Polling shows that more Democrats under 50 have a favorable view of Iran than of Israel.

That comes fresh off the Islamic regime massacring tens of thousands of its own protesters after helping perpetrate the Oct 7 massacre inside Israel. The victims of both sets of atrocities, from the protesters in Tehran to Nova music festival attendees in Israel, were young and liberal.

And yet the young liberals of America have chosen the old theocrats who ordered their deaths.

It’s a reversal of sympathies that baffles Iranian dissidents and pro-Israel activists, but it shouldn’t. The Islamic takeover of Iran was horrendously bad for civil rights, freedom and any kind of liberal society, but had nevertheless been advocated for by marxists and socialists as part of the grand march of decolonization across the world that saw them support Communist genocides across Asia, Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, brutal dictatorships across South America and Africa, and black nationalist terrorists in America among many other evils.

Along the way they made common cause with Latin American drug cartels, clan-based tyrants in Africa, the mass murder of millions in China, North Korea and Cambodia, and the Islamic repression of millions from Pakistan to North Africa. Some of the regimes they backed described themselves as socialist, but very few were anything more than tribal and military dictatorships with the serial numbers sawed off. Their current end stage, oligarchic capitalism in China, a family cult in North Korea, Jihadis running amok across the Muslim world, doddering dictatorships in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela propped up by drug money and slavery, have anything progressive or particularly leftist about them, but that never mattered. And still doesn’t.

The logic of decolonization required leftists to support the most brutal, tyrannical and murderous regimes as long as they appeared to be reversing Western world power and colonialism. Their crimes against their own people and even fellow leftists in their own countries were irrelevant. Faced with atrocities, they minimized them, covered them up, excused them, and smeared those who reported them liars and reactionary slanderers, a fate experienced by a range of journalists reporting on leftist genocide from George Orwell to John Barron, to protect the killers.

Is it really any wonder that a movement which tried to spin the Ayatollah Khomeini as a wise and moderate leader, that cheered on the terrorists who took Americans hostage, and has been shilling for the Islamic Revolution for nearly half a century, is still pushing its propaganda.

Decolonization, the destruction of western civilization, its power, culture and existence, is the supreme leftist cause, and anyone aiding in that cause, no matter how otherwise abhorrent, from Stalin and Mao to Khomeini and Maduro, is to be protected, not necessarily because of what they stand for, but what they stand against. And that is why Israel is the enemy.

Some leftists had once justified Israel as an agent of decolonization, but while Israelis were an indigenous people who reclaimed their own land, they did not do so to wage war on western civilization, but to build a complementary civilization living in harmony and partnership.

The Soviet Union, which as far back as Lenin (and for that matter Marx) had rejected the legitimacy of Zionism and Jewish peoplehood did not take long to turn on Israel. Its third world alliance targeted Israel, along with South Africa, Rhodesia and various moderate South American, African and Asian countries for ‘decolonization’ through subversion and terrorism. Some of these targets, like South Africa and Rhodesia, were chosen because the arguments for destroying them made for an easy litmus test while paving the way for destroying the rest.

A Democrat party ideologically in thrall to leftist radicals has made the destruction of Israel into the latest litmus test for decolonization. Israel’s crime isn’t to be found in any of the lies about genocide or famine. Its real crime is that it continues to resist its own destruction.

The scope of that destruction does not end at the borders of the third world, but has swept on into the heartlands of the great cities of western civilization, London, Paris, New York, and making an example out of Israel, like Hungary, is vital for finishing ‘decolonization’ by having Muslims colonize and destroy the rest of the west. Hating Israel is really a death wish.

And that is the whole point.

The campaign against Israel is about picking a target, personalizing it, polarizing it and making it as hated as possible not just to destroy it, but what it represents: resistance and the refusal to submit. The propaganda of Islamic colonialism breaks down each of its targets into a ‘unique case’ in which a greater power (Israel being about as small of a ‘great power’ as can be imagined) is oppressing a Muslim minority. Then comes India. And the entire western world.

That is the final objective. It’s why the left easily chose Iran over Israel, just as it chose Iran, the Taliban, Qatar, the Houthis, the Khmer Rogue, the Viet Cong and the USSR over America, just as it chose Pakistan over India, Pakistani sex grooming gangs over raped girls in the UK, and why it will always choose those who are destroying western civilization over that civilization.

Why would Democrats choose Israel over Islamic terrorism when they won’t even choose America over Islamic terrorism, Latin America drug cartels or foreign tyrants? Shedding Israel and Jewish voters is another bump on the road on the way to the party’s absolute radicalization. Having already shed the South, and working class white voters, the Democrats are dispensing with their entire former identity leaving nothing except a hollow shell filled with far leftist politics.

Like many of the European parties, the Democrats are rapidly becoming a generic socialist party untethered from their past history and animated by the third world internationalism and broad front ‘resistance’ movements invented by Soviet Communism during the Cold War.

These coalitions redefined the old Marxist paradigm of an alliance between intellectual elites and the working class to smash capitalism into an internationalist paradigm in which western leftists were the elites and the third worlders were the working class on a joint mission to destroy western civilization. It’s this murder-suicide pact not socialized medicine, a four-day work week or any of the other hollow promises of socialism that truly defines the postmodern left.

Iran wants to help murder the West. Israel doesn’t. And the Democrats want murderers.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

There was nothing radical about Cole Tomas Allen: the attempted White House Correspondents’ Dinner assassin. Allen’s manifesto reads a lot like that of the previous three-named assassin Ryan Wesley Routh who was stalking President Trump at a golf game.

Apart from the explicit murder plots, there is nothing in Routh’s ‘Dear World’ letter and Allen’s manifesto that you wouldn’t find in the Washington Post, a Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert monologue or a rant by a Democrat member of Congress. Routh was obsessed with Iran and Ukraine, sounding like Thomas Friedman when he complained that Trump had “ended relations with Iran like a child and now the Middle East has unraveled.”

Allen offered even more generic foreign policy criticisms that seemed plucked from network newscasts and fake news coverage of Trump’s campaign against illegal alien criminals, drug cartels, Islamic terrorists in Iran and the cutoff of funds to USAID, ranting about being (“raped in a detention camp”, “fisherman executed without trial” “schoolkid blown up” or “a child starved”).

Did Allen really care about events in Iran or Latin America? Could he even tell them apart?

There’s a vagueness to the litany that suggests Allen had a weak grip on where these supposed things were even happening and what the connection to it was beyond justifying his attack.

Rather than Marxism, Routh and Allen offered tepid shopworn liberalism as their justification for murder, “U.S presidents must at bare minimum embody the moral fabric that is America and be kind, caring and selfless and always stand for humanity” and “the United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.”

This is the stuff of a Ken Burns op-ed and it shows that both men were more influenced by liberal Trump Derangement Syndrome media products than by Antifa or radical groups.

Allen slurs President Trump as a “pedophile, rapist and traitor”. This line is so commonplace in liberal circles that you can find it all across Bluesky, where the attempted assassin had an account, sold on t-shirts and popping up in op-eds. Social media personalities, talk show hosts and members of Congress have used similar rhetoric to refer to the 47th president.

There’s not much of a political critique. Just a grab bag of lines from MSNBC.

The truly revealing moment comes at the end of Routh’s manifesto. “I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.” That is a common enough symptom from liberals who doomscroll daily through social media rants about Trump until they get more blackpilled. Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t a punch line. Much like any social media obsession, it is a social contagion that genuinely makes people dangerous and deranged.

But even while people are talking about Cole Tomas Allen becoming ‘radicalized’, there’s no evidence that he was ideologically radicalized. And it’s important for us to understand this.

Unlike Thomas Crooks, the Butler assassin, Allen wasn’t quoting Mao about power coming from the barrel of a gun. Unlike Austin Tucker Martin, who was shot and killed while breaking into Mar-a-Lago while armed with a shotgun back in March (notably there are so many attempts to kill Trump that they quickly vanish from the media coverage) he didn’t go down a social media conspiracy rabbit hole (Martin was obsessed with conspiracies tying Trump to Epstein.)

Allen and Routh’s views were generally those of mainstream liberal Democrats. They were no more extreme than your average MSNBC viewer. Probably even a smidgen more moderate.

And they were probably no more radical than the average committed Democrat.

The only difference between the two assassins and the rest of their political movement was that they didn’t just buy t-shirts calling for Trump’s murder (Amazon has a Google search result ‘Trump Dead Shirt’ to cash in on this trend) or put up ‘Is He Dead Yet’ signs on their lawns or confine themselves to fulminating on social media… they did something about it.

That doesn’t make them more radical than the average Democrat. Just more serious.

There are two distinct but related things going on with the Democrats. One is that the party is rapidly moving ideologically leftward and embracing previously inconceivable positions ranging from socialism to treason and the other is that much of the party is not ideologically radicalizing so much as it’s driven by a violently fervent hatred of Trump and a conviction that he’s Hitler.

This is not some grassroots phenomenon but the messaging from the top down of the party and its media apparatus. That’s why Allen’s views are entirely reflective of their rhetoric. He wasn’t a Marxist, a Communist or a Socialist… his views were those of the mainstream of his party. (The amount of distance between the Democrats and the Marxists of course is rapidly shrinking.)

But Allen didn’t try to kill Trump and members of his administration officials in the name of socialized medicine, a command economy, the working class or any affirmative leftist cause.

He did it because he had been brainwashed into believing he was stopping Hitler 2.0.

And Allen certainly wasn’t alone. The No Kings rallies and the ActBlue contribution tolls (Allen predictably donated to Kamala through ActBlue) are filled with millions like him. They don’t really believe in anything except stopping Trump, Republicans, and conservatives at any cost.

Most don’t take a gun in their hands. Instead they donate to and vote for genuine leftist radicals whose agenda only starts at stopping Trump and then goes to actual Communist action points.

The Democrats have become a party of assassins, willing to shoot President Trump, members of the Secret Service and anyone else, and most of all, to shoot America in the head, because they have been brainwashed into believing the rhetoric of their party and their media.

When you believe that the president is Hitler 2.0, then shooting him becomes reasonable.

The fault certainly lies with men like Allen and Routh who let themselves be brainwashed, but it also lies with a party whose officials and media have spent a decade pouring that poisonous rhetoric into the ears of the nation for their own political gain all the while knowing it was a lie.

Now after several assassinations, the killing of Charlie Kirk and numberless incidents of street violence, and murderous attacks on ICE and other federal law enforcement, they have not repented. They formally condemn violence and day after day they make the case to men like Routh and Allen why Trump should be removed from office by any and every means possible.

Their only possible defense is that they don’t expect their followers to take them seriously.

But the record number of assassinations shows that they have created a party of assassins. Those who have created a party of assassins bear the ultimate responsibility for the violence.

A Party of Assassins cannot offer America anything except murder, treason and death.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

Some politicians are accused of being two-faced, but one candidate for office in the UK has no face. Fajila Patel wants to be the first faceless politician by getting elected wearing a burka.

Newspapers claim that Fajila is 36-years-old and a mother of four, but critics argue that it could really be anyone under there. Her ‘Niqab’is one of the most extreme versions of the garment that some people associate with the ‘burka’, spread out of Saudi Arabia and covers everything except the eyes. (Some Muslims insist on also partly or entirely covering the eyes of women.)

In the UK, which already appears to be run by faceless bureaucracies, elected officials are supposed to offer what the Czechs had very briefly called “socialism with a human face”. But what happens when the socialists with a human face are replaced by faceless Islamists?

Fajila, or whoever is under there at any given time, had already run for office and lost back in 2022 to another Pakistani candidate in an area that is 84% Muslim. And even they weren’t quite ready for the election being in the bag quite this literally. Still hope springs eternal in the Islamic breast, and she, he, or someone at any rate, is back, and running for office yet again.

The UK requires women, men or people wearing burkas to go into a private room and remove their masks in front of a female officer along with an interpreter, a chaperone and two partridges in a pear tree to establish who they are for such minor matters as obtaining a drivers’ license or entering the country. It’s unclear if there would be similar rules for an elected official.

The question is not an academic one since there really is no way to tell who is wearing the black klansman outfit when campaigning, casting votes or driving down the street. Conventional politicians are supposed to have laminated pieces of papers that show their faces. But when the face on the paper is just a black mask and the face of the politician is a black mask, any security guards had better be good at reading eyes to be able to figure out who’s who in politics.

Does this even matter in the town of Blackburn in Lancashire, once a cotton town with a Roman ruin, now a Pakistani colony with an English ruin? The crime rate is high and the elected officials include a Khan, a Hussein and the man whom Fajila will be challenging again, Parwaiz Akhtar. Her husband, Altaf Patel, is already a councilor, representing ‘Little Harwood & Whitebirk Ward’, who likes it when people call him ‘Tiger’. Fajila may wear black, but her campaign colors are green and red to match those of the flag of the Islamic Arab Revolt and the ‘Palestinian’ cause.

With an 84% Islamic occupier rate, none of the parties have any hope of running anyone there except one brand of Islamist or another. Fajila Patel is being backed by the ‘conservatives’ who have done the math and decided that when in Pakistan, do as the Pakistanis do.

The chairman of the Blackburn Conservative Association claimed that Fajila “wants to make a difference to break down boundaries” while wearing a giant boundary, and insisted that “Fajila chooses to wear the Niqab, which is her right and a right that we would always defend.”

Not everyone saw things that way, which is why the local Tories purged any ‘Islamophobes’.

