At its 2025 convention, the Democratic Socialists of America removed a clause allowing for the expulsion of members “under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization”. This echoed a foundational moment in the history of the SDS, one of the DSA’s predecessors, when it removed its anti-Communist clause at its 1965 national convention.

Communists, including the Maoists of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), soon poured into the SDS. By the 1969 convention, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) managed to oust the PLP, not because it was Communist, but because it was so Communist that it was technically anti-Communist as the “PLP attacked Ho Chi Minh, the NLF, the revolutionary government of Cuba -all leaders of the people’s struggles for freedom against U.S. imperialism.”

Four years after tossing aside the exclusion clause, the SDS had been reduced to infighting between different Communist factions over which of them were the bigger Communists. The PLP lost the fight and the domestic terrorist organization known as the ‘Weather Underground’ emerged triumphantly in charge of the SDS and began planting bombs to overthrow America.

The 1969 convention would also prove instrumental in the emergence of the Democratic Socialists of America which had its roots in this chaotic era. Elements of the SDS, some associated with Communists, worked to build alternative organizations including one that would come to be called the The New American Movement (NAM). The NAM was interlaced with The New Communist Movement, took part in New Communist Movement events, featured Communist leaders and included a Marxist-Leninist Caucus inside its organization.

NAM’s official magazine, ‘Moving On’, guardedly stated only that “the New American Movement combines a Marxist analysis with careful attention to the current realities of American politics,” but NAM’s political text, ‘Basic Marxism: What It Is & How to Use It’ included writings from not only Karl Marx, but Lenin and Gramsci, signaling the group’s revolutionary Communist bent.

Read more

86 years after Winston Churchill’s famous ‘On the Beaches’ speech, the beaches of England have not only been invaded and occupied, but English women and girls are being raped by the occupiers.

And nowhere more so than the once legendary beaches of Brighton.

“If one could but go to Brighton!” Elizabeth Bennett’s mother exclaims in Pride and Prejudice.

Today, if the female characters of the Jane Austen novel were to set out for Brighton, they would find not just the “little sea-bathing” that they were after, but far worse things than that after the 40% Muslim council backed the mass settlement of illegal Muslim migrants in the area.

In July 2026, three Muslim migrants, Abdul Ahmadi, Ibrahim Alshafe and Karin Al-Danasurt, two Egyptians and an Iranian, were sentenced to prison for their involvement in raping a woman, filming their attack, laughing, spitting on her and kicking her. The attack came after the men, who spoke no English, had been trying to find a woman to marry so they could stay in the UK. The Muslim migrants who had been using Google Translate to approach women needed a translator in court.

“They destroyed my life that night,” the victim testified.

Al-Danasuri had come to the UK on a small boat and applied for asylum as a refugee because he allegedly faced a prison sentence in his negative Egypt over a possible murder conviction.

All three of the Muslim migrants were being housed in a migrant hotel at government expense. Brighton’s large number of available seaside hotels led the UK authorities to dump migrants there and the former Victorian hotels became epicenters of crime, human trafficking and rape.

By the end of that month, another Muslim man, Hany Mohamed, who held British citizenship, was accused of raping yet another woman. Akiyas Jameldeen was arrested for a rape several days later followed by yet a third arrest for rape in Brighton Beach.

Back in June, Bilal Akadour, a Syrian Muslim, had been accused of raping a woman on Brighton beach. Like the three Muslim men sentenced in July, he also did not speak English. In March, an Eritrean migrant began sexually assaulting a woman on a Brighton beach until a patrol came along.

“After that night, I lost a part of myself I’m no longer sure I will ever get back,” his victim said.

Also in March, Fattah Derrahi, a ‘chef’ with a North African name and British citizenship, was accused of sexually assaulting 11 women over 4 years in the Brighton area.

How did Brighton go from an iconic seaside area to a Muslim rape ground where migrants show up, without even knowing the language, but know that they can hunt native women for sport?

The three Muslim migrant rapists had been housed in government lodgings. The formerly beautiful hotels that had once been used by tourists visiting the seaside have been filled with Afghan, Syrian and other Muslim migrants who had illegally entered the United Kingdom.

Brighton’s migrant housing had become notorious after 400 ‘unaccompanied minor migrants’ had disappeared from the ‘hotel’. Accounts reported that, “children are literally being picked up from outside the building, disappearing and not being found. They’re being taken from the street by traffickers.” Proposals to reopen the ‘hotel’ led to protests by local residents and activists.

The Brighton and Hove City Council however complained “that the closure of one of our hotels with little notice was distressing for the residents themselves and volunteers working with them and challenging for staff in our homelessness prevention team.”

The Brighton and Hove City Council, which includes Councillor Mohammed Asaduzzaman, the first Muslim mayor, Councillor Nadia Barton Ahmad of the Marxist-Islamist Green Party, Councillor Faiza Baghoth, and Councillor Samer Bagaeen, proclaimed that it is an ‘Anti-Racist City’ that “welcomes migrants, asylum seekers and refugees”.

And no surprise there since 4 out of 10 council members in Brighton and Hove are from the Muslim world, 6 out of 10 are some variety of foreigners, and only 5 out of 10 are native English.

Brighton and Hove have been branded as ‘Cities of Sanctuary’ and while Muslim migrants were raping women, they were holding annual ‘Refugee Week’ events to celebrate the migrant invaders. In Brighton however, as in many cities in the UK, refugee has become rape week.

