Enter your keyword

Thursday, May 19, 2022

All Wars Are Endless Wars

By On May 19, 2022
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.

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Evil Lives Matter

By On May 18, 2022
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.

Monday, May 16, 2022

Who’s Paying Protesters to Harass Justices and Churches?

By On May 16, 2022
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.

Sunday, May 15, 2022

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

By On May 15, 2022
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.

Thursday, May 12, 2022

Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy

By On May 12, 2022
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.

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Biden Warns Israel Against 'Freedom of Worship'

By On May 11, 2022
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.

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Idiot Grandson of Haitian General Explains Why He Hates the Constitution

By On May 10, 2022
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.

Sunday, May 08, 2022

Biden Unilaterally Surrenders to Russia and China in Satellite Wars

By On May 08, 2022
Kamala Harris arrived at Vandenberg Space Force Base where Discoverer-1, the first satellite to enter a polar orbit and America’s bold response to Russia’s Sputnik, was launched to announce that we would be unilaterally surrendering to Russia and China in the growing satellite wars.

Last November, Russia had conducted a DA-ASAT or direct-ascent anti-satellite test which demonstrated its ability to take out satellites. The Russians had used their A-235 anti-ballistic missile system to destroy their own Kosmos 1408 satellite. The message was clear: Moscow had the ability to clear out enemy satellites in the event of any conflict. Including ours.

“I don’t want to get ahead of specific measures that we may pursue," Biden apparatchik Ned Price fumed, but had vowed that "we won’t tolerate this kind of activity."

At Vandenberg, Kamala announced that the response would be absolute and total surrender.

Responding to Russia’s anti-satellite weapons test and Communist China’s earlier 2007 ASAT test, the Biden administration vows that it will surrender and refuse to deploy ASAT weapons.

"I think everyone here recognizes how extraordinary space is," Kamala Harris rambled. "Space — it affects us all, and it connects us all."

After these deep thoughts, she explained that the Biden administration wants the Space Force to "protect our interests in space" but not in a way that violates "international norms and rules."

ASAT weapons don't actually violate any international laws. That's why protests against China and Russia's weapons tests have previously fallen on deaf ears. The two totalitarian countries aren't breaking any rules or norms by testing and deploying ASAT weapons from the ground that target orbital objects. We could legally develop and deploy ASAT weapons ourselves.

Speaking to the Space Force, as if she were addressing a class of kindergarteners, Kamala explained that rules and norms give us a "sense of order and stability" whether "it is the way we interact with our colleagues at work or the way nations interact with each other.”

A “sense of order and stability” is an illusion and very different than real order and stability. There was a “sense of order and stability” in Europe in January 2022. That’s the state of delusion with which the Biden administration intends to meet the rise of the satellite wars.

Under Biden, the United States will no longer lead in the exploration or exploitation of space, but in creating "norms for the responsible and peaceful use of outer space."

And that means not doing a damn thing to defend ourselves.

Kamala admitted that the Russian and Chinese ASAT tests are “intended to deny the United States our ability to use our space capabilities" and that in response her boss will do nothing.

"We have consistently condemned these tests and called them res- — reckless. But that is not enough. Today we are going further. I am pleased to announce that as of today, the United States commits not to conduct destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite missile testing. Simply put: These tests are dangerous, and we will not conduct them," she declared.

In the face of Russia and China's orbital escalation, America will lead by refusing to fight back.

While Biden works on creating “international norms” for outer space, our enemies have a clear field for destroying our satellites. Kamala has announced that she’s calling on other countries to join us in also unilaterally refusing to build up the capability to deter aggression in outer space.

If enough nations surrender then Russia and China will feel bad about what they’re doing.

Vandenberg symbolizes America’s refusal to surrender space to our enemies.

When Sputnik was first launched, many Americans panicked. But instead of unilaterally surrendering, we put Explorer 1 into orbit next year. The Thor rose from the sky over Vandenberg to not only beat the Soviet Union to the deployment of the first intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), but also went on to power our space program, launching Discoverer-1 and helping inaugurate a new era of space exploration through the Delta rockets and made it clear that we could not and should not sever space exploration from national defense.

In 2019, we tested our first new IRBM, formerly off limits due to a worthless arms control pact that the Russians cheated on every chance that they got.

While President Trump refused Putin's pleas to extend the worthless treaty, Biden promised a five-year extension for the START treaty with no preconditions. That's far more than Putin even asked for. And the Biden administration has been trying to negotiate an arms control treaty that will tie our hands and allow the Russians to once again cheat as much as they want to.