“We had issues with Islamophobia. I took over this party three or four years ago. There is no room for any type of racism in a party that I head up, and I will be quite straight with you, we’ve had to remove people,” Julian Arnold, the chairman of Blackburn Conservative Association, warned.

In the ranks of the new ‘conservatives’, there will be room for burkas, but no room for anyone at all concerned about them.

“It’s what the Conservative party is about – and we are ground-breaking,” Arnold claimed, and indeed nothing is quite as ‘groundbreaking’ as going back to Islamic medievalism and bringing Afghanistan to Blackburn. It’s almost as groundbreaking as 9/11 and the conquest of Constantinople.

How has embracing this sort of thing worked out for the Tories? Councilor Altaf Patel, Fajila’s less masked half, who started out as a conservative, is now an independent. And Fajila has already shed the blue campaign colors to fly the red and the green. The Tories have yet to achieve even a pyrrhic victory of the kind that some of the other parties have mastered.

The Tories have become so rotten with appeasement and so desperate to copy their leftist betters that they are determined to trade their national birthright for a mess of kebabs and to hail as groundbreaking the introduction of the stuff their grandparents despised as sheer barbarism.

What will be truly groundbreaking is when the cathedrals have been made into mosques, William and Kate convert to Islam, and Christians tiptoe around Islamic sensibilities lest they be bombed, beheaded or otherwise murdered. But then I suppose that the last one has already been achieved and the rest is just a matter of nailing down the details and the dissidents.

Whether or not Fajila Patel fulfills her dream, her husband’s dream or the dream of whatever is behind those yards of black cloth of becoming the first masked person to rule a European nation without being featured in a Dumas novel, eventually there will be a historic ‘first’ burka politician.

And the same pols who lecture us on Islamophobia and how welcoming in the stranger so he can abolish your religion and then cut your throat is in the highest values of the Church of England, the Catholic Church, and the dodgier kinds of Judaism, and what have you, will gather to celebrate the first be’burka’ed PM just as they celebrated every politician in a hijab.

And even rushed to don their own. Eventually though the female politicians who put on a flowing £300 scarf made of some flowing material for a brief session in a community center down in Manchester will find that they have to wear the real thing and that it comes in every color they want. So long as it’s black and barely lets them breathe and make human eye contact.

The difference between our politicians and theirs is that their politicians may cover every part of themselves but their eyes while ours are determined to cover their eyes and ours until it’s too late.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

Fourteen years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center named me a hate group of one. The honor wasn’t mine alone, I shared it with a sign outside a bar and a brand of gun oil.

What was behind the SPLC’s sloppy hate group designation of one man, a bar sign and other random items was its obsession with manufacturing a constant rise in ‘hate groups.’

Year after year, the SPLC would issue reports claiming that hate groups were increasing in number, and then fundraise off the urgent threat that they had invented.

I caught them doing it time and time again.

In 2017, the SPLC issued a report claiming that the “number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015”. How did the leftist group arrive at this number? It listed Act for America, a patriotic organization started by a Christian refugee from Islamic persecution, as one group in 2015.

Then it listed 45 chapters of Act for America as separate organizations in 2017. Suddenly the number of ‘Islamophobic’ groups had tripled. Such pathetically obvious statistical frauds were all too common in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s work, but the media rarely questioned it.

Or why the SPLC seemed so bent on artificially inflating the number of supposed hate groups.

Next year however the SPLC listed a progressive town on its ‘Hate Map’ because there had been an online comment that proposed a Neo-Nazi book club should meet there. There was no evidence that the club existed, that it had ever met at the town or that the town had anything to do with it, but the town still found it impossible to get the SPLC to delist it. And media stories appeared for the first time questioning the SPLC’s methodology which proved to be made up.

In addition to inventing and faking ‘hate groups’, we already knew that the Southern Poverty Law Center had been helping fund some hate groups, but the recent grand jury indictment of the organization shows that the scale of these payments had surpassed $3 million.

Even while old ladies were being sent envelopes stamped with klansmen burning crosses and urged to donate to stop them, the SPLC was using their money to fund members of both the Ku Klux Klan and the United Klans of America through bank accounts linked to fake organizations.

Despite its public hostility, the SPLC always had always enjoyed a somehow complicated relationship with the KKK. Morris Dees (above), the founder of the SPLC, who had formerly worked for George Wallace, had defended a klansman attacking civil rights workers. Dees, an experienced direct marketer, turned his direct sales machine into the SPLC, suing Klan groups for millions, and then funneled millions to Klan members supposedly acting as ‘informants’ in ways that blurred the line between the SPLC and the KKK. The line grew even blurrier when Dees was ousted from the SPLC over organizational sexism and racism allegations.

Dees had switched from profiting off the KKK and allied racists to profiting from white liberal northerners who viewed them as a dangerous bogeyman. When efforts to pretend that the KKK was still relevant faltered, the SPLC went into the business of similarly fighting religious conservatives and anyone concerned about Islam. That’s how I became a hate group.

Along the way, the SPLC tried to destroy the David Horowitz Freedom Center, running a covert campaign to get our bank accounts shut down, to cut off donations to us and to stop us from being able to run our websites, like Front Page Magazine, and to even exist at all on the internet. We eventually beat the SPLC, but not without taking a serious beating along the way. Others suffered worse. Including a terrorist attack aimed at Alliance Defending Freedom by a gunman sourcing his target from the SPLC.

But, unlike the KKK, the SPLC didn’t write us any checks.

The SPLC had two motives for its systemic fraud: first to raise money, and second, to manufacture a crisis of constantly growing hate groups to justify censoring conservatives.

Equating David Horowitz, who had fought for civil rights, with the Klan, which turned out to be subsidized by the SPLC, was about weaponizing the fake campaign against the KKK to eliminate as much of the conservative movement as the leftist group could manage to take out.

The SPLC needed the KKK, just as it needed the ‘Unite the Right’ rally, where it was helping to fund a participant, to keep the money coming and to end free speech in America.

Soon after the Southern Poverty Law Center named me a hate group and I began looking into their hate maps and hate lists, I quickly saw that the SPLC was faking its data. The fake data helped make the SPLC into an authority on ‘hate’. The FBI and local law enforcement turned to the SPLC Politicians propped it up. The tech industry allowed it to censor whom it wanted to.

My listing was just one piece of bad data that the SPLC had been feeding into a machine of lies that made it wealthy and powerful. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s reign of terror was built on lies, on fraud and on funding the very people whom it promised donors that it was fighting.

Now, the curtain is rising to reveal the SPLC’s dirty tactics and how it faked hate in America.

The Southern Poverty Law Center faked a crisis to gain power and profit. Now it’s time for the SPLC to apologize to organizations like ours and to individuals like me for trying to destroy them by using lies, and it’s time for the legal system to hold the SPLC accountable for funding hate.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

When Al Sharpton celebrated the 35th anniversary of his hate group and shakedown operation, the National Action Network, which has been linked to the killings of at least 9 people in various hate crimes, presidential hopefuls celebrated with him.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, still Sharpton’s favorite after her previous pledge at the National Action Network to implement racial reparations, was there, as were former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, hoping to compensate for his notoriously poor performance with black voters, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, humiliating himself one more time, Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, just caught lying about his past, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the man Sharpton would be if he were white and hadn’t stopped eating everything in sight, Sen. Mark Kelly, hoping to meet his first black person, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a sleazy Silicon Valley grifter backed by an Epstein associate, who claims to be against the ‘Epstein Class’, and a champion of banning congressional stock trading, while also being the champion stock trader.

Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the nephew of racist professor Leonard Jeffries whom Sharpton had defended after his antisemitic remarks, made his third appearance addressing NAN. Around 30 years ago, New York Times editor A.M. Rosenthal, had referred to the “Sharpton Albatross” for Democrats. “Sharpton. He talked about ‘diamond merchants’’ in Crown Heights and admires Louis Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries, the local academic anti-Semite. He is the Sharpton who built his career as the race-trouble equivalent of the ambulance chaser. He remains what he always has been — racial dynamite, carrying his own matches.”

These days, Sharpton and Jeffries aren’t the party’s albatross, they’re the party.

Despite Sharpton’s history of antisemitism and his role in the Crown Heights Pogrom, the only pogrom in American history, Gov. Josh Shapiro, the most prominent Jewish contender, showed up to kiss Rev Al’s ring. And despite Sharpton’s infamous remark that, “We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it”, Buttigieg, a gay man whose origins go back to a Greek island colony, came to him. Perhaps Buttigieg can ask Sharpton for some of his thoughts on philosophy and mathematics.

People used to call Sharpton a clown, but the former clown has made clowns of the party.

Recent media profiles mentioning the 35th anniversary of the National Action Network fail to delve into why it is 35 years old.

And more specifically why it was founded in 1991.

1991 was the year of the Crown Heights Pogrom when violent mobs assaulted Jews in the streets of the Brooklyn neighborhood. The race riot was the culmination of racists associated with Sharpton’s hate group harassing and even violently assaulting Korean grocers and violent confrontations with Italian-Americans in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. (The only rainbow in Sharpton’s coalition was the sheer number of ethnicities and races that he and his racist cronies hated.)

Sharpton’s activism had been built around the National Youth Movement which he formed in protest of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization associated with MLK, suspending Jesse Jackson for sleazy shenanigans like diverting money to his own organization.

Sharpton’s National Youth Movement was funded by Bayard Rustin, a gay socialist leader and former Communist, and was meant to help inner city children, but helped only one morbidly obese inner city child. In 1989, Sharpton was indicted on tax evasion charges and was also accused of embezzling $250,000 from the NYM and having ties to the Genovese crime family.

Prosecutors claimed that Sharpton’s civil rights group was actually there to promote records in a tangled plot involving songs from a member of the Jackson family (the musical Jackson family, not the political one), boxing, the mafia’s involvement in the music industry all while possibly serving as an FBI informant, while holding lavish fundraisers at the Waldorf.

But a jury let him off the hook and the riots that followed made him a ‘civil rights leader’. Jesse Jackson could threaten corporations, but only Sharpton could threaten to set a city on fire.

The newly formed National Action Network went to war against various racial enemies including a Harlem store named ‘Freddy’s Fashion Mart’. The protests against the man whom Sharpton called a “white interloper” climaxed in mass murder when one of the racist protesters at rallies where members of the mob had chanted “kill the Jew bastards” and “burn down the Jew store and its employees and customers” went inside, told the black employees to leave, and set the place on fire, killing 7 people, 5 of them Latino women. Morris Powell, who had been on trial for breaking a Korean woman’s head during a previous protest, had headed the National Action Network’s Buy Black committee. Powell had chanted, “Don’t give the Jew a dime”, outside the store and praised the killer as, “A Black Man who struggled for his people to be free.”

This is what nearly every White House contender are paying tribute to.

The recent death of Jesse Jackson, the dean of race baiting profiteers whom Sharpton deems his mentor, has set off a gold rush with members of the Jackson family and assorted Jackson imitators, the greatest of whom remains by far Sharpton, trying to claim a pound of his legacy.

That is only fitting since Jackson came to prominence by lying that he had cradled the dying MLK in his arms and heard his last words, before parading around for reporters and politicians with a suspiciously red dyed outfit that was supposed to be the murdered civil rights leader’s blood. In that spirit, Sharpton is celebrating the 35th anniversary of the National Action Network by moving the organization into an abandoned firehouse turned theater and calling it the ‘House of Justice Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Workshop’. A step up from Sharpton’s old National Youth Movement digs in a building reportedly owned by a lieutenant in the Genovese crime family.

The merger of the Jesse Jackson and Sharpton networks was overseen by Jesse Jackson Jr, a former Congressman and convicted criminal, now running for Congress again after serving time for making off with $750,000 in campaign cash and spending over $10,000 on Michael Jackson memorabilia, including $8,500 on two fedoras, not to mention $800 on a mink cashmere cape.

You can’t have justice without a mink cashmere suit.

The Rev. Al, who started out in track suits to look like a man of the streets before pivoting to bespoke Italian suits, would understand. One of the functions of the National Action Network was reportedly paying money into a company known as Rev. Als Productions which owned the suits.

A generation later this convoluted arrangement has White House contenders on their knees. And Jesse Jackson Jr, a man who, unlike Sharpton, went to jail for his financial shenanigans, can only hope to learn the business of social justice at the feet of a true master of the trade.

After $1.8 million in debt, former Rep. Jackson Jr. got out of prison and despite only being 52-years-old went back to living off taxpayers with $138,400 in workers’ comp and Social Security Disability Insurance after having been diagnosed with depression. He told reporters he wasn’t sure when he might get a job. If the House (or the Big House) don’t work out, there’s Al.

But much as Sharpton outdid Jesse Jackson, BLM outdid Sharpton, wrecking major cities and scoring countless millions of dollars from corporations, and making Al look like an amateur.

Sharpton used to taunt black Democrat politicians as “yellow n___s”, but he long ago turned into just another adjunct of the party politics he claimed to despise. The next incarnation of the racebaiting sleaze that gave us Jackson, Sharpton and BLM will give us something even worse.

If yesterday’s terrorist is tomorrow’s politician, tomorrow’s politician will be bumped off by tomorrow’s terrorist. Sharpton wrecked enough lives to become a Democrat kingmaker, but he’s also irrelevant outside the cigar bars and fundraisers that attract top Democrats, corporate lobbyists and no one else. Every Democrat kisses his ring, but there’s no power left in it.

