Two types of people plot attacks against Jewish synagogues and community centers: Nazis and Muslims.

In 1999, Buford O. Furrow, a white supremacist, opened fire at a Jewish Community Center in the Los Angeles area. He wounded three little boys, their teenage female counselor and an elderly female receptionist. He told the FBI that he wanted this to be "a wake-up call to America to kill Jews."

While Furrow was carrying out his attack, President William Jefferson Clinton was in the White House.

In 2000, Ali Hassan Abu Kamal and Mazin Assi attempted to firebomb a synagogue in New York.

“A bias-motivated attempt to firebomb a synagogue?” the New York Times wondered. “Or a misguided message critical of Israeli policies against Palestinians?”

In 2006, Naveed Afzal Haq used a teenage girl as a hostage to force his way into the Seattle Jewish Federation where he shot 6 women. The Muslim attacker shouted, “You Jews” at the non-Jewish marketing director and shot her in the stomach. The bookkeeper went into cardiac arrest, died at the scene, was revived and died again on the operating table and still lived to testify at Haq's trial.

"I want these Jews to get out,” Haq could be heard shouting on the phone.

The media attempted to portray Haq as mentally ill. The local alternative paper insisted that his “his anti-Semitic rhetoric” was just a “veneer” on “a man disturbed by feelings of inadequacy and rejection.”

In 2009, James Wenneker von Brunn, a white supremacist, opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. His rhetoric, claiming that Obama was controlled by the Jews, closely echoed the more recent Squirrel Hill synagogue shooter’s rants about Trump being controlled by the Jews.

This would be one of two major anti-Semitic attacks by neo-Nazis during the Obama years.

That same year, another major anti-Semitic terror plot was broken up by the FBI. But this time the perpetrators were Muslims and the media coverage couldn’t have been more different.

“Look at the Jewish guy. You’re not smiling no more, you f___r. I hate those bastards. I hate those m______s. Those f____g Jewish bastards. I’d like to get one of those. I’d like to get a synagogue. Me. Yeah. Personally,” Abdul Rahman, also known as James Cromitie, had ranted.

The targets of the Muslim terrorists known as the Newburgh Four had been two synagogues. And the media took the side of the anti-Semitic terrorists.

"Newburgh Four: poor, black, and jailed under FBI 'entrapment' tactics," The Guardian had wept. NPR, The Nation, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed all wrote sympathetically of the synagogue terrorists.

Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept simpered over Cromitie as "an impoverished African-American Muslim convert" who "had never evinced any inclination to participate in a violent attack".

That’s quite a description of the man who had bragged, “With no hesitation, I will kill 10 Jews.”

HBO aired a documentary, The Newburgh Sting, supportive of the synagogue terrorists. It won a Peabody Award.

In 2011, Ahmed Ferhani was arrested after plotting to blow up “the biggest synagogue” in Manhattan. Along with Mohamed Mamdouh, he had considered dressing up as a Hassidic Jew and attacking a synagogue with a gun and a grenade.

“I intended to create chaos and send a message of intimidation and coercion to the Jewish population of New York City,” Ferhani admitted at his trial.

Ferhani was defended by Linda Sarsour and many on the Left. Just two years ago, The Nation headlined a sympathetic piece about the synagogue terrorist as, “A Muslim Man Was Ensnared in a Terror Plot by the NYPD—He Just Attempted Suicide”. The Huffington Post ran a post titled, “An Entrapped Muslim Man Just Attempted Suicide, But Does Anyone Care?”

Both media outlets have accused President Trump of somehow being complicit in the latest synagogue shooting when they are actually the ones who continue to be complicit in anti-Semitic violence.

“The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting Is the ​Inevitable Result of​ Trump’s Vile Nationalism,” The Nation shrieks. This is the same vile rag which has repeatedly defended Muslim synagogue terrorists.

In 2014, Frazier Glenn Miller, a white supremacist, opened fire at the Overland Park Jewish Community Center. He murdered three people. Afterward he shouted, “Heil Hitler”.

Miller had earlier stated, “I have a great deal of admiration Louis Farrakhan,” and admired Iran’s leader because, “he tells the truth about the Jews.”

The only thing he regretted is that all of his victims turned out not to be Jewish.

All this happened under Barack Obama. And Miller had expressed a certain implausible liking for Obama. Like Miller, Obama also had an affinity for Farrakhan, having posed with him, and for Iranian leaders.

There are two groups that plot terrorist attacks against Jewish synagogues and centers in America and Europe: Nazis and Muslims.

The media unequivocally condemns Nazis, but equivocates when the attackers are Muslims.

When a Nazi attacks a synagogue, the media blames Republicans. But when a Muslim attacks a synagogue, the media will claim that he was a mentally ill man entrapped by the FBI. Buford O. Furrow and Robert Bowers are monsters, but Abdul Rahman and Ahmed Ferhani are victims.

President Trump has never expressed an ounce of sympathy for Bowers. Instead he firmly demanded justice. “Anybody who does this deserves the death penalty. When people do this they should get the death penalty and they shouldn’t have to wait years and years. Now the lawyers are going to get involved and we’ll be ten years down the line. Anybody that does this to innocent people who are in temple or in church, should pay the ultimate price.”

It’s the media which has repeatedly expressed sympathy for synagogue terrorists.

The same media busy blaming the Squirrel Hill synagogue attack on Trump would have been defending the terrorist if his name had been Rahman instead of Robert.

And the media has two things in common with the Squirrel Hill synagogue shooter.

Robert Bowers hated Trump. And he hated the Jews in the Trump administration. “Trump is surrounded by kikes,” he complained.

The media responded to Bowers’ attack by going after Jews.

The Atlantic decided to publish an execrable blood libel by Franklin Foer which called for "shunning Trump’s Jewish enablers. Their money should be refused, their presence in synagogues not welcome." Julia Ioffe, who had previously been fired for a Trump incest tweet, but was hired anyway by GQ, accused Trump of being responsible for the synagogue shooting. But not before blaming pro-Israel Jews.

The media isn’t just exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Trump. It’s even sickeningly exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Jews.

That isn’t opposing anti-Semitism. It’s engaging in it.

When you oppose anti-Semitism, then you oppose the murder of Jews. By Nazis and by Muslims.

By anyone. Period.

The Left’s position on the murder of Jews is wholly politically opportunistic. It opposed the murder of Jews by Hitler, and supported the murder of Jews by Stalin. And now it opposes the murder of Jews by neo-Nazis and supports the murder of Jews by Islamic terrorists.

Its moral preening after the Squirrel Hill shootings is the posturing of a depraved movement.

The same journalists and activists lecturing on Trump’s complicity in the massacre were outraged when he cut funding to the Palestinian Authority terrorists who are being paid to murder Jews.

On a November four years ago, two Muslim terrorists entered a synagogue in Har Nof, Jerusalem.

They used axes, knives and a gun to murder four Rabbis, three of them Americans. Photos showed a floor covered in blood and torn prayer books.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine which took responsibility for the attack is popular on college campuses. Its signage is often displayed by campus hate groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. British leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn was photographed with the attack mastermind.

And the payments to the terrorists continued, paid for with foreign aid from the United States.

President Trump has called for ruthless action against the Muslim and Neo-Nazi murderers of Jews. If the media wants to sincerely oppose anti-Semitism, it could take a lesson from him.

Or it can go on exploiting the Neo-Nazi murder of Jews to promote the agenda of the Islamist murderers of Jews.





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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

On September 9, Rudy Peters, the Republican running for Congress in the 15th District in California, was attacked by a knife-wielding man shouting, "F___ Trump".

The attacker, Farzad Fazeli, an Iranian Clinton supporter, had previously posted, “Don Trump won’t clean his own house, so he’s too dirty to know right from wrong. Impeach/incarcerate him before more children die. P.S. complacency is worse than being the shooter.”

Next month, Shane Mekeland, a Republican running for the Minnesota House of Representatives, suffered a concussion after being punched in the face at a restaurant. “You f____g people don't give a s___ about the middle class,” his assailant had shouted at him.

Mekeland is back on the campaign trail, while still recovering from the assault. “The media and the likes of Maxine Waters, Hillary, and Eric Holder as of late is driving this behavior," he warned.

"If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, at a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere," Rep. Maxine Waters had urged an angry leftist mob.

Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general and a possible 2020 candidate, had urged, “When they go low, we kick them." He had tweeted at Democrats, urging them to, “Use the rage.”

Hillary Clinton had told CNN, "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about."

Senator Hirono had refused to condemn the harassment of Republicans, telling CNN, "This is the kind of activism that occurs and people make their own decisions. If they violate the law, then they have to account for that.”

That same month, also in Minnesota, State Rep. Sarah Anderson, a Republican, was punched by a man when she tried to stop him from vandalizing her campaign signs.

Also in October, Kristin Davison, the campaign chief for Adam Laxalt, the Republican candidate for governor in Nevada, was left with pain and bruises after a confrontation with a Democrat operative. Her alleged assailant faces a charge of misdemeanor battery.

