Enter your keyword

Wednesday, December 29, 2021

As Many as 1 in 3 Afghan Refugee Women at U.S. Base are Pregnant

By On December 29, 2021
When Biden's Afghanistan retreat first brought tens of thousands of Afghans to the United States without any visas or vetting, officials at Fort McCoy warned about numerous incidents of Afghan child brides. Democrats and senior military officials have denied these allegations, but shocking new statistics out of Fort McCoy raise new questions of just how pervasive this is.

When thousands of Afghans first arrived at the military base in rural Wisconsin, local residents in Sparta, the “Bicycling Capital of America”, a small city of less than 10,000, began warning that the Afghans being housed at Fort McCoy were putting a significant strain on their infrastructure and their medical services. I was told that there were as many as 800 pregnant refugees at the base. The number seemed wildly implausible, but now the official number is out.

According to military officials, there have been 500 pregnant Afghans at Fort McCoy and, according to a local news report, “the numbers keep growing”.

“I am so happy that my son was born as a US citizen,” one Afghan evacuee declared.

Considering that there were only 12,600 Afghans on the base, down to about 7,000 now, these numbers are staggering. According to the Pentagon, only 22% of Afghan evacuees across all the bases are adult women. Around half of the evacuees are children. Assuming that these numbers hold true for Fort McCoy, that would mean that it housed only 2,772 adult women.

As the number of Afghan evacuees fell to around 7,000, most recently, the number of adult women would have averaged around 1,500. Even as its highest population mark, that would mean that 1 in 5 Afghan women were pregnant, while as its current number it would be 1 in 3.

All of that within a five month period.

In all of Wisconsin, a state of nearly 6 million people, there were only 60,615 births last year. 1.6% of the adult women in the state had a baby in one year, but between 18% to 33% of the Afghan women at Fort McCoy were pregnant during their time there.

These staggering numbers reveal the massive speed with which Islamic colonization takes place, fueled by birth rates and then religious violence, but even with the high birth rates within Islam in general and in Afghanistan in particular, the Fort McCoy numbers are still too high.

At 4.32 children per woman (as opposed to the American birth rate of 1.70), the Afghan birth rate is high, but 1 in 5 Afghan women (let alone 1 in 3) are still not pregnant at any given time. Some of the Afghan female refugees must be older which narrows down the population further. The only way to account for such a high pregnancy rate is by factoring in the underage girls.

Shortly before September, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Mark Pocan and other Democrats toured Fort McCoy and falsely claimed that the evacuees were being reliably vetted and screened.

"There are no cases in Fort McCoy right now with a child, 15 or under, who is married," Senator Baldwin insisted. The careful wording by the former lawyer leaves plenty of room for loopholes. It does not address the question of whether there are any pregnant children, 15 or under. And it doesn’t even touch on how many 16 and 17-year-olds are pregnant. And, since many of the Afghan evacuees had no documentation, there’s no way to know if any of those 16-year-olds are actually 15, 14, or even 13, despite how old the men trafficking them claim that they are.

Why else did the State Department demand "urgent guidance" after “intake staff at Fort McCoy reported multiple cases of minor females who presented as ‘married’ to adult Afghan men, as well as polygamous families?” Afghanistan has a 57% child marriage rate. Senator Baldwin and the Democrats expect us to believe that what the media is now describing as the “baby boom” is entirely due to 500 women, out of 1,500 to 2,700, all somehow being pregnant at Fort McCoy.

The only way to make sense of these numbers is to include many of the underage girls.

But why are so many Afghan women and girls at Fort McCoy pregnant? Obviously having a baby on American soil solidifies their legal status and provides them with assorted benefits. Demographic colonization of infidel nations through reproduction is also considered a form of Jihad. But for the men who bought and sold young girls for the trip, impregnating them is also a way to control them. It will be a lot harder for those girls to get away once they have a baby.

State Department personnel asked for guidance and the Biden administration began a coverup.

The media reporting on the “baby boom” at Fort McCoy state that the “base is partnering with local hospitals for deliveries”. Locals have long complained about the enormous demands that the Afghans at Fort McCoy are placing on local hospitals and medical personnel. For the first time we’re getting a small sense of just how enormous that demand really is.

In all of Monroe County, there were only 534 births in 2017. The Afghan migrants are set to equal all of the American births in a county with a population of three-quarters of a million.

When 12,500 Afghans can outnumber 741,770 Americans, what will happen when over 100,000 Afghans are brought to America? After Biden brought 53,000 Afghans to America, another 60,000 are waiting on visas in Afghanistan. That’s 113,000 Afghans and it’s just the beginning.

At a time when hospitals are already under strain and there are shortages of medical personnel, Biden’s decision to dump over 12,000 Afghans into rural Wisconsin has proven to be catastrophic. Gundersen Health Systems, one of whose hospitals has been used to deliver Afghan babies, has claimed that it's near capacity with COVID patients. Could Americans lose their lives because of shortages created by the Afghan strain on our medical system?

Either way, the Afghan influx has hit the region hard and as their wave of demographic change transforms the country, the next phase of the war in Afghanistan will take place in America..

A few days after September 11, Rep. Ilhan Omar signed a letter to the Secretary of Defense in response to complaints from the evacuees, claiming that the Afghans at Fort McCoy were suffering "mistreatment" and had been spoken to in a "rude condescending manner".

The next Omar, nurturing a grievance against America, is already at Fort McCoy. If the flood of Afghan migrants doesn’t stop, within another decade or two, she’ll be sitting in Congress.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Monday, December 27, 2021

Wealthy Leftists Demand Poor White Kids in Appalachia be Taught About Their White Privilege

By On December 27, 2021
The son of a bank vice president decided to teach about “white privilege” to his students in Sullivan County, Tennessee where the per capita income is $28,429.

After he was fired, the media decided to turn him into a victim.

“He Taught About White Privilege and Got Fired. Now He’s Fighting to Get His Job Back,” the headlines blared. A GoFundMe for Matthew Hawn by his sister, a principal in the Tennessee public school system, has already raised over $55,000 of its projected $85,000 goal.

That’s more money than a lot of the locals in Appalachia would be likely to earn in a year’s time.

Sullivan County is 95% white and 2% black. The rate of hungry children in the region is double the national rate and a third of those children live in Sullivan County.

At Sullivan Central High School, where Hawn decided to teach about white privilege, 96% of the students are white, 1% are Hispanic, another 1% are Asian, and the number of black students is too small to count.

41% of the students are eligible for the free lunch program. That means their parents meet federal poverty guidelines. Another 9% qualify for the reduced lunch program which indicates that their parents don’t earn very much.

Even though half the student body at Sullivan Central is low income, the graduation rate is 90% and the students rank in the top 20% for reading proficiency.

You can understand why Hawn, who had taught for 16 years, decided to introduce them to the concept of white privilege.

The article that helped debut Hawn's sob story to the wealthy progressives of the nation who showered his GoFundMe with cash began by describing the "social studies teacher in rural Tennessee" who "was driving to work listening to NPR" which was going on about racism.

It’s hard to envision a better summary of the culture clash between lefty elites and America.

“White privilege is a fact,” Hawn reportedly ranted at his students. “What we are going to do is we are going to discuss how we can help solve the issue of racism in America. What can we do here in Northeast Tennessee?”

Sullivan County and, for that matter, the Tri-Cities area, have fairly few black people. With a 2.4% black population, there’s not many black people to save in Northeast Tennessee.

But Hawn set out to solve racism by teaching his low-income students that America was systemically racist beginning with an essay by black nationalist bigot Ta-Nehisi Coates.

In his infamous book, “Between the World and Me”, Coates had declared that the firefighters and police officers who were killed on September 11 “were not human to me.”