Every Democrat trooping to Sharpton’s shindig is selling their soul for nothing. The devil’s greatest trick may have been convincing the world that he didn’t exist, but the Rev. Al’s greatest trick was convincing corporations and political parties to bow to him because he still exists.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

For 125 years, a monument was supposed to rise on what is now a traffic circle by Arlington National Cemetery. Now, President Trump has proposed a 250 foot tall ‘Independence Arch’ (one year for every year of America’s existence) to mark the nation’s 250th birthday.

Democrats however have rallied in defense of the traffic circle in the name of the Confederacy.

After President Trump’s reelection, the demolitionist party that had cheered the toppling of monuments, the vandalism of the statues of Columbus, Lincoln and Francis Scott Key, suddenly became born-again preservationists, clutching their pearls over the White House ballroom, the Kennedy Center renovations and now the even more suddenly sacred traffic circle.

Calling for the preservation of a traffic circle, one that doesn’t even have BLM stenciled on it, is an uphill battle, especially since the ‘preservationists’ suddenly interested in it had never expressed any prior interest in the particular traffic circle. It’s not that they really care about the traffic circle, but that they don’t want a triumphal patriotic arch taking its place.

And so the same movement that had been tearing down Confederate statues has been reduced to arguing that putting up a patriotic arch would be wrong because, in the immortal words of the Washington Post, it “could obstruct views of Arlington House, the former Lee estate that sits on a hillside in Arlington National Cemetery.” That’s the same estate that the newspaper was campaigning to rename a mere four years ago because its very existence was offensive.

Now, when campaigning against the Independence Arch, the Post complains that “a large arch would significantly alter past lawmakers’ and architects’ ambitions for Arlington Memorial Bridge, which was intended as a bridge between the North and the South in the wake of the Civil War and to connect memorials for President Abraham Lincoln and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.”

That might be a better point if the radical faction doing the complaining hadn’t been running around tearing down and renaming Confederate monuments and sites only to turn around and plead for the historic importance of them to stop President Trump from building a memorial arch.

The original intent of the Lee Estate, or more blandly, Arlington House, commemorating national reconciliation, was overturned after the BLM era and the estate exists to talk about slavery, targeting not only Lee, but George Washington’s family. (Washington had no children, but he adopted his wife Martha’s children as his own and the family named a number of their children ‘George.)

If the Washington Post and its born-again preservationists had been concerned about the integrity of the original intent of bridging North and South, and honoring Lee for his work for peace between both sides, it had years to protest. Not only didn’t it protest, it backed it.

The objections to The Independence Arch are no more about Lee than they are about the traffic circle. The opposition is not about what is there now, but what they don’t want to see there.

The Independence Arch is not offensive because it interferes with ‘sightlines’ (everything built around the ‘Mall’ interferes with sightlines, but that didn’t stop them from cluttering it up with genuinely ugly works like the MLK Memorial in which an oddly white and Asian version of the civil rights leader sternly glares down at people out of a rock.

The Smithsonian’s modern contributions to D.C. architecture include hideous nightmares come to life like the Hirshhorn Museum (picture a horrible combination between an office building and a giant vanilla cake) and the American Indian Museum (a horrid Science Fiction dystopia come to life) which completely clash with the city’s traditional architecture and yet were praised by the same ‘experts’ and ‘scholars’ booing the proposed Independence Arch.

Unlike so much of what has been built in D.C. in the past 50 years, the Arch of Independence would actually fit the traditional look. It’s not another of the brutalist and modernist monstrosities.

Build something asymmetrical, disproportionate and hostile to form and proportion, that fits into D.C. like a pig in a pageant, and trendy architects, critics and other professional enemies of beauty will flock to lavish praise for its subversive daring, but something like the Ronald Reagan Building, which actually fit into D.C., was the subject of endless ridicule and criticism.

Traditionalism in art and politics is hated, and the proposed Independence Arch brings together both. It suggests that the function of monuments is soaring ambition and vision, rather than a grim view of life as an impossible aberration in a universe that makes no sense.

Worse still, Independence Arch is a paean to American glory, and completely at odds with the feverish ‘recontextualization’ that has befallen every monument at least a century old, that insists visitors view it through Howard Zinn’s misanthropic version of American history as a testament to the racism, capitalism, sexism, and other ills they say were America’s original sins.

The Independence Arch suggests that America’s birthday is something to take pride in, not mourn, that the United States is great and that we are great by being part of it, that patriotism is meaningful, rather than despicable, and that what we build should also be meaningful. All of this is a direct reversal of every political, artistic, academic and cultural trend in generations.

Opponents of the Independence Arch would much rather that it remain a traffic circle to perhaps one day be supplemented by a fitting statue of a drag queen or an ayatollah, but certainly not some gold and marble arch that celebrates Americanism as our ultimate unifying identity.

In a city where there are museums for seemingly every single group, patriotic monuments have long gone out of style. There have been some decent memorializations of individuals, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, and even of past wars, the WWIII memorial, but little that speaks to the union of our past and present ambitions.

That is why the Independence Arch is needed. Its message is not simply about the past, but the future, it tells us not, like so many of the city’s memorials, what we have lost, but what we can do. Anyone can mourn, but not everyone can build. The Left is happy to leave us our cemeteries, but what it wants to take away from us are our pride and our hope.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

In 1955, Algeria had over 1 million Catholics and 140,000 Jews. Today, as Pope Leo visits Algeria, there are some 8,000 Catholics in Algeria and there are fewer than 200 Jews.

99% of the population of what was one of the old territories of Christianity are Sunni Muslims.

Was Islam so popular that all the Christians and Jews decided to convert? Not at all. They were persecuted, murdered, tortured and driven out by Islamic violence that occurred in our lifetimes.

Christians and Jews had lived in Algeria since Roman times. Now they’re gone.

This Christian genocide was endorsed by major world powers, aided and abetted by the French government and celebrated in movies, books and classroom lessons. And by Pope Leo XIV.

Alongside paying tribute to the 19 Martyrs of Algeria, beatified in 2018, priests, monks and nuns, including 7 beheaded monks and 2 nuns murdered on the way to mass, by Islamic terrorists who later received amnesty for their crimes, Pope Leo also paid tribute to Muslim Jihadists.

Pope Leo visited Algeria’s so-called Martyrs’ Monument, “Maqam Echahid,” located above the El Mujahid or Jihadi Museum, erected by former Islamic-Socialist terrorist dictator Houari Boumédiène who had headed the ALN, one of whose specialties was the “Smile of Kabylie” in which the tongue was pulled through a slit throat, and which was responsible for the Oran Massacre of Christians and Jews thereby ethnically cleansing a formerly non-Muslim city.

Women and children had their throats cut by Muslim mobs bent on slaughter. 250,000 non-Muslims had lived in Oran. After the massacres, over 200,000 survivors fled.

Pope Leo XIV visited the Jihadi site and in his remarks claimed that “our presence here at this monument pays tribute to this history of Algeria and to the very spirit of a people who fought for the independence, dignity and sovereignty of this nation.”

Praising the Arab Muslim Jihadis who had set out to eliminate Christianity from Algeria, the pontiff declared that “they lost their lives but in doing so, they gave them up for the love of their own people. May their example sustain the people of Algeria and all of us on our journey, for true freedom is not merely inherited, it is chosen anew every day.”

The “love of their own people” was based on a fervent hatred of all non-Muslims, acted out through horrible atrocities, including the deliberate murder of non-Muslim children by Muslims.

The ‘martyrs’ of the Jihadi Museum under the monument at which Pope Leo made his remarks include Mohammed Larbi Ben M’Hidi, the Muslim terrorist leader responsible for bombings and shootings against non-Muslim civilians including the Milk-Bar bombing during which a Muslim woman planted a bomb in a shop filled with mothers and children having milkshakes.

Mothers were killed and children lost arms and legs.

Danielle Michel-Chich, a 5-year-old girl, had gone to have ice cream with her grandmother. Danielle lost her leg, while her grandmother lost her life. Nicole Guiraud, a 10-year-old girl, lost her arm. Some young women were killed in the brutal Islamic terrorist attacks.

Zohra Drif, the monster who planted the bomb targeting mothers and children, is an honored figure in Algeria, and was the wife of Rabah Bitat, Algeria’s former president who succeeded Boumediene. The terrorist also served as the vice president of Algeria’s parliament.

This is what Pope Leo XIV decided to honor and praise as the “example” for Algeria.

On his visit, Pope Leo repeatedly invoked St. ​Augustine of Hippo who had been from Algeria. Hippo was sacked and destroyed by the Islamic invaders. The city later known as Bône (known as Anaba under Muslim occupation) was one of the cities where non-Muslims fled Muslim violence.

Rather than address what had actually happened, Pope Leo insisted on pretending that there was nothing religious about Christian clergy being massacred by Muslim terrorists, contending that “In the face of hatred and violence, they remained faithful to charity even to the point of sacrificing themselves alongside many other men and women, Christians and Muslims.”

Visiting the Great Mosque of Algiers, erected by former terrorist dictator Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who had provided amnesty to all members of the Armed Islamic Group, the Jihadist group responsible for the murder of Christian clergy, including nuns and a bishop, Pope Leo praised the gargantuan monstrosity as a “place of prayer” from which “we can learn to respect one another, live in harmony and build a world of peace.”

An Algerian Muslim convert to Christianity however asked to only be referred to anonymously.

Algeria has closed dozens of churches, prosecuted Christians for giving away or even selling copies of the bible and non-registered church services have been banned.

The Algerian constitution declares that “Islam shall be the religion of the State” and demands that the president “swear by Allah” and “glorify the Islamic religion”. So much for coexistence.

The Catholic Church is vanishing from Islamized Algeria. What was once a community of over a million had shrunk to 100,000 by 1965, 45,000 by 1980, and 8,000 now. Few of the clergy are local. Rather than standing up for local persecuted Christians or warning about the consequences of spreading the same kind of Jihadist Islamization into the heartlands of Europe, Pope Leo continues to treat fellow Christians like President Trump as foes while embracing Islamic terrorist regimes as brethren. That policy will do to the Christians of Europe what it already did to the Christians of Algeria.

Rather than defend the bastions of Christianity, Pope Leo cheers on Christian genocide.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

Terrorism in Western nations rose sharply last year with a recorded 280% increase from 2024. That’s the conclusion of the Institute for Economics and Peace’s Global Terrorism Index report.

According to the index, the driving cause was Islamic terrorism “including the New Orleans truck attack in the United States in January, and the Bondi Beach shooting in Australia in December” and “most of these deaths and attacks were caused by jihadist groups or affiliated individuals.”

In the United States, deaths from terrorism attacks hit their highest level since 2019 with 28 killings. This includes not only various Islamic terrorist attacks, but the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a radical leftist angry at his opposition to transgender identity politics.

America accounts for half the terrorism casualties in western nations, but these numbers pale compared to 5,582 people killed worldwide in 2,944 terrorist attacks.

70% of these worldwide terrorist attacks were carried out by four Muslim terrorist organizations including ISIS, Jamaat Nusrat Al-Islam wal Muslimeen (Group Upholding for Islam and Muslims), a West African terror group that has served as an affiliate for Al Qaeda and ISIS, the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), affiliated with Afghanistan’s Taliban and Al-Shabab, a Somali Islamic terrorist group that had allegedly benefited from Somali fraud in Minnesota.

What about Israel? There were only 5 deaths from terrorist attacks in the last year.

The index notes that “Israel experienced its lowest number of terror attacks in 2025 since the inception of the Index.” In early 2023, before the October 7 attacks, I tracked how the number of Islamic terrorist attacks in Israel rose when Biden reversed Trump’s aid cutoff and began sending massive amounts of money in ‘humanitarian aid’ to Islamic terrorists in Israel.

In Feb 2019, President Trump’s total cutoff of aid became official. That year, 10 Israelis or people in Israeli controlled areas were killed in stabbings, shootings, rocket and other attacks, down from 12 the previous year, and 15 in 2017, and 16 in 2016. In 2020 however only three Israelis were killed. This was likely an aberration due to the pandemic and the lack of easy targets. But by 2021, after the Biden administration restored aid, terrorist attacks quickly resumed with 17 dead, and then up to 32 killed in 2022. And 2023 became the worst year.

Israel has seen the lowest rate of terrorist attacks under President Trump. And it has shown that going on the offensive against Islamic terrorists works while pandering to them does not.

The Index reported that only five Western European nations had worsening terror scores: France, United Kingdom, Austria, the Netherlands, and Serbia. Four out of those countries, France, the UK, Austria and the Netherlands have governments that have bent over backwards for Islam and Islamic terrorism. They condemned Israel while encouraging Islamic migration.

Instead of making them more safe, it has made life in these countries more dangerous.

We have been told ever since 9/11 that fighting Islamic terrorism doesn’t work, that it just creates more terrorists and that the only thing to do is try and defuse their grievances.

But that hasn’t worked.

What has worked is cutting off their money and going after state sponsors of terrorism. Israel’s campaign against Iran has done far more to reduce terrorism than its disastrous efforts to improve life in Gaza that every other government and expert insisted was the only solution.

Islamic terrorism became a global crisis because during the Cold War, Western nations refused to hold the state sponsors of terrorism accountable and I instead played a senseless game of whack-a-mole with small bands of Jihadists whose leadership wasn’t in caves, but in the heartland of the Muslim countries whom we insisted on pretending were really our allies.

