"Those Asian officers who stand by and observe everything I previously mentioned," Christopher Dorner wrote in his manifesto. "You are a high value target as well."

The black mass shooter's first target was Monica Quan, the Asian-American daughter of Randall Quan, the first Chinese-American to become an LAPD captain.

Monica was shot three times in the back of the head. Afterward, Dorner called her father and told him that he "should have done a better job of protecting his daughter."

The media coverage of Dorner’s shooting spree focused on the racist rants about white police officers (or caucasians) in his manifesto, but there was very little discussion of his hatred for Asian-Americans even though he had named them as targets in his hateful screed.

When black mass shooters kill Asian people, the media tries to gloss over it.

Colin Ferguson's mass shooting in the 90s on a New York train is remembered largely for the decision by his radical leftist lawyers, William Kunstler and Ron Kuby to use the “Black Rage” defense. Shortly before his death, Kunstler argued that black people are entitled to rage.

But what is often forgotten is that two of the six people whom Ferguson murdered were Asian.

Maria Theresa Tumangan Magtoto was the daughter of an official with the Philippine Senate. Mi Kyung Kim, a Korean-American, had been working as a library assistant at Columbia.

A third of the men and women whom Ferguson killed were Asians.

This wasn't a coincidence. Notes in Ferguson's pockets were scribbled with rants about white people, "Uncle Toms", and "Chinese" people. None of the Asian-Americans he shot were actually Chinese, but the racist gunman didn't seem to care.

“When Louis Farrakhan mentioned Mr. Ferguson at a New York rally on Dec. 18, his audience erupted in an ovation”, “The Hate That Hate Begot”, a New York Daily News article, noted.

“God spoke to Colin Ferguson and said, 'Catch the train, Colin, catch the train’”, the Nation of Islam’s Khalid Abdul Muhammad declared at Howard University.

When John Allen Muhammad went on his rampage, his victims included Hong Im Ballenger, a Korean immigrant who ran a beauty supply store. As the D.C. sniper’s last name showed, he had been a member of Farrakhan’s black supremacist Nation of Islam hate group.

The Nation of Islam believes that non-black people were created through a eugenics program by a mad scientist from the original black race. “Asians want to know if we are targeting all Asian business. We know Asians have targeted Black communities to exploit. The JIG IS UP," Jeffery Muhammad, the Nation of Islam leader in Dallas, had warned.

This sort of anti-Asian hate extends into the highest reaches of the Democrats and the media.

Before Al Sharpton was an MSNBC host, a Democrat presidential candidate with a DNC speaking slot, and a Democrat kingmaker, he was leading boycotts of Korean stores.

Sharpton had supported the infamous Family Red Apple boycott at which racist mobs had called the owners, "yellow monkeys" and chanted, "Koreans, go home." The Freddy’s Fashion Mart protests, led by Morris Powell, head of the Buy Black Committee at Sharpton’s National Action Network, later turned lethal, culminating in the murders of seven people.

While the motive there was antisemitism and the victims were mostly young Latino women, the fire was followed by threats of violence against Korean stores in Harlem.

And Powell had cut his teeth on black supremacist boycotts of Asian businesses.

In a previous boycott incident at the Victory Fish Market, he had allegedly fractured the skull of Kim Soo Yea: the wife of the store owner.

The National Action Network has since been addressed by every top Democrat from Obama to Biden to Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

The Democrats have jumped eagerly on the spa shootings. Their media insists that the shooter could not have been a sex addict motivated by his own disorder, as he said, but that he must be a racist who hated Asian people, while refusing to make a reckoning with the publicly stated hatred for Asian people of black mass shooters like Colin Ferguson and Christopher Dorner.

The spa shootings emerged as a convenient distraction from the protests over the escalating criminal assaults on Asian people in California and New York by mostly black perpetrators.

“The perpetrator in some cases has been African American,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed had said. “And as an African American woman, as the mayor of your city, I am here to hold everyone accountable.”

That was not the media’s agenda.

Back in February, Time was scolding Asian-American victims and telling them that they needed to figure out “how to tackle anti-Asian violence without relying on law enforcement institutions that have historically targeted Black and brown communities”.

After the spa shootings, headlines like "Advocates Discourage Anti-Black Sentiment Amid Violence Against Asians" and the clumsy attempts to falsely ascribe attacks by black men on elderly Asian people to President Trump and whiteness ("This violence is caused by a system that makes working people compete against each other for scraps of what the wealthy possess," Oakland City Councilwoman Carroll Fife) gave way to political relief for Democrats.

The media spread the false claim that a police spokesman had dismissed the attack as a case of the perpetrator having a “bad day”. Even though neither the police nor the FBI had found a racial motive, the media spread its racism narrative without even the tiniest trace of evidence.

It makes little difference to the actual case. Even now, at the peak of the Democrat pro-crime policy wave where criminals are let loose for slashings and robberies, a mass murderer is never going to set foot outside the prison system whether or not he’s charged with a hate crime.

But there’s a great deal politically at stake for the Democrat media which is seizing the opportunity to deflect a politically problematic crisis back into politically safe waters.

Racist killers don’t make a big secret of their hate. White supremacist mass shooters like Dylann Roof at the Mother Emanuel church in Charleston and Robert Bowers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, or black supremacist shooters, like Micah X. Johnson in Dallas or David Anderson at the Kosher market in Jersey City, left their ugly beliefs in public view.

Dorner and Ferguson had notes and manifestos.

The media spends a lot more time talking about politically convenient mass killers than inconvenient ones. It’s why Robert Bowers got so much more coverage than David Anderson. It’s also why Colin Ferguson and Dylann Roof received a very different reception.

It is wholly possible to be an evil person without being a bigot. The average serial killer is not a racist. He’s just wholly devoid of empathy and enjoys the pain and suffering of others. Not every crime needs to be viewed through the narrow academic lens of prejudice: let alone ‘whiteness’.

But much as Communists couldn’t see the world in any terms other than class, Wokies can’t understand any event except by shoving it into their identity politics prism. Some things fit into that prism, others can be made to fit with enough fake news, and still others will never fit and have to be ignored, covered up, and buried at midnight in the media graveyard of dead stories.

The media is no longer in the business of reporting stories, but of politically reconciling them in the same way that Pravda reporters had to reconcile events with Marxism-Leninism. The media politically confronts events, and tries to understand them, before distilling their understanding.

Journalism has become an academic enterprise of grad students treating every event like an opportunity to unload critical race theory lectures so that the public can be properly educated.

But now that the media is suddenly interested in mass shooters who target Asians, it might want to revisit Ferguson and Dorner who actually targeted Asians and wrote about doing it, instead of trying to ascribe a racial motive to a monster who left behind no evidence of being a bigot.

"I Started to Think This is a Bad Guy": Andrew Cuomo's Biographer on the Governor's Brutish History," a Vanity Fair headline blares.

The biographer, Michael Shnayerson, is the author of The Contender, a biography of Cuomo, of which the author on his site writes, “I think the picture that emerges is ultimately a positive one.”

In the recent article, he however fusses, “I discovered that much of Cuomo’s M.O. and many of his character flaws… have been evident for years.”

Just not so evident that anyone in the media would actually write honestly about them.

In Vanity Fair, Cuomo’s biographer mentions the time that his subject was accused of sexual harassment. “HUD’s inspector general, Susan Gaffney, was a woman who dared to speak up, so she became a target,” he writes. Gaffney did indeed speak up and became a target. And The Contender followed the usual Cuomo line of treating her allegation of sexual harassment as absurd nonsense. The suggestion that Gaffney had gone over the edge goes unchallenged.

"To the astonishment of all in the Cuomo camp, Gaffney soon after filed a formal complaint against Andrew and most of his inner circle, accusing them of sexual harassment and discrimination," Shnayerson dismissively writes. "Exhibit A: the wink."

The real reason that the story is explosive isn’t just because twenty years ago, for the first time, Cuomo was accused of sexual harassment, it’s that Democrats vigorously backed Cuomo up.

At a Senate hearing in which Gaffney made her case, warning of Cuomo's campaign of dirty tricks, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Fred Thompson, both Republicans, were supportive. Meanwhile Rep. Tom Lantos appeared to be cooperating with the Cuomo smear campaign.