Three violent attacks on Republican political figures in just one month alone earned almost no coverage in the media.

Instead the media egged it on. Even the country’s leading leftist papers urged greater displays of rage.

October editorials, columns and op-eds in the New York Times included headlines such as, "Get Angry, and Get Involved," "Tears, Fury or Action: How Do You Express Anger?", “Fury Is a Political Weapon And Women Need to Wield It.”

The explosion of violence against Republicans in October was the culmination of a climate of crazed hatred, which lead to death threats, and when those were unaddressed, to actual physical violence.

In the two months from May to June, 30 Republican members of Congress were attacked or threatened.

These included, Christopher Michael McGowan who warned Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s staff, "I am not making a joke. I will kill him." It included Steve Martan, a "pacifist", who threatened to shoot Rep. Martha McSally.

E. Stanley Hoff was arrested for leaving a message for Rep. Steve Stivers warning the Ohio Republican, "We're coming to get every g_____n one of you and your families. Maybe the next one taken down will be your daughter."

Messages aimed at Rep. Tom Garrett threatened, "This is how we're going to kill your wife", and "This is what I'm going to do to your daughters."

And Rep. David Kustoff was nearly run off the road.

In the middle of June, James Hodgkinson, a passionate Bernie Sanders supporter, opened fire at a Republican charity baseball practice, seriously wounding Rep. Steve Scalise, and Zack Barth, an aide to Rep. Roger Williams. Even though Hodgkinson had a hit list of conservative Republicans, Rep. Mo Brooks, South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan and Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Jim Jordan, Tennessee Rep. Scott DesJarlais and Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith, the FBI denied that it was a political assassination.

In August, Carlos Bayon was arrested for threatening House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. “We are not going to feed them sandwiches, we are going to feed them lead,” he declared.

Law enforcement found bomb and assassination manuals in Bayon’s house.

Around the same time, DeReal Finklin, a registered Democrat, was charged for sending death threats to Rep. Christopher H. Smith. DeReal had also posted, "Anybody outside of my blood in Monmouth or Ocean County on my Facebook account, you are dead."

In June, Laurence Wayne Key, a Democratic Party of Marin County volunteer, was arrested for threatening to kill Rep. Brian Mast’s three children.

“I’m going to find the Congressman’s kids and kill them. If you’re going to separate kids at the border, I’m going to kill his kids,” the Planned Parenthood supporter threatened.

In Florida, in June, Steve St. Felix was charged with threatening to kill Rep. Jose Felix Diaz.

“Ill kill your ass and you better not show up to the next rec meeting,” St. Felix, who can be seen grinning widely in his booking photo, warned.

In July, in Tennessee, Clifton Ward was indicted for threatening to kill Rep. Diane Black. In New York, Martin Astrof allegedly tried to run over one of Rep. Lee Zeldin’s campaign workers who had been recognized for feeding rescue workers at Ground Zero after 9/11.

Ian Nicholas Nix was arrested for threatening to kill South Carolina state Rep. Steven Long. Nix called Long “right-wing scum” and warned him, You’re a ____ dead man.”

Also in July, a man who threatened to chop up Senator Rand Paul and his family with an axe was
arrested.

After months of this, the media did not relent. It poured more fuel on the fire. The death threats of summer then became the violent assaults of fall.

The media called this “activism”. It denounced Republicans for warning of “angry mobs”.

And now the very same media has suddenly decided that threatening and assaulting people whose politics you disagree with is wrong. As long as the political figures being assaulted are Democrats.

But it doesn’t work that way.

Democrats and their media allies have sanctioned violence against Republicans. They’ve defended harassment and even assaults as activism. They have embraced and celebrated hate groups. The mob culture they have brought forth is fundamentally changing the rules of American politics.

Once political terror is unleashed, it can’t be controlled or compartmentalized.

Leftists, who have written a bloody history of political terror from Europe to South America, from the Middle East and across Asia, and right back to America, ought to know that better than anyone else.

The Left has made it its mission to destroy America. This is what destroying a country looks like.

In academia, there is glib talk of overturning Western civilization. But without civilization, there is only savagery.

The mad toll of death threats and assaults, of shootings and harassment was unleashed by the Left. The hectoring media has made millions from it. Fortunes have poured into the war chests of radical Democrats. They can make it stop. Or they can go on feeding the beast while blaming conservatives.







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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

"Donald Trump represents a historic threat to women everywhere," Phil Murphy had declared.

Murphy was running for governor of New Jersey against a Republican woman. And he had decided to fully back the Women's March, a rally of radical leftists led by Farrakhan supporters, one of whom, Linda Sarsour, had been accused of covering up sexual abuse and harassment in her old workplace.

"Women aren’t afraid to fight back — and neither am I," bragged the leftist Democrat. "I’ll fight to stop sexual harassment and assault."

3 months later, Al Alvarez, a top Murphy aide, originally in charge of Muslim and Latino outreach, allegedly tried to rape one of the feminist candidate’s campaign volunteers.

According to Katie Brennan’s account, the Murphy aide got into her home by claiming that he needed to use the bathroom. He then forced her down on a couch, partially undressed her, undressed, groped her and tried to rape her. Brennan fled into the bathroom, locked the door and called her husband.

She went to the police, was evaluated for sexual assault, and waited for prosecutors to do their job.

A recent Wall Street Journal expose revealed that top Murphy officials, including his chief of staff, were aware of the allegations against Alvarez. Murphy won the governor’s race and, according to his communications director, “Mr. Alvarez received an offer of employment in state government.”

Meanwhile the Murphy team was touting its feminist credentials.

“For the first time in New Jersey’s 242 years, the majority of a Governor’s Cabinet appointments are female,” Governor Murphy boasted. “While it has taken too long to get to this first, I am proud to stand with this diverse group of leaders, all of whom are committed to building a stronger, fairer New Jersey that works for everyone.”

Everyone except the women sexually assaulted by Murphy staffers.

Katie Brennan was offered $15,000 and a non-disclosure agreement. She had repeatedly contacted the campaign about Alvarez. In June, she directly emailed Phil and Tammy Murphy.

Earlier this year, Tammy, New Jersey’s new First Lady, had appeared at the Garden State’s edition of the Women’s March to discuss her own alleged sexual assault as a college student.

According to Tammy Murphy, her assailant had tried to undress her, much as Alvarez allegedly had, and tried to silence her by stuffing an apple in her mouth. “If there has been a silver lining in the past year, it is in the thousands upon thousands of women who have found their voices to fight back. We will no longer accept the actions of men who believe they hold power over us, or our bodies,” she tweeted.

Except that her husband’s administration not only accepted Alvarez’s actions, it went on paying him.

And after the Wall Street Journal expose, Tammy lent her name to her husband for a joint statement full of damage control legalese. "We are confident that this allegation was handled appropriately by the administration and that current policies and procedures were properly and promptly followed,” it said.

Tammy had gone from, “we will no longer accept” to “this allegation was handled appropriately.”

After Katie wrote to Governor Murphy, the New Jersey Dem responded with, "Hang in. We are on it."

Almost half a year later, Katie grew tired of ‘hanging in’ and began talking to the media. Only then did Alvarez resign from his job as chief of staff of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.

Murphy had accused President Trump of being a “historic threat to women everywhere”, and allegedly guilty of "sexual harassment and assault", but it was the lefty Democrat pol with a walking smirk who was the one who had failed to take action against an accused rapist operating within his campaign and then his government. This potentially put women working for both his campaign and government at risk.

At September’s end, Governor Murphy threw a tantrum over the Kavanaugh hearings. He praised the “extraordinary courage” of Christine Blasey Ford for coming forward while ignoring one of his own people who had come forward with a clear and much more recent story of sexual assault.

"The presumption that you're guilty as a woman who raises her hand and says something happened to me ought to have all of our hair on fire," Governor Murphy ranted. "It angers me deeply.”

Murphy had known for a long time now about Alvarez, yet he hypocritically demanded that Kavanaugh, "ought to just pack up and leave town."

The only reason Alvarez had to pack up is that the Wall Street Journal did what Murphy wouldn’t.

Alvarez’s case is the third time that one of Murphy’s aides embedded in New Jersey’s notoriously corrupt educratic complex got him into trouble.

Murphy had hired Marcellus Jackson, a former Passaic councilman convicted of attempted extortion and sentenced to 25 months in prison, to work for the Department of Education.

After admitting his guilt, Jackson had declared, "I shall return." And return he did to a $70,000 job.

Governor Murphy tried to defend this grotesque abuse of power by playing the race card.

"It is invariably a person of color we’re talking about. This is New Jersey. It’s 2018. We have to get over ourselves," he whined. "We have to get to a better place and give folks — Marcellus and generations to come — a second chance.”

The “person of color” in question was a corrupt politician who had taken bribes to steer contracts.