Even while affordability remains a problem for the native population, the Brighton and Hove council was soliciting “self-contained, affordable properties for refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and other parts of the world.” The area has numerous organizations catering to migrants which also act as magnets, drawing them to Brighton and in turn drawing them to their victims.

The more migrant NGOs offer services, the more migrants show up and the more women are raped, and the more the migrant NGOs deny that their migrants might have done anything.

Sanctuary on Sea, the local sanctuary organization, backed by the Brighton and Hove City Council, warned that “we need to challenge the irrational demonisation of refugees. Anti-immigration politicians and journalists try to blame refugees and migrants for almost every social problem.”

SOS had nothing to say about the rapes that the migrants were committing.

The radical open borders group has campaigned for the right of migrants, like those which raped women in Brighton, to continue invading England via ‘small boats’ and still be allowed to remain for ‘asylum hearings’, opposed housing illegal migrants in restricted areas, demanding that they be “allowed to live in the community”, which is exactly what led to the wave of rapes in Brighton, and opposed even criminalizing smuggling and human trafficking of migrants. There could be no more radical position than the one being backed by the council.

But the group celebrated a “special guest appearance from Brighton & Hove’s new Mayor, Councillor Mohammed Asaduzzaman” who “as the city’s first Muslim mayor, his presence highlighted our shared dedication to building a diverse, compassionate community for all.”

Just not the women being raped on the beaches by the migrants.

Last year, the mayor opened a council session by thanking two imams and declaring, “Bismillahir Rahim, In the name of almighty the most merciful Assalamualiekum, peace be upon all of you. Ladies and gentlemen, Councillors, distinguished guests, family, friends, colleagues and the residents of Brighton and Hove” and touted a celebration of migrants.

Even while open borders group promoted by the Brighton and Hove City Council urge displaying an ‘orange heart’ in solidarity with the migrant invaders, there are no orange hearts or any sympathy for the women being raped by the migrants.

Just more praise for the ‘diverse’ migrants and refugees raping them.

86 years ago, Winston Churchill proclaimed, “We shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

As the invaders came by the seas and oceans, and are welcomed in on the landing grounds to occupy government housing, as they rape English women and girls on the beaches and in the streets, where is that spirt of resistance today?

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

And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

In 1992, Khaled Ahmed Satary arrived in the United States on a student visa. Even though student visas are only supposed to be temporary, the Gaza ‘Palestinian’ Muslim would not leave the country, not even when the government began trying to deport him in 2008 after he spent 3 years in federal prison for running a $50 million counterfeiting ring, not as he amassed another $547 million in health care fraud over the next decade by targeting the elderly and not until he finally went on the run in 2022 and became an international fugitive.

Along the way, Satary donated to Islamic groups and remained “committed to helping the people of his native Palestine” and helped “raise more than $1 million to (sic) charities and organizations that support Palestinians” including a ‘charity’ accused of having links to Hamas.

The incredible story of how one ‘Palestinian’ from Gaza who received a student visa to study at the University of New Mexico inflicted at least $600 million worth of costs on the United States across three decades offers a snapshot of the punishing costs of Muslim mass migration.

Student visas, often fraudulent, have been used by millions of foreigners, including from the Muslim world, to come to the United States and remain here even after they have expired.

7 years after Satary entered the country, he began manufacturing fake CDs in Atlanta as part of what authorities would describe as the largest music piracy operation in history with an estimated $50 million in losses and 127,000 fake CDs seized. The operation was sophisticated enough that, according to an FBI affidavit, Satary “hired bodyguards and used shell corporations”. CNN reported” that he was wiring the “profits to countries in the Middle East.”

At least some of the money was sent to ‘Palestinian’ enclaves in Jordan, the UAE and Israel.

Satary was busted in 2000. The DOJ accused him and two other fellow Muslim defendants, Abedullah F. Al-Qudah and Akram Abdelraham Yaqoub, of manufacturing the CDs. Satary was operating out of Lawrenceville, considered one of the fastest growing Muslim areas in Atlanta, that would serve as a hub of his crime empire and where his son still maintains a business.

Satary was sentenced to 3 years in prison and after he was released in 2008, ICE began trying to deport him. By then however, Hamas was in control of Gaza and since we had no diplomatic relations with the Muslim Brotherhood terror group, no one was available to take Satary.

A few years later, Satary had begun creating an empire of medical testing firms.

Unable to deport Satary back to Gaza, ICE had released him under an “order of supervision” that allowed him to live and work in the United States. By 2013, Satary was in the news again for donations to the senate campaign of a Republican congressman who would later support arming and training Syrian Jihadis and then go to work as a lobbyist for the Syrian ‘opposition’.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the senate campaign took in over $80,000 from employees of two Satary companies: Confirmatrix Laboratories and Nue Medical Consulting. The paper noted that “some of the contributors have strong feelings about Palestinian independence” and “most do not appear to be registered voters in Georgia.”

The money did not officially come from Satary, who in over 20 years had not achieved legal status and was under an order of deportation, but from employees who were allegedly given large bonuses by Satary’s son, told to keep a few hundred dollars and donate the rest. His son Jordan had donated thousands of dollars. Despite his criminal and illegal status, Khaled Ahmed Satary also appeared to have donated previously to the Republican Party’s NRSC.

Satary boasted of raising money for the ILM Academy: an Islamic school aimed at producing “Muslims whose thoughts and actions are devoted to Islam & Allah”, and the Alif Institute which puts on the Atlanta Arab Festival. His own site described him as a “philanthropist” who “helped build several successful healthcare businesses”, believed that “Arabs and Arab Americans have been unfairly portrayed in the mainstream media” and was “active in the Palestinian Medical Relief Society and the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund.”

