Enter your keyword

Thursday, March 31, 2022

How Democrats Made America Dependent on Russian Uranium

By On March 31, 2022
Uranium prices have shot up by as much as 40% since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

With nuclear power providing about a fifth of our energy, this is another blow for Americans.

Unfortunately our nuclear power plants are dependent on uranium imports from Russia and countries in its sphere of influence because our domestic mining industry was suppressed.

In December 2016, on his way out the door, Barack Obama announced that he was inventing the Bears Ears "National Monument" on over a million acres of land. While California environmentalists celebrated, tens of thousands of locals bitterly protested the move.

Billboards and stickers reading #RescindBearsEars were plastered across Utah towns in the area that expected catastrophic consequences from the destruction of their livelihoods.

Among these was uranium mining.

A uranium mine in the area has the potential to yield 500,000 pounds of uranium. Miners warned that the Bears Ears monument would force us to rely more heavily on foreign uranium.

But the Democrats, still busy blaming their election defeat on some sort of phantom Russian-Trump conspiracy, did not see any problem with making America dependent on Russia.

The Trump administration did not rescind Obama’s power grab, but did shrink the monument by over 80%. It was the latest battle in a long running war between Democrats looking to shut down mining in general and uranium mining specifically, and Republicans limiting, but not undoing the damage done by their abusive environmental regulations and power plays.

The Clinton administration’s euphemistic “mining reform” push already devastated mining in America. As the Wall Street Journal noted at the time, mining firms were “leaving the United States with the blessings, if not open encouragement, of the Clinton administration."

And with the blessing of the Clintons, America became dependent on foreign resources.

In 1980, the United States had produced over 40 million pounds of uranium, but under the Clinton administration that number stood at less than 5 million. Now it's well below a million.

Despite efforts by environmentalists to shut down nuclear power plants and leave Americans reliant on expensive and unreliable Chinese solar panels and other scam green investment vehicles for their donor base, our nuclear plants, which unlike wind and solar are capable of delivering a reliable power supply, still went on needing uranium.

As domestic production virtually vanished, imports skyrocketed. Some 91% of enriched uranium used in nuclear power plants is imported from other countries. While Canada is a leading source of uranium imports, our largest source of uranium remains Russia combined with countries in its sphere of influence like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. In 2020, we bought about 11 million pounds of Canadian uranium, 8 million pounds of Russian uranium, around 11 million pounds of Kazakh uranium, and about 4 million pounds of Uzbek uranium.

Putin recently intervened militarily to protect Kazakhstan's leader from opposition protests.

Kazatomprom, the world's largest uranium producer, had partnered with Uranium One, a Canadian uranium mining company that the Clintons colluded to sell to the Russians (more recently, Uranium One was resold to an American company) and has close ties to the nuclear industries in Russia and China. Communist China is pushing aggressively into Kazakhstan to feed its growing appetite for nuclear power. And that will also limit our nuclear power options.

America has plenty of uranium but, like so many other resources, miners aren’t allowed to go and get it. That’s why we depend on China and the Taliban for the rare earths that go into our microchips, on Mexico for copper, and on Russia and its allies for our uranium.

America’s uranium industry used to provide tens of thousands of jobs. Now hardly any.

As Bill Clinton went to war against miners, the mayor of Moab, Utah pleaded for respite.

"We called ourselves the uranium capital of the world. It provided us with a high standard of living," he said. "While we're proud of the tourism base, it cannot provide the standard of living that mining did. Moab needs the jobs that mining will create. It could come back. We still have plenty of low-grade uranium ore throughout the area. It will never come back if they pass this bill."

California environmentalists have been smugly lecturing locals in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that they ought to forget about having good jobs that can provide them with a middle class life, and just be there to bus their tables and sell them keychains when they go on vacations.

Much as solar panel jobs are no substitute for coal jobs, tourism work is no substitute for mining.

While the Clinton administration didn't manage to pass its preferred bill destroying the mining industry, it used administrative regulations to do as much damage as possible. In the last days of the corrupt administration, Bill Clinton issued a series of "midnight regulations" attacking American industries. And the mining industry was a major target of the administration.

While the Clintons were cheerfully suppressing mining in America, Putin was on the make.

When the Clintons later colluded to allow Uranium One to be sold to Russia, Putin held a meeting with the head of state-owned Rosatom. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” he told Putin.

When Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One for delivering a speech, he was personally thanked by Vladimir Putin.

This was only the final betrayal after the Megatons to Megawatts program signed by Bill Clinton which claimed that it would end the threat of nuclear war by taking retired Russian nuclear warheads and turning them into "cheap energy" for American nuclear power plants.

The deal, hailed at the time as a scheme to save the world, actually freed Russia from having to maintain its older nuclear weapons and instead enabled it to invest in next generation weapons, while dumping a great deal of "cheap" uranium that devastated the American mining industry.

At its peak, Russian uranium provided a third of our fuel. Bill Clinton not only went to war against domestic mining, but colluded to enable the Russians to dump cheap uranium here.

The Russians didn’t just “dump” uranium to suppress our domestic mining industry, they did it with the blessing and support of the Clinton administration and some of its corrupt allies.

Once again, the Americans thought that they had put one over the Russians, but it was the Russians who had the last laugh as we paid them to upgrade their nuclear weapons while becoming dependent on Russian uranium. As the saying occasionally attributed to Lenin goes,

“The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

Megatons to Megawatts wrapped up during the Obama administration. In 2018, Putin unveiled a new generation of nuclear weapons. Experts now worry that they may be used in Ukraine. And America has become dependent on uranium from Russia and from former Soviet republics.

We could revive our domestic uranium mining industry, but to do that we would have to dismantle the entire system of government and environmentalist lawfare that has been steadily destroying our domestic industries, including mining, under the guise of saving the planet.

The Left claims to want to stop Putin even while making America and Europe dependent on him. Putin wants to leverage control over energy supply chains. If Democrats really want to stop him, then they need to throw out the corrupt Clinton policies, and start drilling and mining again.



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, March 30, 2022

Save "Palestine" From the "Palestinians"

By On March 30, 2022
"In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate," Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, said, "we would like to welcome Secretary Clinton."

"Blinken," someone corrected him.

"Sorry, Blinken," the 86-year-old Islamic terrorist leader said.

Secretary of State Blinken had to travel thousands of miles away to find a leader even more unpopular and out of it than the one he had left behind at the White House.

That was last year. This year, Abbas got Blinken’s name right and not much else.

After 17 years (and just one election), Abbas has seen a lot of secretaries of state come and go to get their pictures taken with him and then send him a few hundred million dollars.

Last year, Abbas told Blinken that he had "postponed the elections" because of Israel and that the moment he gets his paws on Jerusalem, "we will hold them immediately and without any delay, because ultimately what we’re interested in is to establish democracy throughout Palestine." This year they can’t be held either because Abbas still doesn’t have Jerusalem.

The last Palestinian Authority presidential election was in 2005. Abbas won. The last parliamentary election was in 2006. Hamas won. The presidential and parliamentary elections have been postponed since then but are expected to resume any time now. If not, blame Israel.

Since elections won't be happening anytime soon, a recent poll reveals that 73% of the "Palestinians" occupying the West Bank and Gaza want Abbas to resign.

If elections were somehow held today the Hamas presidential candidate would win 54% of the vote while Abbas would only get 38%. So you can see why there will be no elections.

61% want to tear up all agreements with Israel (since they haven't kept them, that would be a technicality), 70% don’t want to negotiate with Israel, and 64% don’t even want to negotiate with Biden. 58% oppose the “two-state solution” that is the touchstone of the entire peace process.

73% believes that the Koran predicts that Israel will be destroyed, but only 32% believe it will happen in 2022.

Under these circumstances, the last thing the Biden administration wants is democracy for the quarreling foreign Jihadist tribes who invaded Israel over the last few centuries and were rebranded by the name of the European colonists known as the Philistines.

