status quo at Jerusalem's holy sites."

Freedom of worship doesn’t require any interpretation. But here it means that the Israelis allow Muslims to control the Temple Mount despite the fact that they illegally seized the site during the brutal invasion and ethnic cleansing of Israel, and that occasionally Jews are also allowed to enter the holiest site in Judaism and visit it, not to pray publicly, but merely to set foot on it.

Imagine if Islamic invaders had seized the Vatican, turned St. Peter's Basilica into a mosque, and after the reconquest, the Italian government let the Muslims keep the Basilica, but occasionally allowed a handful of Catholics to visit it without praying only to be met with riots. And with international condemnation of the “provocative” action of allowing non-Muslim visitors.

That’s the situation in Jerusalem and what Biden is saying is that it doesn’t go far enough.

In Istanbul, the end of Islamist rule meant the transformation of the Hagia Sophia into the neutral status of a museum, until Erdogan's brutal Islamist regime decided to begin reverting it back to a mosque. Neutrality on the Temple Mount is not even on the table. Israel is not demanding the return of the Temple Mount. All it’s saying is that everyone should be able to go there. Not just the descendants of the invaders and colonizers who now rule over it.

Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount are not allowed to pray there. That privilege is reserved for the Islamic colonists who control it. No Jewish prayer books may be brought up to the site and no one may pray out loud. In a recent expansion of “religious freedom”, a judge ruled that a Jewish man had the religious freedom to pray quietly if there were no outward sign of it.

A whispered prayer has outraged the Muslim world, terror groups, and the Biden administration.

In response to the ruling, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry declared that, “This decision is considered a violation to Islamic sanctities as well as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is a purely Muslim place of worship.”

Jordan denounced Jewish prayer as a "clear provocation" for Muslims. Hamas warned that the "resistance is ready and prepared to repel aggression". The aggression of silent prayer.

"Such illegal decisions constitute an unprecedented attack on the inalienable religious rights of the Islamic nation and its heritage, a provocation to the feelings of Muslims all over the world, and a violation of freedom of worship and the sanctity of holy places,” the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation raved.

By "freedom of worship", the Islamist official meant that only Muslims should be able to worship, while no one else should be permitted to pray because no one else has religious freedom.

He added that Jews silently praying was a "grave violation of international law, international humanitarian law and relevant U.N. resolutions."

Knowing the U.N., there probably is a resolution condemning silent Jewish prayers.

Rather than agree that everyone should have the right to pray, the Biden administration blamed Israel and backed the calls for a “status quo” which is a euphemism for banning Jewish prayer.

During the Passover riots this year, Hamas and PLO flags were flown from the roof of the mosque occupying the Temple Mount (named the Al-Aqsa Mosque by the Islamic colonists), and rioters threw stones and called for Jihad. All of this was going on while Jewish prayers were taking place at the Western Wall or the Kotel. Several Jewish worshipers were also assaulted.

These were not random acts of violence. The Palestinian Authority and its leaders, including President Abbas, had urged Muslim rioters to go to the holy site and "defend it" from the Jews.

Instead of condemning Abbas, the Biden administration is coming after Israel.

Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr, who once claimed, "I was inspired by the Palestinian intifada", was dispatched to Israel.

Israeli officials who have met with Amr have described him yelling and berating them.

In New York City, angry Muslim mobs rallied to support “Palestinian resistance” (a euphemism for terrorism) "by any means necesary".

And the Biden administration stands with the angry Jihadist mobs in Israel and America.

The Biden administration agrees with the bigots that Jews should not be able to visit their own holy site and silently pray there. Biden officials understand that openly condemning “freedom of worship” would be awkward, and so they use the euphemism of “historic status quo”.

While presidential visits to other countries may be cheerful affairs, high-level visits to Israel are usually the opening round of a pressure campaign to force concessions to Islamic terrorists.

Biden’s 2010 visit marked the beginning of an intensified hate campaign against the Jewish State by the Obama administration. Biden’s 2022 visit is likely to be more of the same.

That’s why no one in Israel is cheering.

The Temple Mount situation is a perfect encapsulation of the entire conflict in which the White House and its European allies treat Islamic demands, no matter how obscenely violent, bigoted and irrational, as the only path to peace while blaming Israeli actions, no matter how innocent or humble, even silent prayer, for provoking Islamic violence and violating the status quo.

The status quo is the one that has ruled the Middle East since the conquests of Mohammed destroyed every religious civilization, turning a heartland of world religions into Islamist tyranny.

Biden doesn’t believe Jews have the right to pray, does he believe they have the right to exist?




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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 7 comments:
Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Idiot Grandson of Haitian General Explains Why He Hates the Constitution

By On May 10, 2022 In
Elie Mystal, the grandson of a Haitian general and the son of a lying politician, made headlines when he told the fellow constitutional scholars of The View, that the Constitution is “trash”.

The idiot racist son of a Haitian immigrant, whose gratitude for the country that took in his worthless family is only matched by his aptitude for wearing his hair like it was just caught in an exploding vacuum cleaner, was on tour to promote his book, Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, by insulting the document that allows him to do so.

Despite (or because of) a degree from Harvard Law, Mystal can barely spell “Constitution”.

That hasn’t stopped MSNBC from having him on every 5 minutes to offer deep thoughts on how everything is racist, the Founding Fathers were dumb and the Constitution is terrible.