An unofficial Hamas site had directed donations to PCRF: the group had been accused of funding an organization with Hamas links and ran a hospital pediatric unit that was used to conceal “explosives, suicide vests and even a motorcycle used in the 7 October attacks.”

The President of PMRS is Mustafa Barghouti, a former official of the PLO on whose watch the infamous ‘Hamas Mickey Mouse’ had aired, teaching children that “Islam will spread to all parts of the earth” and conquer Spain. Barghouti had appeared at Hamas events and with Hamas leaders, and had declared that Oct 7 was “a glorious day for the Palestinian resistance.”

A PMRS member was caught trying to plant a bomb on a bus in Israel.

Still, few questions were being asked about Satary’s health care businesses, which his site had claimed “ grow at a rate of 23 percent each month” and 6 months after six months had grown from 4 employees and $1 million to “70 employees and revenues of $12 million”.

According to his site, this was all “due to Satary’s efforts and determination.”

In reality, something else was going on. In 2013, Confirmatrix was ranked as the most expensive lab in the country, “collecting an average of $2,406 from Medicare for each patient tested, compared to the national average of $751.” The trick was running “an average of nearly 120 different drug screens on each patient, far more than any other drug lab.”

Confirmatrix profited from the opioid epidemic by allegedly paying kickbacks to ‘pill mills’ across the country to run drug screenings of patients on pain medication. The patients ended up not only heavily addicted, but stuck with massive bills for unnecessary drug screening tests once Medicare caught on to the scheme, lowered its reimbursement rates and the FBI came knocking in 2016, at which point the ‘Palestinian’ company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

And the patients, already suffering, were hounded by bill collectors for thousands of dollars.

Khaled Ahmed Satary had reportedly put the labs and his home in the name of his then-teenage son Jordan Satary. New labs with new names like ‘Elite’ and ‘Clio’ then popped up with some of the same employees including one that billed Medicare for $8.6 million in genetic tests.

In 2019, Clio and Elite were also raided as part of a crackdown on over $2 billion in fraudulent genetic cancer tests in which a telemarketing network was allegedly used to prey on “hundreds of thousands of elderly and/or disabled patients” by promising to test them for cancer.

When the indictment came down, it accused “Satary, the owner of several labs in Georgia, Oklahoma and Louisiana, and his co-conspirators, through companies they controlled” of having “paid the telemarketers illegal kickbacks and bribes in exchange for the doctor’s orders and medically unnecessary tests.” The labs “collectively billed Medicare for more than $547 million.”

This would have been on top of the previous millions from Confirmatrix.

Medicare had been billed as much as $10,000 for each test.

A convicted felon and illegal alien under order of deportation had been able to donate to politicians and bill the government for over half a billion dollars across six years.

And incredibly, it still wasn’t over.

Sizable amounts of money had reportedly been transferred to the Middle East. $30 million was allegedly sent to Jordan, the ‘Palestinian’ enclave that some have described as a second ‘Palestinian State’, some of which was reportedly sent to key figures in the government.

Before the raids, Satary was alleged to have paid millions for a fake passport to move to Qatar.

With all that money, foreign ties and history of fraud, federal authorities wanted to keep Satary locked up. “It’s not that difficult, when you have $20 million at your disposal, to get out of this country when you’re looking at decades in prison,” the federal prosecutor had warned.

Instead, he was allowed to travel anywhere he wanted, and when he failed to appear for his 2022 court date, Satary was listed as one of the FBI’s Most Wanted Fraudsters and a global manhunt was launched suggesting that he might be hiding out in some of the Muslim settler communities in the United States in Houston and Atlanta as well as Dubai, where he had lived before coming to America, and “Jordan and the Israel/Palestine areas.”

Khaled Ahmed Satary was recently arrested with the help of unnamed “regional partners” and returned to the United States to face criminal charges a quarter century after his first arrest.

The Gaza ‘Palestinian’ has reportedly inflicted over $600 million in damages during that time.

Even if Satary is finally convicted, sizable portions of his assets were transferred to the Muslim world, including prominent figures in Jordan, or to his wife and his son, also named Jordan, who regularly brags about his wealth on social media. According to Jordan Satary, who is now operating as a “real estate investor” in Texas, he’s busy “blending Palestinian-American heritage with my entrepreneurial journey.”

And so it continues.

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

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 2009, Taylor Mitchell, a 19-year-old woman, went hiking in a Canadian park on a public trail and was attacked by coyotes. Some hikers heard her screams as she was assaulted for half an hour, but did nothing to help, when rescue finally arrived, she was conscious and bleeding badly.

The young woman was airlifted to the hospital, but did not survive.

Under pressure from environmentalists, Canada, like parts of the United States, had allowed coyotes and wolves to expand their territories, especially the coyote-wolf hybrids who had killed Taylor, and the animals had become increasingly aggressive, wiping out their natural prey, and eventually stalking and attacking humans. The attack on the young woman was one of a series.

Taylor’s mother however pleaded with the authorities to spare the coyotes who had killed her daughter. “When the decision had been made to kill the pack of coyotes, I clearly heard Taylor’s voice say, ‘Please don’t, this is their space.’ She wouldn’t have wanted their demise, especially as a result of her own,” she wrote. “She was passionate about animals, was an environmentalist.”

“We really have a lot of sympathy for her perspective,” a Parks Canada field superintendent replied.