Even finding Osama bin Laden living under Pakistani protection didn’t stop us from pretending that the Islamic terrorist state whose leaders had praised the terrorist was really an ally.

When Israel moved from bombing Hamas to bombing Iran, it exchanged a proxy war for direct warfare. Much as when it struck Qatar, it sent a clear message. There are few Islamic terrorist groups that are truly independent. Most of them have state sponsors that fund and harbor them.

Islamic terrorism isn’t about ‘grievances’; it’s about Muslim countries and wealthy clans funding terrorism with our own money. They invest millions into terrorist groups that we then spend billions fighting. If the Saudis, the Qataris and the Pakistanis had to fear real U.S. retaliation after September 11, they would have thought twice about their role in Al Qaeda.

After decades of playing that same game, Israel has decided to play a new game. And it’s paying off not just in the destruction of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program, but in the diminishing number of Islamic terrorist attacks.

The rest of the world would be wise to learn from it. Fighting terrorists works.

Those trying to convince us that fighting Islamic terrorism is futile want them to win. And so they seek to convince us that Islamic terrorism can never be defeated and that trying will be much worse than surrendering to it. What frightens them is that we will actually try to defeat it and win.

Barack Obama tried to convince us that weakness was strength, President Trump has shown us that weakness is just weakness and strength is strength, and that if you want to stop terrorist attacks, you have to crush the terrorists. Israel has shown us that when terrorists die, terrorist attacks drop because most of the time the most obvious solution to a problem is also the right one.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

In 1997, Gwendolyn Westbrook was arrested after being accused of embezzling thousands of dollars from the San Francisco port parking lot collections that she had been hired to monitor.

By 2022, she was running a homeless nonprofit that took in $36 million in grants while operating a tent city that took over a block and filled a neighborhood with violence and human waste..

Now she’s under arrest. Again.

Westbrook, the CEO of the United Council of Human Services, is currently accused of misappropriating $1.2 million and a lawsuit claims that she told staffers about buying a Tesla for herself, handing out luxury cars to other family members, vacationing in Aruba and driving around for some unstated reason with a “a trunk full of high-priced jewelry”.

“I guess it’s because I’m a black woman,” Westbrook had said of critics. “I think it’s racism. They don’t want a black woman running this organization.”

Westbrook has been indicted by San Francisco DA Brooke Jenkins: also a black woman.

But the real question is why was Westbrook entrusted with millions of dollars and allowed to run a disastrous organization despite her past history at the San Francisco port? The answer lies with the reason why Westbrook got the job as an senior manager assistant at the Port of San Francisco in the first place.

The CEO of the homeless organization had been raised by Idaree Westbrook, an ally of the notorious Willie Brown, the former mayor and operator of the political machine that had turned the likes of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, his former mistress, into statewide players.

Idaree had founded the San Francisco Black Leadership Forum which her adopted daughter took over and, as a San Francisco Chronicle story mentioned, its “endorsement is considered a key factor in local political races”. Gwendolyn Westbrook was forced to step down after the port scandal, but six years later she was running a local soup kitchen named Mother Brown’s Kitchen that morphed into the United Council of Human Services. By 2014, San Francisco authorized a homeless shelter with 100 beds next door over the protests of the neighbors.

Locals complained of screaming at all hours of the day and night, vomit, drunkenness, human waste and domestic violence. “They are just very mean people,” Westbrook accused, who “just don’t want to help other people get one up.”

Police shut down a charity gambling event that included blackjack tables funding the group.

An audit was requested in 2015 and released in 2017 which found that the ‘Council’ had received $1.5 million in city funds and had not kept a proper record of where the money was going. Over $88,000 in expenses couldn’t be properly accounted for, the board lacked members and existing board members didn’t seem to know what the organization was doing.

But the director of homeless services claimed that, “I feel this is kind of a success story.” And the money just went on pouring in.

Then came a ‘Safe Overnight Parking Pilot Program’ for vagrants to sleep in their cars.

A year later the pandemic hit and Westbrook came up with her greatest idea yet.

Westbrook set up socially distanced’ tents for the homeless in a park to create ‘safe sleeping villages.’

Nobody cares about homeless people,” she claimed. “They won’t come to their rescue. We had to do something for our community and that’s what we came up with.”

San Francisco adopted the ‘safe sleeping model’ at a modest price of $61,000 per tent per year.

By 2021, taxpayers were paying $16 million a year to keep the homeless in tents. Something that they were already doing on their own. As the Chronicle noted, the annual cost for one of these tents was “2½ times the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco.”

A supervisor called the cost “eye-popping” and argued that “we need to understand why that is”. Meanwhile the media and activists hailed Westbrook as a wonderfully compassionate genius.

“We’re going to fight to keep what we got. We’re going to keep our people in this neighborhood, and it doesn’t matter who’s going to like it,” Westbrook warned.

A lot of people didn’t like it.

By 2022, the ‘safe sleeping site’ with its tents, public toilets and showers had taken over a street, blocking food deliveries to stores and intimidating the locals. Business owners couldn’t get to their own shops and faced violence and ugliness. One man was threatened with a baseball bat, others complained about human waste, describing having to wash down the sides of their businesses after they were used as bathrooms.

Not to mention the garbage dumping and the drug dealing.

That same year, city auditors took a look at the organization’s $28 million in public funds and forwarded their results to the FBI. Housing was being used for employees of the organization and allegedly for Westbrook’s family members. The organization had collected over $100,000 in rent, even though it wasn’t supposed to be collecting rent, and $177,000 in credit card payments couldn’t be documented. Westbrook meanwhile had been donating money to local politicians.

Including Mayor London Breed.

Westbrook claimed that it was all a “damn lie” and blamed racism. When asked how her original port case had ended, the CEO claimed that she did not remember despite having pled guilty.

But it was San Francisco officials who chose not to remember, to ignore every red flag along the way, to provide millions in funding to a woman who had been accused of embezzlement, to ignore the failed audits and the neighborhood complaints until the toll passed $1 million.

The millions in the United Council of Human Services case are a drop in the bucket of billions in California. The Los Angeles Homeless Authority couldn’t account for $2.5 billion in spending. The story was a familiar one with an influential CEO who provided a multi-million dollar contract to her husband, hired her friends and protected Mayor Karen Bass.

The more money California spends on fixing ‘homelessness’, the worse the problem grows. But the money isn’t going to the homeless. Had all the homeless spending gone to the homeless, they could have been buying themselves luxury cars, trunks full of jewels and trips to Aruba.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

“Faribault has become our city,” a Somali interviewed by the Minnesota Post bragged.

Faribault, Minnesota, is a small city about an hour’s drive from Minneapolis. On paper it should have the smaller crime rate of the alphabetically similar Farmington which is nearly the same size and only a half hour away. Instead, Faribault has more than twice as much violent crime, aggravated assaults, burglaries and car thefts, 30% more rapes, and 8 times as many robberies. Farmington has no arsons, but Faribault has the most arsons of any city outside major strongholds like Minneapolis, St. Paul or Duluth.

But Faribault has something Farmington doesn’t: diversity. Especially from its Somalis.

The city of over 20,000 used to be much less diverse. In 1990, it was even 98% white. Or as the Minnesota Post described it, with a shudder, “an almost entirely homogeneous white community, not much different from many towns across Minnesota.” But Faribault was an hour away from Minneapolis at a time when it was being overtaken by Somali mass migration, and it had a meat processing plant, now partly shut down, which is always a draw for illegal aliens and migrants.

Now Faribault is much more diverse and it has problems that it didn’t used to have.

Faribault was the epicenter of a $2.6 million Somali Medicaid ride fraud scam in which 8 Somalis, two of them named Mohammed, stole hundreds of names to bill taxpayers for rides, interpreters and acupuncture services that never happened.

It was also part of the $250 million Somali meal scam that first broke open Somali fraud.

Faribault’s part in the massive fraud in which nonprofits claimed to be providing free meals to hundreds of thousands of Somali kids who didn’t exist came through the Somali American Faribault Education (SAFE) run by Mohamed Hussein and Lul Bashir Ali, who made off with $5 million in meal funds after claiming that their restaurant in Faribault, which only had 9 tables, was serving meals to 1,600 children a day and had served a total of 700,000 meals.

The Somali American Faribault Education (SAFE) nonprofit also claimed to be providing meals to 2,500 children a day. Sizable amounts of kickbacks were paid to a man who then fled to Somalia. The Minnesota Post’s article praising the Somali takeover of Faribault had hailed SAFE, claiming that it “provides refugees with ESL programs and connects them to jobs”.

The other non-profit promoted by the Post article, the ‘Somali Community Resettlement Services’, which operates out of the massive 115-year-old historic Gale Mansion, often used as a wedding venue, has been linked to one Faribault meal site that claimed to be offering 2,000 meals a day.

The ‘Somali Community Resettlement Services’ solicited nearly $3 million for the free meals and Somali elected officials had proposed bills that would pour millions into the organization.

The fraud also penetrated the Faribault public school system as investigators are also trying to figure out where $1 million in grant money to stop Somali drug abuse solicited by Lul Bashir Ali, initially identified only as a Somali mother, went.

“‘We need help.’ This sentiment, expressed by a Somali mother about the specific concern of youth drug use and the more general frustration of trying to parent in a new culture, captures the heart of this grant proposal.” The Minnesota Department of Human Services responded with nearly $1 million for the Faribault schools that was supposedly used to provide Somali services.

Faribault is much more diverse now with an estimated 4,600 Somalis out of 25,000 people. The white population has dropped to 65% and the school system is even more diverse.

Minority enrollment in the city’s schools was up 243% in twenty years. By 2018, minority students made up a majority of the school system. Today, 60% of the school district is minority and only 36% white. A population of older white homeowners is subsidizing education and services for Somali and South American migrant meatpacking plant workers with their property taxes.

The Faribault School Board has recently been debating teaching science, health and social studies in Somali. As of 2022, there were over 900 Faribault students who didn’t speak English.

The Somali education program was proposed after complaints from Somalis and other migrants that their “home languages were being lost as students became more English-dominant” and “parents and children no longer shared a common language, weakening communication and cultural connections within families.” Rather than expecting their parents to learn English, Faribault schools are expected to prevent their children from learning English, instead teaching them in Somali.

Faribault might as well teach the students in Somali because state test proficiency scores showed that math proficiency was at 13.7%, science was at 16.1% and reading was at 29.8%. Test scores, graduation rates, attendance and every possible metric are below state standards.

What would Faribault be like if it were less diverse and Somali? Faribault school statistics show that students for whom English is their native language perform over three times better on math, science and more than twice as well on reading. Students who aren’t on welfare perform four times as well on math and science. Call it the ‘Somali Effect’.

Faribault is more diverse, it’s also more dangerous and has linked up with the epicenter of Somali fraud in the Twin Cities. Its schools are failing and it has no future.


(Image above from Hormel meatpacking plant video showcasing its Somali workers.)

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

The Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, has called for the removal of a mural of Iryna Zarutska, a young Ukrainian refugee whose brutal murder was caught on video, because, according to Mayor Smiley, because of its “misguided, isolating intent”.

Providence has a BLM street mural covering three blocks and a “Love is a Many Gendered Thing” mural, but Mayor Smiley urged supporting artists “whose work brings us closer together rather than divide us” and remembering Irina’s murder divides us.

Unlike BLM and “Love is a Many Gendered Thing” which bring us together.

In New York City, a mural of the murdered woman was vandalized after being up for less than two weeks. In Chicago, it was vandalized in less than a month.

But not all murals and acts of iconoclasm are created equally or treated equally.

Over in Milwaukee, a 74-year-old rabbi was sentenced for vandalizing a terrorist mural depicting the Star-of-David as a swastika. According to media reports, the Muslim ‘artist’ had to be removed from the courtroom after he “acknowledged his support for Hamas”.

People have gone to prison for driving over street BLM and LGBTQ murals while radical mobs have become heroes for tearing down Civil War statues and Columbus monuments. Write “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” outside Planned Parenthood and you will be arrested, but scrawl “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” and you’ll get a grant. The two-tier culture war politicisation applies to our monuments and murals.

In D.C., ‘preservationists’ have expressed outrage and fought legal battles with the Trump administration over the White House State Ballroom, Eisenhower Office Building, and the Kennedy Center renovations. The latest such lawsuit comes from a coalition that includes the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, the DC Preservation League and Cultural Heritage Partners who are complaining that the ugly seventies modernist mausoleum is “an iconic architectural treasure” whose structures “carry cultural and symbolic significance far beyond the nation’s capital.”

Where were these ‘preservationists’ when radical mobs were tearing down statues and monuments over a century old? They were cheering them on.

The National Trust not only backed taking down Confederate monuments, but actually cheered on the vandalism of the statue of Francis Scott Key, the writer of the poem that became America’s national anthem, while falsely claiming that the lines of the full poem, “No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave/And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave/O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave” were racist. Any actual historian knows that this was a reference to mercenaries and ‘impressed’ sailors, forced to serve, a major cause of the conflict.

Cultural Heritage Partners, a law firm, previously bragged that “we proudly represent clients who seek to have monuments removed from public lands, relocated, or recontextualized in order to be able to tell fully truthful history and create a more inclusive future.” Cultural Heritage Destruction Partners might be more accurate.