Rep. Henry Waxman, aggressively defended Cuomo, accusing Gaffney of "nit-picking," and "petty" complaints that "defy logic and reason".

Rep. Elijah Cummings demanded an investigation of Gaffney.

There was something bigger at stake in the Cuomo-Gaffney case than sexual harassment.

Gaffney and her people had been digging into some shady behavior by Andrew Cuomo.

Heading up HUD had been a consolation prize from Bill Clinton to the Cuomo family. Mario Cuomo, Andrew’s father, had been projected as the leading Democrat presidential candidate. After Mario chose not to run, Andrew Cuomo and the Clinton administration had been negotiating over a Supreme Court seat for his father which never came to pass.

The HUD job wasn’t glamorous, but it offered all kinds of useful opportunities including allegedly a developer who acted as a major financier for Cuomo in his personal and political life. Some of Cuomo’s decisions back then would help put the country on track to the subprime crisis.

Destroying Gaffney became a major priority not only for Cuomo, but for Democrat elected officials because she had touched the third rail of the Democrat patronage machine by investigating housing fraud. Cuomo and his Democrat cohorts launched an unprecedented campaign to smear an inspector general of their own agency as a vicious racist.

At its peak, a Cuomo crony declared that Gaffney "is under investigation by the FBI and members of Congress, that a dozen of her employees have made racial complaints against her, that the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors has passed formal resolutions on a pattern of racism by the IG and that Deval Patrick, the former associate attorney general for civil rights, is now investigating her on the most serious charges of racism in the department's history."

The accusations of racism, like the push by Lantos and Cuomo to investigate the IG's office for downloading porn, were garbage, but they accomplished their goal. Gaffney came off as unhinged and running a scandalous office. Enough mud was thrown that some of it stuck. And by then no one was paying attention to any investigations coming out of the IG’s office.

Cuomo won. America lost.

The tactics that Cuomo previewed against Gaffney would be utilized to secure the governor’s mansion and suppress critics and accusers. All of that could have been prevented, but the Democrats chose to stand against an inspector general, who had been appointed by Bill Clinton, and with Andrew Cuomo, who had a political future in New York and maybe D.C.

Why would any Democrat take on a possible future senator, governor, or even president?

Cuomo’s allies included numerous House Democrats, and Deval Patrick, the future governor of Massachusetts, and Obama’s favored presidential candidate. And some journalists speculated at the time that Cuomo’s campaign had the tacit approval of the Clinton administration. It would be rather surprising if it did not when you consider its sheer scope.

If the Clintons had signed off on the campaign, it would not have been the worst abuse by a corrupt clan that counted Jeffrey Epstein among its friends, and which had been accused of sexual assault and victim intimidation. Bill Clinton had described Cuomo’s father as a mafioso in a conversation with Gennifer Flowers. Clintonites in the media attempted to claim that the conversations were fake, with George Stephanopoulos eventually admitting that they were real, but arguing that “they were selectively edited in a way — to create some — some impression.”

What better qualification could there be for a position as a top journalist at ABC News?

Whether it was Clinton’s abuses or Cuomo’s abuses, the media has a history of denying the obvious for as long as possible until it becomes politically opportune to finally tell the truth.

The truth won't mean reporting honestly on Cuomo’s nursing home death toll or his role in the subprime mortgage crisis. Cuomo is one of those unique politicians who did more damage to the country than any dozen natural disasters and tops the casualty toll from some wars. And yet the only thing the media wants to topple him for is his recent history of sexual aggressiveness.

That too doesn’t come as much of a surprise in a state where a Cuomo predecessor, Governor Elliot Spitzer, was accused of having a thing for choking women. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who was being touted as a potential governor down the road, resigned after being accused of choking and threatening to kill a number of women. There’s a pattern here.

And this kind of thing is practically a requirement for Democrat politicians in Albany.

In some cases, such as Jeffrey Epstein, the #MeToo issue is the issue. But with politicians, whether it’s Bill Clinton or Andrew Cuomo, it’s the topper on a layer cake of much worse crimes. Bad people abuse power in proportion to how much of it they have and top elected officials have a lot more scope for abusing power than movie producers or hedge fund tycoons.

The media is determined to help Democrats cover up for Cuomo, even as they’re trying to bury him by concentrating on the set of #MeToo allegations that are the least damaging to the Dems. That way the Sandernistas who are trying to take down Cuomo can smoothly step into his place. The party gets a shakeup, but the same old dirty business can continue on in Albany.

#MeToo is only a symptom of the sociopathic abuses of power by Cuomo. The bigger issues, the bodies and the dollars, would do too much damage to the same corrupt Democrat system that had enabled Cuomo all these decades. And the system is protecting itself even now.

No one knew anything for decades, but now everyone always knew everything. Like old Stalinists after Khruschev’s speech, the former Cuomosexuals line up to denounce him.

The truth is that they all knew. And what they still know is a lot worse than what they’re telling.

After all this time, the media still won’t touch Cuomo. Not where it could hurt the Democrats.

As the first days of another Passover conclude with the echoes of "Once we were slaves and now we are free" and "Next year in Jerusalem" recited at the Seder nights ringing in our ears, we know that freedom is a lot more than being able to board a plane and fly off to Jerusalem.

Slavery did not end with the fall of Pharaoh. Since then we have become slaves again, lived under the rule of iron-fisted tyrants and forgotten what the very idea of freedom means. And that will likely happen again and again until the age of oppression ends. What is this freedom that we gained with the fall of a Pharaoh, his drowning armies, and the last sight of his pyramids?

Freedom, like slavery, is as much a state of mind as a state of being. It is possible to be legally free, yet to have no freedom of action whatsoever. And it is possible to be legally a slave and yet to be free in defiance of those restrictions. External coercion alone does not make a man free or slave. 

Slavery, as all our ancestors learned at one time or another, is a state of mind.

What is a slave? A slave is complicit in his own oppression. His slavery has become his natural state and he looks to his master, not to free him, but to command him. He does not want to be free and he resents the very idea of freedom. The Jews in Egypt were not merely restrained by chains and guards. If they had been, then the task of their liberation would have been much simpler. But just as an addictive drug crosses the barrier from physical to psychological dependency, they were enslaved not just with external, but internal chains. They moaned not at the fact of slavery, but at the extremity of it. When their taskmasters complained to Pharaoh, it was not about being enslaved, but of not being given the straw with which to build the bricks that had become their duty.

The worst slavery is of the most insidious kind. It leaves the slave able to think and act, but not as a free man. It leaves him with cunning, but not courage. He is able to use force, but only to bring other slaves into line. And most hideously, this state of affairs seems moral and natural to him. This is his freedom.

The true slave has come to love big brother, to worship at the foot of the system that oppresses him. It is this twisted love that must be torn out of him. It is this idolatry of the whip before which he kneels, this panting to know who his superiors and who his inferiors are, this love of a vast order that allows him to be lost in its wonders, to gaze in awe at the empire of tomorrow which builds its own tombs today, that must be broken. These are his gods and he must kill them within himself to be free.

The Exodus is not the story of the emergence of free men who were enslaved, but the slow painful process by which slaves became a nation of free men, a long troubled journey which has not yet ended. That is why we celebrate Passover, not as an event of the past, but as of a road that we still travel on our long journey from slavery to freedom. Not just the journey of the Jews, but of humanity.

Having escaped from Pharaoh, the Jews built a glittering calf, and having left the desert behind, they sought out a king. Every idol and tyrant was another token of slavery, a desire to put one's ear up against the doorpost and become slaves for life. The idols have changed, but their meaning has not. There is still the pursuit of the master, the master of international law, of a global state, the expert gods of the superstate who rule over the present and the future and dispose of the lives of men.

There are far too many synagogues that worship the Democratic Party, rather than G-d, that bow to the ghost of FDR, and whose scriptures are to be found in the smeared ink of the New York Times. And in Jerusalem far too many eyes look longingly to Washington and to Brussels, to the cities on the hill which offer order, truth and peace.

It is easy to slip into this kind of slavery. The pyramids are grand, the slogans are clever and the future seems assured. It is only when the dusty messenger comes along to whisper that "He has remembered". that those who have not forgotten gather and some among those who have forgotten, remember that they are slaves.