Blinken is fine with Abbas postponing the elections forever because otherwise the terror clans will do what they did the last time that Bush naively allowed elections and vote for Hamas.

And that would be inconvenient because Hamas won’t pretend that they aren’t terrorists.

Four Israelis were murdered last week by a Muslim terrorist attack at a mall in Beersheba.

Despite the terrorist's ISIS membership, a Hamas spokesman praised "the executor of the heroic operation" and promised more "heroic operations: stabbings, ramming and shooting” like the car and stabbing spree that killed a Rabbi who ran a soup kitchen and two mothers of three children. So much for the claim that Hamas will inhibit the rise of the “extremists” of ISIS.

Palestinian Authority media also hailed Mohammad Ghaleb Abu al-Qi’an, the ISIS terrorist shot and killed by an Israeli bus driver who chased him down on foot, as a "martyr". If the PA follows its usual “Pay to Slay” policy in this case, it won’t just be financially supporting the usual stable of PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad families, but also an ISIS terrorist’s family.

And that will mean American taxpayers will end up subsidizing ISIS terrorism in Israel as the Biden administration explores ways to bypass the Taylor Force Act’s ban on terror funding.

At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Bennett, Blinken gave a speech mostly blaming Israel for future violence during Passover and Ramadan. That speech was followed by another ISIS attack in which two heavily armed terrorists opened fire on a bus. The Islamic terrorists were taken down by cops who had been eating nearby, but not before they killed two people.

Hamas celebrated the "valor and courage" of the ISIS terrorists as did Islamic Jihad.

Hezbollah, backed by Iran, praised the ISIS attack as an “important and most effective practical response to the infamous and treacherous normalization meetings that some Arab regimes are carrying out with the enemy entity” referring to the anti-Iran summit in Israel with the foreign ministers of Bahrain, UAE, Morocco and Egypt. Iran's pro-IRGC outlet praised it as a “martyrdom operation”. When it comes to Israel, Iran and ISIS are on the same side. Much as Al Qaeda and Iran were on the same side when it came to the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Blinken meanwhile used the visit to pitch Israelis on a Biden plan to remove the IRGC, Iran’s terror hub, from the list of foreign terrorist organizations, claiming it would be “symbolic”.

He failed to condemn the terrorist attack as an ISIS attack, calling it “senseless” violence.

At his joint press conference with Abbas, Blinken also failed to condemn terrorism or to note that ISIS, with the tacit support of his PLO hosts in Ramallah and of Hamas in Gaza was planting its flag in Israel. Instead Blinken once again condemned Jewish Israeli “settler violence”.

Like Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland's previous visit, the formula of Biden administration officials condemning Israeli "settler violence" while promising to "strengthen" the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority is as familiar as it is evil. The Palestinian Authority is an unwanted institution whose leader 73% of the people the dictator rules over want to see out of office.

And 49% want to dissolve the Palestinian Authority.

Considering the decades of failure, misery, and terrorism wrought by the failed Clinton initiative to create a Palestinian state, it’s long past time for everyone to turn the book on this disaster.

Neither Arab Muslims nor Israelis want Abbas or the Palestinian Authority. Only diplomats like Blinken and Nuland insist on keeping the senile tyrant of Ramallah in office until he dies.

In a final statistic, the poll asked who was "most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people". 31% picked Hamas, 29% chose Abbas' Palestinian Authority, and 33% chose none of the above. 84% believe the PA is corrupt and 70% believe Hamas is dirty.

The “Palestinian people” have spoken. Will Biden listen to them?

The root source of the corruption comes from the hundreds of millions of dollars that Blinken came bearing last year for the regime of a corrupt senile autocrat who didn’t even know whom he was talking to. There’s more money coming this year to prop up the terrorist regime.

All in the name of a peace which doesn’t exist and that the majority of “Palestinians” don’t want.

The United States has gone from using its foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority to prop up PLO, Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorism against Israel, to subsidizing ISIS terrorism.

Will ISIS be a final red line for the corrupt farce of a two-state solution and a peace process?





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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

The Moral Poverty of Identity Politics

By On March 29, 2022
Joe Biden had promised black voters in South Carolina that he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court if they voted for him. After a pressure campaign aimed at the Supreme Court’s lone liberal justice who agreed to step down and make way for a black woman, Biden picked between two candidates, one backed by moderates and one backed by radical leftists.

Even while leftists wished that Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s lone black justice, would die after reports that he was hospitalized, they cheered the incredible breakthrough of the first black female, and more importantly leftist, being nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court.

The long contentious hearings had plenty of awkward moments, but the most definitive clash came from a simple question that highlighted the vast moral gap between identity politics and natural rights.

"When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?" Senator Kennedy asked Jackson.

"Well Senator, um... I believe that the Supreme Court... um... actually I, I actually don't know the answer to that question — I'm sorry — I don't," she awkwardly replied.

The postmodern leftist notion of human rights revolves around pursuing equity for discriminated groups. Leftists like Jackson have thorough notions about what equal protection looks like for black or transgender people, but no notion of a grander principle that protects all human life.

Jackson obviously found the question uncomfortable because it addresses abortion. And yet even a militant abortion supporter like Jackson ought to be able to tackle the basic moral question of when life begins and when human rights come into play. The Framers are often attacked for refusing to grapple with the moral questions of slavery, yet they did. That they narrowly chose not to break up the country over a monstrous evil did not change the fact that they struggled to reconcile their ideals and the compromises they believed they had to make.

Leftists, like the most hard-boiled defenders of slavery, refuse to even admit that there’s an issue. Jackson’s smirking response would have befitted a Buchanan Democrat pretending not to understand that human slavery might have moral, not just economic, legal implications.

Identity politics reduces every issue to victimhood. The same worldview that makes it all too easy to blame highways and obesity on systemic racism makes it equally impossible for leftist jurists like Jackson to even conceive of life and liberty as natural rights bestowed on everyone. And yet it was this conviction that eventually overturned slavery and segregation.

"Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?" Senator Kennedy asked Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases," she replied.

Judges shouldn't rule from theology, but the idea that their religious moral convictions should play no role in basic notions of rights is alien to the words of the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

If religious views of human rights are things to be set aside, then what is the basis for anyone's rights? Judicial precedent, a "living constitution" that incorporates current academic doctrines, the pursuit of equity? Those are where leftists derive their moral authority and notions of rights.

And yet without that grand conviction that human equality and rights proceed from a higher power, they remain at the mercy of judges like Jackson who can decide when to take them away. And Jackson is unable to even articulate when those rights actually begin which will make it that much more morally and intellectually easier for her to take them away, from babies and from anyone else whose existence obstructs her political ideology and personal biases.

Jackson can’t comprehend rights except in terms of equity. If a group isn’t sufficiently wealthy, healthy, or otherwise successful, the government has to step in and alter the equation. But if a group is all of the above, then the government needs to examine how it oppressed others.

This Procrustean Bed in which the government stretches some and shrinks others in pursuit of the impossible mission of making everyone equal is the only kind of rights leftists understand. And they have no notion of the origin of rights except as a mindless pursuit of leveling everyone, and an atonement for the social sins that resulted in everyone not being equally successful.

Rather than looking back to an origin point, they look forward to a secular utopian “right side of history”, a transcendentalist conviction that one day we will all be made equal, to justify everything they believe and everything they do. And so you can’t ask Ketanji Brown Jackson when rights begin, because they haven’t ended yet. The present is just an unfinished future.

Rights don’t begin with God or with our founding documents, they run backward in time from some inchoate socialist future which they intend to achieve by forcibly “equalizing” all of us.

Jackson couldn’t process the question of when universal human rights come into being, because she doesn’t view rights as universal except in the sense that everyone has the right to be made equal. To assess whether someone has rights, leftists have to know their race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background and other details that indicate where they stand on the equity spectrum. Asking them to articulate rights without reference to equity is like asking Thomas Jefferson where rights come from if there was no Creator or guiding natural order.