In partnership with the David Suzuki Foundation, Taylor’s mother, whose daughter was an aspiring folk singer, created a legacy trust to help educate the public about “the delicate balance between human and wildlife interaction”. The Suzuki Foundation currently advocates against culling wolves and coyotes in Canada despite multiple animal attacks on people and children.

An entry on the Facebook page for the Taylor Mitchell Trust called for protecting wolves. A repost from the Wolf Conservation Center claimed that “thousands of species are scrambling to survive against a sole enemy: humans.”

An earlier coyote attack in Los Angeles however showed the true cruelty of environmentalists when Kelly Keen, a 3-year-old girl, was dragged out of her home in Glendale by a coyote and killed. Since the killing of the little girl proved inconvenient to the animal rights cause and her mother was much less pliable than Taylor’s mother, and supported culling coyotes, animal rights activists took to spreading conspiracy theories blaming her death on her parents.

The matter came to a head at a Glendale City Council meeting when a former child actress turned activist associated with the domestic terrorist group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), which targeted animal testing research by bombing homes and cars, claimed that the coyote was innocent and blamed the child’s killing on her parents. The Candace Owens-style stunt alienated many people, but showed the depths that animal rights activists were sinking to.

“Never in the 500-year history of the United States, before 1981 or since, anywhere, anytime, has another coyote killed a human being. How can any reasonable person believe that nearly a quarter of a century ago, a coyote for the first time EVER IN HISTORY comes into Glendale and kills a human child? Why has it never happened again? I think you are silly for believing such a far-fetched tale, and can only continue to marvel at the vehemence with which I have been attacked for exposing the fallacy of this story,” the child actress activist argued in a Los Angeles Times letter, and sneered, “My lawyers are standing by to make a spectacle of the issue if that is what the Keens prefer.”

Prior to the letter, there had been multiple coyote attacks on small children in California, including an attempt to drag away a 3-year-old boy in Palo Alto, a coyote who ripped into a 4-year-old girl’s face in Lake Tahoe, and an attack on a school playground in San Clemente.

In 2018, a coyote attacked a 3-year-old boy in a suburban New York playground. An off-duty police officer “jumped on top of it, clutched its neck and slammed its head on the ground.”

Earlier this year, a 4-year-old boy was attacked in another part of Southern California in his own driveway, much as Kelly had been, but his mother managed to chase the coyote away. That same coyote had previously attacked another little boy. Earlier this month, a coyote attacked a 2-year-old boy at a playground in Canada, mauling his face: weeks after another coyote had attacked another child. Animal rights activists continue to deflect or to blame the parents.

The stories about the coyotes who try to attack and eat women and children, and the women who furiously defend them, is about more than animals or environmentalists, it’s the story of how pathological empathy buttressed by ideology can be used to defend perpetrators even when, unlike criminals or terrorists, they can’t make their own case.

Pathological empathy can be shaped by enemy propaganda, as we have seen after 9/11 and Oct 7, but exists within the pathological mind that chooses to empathize with killers over victims.

The ‘women who run with wolves’, the title of a bestselling 90s book, sometimes get eaten by wolves, and sometimes, like the women who find other girls as prey for cults, predators and pimps, who love and champion Luigi Mangione, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Andrew Tate, who marry Muslim men, join ISIS, and keep sex slaves for them, fight to protect the wolves.

There are women who protect children from wolves because they love children more than wolves and those who protect the wolves that eat children because they love wolves more than children. Some part of them empathizes more with the wolf stalking the child than the child being dragged away by a wolf. Understanding that gets at the heart of the political pathology.

The problem is not that liberals feel too much, that they’re ‘bleeding hearts’, in the old cliche, it’s that leading figures who claim to be liberals malignantly identify with destructive forces and disguise that malice, even from themselves, as empathy and compassion, channeling their darker instincts into activism, while coldly dismissing the pain of victims like the children.

Acting as useful idiots alongside them are liberals who are ‘bleeding hearts’, whose empathy does not operate in an ordered moral hierarchy, but in the disordered oppressed-oppressor paradigms of Marxism which is designed to make predators seem like the victims, and whatever established order that exists, whether it’s America, Western Civilization or the human race, seem like an oppressive order that must be overturned to bring forth a better world.

Coyotes, unlike Islamic terrorists or serial killers, are neither good nor evil: they’re animals. But like terrorists and serial killers, given signs of human weakness, they will treat us as prey.

And when it comes to a physically superior group, moral weakness is the greatest weakness. A people physically incapable of protecting their children can still struggle to survive through sheer persistence, but a people who are morally incapable of protecting their children are doomed.

Civilization at its most basic is a choice between the wolves and our children. From the packed Planned Parenthood clinics and rallies for criminals, terrorists and for the environment, the wolves are winning.

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

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, former Bishop Rafael Zornoza Boy of the Diocese of Cádiz y Ceuta marked World Migrant and Refugee Day in the Cathedral of Cádiz under the theme that “migrants are missionaries of hope that widen our hearts.”

According to the diocese website, “numerous migrants living in the diocese, who carried the flags of their countries of origin. Typical African songs and dances filled the cathedral, symbolizing the cultural richness and diversity that coexist in the diocesan community.”

Bishop Zornoza Boy urged parishioners to “attend to all who come without distinction and without discrimination” and the “Diocese of Cádiz and Ceuta renewed their commitment to the reception, respect and integration of migrants, recognizing in them a living testimony of Christian faith, hope and fraternity.” This was the longtime position of the diocese which in 2022 had relayed the message of Pope Francis that thanks to migrants “we have the opportunity to know better the world and the beauty of its diversity.”