In Egypt the system of the state had to be smashed, not just smashed, but discredited. The war between slavery and freedom could not end until the system of slavery had become ridiculous, until Pharaoh appeared a buffoon and his power no more than organized madness. And yet even so for a generation liberated from slavery, this majestic system, the only one they had ever known, remained their template, and in times of crisis, their immediate instinct was to retreat back to the only civilization they had known.

The slavery of the present is a more subtle thing. It grips the mind more tightly than the body. It still remembers that men enslave themselves best. It knows also that true power comes from making all complicit in its crimes so that they are also complicit in their own degradation. The system only asks that each man enslave himself and kill his own children. And once he has done that, he will only feel it right to demand that everyone else do likewise.

Do it for the environment, for social justice, for the Pharaoh of every age and his ideology. Enslave your mind. Kill your children.

This is the slavery of the system. It requires few whips and many words. It nudges men to be their own taskmasters and to reach out their hands to the new Pharaoh in the hope that he will save them. It is this slavery which is so pervasive, which Passover wakes us from, if it has not already been perverted into the Passover of the slave, into civil rights seders and eco-matzas with donations to Planned Parenthood which will do what the midwives did not.

"Once we were slaves," the ancient words call on us to remember that we have been freed. That it is no longer Pharaoh who enslaves us, but we who enslave ourselves. "Now we are free men." But what is freedom really? Is it the freedom to worship G-d or to worship the system? The system proclaims that it is god. And that is the great lie which ends in the death of the system and its slaves.

Like the slaves of ancient Egypt, we are shaken, dragged out of our everyday routine and commanded to be free. But how do you command men and women to be free? You can lead them through the habits of free men and women who think of themselves as kings and queens, who drink wine while reclining, who sing loudly in defiance of all oppressors, who boldly proclaim "Next year in Jerusalem" while the pharaohs and czars of D.C. and the EU bare their teeth at the Jews living in Jerusalem.

You can unroll the scroll of history and show them how they were taken out, but all this routine is useless unless they understand and are sensible that they are free. Free not in their habits, but in their minds. Ritual is the gateway to a state of mind. A ritual of freedom only succeeds when it invokes a state of mental freedom. Otherwise it is a rite, a practice, a habit whose codes may help some future generation unlock its meaning, but which means little today.

Passover is the beginning and the end. It is the start of the journey and the end of it and we are always in the middle, on the long road out of Egypt, discovering that there are more chains in our minds than we realized a year earlier or a hundred or a thousand years ago. Each step we take toward freedom also reminds us of how far we still have to go.

It is the ritual that reminds us that we are still on the journey, that though we have been lulled by the routine of the system, the trap of the present that like the soothing warmth of an ice storm or the peaceful feeling of a drowning swimmer, embraces us in the forgetfulness of the dying moment, concealing from us the truth that the journey is not over. The desert still lies before us.

This journey is the human journey. It is the recreation of what mankind lost when it defied G-d, when it turned with weapons on each other, when it built towers, created systems and tried to climb to heaven on the backs of slaves and pyramids. It is a transformative road that requires us to not only endure, but to learn.

Surrounded by willing slaves who preach the creed of slavery, we must speak for freedom. Though few seem to remember the journey or the chains, it is our duty to remind ourselves. The message of Passover fully begins only when the holiday ends and its habits carry over into our daily lives. 

Once we were slaves, now we are free.

Two years ago, Ahmad Al-Issa shared a post titled, “Why refugees and immigrants are good for America.” On Monday, the Syrian Muslim immigrant shot up a supermarket killing ten Americans.

Biden declared that he was "still waiting for more information regarding the shooter, his motive, the weapons he used. The guns, the magazines, the weapons, the modifications that have apparently taken place to those weapons that are involved here."

Why do the modifications to the Syrian immigrant's weapons matter more than his motive?

Obama joined in, demanding that it is, “long past time for those with the power to fight this epidemic of gun violence to do so.”

Guns don’t kill people. Muslim terrorists do.

Ahmad Al-Issa spent much of his time in America accusing his classmates and everyone around him of being ‘Islamophobes’. He repeatedly got into furious confrontations with the Americans whom he claimed were disrespecting his Islamic religion.

The media is spinning this as a mental illness, but if hating non-Muslims is a mental illness, then it’s a common one in his home country.

While Ahmad Al-Issa came to America at a young age with his family, the Al-Issa clan originated from Raqqa. The name of the Syrian city may not mean much to most Americans, but it was the former capital of the Caliphate of the Islamic State.

Or ISIS.

And that was after it had been previously taken over by the Al Nusra Front, linked to Al Qaeda, and by Ahrar al-Sham, which had coordinated with ISIS. Multiple Jihadist units and groups used the name ‘Raqqa’ to symbolize their determination to stake a claim to the Syrian city and region.

Raqqa has a sizable Sunni Islamist base even beyond ISIS.

While Al-Issa grew up in America, his family would have likely maintained an extensive network of family connections with Raqqa. Family members insist that Ahmad Al-Issa was not a radical, but he was clearly a committed Muslim and his Facebook page, since taken down, is filled with Islamic content, and with attacks on President Trump and on America over ‘Islamophobia’.

Colorado took in a sizable number of migrants with multiple charities, religious and secular, springing up to help the alleged refugees. And once again Americans are reeling from a terror attack because Democrats and some Republicans refuse to secure our immigration system.

There were plenty of warnings that Ahmad Al-Issa’s hatred for America and obsession with Islamophobia could turn violent. In 2017, he assaulted a fellow student claiming that he had made fun of his identity. The Syrian immigrant got off with a misdemeanor, probation, and community service. Just imagine if the system had done its job and locked him up instead.

The angry outbursts and claims of Islamophobia are now being spun as mental illness.

But the most obvious explanation for why a Syrian Muslim immigrant whose family comes from the capital of ISIS would shoot up an American supermarket isn’t mental illness.

Nor is the solution gun control.

Democrats and the media had attacked President Trump for suspending the migration of Syrians into America. When Biden overturned the suspension, the media cheered.

“Beyond contravening our values, these Executive Orders and Proclamations have undermined our national security," Biden had falsely declared.

The bodies of ten dead Americans show what national security with terror migration looks like.

In 2016, Judge Posner had prevented Governor Pence from blocking Syrian refugees. Posner bizarrely claimed that Pence's attempt to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists was the equivalent of forbidding "black people to settle in Indiana."

The Trump administration’s moves would not have stopped the Al-Issa clan from coming here in 2002, but it would have prevented future terrorists from taking more American lives.

Biden and the Democrats responded to the King Sooper shootings by preaching “common sense gun control”. But their gun control has yet to work in Chicago or New York. Meanwhile what Americans need isn’t fewer guns, but fewer immigrant and refugee terrorists.

The tragedy of the Al-Issa family arriving here in 2002, after September 11, is a case study in the obstinate refusal of our political elites to reckon with even the worst terror attacks.

President George W. Bush had postponed the Presidential Determination for the number of refugees imported into America because of the September 11 attacks. But he nevertheless went ahead and issued it in November 2001 which allocated 70,000 refugee slots.

And, insanely, boosted the Near East/South Asia category from 10,000 to 15,000 which had been set at 4,000 under Clinton. In 2001, some 3,000 had already been referred to through Syria, Jordan and Turkey. These numbers may sound technical, but they show the terrible policy decisions that led directly to the brutal murder of ten Americans in an ordinary supermarket.

The American victims of Ahmad Al-Issa's rampage included grandparents and employees, an actress, and a police officer who charged the Muslim shooter and paid for it with his life.

Colorado Democrats clamor that this shooting didn’t have to happen. They’re right, but not because of gun control. It didn’t have to happen if we just reformed our immigration system.

Ahmad Al-Issa grew up in America and hated every minute of it. He hated his host country, his classmates and his peers. Over the years, his hatred grew until it consumed him. Then it consumed in his victims in a murderous rampage aimed at non-Muslim Coloradans.

In 2019, Al-Issa had fashionably tweeted, #istandwithrefugees. It's the sort of thing that many in Boulder, in Colorado, and across America have irresponsibly tweeted.

And it’s a hashtag that kills.

Bush’s decision to let in the Al-Issa family after September 11 killed ten Americans. It was a tragic decision that he might not have seen buried in the numbers. But it happened anyway.