What rights does a baby have? According to leftists, the right to be made equal. The only real right in leftist judicial doctrine is the right to have what others have. And the amplification of whatever privileges and benefits are necessary to cut in line in order to achieve equity.

But does a baby have the right to live? That simple question whose parameters the Founders and Framers would have had no trouble understanding, frustrates and infuriates leftist jurists to whom rights are not natural, but relative, and not individual, but collective. While they can amply expound on the plight of transgender Navajo Indians, they can’t offer a decision on the life of a single infant of unknown race and sex because they don’t believe in rights apart from identity.

Leftists can’t affirm natural universal rights, only compare rights relative to someone else.

Ask a leftist to compare my rights to your rights and they can easily do it. A baby can’t have innate natural rights, but must have her rights compared to her mother and to society at large. Stakeholders must be consulted, and papers must be reviewed on the status of women in Colonial America to derive who is the greater victim and who is entitled to more rights.

The question of when human rights are conferred is baffling and annoying to Jackson. In her legalistic worldview, the question “when” is almost entirely irrelevant. It’s like asking “when is racism” or “when is sexism”. The dividing lines in leftist jurisprudence are not based on time or other rational metrics, but the subjective and relative ones of who loses and who gains.

That’s why asking for firm rational metrics for anything is routinely derided as white western masculine thinking in academic circles. Leftists prefer to make decisions based on lived experience which is another way of saying anecdotal subjectivity which leaves plenty of room for personal bias, but none for any meaningful guarantee of rights beyond momentary feelings.

The Founders and Framers were certainly flawed, but they proceeded from an understanding of rights that expanded them, while leftists like Jackson can only contract and reduce them. Where our nation’s founders universalized rights, leftists use equity to deuniversalize them, replacing general guarantees of human rights with situational activism through academic lenses.

They claim that they are expanding rights when all they’re doing is taking away our universal natural rights and replacing them with a ranked caste system of identity politics privileges that can bestow a “right” to a house, a car, or fat-free yogurt, but not the absolute right to live.

Where the Bill of Rights could define free speech as a universal right, leftists have dismantled the ACLU and insist that only the people who agree with them should have free speech. And so it goes for everything from the right to assemble to freedom of the press. Conservatives rightly see this as an unconstitutional double standard because it transgresses universal rights. But leftists only see universal rights as a leveling mechanism that only applies to the extent that it makes people more equal, but not when it does not. And so it’s natural for them to reject the idea that their opponents, who they argue make people less equal, should have free speech.

This is the totalitarian logic of civil rights which has slowly taken away rights from everyone.

Cancel culture is the inevitable result of the impulse to make people equal by destroying those who are perceived to stand in the way of the social activism that is the only source of equality.

Is it any wonder that Jackson can’t articulate or even grasp the concept that universal human rights exist and that they have some origin point in the process of human development?

Jackson’s incomprehension of the question reveals the moral bankruptcy of identity politics.

Identity politics is not making us a better society, more concerned with rights, it’s transforming us from a society that believed everyone had rights to a society which has no concept of rights.




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, March 28, 2022

Stop the Russian Invasion of America

By On March 28, 2022
While the Biden administration is focused on protecting the borders of Ukraine from Russia, some 8,600 Russians have shown up at our border with Mexico since last August.

Not to be left too far behind, 5,534 Ukrainians have also arrived since October.

Last December, two cars carrying 18 Russian migrants tried to barrel their way through at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. A CBP officer opened fire on a Mercedes driven by the invaders.

YouTube is full of guides for Russians looking to get into the United States through Mexico.

In one video, a man with Asiatic features wearing a Russian Army shirt directs his video to all Russians, describes how he made it to San Diego after a previous failed attempt in which they discussed trying to evade CBP and race to the border crossing, and advises that if you don't leave Russia with a "commanda", close friends, relatives, "like in the army", it won't work well.

He suggested that in immigration detention around 70% were Russian speakers, "Ukranians, Belarusians, Russians, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz.”

"Make a decision and make a run for it, in a fraction of a second," he advises. "And it'll be what will be. Even if they catch you, nothing will happen to you."

That ought to be the motto of the Biden Administration’s open borders immigration policy.

That’s why there are encampments of Russians and Ukrainians in Mexico demanding asylum.

Did Putin invade Tijuana while no one was looking? If he tried, a heroic resistance of cartel members with machine guns mounted on Toyota pickup trucks would have sent Russian troops, already suffering from dysentry, alcohol poisoning, and six different kinds of STDs, packing.

How exactly did a town worth of Russians and Ukrainians pop up in Mexico? They flew there. And they didn’t do it to buy hundred peso Rolexes made in China but because they know that if they come up with a timely sob story about fleeing the latest crisis, we’ll let them in.

And it’s working.

According to the AP, of the 8,600 Russians who invaded America, "all but 23 were processed under laws that allow them to seek asylum." When Russians invade Ukraine, we send in the Javelin missiles. When Russians invade America, we throw a parade to welcome them in.

Only four of the Ukrainians who showed up since September were asked to leave.

Every Russian who shows up now claims to hate Putin. But if loving Putin were grounds for asylum, they’d all come dressed in Putin t-shirts. The Ukrainians, regardless of where they live, including one who came from Uganda, claim to be fleeing the Russians. And they’re all fleeing each other to Mexico and demanding that we save them from each other. Right now.

The Trump administration's Remain in Mexico policy was supposed to stop this kind of migrant tourism under which migrants from every single country in the world would fly to Mexico and show up at the border, demanding asylum.

Asylum from what? Mexican sunsets?

Despite the Biden administration's open borders plot, state lawsuits and court rulings led the policy to remain in force. Russians and Ukrainians flying halfway around the world to show up at our land border don’t have a credible fear of persecution in Mexico. They’re gaming the system.

“While Moscow to Cancún is the most common route, some Russians fly from Amsterdam or Paris to Mexico City and then go to Tijuana,” an expert relates. Is there a reason these folks can’t apply for asylum in Amsterdam or Paris? Having reached Paris, aren’t they now safe?

Despite Gov. Ron DeSantis suggesting, 'If (Putin) went into France, do you think they'd do anything to put up a fight? Probably not”, Paris hasn’t actually fallen again. Yet. It’s safe from Putin (albeit not so much from Algerian or Moroccan Jihadists shouting, “Allahu Akbar.”)

The United States does not share a border with either Ukraine or Russia. Despite that we’re being invaded anyway because the one border we aren’t allowed to protect is our own.

If Putin wanted to invade America, all he would have to do is fly his forces into Tijuana International Airport (if we don't steal your luggage, it's because your clothes aren't good enough) and have all 150,000 conscripts apply for political asylum. Two days later they’d all be on buses heading around the country courtesy of the Lutheran Immigration Services, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, HIAS, and the beleaguered American taxpayer.

He wouldn’t even need to bring any tanks. We’ve already surrendered our border and nation.

The AP informs us that one Russian "narrated his trip from Moscow’s Red Square to a San Diego hotel room, with layovers in Cancún and Mexico City. His YouTube video shows him confessing to nerves after buying a used car in Tijuana, but he says later in San Diego that everything went smoothly – despite two days in US custody – and that others considering the journey shouldn’t be afraid." Maybe they should be afraid. At least just a little.

A few days ago, Biden announced another $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine.

Imagine what $800 million could do on our border. There still isn’t any money to build a border wall. Texas is shouldering the costs of deploying the National Guard to the border. Border personnel are still deprived of the resources they need to deal with the invasion of America.

The Ukrainians are entitled to secure their border. But why don’t Americans have that right?

Anyone who has a legitimate fear of persecution and requires political asylum can file their requests for asylum. The vast majority of arrivals however are economic migrants. The Southern land border now sees a vast horde of international migrants from India, China, Russia, and every other part of the world who fly into Mexico, rent cars, and drive up for asylum.