In “The First White President”, the essay Hawn inflicted on his students, Coates raved that "whiteness" was a "bloody heirloom" and that "land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers".

Trump's grandfather, a barber, moved to the Lower East Side of New York City in the 1880s, but Coates and his ilk are as indifferent to facts as the 1619 Project or the rest of the critical race theory establishment.

“There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez had argued.

And being morally right is another way of saying being morally superior to the kids at a rural Tennessee high school, their low income parents, and everyone who doesn’t believe that they, along with America and all white people, are horrible racists who need to be “called out”.

In Coates’ essay, the country’s racist scribe to the racist elite, dismisses the idea of a cultural “backlash against contempt for white working-class people” by elites. And yet what’s happening in Sullivan County as a result of his essay perfectly encapsulates that backlash to the elites who embraced Hawn and have nothing but contempt for the locals standing up to him.

Hawn followed that up with “White Privilege” by Kyla Jenée Lacey, a deranged hate filled rant that has the same relationship to a poem that the 1619 Project does to history. In it, Lacey claims that Hurricane Katrina was "answering the government's prayers of eugenics" and that white privilege is "the acceptance of bombs over Baghdad, but not over Boston."

The social studies teacher was not, despite the mass of media misinformation, fired over critical race theory or introducing obscenities and hatred of America into the classroom. (The Atlantic falsely dubbed Hawn, “The First Casualty in the War on Critical Race Theory”.)

He was fired for refusing to introduce balance.

“Your job is not to teach one perspective,” he was told. "Your job is also not to ensure students simply adopt your own personal perspective. Your job—in teaching current events—is to ensure students learn to seek out and consider varying and credible perspectives.”

At a school board meeting, Hawn was asked, "what other reading materials have you assigned recently that would offer a different perspective".

Reportedly, his response was, "there is no credible source for a different point of view."

The line, familiar from a multitude of media fact checks, Big Tech censorship efforts, and condescending elite propaganda denies that there can be any legitimate point of view other than their own. And that their public service duty is to force their dogma on everyone else.

It’s the difference between education and indoctrination.

The son of a bank vice president wasn’t the victim of a “war on critical race theory”, as a magazine owned by Steve Jobs’ billionaire widow falsely claimed, but of Tennessee’s Teacher Code of Ethics which was, as Robert Pondiscio and Tracey Schirra of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out, a product of an older and more moderate incarnation of the NEA.

All of this has been hashed out at length by educational experts and Twitter pundits.

What has been much less discussed are the class issues in an assault by wealthy media elites on low-income students and parents who must be taught that they and their nation are racist.

Much of this assault is carried out under a cloud of ignorant disdain for the actual community.

At The Atlantic, Emma Green's first question to Hawn is whether there was a lot of "racial diversity".

"I don’t remember there being a nonwhite person at my high school the entire four years I was there," Hawn replies.

That's not too surprising as Kingsport, where Hawn grew up, is 91% white and only 3.5% black.

The lack of diversity is treated as implicitly racist, but were black people really worse off for not living in Appalachia as opposed to Malibu where Laurene Powell Jobs, who controls The Atlantic, lives? The racial demographics are virtually identical in Malibu and Sullivan County, but the politics and incomes in pro-Trump Sullivan County are a world away.

Leftists justify their abuses, like critical race theory indoctrination, by insisting that they’re punching up, fighting the powerful, not punching down against the downtrodden. And yet it’s hard to see the assault on a local school district and its impoverished families as anything else.

Aside from The Atlantic, the Washington Post, owned by Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, and the Boston Globe, owned by billionaire financier John W. Henry have published hit pieces on Hawn’s firing and on Sullivan County’s efforts to protect its students and its schools.

As Hawn’s latest appeal moves forward, media outlets owned by billionaires continue their disinformation campaign against local parents and school administrators, diverting money that ought to be going to teach students into preventing racism from being pushed in the classroom.

Sullivan County is a long way from The Atlantic’s headquarters at The Watergate, the Washington Post’s own D.C. digs, or downtown Boston, but the new ruling class insists that its dictates, enforced by economic pressure, lawfare, and smear campaigns must apply everywhere, even in rural Tennessee. Having heard that a school system merely asked that a leftist activist present more than one perspective on whether America is racist and evil, they have marshalled their battalions and their fortunes and gone to war in Appalachia.

White privilege isn’t real, but the power wielded by the leftist elite is all too real. Behind the false claims of white privilege is the unearned privilege of a ruthless elite which wraps its totalitarianism in moral crusades that are as wickedly perverse as they are self-righteous.

America’s wealthiest leftist elites demand that poor white kids be taught they’re racist. Maybe they can drive by in their hybrid limos and teach the hungry kids of Sullivan County about their white privilege.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, December 26, 2021

Can Feminism Destroy China?

By On December 26, 2021
China’s one-child policy suppressed the birth rate with forced abortions and political terror for a generation. Only allowed one child, many Chinese families chose to abort their baby girls.

The deficit of 40 million female babies is now the specter stalking Communist China.

China’s aggressive military moves against Taiwan and India are a desperate gambit by a corrupt Communist elite facing domestic social instability and millions of men who can never marry.

But while the focus has been on too many Chinese men, it’s the too few women whom the regime is starting to fear. The Communist society is being forced to reckon with the social problem of supply and demand in the marriage market. Women, formerly despised, are now in the driver’s seat, with the bride’s family demanding tens of thousands from prospective grooms.

That price is putting marriage out of reach for a whole other category of poorer men.

But what really has the Communist elite worried is not the high price of marriage, but the growing number of professional women who aren’t interested in getting married at all.

And many of those who do are getting divorced, leading the regime to impose a 30-day cooling off period after there were more divorces than marriages recorded in China in 2019.

The big question for Communist leaders was whether they could defeat the West economically without becoming so much like it that they would have to adopt its society and its politics. The fall of the Soviet Union was a cautionary tale about the dangers of western liberalization. And China appeared to have avoided the pitfall, suppressing its democracy movement and maintaining a Communist oligarchy even as it outperformed America in the marketplace.

But Xi and the Communist leadership fear that they just delayed the inevitable. China is seemingly more powerful than ever, its people are nationalistic, Hong Kong has been consolidated, and Taiwan is expected to follow, making One China into a reality.

And yet the Communist leadership shows every sign of panicking, cracking down on entertainment and tech companies, and purging its own oligarchy on a monthly basis.

Despite the outward allegiance to Xi and the Communists, the country’s rising middle class is westernized, individualistic rather than collectivist, intent on having fun and stocking up on all the latest consumer gadgets, instead of sacrificing and laboring in the cause of Communism.

The falling marriage and birth rates are the obvious symptom of China’s new social feminism.

Marriage licenses have fallen to a 13-year low and the birth rate has hit a 43-year low. With only 12 million babies born in 2020, the old mathematical joke about the Marching Chinese now falls flat. Like the rest of Asia, China is aging, and its workforce is falling by 0.5% a year.

China's 1.3 birth rate looks worse than those of America or Europe, but unlike them, the Chinese birth rate isn't being artificially inflated with a huge population of immigrants.

While the Communist leadership has tried to apply economic fixes to a social problem, a recent survey in one rural area found that only 60% of young women wanted to get married while 82% of men did. The combination of an aspiring professional female workforce with the sex-selective abortion caused by the one-child policy has made China’s gender relations uniquely horrible.

In America, as in most first world countries, women are more interested in marriage than men. The reversal of the gender stereotype in China is a tribute to how the country’s toxic mixture of traditionalism, Communism, and consumerism is playing out in its dysfunctional society.

Communist China made marriage and child-bearing into a political duty. The rising affluent middle class that navigated the suicidal peaks of exams, pursue shallow escapism and luxury goods in the off hours from their stressful office jobs, and have little interest in children.