There’s really no excuse for it today after two decades of continuous Islamic terrorism.

Every day that we keep our border open, that we welcome in more migrants from terror states, we are pointing a loaded gun at our own heads and pulling the trigger. Most of the time the chamber is empty, but every now and then, the immigration gun fires and people die.

Biden and the Democrats would like to talk about Al-Issa’s weapon modifications after opening the border to gang members and terrorists. They want to push restrictions on Americans owning guns, instead of restrictions on their own resettlement agencies bringing in terrorists.

The problem is not that a Syrian immigrant from the capital of ISIS had a gun. The problem was that a Syrian immigrant from the capital of ISIS was in Colorado and in America.

The authorities and the media will go on lying to Americans. They will blame mental illness, as they do with every Muslim terrorist, and depict Al-Issa as the victim of Islamophobic bigots. The Democrats will turn the killer into the victim and his victims into the perpetrators as they have done so many times. They will tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Al-Issa’s religion and his family origins in the capital of the ISIS Caliphate should be ignored.

And even in the midst of so many burning issues, we must not give up the fight on this one.

There are hard, cold truths about Islamic terrorism that decades after September 11 we seem to be no closer to understanding than Bush was in November 2001.

We can stand with the terror refugees killing us. Or we can stand with their American victims.

In just one week, the Washington Post churned out two op-eds on the same theme, "The GOP is Now Just the Party of White Grievance" and "The Republican Party is Making Jim Crow Segregationists Proud". The D.C. Democrat paper doesn’t bother clarifying why Democrats from two generations ago would be thrilled that 1 in 5 black men voted for President Trump.

Ever since the election, the media has been beating its narrative drum with one message.

CNN howls that Republicans are the worst racists. The New York Times insists they’re even more racist than that. And MSNBC will counter that only white racists would vote Republican.

The most famous media exponent of the “white grievance” line is Stuart Stevens: Romney’s senior strategist, who went on to join the Lincoln Project. Stevens claimed on MSNBC that the GOP, "went down a path to embrace white grievance as its core" and that, "of the Americans who are 15 years and under, the majority are nonwhite. They're gonna be nonwhite when they turn 18 and start voting and that's the end of the Republican party as we know it."

But David Shor, Obama's battleground state election analyst, pointed out, "I don’t think a lot of people expected Donald Trump’s GOP to have a much more diverse support base than Mitt Romney’s did in 2012. But that’s what happened.

“My party obviously has an embarrassingly small share of African American votes,” Senator Romney claimed after embarrassingly participating in a Black Lives Matter rally.

President Trump had done better than Romney with both black and Latino voters the first time around. And he improved on those numbers the second time around. As Shor notes, among Democrats, "Hispanic support dropped by 8 to 9 percent" and "there’s evidence that there was something like a 5 percent decline in Asian American support for Democrats."

1 in 3 Latino men and 1 in 5 black men voted for President Trump in 2020.

Meanwhile over half of the House minority freshmen are Republicans. This is the first time that more House minority freshmen have been Republicans than Democrats.

The Jim Crow segregationists must be really proud of that one.

As Henry Olsen, the author of The Working Class Republican noted, "Every seat Republicans have flipped from blue to red has been captured by a woman or a minority."

These are strange numbers for the party of “white grievance”.

The Democrats and their media keep shouting that Republicans are becoming whiter even as Republican voters and elected officials are more diverse than they have been in a generation.

As Shor noted, Democrats gained "roughly 7 percent among white college graduates" and lost support among black, Hispanic, and Asian voters by 2, 9, and 5 percent respectively.

If any party out there is getting whiter, it’s the Democrats. And that has them worried.

These are some of the numbers that explain why Democrats are doubling down on accusations of Republican racism. These smears don’t reflect the real world, they’re a messaging operation by a radical party that bet its future on minority voters only to discover it’s losing its grip on them.

Democrat efforts to connect with minority voters backfired. As Shor noted, police defunding led to “conservative Hispanic voters who’d been voting for us despite their ideological inclinations” to begin “voting more like conservative whites”. And trying to win over Hispanic voters with open borders was an even bigger disaster. “Asking voters whether they lean toward Biden and Trump, and then emphasizing the Democratic position on immigration, often caused Biden’s share of support among Latino respondents to decline.” So much for immigration pandering.

Black leaders and voters rejected police defunding. By the time the election was drawing near, Biden and the Democrats were forced to denounce race riots and reject police defunding.

Police defunding and open borders are only popular with AOC’s base of white hipsters.

Unable to meaningfully connect with minority voters, Democrats have defaulted back to accusing Republicans of racism. And insisting, all evidence to the contrary, that they’re a white party. It’s not only a lie, but it shows the level of desperation and contempt by the Democrats.

The Democrats have defined white grievance as opposition to critical race theory and their culture war. But neither are especially popular with minority voters. Going to war against Dr. Seuss may thrill the hearts of AOC’s white hipster base, but black and Hispanic parents want the Democrats to stand up to the teachers’ unions and reopen schools. San Francisco’s obsession with renaming closed schools even led to a rebuke from its black female mayor.

The Democrat culture war is based around generating racially polarizing moments, but they have nothing to do with the real concerns of most minority voters. They’re the noise of a college-educated lefty elite, white, black, and otherwise, talking about its ideological obsessions.

Eliminating Dr. Seuss doesn’t frame Republicans as the party of white grievance or racism. Instead it shows that the Democrats are unserious radicals who don’t intend to do anything for minority voters, and can’t even prioritize delivering the financial benefits that they promised.

But, much like Robin DiAngelo’s racist tract, White Fragility, when the Washington Post serially accuses Republicans of being white racists, it isn’t talking to minorities. The Post has fairly few minority readers, despite claiming to cover a city that is majority black. But that’s not the city that the paper is built to cover. The Post is a government paper and its demographic are officials, elected and unelected, and the swamp of contractors, consultants, and lobbyists around them.

White people are telling other white people that Republicans are the party of white people.

The strategy is less about winning over minority voters than making white college-educated voters feel like racists if they even think about voting Republican.

Critical race theory and cancel culture are the barbed wire on the plantation for white voters.

Democrats kept black voters in by telling them that Republicans are racists. Now just as minority voters are beginning to drift over the invisible fence, the Democrats are telling college-educated white voters that Republicans are racist. Racism is the plantation’s fence. Minority voters on the plantation had been taught to fear racism outside the invisible fence while college-educated white voters are being taught to fear the hidden racism lurking deep in their own whiteness.

But the fear strategy, fear of the outside world and fear of your own dark side, has its limits.

The Democrats have gone from the party of, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself” to the party of, “Fear thy neighbor” and worse still, “Fear thyself.” The party’s pitch has been distilled into fear and hatred. As more minorities vote Republican, the Democrats can only respond by ramping up the racism smears that have become their only real argument for the minority vote.

The more minorities vote Republican, the more the Democrat racism smears fly in the media.

For 20 years, Democrat sexual predators have run the state of New York.

For 13 years, the terms of the last three Democrat governors, sexual harassers have held down the office. And for 20 years, Democrat attorney generals who were sexual predators ruled.

It’s quite an achievement for a national and state party that claims to protect women.

"There is a disrespect for women that this administration chronically exemplifies. After the #MeToo movement, they did absolutely nothing when it came to sexual harassment," Governor Cuomo ranted about President Trump during the Kavanaugh nomination.

That was the same year that Cuomo had halted an investigation into Manhattan DA Cy Vance’s mishandling of the Weinstein case back in 2015, six days after Cuomo got a $25,000 check from the law firm that had represented Weinstein in 2015, which had donated $10,000 to Vance.

Vance's office had also asked a judge to reduce Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender status so low that he wouldn't be listed as a sex offender. "Can Cyrus Vance, Jr., Nail Trump?" the New Yorker recently asked. Better ask Harvey Weistein and Jeffrey Epstein about Vance’s track record.

Governor Cuomo has pivoted from condemning President Trump’s “disrespect for women” to accusing his female accusers of secretly working for Trump. The #IStandWithCuomo hashtag is being used to spread claims that Cuomo is being taken down to help President Trump.

If there’s anyone who knows how to really respect women, it’s Cuomo.

But it’s hard to complain about Cuomo sexually harassing and groping women. Let alone be surprised that Cuomo kept up the great tradition of his predecessors.