Open borders mean that we share a border with the entire world. And the world is showing up.

Maybe after spending billions securing Ukraine’s border, the Biden administration and some of its Republican open borders allies can give a thought to securing the border of a beleaguered nation being invaded by the Russians and by everyone else. A country called 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.

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Ketanji Brown Jackson's Favorite Critical Race Theory Book Rejects the Constitution

By On March 26, 2022
The existence of a speech by Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, praising Derrick Bell, the godfather of critical race theory, and citing his book, “Faces At the Bottom of a Well”, as an influence has been widely reported. Conservatives have covered Bell's racist views, his praise for Farrakhan, his antisemitism, and attacks on America. Much of this was already hashed out during the exposure of the relationship between Barack Obama and Derrick Bell.

But it's important to specifically focus on Jackson's interest in "Faces At the Bottom of the Well."

In her speech, Jackson mentions that Bell, whom along with his wife she praises throughout her speech, "wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life".

The subtitle of the book, which few people have mentioned, is, "The Permanence Of Racism".

Persistence and permanence are not the same thing. But this is another example of Jackson subtly distorting Bell and his book in order to make their extremism seem more moderate.

Jackson goes on to say that, "My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up; I found it difficult to reconcile the image of the person,who seemed to be smiling, with the depressing message that the title and subtitle conveyed. I thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years when I started preparing for this speech." That would have made her ten years old.

As others have pointed out, "Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was published when Jackson was in her early twenties during Bell’s tantrum against Harvard University. It’s unlikely that Biden’s Supreme Court nominee grew up with the hateful text, but it’s entirely plausible that she was influenced by the book which came out when she was at Harvard and then Harvard Law.

Since Bell began his racial strike against Harvard Law before she had completed her undergraduate degree, it’s unlikely that she had taken any of his classes, but the former member of the faculty was clearly an influence on her. Perhaps Jackson’s memory is faulty or she’s deliberately backdating the book’s influence to her childhood to make it seem more innocent. Surely no one could blame a ten year old for being attracted to a racialist text.

"Faces At the Bottom of the Well” is the sort of racist book that could conceivably appeal to a bright ten year old. Bell, despite his position, was never much of a legal or constitutional scholar, and Faces, like the preceding “And We Are Not Saved”, conveys its message that the constitution is just a facade for a white racist agenda through science fiction short stories.

Where "And We Are Not Saved" transports the protagonist back to the Constitutional Convention to denounce the Constitution, "Faces At the Bottom of the Well” indulges in more hyperbolic science fiction scenarios including the rise of a new continent of Afroatlantis and space aliens offering Americans profits in exchange for selling black people into space slavery.

While the scenarios are absurd, they’re there to illustrate Bell’s argument that the Constitution is nothing more than what benefits white people at any given time. This is the same argument that the godfather of critical race theory had repeatedly made throughout his career, contending, for example, that the ban on segregation was not a rejection of racism, only a ploy by white people to defeat the Soviet Union and Communism by showing that they weren’t racist.

(Likewise, Faces, along with a defense of Farrakhan and condemnation of Jews for opposing black antisemitism, portrays Jews as protesting against the plan to sell black people into slavery only because in the absence of blacks, “Jews could become the scapegoats”.)

Such racial conspiracy theories, ubiquitous in the work and thought of black nationalists and supremacists, who always begin and end with the premise of white evil, pervade Bell’s work.

"Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was a way to popularize and communicate this central idea at a level that even a child or a not particularly bright Harvard student, already nursing resentments, would be able to understand by depicting scenarios in which the white society and white people would cheerfully revamp the Constitution to bring back black slavery.

Thus near the end of the “Space Traders'' story, Bell has the Supreme Court unanimously rule that, “if inducted in accordance with a constitutionally approved conscription provision, blacks would have no issues of individual rights for review” and tells us that, “By 70 percent to 30 percent, American citizens voted to ratify the constitutional amendment that provided a legal basis for acceptance of the Space Traders’ offer”. Behind the SciFi is the message that the majority of Americans, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution would allow black people to be enslaved again and that therefore black people should not rely on whites or the Constitution.

The Constitution, according to Bell, is merely the whim of a white agenda that serves its purposes. To the extent that the law has outlawed segregation and slavery, it did so only because it temporarily served white purposes and the moment that it would serve white purposes to enslave black people again, it would be done within the Constitution.

That is the message of "Faces At the Bottom of the Well”: the book that influenced Jackson.

Does Jackson believe that the Supreme Court would rule that black people could be sold into slavery? Like everything about her record, we know we can’t expect an honest answer.

And yet her speech, which touches not only on the racist rants of Bell and his wife, but on the 1619 Project, introduces the idea that our founding documents are racially untrustworthy.

Praising the racial revisionist history of the 1619 Project, Jackson touts Nikole Hannah-Jones' "provocative thesis that the America that was born in 1776 was not the perfect union that it purported to be" and that only black civil rights activism made America "the free nation that the Framers initially touted."

Much like the 1619 Project, this description is rife with historical anachronisms and fundamental inaccuracies that is even less befitting a Supreme Court justice than a New York Times hack, but also implicitly echoes the critical race theory understanding that the civil rights struggle was not about upholding the Constitution, but overcoming it, that America's founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were racist and remain the enemy.

In the process of her lecture, Jackson invokes critical race theory, the pernicious concept of "white privilege", and intersectionality.

The radicalism oozes around the edges of Ketanji Brown Jackson's talk.

The Supreme Court nominee praises Gloria Richardson who, in Jackson's words, "took part in several protests that ended in violent clashes with white residents" and "indirectly challenged SNCC’s non-violent ideology." She quotes Richardson as saying, “[w]hen we were attacked at demonstrations, [we women] were the ones throwing stones back at the whites.”

Gloria Richardson was a wealthy leftist organizer with political connections during the Cambridge Riots who had contemptuously dismissed Martin Luther King and asserted, “We weren’t going to stop until we got it, and if violence occurred, then we would have to accept that.”

Black nationalists hail her because she’s seen as breaking the embargo on local nonviolence in protests. And Richardson had emphasized that to the extent to which she used nonviolence was as a "tactical device". To Jackson, most of the law seems to likewise be a tactical device.

And that’s the problem.

Absorbing the paranoid racism of the godfather of critical race theory during her formative years at Harvard makes for a bad judge and a worse justice. Bell’s approach to the Constitution, like that of black nationalists, was that it was a trick to lure black people into lowering their guard.

White people, he believed, could never be trusted and all that mattered was seizing power.

Any laws or documents made by white people would only serve them. Only black people could secure the rights of black people. Like the Nazis, the ultimate truths were race and power.

Everything else was a distraction.

If that is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s worldview, she cannot be expected to come out and say it. But the highest court in the land is the last place for racial paranoia and nationalism. The Supreme Court is charged with upholding the Constitution. A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and white privilege is manifestly unfit to decide the fate of a nation and its hundreds of millions of people.

Derrick Bell and his hateful ideology believed that white racism was the only abiding truth.

There’s no room for that kind of thinking on the Supreme Court.





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, March 24, 2022

Biden’s Ambassador to the Anti-Israel Lobby

By On March 24, 2022
Biden’s ambassador to Israel appeared at a pro-BDS group’s webinar co-hosted by its CEO, who had described Israel as an “oppressive regime”, and told its audience that the real problem with the Palestinian Authority funding terrorism is that “it gives the ‘haters’ an excuse not to support the PA based on the argument that it is ‘paying for people who killed Jews.’”

He also told the anti-Israel group which had cheered the Ben & Jerry’s boycott that, “your agenda is where my heart is.”

At this rate, Thomas Nides will be hugging and kissing Hamas leaders by the end of the year.

Expectations for Nides were already pretty low when the Biden administration announced that it had picked Obama's former deputy secretary of state as its ambassador to Israel.