After the recent mass invasion of Ceuta by tens of thousands of Moroccan Muslim migrants, the Diocese announced “that all collections taken this weekend in Ceuta’s parishes will be allocated to the Diocesan Office for Migrants. The funds will be channelled through the San Antonio Migrant Assistance Centre.”

Father Fernando Redondo Pavón, the director of the Migration Department of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference, acknowledged that governments have the power to “control borders”, but emphasized that the Church wants to “put the emphasis on the humanitarian question.”

Father Pavon demanded the “dignified treatment of migrants in all circumstances”, denied that the Sanchez proposal for the mass legalization of 500,000 migrants had anything to do with the crisis and warned against using the invasion to “criminalize migrants,” or “generate fear.”

The cleric argued that the mass legalization “has been very positive and was necessary.”

Father Pavon had earlier ‘lauded the diversity and vitality immigrants bring to Spanish society, including to the Catholic Church.’

Bishop Xabier Gómez García, who heads the Migration and Interculturality for the Tarraconense Episcopal Conference, vocally denied that the proposed legalization of 500,000 migrants by the Sanchez government, supported by the Catholic Church in Spain, or the recent ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court allowing migrants who arrive by sea to claim asylum, had anything at all to do with the invasion.

Bishop Garcia argued that he did not “find it credible to attribute this avalanche to a ruling of the Supreme Court or to the regularization in force in Spain, which responds to specific profiles and is not indiscriminate”, but instead appeared to blame right-wing Sanchez opponents, “those who play with social fear or those who turn the suffering of others and fear into electoral profit.”

Rather than questioning mass migration, he claimed that the migrants supposedly drowned in the invasion “all have a name and a face” and urged continuing to welcome migrants.

A front page article at L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of Vatican City, also grumbled that “Spain approaches the important 2027 elections and the ‘invasion’ of Ceuta once again attests that the issue of migration remains too often a tool to be used for political purposes.”

Rather than acknowledging the threat of mass migration, the Catholic Church’s hierarchy in Spain remained committed to portraying migration as a holy and transcendent phenomenon, defending the migrants, denying that the mass legalization of 500,000 migrants might have served as a magnet, and instead blaming the ‘right-wing’ or a third party.

While the Moroccan government clearly engineered the invasion, as L’Osservatore Romano noted and as some clerics in Spain broadly hinted at, without actually naming the culprit, none of it would have been possible without the decision by the Sanchez government and the Catholic Church to welcome migrants, promise them legal status and offer them aid.

The Spanish Bishops’ Conference and the Jesuit Refugee Service had been among 84 Catholic organizations which, along with the ruling Sanchez regime, Islamic Commission of Melilla and the Communist Party, had championed the mass legalization of 500,000 illegal migrants, gathering the signatures for the petition and making the case to the general public.

While Morocco deserves the blame for organizing the invasion, the last time it did so in 2021, only around 10,000 Moroccans crossed the border. Why did so many more Moroccans cross the border this time around? The vastly expanded invasion numbers weren’t because of Morocco, but because the Moroccan migrants had been given ample reason to believe that they would be allowed to stay.

Figures in the Catholic Church in Spain have gone to great pains to try and distinguish the mass migration now in Ceuta from past migrations, arguing that the migrants are not really migrants because they’re coming from North Africa rather than Africa, that the migration was orchestrated by third parties and that the invaders should in no way detract from ‘real migrants’.

But at the same time migrant activists within the Catholic Church in Spain have insisted on feeding the current waves of migrants and demanding that their asylum claims be processed.

Pope Leo’s distinction between migrants and migrant traffickers, an argument also taken up by some of these same figures in the Catholic Church in Spain, is another meaningless distinction.

The best way to stop human traffickers is to disincentivize mass migration. Opening up more “safe and legal pathways”, as Pope Leo and clerics in Spain involved in mass migration have argued, results in more migration and ultimately also in more human trafficking. The invasion of Ceuta for the most part did not require traffickers, just lots of young men (and the rare woman) willing to climb a fence or swim around a sea barrier to make it to Spanish territory.

The problem is not human trafficking, it’s not geopolitics or ‘biopolitics’: it’s mass migration.

The Catholic Church could split the difference and affirm the position put forward by Pope Francis and Pope Leo that migration should be unnecessary by focusing on improving conditions in the home countries that migrants come from. But when the Catholic Church welcomes migrants, declares them to be missionaries teaching us to be better people, and campaigns vigorously for legalizing illegals, it brings forth exactly that which it claims to deplore.

The only real problem with the invasion of Ceuta was that too many people came all at once in a way that destabilized the area and threatened the fate of open borders politicians like PM Pedro Sanchez and policies like his mass legalization of 500,000 illegals.

Last year, Archbishop Luis Argüello opened the Spanish Bishops’ Conference by warning that Spain was no longer Catholic. “The time has passed, settled for centuries, when we said: ‘I’m Catholic because I was born in Spain.’” He warned that, “today we run the risk that our organizations, so dependent on the welfare state… might offer in a weak way the novelty of Christian love and could be easily confused with a very bureaucratic NGO.”

The involvement of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference in mass migration is at the heart of diminishing Catholicism in Spain and turning it into an NGO rather than a religion.

If the Catholic Church in Spain wants to matter again, it might stop thinking of migrants as missionaries of diversity and acknowledge them instead as missionaries of decline. Instead of championing diversity in Spain, the Spanish Bishops’ Conference could champion Spain.

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

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 old Communists, Marxists and Socialists at least called themselves what they were while the new radicals shoplifted a term from American history and style themselves as ‘abolitionists’.