Tired of surrendering to Russia during negotiations, Biden is now leading the way by surrendering without even bothering to negotiate.

Announcing that America will not test ASAT weapons will allow the Chinese and the Russians to extend their lead while crippling future administrations.

It will allow both enemies to blackmail us and the world.

“Conflict or confrontation in outer space is not inevitable, and the United States seeks to ensure outer space remains free from conflict,” the Biden administration claimed. While conflict is not inevitable, pacifism, unilateral surrender, and appeasement are the most likely to bring it on.

The original motto of the Strategic Air Command was, “War is our profession - Peace is our product.” These sorts of slogans, often mocked by lefties, conveyed the basic truth that we had learned so painfully during WWII and the Cold War.

Deterrence is the only reliable guarantee of peace.

Had we not developed the world’s leading arsenal of nuclear weapons, WWIII would have happened generations ago and left radioactive craters across Europe and America.

As Biden’s conflicted response to the invasion in Ukraine shows, surrender and scolding just brings on war, telegraphing your impotence while infuriating the enemy with your scolding.

If the United States really wants to stop the deployment of ASAT weapons, it needs to take the lead in developing and deploying them. While the Chinese and Russian tests were messy, that’s born of the reckless disregard that both countries are prone to. Cleaner ASAT tests are possible and necessary. Especially if the United States really wants China and Russia to sign on to an ASAT ban. Arms control treaties are notoriously useless, but the only reason Russia or China would sign on to an ASAT ban would be to stop American ASAT weapons from being a threat.

By unilaterally surrendering the satellite wars, Biden and Kamala have ensured that China and Russia will race forward and will not sign on to any treaties unless they also comprehensively cripple America in areas where we have a clear advantage. Democrats and their fellow travelers will call such treaties a victory for international peace when they are truly a defeat.

Vandenberg is a proud reminder that America doesn’t have to accept defeat in space.

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.

Wednesday, May 04, 2022

On Yom HaAtzmaut, Israel's Struggle for Independence Continues

By On May 04, 2022

 Without the sacrifices made to preserve freedom, there could be no independence. And without independence, those sacrifices have no meaning. And so Israel remembers its fallen in the Yom HaZikaron, Memorial Day. And then on the next day it remembers their achievement, a free and independent nation in Yom HaAtzmaut, Independence Day.

A day after Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, it was fighting for its survival against local Islamist militias, including the Mufti of Jerusalem's, Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas, along with the armies of 7 Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Yemen. On the Muslim side was the Arab Legion, at the time considered to be the best army in the region, under the British General Glubb, whose son would later convert to Islam, and become involved with terrorist groups. 

On the Israeli side were frontier units that had evolved not that long ago from orchard guards, ex-WW2 US and UK soldiers, refugees just off the boat who had been given a rifle to hold, with or without ammunition and small groups of farmers holding out as best they could. 

One such small group of farmers in the Battle of Gesher, held out against several battalions of the Iraqi army, under the Crown Prince of Iraq, Abd Al Illah (Slave of Allah). 

But today while the sirens sound in the cities of Israel, the electronic wail for the voiceless dead-- the corridors of power under Biden are filled with a relentless scurrying and plotting on how to best convince or compel Israel to surrender its independence and carve it up into pieces small enough for its old enemies to be able to swallow up whole.

Today Jerusalem is under siege for a third time. Not by armies with guns in hand, but by politicians bent on forcing appeasement. The invaders no longer come in uniforms. They come wearing suits and ties, bearing diplomatic papers in hand. The new siege of Jerusalem is a diplomatic siege by men who have never fired guns, but who would rob the sacrifice of those who stood watch against the night.

And the conclusion that must be drawn from this third siege is that Israel is neither independent nor free until it can dispatch them home empty handed by putting its people first and putting the diplomats who slip money to left wing groups to agitate against Israel at home on the first flight home.

Israel has withstood sieges of arms. It has paid for it dearly, but it has survived and thrived. But Israel is succumbing to the siege of diplomats, because it is neither independent, nor free. And that is because it has stood up to its enemies in battle, but it has never been able to shake off that inferiority complex that manifests itself in seeking their approval, in believing that the moral high ground comes in making concessions to those who would kill you, rather than in protecting your own citizens against them.

Today Israel has the region's best soldiers and the worst diplomats, who go from door to door, apologizing for their country and trying to defend it halfheartedly against the worst of charges. Meanwhile their enemies, who murder their own children for honor, build cities with slave labor and openly declare that they will destroy every non-Muslim country in the world, laugh at their hasbara.