David Paterson, Cuomo's blind black predecessor, whom he ousted by digging up dirt, revealed at a press conference that he began to have an affair after his wife cheated on him. Paterson admitted to the affair, though denied having a child out of wedlock, to avoid being blackmailed.

"I think we have a marriage like many Americans, maybe even like many of you," Paterson told reporters. Considering he was addressing the media, he was probably right.

After denying that he had affairs with anyone on his staff, he eventually admitted to sleeping with a number of women, including his director of community affairs. He later reached a settlement to head off a sexual harassment lawsuit from his chief of staff whom he had allegedly hired while having an affair with her and then fired after breaking up with her.

Paterson also faced accusations of witness tampering when he called the girlfriend of a top aide after she filed a police report accusing his aide of choking her and throwing her against a mirror.

All of this was a refreshing change from his predecessor, Governor Eliot Spitzer who had picked Patterson as his Lieutenant Governor. Spitzer was forced to resign when he was caught patronizing prostitutes and allegedly used campaign funds to cover the hotel bills.

So the obvious next step was a job at CNN where his show never took off.

In what seems to be a troubling pattern with New York Democrats, one of Spitzer's prostitutes claimed that he liked choking her. The prostitute then claimed that she was pimped out by the Manhattan DA's office a few years before it was trying to keep Epstein off the sex offender list.

Spitzer had started out as the Attorney General of New York back in 1998, Cuomo took over from him in 2006, and Eric Schneiderman succeeded Cuomo in 2010.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was forced to resign after multiple women accused him of choking and assaulting them. One of the accusers said that Schneiderman, a progressive Democrats, kept calling her his, “brown slave”. Another claimed he had declared, “I am the law”.

Sexual predators have held the office of the Attorney General of New York for 20 years from 1998 to Schneiderman’s resignation until 2018. The current officeholder is a woman.

It’s a hell of a record.

Governor Cuomo claimed that the Trump administration “chronically exemplifies” a “disrespect for women”, but it’s New York Democrats who can’t seem to stop preying on women.

All of the New York Democrat abusers were professional feminists.

“A year before Roe v. Wade, I graduated from high school, went to Washington DC, and got a job working in an abortion clinic. I learned an important lesson at a young age. If a woman does not have the right to control her own body, she is not truly equal. She is not truly free,” Schneiderman had tweeted, while he was choking women and telling them they were slaves.

On MSNBC, Eliot Spitzer claimed that he was a feminist with a record of "devout dedication to women’s rights, on the issues of choice", and urged voters to “look at the totality of my record,” and not just the parts that allegedly involved taking away a women’s choice to breathe.

"James says I’m a feminist and she’s right," Cuomo had once boasted at a Planned Parenthood event, referring to the Attorney General now investigating him for sexual harassment. "God told me I was a feminist."

Governor Cuomo had created the Women’s Equality Party as his own platform, and had read a speech attacking President Trump, in which he declared, “As a New Yorker, I am a Muslim. I am a Jew. I am Black. I am gay. I am a woman seeking to control her body. We are one New York​.”

Cuomo then went on to blame Jews for the pandemic while preventing women from being able to control their bodies with his meaty hands.

All part of the track record of the “national leader in the fight against sexual harassment.”

Democrat sexual predators were able to get away with their deranged behavior because they pretended to be feminists, and feminist leaders, celebrities, and the media were happy to help.

Planned Parenthood alone has provided cover for numerous Democrat sexual predators.

But New York is still something special. If Cuomo is toppled by his own #MeToo moment, that will mean that the last three Democrat governors were forced out of politics due to scandals.

It will also mean that three Democrat AGs were actually career sexual predators.

The media will carefully avoid connecting these dots because they peel back the mask and reveal the true face of their own political movement and the political faction at the top.

The Democrats don’t protect women. Like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, they prey on them.

In the final months of the Trump administration, House Democrats universally voted to demand the unconstitutional use of the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

The 25th Amendment was meant to remove presidents who were unable to discharge their duties. President Trump was clearly able to do so, but Biden may be exactly the disastrous scenario that the 25th Amendment was created to avoid. And he may be its worst test case.

A basic problem with the Biden administration is that there really isn’t one. Like most journalists I use the term as a formality, but the White House site calls it the Biden-Harris Administration. It’s not unheard of for younger presidents like George W. Bush to lean on more experienced vice presidents, but a politician who spent 46 years in public office letting a newbie like Kamala Harris handle most of the phone calls with foreign leaders is the opposite of that scenario.

The Biden campaign has been open about Kamala Harris being trained to step into Biden’s shoes because it doesn’t expect him to run for reelection or even make it through one term.

Except that presidents aren’t supposed to run for office as figureheads or stalking horses.

Kamala Harris isn’t talking to foreign leaders because she has more experience, but because the guy whose job it is to do it isn’t up to anything challenging beyond some photo ops, stumbling through a teleprompter speech, and then a trip back home over the weekend.

Don’t ask him to hold a press conference or pull off an actual State of the Union address.

Obama was the teleprompter-in-chief, but Biden is also the telecommuter-in-chief.

Biden’s face is everywhere, but there’s no real sign that he’s actually running anything. Instead the Biden administration seems to be exactly the kind of mess that the 25th Amendment was designed to prevent in which a non-functional president is the figurehead for the cabinet members and the special interests who are actually calling all the shots.

The Potemkin village that is the Biden administration was built in two tiers with establishment cabinet members who appear more moderate presented for Senate approval while extremists were being placed in key positions to set policy on everything from civil rights to Iran.

The big policy momentum though isn’t coming from the Biden administration, but from Pelosi.

The Obama administration called the shots, not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. The Biden administration is filled with Obama’s old people, but there’s no leader in the White House to push forward an agenda. That’s why the most powerful elected official in the country isn’t Joe Biden or Kamala Harris: Nancy Pelosi has become the closest thing to POTUS.

Pelosi may not have all her marbles, but she’s got enough of them to advance an agenda. And she can also perform incredible feats like remember the name of the Secretary of Defense.

That’s more than Biden can do.

The issue isn’t just mental capacity. Biden can obviously be prepped to perform in public. He may have yet to hold a press conference, which even with softball questions might be daunting, and there’s no actual State of the Union in sight, but leading the country is a lot more than speechifying. It requires a focus and drive that Biden didn’t have during the campaign.

And that he very clearly still lacks.

What the guy in the Oval Office does, more than anything else, is exercise his judgement.

The President of the United States has to sort through national and international problems, get input from his appointees and advisers, pick and choose between the different factions around him, and make the final decision about a course of action. That is actually how the president runs the country and there’s no sign that Biden is doing that or is even capable of doing it.

The role of the Chief Executive exists because one person needs to make those decisions.

In Biden’s mental absence, various appointees chosen by his cronies, think tanks, and donors are making their own policy and their own decisions for a figurehead government. It’s the “I’m In Control” moment from the Reagan assassination writ large and with no end in sight.

Biden’s term will test the question of whether it’s better to have a bad president or no president.

The 25th Amendment was created to protect the presidential transition. The Biden administration is giving us a field test of what would happen with no presidential transition. Instead an inexperienced VP, various cabinet members and appointees, carve out their own territories, and run parts of the government in their own way while trying to avoid clashes.

The only man who can decisively settle the clashes when they come is out to lunch.

Monarchies have functioned with insane and senile kings, but America doesn’t have a prime minister. Instead, the Biden administration is there to sign off on anything Pelosi proposes and Schumer manages to pass, while its cabinet officials flail and the radicals behind the scenes wreck the country making this a farcical rerun of the Obama administration without Obama.

Biden’s old boss could have tried to dominate the administration, but he despised Biden too much to come on board until the very last second. Obama’s own chosen candidates, including a hilarious failure by Deval Patrick, crashed and burned, giving him very little sway. The Left had coalesced around Bernie and no one is giving Obama any credit for swinging the election.

That role instead went to Stacey Abrams.

The only way that Obama could have kept his central role would have been to pull a Clinton and hold out hope that Michelle was going to run. But Michelle didn’t want to run, and without a potential presidential candidate in his pocket, there was no reason for anyone to listen to Obama. Deals with Netflix and Spotify are the perfect sinecures for the laziest man in the White House since Jimmy Carter, but it’s not enough money to duplicate the old Clinton machine.