The Communist regime is taking notice. In typical leftist fashion, it's fighting the problem as an ideological threat, arresting feminists and banning the 6B4T keyword, a South Korean feminist movement that urges women not to marry and to avoid conventional beauty standards.

But China’s problem is coming less from the traditional activist woke feminism, which the regime will have little trouble stamping out, but the larger economic shift in gender roles.

52.5 percent of students in Chinese colleges and universities are female. That's not quite as extreme as the 60/40 split in the United States or the even more extreme gender gaps in some European countries, but in a decade or two, China may catch up to us there as well.

Religion may be declining in America and Europe, but the Communists had done their best to stamp out faith in China and replace it with party loyalty. And then it replaced starving rural labor with mega-cities and mega-buildings filled with office drones who have no meaning or purpose in life beyond purchasing the latest iPhone, listening to the latest hit or watching the latest show.

The single career women who have redefined the culture and politics of America and Europe are on the rise in China. In interviews they express a disinterest in marriage and family. They enjoy focusing on themselves, shopping, socializing and traveling with little interest in the future of their country or their society. They seek no meaning beyond the luxuries and comforts of life.

And the marketplace in China, much like in America and Europe, caters to them as a cultural and economic force because of their spending power and role as social media influencers.

China’s entertainment landscape is filled with shows that are culturally, rather than politically, feminist. The Romance of Tiger and Rose, with some 900 million views, features a matriarchal society where men are not allowed to study or work, and are cursed when boys are born. The joke here is not just a reversal of China’s past, but a possible preview of its demographic future.

Had China retained its former society, the growing economic value of girls would have led to a reverse gender gap, but the growing shift from rural subsistence farming to the urban office workers of the middle class means that the gender gap is being overshadowed by falling birth rates. The new society spends less time calculating the price and profit of marrying off children and worries about the imminent disruptions of a child on a young urban couple’s quality of life.

China, despite its Communist hierarchy and total control of the economy and society, is caught in the same conjoined cultural and economic trap as the first world. On the verge of realizing its aspirations to becoming a first world power, China is stuck reliving the price that Japan, the last Asian country to try and become a military and then economic superpower, paid for its wish.

The Cold Warriors of the eighties were wrong in believing that economic success was impossible without freedom and democracy. But they were generally right in believing that any country that wanted to economically defeat us would have to become us. They just failed to properly understand what becoming “us” really meant. It’s not democracy or freedom.

America, like its other first world counterparts, is becoming less free, and more political. When people say that our politics is downstream of our culture, what it really means is that much of our politics is about a culture rationalizing the way that it wants to live. The abandonment of religion, family, character, and all traditional values, is not just a Marxist conspiracy, it’s the self-indulgent behavior of overgrown children who decided that they never want to grow up.

In the Communist heartland, under a Marxist system built to reinforce the opposite qualities, a surprisingly similar revolution is taking place. The Communist regime, which believed it had total control over the lives of its people, has gone from mandating abortions to offering families the opportunity to have three children. The labor force is shrinking, the marriage and birth rates are falling, and the Xi regime can’t figure out how to turn back the clock and preserve its power.

Communist China’s history is one of grandiose planned efforts that blew up in the party’s face. One of its worst famines occurred when Mao decided to have the populace wipe out all the sparrows, leading to an infestation of insects that the sparrows had kept in check. Such subtle checks and balances pervade the natural world and human society, but the Marxist view of the universe is incapable of taking into account the complex and paradoxical nature of reality.

Mao’s inability to grasp the nature of the sparrow, the imminent obstacle in the ecosystem, is nothing compared to the inability of his successors to understand the relationships of men and women. Human nature, always elusive to ideologues, has brought down every Communist plan for world domination before, not through force of arms, but the hubris of its miscalculations.

Xi believes that China’s Communist regime is different even as demographics are undoing his mandate of heaven. While this century has been heralded as belonging to China, studies suggest that China's population will drop by 50% by 2100. While 732 million may be nothing to sneer at, much of that will consist of its rapidly aging elderly population.

By 2050, 336 million Chinese elderly will form a bloc larger than that of the United States. If the birth and marriage rates keep dropping, a Communist gerontocracy will preside over failing dams, mega-cities, and a shrinking empire of senior citizens and single career women as the “barbarians” in the Muslim hinterlands with stronger birth rates sweep in.

Communism claimed to be able to harness history, but history always has the last laugh.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, December 23, 2021

Biden Bans Conservatives and Christians from the Military

By On December 23, 2021
In Disloyal: How the Military Brass is Betraying Our Country, the David Horowitz Freedom Center had warned that the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group imposed by the Biden administration and headed by Bishop Garrison (pictured above), a racist who constantly accused Republicans of racism for the most frivolous reasons, was preparing to purge conservatives from the military.

Now the purge has arrived.

The first task of Garrison’s CEWG was to develop a new definition of extremism. The newly added definition, which takes effect immediately, doesn’t actually define extremism. Since extremism is inherently relative to someone else’s moderation, it can’t be legally defined. But the CEWG’s definition was cunningly written to target conservatives and protect leftists.

The majority of the definitions are already covered by existing military codes and laws against terrorism and treason. The only real addition here is the final definition of "extremism activities" which includes, "advocating widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation."

The wording initially appears generic, but it’s actually written to provide military leaders with a wide latitude for targeting conservatives while exempting black nationalists like Garrison.

Racism is defined only in terms of “advocating discrimination” and only “unlawful discrimination”, unlike affirmative action or the discriminatory policies of the CEWG. This is in line with the leftist claim that racism can only be defined in terms of the power to discriminate and that therefore minority racists aren’t racist. Service members can be fans of black hate groups that promote racist hatred of white people because only advocacy for “unlawful discrimination” matters.

The new Department of Defense policy "prohibits active participation in extremist activities and clearly defines what we mean by the term extremist activities," Pentagon spokesman John Kirby falsely claimed. It actually defines almost nothing and that enables it to outlaw nearly anything.

Would Christians who oppose gay marriage fall afoul of this policy? Is anyone who donates to a church that advocates against gay marriage now deemed an “active participant” in “extremism”?

Biden’s definition of active participation includes, “fundraising for, or making personal contributions through donations of any kind (including but not limited to the solicitation, collection, or payment of fees or dues) to, a group or organization that engages in extremist activities.” Potentially donating to a traditionally biblical church or synagogue would mean violating the Biden administration’s new guidelines against active participation in extremism.

The result would almost certainly be a federal case that the Biden administration would lose, but how many members of the military want to spend years of their lives fighting for their careers?

The Biden administration’s leftist radicals are out to intimidate and they may well succeed.

It goes without saying that counterterrorism researchers warning about the national security threat of Islamization would be punished, and that any service members who support or interact with a whole range of such organizations, including the Freedom Center and Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch are at risk. But so would a majority of service members who are at all conservative.

Garrison’s definition of extremism includes advocating for “discrimination” against “gender identity” which means that anyone opposed to teenage girls being forced to shower with men is now accused of being an extremist and that supporting virtually any conservative group effectively makes a member of the military into an “active participant” in “extremist activities”.

The purge goes even further, reaching out to punish anyone who engages “in electronic and cyber activities regarding extremist activities, or groups that support extremist activities – including posting, liking, sharing, re-tweeting, or otherwise distributing content”.

A service member who “likes” a Facebook post from a conservative group is now an “active participant” in “extremist activities”.

What about opposition to abortion?

The Garrison definition of extremism includes advocating for discrimination based on ”sex (including pregnancy)”. The pregnancy part of this might be an effort to silence military critics of pregnant women serving in combat roles. That’s another example of how the Biden political purge is meant to silence legitimate objections to absurd woke policies like the Navy’s new maternity flight suits. But it could be used to suppress pro-life views and church membership.