The DC Preservation League announced that it was “committed to the struggle for racial justice” by which it meant that “while some monuments are longstanding elements of historic landscapes or exemplify the work of master artists and craft persons, they may reinforce past values and ideologies which are repugnant today, and their continuing display in public spaces may be unacceptable.” Examples of monuments it opposed included the statue of Andrew Jackson and the Emancipation Memorial, known as the original Lincoln Memorial, showing President Abraham Lincoln freeing a slave.

According to the very selective preservationists, the Kennedy Center, dating back to the seventies, is a national treasure, but an 1876 statue of Lincoln ending slavery isn’t.

The monuments and the murals that are kept and those being destroyed have nothing to do with art, historicity or a respect for the past, only a culture war being fought for the future. This culture war flies the false flags of “inclusivity” with the vandals claiming that they are out to preserve inclusive art, as Mayor Smiley put it, those “whose work brings us closer together rather than divide us”, but it’s not about bringing us closer together.

The two-tier enforcement of public art is like everything else about the triumph of a cultural narrative. Much like the ancient pharaohs and caesars of old who vandalized old monuments to make way for the new, their idea of art is all about power. That their preferences end up upholding concrete ugliness, like the Kennedy Center, over classic statuary, is a symptom, and not an unintentional one, of the aesthetics of their politics.

Art is memory and they would rather that we remember George Floyd as an innocent victim of the police, rather than as a violent thug who robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint, and they would rather that we not remember Iryna Zarutska or innocent crime victims at all. Columbus, Washington and Jefferson must go, but these days so must the statues of Cesar Chavez, because the power to erase the past is also the power to control the culture. Regular cultural cleansings, justified or not, put the ‘party’ in control of collective memory, constantly deciding what gets to stay and what must be purged.

The art that truly moves us isn’t political, but art has become infected with power.

Art talks to us about love, heroism and beauty. It asks us what we love and what we want to be. But in this Orwellian culture, everything, especially culture, is reducible to power. Art becomes ugliness. A means of bullying the public with the party’s repetitive slogans. History is constantly being warped by an ideology that constructs new narratives on top of the old. Art used to be inspiring: it’s now depressing. A radical movement incapable of celebrating anything except its own ideology has seized control of our culture. It doesn’t make art, all it does is make ideological idolatry.

And the right of the iconoclast, the monopoly on cultural violence, it reserves for itself.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

In 2003, Limor Son Har-Melech was 7 months pregnant and driving home with her husband, Shalom, an ambulance driver, when Islamic terrorists attacked them. The car rolled over, killing her husband and injuring Limor. Seriously injured, the 24-year-old mother survived. So did her newborn daughter. Limor, still carrying the scars of the attack, married again, had children and decided to run for public office in Israel to protect others from what she had suffered.

Last year, MK Limor, a member of the Knesset, was stunned to learn that her husband’s killer was being freed as part of the disastrous deal trading 2,000 Islamic terrorists for hostages.

“This morning I woke up to the news that the terrorist who murdered my husband was released in a deal – no one told us about it,” she said.

So she sponsored a new bill, the ‘Death Penalty for Terrorists Bill’. The bill calls for the “death penalty” for anyone “who intentionally caused the death of a person in an act of terrorism”.

The bill was supported by family members of the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks in Israel.

Deborah Gonen, the mother of Danny Gonen, a young man murdered in a terrorist attack, who founded the ‘Choosing Life Forum’ to stop terrorist funding, endorsed the bill, saying, “We, the bereaved families, demand the death penalty so that there will be no more victims like my son Danny.”

Haim Smadar, a Jewish refugee from the Muslim world working as a security guard, and a father of deaf children, died stopping an Islamic terrorist from blowing up in a supermarket, telling him, “You are not coming in here. You and I will blow up here.”

“I call on all Knesset members to vote for this bill, as it saves lives, stopping those who are coming to kill us again and again,” his son said.

Eliyahu Libman, who lost his brother in a terrorist attack, and who lost his son, a security officer who was saving lives at the Nova festival, on Oct 7, declared that “a terrorist “doesn’t deserve to live after he took the lives of others.  And I say this from my personal experience.”

“The killers of my brother were freed in the Shalit deal (during which over 1,000 Islamic terrorists were released in exchange for one hostage). They killed my son and all the others. The terrorists want to kill and go on killing. When they are executed, it saves many lives.”

When an Islamic terrorist burst into the Solomon home on the Sabbath, the family were celebrating the birth of their grandson. The terrorist stabbed to death the 70-year-old grandfather, Michal Solomon managed to hustle her three children, including two infants, into a room and held the door against the attacker. Her husband was murdered.

Dan Landau, Michal’s father, endorsed the bill saying, “Enough with terrorists who get vacations, enough with terrorists who receive good conditions in prison. It’s time they pay the full price for the blood they spilled.”

The parents of Rita Gusak, 21, murdered by Hamas terrorists at the Nova musical festival on Oct 7, spoke out in favor of the bill.” The terrorist standing before us doesn’t even try to hide it — he proudly publishes it and documents it.”

“I am in favor of the death penalty law for terrorists, because they murdered my father,” the son of Meir Lixenberg, a murdered father of 5, said.

Many other family members also spoke out in favor of a death penalty for terrorists.

However, once the bill was signed, it was immediately condemned by European governments and a social media campaign based on lies was quickly whipped up, claiming that the bill was racist because it would execute Arab Muslims rather than Jews. All of that is completely false.

The bill only applies to non-citizen terrorists who live under military jurisdiction. It doesn’t apply to Israeli citizens, Jews or Arabs, or whatever their religion may be. The legal basis for this is much the same as the Article III military tribunals that were used in Gitmo after 9/11.

Media and social media accounts chose to completely ignore MK Limor Son Har-Melech, whose bill it was, because her story was too sympathetic, in favor of retweeting a brief clip from a Hamas-linked account, featuring Itamar Ben Gvir, a leader of her party, celebrating the bill.

There was no mention that the bill had come from a survivor of terrorism, that it had been championed by family members of terror victims, or that it was made necessary by disastrous hostage deals like the Shalit deal and the Hamas hostage deal which freed thousands of Islamic terrorists to kill again and which incentivized future attacks and future hostage taking.

The European Union claimed that the bill was “deeply concerning” because “the death penalty is a violation of the right to life”. The terrorists facing the death penalty violated the right to life of others and will do so again if they are set loose. As the EU would indeed like to see happen.

The UK, French, Australian and German governments claimed that the bill was “discriminatory” and would undermine “Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles”, contending that “the death penalty is an inhumane and degrading form of punishment without any deterring effect.” If their countries had the death penalty, their crime rate wouldn’t be out of control.

The UK has resorted to banning kitchen knives rather than cracking down on criminals.

France last executed a Muslim pimp by guillotine in 1977 for running a sex grooming gang and kidnapping, torturing and strangling a French woman to death. Imagine if France were willing to do that today. And would thousands of girls have been raped in the UK if the Pakistani Muslim sex grooming gangs knew that they faced not a cushy few years in prison, but death?

European foreign ministers have had little to say about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Brunei and Mauritania’s Islamic death penalties for gay people. They don’t mind when Muslim countries kill gay people in the name of Islam, only when Christians and Jews stand up to Islamic terrorism.

The ‘Palestinian Authority’ has a law on the books calling for the death penalty for their own people who sell land to Jews. And there are of course no objections to that racist decree.

Israel has lived through generations of Islamic terror and genocide. Only now, after the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, did it pass a death penalty bill. The law will almost certainly be blocked by Israel’s leftist supreme court and terror victims will be denied justice. Islamic terrorists will get fake life sentences that only last until the terrorists take a hostage.

If opponents of the ‘Death Penalty for Terrorists Bill’ had a legitimate argument to make, they wouldn’t have to lie about the bill, distort it, hide who it came from and who supports it. But the Left wants to pretend that it’s humane and decent even as it unleashes terrorists who stab, rape and kill their victims while running them through a revolving door system that rewards terrorism.

Limor Son Har-Melech refused to give up when the car rolled over and she lost her husband. Her courageous fight to hold Islamic terrorists accountable should be an example to us all.

California Democrats have a problem with their leading candidates. One doesn’t live in the state but allegedly lived, in the euphemistic sense, with a Chinese spy. Another has the looks and personality of a distempered boar and can’t stop screaming at staffers, reporters and anyone late with her lunch. A third is a billionaire who convenes events at luxury hotels to explain how he’ll fight against the billionaires for the working class he sometimes reads about in the paper.

And those are their most popular candidates.

But since this is California, the real problem is that all of those candidates are all the wrong color. Their skin lacks melanin. Two of them can’t even tan. Their distant ancestors probably came here on the Mayflower or some other European sailing vessel. Basically they’re white.

Much too white.

There are other more ‘diverse’ candidates like a Latino former Los Angeles mayor, a Chinese State Controller, a Black Jewish school superintendent, and Biden’s former Latino Secretary of Health and Human Services (he’s still Latino, but a former secretary), but the public isn’t interested in voting for them or giving them money and so they’re not viable candidates.

What are the Democrats to do when their voters just aren’t interested in diversity?

The crisis of the #TooWhite Democrat ticket came to a head when USC was forced to cancel the first gubernatorial debate because all of the candidates were white and mostly male. If the Oscars, the Golden Globes and hockey had to be revamped because there were too many white people, shouldn’t the candidates for the governorship of a diverse state be diverse?

The problem is that the voters don’t agree which means that democracy is racist.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who insists he is not white, Senate President Monique Limon, who has also achieved the great distinction of not being white despite probably not being able to tan, along with the leaders of the Latino, Black, Asian, LGBTQ and numerous other caucuses, all signed a letter claiming that there was “growing alarm from California voters” because “every excluded leading candidate… is a person of color” and warned that if “USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.” And then probably the election.

The candidates that the diverse leaders of the state claimed were excluded are polling respectively at 3%, 3%, 1% and 1%. The selection process of the gubernatorial debate that they claimed was biased is indeed biased. It’s biased against politicians polling between 1% and 3%.

Together all the diverse candidates add up to 8%. California voters aren’t ‘alarmed’, they’re not interested in the ‘diverse’ candidates who talk a lot about their diverse backgrounds as the children of immigrants who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to becoming millionaire state officials. (One of the septuagenarian diverse candidates recently got to keep his $3.5 million mansion in the divorce, another diverse candidate has a net worth of over $7 million.)

Only the Latino candidates even crack 3%. The Black and Chinese candidates are at 1%.

Whose fault is this? If voters don’t like diverse candidates, what can be done to cure them? Gunpoint Drag Queen Story Hour? Electroshock therapy accompanied by Candace Owens podcasts? Mandatory tickets to WNBA games held in North Korean labor camps? Netflix?

Golden State Democrats have weeks in which to either convince voters that they need to be more diverse in their political choices or just do what the Oscars did and import a bunch of outsiders and make them voters in order to rebalance the system to manufacture diversity.

The problem with Plan B is that’s been the official policy of California Democrats for the last 35 years. Its elected officials have wrecked the state, bankrupted it, threatened law enforcement with several penalties and fought a near civil war against the federal government in order to keep the border open and fill every part of it with illegal aliens. Especially illegal alien criminals.

California Democrats also dismantled any kind of voter security measures and made it possible for a Venezuelan here for three weeks to still vote. And, despite all that, the party is too white.

What else is a party that already bitterly clings to demographic replacement supposed to do?

Opponents of the USC debate keep speaking in the name of “democracy” and “voters” when those are their leading obstacles. The only way to save California’s diversity is to get rid of the voters and democracy in the name of democracy and the voters because that’s what they would want if they weren’t such miserable racists. Sometimes you have to kill democracy to save it.

Democrats have flirted with various ways of sidelining democracy, like enabling voter fraud, inviting in illegal aliens to create ‘ghost districts’, ranked choice voting which gave us Zohran Mamdani, and late ballot dumps which gave us Karen Bass in Los Angeles and Katie Wilson in Seattle, but the current California candidate diversity crisis can’t be fixed with half-measures.

There are other options on the horizon, like proportional representation, which would finally ensure that the Communist Party would have some official legislative seats, but 1% only gets you so much. The truly anti-racist position may be to recognize that democracy is racist.

If democracy leads to minority candidates polling at only 1% while white men take the rest of the voters, it becomes all too obvious that letting the people elect their leaders is systemically racist.

Sure, 32% of California’s registered voters are Latino, 16% are Asian and 5% are black, making for a majority minority electorate that helped Democrats turn the state into a one-party system, but they must be suffering from internalized unconscious bias if they won’t vote for diversity.

When states are accused of systemic racism and disparate impact, they’re forced to sign consent decrees admitting to their racism and promising to implement specific policies to rig the system in favor of minorities. Each California voter must be forced to sign a similar consent decree acknowledging that he, she or xer was biased for not supporting minority candidates and promising to vote for them instead of whichever white person they were originally supporting.

Or California could just abolish elections. It’s the only truly anti-racist thing the state can do.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

“I’m the Prime Minister of Spain. This Is Why the West Needs Migrants,” Pedro Sanchez headlined his New York Times op-ed. “The West needs people. Currently, few of its countries have a rising population growth rate. Unless they embrace migration, they will experience a sharp demographic decline.”

Spain’s demographic decline is helped along by the nearly 1,000 euthanasia cases a year. Those who die are replaced with the growing flood of Muslim championed by Sanchez. The West needs people, but only certain kinds of people, and it euthanizes the wrong kind.

Spain’s population is set to shrink by one more as Noelia Castillo Ramos, a 25-year-old girl in a wheelchair, has her life ended before it even really began under the authority of the state.