Israel has never been allowed to stop fighting. The question is whether it is fighting for its survival or its independence.

Israel has spent the last several decades fighting for its survival, and the country is weary of it. Because the difference between fighting for survival and fighting for independence, is the same as a man swimming to cross the channel, and another man trying to stay afloat in open water. The difference is purpose. The amateur men and even women, fighting in 1948, understood what they were fighting for. They were fighting for their freedom. The average Israeli soldier today sees himself as something akin to a police officer, walking a fine line between not getting shot, and not doing something to a potential terrorist that will result in an international incident.

The IDF soldier swears an oath to protect his homeland, but what land is that. It is not Gaza anymore. Is it Judea and Samaria on the West Bank, and if so which parts of it? Is it Jerusalem or only half of Jerusalem. Is his home part of that homeland he is defending, or will a new government decide that he is actually a settler, and under international pressure, decide to demolish his home and drive out his family, even after he has died a hero's death? He does not know what his land is, because his land is now whatever the international community will decide it is.

His duty is to avoid being involved in a shooting incident will be result in an outcry against Israel. To stand guard, without offending anyone. To fight for land that his government has already sold out from under him. When the Israeli soldier fights, he must know what he is fighting for. Not survival. Not a chance for the diplomats to sit around the negotiating table again, and take apart the map of Israel like spiteful children playing with a puzzle-- but for independence. His country's and his own. 

The graves of the dead open on Memorial Day, and those who died peer out, to know if their sacrifice was of any worth. In Jerusalem and beyond, in unmarked graves, buried among the rubble, lost in the land of the enemy. 

Once, the Prophet Ezekiel stood in the valley of dry bones, and G-d asked him, "Son of man, can these bones live". In 1948 the House of Israel was a house of dry bones. Starving concentration camp survivors, children hiding in forests with haunted eyes, a handful of militia playing soldier with used Czech rifles. Jews living as degraded and oppressed servants in a dozen Muslim nations. Turning the dung of camels into fuel. Knowing that they had no rights, but the right to bow to their Muslim betters.

"Then He said unto me, 'Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say: Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off. Therefore prophesy, and say unto them: Thus saith the Lord G-d: Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel.'" (Ezekiel 37)

And so He did. They came on boats through the British blockade. Men with stick thin arms marked with permanent numbers took up rifles. Dry bones that somehow stood and fought. Men who had been compelled to walk behind Muslims, to bow to Muslims, to defer to them-- took up arms and fought back against them. And they lived. Even those who died, lived. And will live forever. 

What is the difference between dry bones and the living. It is spirit. Without spirit, a man may walk and talk, but he is already dead. The State of Israel today has tanks and submarines, jet planes and nuclear reactors. But its spirit is being leeched away and its people are again oppressed. Once more their old masters rule over them. For Israel to live again, it must secure a true and lasting independence. It must fight for it. It must give up the idea that anyone but its own people and its own G-d may sit in judgment over it or dictate its borders. For only through independence, can Israel ever be free.

Tuesday, May 03, 2022

Disney Dems Think Corporations Should Be Our Governments

By On May 03, 2022
Democrats, after spending the last decade sneering that Republicans believe “corporations are people”, have found a new group of oppressed victims to shelter, protect, and fight for.


Not since a bunch of men decided that they want to shower with teenage girls and join their swim teams, have lefties turned around their core beliefs faster than hotel bed sheets.

Biden ranted that the "far right has taken over the party" because, "Christ, they're going after Mickey Mouse." Of the two, you know which one Joe Biden believes in. Disney employees have directed over $1 million in cash to the Biden campaign. That’s something Biden can bow to.

The rest of the party and the movement is just as outraged that Gov. DeSantis stood up to a multinational corporation on behalf of the voters and parents of Florida.

“The Real Reason Today's Republican Party Hates Corporations Like Disney,” wailed Will Bunch: the Philly Inquirer’s pet clickbait troll. Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado accused Gov. DeSantis of "authoritarian socialist attacks on the private sector". A Washington Post op-ed even charged Rep. Lauren Boebert with wanting to "cancel Mickey Mouse."

All of these social justice energies are being expended to argue that a major multinational corporation should have a 39 square mile self-governing district with its own zoning laws, police and fire departments.

Forget corporations being people, Democrats want them to be governments.

Lefties used to be the biggest critics of special interest scams like the Reedy Creek Improvement District. A few years ago the media would have dug into the lies that were used to secure the territory on which Disney was going to build the homes of tomorrow, only to instead construct the tawdry resorts of yesterday where alligators can eat as many toddlers as they want and Silicon Valley types can spend $5K on the Star Wars Galactic Starcruiser hotel.