Initially the term was misused by pro-crime activists who wanted to abolish police, prisons and the justice system, claiming that these were racist and were rooted in the institution of slavery. They used social media and academia to popularize the false claim that the police had started out as slavery patrols and argued that the prison system was just another form of slavery.

This flattening of meaning cynically equated public safety, a system which protects black people who are statistically the most likely victims of crime, with racial slavery. The efforts to ‘abolish’ it with race riots, delegitimization and defunding led to an unprecedented crime wave that cost the lives of thousands of black men and whose consequences are still being felt even today.

The pro-crime ‘abolitionists’ did not succeed in abolishing the police or prisons, but they managed to abolish thousands of black lives in the name of black lives mattering.

Law enforcement did not emerge out of slavery, but removing law enforcement ushered in an even more barbaric form of slavery in which the weak, whatever their ethics, talents and resources, were the prey of the strong, replacing the law with the tyranny of the ruthless.

When the Trump administration scrambled to roll back the catastrophic effects of mass migration by millions of illegal aliens who were able to freely cross the border under the Biden administration and overwhelm cities like Chicago, Denver and New York, open borders activists rebranded their call for mass migration as ‘abolition’ and campaigned to “Abolish ICE”.

Even though Mexican illegal aliens were never slaves, leftist activists began arguing that border patrols and immigration were rooted in racism and therefore also, in some sense, slavery. In reality, the earliest naval patrols had protected America’s borders by keeping slavers out.

And African-Americans were some of the biggest victims of open borders and mass migration.

But the term “abolition” had become so useful that it was freely deployed for eliminating the senate and with it the constitutional form of government because that too was somehow rooted in slavery. “Abolish the Senate” and the distinct identity of America as a union of states rather than an undifferentiated populace in which California ballot harvesters can rig national elections made it all the more obvious that ‘abolitionism’ was just another rebrand of ‘Communism’.

‘Abolishing’ the Constitution, the border, and the justice system is abolishing America.

Borders define nations and representative governments. Without them nations and elections don’t exist and neither do individual rights or liberties. Without law enforcement and a justice system, private property and physical freedom cease to be relevant factors in the lives of men.

Abolish them and you also abolish the only basis on which individuals have any rights.

To make this possible, abolition had to be put through the academic wringer, transformed from a specific objection to slavery to a general objection to everything outside its ideology so that it went from a call to remove an oppressive system to redefining all of America as an oppressive system to be removed. And when the specific gives way to the general, the specific disappears.

Modern ‘abolitionists’ can see traces of slavery in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, highways, milk, and the senate, but none in the modern slave trade most often found in the countries of their newfound Muslim allies. Slavery as an academic philosophical metaphor for the social condition eclipses the inconvenient reality of actual slavery.

The Bolsheviks started out promising to abolish serfdom only to replace it with a far more oppressive serfdom backed up by mass murder and applied pervasively across Russia. The new abolitionists aren’t libertarians, when they campaign for abolishing the police and prisons, they are proposing to replace a justice system that punishes crimes against individual persons and private property with one that punishes political crimes with mobs and kangaroo courts.

The new ‘abolitionists’ don’t object to the concept of crime, only to defining it in terms of muggings and rapes by the ‘oppressed’ and then punishing the muggers and rapists with prison sentences. The same activists and Soros prosecutors who championed ‘criminal justice reform’ gleefully threw the book at anyone who fell afoul of the BLM mobs from police officers to private citizens. While cancel culture destroyed lives, and mobs intimidated ordinary people, ‘abolitionists’ showed that they were quite willing to arrest and imprison their opponents.

And if prison is indeed slavery, then the new abolitions are actually the new slavers.

But abolitionists don’t actually want to abolish practices, they want to abolish systems, and nothing would then stop them from replacing them with far more oppressive systems that engage in practices such as policing and prisons once they’ve conceptually redefined them.

By shifting the focus from a physical act to an academic evaluation of the contextual historical roots, economic evaluations and philosophical understanding of the act, that very same act once considered oppressive becomes pure when its implementers have the right ideology. They define a capitalist prison as oppressive, not because of its actual conditions, but because capitalism is oppressive, while a socialist prison is reinterpreted as a form of liberation.

That’s why George Orwell gave us “freedom is slavery.” Referencing that is not just a glib line. Today, academics can be found in the country’s top campuses who explain how modern life in America is a form of slavery, while slavery in the Muslim world or in the labor brigades of the USSR were actually forms of liberation.

To the new ‘abolitionists’, slavery is just another one of many metaphors for capitalism, western civilization and America, and anything opposed to it, no matter how cruel and brutal, is a form of liberation. Murderers and rapists, terrorism and mass migration, even slavery can be forms of liberation, not because they set anyone free, but because they destroy western civilization.

What they are set on abolishing is the same order that liberated millions of people around the world by creating the modern nation state, representative government and law and order, while replacing it with the feudal ideological tyrannies that they call liberation.

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

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.

Treating Iran like a state has been a policy failure. Both diplomatic and military efforts to either engage or pressure Iran have all rested on the assumption that its terrorist regime is a state with national interests and that it could be tempted with membership in the international community or pressured to comply through economic sanctions or selective strikes on key targets.

Some of those tactics might have worked on normal countries that prioritize commerce over conquest, value international engagement, deplore losing money and military assets in a war that they can’t win and at the very least care about maintaining their everyday state functions.