The question of whether the Equal Rights Amendment’s “on account of sex” language would protect abortion and enshrine it into the Constitution has been at the heart of the debate over the amendment. State ERAs have already been used to define opposition to abortion as a form of discrimination on account of sex.

The Countering Extremist Activity Working Group’s inclusion of ”sex (including pregnancy)” would potentially open the door to branding any member of the military who personally opposes abortion, donates to an anti-abortion group, or just a traditional church, or even likes a Facebook post by a pro-life group as an “active participant” in “extremism”.

Defenders of Biden’s military purge will insist that these are unlikely scenarios. Right up until the point where they begin happening. There is nothing in the wording of these new definitions of “extremism” and “active participation” to prevent service members from being targeted because of their membership in a traditional church or their conservative religious views. And since the military has traditionally received more leeway in restricting religious expression, court battles over these issues should not be viewed as a foregone conclusion. Furthermore the existence of these codes create an intimidating effect that suppresses speech and religious expression.

Exactly as they were designed to do.

"One extremist is one too many," Bishop Garrison had contended. The new definition is meant to screen out everyone whom Garrison, a supporter of black supremacists like Ta-Nehisi Coates and of extremist agendas like the 1619 Project, disagrees with. That means all conservatives.

Garrison, who defended bigots and extremists like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and falsely accused Gov. Ron DeSantis of racism, has been allowed to impose his own discriminatory regime on the military.

And that must not be allowed to stand.

The new purge "preserves a service member's right of expression to the extent possible”, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby argued. That statement is as un-American as it gets.

There will almost certainly be legal battles over this, but it will be on Congress and the next administration to make it clear to future military leaders that they must rescind or at least dramatically revise Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1325.06 if they want to lead.

And any presidential candidate or congressional member must commit to opposing any military leader who does not agree to remove DoDI 1325.06 and protect political and religious liberty.

The military leaders complicit in this disgrace are the products of Democrat and Republican administrations. If conservatives don’t firmly demand and hold presidential and congressional candidates accountable for undoing this, the radicals will take over the military the way that they control academia, the media, and the corporate spheres. That means ignoring the happy talk, the virtue signaling, the empty distractions, and demanding that the politicians actually do it.

The military is the most conservative branch of the government. The purge of conservatives from the military is a political coup. Under the guise of outlawing discrimination, the Biden administration is engaging in the most dangerous and pervasive discrimination imaginable.

This is a critical threat. It’s one that the David Horowitz Freedom Center took the lead in warning against. Now that it’s embedded in the military, the career brass that the DHFC warned against in Disloyal: How the Military Brass is Betraying Our Country will do everything possible to retain it even under another Republican administration. The leaders, as we’ve warned, have to go.

New leaders must commit to a merit-based military free of discriminatory “equity” measures and political purges that is built from the ground up to fight and to win for America.

Or else we will have lost the military and the war.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, December 22, 2021

Schumer, Who Accused Trump of Russian Collusion, is Getting Paid by Putin

By On December 22, 2021
“A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House: What could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States?” Senator Schumer insinuated in 2018.

Why is Schumer putting Russia’s interests ahead of those of the United States by blocking Nord Stream 2 sanctions on Putin’s pet pipeline into Europe?

Schumer, along with a number of other top Democrats, is a beneficiary of campaign contributions from top Democrat fundraiser Vincent Roberti whose lobbying firm was paid over $8.5 million by Nord Stream 2 which is owned by Putin's state-run Gazprom energy monopoly.

Roberti, a former Dem politician, has maxed out his donations to Schumer and to Rep. Eric Swalwell, who may have been cheating on Fang Fang with Vladimir, and threw in a generous $171,000 to the DCCC, as part of the over $545,000 donated to the Democrat political machine.

The top Dem bundler is reportedly lobbying on “issues related to the U.S. position toward the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, including potential financial sanctions affecting the project.”

Suddenly, Schumer, who was accusing the GOP and Trump of being in bed with Putin, and demanding that they vote on sanctions, was refusing to hold a floor vote on Russia sanctions.

“Millions of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump,” Schumer had smeared back then. What damaging info does Putin have on Chuck?

President Trump, at the time, had urged that, “we should start an immediate investigation” into Schumer’s ties with Russia, and described him as a “total hypocrite”. That is an understatement.

Three years ago, Schumer was clamoring that putting off sanctions on Russia, “is an extreme dereliction of duty by President Trump, who seems more intent on undermining the rule of law of this country than standing up to Putin.” That describes Schumer in a nutshell.

But not just Schumer.

“With him, all roads lead to Putin,” Pelosi had ranted. “I don't know what the Russians have on the president, politically, personally, or financially.”

Roberti plowed $46,100 into Pelosi's Victory Fund. He also appears to have maxed out his contributions to the House Majority Leader and gave $5,000 to her PAC to the Future.

That’s not too shocking since Pelosi toasted Roberti and his wife at their wedding.

“Trump denial of Russian collusion rotten at core and doomed to unravel,” Senator Richard Blumenthal had tweeted. “Expect more serious convictions and indictments early in 2018 as the Special Counsel climbs the ladder of criminal culpability.”

The serious convictions and indictments, along with the criminal culpability, unraveled.

Meanwhile Roberti maxed out his donations to Blumenthal.

"Yet another reason to call for an independent prosecutor into the #TrumpRussia ties," Senator Catherine Cortez Masto tweeted after having accused President Trump of endangering national security.

Roberti also maxed out his contributions to Masto.

Senator Patty Murray had called for "a special prosecutor to examine the Trump campaign's ties to Russia".

Murray, like Schumer and Mastro, got the maximum amount from the Nord Stream 2 lobbyist, along with Senator Maggie Hassan, who had also demanded a special prosecutor for Trump.

Senator Cory Booker alleged that President Trump had "betrayed" his role and that he was "weak and submissive" to Putin.

The New Jersey hack, who always has one hand out, got a cool grand from Roberti.

But the real lobbying effort to stop the Nord Stream 2 sanctions is coming out of the Biden White House with top associates of the notoriously corrupt politician pushing Senate Dems to let Putin have his pipeline. And that’s after Biden shut down the Keystone XL pipeline for America.

Biden falsely claimed that waiving sanctions on Putin's pipeline was in “U.S. national interests."

Roberti is a longtime Biden pal who boasts of having advised him on his 2008 presidential bid and reportedly flew him out to his hometown during the campaign.

Another Biden donor and lobbyist working for the foreign companies that partnered on Nord Stream 2 signed a check to Biden’s victory fund that Democrats refused to return until they were shamed into doing so by the New York Post.

“Where are the Republicans who know in their heart the president is giving away the store to Vladimir Putin?” Schumer had demanded.

Where are the Democrats who know Biden is giving away the store? Cashing their checks.

Secretary of State Blinken claimed that refusing to sanction Putin's pipeline would “rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe.” Had a Trump administration cabinet member said something like that, we'd already be in the middle of three investigations, one by the FBI, another by the CIA, and a third by Rep. Adam Schiff's poolboy, but no one cares now.

After years in which Schumer could talk about nothing so much as Putin, he hardly has anything to say about the Russian ruler over the past year. That’s understandable considering that Biden joined Putin’s phony arms pact when President Trump wouldn’t do it, and refused to sanction Nord Stream 2. If Schumer has anything to say about Putin now, it’s, “Da, Comrade.”

There’s no more talk of special prosecutors and no suggestions that Putin is rigging elections. Not when a lobbyist for a Swiss company owned by the Putin regime is signing the checks.

There are no more of Schumer’s “ominous questions” when the answers are all too clear.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Monday, December 20, 2021

Whose Pain Matters - Babies or Child Murderers?