Now the media awkwardly pivots to declaring that corporations should have their own cities. Lefties loudly shout that only far-right extremists like Gov. DeSantis would ever question the idea that corporations should be able to make their own laws and have their own police forces.

Truly, those whom DeSantis would destroy, he first drives mad.

All of this started because Disney came out in opposition to a parental rights law that the majority of Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats supported. But Disney execs decided that kindergarteners need to be indoctrinated on sex no matter what Mom and Dad say.

Disney and the Democrats were pretty confident that Gov. DeSantis and Republicans would bow. Corporate and sports league pressure had shut down religious freedom laws and protections for women and girls from Indiana to Utah. Republican governors, when faced with threats of corporate boycotts, have repeatedly sold out their voters and bowed to the buck.

Gov. DeSantis not only refused to bow, he took away Disney’s state-within a state. The message is clear. Disney doesn’t rule in Florida, only the voters do. But Democrats want elected officials to listen to corporations. And they want those corporations to govern all of us.

They want Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other Big Tech companies to decide what we should be able to say and read. They want banks and credit card companies to stop us from donating to conservative causes or buying guns. And they want the corporations that employ us to be able to fire us the moment we express an unguarded thought they don’t like.

Corporate governance now means a monopolistic woke cartel using its wide scope of authority over national services, communications, and employment to suppress political dissent.

The Bill of Rights still occasionally keeps governments from doing some things, at least until they declare a political emergency due to a pandemic, a disputed election, or the day of the week, while nothing restrains the power of Google or Amazon to erase you from the internet while its stock price goes up another few billion thanks to the adultatory media coverage.

And since the same corps and leagues that give marching orders to cowardly GOP governors also take orders from Communist China, that means we’re really answering to Xi’s lackeys.

Like Disney.

But to the wokes, corporations have joined the totem pole of the oppressed, somewhere below suicide bombers in burkas, giant junkies who overdose while grappling with cops, tribal casino owners whiter than Elizabeth Warren, and bearded inmates of female correctional facilities.

You might say that what’s good for Disney is good for Democrats.

Should Disney have its own state within Florida? Mouseketeers, lefties want Disney to run the whole state. Much as they want the NCAA to run Indiana and Google the rest of the planet.

Gov. DeSantis refused to let his state become a Mickey Mouse operation. Some other governors, including Gov. Abbott in Texas, are joining him in declaring independence, not from the country, but from the cartel of woke corporations being used to set state policy.

Corporations, like governments, can be perfectly good and useful things. Like governments, they become a toxic assault on our rights and freedoms when they start telling us what to do.

And then they’re no different than any other form of tyranny.

Disney could have been perfectly happy churning out new Captain America and other superhero projects that had been signed off on by Chinese Communist censors while peddling $10 sodas and access to two hour lines in order to ride their politically correct roller coasters.

Instead, Disney execs decided to throw around their power beyond the confines of their self-governing banana republic and its endless collection of ramshackle ripoff resorts, and tried to rule over a state instead of just their unfortunate employees and customers.

Now, Disney is paying the price for its totalitarian hubris.

Some conservatives argue that this is “viewpoint discrimination”. And they might have a point if all Disney did was express an opinion. Corporate execs are entitled to their opinions like everyone else and corporations are free to express their concerns about what affects them. What they are not entitled to do is usurp the power of the government, its officials and its voters.

When corporations don’t limit their areas of interest to their business affairs and instead demand that states, cities, and communities must comply with every single leftist agenda item or face their wrath, then they become the real governments while the people are rendered powerless.

And nobody, or almost nobody except a few Florida Democrats, wants to be ruled by Disney.

After generations of class warfare populism, the new woke gentry want corporations to crush the peasant parents who think that they, not Disney, have the right to raise their children.

That’s not just an abandonment of their entire political movement and worldview going back two centuries, it’s an act of political suicide akin to electing Biden and Kamala during a crisis.

If lefties want to champion corporations as our new governments, they should run on that.

Surely Florida voters, not to mention Americans from all states, races, genders, creeds, and levels of drunkenness will happily embrace this brave new proposal for corporate governance.

After Disney is appointed to run Florida and consigns political opponents to cleaning the vomit out of Space Mountain, Facebook can take over California, filling the cities with golden statues of Zuckerberg, while Amazon rules over the Northwest with gulags of warehouses.

Nobody wants that dystopian insanity except the Left, which used to hate corporations, but now wants them to tell us what we can say, what we are allowed to think, and how we should live.

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.