Hillary Clinton was going to make Nides her chief of staff, but once Hillary in the White House became as likely as peace with Hamas and the PLO, Nides had to settle for being Biden's bully in Jerusalem while his wife who is a VP at CNN stays on in Washington D.C.

Nides' main qualification for the job had been yelling “You don’t want to f***ing defund UNESCO" at a former Israeli ambassador. He had also vocally opposed efforts to defund UNRWA and stop subsidizing the terror refugee industry. He has also served on the board of the International Rescue Committee which has repeatedly attacked Israel.

J Street, the anti-Israel pressure group, welcomed Nides’ nomination and announced that it “looked forward to working” with him. Other anti-Israel groups including the Israel Policy Forum and Americans for Peace Now echoed the sentiments.

It didn't take long for Nides to justify their faith in his hostility to the Jewish State.

Early on, Nides announced that he wanted to open an occupation consulate to the terrorists in Jerusalem, over the opposition of the Israeli government, and that he would not visit those parts of Israel wrongly described as “settlements” because they are claimed by Islamic terrorists.

"I absolutely will not," he replied.

That was an even more extreme position than the one adopted by Obama’s ambassador, Dan Shapiro, who had privately visited homes in those areas where many Americans live.

Nides however did meet with Mansour Abbas, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s United Arab List, which played a key role in removing Netanyahu from office and replacing him with a leftist coalition government.

"When it comes to Israel, I have no ideology," Nides had initially claimed. Then on a webinar by the anti-Israel APN group, he let his freak flag fly and admitted what everyone already knew.

“I’m center-left,” he joked. “I’m left generally, but I put in the ‘center’ just to make myself feel better.”

It got worse from there.

“You have a clear agenda. I think your agenda is where my heart is,” Nides told Americans for Peace Now.

What is APN’s agenda? The anti-Israel group opposes Jews living in Jerusalem, opposes anti-BDS legislation, and opposes Jews defending themselves against Islamic terrorism.

APN CEO Hadar Susskind praised Ben & Jerry's decision to boycott Israel as a "principled moral stance which we fully support".

He claimed that the Jewish outrage over Amnesty International libeling Israel as an apartheid state was “manufactured” and that the real issue is that Israel maintains an "endemic, oppressive regime, in which the… human rights of millions of Palestinians are ruthlessly violated."

That “clear agenda” is where the rotten heart of Biden’s ambassador to Israel lies.

The APN webinar was co-hosted by Susskind and teachers’ union boss Randi Weingarten. Weingarten, an APN board member, had previously ranted that "American Jews are now part of the ownership class... who now want to take that ladder of opportunity away from those who do not have it” when asked by a Jewish journalist if unions like hers had too much power.

Weingarten's lover, Sharon Kleinbaum, had faced a member revolt over her extreme anti-Israel views which included reading the names of dead Hamas terrorists alongside Israeli casualties from the pulpit, and providing space to Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

Biden has since appointed Kleinbaum to the Commission on International Religious Freedom despite her support for Cuomo’s discrimination against Orthodox Jews during the pandemic.

So this gathering of antisemites was old home week for a member of the Biden administration.

Nides told Susskind and Weingarten that he and Biden wanted to divide Jerusalem and that "my job is to knock down things that make that possibility impossible."

The leading thing to knock down would be the Jewish State.

Nides ranted that his priority was fighting to prevent Jews from living in those parts of Jerusalem that had been captured by invading Muslim armies in 1948 and were liberated from their occupiers in 1967 during the Six Day War.

"We can't have the Israelis doing settlement growth, both in East Jerusalem or the West Bank," Nides whined. He failed to explain how Jews living in the city of King David and King Solomon, of Jewish kings and prophets, could be occupying "settlements".

“I can’t stop everything, just so we’re clear, I have to pick my battles,” Nides told his anti-Israel audience at the APN webinar. “E-1 was a disaster, I went full bore on E-1.”

E-1 would begin at Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. Perhaps Nides would also like to evict the Jews who have been buried there for thousands of years for also being “settlers”.

Nides apologized to his Americans for Peace Now audience for not being able to stop every Jew from living in Jerusalem. “I’d be lying to you if every single house… in east Jerusalem or the West Bank I could stop… I can’t stop everything, just so we are clear.”

"I'm a bit of a nag on this, including the idea of settlement growth – which infuriates me," Nides fumed, as if he were the proconsul of an occupying regime tasked with policing the natives rather than a diplomatic envoy dispatched by an ally to cooperate on regional security.

A few years ago, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act. The law was named after Taylor Force: an American military veteran murdered in Tel Aviv by an Islamic terrorists. The Palestinian Authority, the PLO government in Ramallah, treated Force's killer as one of its fighters and put his family on a generous pension. This 'Pay to Slay' program pays out millions to imprisoned Islamic terrorists or their families as a reward for killing Jews. The Taylor Force Act cut off a lot of American subsidies to the PLO until such a time as it stopped funding terrorism.

Nides used the PLO term for 'Pay to Slay', describing them as "martyr payments".

Islamic terrorists describe their crimes as "martyrdom", an American ambassador should use the term "terrorism" instead of talking like a Jihadist.

Biden’s ambassador further claimed that the issue with, "these martyr payments” is that they ”have caused an enormous amount of problems’ because it gives the ‘haters’ an excuse not to support the PA based on the argument that it is ‘paying for people who killed Jews.’”

Rather than vocally condemn the PLO for subsidizing the murder of Americans and Jews, Nides only appeared to be concerned that the terror payments were an “excuse” for Jewish “haters” to cut off funding to the terrorists.

It's no wonder that he recently tweeted, "Pleased to see lots for Palestinians in the budget just signed by @POTUS Biden: $144 million increase (now $219 million) for Economic Support Funds, $40 million for security forces training in the WBank, and $50 million for 2nd year of the Nita Lowey MEPPA Fund."

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has condemned Nides' webinar with APN stating that a "U.S. official should not be legitimizing the pro-BDS group Peace Now."

ZOA President Morton A. Klein declared that he "strongly condemns U.S. Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides’ immoral, anti-Jewish, discriminatory anti-Israel statements".

Unfortunately Nides is characteristic of the anti-Israel Biden administration.

The Americans for Peace Now webinar was co-hosted by Randi Weingarten, a close ally of the Biden administration. Beyond Weingarten, the APN board includes top lefty digital campaigner Mik Moore, top leftist donor Danny Goldberg, HRW's Kathleen Peratis, Christine Blasey Ford lawyer Debra Katz, and other Democrat political establishment figures.

Nides knew exactly whom he was talking to and who his real audience at this event was.

Much as when Stuart Eizenstat, contacted Jake Sullivan, currently Biden's National Security Advisor but then Hillary's foreign policy advisor, using Nides as his referral, and telling the Clinton campaign, "I am respected by the J Street group" and vouching that he had convinced the Israeli ambassador "to end the Israeli Embassy boycott of J Street".

The anti-Israel establishment controls the Democrats. Any ambassador to Israel is going to be vetted by them. Nides wasn’t picked by Biden, he was picked by J Street, APN, and other anti-Israel hate groups. His job isn’t to build relations with Israel, but with its haters.

Tom Nides is not the ambassador to Israel. He’s the ambassador to the anti-Israel lobby.







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, March 23, 2022

The Islamic State is Running Out of Caliphs

By On March 23, 2022
The Islamic State has gone through three caliphs in almost as many years.

When ISIS declared a new Islamic Caliphate with Abu Bakr al Baghdadi as its caliph, it was a big event. After the United States hunted down and killed him in 2019, there went the caliphate.

ISIS tried to fill the hole by naming Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi as its new caliph.

Abu Ibrahim, a former private in Saddam's army who had been captured by the United States and served time in Camp Bucca before he was released by Obama, had become the actual power behind the throne just as ISIS began taking a beating under Al Baghdadi.

The new caliph’s management was underwhelming and worse still his name was a hoax.