Murphy also claimed that the information that Jackson was a convicted criminal had failed to come up during the legal review, and only somehow came to light later.

All they had to do was use Google.

Stories about Jackson’s conviction had appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post and countless local newspapers.

Then an aide was suspended for posting that the Trump administration consisted of “evangelical a---s”, and “molesters, liars, drunks, racists, heartless, bigots”.

Part of that rant seemed like a more accurate assessment of the Murphy administration.

Murphy, a smirking former Goldman Sachs executive, had picked up an ambassadorship to Germany, and had been named as the “largest personal giver to all federal candidates among nominees to date”. Personally backed by Obama, he had also served as the DNC’s finance committee chair.

Since seizing the governorship, the Murphy regime has ricocheted from one scandal to another.

Planned Parenthood had billed Murphy as “the candidate for women”. And Murphy had returned the favor by basing his claim that Trump posed a “historic threat to women” on Planned Parenthood.

It wasn’t the first time that Planned Parenthood had crawled into bed with dangerous politicians.

Planned Parenthood had backed Senator Al Franken, San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, Rep. Keith Ellison, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman , Senator Ted Kennedy, President Bill Clinton and other alleged rapists, gropers and abusers of women. Its promise that a politician will fight for women is more often a threat. But Planned Parenthood made just that promise about Governor Phil Murphy.

"New Jersey women need a governor who will stand strong to protect them," the abortion group wheedled.

But Phil Murphy didn’t protect women. He allowed his Muslim and Latino outreach aide to continue working for him, on the campaign and in the government, despite a rape accusation.

He didn’t protect Katie Brennan. And he didn’t protect Madison Wells.

The 16-year-old girl was stabbed to death by a Guatemalan illegal alien last month. Governor Murphy had declared, "We will stand up to this president. If need be, we will be a sanctuary not just city but state.” New Jersey became a sanctuary state. And a teenage girl lost her life. Others were raped.

Murphy accused Trump of representing a “historic threat to women”. There’s nothing historic about Murphy’s threat to women. It’s the same old threat of leftist politics which reduces the rights of women to the right to a speedy abortion after being raped by one of Murphy’s aides or one of his illegal aliens.





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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

In 2014, Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post’s Tehran Bureau Chief, was arrested and spent two years in prison. Iran kept him in one of its worst prisons, he slept on a damp concrete floor, was denied medical treatment, experienced hallucinations due to sleep deprivation and was abused by his captors. His wife was told that her legs would be cut off and her husband would be thrown off a cliff if she didn’t confess.

While Jamal Khashoggi has often been misidentified as a Washington Post journalist, all he did for the radical leftist paper owned by Amazon’s CEO is write editorials promoting the Muslim Brotherhood agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood leader and former Bin Laden pal was never a journalist. The closest he came to it was acting as a terrorist propagandist in Afghanistan, glamorizing Osama bin Laden, on behalf of a man listed by the Treasury Department as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers.”

And yet the arrest and abuse of Jason Rezaian didn’t touch off a fraction of the outrage from his own paper as the possible death of Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of the Saudis. The media went through the usual formal protests, but the outrage was muted and there was no talk of sanctions. Instead, Rezaian, along with some other hostages, was illegally ransomed after two years by Obama for $400 million.

The media did not vigorously campaign to break off relations with Iran, as it now is with Saudi Arabia.

It didn’t push too hard out of fear of spoiling Obama’s dirty nuclear deal with Iran’s terrorist regime. And even the arrest may have taken place, according to some sources, because of Rezaian’s closeness with some regime figures.

The New York Times showily announced that it was suspending its pricey Saudi tours over Khashoggi, but it never stopped its Iranian tours, not over Rezaian’s imprisonment, or the killing, torture and rapes of Iranian protesters.

The Washington Post rolled out a special Jamal Khashoggi edition, but there was no special Jason Rezaian edition. There were fewer news stories about Rezaian’s imprisonment after two years than there have been after a week of Khashoggimania. The Post and the rest of the media did far less for Rezaian, one of their own, than they were willing to do for Khashoggi, a shady Islamist activist.

Why?

The answer has everything to do with the media’s political agendas. It is not concerned with human rights. And it’s even less interested in freedom of the press. It has no principles, only allegiances.

The media will always favor Islamist movements over non-Islamists.

The media underreacted to Rezaian’s arrest because it supported Iran’s Islamist government. It overreacted to Khashoggi’s disappearance because he is an Islamist leader. And under Mohammad bin Salman, the Saudis, once the hub of regional Sunni Islamism, turned against the Muslim Brotherhood.

The media is raving against Mohammad bin Salman because he opposes Iran and the Brotherhood. It repeats every piece of propaganda from Turkey and Qatar because they back the Muslim Brotherhood.

If the Saudis turn around and support the Muslim Brotherhood, the media will happily let them kill as many reporters, journalists, hacks and pundits as they like. The media does not care about human rights. It cares only about the triumph of Islamist political movements and it will tell any lie on their behalf.

The scandal of the Khashoggi case is not whatever the Saudis or anyone else did to Osama’s old friend. It’s that the Washington Post provided space for a Muslim Brotherhood leader to push the agenda of America’s enemies, and is colluding in a political campaign to overthrow the Saudi government.

The Washington Post is not “investigating” Khashoggi’s death, it’s spreading smears from the Turkish regime’s pet media while pressuring American lobbyists to drop the Saudis. Khashoggi’s death is just another tool for implementing regime change in Saudi Arabia and replacing its king with another ruler who will return the oil power to its usual stance of supporting Islamic terrorists and fighting Israel.

That’s what Khashoggi wanted. It’s what the Washington Post and the rest of the media want.

The truly disturbing thing is not Khashoggi’s death. It’s his life. Khashoggimania exposes an alliance between the media and the Islamists. Human rights is the cover for this red-green alliance, just as it was in the Iranian Revolution and the Arab Spring. The differing media reactions to Khashoggi and Rezaian, parallel the differing reactions to the Green Revolution and the Arab Spring, to human rights abuses in Egypt under Morsi and under Sisi, and in Turkey under military rule and under Erdogan.

There is a consistent pattern, not of human rights principles, but of Islamic expediency.

The media will occasionally report on human rights abuses by Islamists. But it will do so in a cursory fashion, without incendiary outrage or calls to action. It’s only when reporting on Islamist protests against non-Islamist regimes that the media will shift from being bystanders to becoming activists.

When human rights abuses occur in Islamist countries, such as Iran, the media will emphasize the importance of liberalizing them by maintaining ties with them. But when Islamists claim human rights abuses at the hands of our allies, such as Egypt, the media will urge us to break ties with them.

Saudi Arabia is only the latest to fall afoul of this ubiquitous double standard.

When the Saudis were sponsoring Islamist terrorists, including Al Qaeda, we were repeatedly lectured on the importance of maintaining relations with them in order to liberalize them. But once the Saudis actually began making some small steps toward liberalization, the media wants to break ties with them.

Like Khashoggi, the media does not want actual liberalization. When Khashoggi talked about democracy, human rights and freedom of speech, he meant those as political tools for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. And then, just as in Erdogan’s Turkey or Morsi’s Egypt, they would end.

Khashoggimania has proven beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that the media thinks the same way.

When the media wanted Saudi Arabia to liberalize, it didn’t mean women driving cars. It meant just enough political liberalization to enable Khashoggi and the Muslim Brotherhood to take over.

The media wants to do to Saudi Arabia what it did to Iran, and what it did to Egypt. When the media talks about, “liberalization” in the Middle East, read it as, “Islamization.”

The media did not form an alliance with Islamists of its own accord. Its pro-Islamist agenda is not the work of mere lobbyists, as some have claimed in the past, otherwise the Saudis would be riding high. Khashoggimania casts light on a deeper alliance between the red elites of America and the green elites of the Middle East, between Qatar, Turkey and Iran, and between a radical establishment in America.

Both the red and the green elites fuse revolutionary ideological movements with state power. Our red media echoes the conspiracy theories and talking points of the green media of Turkey and Qatar. Neither are a free or independent press in any truly meaningful sense of the term. The Washington Post and Al Jazeera are just two sides of the same coin. Khashoggimania is a shared regime change operation.

Every Islamist regime change operation has been advanced under the guise of human rights. It’s time that we stopped being fooled by the same lies, and started asking some hard questions. After the Iranian Revolution and the Arab Spring, those questions are more urgent than ever.

The media has spent the better part of a year regaling us with conspiracy theories about foreign collusion. Why is it colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood on regime change operations by lying to Americans, just as it did in Egypt, Libya and Syria, and how will it be held accountable?







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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Why did the Democrats launch an unprecedented smear campaign against a Supreme Court nominee?

The matrix of motives centers on a cynical midterm ploy to boost turnout, appeal to suburban female voters in swing states and, hopefully, defer the nomination to a Dem Senate.

But that’s the short game, not the long game.