By On December 20, 2021
When the Supreme Court took on its latest abortion case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied that babies in the womb feel pain.

“There are spontaneous acts by dead-brained people. So I don’t think that a response by a fetus necessarily proves that there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness,” the 'Wise Latina' coldly contended.

Sotomayor’s denial that a baby feels pain was in sharp contrast to her passionate conviction that murderers who kill children experience pain as they receive the death penalty.

A few years ago, when Billy Ray Irick's case came before the Supreme Court, Sotomayor was his biggest fan. Irick had beaten, raped, and murdered a 7-year-old girl, but Sotomayor furiously fought for him.

"If the law permits this execution to go forward in spite of the horrific final minutes that Irick may well experience, then we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism," she ranted.

What is barbarism anyway? Is it murdering a child in the womb or putting down a child killer?

Much of the political and moral capital of the Democrats has been dedicated to arguing that murdering children is a form of liberation, but that executing murderers is barbarism.

The beginning and end of life remain a mystery. We cannot truly know what a baby feels in the womb or what a dying man experiences in the last moments of existence. There are anecdotal stories, scientific speculation and received religious wisdom, but in the end we cannot know.

All we can do is believe, identify, and empathize. And these qualities define our souls.

Sotomayor is, despite her position, no intellectual or legal scholar. Misstating “brain dead” as “dead brained” is a little too on the nose considering her borderline illiteracy and ignorance.

Often described as a “bully”, Sotomayor’s legal philosophy, such as it is, is defined by emotive berating and ad hominem attacks. Like most postmodern leftists, her arguments are usually reducible to accepting or rejecting someone’s pain based on their degree of oppression.

In her defense of affirmative action, Sotomayor argued that the trauma of racial alienation was so crippling that equal rights had to be overturned in favor of racial privileges for some.

"Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here'", she whined, invoking her own emotional pain.

As usual, Sotomayor was speaking about herself. Even after her nomination, she complained that she felt like she didn’t belong on the Court. Years later, borrowing the same false accusations of racism and discrimination that had powered her career, she would complain about her place on the Court, "Will I ever quite feel that I have their same background, their same understanding of the world that I operate on? Not really.”

That sense of alienation, as emotionally compelling to Sotomayor as it is to a goth teen at Hot Topic, may be detached from the reality that makes her one of the most powerful women in the country, but it feels real. In the postmodern verbiage of the Safe Space Left, it’s “her truth”.

Sotomayor’s truth, like that of many lefties, leads her to closely identify with the suffering of a monster who raped and murdered a 7-year-old girl, while refusing to identify with the pain of a baby in the womb. Parenthood may make Justice Amy Coney Barrett more likely than Sotomayor, who has no children, to be moved by the pain of a child. And perhaps Sotomayor can more convincingly imagine herself terminating the life of a child than bringing him to term.

But justice should be driven by the law, not feelings. Whether or not a person has rights should not be a matter of being able to empathize with their humanity in order to protect their existence.

And yet leftist moral politics insists on exactly this sort of zero sum game of victimhood.

“Conservatives want you to think that a fetus – a fetus who is pre-viability, which means it cannot exist outside of its mother, it cannot live outside of, of the womb, has the same – should have the same legal rights as full-grown black people in this country," The Nation's Elie Mystal ranted to Joy Reid on MSNBC.

Mystal and Reid could not exist on their own outside the nurturing womb of affirmative action, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to exist.

Even though abortion disproportionately affects black babies, Mystal argues that there’s something racist in caring about the lives of babies. The zero sum game of intersectionality is all about dictating whose rights come first and to what degree. Much like affirmative action, intersectionality has reduced civil rights to a competition not for equality, but for priority.

When leftists reject the universality of the Constitution’s rights, it’s because like Mystal, the justice correspondent for a radical magazine, they don’t believe in universal rights. They demand power for their own group and for those “allies” they can empathize with.

Empathy to them, as to Sotomayor, equates to alienation, to the discord between the inner and the outer selves, the sense of external judgement and internal ego that equates to guilt.

That’s why leftists so easily relate to the criminals, the guiltiest of them all, and are unable to relate to babies, the most innocent of them all. In a morality that is based on overturning power, the worst become the best and the best become the worst. If guilt, as criminal justice reformers and the 1619 Project contend, is really innocence of oppression, then innocence must be guilt.

And babies, who just want to live, are the guiltiest, most racist, and oppressive of them all.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," Sonia Sotomayor had infamously argued.

Now we see what Sotomayor’s better conclusions look like. And they’re absolutely horrifying.

The “richness” of experience, somehow accessible to Sotomayor, but not to anyone of any other gender, ethnicity, or race (especially white men) hasn’t led her to justice, but to injustice.

In defending the case of a contract killer facing the death penalty, Sotomayor falsely claimed that lethal injection “may turn out to be our most cruel experiment yet”. In the Irick child murderer case, she raved that, "the State of Tennessee is on the verge of inflicting several minutes of torturous pain on an inmate in its custody.”

She speculated that the child rapist and killer may experience “sensations of suffocation and of burning that ‘may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.’”

Sotomayor is consumed with the moments of pain that she imagines killers will experience.

During abortion, a suction tube pulls the baby apart or he is dismembered piece by piece with the skull finally crushed, and the parts sold off for medical experiments. What “sensations” does that produce in a baby who, according to pro-abortion activists, can be killed right up to birth?

Sotomayor, who can speak about the pain of alienation or the suffering of a child killer, has no interest in envisioning the suffering of a baby being torn apart piece by piece. Against scientific findings, she insists that there’s no evidence that babies can really feel pain. At least nothing as intense as the pain caused by the alienation of feeling like she doesn’t belong on the Court.

The Supreme Court, Sotomayor threatened, would not “survive the stench” of overturning Roe v. Wade. And yet it has survived the stench of Sotomayor’s presence. It has survived the stench of her advocacy for murderers while condemning babies to the cruelest possible forms of killing.

Executing a child killer, she has argued, would mean “we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism”. What does it mean that we spend decades wrangling over the life of a child killer while dismissing the annual mass murder of babies as the price of social justice?

At the heart of this debate, as with so many others, is the question of what barbarism and civilization really mean. Sotomayor has laid out her definition. It should not be dismissed lightly since it is a pagan idea that some among the ancient Greeks would have argued even better.

If we do not assert our own moral civilizational vision, we will continue to descend into a barbaric leftist society that insists it is civilized because it kills babies and spares killers.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, December 19, 2021

Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Can Trigger a Winter of Lockdowns

By On December 19, 2021
As the economy melts down, Biden is promising that there will be no more lockdowns.

Biden claims that his plan to beat the pandemic “doesn’t include shutdowns or lockdowns".

That’s coming from the hack who lied about graduating in the top half of his class in law school, who lied that his house burned down with his wife in it, and lied that he had served as an envoy to Israel during the Six Day War when he was still a law school student plagiarizing papers.

Last December, Biden promised that he wouldn’t mandate vaccines.

“No, I don’t think it should be mandatory. I wouldn’t demand it be mandatory,” he insisted.

The lesson here is not to believe anything that Biden says in December or any other month of the year.

Biden’s official plan may not include shutdowns and lockdowns, but that’s exactly what the vaccine mandate he promised not to illegally inflict on the country is set to do.

The most common trigger for lockdowns is ICU capacity. When the amount of available beds in ICUs drop below a certain number, the lockdown button gets pushed. Democrat governors have conveniently shown little interest in expanding ICU capacity and there are even fewer nurses available than last winter due to the economic instability first caused by the suspension of “elective procedures” and then by the vaccine mandates imposed by Biden and the Democrats.

When hospitals get slammed by the seasonal surge, it will take even less to hit ICU capacity.