Islam is a very tribal society and the ISIS claim to a caliphate depended heavily on the idea that its caliph had the right sort of ancestry. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi claimed to be descended from Mohammed’s Qurashi tribe. The new caliph tacked al-Qurashi onto his name, but everyone was laughing because he not only wasn’t Qurashi, he wasn’t even an Arab. He was a Turkmen.

ISIS had to go to great lengths to pretend that its new caliph was descended from Mohammed’s tribe. The Jihadist group kept his real identity secret not only to protect him from the United States, which eventually got to him anyway, but to hide the fact that he wasn’t an Arab.

That was a huge problem for ISIS whose base consists of Sunni Arabs and which rose to power by promising to preserve the supremacy of the Sunni Arabs which had existed under Saddam.

ISIS kept on lying that its caliph went back all the way to Mohammed’s Qurashi homeboys. Then, when the United States tracked down and killed him, the truth finally came out.

Now ISIS has announced that it has a new caliph. And this one really is Qurashi. Maybe.

The new Islamic State caliph goes by Abu al-Hassan al-Qurashi (pictured above). After ISIS’ previous Turkmen Qurashi caliph, the name doesn’t come with much credibility. Neither does the title. These days ISIS caliphs have the life expectancy of lab mice. And everyone in ISIS is going by al-Qurashi.

ISIS' original spokesman, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, was taken out by one of our airstrikes in 2016. His replacement, Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir, was blown up by our forces in 2019.

“Just confirmed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s number one replacement has been terminated by American troops,” President Trump had tweeted. “Most likely would have taken the top spot.”

Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir was allegedly a Greek American convert to Islam from Texas (whose ex-wife was recently at the center of a political sex scandal in Texas) and could in no possible way have claimed to be descended from the Qurashi tribe. The idea that he was even being considered for a role at the top of ISIS showed just how desperate the caliphate had become.

Al-Muhajir, allegedly really John Georgelas of Texas, had been the motivating force for the declaration of a caliphate, telling the future caliph that he was sinning by not declaring one immediately. The ISIS caliphate had always been a fraud. Behind the posturing and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in black caliph drag was a Texas convert and a Turkmen.

Al-Muhajir was replaced after his death by Abu Hamza al-Qurashi as the new spokesman for ISIS. The al-Qurashi part was a reflection of the rapid possibilities for promotion in the group. With caliphs and spokesmen dying quickly, the new spokesman had laid out his claim to the throne. The two most public roles in ISIS were now occupied by men using al-Qurashi as their monikers. And at least one of them was already becoming known as a complete fraud.

Both al-Qurashis are now dead. There’s a new al-Qurashi at the top. And no one cares.

Much as Al Qaeda in Iraq had eclipsed the original Al Qaeda before rebranding itself as ISIS, leaving the original Al Qaeda a hollow shell with emirs no one paid attention to, ISIS-K has eclipsed ISIS leaving behind caliphs whom no one cares about. Recent Islamic terror attacks, including the murder of 13 Americans at Kabul airport, were credited to ISIS-K.

At this rate it’s only a matter of time until ISIS-K builds its own brand above that of ISIS.

Islamic terrorist groups, like rock bands, splinter all the time. Tribute cover brands graduate and become megastars even as the originals fade away, issuing occasional press releases on Telegram. ISIS took Al Qaeda’s vision of a global Jihad that transcended local tribalism and reverted it back to a tribal struggle rooted in Shiite-Sunni resentment over local territories.

The United States never really defeated Al Qaeda, ISIS did.

Americans wondered in the years after September 11 why no more major terrorist attacks were carried out on American soil. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, had other attacks in the works, but none went anywhere. And eventually he was caught. By then our strategy of pursuing Al Qaeda into Afghanistan and then going into Iraq tied down the terror group to local battles with American troops. The resulting wars killed thousands of our soldiers, but denied Al Qaeda the funding and training time it needed to execute another big attack.

The Iraq War created ISIS and made Al Qaeda’s vision of taking the war to America irrelevant.

Instead of organizing major global terror plots, the new vision was a crowdsourced Jihad using local talent to carry out so-called “lone wolf” attacks. Some of these, especially in France, or the Boston Marathon bombing and the Orlando nightclub shooting, proved quite devastating.

But Osama bin Laden’s vision of a coordinated global war was dead even before he was.

Modern Islamic terrorism is a slow burn that depends on demographic change and prison recruitment to eventually build large Islamic domestic terror groups in America and Europe which means that it will take time to truly kick in.

And that has given us the illusion that the war is over or that it’s on the back burner.

But the two grand animating visions of Islamic revivalism, Osama’s international Jihad, and the ISIS revival of the caliphate, are both dead. Al Qaeda and ISIS are still around, but neither group was able to survive the loss of key leaders and a vision statement rooted in the past.

Al Qaeda was built in the world as it was in the 90s, its vision and structure could not survive the changes that it wrought when it hijacked four planes and killed thousands of Americans. The ISIS caliphate emerged out of the power vacuum created by our withdrawal from Iraq and a weak Shiite government in Baghdad. Unlike its original incarnation as Al Qaeda in Iraq, but all too much like Al Qaeda, it overreached with a grand vision that could not be sustained.

Islamic terrorism is by no means over, it’s more dangerous than ever. And if the stories of Al Qaeda and ISIS tell us anything, it’s that new groups will continue to form in response to changing circumstances as Islamic terrorists continue to react and adapt to the world.

And while we understandably spend time hunting down Al Qaeda and ISIS leaders, we might be better served by stopping the terror leaders of tomorrow, instead of focusing on the dead past.







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, March 21, 2022

UN Warns Individualistic Conservatives Threaten the Planet

By On March 21, 2022
If you blinked you might have missed the momentous occasion of the release of the second part of the UN IPCC’s sixth assessment report of how we're all going to die unless we all board jets and attend global warming conferences. Or give lots of money to those officials who do it for us.

Since no one reads these things anyway, by the time the fourteenth chapter of the second part of the sixth assessment rolled around, everyone was drunk and decided to take shots at conservatives.

Chapter 14 was on North America and warned of the threat posed by "individualistic" conservatives who refuse to accept "collective responsibility" for driving pickup trucks.

Once upon a time, we agreed to disagree about things. Those were the good days.

The liberalism of, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", has long since been replaced by, "You're spreading misinformation and I'm going to tell on you to Mark Zuckerberg."

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which changes its predictions of the incoming apocalypse more often than a phone psychic, is very upset about misinformation.

Misinformation contradicts the science and under the IPCC’s current chair, Hoesung Lee, who has a PhD in Economics from Rutgers, and was, according to the IPCC, named one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People in the World, the UN body is all about the science.

Even though economics is as much of a science as the chicken entrails of global warming.

But say what you will about Lee, who used to work for ExxonMobil, he still has better credentials than former chair, railroad engineer, and sexual harasser Rajendra Pachauri. As a Nature orbituary put it, Pachauri, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize and sexual misconduct allegations with Al Gore, died "following a prolonged battle with multiple heart ailments and charges of sexual harassment."

Forget climate change, it’s the sexual harassment allegations that will really kill you.

“If there's no action before 2012, that's too late,” Rajendra Pachauri said in 2007. In 2009, he claimed, “we have just about 6 years left in which we will have to bring about peaking of emission.” It’s 2022, Pachauri is dead, and the planet is very much alive. Sadly, so is the IPCC.

With a past history like this you can understand why the IPCC is sensitive about misinformation.

If there were a Nobel prize for misinformation, the IPCC would win it hands down. And that’s the only Nobel prize that it deserves. Unless there were another Nobel for blowing the most hot air.

A year after Pachauri was ousted over his personal contribution to global warming, Hoesung Lee took over and began warning that it's not too late to save the planet from cheap energy and a decent standard of living.

Six years later he's still at it.