The attack on Brett Kavanaugh was not just an assault on a man, but an attack on an institution.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old and Stephen Breyer is 80 years old. Presidential incumbents tend to win reelection. Even if the Democrats take the Senate, the odds are good that they won’t be able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until 2025.

That’s a long time away, and a lot can happen until then.

Even if Breyer and Ginsburg manage to stay in the game until a Democrat makes it into the White House, with Kavanaugh’s appointment the Supreme Court has taken on a 5-4 conservative tilt for the next seven years. It’s been a century since the Supreme Court has been this conservative.

Conservative justices have less power than lefty justices. The latter can create laws, in defiance of the constitution, while the former eliminate them, in deference to the constitution.

But those seven years can still undermine a great portion of the big government project. And, along with other judicial appointments, can neuter the radical judiciary’s effort to block President Trump’s policies.

Stopping Kavanaugh was always a longshot. But the real target was the Supreme Court.

The Democrats have a plan for taking the White House. It’s called Mueller. They have a plan for taking the House and the Senate. It’s identity politics. But they don’t want to take the Court, they want to kill it.

The Supreme Court was meant to serve as a check on the power of the other branches. That makes it the least useful branch of government. The Court is most useful to the Left when a Republican is in the White House. But it’s also most dangerous when a Republican is in the White House because he could potentially appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.

During much of the previous century, the risk of a Republican president appointing conservatives to the Court was slight because the Democrats often controlled the Senate and the GOP judicial bench was often drawn from a liberal establishment that had defined the Republicans of the past. But the rise of the Federalist Society, the increasing conservatism of the GOP and the willingness of voters to back single party control of the executive and legislative branches have been changing all that.

The Democrats had largely used the Supreme Court as an unelected legislature. Legislating through the Court was more useful because it has the fewest checks against it of all the branches of government. But as the checks against legislative and executive abuses come apart, the Left has less need for the Court.

That’s why there’s now open talk on the Left of getting rid of it.

Such schemes range from relatively modest assaults on the constitution, such as a revival of the court packing schemes that FDR and Obama have threatened to wield against the Court’s constitutional independence, to more grandiose cries for term limits or the abolition of the Supreme Court.

The Democrats have staked their long-term bet on the emergence of a new majority-minority voting bloc that will fundamentally transform America. They complain that the equal representation of small and large states in the Senate impedes the rise of this bloc, which is more present in California than Wyoming. They whine about the Electoral College, rather than the popular vote, making presidents.

And they fume that minority turnout in midterm elections still remains weak. That’s why their Kavanaugh midterm gambit was aimed at radicalizing gender, not race.

Had this been a presidential election, Kavanaugh would have been accused of being a racist. Since it was a midterm election, the Left smeared him as a rapist. The campaign had been politically calculated from its first Roe v. Wade messaging down to the final mass of unproven and unprovable smears.

The Supreme Court, with its small bench and lifetime appointments, its White House nominations and its Senate chokepoint, is the body most resistant to populist whims. To control the Supreme Court, the Left has to get past the Electoral College and the Senate, and it doesn’t think the work is worth it.

Why put in all the effort to legislate from the bench, when you can just legislate?

The existence of the Supreme Court used to offer more reward than risk. Now it’s more risk than reward. The Left used the Court to build the infrastructure of big government. The House and the Senate have made hardly any dents in that infrastructure. Most Republican administrations and legislatures have only built it up instead. It’s the Supreme Court that has occasionally demolished it.

The Supreme Court is unique of all the branches in enjoying the least benefit from the power of government, beyond the vicarious ideological thrill of moving it to the left or to the right. The executive and legislative branches create powers that they exercise when they expand the scope of government. The indirect power of the Court shields conservative justices from the corrupting effects of power.

(Not wholly or completely, as history and current events have shown us, but less than the others.)

Big government has become so large that conservative justices can now wield more power by undoing government, than radical justices can by building it, reversing the equation of risk and reward.

And so, it’s safer for the Left to neuter or get rid of the Supreme Court.

The attack on Brett Kavanaugh was not an assault on a man, but on an institution. The Left did not really expect to keep him off the bench. What it truly sought to do was to tarnish the Supreme Court.

This was not just an act of petty ideological spite.

If the Left can’t have the Supreme Court, it will do its best to destroy it. Attacking nominees in very ugly personal terms sets the state for delegitimizing the institution by delegitimizing the men. It opens the door to the next stage of the plot against the Court, investigations of justices and a push for term limits.

The Left has made it abundantly clear that after Kavanaugh, it intends to pursue both courses.

When conservatives bitterly opposed Supreme Court decisions, they were advised to play by the rules, wait and change the composition of the Court. And that’s exactly what they have successfully done. But the Left does not play by the rules. It will not wait around for 2025. It has a plan and it is already acting.

The Left made it clear after Trump won that it wouldn’t wait until 2020 or 2024. It’s not going to wait for the Supreme Court either. Its answer to Trump’s victory was the Mueller investigation and blatant obstruction of his authority at every level of government still controlled by its apparatchiks.

Individuals are being attacked to undermine institutions. Destroy Trump and you destroy the legitimacy of presidential elections. Go after Kavanaugh and you crush the standing of the Supreme Court.

And then all that’s left is a baying media mob dispensing its talking points to angry activists.

That’s not just how they came after Trump and Kavanaugh. It’s how the Left wants to run this country with no process and no laws beyond those of the lynch mob, the media and an unelected bureaucracy.

The smearing of Kavanaugh is a plot against the Supreme Court and a conspiracy against America.





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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

State Senator Jeff Woodburn was the New Hampshire Senate Minority Leader, a frequent Trump critic and the former chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

Planned Parenthood’s New Hampshire Action Fund endorsed Woodburn. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England put money behind him. And Woodburn declared that he was “proud” to have the abortion organization’s support and to be a “strong advocate for women's health.”

Except maybe the health of the woman whom he is accused of biting and punching in the stomach.

A progressive politician, Senator Woodburn had regularly voted for abortion, gun control and repealing the death penalty. He cosponsored a bill to prohibit discrimination based on “gender identity” and pushed for legalizing marijuana. When the Democrats rolled out their Russian conspiracy theories after losing the election, he demanded a crackdown on vodka sales in New Hampshire.

"I didn’t realize there were so many Russian vodka connoisseurs," he fumed.

At the 2015 New Hampshire Democratic Convention, Woodburn spoke alongside Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and many other top national Dems. ”Onward! We need a Democratic Senate in the next election,” he bellowed at a joyless room of frowning millennial Bernie supporters and frumpy Clinton ‘H’ banner wavers. “We’ll get things done. We’ll serve the people!”

Hillary for New Hampshire held an open house with Senator Woodburn who led “a discussion on Hillary Clinton's plan for a vibrant rural America”. After the Access Hollywood tape came out, Woodburn urged, “It is time for each state Senate candidate to condemn, withdraw support for Donald Trump.”

And then in August, Senator Woodburn was arrested for allegedly biting a woman. The progressive politician was also accused of punching her, the first female County Democrat chair, in the stomach.

The feminist politician allegedly punched his fiancé, a social worker, former Dem chair and mother of two sons, in the stomach on Christmas Eve while she was wrapping Christmas presents.

New Hampshire Democrats had previously touted the woman allegedly assaulted by Woodburn as, “the first female in Coos history to become a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.”

But the Dems appear to be much less interested in the 35-year-old Bernie supporter now than when she was in a relationship with Woodburn, a party top dog twenty years older than her, who backed Hillary.

She’s no longer making their kind of history. Instead she’s making the wrong kind of history.

According to her account, as relayed by the attorney general’s office, “the victim said to him, ‘You just punched me in the stomach’ and he reportedly replied something to the effect of ‘oh did I hurt you…I’m sorry’ in a mocking manner.”

The biting allegedly happened when Woodburn tried to grab the wheel of the car as his fiancé was driving the drunken Democrat back from his birthday party which also doubled as a political fundraiser. After pulling over, “The victim said that Mr. Woodburn then proceeded to bite her left hand in the area of the palm and wrist as she reached for his phone.”

Photos of her hand have been released. They appear to show significant bruising and swelling where the Planned Parenthood endorsed politician allegedly bit her.

Senator Woodburn is claiming self-defense.

Despite Senator Woodburn’s arrest and trial, the nine domestic violence charges, four counts of assault, his progressive party is sticking with him. He is no longer the Minority Leader, but otherwise he isn’t going anywhere.

So much for believing all women.

“No one present supported calling for the Senator’s resignation,” acting county party Chairman Theodore Bosen said. And, a press release stated, “No one present believed he would fail to be re-elected or that his pending charges would hurt the party’s prospects this fall.”

They were right.

Woodburn easily won the Democrat primary against a write-in candidate with over 65% of the vote. The alleged domestic abuser took over 2 votes for every 1 by his female challenger.

"They’ve given me the job and they’re the only ones who can take it away," Senator Woodburn had said, explaining his refusal to resign.

And the Democrats chose to stand by their man while ignoring their woman.