In November, Biden issued a vaccine mandate for staff at hospitals and health care facilities that take Medicare and Medicaid. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rule covered everything from mental hospitals to rural health care clinics and children's hospitals.

Paradoxically, one of the arguments for the mandate was that the Delta variant had "exacerbated health care staffing shortages. For example, 1 in 5 hospitals report that they are currently experiencing a critical staffing shortage." That’s nothing compared to the shortages created by Biden’s vaccine mandate and local state and city Democrat mandates.

Hospitals, especially in states like New York with their own vaccine mandates for health workers, are already shorthanded because they were forced to fire unvaccinated workers.

For example, Northwell Health, New York's biggest provider, fired 1,400 employees over the vaccine mandate.

Nursing shortages, already critical, have gotten much worse with New York and some other states turning to the National Guard.

In Kentucky, Governor Andy Beshear admitted that there was a 20% shortage of nurses.

Back in August, Beshear had appeared at an event with top hospital administrators urging companies to impose a vaccine mandate… especially in hospitals.

Kentucky hospitals fired unvaccinated staff and now there’s a catastrophic shortage.

California is looking at its own shortage of over 40,000 nurses. Michigan hospitals are eliminating hundreds of beds due to nursing shortages and trying to import foreign nurses. In one Pennsylvania health care system, 35% of nursing slots have gone unfilled.

Democrat states have responded to the crisis by trying to become competitive, luring nurses from other states, creating even more vacancies and instability in hospital staffing.

They’ve done everything to find more nurses except relaxing their own vaccine mandates.

And the storm is coming.

Even without the pandemic, flu season and assorted accidents and medical problems that are more likely to crop up over winter would see large spikes in hospital admissions.

Biden’s vaccine mandate and the various local state vaccine mandates have dramatically worsened the nursing shortage and ICU capacity triggers will be hit before too long. And once that happens, state governments will have a choice between shutdowns and ignoring their rules.

Since the one consistent factor of pandemic governance has been the double standards, expect Dem governors who are already facing a huge political backlash to try and stop the shutdowns.

Or at least some of them will.

But a whole bunch of places have handed over authority to public health administrators, bureaucrats with all of Fauci’s arrogance but no actual medical training, who will be almost certain to follow the rules they created and perpetuate their power grabs for one more year.

And that will leave Democrat legislatures and executives with a choice between taking away their authority or going back to blaming the lockdowns on those who “don’t follow the rules”.

The polls have made it abundantly clear that the public is tired of this nonsense, but the Biden administration has also made it abundantly clear that it doesn’t care what the polls say.

Why would it? Most Dems don’t want another term of Biden and Kamala. To say nothing of how the rest of the country feels about them. And the federal bureaucrats who wrecked the economy are even more unaccountable than a one-term corrupt gerontrocrat and his current doxie.

Biden claims that his plan “doesn’t include shutdowns or lockdowns", and yet it all but guarantees them. But once the issue comes up, the facts will be spun and smoke will be blown. The media will confuse the issue and blame everything except the root cause of the disaster.

But the truth about the coming crisis is really simple.

Biden’s vaccine mandate and other Democrat mandates have worsened the staffing crisis at hospitals and health care networks. When they get slammed over the winter, the number of available beds will be even lower and it will take fewer patients to hit ICU capacity triggers.

When public health administrators call for lockdowns and shutdowns, and Dem governors start contemplating new onerous restrictions on restaurants and small businesses, the origin of the latest lockdowns will lie with Biden’s decision to impose vaccine mandates on America.

Something that he promised last December that he would not do.

The story of the pandemic has been one of avoidable crises that became inevitable only through a combination of corruption and incompetence. Every step of the disaster was foreseeable and the coming push for winter lockdowns and shutdowns is no different.

Fire a whole bunch of nurses and there will be less hospital capacity. Biden claims that he doesn’t want any more lockdowns, but he’s doing everything possible to lock down 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. 

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, December 16, 2021

Democrats are Destroying Public Schools. Republicans Should Help Them.

By On December 16, 2021

 During the pandemic, millions of upper middle class white parents experienced for the first time the high quality education that minority public students had been receiving for generations.

The housing values of America’s communities are based on taxing homeowners to subsidize school systems that are radical, corrupt, and wasteful, but that suburban parents keep on funding because they believe it will prepare their children for college and success in life.

The administrators and teachers expect high levels of parental involvement in local school systems and understand that the ungodly sums of money being poured into their systems depend on parents sacrificing to make sure their kids are going to be able to afford to live in the same kind of communities and repeat the cycle of sending their kids to the same schools.

The Left smears this as systemic racism, but the only systemic thing is the sheer amount of money and effort that suburban parents put into maintaining schools that fail to meet the basic educational standards of virtually every previous generation, but still give their children a future.

The systemic racism does not come from the superiority of suburban schools, but from the way Democrat cities and teachers’ unions broke urban schools in minority areas. The issue, despite media lies, isn’t money. The per student spending in major cities like New York City ($28.000), Chicago ($16,000), and Los Angeles ($24,000) remains staggering. But as with any number of government bureaucracies from the Pentagon to the homeless crisis, the money doesn’t buy anything except an expansion of the system that is rapidly gobbling up all the cash put into it.

The more schools are in crisis, the worse their standards become. And the worse the standards, the worse the crisis because the system exists to perpetuate the crisis for political reasons. Suburban schools aren’t better because they spend more money, but because constant parental involvement keeps the same educational forces that destroyed urban schools at bay.

The crisis finally arrived at suburban schools with the pandemic. Administrators and officials rapidly dismantled standards, shut down any kind of accountability, moved classes to Zoom, and went on with the business of demanding more money to solve a crisis they had created.

Absenteeism skyrocketed, grades dropped or were dropped, and teachers were free to jettison standards and focus on woke political agendas while neglecting any actual education.

The urban ghetto model had finally come to the best suburban schools not by way of race, as the Left and their media often insisted, but by cutting parents out of the loop and letting the system have its way. This was not simple laziness and greed by the teachers’ unions, though that was a definite added bonus, but a plot to destroy educational standards nationwide.

The plan is largely succeeding as colleges that formerly valued the SAT and other admission testing metrics discard them as part of their equity plans, and school districts eliminate gifted and talented programs, and write new rules discouraging firm grades and deadlines, allowing tests to be retaken and essays to be rewritten as often as it takes to get students promoted.

Some of this is happening under the pretext of the pandemic and some as part of the extended commemoration of George Floyd’s drug overdose death, but all of it is part of an existing plan to move education away from standards and toward politics. In the new educational standards you don’t need to learn grammar, to understand how a cell divides, or what 2 + 2 equals. The new standards all involve students learning to become activists who advocate for leftist views while reporting each other for thought crimes to woke social media lynch mobs.

The criticisms of critical race theory in classrooms are valid, but they often miss the forest for the trees. Teaching children that they’re born racists or victims because of their skin color is horrifying, but it’s one component of a larger educational program that has rebooted civics as a program for radicalizing students into a Red Guard to take over every institution they enter.

The program isn’t new and the speed with which corporations fall into line behind woke agendas testifies to its previous existence and its growing effectiveness. Many suburban parents were relatively comfortable with having their children turned into militant environmentalists, pro-abortion, or gay rights activists. Some are now drawing the line not at civil rights activism, but at a classroom process that explicitly demeans their children and takes away their future.

Their partial awakening is welcome, but it’s a little late and extremely incomplete.

Many parents did not care what their students learned as long as the system appeared to be putting them on track for college and success in life. Now the system has begun announcing that it doesn’t believe in success and that their children don’t deserve it anyway. The educational standards forming the basis for the future they had been paying extortionate property taxes to maintain were suddenly being dismantled before their unbelieving eyes.