Prime Minister Sanchez claimed that migrants “care for aging parents, work at small and large companies, harvest the food that’s on the table.”

Migrants also raped Noelia.

Her parents lost custody of her after they divorced when she was only thirteen and she bounced around between foster care and government shelters. At twenty-one, she was gang raped in a shelter that had been occupied by the migrants whom the Spanish government had welcomed into the country.

Noelia tried to commit suicide by jumping from the fifth floor, but survived and ended up as a paraplegic in a wheelchair. According to her father, she needs psychological help, but according to the Sanchez regime, the European Court of Human Rights and the elites, she needs to die.

An El-Pais article, Spain’s biggest papers, began with the sentence, “Noelia should be dead.”

The West needs Muslim migrants, but it doesn’t need Noelia or any of the other girls they assault. The West needs migrants, and it needs its native population to die off or be killed.

Noelia’s case has been Spain’s first legal battle over euthanasia. Her father, represented by a pro-bono Catholic legal group, has been fighting unsuccessfully for her life against the euthanizers. The girl had signed a document brought to her by two nuns requesting that she not be killed, but the hospital rushed to bring in a notary to annul the document and call for death.

After a two year legal battle, Noelia’s fate has been sealed. She has spent twelve years of her young life in the care of the state and now the state will kill her to make way for more migrants.

In 2022, the year in which Noeila was gang raped and put on the path to ending her life, tens of thousands of migrants invaded Spain, and the country ‘gained’ nearly half a million new residents in just six months, while a quarter of a million immigrated out of the country.

Most of the migrant invaders are coming from the Islamic states of Algeria, Mali, Morocco, Senegal and Somalia: where rape is habitual and non-Muslim women are seen as fair game.

There were 1,249 rapes in Spain in 2016. In 2022, the year Noelia was gang raped, there were 2,865 rapes. In 2023, rapes climbed to 4,890. The quadrupling of rapes in a country in 6 years has been with suggestions that Spain needs more feminism, legal reforms and protest rallies.

And, of course, more of the Muslim mass migration that all of these leftist groups support.

After three American tourists from Ohio were raped by Afghan migrants in Spain, the United States Embassy in Madrid issued a warning about the risk of sexual assault. The embassy warned of systematic sexual assaults “against young U.S. citizen visitors and students throughout Spain” and reported that it had dealt with six sexual assault cases in just one month.

Muslim migrants who commit sexual assaults have little to worry about from the Spanish legal system which is weighed towards migrants and against their victims.

Last year, a Senegalese Muslim migrant who raped a 14-year-old girl was released with a fine.

This year, the Sanchez regime announced a plan to legalize 500,000 migrants even as the European Court of Human Rights approved the killing of Noelia Castillo Ramos.

Spain’s government has argued that it will need 25 million migrants over the next generation. A system for rapidly and smoothly killing their victims will be equally important for the transition.

How many will have to die, hundreds of thousands, millions, to make way for the migrants?

There are more Noelias across Europe.

In the Netherlands, Noa Pothoven’s case made headlines when she repeatedly applied for euthanasia after suffering multiple rapes, and eventually starved herself to death. In France, Lola Daviet, a 12-year-old girl, was found decapitated after she was raped by a female Algerian Muslim illegal alien, then stabbed to death with scissors and stuffed into a suitcase. Lola’s father died of grief. The Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and Finland led to suicides by their victims.

The dead include Charlotte Tetley who sat down on the tracks and waited for a train after begging the NHS for help. Charlotte had suffered severe trauma after being groomed by the Pakistani Muslim members of the Rochdale grooming gang. The police, who had been accused of a cover-up in the sex grooming gang case, refused to look for her before she killed herself.

Euthanasia is the easy and simple solution to all these awkward cases that raise questions about the complicity of the authorities in the mass migration and rapes across Europe.

Muslim mass migration has sent rapes skyrocketing across Europe, and the authorities now have the ability to efficiently dispose of the victims in a hospital setting before they make too much noise. There is a price to pay for everything and leaders like Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez have decided what the price is and who will pay it. It will not be the Afghans, Somalis and Algerian Muslim migrants, but the girls they rape and discard in the streets of Spain.

The state will legalize the migrants and kill the girls.

Sanchez claimed that he’s welcoming mass migration because “the West needs people”. The West has people. It has people like Noelia. It’s killing them to get the people that it wants.

The people who will do to the West what they are doing to its girls and its children.

Some say that mass migration is national suicide. That’s not true. It’s national euthanasia.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

When Emir Balat, accused of taking part in throwing IEDs at a rally against the Islamization of New York City near the mayoral residence, was being led out by an FBI agent, he raised his right finger upwards in what media accounts incorrectly described as an “ISIS salute”.

The New York Post called it “a universal salute for ISIS”. But there is no such thing as an ISIS salute. It’s the traditional Islamic salute used during prayers to their deity and, much like “Allahu Akbar” is used by Islamists proclaiming that they represent Allah and are combating infidels.

ISIS beheaders held up one finger after beheading their non-Muslim victims, but so do most Muslims. The ISIS flag, a terrifying black and white chimera to most westerners, simply declares that Allah is the only deity and Mohammed is his messenger: the founding premise of Islam.

The persistent myth of an ‘ISIS salute’ continues to crop up when media outlets try to distinguish between Islam and some imaginary ‘extreme’ version of it represented by Islamic terrorists. The BBC and a UK police force previously apologized for calling the ‘Allah finger’ an ISIS salute.

What the ‘ISIS salute’ lie really reveals is the length to which authorities and the media will go to cover up the Islamic theology behind Islamic terrorism. What the Gracie Mansion bombing suspect likely meant to convey was that the murderous attack had been carried out in Allah’s name, that he was operating under Islamic law, and had no regard for our justice system.

Islam is not an inward-facing faith. Its followers do not shout “Allahu Akbar” or hold up one finger as part of some ‘inner struggle’ of faith, as apologists have mischaracterized Jihad, but as symbols of their external struggle and a justification for violence against all non-Muslims.

The significance of the ‘Allah finger’ is not an inward acceptance of Allah’s supremacy, but a contention that the ‘fingerer’ is a monotheist while those outside the circle are ‘polytheists’ or pagans who, under Islamic law, may be freely killed, raped and enslaved by the followers of Islam. Much as ‘Allahu Akbar’ is a proclamation of Allah’s supremacy over non-Muslims and thus a triumphal declaration that Islam will defeat them, their religions and their ‘gods’, so too the ‘Allah finger’ easily becomes a justification for violence in the name of Islamic supremacism.

Islam is perpetually frozen in the moment of its founding Jihad. Its traditional followers see themselves as a small minority tasked with the primal Mohammedan mission of forcing their friends and neighbors to accept Islam, either through persuasion (Dawah) or force (Jihad.) Different Islamic movements, groups and individuals may vary in the tactics they use, how much they rely on one or the other, and how they pursue even violence, but the endgame is the same.

The ‘Allah finger’ helps us understand that mindset which bridges ISIS and the mosque next door. What may seem like a declaration of faith is actually a symbol of conquest. The constant need for expansion makes faith into an external expression and its preferred outlet is violence.

When Muslims praise Islamic terrorists, they are often mistranslated as “martyrs”. But “martyr” is a Greek term meaning “witness”. The martyr in Christianity testified to his faith in life or death. The martyrs of Christianity eventually became those who testified for their faith by giving up their lives. The equivalent term in Judaism is “Kedoshim” or “sanctified ones”. Much as Islam appears to share a common meaning with ‘peace’, the Arabic term “shaheed” appears to also mean ‘witness’, but the Islamic ‘Shaheed’ is most often used to refer to Muslims who murder in the name of Islam. The witnessing of Islam is not passive: it is a violent Jihad against all others.

What the Koran wants most from Muslim is not inner faith, but outer violence, best expressed through the subjugation of non-Muslims under Sharia law. Personal conduct matters less because all is forgiven and paradise is granted to Jihadis. That is why the worst possible men aspire to it. The man (or woman) who truly believes in Islam holds up his finger, shouts “Allahu Akbar” and throws an IED in order to make Islam “supreme over all unbelievers”.

ISIS in America does not exist as an organized force, but as a series of Telegram channels, Discord chats and other crowdsourced means of communication reaching young Muslims who have been inspired by the teachings of their religion to wage relentless war against infidels.

What has set ISIS apart all along is not that it invented some new ‘extremist theology’ as experts, politicians and the media have been desperately trying to convince us, but that it takes Islamic law seriously and unapologetically. People argue that Islam needs a reformation. ISIS is it. Every Islamic ‘reformation’, like Wahhabism, has brought Islam closer to what it once was. The mission of these reformations is to scourge out any western influences, eliminate any of the liberalizing tendencies of the late Ottoman period, and recommit to the caliphate mission.

ISIS is just unapologetic Islam. The ISIS salute is the traditional ‘Allah finger’ used in Islamic prayers. The attacks carried out by Muslim men who pledge allegiance to it is just Jihad.

The media outlets that describe the ‘Allah finger’ as an “ISIS salute” are eventually forced to retract, often under pressure from Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, and admit it’s a traditional Islamic sign. They will add that it has nothing to do with terrorism. That part isn’t true.

What is more true is that there is no meaningful distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorism. The red line between some mainstream form of Islam and terrorism never existed and doesn’t exist. Most Muslims reject ISIS not because of attacks like the one outside Gracie Mansion, but because the Islamic terrorist group, originally operating as an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, claims exclusive religious authority and declared that all who do not accept it are fair game for terror.

That and that alone is what Muslims object to about ISIS.

If there were some fundamental theological differences between ISIS and Islam, Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliated leader now in charge of Syria, wouldn’t be accepted and celebrated by most Sunni Muslims. And the Muslim Brotherhood, which dominates most mosques in America, wouldn’t have spawned Al Qaeda and then ISIS, while pressuring Congress to accept and drop all sanctions on Syria’s Al Qaeda regime.

Most ‘splits’ within Islam, including the primal Sunni and Shiite split, were not really formed around actual theological differences, but as power struggles between different Muslim factions. In Islam, religion is power and power is religion. That’s why the ultimate expression of Islam is Jihad.

The ‘Allah finger’ and “Allahu Akbar” are not mystical expressions of faith in an esoteric creator, but the chain of command in a military hierarchy that begins with Allah, goes through Mohammed and then down to any Islamic faction willing to wage war on the infidels.

The ‘ISIS salute’ may not be exclusive to that Islamic terror group, but it really is a military salute. The Gracie Mansion bomber was likely indicating his role in a military hierarchy at war with the United States of America and the entire non-Muslim world.

“The minarets are the bayonets, the domes are the helmets, the mosques are our barracks, the believers are the soldiers,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamic dictator, once recited. With equal simplicity, the brutal mass murderer also stated that, “Islam cannot be either ‘moderate’ or ‘not moderate.’ Islam can only be one thing.” That thing may sometimes pretend to be other things, but in the end Islam is the same thing that Mohammed created over 1,000 years ago.

Islam is Jihad. And when we import Islam, we import an ancient war machine dedicated to conquering us through lies, through persuasion and finally through bombs and terror.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

On May 10th, 1869, the first transcontinental railroad of almost 2,000 miles was completed and marked with a ‘Golden Spike’ driven in. Over 150 years and another 2,000 miles later, the New York City subway is struggling to finish its 10 mile Second Avenue line, underway in one form or another since the 1970s, and is suing Trump to help secure funding for $4 billion per mile.

That’s not a typo.

Houston’s entire budget is $7 billion. NYC wants to spend more than that on two stations.

The $7.7 billion second phase of the 10 mile Second Avenue line will run only 1.8 miles. That’s $4.27 billion a mile. That’s more than double the cost of the whole nearly 2,000 miles of the first transcontinental railroad in today’s dollars. All to build a walkable distance of subway tracks.

After $3.4 billion in grants from the Biden administration, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is suing the Trump administration for an immediate $58 million payout complaining that if the notoriously corrupt and inept agency doesn’t get the money right away it’ll lead to “‘a domino effect’ of delays and inflated costs” and the last thing anyone wants is to see what delays and inflated costs look like for a 50-year-old project spending over $4 billion a mile.

But that’s optimistic. The first phase of the Second Avenue Line already became the world’s most expensive project at $2.5 billion a mile and cost a total of $4.45 billion, but was originally budgeted at $3.8 billion, if the same thing happens to the second phase, it will cost $9 billion.

That would bring the final cost to over $5 billion a mile.

At that rate all the spikes might as well be made out of gold. Indeed, if New York City were to make the tracks out of silver, it would only cost a little over $1 billion, a net savings of $3 billion over the cost of the current project. (Note to the MTA, this is not serious, please don’t do this.)

Gov. Kathy Hochul blasted President Trump, clamoring that “his actions alone have put the commutes of over 130,000 New Yorkers and the jobs of thousands of union workers on the line, but New York will not back down.” Not back away from spending more than the budget of Houston or the budget of Armenia on two subway stations and thousands of ‘union jobs’.

But suppose 130,000 riders do use the new stops. That comes out to around $60,000 a rider. That’s enough money to buy each commuter their very own BMW 3 or Mercedes GLE Coupe.

Somehow I suspect the locals would rather have the car (“Oh Governor Hochul, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz) than a chance of getting stabbed by a recently released crackhead.