Senator Woodburn had previously defeated Republican Dolly McPhaul by a sizable margin in 2016. He beat a previous female Republican challenger in 2012 by an even bigger margin. And it seems likely that, despite his upcoming trial, Woodburn will win again. Because the Democrats will stand with him.

The left likes to claim that it believes women. That its political movement is feminist and stands against abuse. Even while a tour featuring Bill and Hillary Clinton is becoming the hottest ticket in town.

The investigation of Keith Ellison’s allegations of domestic abuse has been rigged. Anthony Weiner, a close Clinton ally, is due to leave prison early for good behavior. Eric Schneiderman, another top New York Democrat, had gotten away with choking and abusing women for years.

One of his alleged victims wrote, “Three of my close friends told me to keep quiet because Eric's work was so important to the progressive cause.”

Schneiderman, like Woodward, Franken, Filner, Ellison and Ted Kennedy, and many other alleged abusers of women, was close to Planned Parenthood. And even after the allegations went public, Planned Parenthood attacked Kellyanne Conway for criticizing him. Democrats will drop abusers, when their abuses go national enough to become an embarrassment, but otherwise they will stick by them.

New Hampshire Democrats have played the same double game with Woodburn, as some national Democrats are doing with Keith Ellison, condemning him in word, but doing nothing about him in deed.

Woodburn, Schneiderman, Filner, Franken, Ellison, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton were able to thrive because the Democrats made their victims, their friends, the media and any potential allies feel that they would be betraying the cause of women’s rights if they made these accusations of abuse public.

The twisted logic of the left demanded that women accept their abuse to protect “women’s rights”.

Democrat abusers have frequently drawn their victims from the ranks of leftist activists. That was true of Ellison, Franken, Schneiderman and Woodburn. Their politics aren’t incidental to their abusers; it’s how they attract their victims. They tout their Planned Parenthood credentials before the chokings, the beatings and the assaults begin. And they are enabled by a party that believes all women.

Except those women who accuse their own leaders.

When attacking President Trump, Senator Woodburn wrote of his empathy for his more felonious constituents. "With most of the state’s incarcerated men being in my district, I’m a regular visitor to our prisons. I recall touring the hobby shop, where long-term inmates learn the skills to craft beautiful things."

Perhaps one day, Senator Woodburn will also learn to craft beautiful things.






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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

In high school, Jamal Khashoggi had a good friend. His name was Osama bin Laden.

“We were hoping to establish an Islamic state anywhere,” Khashoggi reminisced about their time together in the Muslim Brotherhood. “We believed that the first one would lead to another, and that would have a domino effect which could reverse the history of mankind.”

The friendship endured with Jamal Khashoggi following Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan.
Khashoggi credited Adel Batterjee, listed at one time as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers” by the Treasury Department, with bringing him to Afghanistan to report on the fighting.

The media calls Khashoggi a journalist, but his writings from 80s Afghanistan read as Jihadist propaganda with titles like, "Arab Mujahadeen in Afghanistan II: Exemplifies the Unity of Islamic Ummah".

And when Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda, he called Khashoggi with the details.

After Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi went to work as a media adviser for former Saudi intel boss, Prince Turki bin Faisal, alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. Those allegations came from, among others, Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged twentieth hijacker.

When the other 19 hijackers perpetrated the attacks of September 11, Khashoggi wrote that the Saudis would not “give in” to American “demands” for “unconditional condemnation” and “total cooperation”.

"Saudis tend to link the ugliness of what happened in New York and Washington with what has happened and continues to happen in Palestine. It is time that the United States comes to understand the effect of its foreign policy and the consequences of that policy," he declared.

"A Muslim cannot be happy with the suffering of others. Even if this suffering is that of Americans who neglected the suffering of Palestinians for half a century."

That’s the real Khashoggi, a cynical and manipulative apologist for Islamic terrorism, not the mythical martyred dissident whose disappearance the media has spent the worst part of a week raving about.

Jamal Khashoggi was not a moderate. Some describe him as the leader of the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamist network admires Hitler and seeks to impose Islamic law around the world. Nor was he a supporter of freedom of the press. In one of his Al Jazeera appearances, he complained that the Saudi government was allowing some journalists to report positively on Israel.

His final project, DAWN or Democracy for the Arab World Now was meant to aid Islamists. According to Azzam Al-Tamimi, an old Muslim Brotherhood ally aiding Jamal, "The Muslim Brothers and Islamists were the biggest victims of the foiled Arab spring." Al-Tamimi has endorsed suicide bombings.

But unlike Osama bin Laden, Khashoggi did not use the Muslim Brotherhood as a gateway drug to the pure and uncut violence of Al Qaeda or ISIS. He was still betting on a political takeover.

As he recently put it, “Democracy and political Islam go together.”

Khashoggi went on making the case for the Islamic state of the Muslim Brotherhood. He went on making that case even as the Saudis decided that the Brotherhood had become too dangerous.

Like his old friend, Jamal Khashoggi went into exile in a friendly Islamist country. Osama bin Laden found refuge in Pakistan and Khashoggi ended up in Turkey. The Khashoggi family had originated from Turkey. And Turkey was swiftly becoming the leading Sunni Islamist power in the region. Living in Turkey put Khashoggi at the intersection of the Turkish-Qatari backers of the Brotherhood and the Western media.

His disappearance has touched off fury and anger from the Islamist regime that harbored him. And it has also set off an unprecedented firestorm of rage and grief by the American media which adored him.

Media spin describes Khashoggi as a dissident. And he certainly was that. But so was Osama bin Laden.

What Khashoggi wasn’t, was a moderate. No more so than the Muslim Brotherhood. He wasn’t a proponent of human rights, but of Islamic rule. He could be found on Al Jazeera, Qatar’s Jihadist propaganda network, bemoaning Saudi opposition to the Brotherhood and its friendliness to Israel.

"Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should get rid of his complex against the Muslim Brotherhood and stop treating them as the enemy or a threat to Saudi Arabia," he complained, and urged the Saudis to fight Israel instead.

Jamal Khashoggi’s career of spouting Muslim Brotherhood propaganda for his new Turkish and Qatari masters came to an end in a curious way. Before Khashoggi allegedly entered the Saudi embassy, from which Turkey claims that he disappeared, he told his Turkish fiancé to call Yasin Aktay if he didn’t return.

Before the summer coup of 2016, Turkey was said to have 50,000 political prisoners. Many of them were members of the country’s oppressed Kurdish minority which is deprived of its most basic civil rights. These include even the use of their own language. Doing so can carry a prison sentence.

In that terrible summer, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s Islamic tyrant, finished securing his absolute hold on power with the coup as his Reichstag fire. The alleged coup became a blank check for the mass arrest and torture of countless thousands of political prisoners. Amnesty International estimated that 50,000 had been detained. The UN listed a figure as high as 180,000. They included 300 journalists.

Lawyers described clients being brought to them covered in blood.

Erdogan went after professors, judges, law enforcement, the military and the last remnants of a free press. A Human Rights Watch report documented electric shocks, beatings with truncheons and rubber hoses, and rape by Erdogan’s Islamic thugs. Heads were banged against walls. Men were forced to kneel on burning hot asphalt. Medical reports showed skull fractures, damage to testicles and dehydration.

The media didn’t show any of the hysterical outrage at these crimes that it has over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. The media cares more about Khashoggi, a former media mouthpiece of the Saudi regime before it turned on his Muslim Brotherhood brothers, than about 300 Turkish reporters.

It’s not hypocrisy, it’s consistency.

Erdogan and Khashoggi are both militant Islamic activists. And their opponents, the victims of Erdogan’s Reichstag fire and the new Saudi king, had fallen afoul of them for being insufficiently militantly Islamist.

The media will always take the side of Islamists over non-Islamists. That’s why it bleeds for Khashoggi.

There was a reason why Jamal Khashoggi felt so comfortable in Turkey, while actual journalists in the country were terrified of being locked up, tortured and disappeared. If that was the fate that befell Khashoggi, it was a commonplace one in Turkey. And it may have been carried out by his own Turkish allies who decided that their Saudi subversive had more value as a false flag martyr than a house guest.

The media’s disproportionate outrage over Khashoggi has nothing to do with human rights. If it did, the media would have been just as outraged at the arrests and torture of tens of thousands in Turkey.

It’s not. And it won’t be.

And the politicians shrilly urging that we punish the Saudis never thought about curtailing arms sales to Turkey. Many of the same politicians were unhappy when President Trump used economic pressure on Erdogan in an effort to free American hostages, like Pastor Andrew Brunson, being held by Turkey.

This is about Islam.

The struggle between Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the one hand, and Turkey, Qatar and Iran on the other, is the next stage of the Arab Spring. And, from Yemen to Turkey, the media has made no secret of being on the Islamist side. Its outrage over Khashoggi, like its claims of a human rights crisis over the Saudi bombings in Yemen, are not journalism, they’re the political spin of the Islamist axis.