The Virginia gubernatorial election and the elections in New York and New Jersey are the first shock waves of outrage hitting the system. Youngkin didn’t just run on critical race theory, as some social media echo chambers from out of state thought, but on building up schools because suburban parents are still convinced that more money for education will fix everything.

Putting more money into the public school system empowers the destroyers dismantling educational standards for equity’s sake and electing their political allies to public office.

For every dime that goes to increasing educational standards, 90 cents will be used to hire more administrators, implement new equity plans, funnel more cash to educational consultants and giant textbook publishers, and raise teacher salaries which will put more cash and clout in the pockets of the unions bent on destroying the system. The hole in the boat will only get bigger.

The problem with American education is not a lack of money. The public school system will be no better at educating students if it were “funded like the military”, as activists argue, than the military is at winning wars. Just as in wars, what’s missing isn’t resources, it’s the objective.

The American school system, like the rest of our institutions, is in an uncomfortable state of transition between its traditional goals and values, and the new radical agendas of the Left. The educational system, as leftist educrats protest, is still built around a traditional approach to education, but it has been captured from the top down and the bottom up by radicals who want to radicalize not only the subject matter of education, but its purpose and method.

The pandemic provided them with a pretext for “Cloward-Pivening” the system by destroying educational standards across the system, not just in isolated areas. By refusing to teach students, the teachers’ unions all but ensured that they would fail to meet educational standards. And, as in the ghettos, every failing student became part of a constituency for dismantling educational standards. And those parents who had struggled to keep their children learning during the pandemic were expected to abandon standards in the name of equity.

The same corrupt system which had destroyed education insisted that parents were racist and selfish for refusing to understand how hard it was for all the other students. But, just as in urban schools, it was hard for those students because the system had deliberately made it so.

The public school system broke itself and, like union boss Randi Weingarten, blamed the breakage on everyone else, while insisting that the destruction be institutionalized.

Anything else would be systemic racism.

But the only systemic racism in schools is educational wokeness. Many suburban parents embraced wokeness alongside standards because it helped give their children a competitive advantage over Asian, Indian, and other high-performing minorities. The corrupt bargain fed into a college admissions system that valued social justice activism over academic brilliance.

The ideal balance between wokeness and standards made suburban white liberal students more competitive than their high performing or underperforming minority counterparts, not to mention academically gifted students in more conservative rural areas. But now the woke devil must have his due. And the price is not only the competitive advantage, but all of education.

Students who want to get ahead in the new system have to develop an appetite for woke activism, for turning in their peers for politically incorrect thoughts, for marching in rallies, discovering a sexual interest in their own sex or deciding that they are really the opposite sex.

And the system is performing brilliantly as students conform to its radical expectations.

Parents have been slow to understand the sheer scale of what is happening and conservatives have been equally slow to spell it out in clear and unambiguous language. After Virginia, education is on the radar and Republicans are planning to use it as a model for winning the battle and losing the war by promising to outspend Democrats on public school systems.

This is a strategy for short term political victories and catastrophic long term cultural defeats.

Republicans are right to assert support for strong educational standards. That’s an area where Democrats have become vulnerable after tipping their hand. But restoring standards to a system that is becoming institutionally opposed to them is more than a matter of winning elections.

The problem, as lefties like to say, is systemic. And the system must be dismantled.

The real lesson of Virginia is that conservatives do better with local control and lefties with national control. But, despite election victories, the momentum is with the nationalization of public schools, from the Department of Education to Bill Gates’ Common Core projects, to the Biden administration’s use of the FBI to intimidate local parents speaking out at board meetings.

The only way to reverse that momentum is to truly decentralize education by funding students, not systems, abandoning the public school model and replacing it with vouchers and subsidies for private schools that will allow parents to choose the education that fits their values.

Cloward-Piven works both ways. The deliberate destruction of the system is also an overreach that allows conservatives to propose alternatives to a leftist system instead of propping it up.

And yet every time the Left pulls out its Cloward-Piven plot, the GOP tries to prove that it can manage a declining system better than any of its leftist political opponents. It’s true, but it’s no accomplishment. When hijackers are trying to fly a plane into the World Trade Center, boasting that you can do a better job than them of keeping it level is a low bar that solves nothing.

If Republicans want to start winning culture wars, instead of culture battles, they need to think like the Left and reinvent systems instead of competing on systemic competence. The Left isn’t destroying education because it’s incompetent, but because it wants to reinvent it.

Are Republicans also willing to also reinvent American education or just manage its decline?

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, December 12, 2021

Iranian Terror Group Protected by Biden Aided Him in 2020 Election

By On December 12, 2021
In 2007, Joe Biden became one of only 22 senators to vote against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. The IRGC is Iran’s central terror hub, organizing, funding, and training terrorists around the region and the world.

Including terrorists who murdered Americans.

Biden was so proud of his IRGC vote that he used it to attack Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for being insufficiently pro-Iran, and then brought it up during the Democrat debate.

After Senator Mike Gravel defended two of the IRGC’s terror groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, contending, “these people are fighting for their rights”, Biden joined in with colleague, claiming that the “moment that declaration was made, every one of our friends, from Iraq to Pakistan, felt they had to distance themselves from us because it appears to be a war on Islam.”

The IRGC clearly appreciated Biden’s support and tried to pay it forward in the 2020 election.

Unlike most election interference news, the DOJ’s latest announcement has received very little media coverage because the interference was coming out of Iran and was helping Biden.

An indictment charged two Iranians over a "cyber-enabled disinformation and threat campaign designed to influence the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election."

Many conservatives already knew that Iranian hackers had tried to pass themselves off as members of the Proud Boys in a false flag operation designed to increase Democrat turnout and generate an election backlash to President Trump. One example of the Iranian campaign involved sending emails to "tens of thousands of registered voters" that threatened them "with physical injury if they did not change their party affiliation and vote for President Trump."

The importance of the indictment though is that it shows the campaign came from the IRGC.

The DOJ statement only notes that the hackers had “worked as contractors for an Iran-based company formerly known as Eeleyanet Gostar, and now known as Emennet Pasargad”. The official sanctions designation at the Treasury Department however explains why the company keeps changing names. “Emennet was previously designated under its former name, Net Peygard Samavat Company” for its work with the “Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Electronic Warfare and Cyber Defense Organization (IRGC-EWCD). The company rebranded itself to evade U.S. sanctions and continue its disruptive cyber operations against the United States.”

The false flag operation was actually being conducted by Iran’s terrorist cyberwarfare corps who had been previously tied to various cyberattacks, including ransomware. Unlike these more obvious financial schemes, there was nothing financial for the IRGC’s hackers to gain from impersonating Trump supporters. This was a deliberate effort by Iran to defeat President Trump.

The organization in question had already been caught trying to “implant malware on the computer systems of current and former U.S. counterintelligence agents.”

There was little question that the Shiite Islamic terror regime in Tehran wanted Biden.

Two days after the election, President Rouhani of Iran blasted President Trump as a "person in the White House who brutally intensified sanctions", but expressed hope that "the next American administration will surrender to the Iranian nation."

It did indeed.

The Biden administration lifted the terror designation on the IRGC’s Houthi terrorists in Yemen. The Shiite terrorist group, whose motto also includes, “Death to America”, has since gone on to attack the U.S. embassy in Yemen and take local staff as hostages. This comes after Biden pulled anti-missile batteries out of several countries targeted by Iran: including Saudi Arabia.

This is unsurprising behavior from Biden, who, when addressing the American Iranian Council, had argued, "We cannot simply dismiss Iran's security concerns.”

Since taking office, the Biden administration has allowed the Tehran terrorists to benefit from billions of dollars in sanctions relief. A regime paper boasted that $4 billion had been freed “without much negotiation”. The administration is currently floating an “interim nuclear deal” that would provide even more sanctions relief to Iran. And that’s even before the real negotiations.