The second phase of the line will add two subway stations in East Harlem, a slum no one really wants to go to unless they have a great hankering to visit the Graffiti Hall of Fame. (Warning: Despite what Google Maps may tell you, the ‘Graffiti Hall of Fame’ is not an actual place.)

If we don’t spend another $7.7 billion to build two subway stations at 106th and 116th and 2nd Avenue, then people will have to either take the bus (the M15 runs on 2nd Avenue, but it’s too slow) or walk two blocks over to Lexington Avenue and then a few more blocks to the 106th or the 110th to grab the 4,5 or 6 trains, ride them down and transfer over at Lexington Avenue.

Surely a fate worse than death that is only occasionally fatal due to the regular stabbings and assaults on the subway by serial criminals and psychos ever since New York got rid of bail.

As a former New Yorker, I understand the inconvenience well enough. I had one memorable summer defined by having daily transfers at 59th Street and Lexington and I owe my leg muscles to the 139 step staircase of the 53rd and Lexington station (immortalized in a New York Times essay) and frantic headlong dashes through rabbit warrens of randomly interconnected staircases, ramps and tunnels linking stations that had been assembled by rival companies in the art deco age in the vain hope of catching a train only to see it pulling out of the station.

But most of the country and many of the people reading this article (some who stopped reading once I unspooled a New Yorkese litany of numbers and streets that define life in the city) are lucky to have a bus line that may show up once an hour and traverse a handful of major streets.

Spending $7 or $9 billion so the residents of East Harlem within a ten block radius don’t have to ride the M15 bus that’s right outside their door or walk 6 blocks over to a subway station is nuts.

New York Gov. Hochul and local politicians claim that they’re “helping the people of East Harlem”. But what the people of East Harlem seem to need the most help with is a 1 in 21 chance of being a crime victim in an area where a man in a COVID mask recently pled guilty to “discharging a machine gun” that killed a 69-year-old woman standing with a walker.

If only there had been a billion dollar subway station nearby.

Will spending $5 billion a mile to add two subway stations help the “people of East Harlem”?

Not the ones getting evicted to make way for the subway stations. As a certain New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner once quipped about Communist mass murder, “to put it brutally, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” And, also to put it brutally, you can’t spend $9 billion on two subway stations to help black people without also kicking them out of their homes.

After exercising eminent domain last summer, tenants and shopkeepers have been in limbo, forced to spend money to move to make way for unnecessary massive aboveground glass stations so the remaining residents won’t have to walk six blocks or take a bus.

Where is all the money really going? The $5 billion a mile project was handed to the Connect Plus Partners consortium of FCC Construcción (aka Grupo FCC), a Spanish company, and Halmar International, which is part of the ASTM Group (Autostrada Torino-Milano), an Italian company, also Skanska Walsh Traylor, a joint venture of Skanska, a Swedish construction company, along with two American companies, Walsh and Traylor Bros, and much of the money will be spent on a 4.15 million pound German boring machine. So it’s as American as Mamdani.

A few years ago, ASTM co-chaired a gala of the Citizens Budget Commission at which Gov. Hochul was honored with the “Medal for High Civic Service”, along with special appearances by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, under federal investigation, and Mamdani ally and former comptroller, Brad Lander. And all it cost us was $7.7 billion. Or $9 billion. We’ll see.

But surely soon a federal judge will rule that American taxpayers are obligated to pay for it. Hopefully he gets a Medal for High Civic Service out of it too. All we’ll get is the bill.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

Last year the Trump administration designated Mexico’s Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) as a terrorist group allowing the military to carry out strikes against it and its leadership, but the massive drug cartel across the border understands the weaknesses of our system all too well.

That’s why its new leader has American citizenship.

Law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military will have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to spy on, target or take out Juan Carlos Valencia Gonzalez, who has a $5 million bounty on his head, but the best protection in the world because he was born in California.

The new cartel leader’s drug dealing Mexican parents had a baby in America. That child became a Mexican citizen who runs a Mexican drug cartel that the government has designated as being at war with the United States, and yet we can’t simply remove his citizenship.

And targeting the cartel boss without removing his citizenship will set off wails from Democrats and the Tucker Carlson wing of the GOP who still whine that the United States took out Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni operation, a sworn enemy of America, who happened to be born here when his father, a grad student, was in New Mexico on a Fullbright scholarship.

Americans of a century ago would have been baffled that foreign enemy leaders who happened to be born to foreign nationals in this country were somehow immune to being killed in battle or that their citizenship couldn’t be quickly and easily removed. Back then most of our modern problems were unthinkable because committing treason, aligning with any foreign government, including joining its army or voting in its elections, marrying a foreigner or just returning to your home country meant denaturalization. (As did dodging the draft or deserting from the military.)

Had the common sense provisions of the Expatriation Act of 1907 or even the milder Nationality Act of 1940 been in force today, we wouldn’t have the farce of cartel and terrorist leaders who still hold our citizenship, active traitors with citizenship, ‘refugees’ who spend most of their time back home or a Somali senator linked to fraud who is still voting in Minnesota elections.

Under these provisions, Bill Clinton would have lost his citizenship and the’ refugees’ and ‘migrants’ who maintain homes abroad, the women who marry foreign nationals for cash to give them citizenship, and the anchor baby would be as extinct as the dodo.

Unfortunately a series of poorly grounded Supreme Court decisions unconstitutionally seized the powers of the executive and legislative branches to withdraw citizenship on most grounds based on a misreading of the notoriously poorly written Fourteenth Amendment.

The Warren Court’s deliberate misreading of the Fourteenth Amendment’s awkward attempt to define all black people as citizens “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power… are declared to be citizens” somehow trumped the clear language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 that Congress has the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. In a series of bad decisions, Supreme Court rulings argued that serving in a foreign military, desertion, marrying foreigners, voting abroad did not merit denaturalization.

These rulings relied on now widely discredited premises, such as defining the Constitution’s ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ term as being anything that the justices disapproved of, and “evolving standards of decency” which allowed judges to redefine the law to fit liberal mores. These abuses of judicial activism that reached their peak during the Warren Court also gutted the constitutional powers of Congress and made denaturalization a dead letter in the law.

By the time Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez held that a Mexican born in the United States who returned to Mexico to avoid military service couldn’t be stripped of his citizenship because it violated his due process, denaturalization was a dead letter that could hardly be utilized except for naturalization fraud by immigrants who had lied about not committing war crimes abroad.

This was not strictly true because the provisions punishing treason or allegiance to an enemy power with denaturalization are theoretically still in effect, but administrations haven’t had the stomach to try them out. The Trump administration may be willing to take on ‘treason citizenship’ and a more conservative Supreme Court may be willing to overturn Earl Warren.

Indeed even the Fourteenth Amendment had emphasized “not subject to any foreign power”.

Both the left and the right tend to misunderstand ‘birthright citizenship’. The Fourteenth Amendment’s accidental introduction of the foreign concept into American law helped demolish citizenship as a meaningful participatory act rather than the involuntary one it was elsewhere.

‘Birthright citizenship’ is neither an immigrant ideal nor ‘magic dirt’. Rather it was the principle of ‘Jus Soli’ or ‘Right of the Soil’ which, in British law, was limited by those “born under the obedience, power, faith, ligealty or ligeance of the King”. America’s Founding principles were highly skeptical of both notions that were rooted in monarchial, rather than republican principles.

Monarchy made everyone born under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the Crown into a ‘subject’. Allegiance to the Crown was not voluntary the way that it was in America. That was why the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, labored to defend the right of ‘expatriation’ which still remains the only unquestioned form of denaturalization.

The American Revolution was predicated on the idea of citizenship as a voluntary action rather than an involuntary compact created by a place of birth. The growing intrusion of ‘Jus Soli’ began with the Fourteenth Amendment which, rather than quickly naturalizing freed black slaves, clumsily made everyone born here and “not subject to any foreign power” citizens.

By the late 19th century, the Supreme Court had begun dismantling any meaningful limitations on citizenship with United States v. Wong Kim Ark embracing the British notion that the sovereignty under which a child was born made him a citizen. But if sovereignty makes a child a citizen, then Anwar Al-Awlaki and Juan Carlos Valencia Gonzalez are fully American.

And that’s not only absurd: it’s national suicide.

The prototype for American citizenship is neither ‘Jus Solis’ nor the ‘Sovereignty of the Crown’, but the concluding words of the Declaration of Independence in which we “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”. A nation built on anything else is either a tyranny or an absurdity. Some on the left and the right now argue for tyranny or absurdity.

Birthright citizenship is not a liberal idea, but an illiberal one. It was liberal only relative to the even more illiberal idea that citizenship came from personal allegiance to a monarch. America was based on neither tyranny nor absurdity, but a voluntary community of mutual allegiance that it is possible to join and to withdraw from, and to be tossed out of and barred from for disloyalty.

Past Supreme Court decisions reversed the tyrannical one-way allegiance of monarchy and instead replaced it with a one-way allegiance in which the state was obligated to do everything for the citizen, but nothing at all was required from the citizen. Not even allegiance. Even asking them not to run terrorist organizations and drug cartels at war with America is asking too much.

No nation can survive on such principles.

America is not a monarchy or a tyranny and there are legitimate concerns about giving the state the easy power to strip away citizenship, but if citizenship can’t even be removed from the people who pledge allegiance to Al Qaeda and ISIS then, to paraphrase Kennedy, what does it ask of us to do for our country and what does it even mean beyond a set of legal complications?

The only pathway to reviving America is to make citizenship into a meaningful act of allegiance, not an accident of birth. Immigration in this regard is not the problem, immigration without allegiance is the real crisis, but so is the citizenship without allegiance of the likes of Bill Ayers of the ‘Weather Underground’ who can trace his ancestry back to John Ayer who came to this country from England in 1635 and was one of original settlers of some of the Puritan towns.

America needs to exercise the traditional ability it once had to make citizenship meaningful by also making it selective, controlling immigration, ending the automatic grants of citizenship for happenstance births and once again making citizenship conditional on ongoing allegiance.

Anything else is not citizenship: it’s a national death wish.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

Zohran Mamdani campaigned on a promise to “shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods”. His tenant official Cea Weaver tweeted that she wanted to “impoverish the *white* middle class” because “homeownership is racist”, declared that “private property is a weapon of white supremacy” and warned that, “we’ll transition from treating property as an individual good to a collective good. Whites especially will be impacted.”

Now Mamdani has shown the first sign of implementing these systemically racist proposals.

Hidden at the bottom of the first page of his proposals to increase revenue through various gimmicks and taxes is a call to increase the estate tax “by lowering the exemption to $750,000 from its current value of $7.1 million” and massively raising the “top rate from 16% to 50%.”

Why specifically $750,000? Why is that the magic number? The proposal doesn’t explain but the demographics do: New York is already one of the few states with its own estate tax. Mamdani’s proposed changes to the state estate tax would make it the state that taxes middle class homeowners the hardest.

While a $750,000 house in many parts of the country might be a mansion, it’s the average price of a home in New York City. The median selling price of a house in New York City in recent years has been between $764,000 and $800,000. The official community survey figure is at $778,600. That means Mamdani’s estate tax would hit more than half of homeowners.

“Under Hochul and Mamdani’s death tax of 50%, children will lose half the value of their parents’ home and family businesses will have to be sold off just to pay this cruel tax,” Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman,a New York Republican official who’s running for governor, warned.

“With property values where they are today, families could be forced to sell the very homes they hoped to pass on to their children,” Councilman Phil Wong, a Democrat, warned.

The numbers are actually worse than 50% because within New York City, as many as 90% of homes will be hit with Mamdani’s confiscatory tax, as many as 60% of homes in Brooklyn and Queens, but fewer than a quarter in other boroughs. This matches Mamdani’s campaign promise to shift the tax burden towards white homeowners in inner boroughs.

But the real issue for the racially obsessed Mamdani administration is always race. And the estate tax proposal is specifically geared to target and seize the homes of white homeowners.

Not only do Asians (44%) and white people (41%) have the highest homeownership rates in the city compared to black (27%) and Hispanic (17%) residents, but the American Community Survey median home value rates for white homeowners perfectly match Mamdani’s ‘magic number’ of $750,000. Call it Zohran Mamdani’s ‘owning a home while white’ tax.

The $750,000 number was featured in the New York City comptroller’s report on the ‘Racial Wealth Gap in New York City’. Brad Lander, the comptroller at the time, is a key Mamdani ally who connived to help him become mayor. The report was promoted by other Mamdani allies.

It is wildly implausible that the Mamdani administration was unaware of a key DEI report or that it played no role in the planning of a self-consciously DEI and equity focused administration.

Mamdani campaigned on taxing white homeowners. A key housing official talked of eliminating white homeownership. And the administration put forward an estate tax that is an exact match for the median white home values in a report produced by one of Mamdani’s closest allies.

Cases for systemic racism have been made based on a fraction of these ‘coincidences’.

Targeting white homeowners with a massive estate tax will help ensure that they will be unable to pass on their homes to their children. The more homes the Mamdani government can seize and then ‘socialize’, the closer it will come to, as a Mamdani housing official said, turning homes into “a collective good” in which “whites especially will be impacted.” That’s systemic racism.

The Justice Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have investigated alleged ‘racial’ housing practices in the past for which a fraction of the evidence for any kind of racial intent existed that it does for Mamdani’s white homes tax. But more recently, they’ve been taking a closer look at DEI discrimination in the urban policies of major cities.