The Biden administration was built out of the wreckage of the Obama and Sanders campaigns, but staffers and appointees are only loyal to whoever can get them their next job. That’s not Obama and it’s not Biden who can’t name his own Secretary of Defense. It’s the think tanks and non-profits who built the Obama administration and built an even more radical Biden admin.

But non-profits and think tanks can’t actually run a government. Neither can Biden.

That’s why there isn’t a Biden administration. There’s an ongoing Netroots conference on government property. That’s why Jen Psaki can’t answer any real questions. The press secretary is supposed to speak for the White House, but there’s no one to speak for. Like a plane with no airport, she keeps circling back because there’s no administration position.

It’s also why the Biden administration keeps wading into culture wars. They’re comfortable territory and a good distraction from the fact that the lights are on, but nobody’s home. Picking a fight with Tucker Carlson or extending the D.C. military occupation buys a little more time for everyone to figure how an administration can function with no final decision maker at the top.

Forget Harry Truman’s ‘The Buck Stops Here’. There’s nowhere for the buck to stop.

The military occupation of Washington D.C. would be bad under any administration, but deploying the military indefinitely when there isn’t a functional chain of command is ominous. Power-sharing arrangements, like those of the Soviet Union’s Troikas, are the likeliest to break down and descend into violence. And then the military becomes the ultimate power play.

Combine a looming 25th Amendment, a military occupation of Washington D.C., and a leadership that, despite appearances is actually deeply at odds, and the situation is explosive.

Outwardly, if you watch the media, everything appears normal. But it usually does.

The old journalism has been mostly replaced by reporters who only know how to cover social justice issues. They can cover the Biden administration through the lens of race or sex, but don’t ask them to do basic things like figure out who’s making the decisions in the White House.

The facade of normalcy that readers get from the New York Times or that viewers get from CNN comes apart in a crisis. A divided government can run its own spheres of influence, but when faced with something bigger, whether it’s the pandemic, or the border crisis, it all falls apart.

The Biden administration is the equivalent of one of those cartoons of a bunch of kids standing on each other’s shoulders while draped in a trenchcoat so they can all pretend to be one adult.

The illusion holds up until they try to walk.

The Biden illusion holds up as long as all the various parts of the administration are busy dealing with their own problems, but when there’s a national or international crisis, then it becomes obvious that no one is making the overall decisions and no one knows how to do it.

Biden’s people are doing plenty of damage by commission, but if an actual crisis breaks out, such as a war or an economic collapse, they’ll do even more damage by omission. And that’s the ticking time bomb in this administration that the 25th Amendment was designed for.

But it is a Biden-Harris administration. The Biden part of it is running things more or less in Biden’s mental absence. And that inner circle of Biden’s D.C. advisers and loyalists is going to resist ceding power to Kamala’s sister and the California crowd. That’s a major reason why Biden’s leading cabinet members are more moderate than many of their subordinates.

A key role of Biden’s cabinet appointees is stalemating a 25th Amendment coup by Kamala.

Any attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment would lead to legal challenges that would require defining, among other things, which cabinet members can legally vote on Biden’s removal.

Sending the question to the Roberts Court would just stalemate it further. The same court that was unwilling to take a stand on the election is not about to decide who should be president.

Faced with an irresolvable legal battle, there’s always all those soldiers deployed in D.C.

The Biden administration is a disaster because it restores the rule of a radicalized leftist machine. But it could potentially be an even bigger disaster because it’s got a figurehead at the top of a house of cards that could easily collapse or trigger a civil war in a major crisis.

That’s another urgent reason why the military occupation of Washington D.C. needs to end.

If the Biden administration’s power-sharing arrangement catastrophically breaks down in a 25th Amendment scenario, none of the factions should have an easy recourse to armed force in a government town where using the military to deal with a political crisis has become the answer.

The media spent the Trump administration hypocritically lecturing the country about the violation of political norms. Now there are soldiers in D.C. and no functioning commander-in-chief.

The real violation of political norms is going to be spectacular.

Senator Schumer began his pitch for gun control by falsely claiming that, "hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of people walking the streets today because we passed [the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act] would be dead."

The country hit an all-time high of 24,703 murders three years before the Brady Bill and even assuming that number had held steady in all the years since, we would be nowhere close to Schumer’s millions. Senator Schumer’s false claim that he saved millions of lives with his mostly useless background checks is typical of the lies that drive Democrat gun control hysteria.

Then Schumer topped that howler with an even bigger howler when he argued that, “We didn't know there would be an internet, so we didn't prohibit internet sales without a background check." Not only did the internet exist at the time, but Schumer had voted for the bills that had helped fund the development of the internet. If only he had known what he was voting for.

“No more hopes and prayers, thoughts and prayers. A vote is what we need, a vote, not thoughts and prayers,” Schumer sneered. No one ever accused Schumer of wasting time on thoughts and prayers when there was a camera or a vote. But what we need isn’t a vote.

What we need is for Democrats to stop freeing criminals and then complaining about guns.

The USA Today network unleashed stories of shootings surging across the country through its local papers. The stories blame the increase in shootings on unemployment, inequity, and gun sales, not on the push by Democrats and the media to free criminals to save them from the coronavirus and the racist inequity of locking up murderers, rapists, and robbers behind bars.

The vast majority of shootings are carried out by gang members and other criminals associated with organized crime. Indeed, one of the USA Today stories noted that in Washington D.C., wearing masks had led to shootings because gang members couldn’t recognize their enemies.

"Those context cues are not visible with masks, so you don’t know who’s up on you until they’re right there. In neighborhoods with a lack of safety, that sort of fear leads to a lot of people carrying guns,” a member of a black community group explained.

Maybe Schumer can introduce a bill banning masks instead of trying to ban guns.

In 18 days, 416 people were shot in Chicago in two neighborhoods involving 6% of the city's gang factions. A sociology professor was able to predict the likelihood of who would be shot next by using data from previous arrests. But Chicago Democrats had banned that sort of predictive science in favor of screaming about inanimate object violence even though their own police data shows that, “in 95 percent of cases where CPD was able to identify the possessor of the crime gun, that individual was not the original, lawful purchaser of the firearm.”

Obviously, what’s needed in Chicago is another background check bill from Chuck Schumer.

A Los Angeles Times board editorial from September 2020 described a mass shooting at an illegal marijuana farm as a "sign of the times" and blamed the "presence of guns".

It didn't occur to the Times that the presence of criminals and drugs might have had a little to do with the shooting spree. Guns don’t tend to transport themselves to mass shootings. As the Times’ own reporting documented, the killing of 7 people by multiple shooters while leaving behind a thousand pounds of pot valued in the millions was the work of organized crime.

The region, in the words of the Times, is "favored by drug traffickers" and offers "a pool of potential couriers, and the U.S.-Mexican border — across, over and beneath which drugs and the proceeds of their sale flow". If only there were some sort of barrier there: perhaps a wall.

Mexican drug cartels don’t have any difficulty getting their hands on guns or heavy firepower. In Mexico, cartel gunmen with machine guns mounted on trucks had defeated the Mexican army in a battle that lasted for hours. If only Mexico had its own Schumer and more background checks.

Mexico has only one gun store and gun owners are only allowed to sell their guns back to the government. Licenses are fantastically expensive and hard to come by. But somehow, in the gun control utopia south of the border, criminals have machine guns mounted on trucks without any background checks. And they’re carrying out mass shootings in an America without walls.

The bad Democrat habit of only paying attention to crime involving guns, and only then to argue for tighter gun control, would be bad enough in an ordinary year, but is especially cynical in a year when its elected officials championed defunding the police and setting the criminals loose.

In San Francisco, progressive Soros DA Chesa Boudin boasts of never having prosecuted a single case. His office has managed to secure only 16 convictions since he took office, two of them for burglary, 2 for sexual assault, and he tried and failed to secure a conviction for a gun felony. Meanwhile his office racked up zero homicide convictions for a city with 47 murders.

Pro-crime prosecutors like Boudin in San Francisco, George Gascon in Los Angeles, and Larry Krasner in Philly backed by big lefty donors like Soros are the wave of the Democrat future,

In Philly, Mayor Jim Kenney, a Democrat, blasted Krasner, the Soros DA, for refusing to prosecute criminals who violate gun laws.