The media has reported every claim of victimhood by the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar’s Al Jazeera propaganda arm, while giving as little attention as possible to the victims of Muslim Brotherhood church bombings. Its coverage of Israel has been little more than terrorist propaganda since Osama was in diapers. Its coverage of the Khashoggi case is every bit as dishonest as its slanted attacks on the Saudi embargo of Qatar, as its propaganda about the wars in Yemen and Libya, and just as devoid of context.

The Khashoggi case demands context.

Before the media and the politicians who listen to it drag the United States into a conflict with Saudi Arabia over a Muslim Brotherhood activist based on the word of an enemy country still holding Americans hostage, we deserve the context.

And we deserve the truth.

The media wants the Saudis to answer questions about Jamal Khashoggi. But maybe the media should be forced to answer why the Washington Post was working with a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist?

The real mystery isn’t Khashoggi’s disappearance. It’s why Republicans aren’t asking those questions.

The media’s relationship with Khashoggi is far more damning than anything the Saudis might have done to him. And the media should be held accountable for its relationship with Osama bin Laden’s old friend.








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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Google is throwing itself a hell of a 20th birthday party. And everyone is bringing the gifts.

While the dot com giant puts up celebratory doodles and shows off its original garage headquarters, Attorney General Sessions had already convened 14 state attorney generals to discuss censorship, privacy issues and antitrust issues involving, among other tech monopolies, the cutesy corporation.

Few meetings between Sessions and AGs well to the left, like California’s Xavier Becerra, would have gone as well as this, but big tech monopolies were already controversial on the left, now they’re also being unfriended by Republicans. There’s a growing consensus that they’re just too big and powerful.

Google’s August search market share in America stood at 84%. That means it defines the internet.

Its secretive algorithms determine what people see when they search. It can unilaterally redefine an issue, such as when it shifted the search results for “Jihad” away from counterterrorist sites to favor Islamist and pro-Islamist media sites. It shapes how political leaders, including President Trump, are seen, and manufactures an ongoing consensus by simply choosing one set of results over another.

(During the election, its search engine provided more positive results for Democrats than Republicans.)

And then there are the constant privacy scandals.

Even as Google is trying to celebrate its anniversary, it’s under fire for automatically signing Gmail users into its Chrome browser (which is a key link in its chain of monopolies meant to lock users into its search engine). After the outcry, Google, as usual, offered a partial retreat.

The scandal is fairly typical of Google which runs on privacy violations and monopolistic abuses. Before Google was rigging search results for political reasons, it was rigging them to favor its products. Search for “mail” and the first result won’t be the post office, it won’t even be mail.com which actually predated Google by a few years, it will be Google’s own Gmail. And that’s how it always works.

Google searches drive users to Google products. And Google products drive users to Google Search.

Its monopolistic vision of the future is of an Internet of Things, a smart home run on Google with eternally watchful smart speakers in every room of your house, processing your questions through Google, and sending every conversation in your house back along its servers to be analyzed by machine learning to better target you with ads on your smart fridge. And then it really will be Google’s world.

Or Amazon’s world.

America’s political and cultural elites already live in one world or the other. But despite the wide range of both companies, many Americans are unhappy with the power and control they wield over their lives.

And so the utopia in which Google is your home, your car, your clothes, your entertainment and your life, may never arrive. The company has more power, but also more enemies, than ever before.

Even as Google aspires to run the world, investing in a variety of moonshot businesses, from self-driving cars (Waymo) to delivering internet by balloon (Loon) through Alphabet, its mothership company, its core business, search, that delivers most of its revenue through ads, is stagnating. While Google dreams of answering your questions before you ask them using machine learning and voice search, it’s doing a terrible job of answering them when you do ask of them. Like all monopolies, its product is mediocre.

Google Search was retuned for mobile search by making every search trending. Search for “Supreme Court”, and Google will deluge you with Kavanaugh hysteria and assorted lefty media background pieces delegitimizing a “Republican” Supreme Court from FDR’s day to modern times.

This isn’t just a monopolistic abuse of power for purely partisan purposes; it’s also a poor product.

Trending stories are friendlier to mobile users who have less time and patience for extended queries. It’s also simpler to deliver inaccurate results that fit the needs of the lowest common denominator user, who types in Supreme Court to see stories about Kavanaugh, than to deliver actual accurate results.

And Google is rigging search results to browbeat sites into orienting entirely toward mobile. Just as it will, before too long, dumb down search even further, to aid its voice search ambitions.

Turning search into a lowest common denominator exercise isn’t about serving users, but about securing Google’s hold on the future. And, in ways both great and petty (like forcibly logging users into its browser), it isn’t shy about herding its user products like sheep into its digital products.

Naked political bias was meant to cover Google’s silicon fundament from its greatest political threat. Republican administrations have offered little threat to the big tech companies. It was largely the left that was actively agitating for breaking them up or limiting their power. And Google focused on the left.

(In last year’s major Google scandal, former Google exec chairman Eric Schmidt allegedly convinced the New America Foundation, a lefty think tank, to purge Open Markets for its criticism of Google.)

And then President Trump showed up.

The famous video of Google’s elites mourning Trump’s victory isn’t just political bias. As the firing of James Damore showed us, lefty political intolerance is baked into Google’s political culture. And anyone at Google who wanted Trump to win has to keep quiet and leak videos. But President Hillary Clinton would have also been really good for Google’s business interests.

Eric Schmidt, who once responded to Google privacy concerns by sneering, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place”, was a close Hillary ally. His “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign” sent to Hillary’s people proposed a $1.5 billion operation that would create “a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.”

Schmidt was applying the Google ethos to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The unspoken back end of the pitch is that privacy violations can be harnessed for the good of powerful political interests. (The manufactured scandal over Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook scraping never touched the truly epic dot com privacy violators on the left.) Google’s vision of the end of privacy could be very good for President Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. So why regulate it?

That’s what Google elites were really mourning after Election Day.

They weren’t just crying because their lefty political movement lost, but because the vision of a Clinton-Google alliance running the country was lost.

President Trump has warned Google that it can’t expect to abuse its powers and avoid scrutiny. And the leading figures on the Democrat side are less promising for Google than Eric Schmidt’s pal.

Google was ranked as the single biggest employer of Bernie Sanders donors, and its search results were accused of favoring Sanders. As the Washington Post noted, “nine of his top 10 results were rated "very pro" in the analysis”. Google’s current top 10 for Trump, by contrast, includes a bonkers New York Mag conspiracy screed, “What If Trump Has Been a Russian Asset Since 1987?” (In 1988, Bernie Sanders was honeymooning in the USSR, but Google doesn’t think that’s worth including in Bernie’s top 10.)

And while Bernie Sanders has been relentlessly attacking Amazon, a major Google rival, he has been fairly silent about Google. Meanwhile the Washington Post, owned by Amazon’s boss, has been critical of Bernie. But that doesn’t make him a reliable or ideal ally in Google’s war for the future.

Meanwhile Google faces the threat of Trump. A conventional non-populist Republican would have posed little threat to Google’s business interests. Elites love Google because of its shiny technocracy. Schmidt’s pitch to Hillary’s people is seductive to many in the GOP, but alienating to Trump and alien to his insurgent campaign which relied on populist enthusiasm rather than Big Brother level manipulation.

And Trump’s impact on the GOP has shifted it away from the unthinking worship of multinationals.

Google’s vision of the future is multinational, multilateral, multicultural and multi-everything. It’s a borderless world in which we’re no longer defined by nations, but by platforms. Every individual is a terabyte profile swimming among the vast server farm zettabytes in Finland, Singapore, the Dalles in Oregon and Quilicura, Chile, to be run on Google products designed by hipsters the Bay Area and manufacturerd by slave labor in China.

That was Hillary’s vision. That’s not Trump’s vision.

Trump’s economic nationalism is antithetical to everything that Google and the big dot coms stand for. Their borderless world requires the dismantling of nations into united markets governed by global treaties. There’s no room for national interest if Google or Amazon are to run the world.

America isn’t just at war with a nebulous left, but with a leftist vision embraced by the big tech companies that have defined how we talk to each other, what we read and what we know.

Google isn’t just leftist by accident. It’s leftist by design. Its vision is globalist, its scope is endless and the only thing standing in its way, besides its rivals, is the nation-state. America.

The confrontation between Google and Trump encapsulates the clash between the national and the multi-national, workers in red states and elites in blue cities, tradition and technocracy, the individual and the machine. The struggle will decide whether the future belongs to the individual or to Google.












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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

“Use the rage,” former Attorney General Eric Holder scream-tweeted. “Get people out to vote and be rid of these people.”

Had President Trump urged his supporters to channel their rage into politics, the quote would have been good for a week of sanctimonious media lectures about his destruction of democratic norms. Not to mention his dangerous divisiveness, the risk of violence and the high price of tea in Outer Mongolia.