In his book, which seems to have been researched by reading random tweets, Mystal claims that our "current interpretation of the Second Amendment was invented by the National Rifle Association in the 1970s" because in "the 1960s, Republicans were all about gun control, because in the 1960s Black people thought that they should start carrying guns."

It’s understandable that Mystal, whose father had just arrived from Haiti on a soccer scholarship in the sixties, knows nothing about American history. If you believe Mystal, the right to bear arms was something Republicans came up with in the sixties because they hated black people.

The exciting new systemic racism theory of history, propounded by racial revisionists like Mystal, the 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X. Kendi and Louis Farrakhan, sees all of American history as being defined by a vast and endless conspiracy against black people

Gun control was always a Democrat project dating back to FDR's New Deal for Crime. The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 as a result of a series of measures introduced by House and Senate Democrats. It was opposed by Republicans and moderate Democrats who managed to block FDR's push for a national gun registry. This wasn’t about black people, it was about white people. Especially white crooks and mobsters who were shooting up cities.

Elie Mystal’s worldview revolves around race which he uses to comment on the law and on history without ever knowing anything except that he’s a victim on account of his race.

"White neo-Confederates love to point out that 'slavery' was practiced throughout much of the world, throughout much of human history, but this idea that slavery was a condition you could inherit from birth was not common in ancient slave-loving Rome or other slave-based societies. That idea was market-tested and industrialized in the New World,” Mystal stupidly claims.

Mystal could actually visit the African country of Mali where Tuaregs still practice hereditary slavery today. Descent-based slavery is not at all unusual in the Islamic parts of Africa where non-Muslims were considered subhuman and fit for little more than slavery or death.

But Mystal is partly right only because most slaves in Sub-Saharan Africa were women. That’s not the compelling argument for abortion that he seems to think it is in his feminist chapter, but Mystal’s idea of a compelling argument is shouting, “Racist, Sexist, Homophobe” three times.

What do you do when you don’t actually know anything? You become a legal correspondent for The Nation and go on The View to push your book about how dumb the Constitution is.

No, really.

“The way that voting rights have been couched as ‘We will not abridge the right to vote’ as opposed to ‘You have a positive right to vote,’ that's dumb,” Mystal stupidly insists.

Like a petulant teenager, he keeps calling things dumb because he doesn’t understand them.

"I’m prejudiced against dumb people," Mystal declares in a burst of unintentional self-hatred.

Mystal defends the absurd idea that cruel and unusual punishment can be used to ban the death penalty by asserting that, “It makes no sense to have a legal definition of cruel centered upon what some eighteenth-century a______s thought that word should mean.”

That is what Mystal’s arguments always come down to. Everyone who disagrees with him is dumb. Everything he disagrees with is stupid. The stupidity is real, but it’s coming from inside the house.

At one point, Mystal actually cries sexism because “the framers of the Constitution provided no social safety net whatsoever for widows and orphans.” That would be an understandable objection if it were coming from an illiterate Swedish goatherd who has no idea what is in the Constitution. Instead it’s coming from a graduate of Harvard Law who, presumably, at some point has read the Constitution or at least googled a quick summary of it on Wikipedia.

That might be optimistic when coming from a guy whose legal education included, “being in office hours with Elena Kagan (I had her for CivPro) and asking why I should give a rat’s ass (I’m paraphrasing) about what some dead, probably racist, white man said.”

So of course Mystal can be counted on to go on MSNBC and rant that, "The founding fathers didn't recognize abortion as a fundamental right because the founding fathers were racist misogynist jerk faces who didn't believe that women had any rights at all!"

The Founding Fathers had not considered the idea of licensing anyone, regardless of their gender, to kill babies. They were too busy building a country by the skin of their teeth.

Mystal’s only legal theories are racism and name calling. And he isn’t very good at either one of. Compare calling the Founding Fathers “racist misogynist jerk faces” to Benjamin Franklin’s “Trickery and treachery are the practices of fools that have not wits enough to be honest”.

“You come out as a Republican, I’m prejudiced against you. I assume you’re defective, in some way. I wouldn’t want you to marry into my family,” Mystal sneers at one point.

Mystal’s family is Elie Mystal Sr, a Haitian immigrant who became an aide, chief of staff, and apparently the boyfriend of a dying white councilwoman in Long Island, New York. (A New York Times story on her death from what some people confused with mad cow disease refers to him as a “companion” and to them as a “couple”.)

After she died, he "inherited" her job, but ran into a problem when it turned out he was living in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. He got 5 years probation and had to pay $84,300.

"I could describe my late father’s profession in a lot of ways, but 'a gerrymanderer' would be among the most accurate,” Mystal admits at one point.

It's no surprise that Mystal has said that, "I figured I’d run for office or, worst case, be the press secretary for somebody running for President. I never wanted to be a lawyer, especially when I was actually a lawyer” and “I decided on law school strictly as a stepping stone towards an elected future.” It’s hard to know whether Mystal’s entitlement outweighs his ignorance.

Or whether it’s a close race.

The grandson of a Haitian general and the son of a New York politician, who boasts of having gotten into nearly every school he applied to, whines that he is, “supposed to stop and consider the class status of discrete and insular white people living in Appalachia.”

It’s pretty obvious who’s “trash” and it’s not the Constitution.






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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Read more
Posted by: at 4 comments:
Tags: , ,

Popular

Categories