“We need more people who are carrying guns on the street illegally and carrying guns with a record to be segregated from the community because that’s the reason why our shooting spike has happened and that’s why our homicide spike has happened,” Kenney complained.

“There has to be teeth. There needs to be consequences," Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, a black woman who had been hounded out of her job in Portland by Antifa, complained.

What’s the point of passing gun laws that won’t be enforced anyway? Just like in Mexico, these laws won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but will keep people from being able to defend themselves against the criminals. Schumer isn’t about to get on the wrong side of Soros, of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, or other big lefty donors to pro-crime DAs who protect criminals.

Gun control stopped being anything other than an obscene farce once Democrats entirely threw out the idea of fighting crime. The Democrat plan is to free criminals, open up borders, and then pass gun regulations to stop the influx of gang members coming out of prison and across the border from being able to buy the guns with which they plan to shoot each other.

Unexpectedly, criminals have ways of illegally getting hold of the things that they’re officially not supposed to have. Some might even say that’s the essence of their criminal profession.

Gun control is coming from the same Democrats who insist that banning drugs won’t prevent people from buying them anyway, but believe that banning guns will get them off the street.

It hasn’t worked in Mexico or Mexifornia, but somehow it’s going to work in America.

Democrats want to pass gun laws they won’t enforce to stop the criminals they won’t arrest. And then they sneer at “thoughts and prayers” as ineffectual compared to their awesome bills.

If police are evil and prisons are awful, then what are the new gun laws meant to accomplish?

Pelosi and Schumer would be better off finding a church and synagogue that won’t cause them to burst into flames when they try to pass its threshold and try a few prayers instead.

And then they can abandon their flirtation with criminals and stand with their victims instead.

Gun violence didn’t surge or spike, depending on which media buzzword you go with, because guns were somehow more available in the plague year. There was no gun surplus in 2020. If anything firearms and ammunition became more expensive. But there was a surplus of criminals unleashed by Democrat officials and prosecutors in cities across America.

The vast majority of serious crimes are committed by career criminals who have not been previously caught or charged, or by repeat offenders who have been in and out of prison.

Increasing the supply of guns doesn’t significantly increase crime because there are only a limited number of criminals or potential criminals out there. That’s why Switzerland and Israel, or Colonial America, aren’t and weren’t picking bodies off every street corner the way that Chicago is. But when you increase the supply of criminals, then you naturally get a lot more crime.

Democrats increased the supply of criminals by opening up prisons and the border. They tried to defund the police and they stood with pro-crime rioters against their own police forces. Their elected officials decriminalized everything from theft to drugs while their prosecutors pled down crimes and then watched as the criminals walked away thanks to criminal justice reform. They eliminated bail or fundraised to bail out criminals and then watched while they went on killing.

Pelosi and Schumer shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss thoughts and prayers. Considering how many people have died, were beaten or raped by the criminals set loose to terrorize cities, their souls could use a lot of those thoughts and prayers. Even more than those of their victims.

In 2013, the Puffin Foundation issued a grant for what was described as a "Soviet Yiddish Songbook". The CD, later issued as “City of the Future: Yiddish Songs from the Former Soviet Union”, is accurate only in that its songs, like Red Army and The Song of the Collective Farmer, are indeed in Yiddish. Otherwise they’re propaganda for a brutal antisemitic regime that killed countless Jews, including one of the men who wrote the song lyrics, and Yiddish culture.

The CD was working off an album titled For Youth, meant to be used to indoctrinate Jewish students who had been forced to attend the Soviet Union’s Yiddish schools. The Yevsektsia or the Communist Party’s Jewish Section tasked with destroying Jewish life in the USSR had worked to ban Hebrew, Zionism, and Judaism, while treating Yiddish as a legitimate language.

The Communist Party eventually purged its Jewish collaborators and a secret Hebrew revival began to take off among Jewish youth in the USSR. Meanwhile, leftists in America tried to keep Soviet Yiddishism alive long after the Russian Jews it was meant to indoctrinate had rejected it.

The Puffin Foundation has a great deal of fondness for the USSR. It sponsored a screening of American Reds which is described as, “The Communist Party USA, despite its grievous faults and failings, and its willful blindness to the tyranny of the Soviet Union, still had a vision of a better world.”

There's Red Father, the "story of a Communist lawyer, from fighting for civil rights in the U.S. and against fascism in Spain", At Home in Utopia, which highlights co-ops "where many of the residents were Communists or sympathetic to the communist movement", and Pete Seeger’s Legacy which, it emphasizes, includes "a sizable segment on Seeger’s communism".

A theatrical production in Baltimore states, “Our great achievement in the production was discovering how we could make a show about capital “C” Communism and still have it feel like something Michael Bay or Disney might create.”

You don’t have to be Roy Cohn to spot the agenda here.

There was a show at the Museum of the City of New York, a frequent Puffin venue, celebrating the Communists of the Lincoln Brigade which featured a can belonging to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg better known as the Atom Bomb traitors.

The New York Times noted that, "Perry Rosenstein, the president of the Puffin Foundation, the main sponsor of the exhibition, writes of these fighters: 'They represented the best of our country and the best of our conscience.'"

"Did they?" The New York Times' art critic asked skeptically. You know you’ve gone too far when it's the Times that has to slam on the brakes by quoting Ronald Radosh and George Orwell.

Until recently, the Puffin Foundation, and its affinity for all things red, had, unlike its namesake bird, flown under the radar of most people. But then the Puffin Foundation decided to revive a Communist rag that had been boycotted for praising the rape and murder of Jews.

Jewish Currents, a spinoff of the old Communist Party's Yiddish paper, the Morgen Freiheit, had been all but abandoned by the old lefties, until the Puffin Foundation decided to revive it. And most of the attention was garnered by Peter Beinart’s name splashed all over its hateful pages.

While most of the coverage has focused on Beinart’s use of Jewish Currents to continue his old war against Israel, less attention has been paid to the paper’s old Communist roots. Or its support for the murder of Jews. When the old Freiheit had endorsed the Hebron Massacre of Jewish men, women, and children, with the headline, “The Arab Uprising is Spreading - Zionist Fascists Have Provoked the Arab Uprising”, Jewish communities burned copies of the paper.

Writers for the Communist rag were assaulted on the streets. Newspaper vendors, back then often Jewish, refused to sell the paper. Advertisers were forced to boycott it. When the Freiheit endorsed the Hitler-Stalin Pact, its remaining writers were taunted as “Communazis” and greeted with chants of, “Heil Hitler”. That should have been enough for any decent person.

But the Puffin Foundation decided to fund a reboot of the antisemitic Communist rag under a non-profit, the Association for the Promotion of Jewish Secularism. Jacob Plitman, a former deputy director of the anti-Israel campus hate group J Street U, headed the reboot. Beinart, a longtime anti-Israel activist, became its marquee name, and Bernie Sanders, an old friend of all things red and antisemitic, contributed an editorial about antisemitism.

Jewish Currents promotes BDS, attacks the Jewish State, and promises to expose Jewish power. Pieces at the hate paper take up the old Freitheit banner by accusing Jews of fascism and Nazism. Meanwhile the media blandly treats Jewish Current as just another paper.

Even while the Puffin Foundation funds the glamorization of Communism, its money comes not only from capitalism, but from one of the few outposts of the survivors of Communism. Perry Rosenstein had sold Brighton-Best Socket Screw Manufacturing to a Taiwanese consortium.

Rosenstein died last year of the coronavirus, but not before funneling money from the Taiwanese sale into Puffin. The millionaire leftist was never able to fulfill his dream of joining the Lincoln Brigade, but did fund the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives which spins off Common Core lesson plans about the Communist brigade intended for schools. Born to Bundist parents, he was a red diaper baby who spent his money supporting the radical extremists he loved.

The orbituatries called him a philanthropist or a social activist continuing the long tradition of ignoring what was right in their faces. Rosenstein and the Puffin Foundation easily bridged the gap between radicalism, leftism and liberalism. Rosenstein and Puffin were major backers of The Nation and In These Times, but they also handed out "creative citizenship" awards to William Barber, Bill McKibben, Ben Jealous, Tony Kushner, Colin Kaepernick, and Parkland activists. Even while the media inveighs against extremism, Beinart and Jewish Currents continue to appear in favorable media mentions without being called what they really are.