But those same tactics have failed not only in Iran, but also when confronting other Islamic terror states like the Taliban, Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen which do not care about the normal functioning of a state, and can absorb military and economic losses because they see them as only means to a larger ideological end only achievable through constant conflict.

Dictators conquer in order to rule a state, terrorists rule a state in order to conquer. The state, its people, its wealth and weapons are expendable assets to spread the ideology of the terrorists.

We’re not fighting Iran as a country. What we are fighting is a fanatical cult and terrorist organization that has taken over Iran. The distinction is harder to spot because, unlike Afghanistan or Yemen, the terrorists took over a large, sophisticated and urbane nation, they command professional diplomats and nuclear scientists, vast industries and great wealth.

But all of that is in service to terrorists who see them as assets to be used to conquer the world.

Iran’s regime turned its weak hand into a strong one, not by traditional statecraft, but through the usual tactics of terrorists, showing a complete disregard for its losses while hijacking a vital waterway, calculating that the infidels may have bigger weapons, but weaker morale.

Islamic terrorists don’t win victories on the battlefield, they prevail by persisting until they negotiate concessions, and then taking those concessions, gaining more recruits and then pressing the attack again, absorbing the blowback, and achieving more concessions.

Oct 7, like the ISIS campaign, showed that when Islamic terrorists attack even a poorly prepared modern force, they rely on insurgent tactics and their victories fall apart when modern armies can bring their full command of the battlefield to bear on any organized opposition.

This Maoist model, losing battles and winning the war through fortitude and global propaganda, has been adopted by successful Islamic terrorists. Those like ISIS and Al Qaeda who stray too far from it are defeated. It’s the model used by the Taliban, who didn’t set out to win, only to remain in the field long enough to negotiate a worthless deal and watch us leave and it’s the model that was used by Hamas many times before and is being used by it once again.

That’s the easily recognizable model that Iran is relying on now.

And it’s only possible because Western nations have come to rely on a heavily flawed foreign policy toolkit that emphasizes leverage, displays strength without expecting to have to make full use of it, offers an economic carrot and waits for rogue nations to reform and come to heel. This approach has been completely useless on countries and in theaters that reject its basic premise, whether it’s North Korea or the Russia-Ukraine War, that the conflict must end.

Most civilized nations don’t want a prolonged conflict. To win, the other side just has to be willing to prolong the conflict indefinitely. There are two responses to this, one is to unleash sufficient power so as to completely crush the other side, the other is to save face and make a deal after a show of force that is supposed to convince someone outside D.C. that we mean business.

Ever since WWII, we’ve been pursuing the latter course from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan, and that’s understandable because Americans don’t want to fight any ‘forever wars.’

But that just means our enemies can win every time by threatening us with a ‘forever war’.

Jihadists, like the old fanatical Communist movements, are using the apparatus of state power not for national purposes, but the international ones of global conquest, and so whether we like it or not, we are stuck in a ‘forever war’ with them until they defeat us or we defeat them.

The alternative, a balance of power, could be sustainable with Cold War enemies like the USSR and China whose leaders were more concerned with their national power than an imminent global revolution, and preferred subversion to an apocalyptic world war, but may be less so with actual Islamic terror that are prepared to sacrifice the traditional prerequisites of statehood states as opposed to their modern Soviet national equivalents like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

To defeat Iran or at least return to a balance of power, we have to stop thinking of it as a state. Iran has had better luck using force as a leverage for forcing concessions from us than the other way around because it cares less about the most basic concern of a state: normalcy.

Most countries want order, not chaos. They want the systems of the state to work reliably because that is the means by which their power operates. They want to know what the price of wheat and oil will be tomorrow. Terrorists however are different. They embrace chaos, destabilize normalcy and see disruption as a banner broadcasting the triumph of their ideology.

We can’t defeat Iran by disrupting or threatening its normal functioning, as we’ve tried to do. We have crippled its larger ability to threaten us by directly targeting its nuclear program. If we want to stop threats from it on the water, we have to destroy its naval and aerial capabilities. If we want to end threats from its regime, we have to treat it like ISIS, not like an unfriendly state.

Anything else will just drag us into a waiting game with terrorists who can outwait us if all they have to fear from us are some limited economic sanctions and an occasional bombing raid.

We can defeat enemies who are not afraid to die. But we have to be willing to kill them.

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

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,” Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote in a New York Times op-ed. “Imagine you’re the leader of a nation, and you face a dilemma. Half a million or so people who are crucial to everyone’s daily lives inhabit your country.” His radical government’s solution was to legalize the half a million migrants.

Rather than the 500,000 migrants Sanchez was proposing to legalize, Spain received 1.2 million applications and a month after the application window closed, the invasion began.

“The invasion came after Sanchez’s legalization program and after the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that migrants entering by sea could not be deported and had to have their ‘asylum’ claims processed. Tens of thousands of Arab Muslims responded to the ruling by swimming around the border fence in Ceuta, a Spanish city in North Africa that shares a border with Morocco.

Ceuta, with a population of 85,000 covering 7 square miles, was swiftly overrun. The leftist Sanchez regime initially responded by refusing to declare a state of emergency because mass migration was not classified as an emergency. As the invasion grew from the thousands into the tens of thousands, Sanchez promised to dispatch military forces while emphasizing coexistence.

The mass invasion should not have been unexpected.

In 2021, 10,000 Muslim migrants from Morocco had entered Ceuta in 2 days. Morocco had been furious because Spain had treated the head of a breakaway Sahrawi state in the Sahara for COVID and applied leverage by shutting down its border patrols. Without those patrols, there was nothing keeping thousands of Moroccan Muslims from storming the border and invading Spain.