IPCC WGII 6, the latest alphabet soup report that no one read, directs the blame for the imminent destruction of the planet at “resistance from individuals with conservative political ideologies” and “individualistic worldviews” who oppose “regulation”.

Save the world from free speech. Before it’s too late.

The IPCC’s preferred solution to the conservative problem (at least the one that it’s willing to put in print) is more media censorship. The report complains about the "journalistic norm of balance” that give "equal weight to climate scientists and contrarians" and are "unevenly amplifying certain messages that are not supported by science".

I don’t know which planet the IPCC is reporting from, where the media provides equal weight to both the establishment and its critics, but it isn’t this one. But the one thing we know about the IPCC from all its reports on the state of the planet is that it doesn’t know much about Earth.

The media is already saturated with the IPCC’s chicken little propaganda. Big Tech companies actively censor those who dissent from the notion that only high taxes can change the weather. To say nothing of the even more outrageous suppression of any other point of view within the scientific community and Corporate America than the one making Big Green investors very rich.

Nevertheless the IPCC report complains that “much online social media discussion of climate change takes place in ‘echo chambers’”. These echo chambers, unlike the ones operated by the IPCC and the establishment, are obviously a threat to all intelligent life on earth.

A category that no one involved in the IPCC and the media qualify for anyway.

The censorship will continue until everyone comes to believe that the world is ending as many years from now as it takes to create a sense of crisis while still making it possible to cash in.

The UN solution to all of those “individualistic” and “conservative” Americans is for “the rest of the human collective” to adopt “collective conduct” from “indigenous” people. Unfortunately the United States has no indigenous people, only immigrants from various eras, tribes traveling across a land bridge from Siberia, paddling canoes, and then Columbus and his three ships.

But the UN might want to check in on Africa and see how the “indigenous” people of that continent exercise their “sense of duty or responsibility toward human and other-than-human relations” by wiping out endangered species and killing entire tribes with equal gusto.

Or Hoesung Lee might want to look toward Manchuria where his distant ancestors came from and examine just how that region shows us that we can “(re)learn from Indigenous cultures to (re)consider our responsibility/ies to the land”.

The idea that a native population is less likely to pollute the earth and water, hunt animals to extinction, and treat their territory like a trash heap is more white nonsense, as Lee knows.

The noble savage is the romanticized invention of European fourth-generation colonists who condescendingly presume that their neighbor is less likely to want an SUV or a weekend at the shore because his ancestors had a lower technological level and less civilizational scope.

The native population consists of stone, iron, and bronze age colonists who wiped out whatever indigenous peoples there were and then got down to the business of killing each other until the Europeans showed up. Your average American and Canadian tree hugger has as much of a mystical relationship with the great outdoors as a California casino owner or the Hawaiian businessman whose many times great-grandfather killed and enslaved the natives he found living there after he finished making the long imperialist canoe journey to colonize the islands.

The lead authors of the North American chapter who urge us to learn magical indigenous skills of collectivism are largely the descendants of European immigrants. And they know a whole lot more about collectivism than North American Indians who were a good deal more independent, conservative and individualistic than the hive mind of two dozen authors behind a UN report.

But if the UN really wants to model respect for the land, it should lead the way by demolishing its Manhattan headquarters and returning Turtle Bay back to the turtles.

The one mystical quality that the IPCC does have is magical thinking.

After failing to convince Americans that the planet will burn unless everyone gives environmental consultants more money to change the weather, the IPCC is convinced that suppressing political dissent will surely convince those individualistic conservatives.

As everyone knows, using your power to silence people wins the argument every time.

It’s not American individualism that threatens the planet. The environmental movement not only stole trillions and spent it on trips and worthless windmills and solar panels, it brought the planet closer to war by making the world dependent on Middle Eastern and Russian fuel. After generations of wars that could have been avoided with cheap nuclear energy and domestic drilling, there is yet another war that is being fought over energy resources in Ukraine.

Conservative individualism doesn’t threaten the planet, environmental collectivism does.






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.

Ukrainian Chutzpah

By On March 21, 2022
Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel is not happy. Ambassador Korniychuk has demanded that Israel cut off all business dealings with Russia. Meanwhile Ukraine’s business dealings with Iran rose over 30% and reached nearly $2 billion. Iranian exports to Ukraine increased by 40%.

That means Ukraine is literally financing Islamic terrorism against Israel. And genocide.

Is Ukraine ready to stop all business dealings with Iran in exchange for Israel ending its business dealings with Russia? Don’t be silly. These demands only go one way.

Ukraine's President Zelensky has repeatedly invoked the Holocaust in the influence campaign against the Russian invasion of his country. “What is the point of saying ‘never again’ for 80 years, if the world stays silent when a bomb drops on the same site of Babyn Yar?” he tweeted.

A better question might be why is a country whose people were responsible for much of the killing of Jews at Babi Yar is shamelessly appropriating the Holocaust for its propaganda.

Especially since Ukraine, like Russia, continues to finance the modern genocide of Jews.

During the Holocaust, Ukrainian nationalists participated in large numbers in the massacres of Jews. Including at Babi Yar. Rather than feel any sense of shame for this, Bandera and his thugs, who were responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Jews, are national heroes and continue to be celebrated in Ukraine. Including by Zelensky.

"Stepan Bandera is a hero for a certain part of Ukrainians, and this is a normal and cool thing. He was one of those who defended the freedom of Ukraine," Zelensky argued a few years ago.

You can wrap your cause in the Holocaust or celebrate Bandera, but you can’t do both.

“Addressing all the Jews of the world: Don’t you see why this is happening? That is why it is very important that millions of Jews around the world do not remain silent right now," Zelensky recently demanded in a speech that was helpfully translated into Hebrew by his office.

What is happening in Ukraine is wrong, but it is not genocide. Unlike Nazi Germany and its Ukranian nationalist allies, the Russians are not marching tens of thousands of Ukrainian men, women, and children, stripping them, shooting them, and throwing them into pits. Nor, like Ukraine’s Iranian trading partners, is Russia plotting to drop nuclear bombs on its cities.

Considering the centuries of actual massacres of Jews by Ukrainian national heroes like Bogdan Chmelnitsky, Simon Petlura, and Stepan Bandera, (who have streets and medals named after them) the willingness of Israel to quickly rush aid and provide political support to Ukraine ought to be appreciated. Especially since it’s another wholly one-sided relationship.

Israel voted in support of Ukraine at the UN despite the fact that Ukraine has repeatedly voted against the Jewish State and in support of the terrorists trying to kill Jews.

'President Zelensky does feel a "special emotion for Israel because his mother is Jewish," but that feeling has to be reciprocal," Ambassador Korniychuk was quoted as saying.

Reciprocal? What exactly have Zelensky and Ukraine done for Israel?

Last year, a Ukrainian emissary suggested that if Israel were to provide his country with its defense demands, then it might agree to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

That’s about it.

President Zelensky and Ambassador Korniychuk complain that Israel hasn’t been vocal enough in its opposition to Russia. When Israel was at war, how vocal was Zelensky?

When Israel was last under attack, Zelensky tweeted, "The sky of #Israel is strewn with missiles. Some cities are on fire. There are victims. Many wounded. Many human tragedies. It is impossible to look at all this without grief and sorrow. It is necessary to stop the escalation immediately for the sake of people's lives." Passive voice. No specific condemnation.

Instead of showing appreciation for the fact that Israel has gone out on a limb to support a country that is not an ally, but has repeatedly opposed Israel at the UN, and has extensive trade ties to Iran, Korniychuk has escalated his demands and tirades against the Jewish State.

Ambassador Korniychuk has repeatedly berated Israel and Israelis for not doing enough. The latest acts of chutzpah include Korniychuk pushing the Israeli High Court to overrule a decision by the Israeli government on accepting Ukrainian migrants without any quotas, and demanding that the Israeli Knesset convene specifically to listen to a Zelensky speech.