In a sea of leftist foundations, the Puffin Foundation stands out for its remarkable obsession with maintaining and preserving the products of bygone Communist propaganda, art posters, theatrical productions, and propaganda broadsheets. It does so often with little to no distance from its poisonously murderous subject matter without ever being held accountable for it.

Jewish Currents was recreated to be an incubator for the murderous leftist hatred of Jewish life, religious community, and nationhood that killed countless Jews under Soviet Communism. A leading writer at Currents, and the secretary of its parent foundation, the Association for Promotion of Jewish Secularism, is Naomi Dann, a founder of one of the most antisemitic chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine in the country, and a media program manager at Jewish Voice for Peace, which sponsored talks by a bigot who claimed Jews drink blood.

That’s exactly what anyone ought to expect from a hate sheet whose origins were in a Communist Party rag that was burned in the streets for celebrating the murder of Jews.

But the Puffin Foundation, glutted with Taiwanese cash from the sale of Rosenstein’s business, will continue. And the leftists who call themselves progressives or even liberals will pretend not to notice its awkward interest in Communism while applauding it for funding “progressive” ideas.

Like antisemitism.

Editor David Klion, formerly of Al Jazeera America, funded by a state sponsor of Hamas, which was sued over its antisemitism, recently tweeted, "At @JewishCurrents, we are launching a dedicated investigative reporting fund to do hold (sic) Jewish institutional power to account."

The hit pieces on Jews will be funded by the Puffin Foundation.

The question is when will the institutional power of the Puffin Foundation be held to account?

When Hollywood wanted to divert attention from its sexual abuse of women, it created Time’s Up and staffed it with political hacks from the Obama administration.

Time’s Up was built as a rival to the decentralized social media #MeToo movement. Replacing social media outrage driven by random people with a formal organization funded by Hollywood capital and controlled by the Democrat non-profit sector could prevent another Weinstein mess.

Despite being backed by Hollywood millionaires, the organization’s legal defense fund launched what became the largest fundraiser on GoFundMe: totaling almost $25 million. But critics pointed out that Time’s Up’s money was mostly going to salaries, rather than to victims.

There was even more outrage when Time’s Up Now co-sponsored a retreat at a spa filled with agents from CAA: a powerful talent agency backing Time’s Up which had been accused of covering up Weinstein's crimes. Rose McGowan, a key #MeToo figure, tweeted, “Times Up A vile PR stunt, a front for evil CAA & other human traffickers like Weinstein.”

In 2019, Lisa Borders, the CEO of Time's Up, was forced to resign when her son, a formerly homeless yoga instructor, was accused of groping one of his clients during a "healing" session. Borders explained that she was resigning because she wanted to defend her son, but still got paid $591,000 for half a year’s work as part of a “severance agreement” with the group.

Borders was replaced by Tina Tchen, Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, who spent 2020 tanking what was left of the little credibility that the Obama/Hollywood front group still had.

Oprah Winfrey had helped launch #TimesUp with a Golden Globes speech declaring, “Their time is up” and she also hosted an interview with Time’s Up leaders on CBS: whose former CEO, Les Moonves, had been TV’s own version of Harvey Weinstein. The Time's Up celebs that Oprah interviewed, Shonda Rimes, and Natalie Portman, had not been assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. Or anyone. (McGowan also rightly blasted Portman's theatrics.)

But when a documentary about the women alleging that they had been raped by Russell Simmons, a celebrity hip-hop producer who was also a pal of racist Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, was close to release, Oprah Winfrey pulled out, under pressure from Simmons.

Time’s Up not only joined Oprah in refusing to support the victims, but allegedly started a whispering campaign to sabotage the documentary. A Hollywood Reporter investigation tied together Tina Chen and the role of former Obama consoligere Valerie Jarrett, and noted that, “$2.9 million of Time's Up gross receipts in 2018 came from three undisclosed donors.”

But the complete collapse of Time’s Up came when Tara Reade accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Reade had initially reached out to people at Time's Up only to be told that the organization legally couldn't support her because Biden was a political candidate. President Trump was also a political candidate, but that hadn’t stopped Time’s Up from attacking him.

The same organization that recently put out a statement by Tina Tchen headlined, “Donald Trump Must Be Removed From Office”, claimed that it couldn’t speak out against Biden for legal reasons. The legal reasons were a joke, but the political ones were there for everyone to see.

Tchen managed to praise Biden for having the right response to the allegations. This wasn’t surprising as Time’s Up was populated by former Obama people, and in a glaring conflict of interest, its public relations were being handled by Biden advisor Anita Dunn. Beyond being Biden’s “decision-making authority”, Dunn had also provided advice to Harvey Weinstein.

“I actually cried a little because I felt really betrayed,” Reade had said. “They never told me that their public relations was run by Anita Dunn. I found out in real-time reading Ryan’s article. I gave them so much personal information and they say they didn’t give it to Biden. But come on. They said they had firewalls or something.”

Time’s Up said lots of things. But then it did very different things.

The Chief Strategy and Policy Officer for Time’s Up, Jennifer Klein, maxed out her donations to Biden. Klein, a former Obama and Clinton vet, has now been appointed by Biden as the co-chair of Biden’s new White House Gender Policy Council, alongside Julissa Reynoso, Jill Biden’s Chief of Staff, an Obama ambassador, and a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow.

The White House Gender Policy Council is tasked in Biden’s executive order with, among a multitude of other things, combatting “sexual harassment”. The Council is expected to throw out policies by former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos that protected the due process rights of students who had been accused of sexual misconduct on college campuses.

Had Biden faced the same lack of due process as the average college student, he would have been immediately found guilty. But Time’s Up insisted that there was no organization that existed to try Biden. Instead it would be up to the voters to pass judgement on his “character”. That was a convenient rationalization for refusing to stand with the women accusing Biden.

Now Klein, who was donating to the abuser, will head up Biden’s program to protect women. Except of course those women who might decide to come forward and accuse her boss.

Time’s Up had always existed to silence actual victims on behalf of influential Democrats. It was a partnership between Hollywood and Obama operatives. Rolling executives of Time’s Up into Biden programs just makes the arrangement public.

Klein combined her time at Time’s Up with serving as co-chair of the Women and Families Policy Committee for the campaign of an accused sexual abuser. Now the Biden campaign elevated her campaign role to an administration role. And, in an interview with Ms. Magazine, Tina Tchen touted Klein as “an expert on both domestic and global gender issues”.

“The policy of this administration is that every individual, every student is entitled to a fair education — free of sexual violence — and that all involved have access to a fair process,” Klein argued.

Fair process and due process are not the same thing. A due process protects the rights of the accused while a fair process is in the eye of the beholder. Equity dispenses with due process and replaces it with bias that is only ‘fair’ if you believe that society is fundamentally unfair.

Of course we already know the outcome.

Tina Tchen had already tweeted that due process rules for accused abusers on campus are wrong and the National Women's Law Center, which administers the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, had sued to stop student accusers from being cross-examined after an accusation.

The Biden administration will move to ban cross-examination of campus accusers, but when Reade accused Biden of sexual assault, she was cross-examined and then smeared in the media, while Biden was hardly ever asked about any of the allegations of sexual misconduct.

That’s the ‘fair’ standard of Time’s Up in action.

Accuse a random student and you have the right to be believed without being cross-examined, but if you accuse Biden, you have the right to be cross-examined without ever being believed.

Believe Reade or don’t, Biden’s inappropriate conduct with women has been captured on video. It’s not hard to find photos and video clips of him inappropriately touching women and girls. That might be one reason he chose to rename the White House Council on Women and Girls that Tina Tchen had headed for Obama to the White House Gender Policy Council headed by Klein.

The existence of women and girls is routinely denied by lefties who insist on using euphemisms like “menustrators” (She the People), “chest-feeders” (NHS), and “people with vaginas” (Planned Parenthood) and by Biden, one of whose first moves was to effectively eliminate women’s sports. Now women have also been erased from the Council on Women and Girls.

And who better to oversee this on behalf of a sexual abuser than a senior figure in an organization that exists to insulate powerful Democrats from the women accusing them.