The IRGC’s investment in Iran has already paid billions in dividends. It expects billions more.

While Democrats and the media used the Steele Dossier hoax to falsely claim that President Trump was in bed with Russia, Biden has extensive and deeply troubling ties to Iran.

After September 11, Biden proposed, "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran." While the check never materialized, the Obama-Biden administration would send billions, not millions, to the Islamic terror state.

Before then, Biden prepped for a presidential run by doing a tour of Iran lobby groups.

At a 2003 Senate hearing, Biden suggested that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons because it felt “isolated”, and that its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with Islam.

During the 2008 election, Biden wanted to reopen a US diplomatic presence in Tehran. He proposed cutting off Radio Liberty broadcasts that provided a voice for Iranian dissidents. And behind the scenes,he tapped into the Iran Lobby’s fundraising apparatus, raising tens of thousands, which, by the 2020 election had turned into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Right before the election, Biden released his list of fundraising bundlers. In an exclusive story, Front Page Magazine’s investigation revealed that they included Jamal Abdi, the executive director of NIAC Action. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC), often described as the Iran Lobby, claimed its members had run phone banks and donated $385,000 to Biden.

NIAC Action had endorsed Biden and declared, “our long, national nightmare is almost over. AP has called the race for Joe Biden”.

Biden's pick for Secretary of State, Tony Blinken was, like his future boss, an opponent of designating the IRGC a terrorist group, cautioning, “If there's a formal designation as a terrorist organization, I think there is going to be blowback."

The IRGC got its dream team in Washington D.C. and now it’s taking advantage of it.

Biden had denied the IRGC’s terrorist operations arguing that, “the vote to declare the Qods Force and the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was not a view that could be established without question.” It’s not a coincidence that the same terrorist group he had intervened to protect helped his campaign in the 2020 election with a false flag operation.

The same media that pushed the Russiagate hoax has shown no interest in Biden’s ties to Iran, the impact of those ties on his pro-Iran policies, or the IRGC attempts to help his campaign. But as Biden continues to reward Iran, we should be prepared for more IRGC election interference.

There’s too many billions at stake for Iran not to try to keep Biden in the White House.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, December 09, 2021

The Decline and Fall of Kamala Harris

By On December 09, 2021
The end of the Obama era renewed the civil war between the Democrat establishment and the Socialist insurgents. Hillary Clinton, the establishment woman whose loss to Obama had inaugurated 8 years of insurgent rule, faced down a new challenge from the Sanders insurgency.

The next round of the fight in 2020 was a virtual draw with black voters choosing Biden and white lefties backing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The Biden administration was a compromise between both wings of the party. Its senior members are establishment while many of their juniors are Warren allies or linked to the Congressional Black Caucus.

Biden was a useful compromise candidate because his age and mental condition made him a “one-and-done” politician whose administration would take the hit by implementing radical policies and coping with the political fallout from the pandemic and runaway inflation.

Except that Biden, who keeps promising to run again, doesn’t seem to know it.

The only member of his administration who is even more clueless than Joe is Kamala. The compromise that put her in the White House was the most misguided one of them all.

Biden had promised the Congressional Black Caucus a black female veep. The CBC wanted one of its own, particularly Rep. Karen Bass, but considering her Castro sympathies and general leftist radicalism, that would have meant writing off Florida and the rest of America.

Instead, Biden, in his only clever move, picked Kamala, a failed primary opponent, not because she was popular, but because she was unpopular. Rather than an affirmation, Biden went over the protests of his own people to select a political human shield. The party of identity politics would never pressure him to step down to make way for this particular “black woman”.

On the political chessboard, Kamala functioned as Biden’s incompetent queen. Her unpopularity protected Biden from any political pressure to step down, but also blocked potential opponents from trying to replace him. When Buttigieg’s efforts to build a platform for a presidential run inside the White House became too public, Kamala brought out the race card.

Kamala was too unpopular to run and too rich with identity politics to be cut out of the race.

Picking Kamala was a brilliant move for Biden. Not so much for Kamala. The mediocre political hack, rapidly elevated to the Senate and then the Veepdom, has little experience in D.C., few political skills, and is incapable of even running any kind of basic organization. The same qualities that wrecked her presidential campaign also devastated her vice presidency.

After her campaign collapsed into feuding between her staff and her sister, history is repeating itself. And once again Kamala can’t decide if she wants to be a radical or a moderate, and is trying to be all things to all people. Like her campaign flip-flopping on socialized medicine, she veers between open borders and immigration enforcement rhetoric, between demonizing Israel and conducting outreach to Jews, without being able to pick a platform and stick with it.

Kamala Harris is far from the only Washington D.C. politician who doesn’t believe in anything, but it’s her inconsistency that makes her appear phony and insincere even to her own people. Her opportunism has always been too blatant to conceal under fake idealism, even more transparently artificial identity politics, or a truly implausible “ordinary woman” facade.

That’s the Hillary problem. And the establishment already made two bad bets on Hillary.

In a party deeply divided between radicals and establishment types, Kamala tried and failed to win the support of both, but is coming away with the support of neither. No one likes her and no one trusts her. And the campaign to undermine her is being waged subtly, but effectively.

Kamala’s top people are leaving because everyone in D.C. understands that she doesn’t have a future. Staffers work for politicians whom they expect will be able to advance their careers. It’s become obvious even among the third and fourth tier people around Kamala that she isn’t going anywhere. And no one with any ambition is likely to stick around and follow her off to the exit.

No longer a senator and a veep no one wants to see in the big chair, she has nowhere to go.

2024 Democrat candidates are making it plain that they don’t see either Biden or Kamala as political threats. In what other administration could a cabinet member like Buttigieg keep his own PAC going for a potential future presidential run against his own boss and Kamala?

This isn’t just palace intrigue, it’s a palace coup.

Buttigieg isn’t the only Democrat aiming at 2024. Senator Cory Booker is going to New Hampshire. Senator Bernie Sanders says that there’s only a “slim” chance he’ll run, but Nina Turner, his campaign co-chair, declared that, “If President Joe Biden does not seek reelection for whatever reason, that makes this a totally open seat. Period,”

As a black woman, Turner is immune to Kamala’s race card even while warning that the Sanders camp will not respect any kind of incumbency by Kamala. That’s not a coincidence.

Both sides expect 2024 to reopen the Democrat civil war. Buttigieg is positioning himself as the establishment candidate and even if the Sanders camp doesn’t run their figurehead, they will likely turn up another candidate to build a completely unearned cult of personality around.

Where does that leave Kamala? Just like in the primaries, nowhere.

Too clueless to realize that her plum job was really a put-up job, Kamala has finally reached the pinnacle of her profession only to discover that it’s really a dead end. If the country continues to be an economic and medical mess, the last thing anyone will want is Biden or his political prop.

Instead, Democrats are likely to embrace a radical change candidate and run against themselves. In an age where the establishment Democrats are just a more moderate breed of radical, the difference between the establishment and the socialists is only skin deep.

But skin deep differences are how voters get scammed by the same political hacks.

Kamala’s problem is that her scam was uninspiring, her invocations of victimhood unconvincing, and her brand was inauthentic. Leftists hate her because she’s phony and the establishment doesn’t want another Hillary. The Congressional Black Caucus resents her because of her covert campaign against Rep. Karen Bass. Her only allies in D.C. are on her payroll.

And that’s not a good place to be.

Kamala thought she was boarding an elevator to the White House, but instead she’s a puppet in the middle of a civil war that she is uniquely incapable of participating in, let alone winning.

Kamala Harris thought she was a queen, now she’s realizing that she’s only a pawn.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.


Blog Archive