But the media has neither the interest nor the inclination to even note Holder’s ‘rage’ tweet. It’s too busy preaching anger, fury and hatred to the same shrieking choir of maddened lefties screaming at the sky, having meltdowns on social media and clawing madly at the doors of the Supreme Court.

"We need to stay angry about Kavanaugh," E.J. Dionne Jr. fulminates in the Washington Post. But that’s nothing compared to the New York Times where the old gray lady is frenziedly distempered all the time.

"Get Angry, and Get Involved," an op-ed screeches. "Tears, Fury or Action: How Do You Express Anger?", an op-ed from a few days before shrills. “Fury Is a Political Weapon And Women Need to Wield It,” a third howls. That’s a lot of anger from the megaphone of the privileged wealthy northeastern left.

There hasn’t been this much peevishness on Martha’s Vineyard since they raised the yacht docking fees.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are echoing Holder’s call for political anger. Rage will solve all of America’s problems. If the Democrats stay angry, they’ll take over the government and be truly ready to unleash their rage on “these people”. Otherwise known as the rest of the country.

Even as the media preaches the virtues of leftist rage, it warns about the threat of Republican anger.

"Brett Kavanaugh's Anger May be Backfiring," the Washington Post had hopefully speculated earlier. "Judge Kavanaugh is One Angry Man," the New York Times spat. "Kavanaugh Borrows From Trump's Playbook on White Male Anger," it threw in.

But there’s a fundamental difference between Kavanaugh’s anger and that of the media left.

Brett Kavanaugh was angry because he had been falsely accused of rape by the media, with no actual evidence. His life was torn apart. His family, as he testified, had been “destroyed”. Democrats demanded that a 53-year-old man account for every detail of his high school and college years.

His accuser was held to zero standards while he was told to disprove an accusation lacking basic essentials like a specific time, place and witnesses. Had a black teen in the ghetto been hit with equally flimsy charges, the left would have gone into a rage tantrum in support of the accused rapist.

But, unlike Brett, the left wasn’t angry because it had been personally abused. Despite the efforts to pass off paid leftist activists as “sexual assault survivors”, the progressive bilious bile was purely political.

Kavanaugh was angry because his life had been destroyed. The left is angry because it wants power.

Leftist political anger inflicted sadistic torments on Brett Kavanaugh for political reasons. And the media pretends that this political anger is somehow more worthy than that the outrage of its victim.

Obama activists, Senate Dems, Soros social justice flunkies, sleazy lawyers and fake news reporters put a decent man through hell so that they could, as Holder tweeted, “use the rage” in the midterm elections.

The media left demanded to know what right Brett Kavanaugh had to be angry. They mocked his pain, ridiculed his suffering with the venal contempt and snarky hatred that now passes for leftist comedy.

But a better question would be what right does the left have to its endless anger?

Eight years of running the country didn’t leave it any more generous toward its opponents, any less hungry for power, or any less tribal, partisan and furious than it had been in 2007. The left isn’t angry because it cares about rape victims. Not when it’s lining up to buy tickets to Bill and Hillary’s latest tour.

It’s angry because, as Holder tweeted, it wants power.

And it’s willing to destroy every political, civic, cultural, social and moral norm to get it. The left doesn’t believe in norms because it doesn’t believe in any compromise or standard. All it has is its will to power.

Some people have the right to win elections (Hillary Clinton) and others (Donald Trump) don’t. Some justices have the right to be confirmed without campaigns of personal destruction (Democrat nominees like Kagan and Sotomayor) and others (Republican nominees like Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh) don’t.

And some people have the right to be angry (New York Times and Washington Post readers) and others (Trump supporters and Front Page Magazine readers) don’t. The entitlement of double standards is essential to the leftist quest for power which is about manufacturing perceived inequality in order to administrate mandates of total inequality. Disparate impact justifies affirmative action. If black workers or students underperform, then poor white workers and students must go to the back of the line.

But if replacing the norms of political discourse with livid tantrums is bad, then it’s bad for everyone.

There’s no way to mandate anger as affirmative action. If you insult, deprive and oppress people, they will become angry. And the only thing you can do is get angry right back or outlaw their anger.

The choleric left is working on the latter. But in its conniption fits, it’s settling for the former.

It deprives people of their rights and it responds to their anger with more anger. In its rage, it wipes out every political and social norm it can manage until its opponents are being hounded out of restaurants, fired from their jobs, assaulted on the street, shot at charity baseball games, smeared as rapists, doxed by reporters and staffers, censored on the internet and eavesdropped on by corrupt federal agencies.

There isn’t a legal or political norm that Obama didn’t violate during his time in office. Reporters were spied on. So were Republicans. The IRS and the FBI were used to target political opponents. A man was sent to jail for making a YouTube video. The DOJ was used to go after folks who mocked Obama.

After eight years of political terror, the Democrats have settled into accusing their political opponents of treason and demanding their imprisonment, everything from intimidation to death threats to attempted murder, and trying to destroy a Supreme Court nominee based on the most baseless allegations.

This is what leftists have done to our political norms. And what enrages them about Kavanaugh is not any feigned concern for our political norms, but that our norms survived their tantrums and dirty tricks.

The media claimed that Brett Kavanaugh should not sit on the Supreme Court by reason of his temperament. That’s rich coming from a deranged political movement getting high on its own fury.

"If you're not angry yet, you should be," a riled New York Times editorial yelps. A forum for readers discusses their struggles “expressing rage” and urges them to turn “anger into action”.

The media used to believe that basing national politics around anger was destructively bad. Now it’s been radicalized enough that it celebrates hate, rancor and rage. As long as it’s leftist rage.

Love can be one-sided. But anger rarely is.

When the media riles up leftist fury, it’s also rousing Republican anger. The Kavanaugh hearings are a clear example of how rage-driven abuses by the left lead to a wrathful reaction on the right.

The Democrats and their media allies furiously preach anger, and their rage is tearing apart America.








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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

”May Allah send the message I am longing for," Ashraf Walid Suleiman wrote on his Facebook page.

Then he went on to murder two Israelis, tying the hands of Kim Levengrond Yehezkel, a receptionist working toward her law degree, and the mother of a 16 month old baby, and Ziv Hajbi, the father of twin boys, before shooting them at close range.

A 58-year-old woman was left with a gunshot wound in the stomach after she burst in on the Islamic terrorist while he was busy doing Allah’s work.

That was the message from Allah that Ashraf, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were looking for.

"The Palestinian people everywhere praise the heroic operation," Hamas wrote, gloating over the heroism of tying up a 28-year-old receptionist before killing her. The Palestinian Authority will be paying a salary to Ashraf if he’s captured alive and will be making payments to his family if he’s killed.

At the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas, the unelected leader of the Palestinian Authority, and the boss of Fatah and the PLO, which control the terrorist entity, called terrorists, “hero martyrs”.

"By Allah, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people,” Abbas had declared in July.

Two days later, Yotam Ovadia, heading home to prepare a romantic dinner for his wife, was stabbed to death.

“The heart breaks at the sound of your little son calling ‘Abba, Abba.’ ('Daddy, Daddy')," his father-in-law said at his funeral.

In September, it was Ari Fuld, an American father of four who moved to Israel, who was stabbed in the back outside a supermarket. Despite his wounds, he managed to chase down his killer, before dying. The family of the killer, Khalil Yusef Ali Jabarin, will receive a monthly salary from the PA.

These murders were paid for by the peace process. They were funded by the supporters of the two state solution. The solution that has solved nothing except how Islamic terrorist groups pay killers to murder fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, at a supermarket, at work or on the way home.

When the Democrats denounce President Trump’s pressure on the PLO, his cuts in foreign aid, his expulsion of the PLO office in Washington D.C., these are the crimes that they are supporting.

The two state solution isn’t peace. The PLO and Hamas have never been at peace with Israel. It’s two Rabbis murdered in January and February. It’s a receptionist wondering until the last moment whether she will make it home to her baby. It’s Hava Roizen, a Russian immigrant from the Soviet Union, who worked as a photographer, hit by a car. And it’s the terror victims of tomorrow. And the day after.

As the leader of the Palestinian Authority has made painfully clear, even the last “penny” given to that terrorist organization will be spent to finance the murder of Jews. Any dollar, pound, euro and yen given to the Palestinian Authority is blood money. It’s not only the terrorists who have blood on their hands.

It’s the supporters of the two state solution whose hands are covered in the blood of its victims.

The proponents of the two state solution are a terror lobby. And this terror lobby claims to be liberal, while funding an Islamic terror state, it claims to be Zionist while defending Islamic terrorists who want to destroy Israel, and it claims to represent true Jewish values while funding the murder of Jews.

"I will bury him at the age of 35. What have I done wrong in my life? He's leaving little children behind, 7-year-old twins, a 4 and a half-year-old boy. What is their mother supposed to tell them?" Ziv Hajbi's mother demanded.

Tell them that American liberal Jews, love the left more than they love decency, morality or other Jews.

That’s why they continue to support the PLO.