In December 2025, HUD had warned Boston’s racist Wu administration that their DEI program pushing racial preferences violates civil rights laws. Boston’s program utilized “the percentage of ‘residents who are non-white’ to identify ‘high-risk’ areas worthy of public investment.”

The Mamdani administration promised to do the inverse of that in New York City, identifying white neighborhoods to tax higher rates. After initially denying that he intended to do this, “it’s not driven by race. It’s more of an assessment”, Mamdani chose a tenant official who had urged eliminating white homeownership, and has now come out with an estate tax proposal that matches the median home value for white homeowners from his own ally’s report.

While the proposal has to be moved forward by Gov. Hochul and state Democrats in Albany to become law, the DOJ and HUD have every reason to closely scrutinize this proposal and to warn New York State Democrats that adopting Mamdani’s ‘white homes’ estate tax risks triggering a civil rights investigation.

Mamdani’s tax proposal is his first effort to follow up on his promise to tax white homeowners and white neighborhoods harder. Even if this racist proposal does not move forward, the next one might. That’s why the Justice Department needs to impose close monitoring on the policies of this systemically racist administration where officials have promised to not only discriminate by race, but to eliminate homeownership in general and white homeownership specifically.

There is no room for Mamdani’s racist campaign against white homeowners in America.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

Different people believe in different things. Some believe that we go to paradise after we die. Others that we disappear into cosmic dust. But environmentalist prophet Paul Ehrlich believed mankind would be reduced to cannibalism unless we stopped having children. Right away.

And Ehrlich never gave up hope of seeing cannibalism in his lifetime.

In ‘The Population Bomb’, the 1968 bestseller that became one of the foundational texts of the environmentalist movement and helped inspire the population reduction industry, Ehrlich opened with the statement that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

After going through a dozen printings, later editions postponed the mass deaths and Armageddons to a safely more ambiguous, at least for the era, time “the 1970s and 1980s”.

It got less cheerful from there.

“Will we be willing to slaughter our dogs and cats?” the book backed by the Sierra Club and published by a Stanford University professor inquired. Then it mentioned the “addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple foods” or have the government “impose penalties designed to discourage reproduction” with “luxury taxes placed on… cribs, diapers” and “considering the savings in school buildings” it would be a “money making proposition.”

The media and the cultural elites hailed ‘The Population Bomb’ as an urgent warning for mankind. It inspired assorted disastrous policies, including population control, and some bad science fiction like ‘Soylent Green’ which imagined that cannibalism would be official policy.

The Chalton Heston movie was based on an even worse novel, ‘Make Room, Make Room’, which featured an introduction by Ehrlich (since deleted out of some latent sense of shame) claiming that it “presents a gripping scenario of where current trends may be leading.”

“If the post-1950 rates of urban growth continue to 1984, half of the human race will be living in cities. By 2023 everyone would live in an urban area,” Ehrlich warned in his introduction.

Like a reverse Cassandra, the more wrong Ehrlich’s predictions were, the more he insisted on making them, and the more they were taken seriously by the rapidly discredited expert class.

“Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” Ehrlich told CBS News in 1970. And “it’s very difficult for me to picture things holding together for more than another decade or so.”

In ‘How To Be A Survivor’, Ehrlich and his co-author insisted that “since we have only about one year’s reserve supply of food in the United States, famine could come to this nation and could come relatively soon.” Hopefully crossing his fingers, he added that “the blight in the corn belt in 1970… may be a foretaste of things to come.” Sadly for Ehrlich it wasn’t. Millions of Americans did not die in a corn famine and they did not take to eating each other, but went on reproducing.

“No one has yet presented a sound argument for having more than 150 million Americans,” the book contended, and suggested that “the government would eventually place criminal sanctions on overbreeding”, argued “there is no sacred right to have children” since the “the government tells you precisely how many husbands or wives you can have and claims you in jail if you exceed that number. Having a third child may some day produce that same unhappy result.”

In an interview with CBS News, Ehrlich had compared children to garbage. The idea that every woman should have as many babies as she wants is, to me, exactly the same kind of idea as everybody oughta be permitted to throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want..”

This was followed by proposals to ban ads for cars and soap, forcible social justice reeducation and an assertion that communism would have to be imposed on Americans in a ‘subtle’ way.

“The new men must come through gentle conversion and natural replacement. Certainly the antisocial activities of the old men and technology will have to be quickly stopped, but this should be done with a maximum of subtlety. There is no point in waving a red flag in front of the bulls. If the new men in the United States demand a replacement of ‘capitalism’ with ‘socialism’, (or ‘Marxism’ or ‘communism’), the old will recoil in horror. They have not the vaguest notion what either capitalism or socialism is all about. They have however been indoctrinated to react negatively to the words ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’”. That was always the end game.

Ehrlich’s apocalypse follies, like the postmodern climate change discourse, was the ghoulish stick to convince Americans and the rest of the free world to submit to government control.

None of his predictions came true, but that never stopped him from throwing them around.

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” Ehrlich told the British in a 1971 speech. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Had Ehrlich predicted mass migration instead of famine, he might not have been that far off.

Despite the lack of mass deaths in the previous decades, Ehrlich and his wife bounced back with a sequel, ‘The Population Explosion’, that began with a first chapter titled “Why Isn’t Everyone As Scared As We Are” and linked ‘global warming’ to ‘overpopulation’, demanding that “the human birthrate must be lowered to slightly below the human death rate as soon as possible” because inaction had “already condemned hundreds of millions more people to premature deaths from hunger and disease”. Still Ehrlich’s famines never seemed to arrive.

By 2014, with the UK still persistently here and mankind still not dead, Ehrlich had stopped teasing cannibalism and fully turned to it. “I don’t think there’s going to be the centuries to come with our kind of civilizations,” he told the Huffington Post. “I think the issues are more likely to be “is it perfectly OK to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry.”

When the interviewer expressed shock, Ehrlich doubled down on the dead, claiming, “It’s moving in that direction with ridiculous speed.”

By 2016, Ehrlich was complaining that Trump was “pig-ignorant” of “destruction—increasing overpopulation and overconsumption”. In 2018, he declared that a “shattering collapse of civilization” was “a near certainty in the next few decades”.

In 2023, 60 Minutes brought him back and falsely claimed that Ehrlich “may have lived long enough to see some of his dire prophecies come true.”

“Humanity is not sustainable,” he told his favorite news network. Humanity has turned out to be more sustainable than either CBS News or Ehrlich.

Paul Ehrlich is dead and nobody is eating him because, despite his predictions, mass famine and cannibalism have yet to reach Palo Alto, California.

According to the New York Times orbit, “his predictions proved premature” meaning that the paper of record is still convinced that the mass famines and cannibalism are on the way. They’ve been merely held up a bit. Just because we’re not eating each other now is no reason to give up hope of a worse tomorrow. Sure the mass famines didn’t arrive in the 1970s or 80s, but environmentalists managed to convince a new generation that they’re coming any day now.

One day perhaps someone in California will finally get around to eating Ehrlich.

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left. 

14 days after a Muslim terrorist shot up a bar in Austin, 8 days after two Muslim terrorists threw IEDs at an anti-Islamization rally in New York City, 7 days after Muslim terrorists bombed the U.S. embassy in Sweden, 3 days after Muslim terrorists attacked a college in Virginia and a Jewish preschool in Michigan, and days after Muslim terrorists bombed a synagogue and school in the Netherlands, politicians marked the ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’.

The ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’ was brought into being at the request of Pakistan, which harbored Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, at the request of its former leader, Imran Khan, nicknamed ‘Taliban Khan’, who had referred to Bin Laden as a “martyr”.

Christians in Pakistan can be casually killed by Muslims or locked up by the regime if they are accused of the ‘Islamophobic’ crime of blasphemy. A year before ‘Taliban Khan’ and the United Nations gave us the ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’, Pakistan finally allowed Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who had been sentenced to death for blasphemy, to flee the country.

Bibi had spent nearly a decade in solitary confinement while mobs cried, “Kill her, kill her! Allahu Akbar!” The only Christian member of Pakistan’s cabinet was murdered for defending her. So was a Christian governor. 100,000 Muslims rallied for his killer and threatened more Christians.

While one of the dwindling number of Christians in Pakistan was fleeing the Muslim mobs screaming for her death and the murder of any Christians who defended her, Khan addressed a UN ‘Islamophobia’ group alongside Turkey’s Islamist tyrant and warned against “attempts to equate Islam with terrorism” and then any “attempts to denigrate” Mohammed.

Next year, Khan said, “I will never forget how we Pakistanis were embarrassed when the Americans came into Abbottabad and killed Osama Bin Laden, martyred him.”

That same year, he addressed the UN General Assembly and claimed that there was a grave crisis of Islamophobia in which “our prophet (sic) insulted”, “the ‘holy’ Koran burnt”, and “republication of blasphemous sketches by Charlie Hebdo” done in “in the name of freedom of speech”. And freedom of speech would have to go in the name of fighting ‘Islamophobia’.

“The Assembly should declare an “International Day to Combat Islamophobia”, Khan insisted, before defending the Taliban, Islamic terrorism against Hindus, demanding Muslim control of Jerusalem, comparing India to Nazi Germany, and threatening nuclear war over Kashmir.

Rather than lock him up, the UN gave in to a politician with nuclear weapons who considered Osama bin Laden a martyr, a state sponsor of the murder of Hindus, and head of a regime that persecuted its Christian minority, and created an “International Day to Combat Islamophobia”.

Because why would anyone possibly be afraid of Islam?

Under the auspices of the United Nations, the “International Day to Combat Islamophobia” has become a global event that nearly every country and city has come to collaborate in.

“Let’s eradicate the scourge of Islamophobia from every country and community,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged this year. The UN’s definition of Islamophobia includes Muslim men being “portrayed as the embodiment of extremism and terrorism” and Muslim women wearing burkas as “a sign of gender subjugation in Islam”. The UN’s 2024 Islamophobia Resolution 78/264 defined discrimination as “manifested in the increasing number of incidents of desecration of their holy book”. Eradicating the ‘scourge’ means suppressing any criticism of Islamic terrorism, the Sharia Islamic law’s abuse of women or the Koran.

That’s not ‘Islamophobia’, it’s Blasphemyphobia, Speechophobia and Realityphobia.

A report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion Ahmed Shaheed, complained that “in over 600,000 news items published in 2016 and 2017 in the Netherlands, the adjectives most used to describe Muslims were ‘radical’, ‘extremist’ and ‘terrorist'”. The Europol agency noted that there had been 718 arrests for terrorist offenses with 135 people killed in 2016.

That was the year that an Islamic terrorist killed 49 people in a Florida nightclub, Islamic terrorists set off bombs across Belgium, killing 32 and wounding 340, an Islamic terrorist ran over people at a Bastille Day event in France with a truck, jamming the wheel wells with their body parts, killing 86 and wounding 458, and a Muslim refugee drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin in front of a church, killing a dozen people and wounding another 56 victims.

These massacres did not embody any kind of phobia that we need to remember annually, but according to the United Nations, noticing this rash of Islamic mass murders is Islamophobic.

And we must remember every year to forget.

After 9 Islamic terrorist attacks in America and Europe just this month, and coming off the recent Muslim mass murder of people at a Chanukah beach party in Australia, we are all to pay dutiful attention to Khan and the UN’s ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’ and pay no attention.

A week after the Muslim bombing of the U.S. embassy in Oslo, the Swedish Foreign Ministry marked the day and a little over a week since two terrorists tossed IEDs outside Gracie Mansion, the New York City Council hailed ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’ and the City Council Speaker vowed to fight “Islamophobic hate in all its forms.” Whatever that is.

Pakistan, which had gifted us the whole thing, also popped up with a statement from Minister for Science and Technology Khalid Hussain Magsi who “stated that Islam is a religion of peace, compassion, and justice, and linking it with extremism reflects a lack of understanding”.

Should anyone doubt that the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom found such peaceful Islamic events in Pakistan as the lynching and burning of a tourist accused of burning a Koran (after his death, he turned out to be Muslim), the lynching of a 70-year-old Christian man accused of blasphemy, a Christian man being sentenced to death for blasphemy and Roshni Shakeel, a 13-year-old Christian girl being kidnapped and forcibly converted and married to a Muslim man twice her age. The Pakistani courts approved of this and when she ran away back home, had her father arrested for sheltering her from her Muslim pedophile kidnapper.

This is the kind of case that could only happen in Pakistan, a Muslim country or the UK.

Noticing the Muslim persecution, discrimination, murder, kidnapping and rape of non-Muslims under Islamic law and by Islamic states is an unforgivable case of ‘Islamophobia’.

All that’s left for New York City and other countries and cities that have submitted to ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’ is how to best commemorate the event.

On a cold Sunday morning (but not so cold as to send drugged-out vagrants to the morgue in Mamdani’s Manhattan) I took a walk downtown, turned around Trinity Church, where George Washington had once attended services, stayed well clear of Wall Street, and then walked down to the plaza dominated by the shadows of two great towers soaring cubistically to the sky.

I chose the North Tower, the first to be had and yet held out the longest, and took the elevator all the way up. Surely, if Islamic terrorism didn’t exist, then I should be able to do that. Shouldn’t I?

It was my way of marking the ‘’International Day to Combat Islamophobia’.

What are you doing to commemorate the ‘’International Day to Combat Islamophobia’?

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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading. 

Read my book 'Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers' Fight Against the Left' to discover the true origins of the American Left.