President Zelensky is entitled to make the best possible case for his country. Ukraine is suffering from an invasion that threatens its national existence and it’s understandable that its government is frantically trying to push every possible button to avert that catastrophe.

War propaganda is an exchange of lies. And we have witnessed Putin and Ukraine hurl accusations of Nazism at each other when in reality both sides collaborated with the Nazis. Both sides likewise insist that the other is part of a vast conspiracy and their defeat will lead to WWIII.

The cold hard reality is that both sides are spewing as many crazy lies as they can to win a war.

Two ex-Soviet countries with little going for them except energy resources are using their broken ex-Soviet militaries to fight over who gets the profits from those energy resources.

It’s entirely reasonable to sympathize with the Ukrainians who have been invaded.

The Biden administration has chosen to express that sympathy by making it clear that we will not intervene militarily, but will pile on economic sanctions. That’s a move likely to inflict maximum economic pain on Americans with a minimal military impact on Russia. That’s convenient for Biden who can blame Putin for the disastrous economic situation in America without having to risk American casualties and the domestic political fallout from a war.

Israel’s best bet however is to just stay out of a mess that really does not involve it.

Zelensky happens to be of Jewish descent. A number of close allies of Putin also happen to be Jewish. That’s every bit as significant as the fact that both Trump and Clinton’s children have Jewish spouses. Or that China's only non-Chinese general was General ‘Two Gun’ Cohen.

It’s possible to admire Zelensky’s doggedness in the face of a massive invasion without bowing to him as a moral authority. He’s a very effective advocate for his country. And, like many people of Jewish descent who participate in antisemitic movements, he’s managed to reconcile the conflict by putting Ukraine first and mobilizing his Jewish ancestry in its defense.

Much as Jewish leftists do with Muslim terrorism, or Jewish sympathizers who join far-right movements, Zelensky has puts his ‘Jewishness’ at the service of antisemites. And, unlike his willingness to embrace personal risk during the conflict, there’s little admirable about that.

Ukraine has no historical claim on Israel’s sympathy. And only liberal Jews with no sense of history who know their great-grandparents came from Ukraine, but don’t know why they got the hell out would think otherwise. And there’s certainly no reciprocal alliance worth mentioning.

Putin’s Russia and Ukraine are both close trading partners of Iran. In addition, Russia supplies weapons and support for Iran. Both repeatedly vote against Israel at the UN. Both have an ugly history when it comes to Jews. They’re not allies or friends, they are at best friends of enemies.

Prime Minister Bennett’s foolish attempts at acting as if he can mediate between Russia and Ukraine have done nothing to help either end the conflict or improve Israel’s image.

When Ukrainians were surveyed at the end of last year, 71% said that they did not support either side in the conflict between Israel and Iran. And there’s nothing surprising about that. Different countries with no shared borders, values, or interests don’t have to support each other.

The same is true for Israel in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.






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, March 20, 2022

Biden Tries to Cut a Deal to Spare 9/11 Mastermind the Death Penalty

By On March 20, 2022
Biden recently released Mohammed al-Qahtani, the 20th 9/11 hijacker, and Zuhail al-Sharabi, another hijacker for an expanded version of the 9/11 attacks from Guantanamo Bay, so it's only fitting that he's trying to cut a plea deal with the mastermind of the attacks.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the September 11 attacks, not to mention multiple other plots and acts of terror including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the brutal murder of Daniel Pearl, was captured in March 2003.

19 years later the trial has yet to go anywhere.

In 2008, the process of charging Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others began.

Unfortunately a year later, the pro-terrorist administration of Barack Hussein Obama took office.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he wanted to bring Mohammed to a civilian court in New York. The backlash, especially from the families of 9/11 victims, was tremendous and the Obama administration overruled Holder. However Holder injected a poison pill into the system by going after the use of material gained through the terrorist leader's interrogations and even from a “Clean Team” that independently obtained a confession from Mohammed.

“It’s a statement about what this Administration is about,” Holder boasted.

As if anyone needed further reminding of what the Obama administration was really about.

After that everyone settled in for a decade of lawfare by Mohammed’s lawyers who carefully sabotaged any effort to move the case forward by demanding classified information involving the system set up to stop, capture and interrogate Islamic terrorists. And their client and his legal allies followed the Al Qaeda lawfare playbook by making all sorts of frivolous complaints, such as objecting to the presence of female personnel, to drag out the case.

Their game plan was to get the government to settle. And they almost made it once before.

A previous effort to cut a plea deal with Mohammed was thrown out when Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanded that military prosecutors cut out any such nonsense. But now it’s back.

The trial of Mohammed and other terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks finally began in 2021 and after a series of hearings was shut down again due to the pandemic before being restarted.

The Biden administration has been aggressively pressuring the Department of Defense to shut down Guantanamo Bay and free all the terrorists. Mohammed and his legal allies understand that, like Obama, Biden wants to empty Gitmo. The 9/11 mastermind has effectively used that in the past by demanding that he serve out his sentence in Gitmo instead of in Colorado.

Mohammed and his legal defenders claimed that Gitmo was a better place for Muslims.

Even though Mohammed had confessed several times already, a plea deal would have the terror boss trade a guilty plea in exchange for prosecutors dropping the death penalty.

Attorney General Eric Holder had promised that Mohammed would receive the death penalty. Numerous politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, assured 9/11 families he would. But Mohammed understood that, like his Taliban allies, all he had to do was wait out America.

Americans would care less about the September 11 attacks with every year that passed. The families of those who were killed in the Islamic terrorist attacks would grow old or die. The political and military systems would grow tired of jumping through legal hoops and surrender.

And that is exactly what’s happening.

The Obama administration warped the morale and patriotic fiber of portions of the military. Court officials who were once disgusted to even be dealing with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda terrorists have been replaced by those who now ferociously advocate for them.

At the Gitmo trial of an Al Qaeda terrorist last year, military officials serving as a jury sent a shameful letter whining that the terrorist's interrogation was a "stain on the moral fiber of America" and "a source of shame.” The only stain here was in their treasonous cowardly letter and the only source of shame is that those who wrote it are still employed by the military.

The Biden administration is betting that it can cut a plea deal and clear the Mohammed case.

But in 2009, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorists had already entered their "Islamic" response to the charges against them which declared that "killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you" are "considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion."

Terrorism, the Islamic response explained, was an "offering" to Allah. It described the "blessed 11 September operation" as "our military attack".

That’s an official confession without any duress whatsoever.

The Islamic response also admitted that even without any of the named pretexts, "it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity."

This infidelity was defined as “your statement that Allah had a son and your trinity beliefs.”

Al Qaeda would have been at war with America simply because it’s a Christian country.

“Our prophet was victorious because of fear," the response boasted. "Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of Allah: the Jews, Christians, and pagans. With Allah's wiling, we are terrorists to the bone."

It concluded by declaring, "Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day."

A country that still had any dignity left would have responded by stringing Mohammed and all the rest of them up. Instead another decade of legal wrangling and lawfare followed as military prosecutors and judges continue to insist that they have no idea how to try and convict him.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had confessed his crimes multiple times.

In 1942, with the war underway, Nazi saboteurs brought here by submarine were arrested by the FBI. They were caught in June, tried in July, and sent to the electric chair in August.

And that was for enemy operatives who had not even managed to kill a single American.

Meanwhile after 19 years of having the mastermind of the murder of thousands of Americans in custody, he has yet to be convicted and is unlikely now to pay the price for his crimes.

The military court system, which was meant to expedite the trials and convictions of terrorists as enemy insurgents during wartime, not criminal defendants protected by the Constitution, has been corrupted and broken. It needs to be replaced. But that is not likely to happen until the next phase of the war against Islamic terrorism is underway.

Meanwhile the political and cultural allies of the Islamists are running our government.

Obama sabotaged the process of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to justice and now, just as with the Taliban and Iran, Biden is finishing the criminal betrayal that his boss began.





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.

Popular

Categories