A week after the murder of Ari Fuld, Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, wrote, “America’s Jews are watching Israel in horror”. He didn’t mean the horror of an American Jew being buried after a murder funded by their tax dollars. Nor did he mean horror at his own complicity in the crime.

Dana was horrified that Israel was defending itself to even the most limited degree from the killers.

He quoted his ‘Rabbi’, who according to Milbank “comes from Zionist royalty”, fulminating that, “the current government of Israel has turned its back on Zionism.” But by Zionism, Dana and his ‘Rabbi’ don’t mean the simple act of preserving Israel and the lives of people like Kim, Ziv, Ari and Yotam. Instead their idea of Zionism is a “negotiated peace” with the killers whose crimes are made possible by the illusion of negotiations. There has been a generation of negotiations and no end to Islamic terror.

Israel hasn’t turned its back on Zionism. The Jewish enablers of the PLO, of the terrorist killers, have. In an Orwellian twist, they have redefined Zionism to mean the destruction of Israel. Israel’s government, which fights for the Jewish State’s survival, is therefore anti-Zionist, while the lefties who want to destroy Israel are the true Zionists. Up is down. Left is right. And a generation of terror is peace.

“The current government in Israel has, like Esau, sold its birthright,” Milbank quotes his ‘Rabbi’.

Israel has not sold its birthright. Those American Jews who chose terrorists over Israel have.

They have sold out Israel for a chance to be at the next Women’s March, right behind its Farrakhan loving leaders. They sold Israel for an Obama speech, for a cocktail party and for fitting in on the left.

Esau sold his birthright in a moment of hunger. They sold theirs out of cowardice and treachery. They paid for it with lies. Their manicured hands are covered in the blood of Israeli terror victims.

And it still isn’t enough. They never stop shouting for more.

More money for the terrorists. More land for their terror bases. More terrorists freed from prison. And more dead bodies in the cemeteries. More fathers and mothers who never come home to their children.

What can Ziv’s wife tell their children? She can tell them that Dana Milbank, that his ‘Rabbi’, that J Street, that six hundred other useless organizations and six hundred thousand useless individuals, may not believe in G-d, Zionism or that Jews have the same right to defend themselves as any other people.

But they do believe in funding the terrorists who murdered Ziv. They believe in the two state solution, with two growing Islamic terrorist states shooting, bombing and rocketing their way across Israel.

And they believe that the lack of peace is never the fault of the terrorists whom they have funded for a generation, but it is always the fault of the Jews who have yet to sufficiently appease the terrorists.

Abbas and Ashraf swear by Allah. But it isn’t Allah, the figment of a murderous desert warlord’s vanity and greed, that took these lives. It’s the two state solution. It’s the blood money pouring into the PLO.

These murders were brought to you by the two state solution. The next ones will be too.

And those responsible for feeding the blood money into the murder machine will condemn Israel’s “ultranationalist”, “nationalist”, “apartheid” government. They will pound their pulpits, feign tears over Israel’s betrayal of democracy and human rights, and then warn that Israel is about to lose their support.

Netanyahu, "is dissolving America’s bipartisan pro-Israel consensus in favor of an unstable alliance of end-times Christians, orthodox Jews and wealthy conservatives", Milbank threatens.

That would be the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus that turned over a sizable portion of Israel to Islamic terrorists, that has taken the side of the terrorists at every turn and that insists on financing the terrorists.

You’re not pro-Israel if you fund the murder of Israelis. You’re the very definition of anti-Israel.

If that’s a pro-Israel bipartisan consensus, bring on the partisan pro-Israel consensus. The one that doesn’t pay lip service with empty resolutions while funding the murder of Jews, but that ends America’s generation of support for the terrorists that took the lives of Kim, Ziv, Ari and all the others.






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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Columbus may have outfoxed the Spanish court and his rivals, but he is falling victim to the court of political correctness. The explorer who discovered America has become controversial because the very idea of America has become controversial.

There are counter-historical claims put forward by Muslim and Chinese scholars claiming that they discovered America first. And there are mobs of fake indigenous activists on every campus to whom the old Italian is as much of a villain as the bearded Uncle Sam.

Columbus Day parades are met with protests and some have been minimized or eliminated.

In a number of cities Columbus Day was transformed into Indigenous People's Day, which sounds like a Marxist terrorist group's holiday.

After making a shambles of his efforts at socialized medicine, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed on to Indigenous People's Day. What began in Berkeley, spread to Denver, Pheonix and Seattle, among other cities.

No American state has followed Venezuela's lead in renaming it Día de la Resistencia Indígena, or Day of Indigenous Resistance, which actually is a Marxist terrorist group's holiday, but the whole notion of celebrating the discovery of America has come to be seen as somehow shameful and worst of all, politically incorrect.

The shift from celebrating Columbus' arrival in America to commemorating it as an American tragedy by focusing on the tribes who had settled there earlier, rather than the American settlers, is a profound form of historical revisionism that hacks away at the origins of this country.

The attacks on Columbus Day have less to do with the distant descendants of those tribes, most of whom owe more of their ancestry to the later arrivals made possible by Columbus, than with the agenda of the left.

Anti-Columbus Day protests are mounted by La Raza, whose members, despite their indigenous posturing, are actually mostly descended from Spanish colonists, but who know that most Americans are too confused to rationally frame an objection to a protest by any minority group.

The absurdity is deepened by the linguistic and cultural ties between the Italian Columbus Day marchers and the Latino Anti-Columbus Day protesters with the latter set cynically exploiting white guilt to pretend that being the descendants of Southern European colonists makes them a minority.

If being descended from Southern Europeans makes you a minority, then Columbus, the parade marchers, the Greek restaurant owner nearby and even Rush Limbaugh are all "people of color."

Italian-Americans are the only bulwark against political correctness still keeping Columbus on the calendar, and that has made mayors and governors in cities and states with large Italian-American communities wary of tossing the great explorer completely overboard. But while Ferdinand and Isabella may have brought Columbus back in chains, modern day political correctness is erasing him from history and replacing him with a note reading, "I'm Sorry We Ever Landed Here."

But this is about more than one single 15th century Genoan with a complicated life who was neither a monster nor a saint. It is about whether America really has any right to exist at all. Is there any argument against celebrating Columbus Day, that cannot similarly be applied to the Fourth of July?

If Columbus is to be stricken from the history books in favor of ideological thugs like Malcolm X or Caesar Chavez, then America must soon follow. Columbus' crime is that he enabled European settlement of the continent.

If the settlement of non-Indians in North America is illegitimate, then any national state they created is also illegitimate.

It is easier to hack away at a nation's history by beginning with the lower branches.

Columbus is an easier target than America itself, though the left considers both colonialist vermin. Americans are less likely to protest over the banishment of Columbus to the politically correct gulag  than over the banishing America itself, which was named after another one of those colonialist explorers, Amerigo Vespucci. First they came for Columbus Day and then for the Fourth of July.

The battles being fought over Columbus Day foreshadow the battles to be fought over the Fourth of July. As Columbus Day joins the list of banned holidays in more cities, one day there may not be a Fourth of July, just a day of Native Resistance to remember the atrocities of the colonists with PBS documentaries comparing George Washington to Hitler.

These documentaries already exist, they just haven't gone mainstream. Yet.

We celebrate Columbus Day and the Fourth of July because that is our history. Had the Aztecs, the Mayans or the Iroquois Confederation developed the necessary technology and skills to cross the Atlantic and begin colonizing Europe, the fate of its native inhabitants would have been far uglier. The different perspectives on history often depend on which side you happen to be on.

To Americans, the Alamo is a shining moment of heroism. To the Mexicans who are the heirs of a colonialist empire far more ruthless than anything to be found north of the Rio Grande, the war was a plot to conquer Mexican territory. And neither side is altogether wrong, but choosing which version of history to go by is the difference between being an American or a Mexican.

A nation's mythology, its paragons and heroes, its founding legends and great deeds, are its soul. To replace them with another culture's perspective on its history is to kill that soul.

That is the ultimate goal of political correctness, to kill America's soul. To stick George Washington, Patrick Henry, Jefferson, James Bowie, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and all the rest on a shelf in a back room somewhere, and replace them with timelier liberal heroes. Move over Washington, Caesar Chavez needs this space. No more American heroes need apply.

Followed of course by no more America.

This is how it begins. And that is how it ends. Nations are not destroyed by atomic bombs or economic catastrophes; they are lost when they lose any reason to go on living. When they no longer have enough pride to go on fighting to survive.

The final note of politically correct lunacy comes from a headline in the Columbus Dispatch about the Columbus Day festival in the city of Columbus, Ohio. "Italian Festival honors controversial explorer with its own Columbus Day parade".

Once the great discover of America, Columbus is now dubbed "controversial" by a newspaper named after him, in a city named after him .And if he is controversial, how can naming a city after him and a newspaper after the city not be equally controversial?

Can the day when USA Today has a headline reading, "Some cities still plan controversial 4th of July celebration of American independence" be far behind?






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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.