PM Sanchez had promised then that the invaders would be “immediately returned”, but some years later won headlines by proposing the ‘regularization’ of between 500,000 to 1,000,000 migrants.

Some have speculated over what triggered the invasion, but the numbers are fairly obvious.

The application window for ‘regularization’ had closed on June 30, 2026. A week later, the Spanish Supreme Court took up the case of minors who had invaded Spain in 2021. And the court ruled that migrants who climbed the border fence could be immediately deported, but those who swam around the border fence by sea would have to have their cases heard.

Finally, on July 20th, PM Sanchez visited Algiers. The Sanchez regime had previously secured an end to the invasions by supporting Morocco’s position on the Western Sahara. Algeria had responded by breaking off relations with Spain. Algeria had become Spain’s largest natural gas supplier and Sanchez had traveled to Algiers to discuss rebuilding ties and the Western Sahara.

Morocco apparently responded by removing border security and allowing a mass invasion.

Sanchez’s legalization proposal had prepared the ground and Spain was overwhelmed with twice as many applications as the leftist government had been expecting. When the application window closed on June 30th, many North African Muslims were bound to be disappointed.

Then the Supreme Court decision in early July created the expectation that anyone who made it around the sea barrier would not be immediately deported and would instead be allowed to stay.

The final missing ingredient came when PM Sanchez picked the worst timing in the world to try and repair relations with Algeria, a move that was bound to infuriate Morocco, and to which it would have only one way to make its anger felt, and that was by doing what it had done in 2021.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez had raised the expectations of Muslim migrants that they would be able to stay in Spain and if he hadn’t seen the possibility that history would repeat itself, he was a very a dumb man indeed. But it wasn’t all that long ago that Sanchez had been preaching the gospel of mass migration as the answer to the problems of not only Spain, but the West.

Migrants, Sanchez claimed, had given Spain a booming economy and urged Americans and Europeans to accept mass migration. “What is working for us can work for others. The time has come for leaders to speak clearly to their citizens about the dilemma we all face. We, as Western nations, must choose between becoming closed and impoverished societies or open and prosperous ones… Governments can buy into the zero-sum thinking of the far-right and retreat into isolation, scarcity, selfishness and decline.”

Or open their borders to the flood of invaders from the Muslim world.

Before long, Ceuta residents were desperately retreating into the ‘selfish far-right’ thinking of barricading themselves and their families in their homes as the invaders tried to break in.

This agenda was not Sanchez’s alone. Pope Leo, the first American pope, had skipped Independence Day celebrations in America and visited Spain, to prop up the Sanchez regime, which was in the midst of a corruption investigation, and migrant invasion points that were being used to invade Europe, describing them as a spiritual force that he felt moved to pay tribute to.

PM Sanchez claimed that the mass legalization of illegal aliens had been “endorsed by more than 900 nongovernmental organizations, including the Catholic Church”.

Tens of thousands of Moroccan Muslims would not have swarmed Ceuta if PM Sanchez and Spanish leaders had not given them the idea that they would be welcomed and allowed to stay.

Why would they think that? Because it worked last time around. And the time before that.

After the last mass invasion of Ceuta, PM Sanchez promoted the legalization of 500,000 migrants. In 2021, only 10,000 Muslims invaded Spanish territory. This time around some 50,000 did. The Moroccan government did its part, but it had no shortage of volunteers.

In the New York Times, Prime Minister Sanchez had urged the world to learn from Spain. After the whole world saw videos of tens of thousands of Muslim migrants overrunning Ceuta, it’s more urgent than ever that the world learn from the cautionary example of Spain.

Before Ceuta comes to their shores.

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

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 2025, Rep. Maxine Dexter gave a speech comparing Israel’s campaign against Hamas terrorists to the Holocaust, falsely calling it “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”.

“After the Holocaust, the international community made a commitment that such evil can never happen again to any people, anywhere. Never again, they said. That is why I recently signed on to a resolution recognizing Israel’s actions in Gaza led by the Netanyahu government as a genocide,” Rep. Dexter said in her speech, backing Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s pro-terrorist resolution “Recognizing the Genocide of the Palestinian People in Gaza.”

The director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum criticized Dexter’s hijacking of the Holocaust to support Hamas, but the Jewish Democratic Council of America endorsed Dexter’s reelection campaign anyway along with other vehemently anti-Israel candidates including one who had supported Mamdani and was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

After the rise of antisemitic nominees, the JDCA sent out a message from its director Halie Soifer, most of which is dedicated to complaining about Trump and the “algae-ridden reflecting pool”, as if the color of the pool were the biggest issue for Jews in America, and then towards the end, warned Jews against dropping support for the Democratic Party.

“Some, including in the Jewish community, concerned about DSA’s rise, may believe that this difficult moment means holding back support of Democrats or involvement in general in the midterms. To voters questioning their political home in the wake of an ascendant far-left, JDCA offers a clear response – we don’t have to support all Democrats, including DSA, to help ensure Democrats who share our values win in November,” Sofer urged.

“JDCA has endorsed more than 140 Democratic candidates,” Kamala’s former foreign policy advisor claimed, suggesting that these politicians “reflect our views on democracy, antisemitism, Israel, and other issues of importance to Jewish voters” who will drown “out the extremes.”

Those 140 candidates however include Rep. Dexter, who believes Israel defending itself against genocidal Islamic terrorists is as bad as the Holocaust, as well as other far leftist politicians who have falsely accused Israel of ‘genocide’, ‘apartheid’, and ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘war crimes’.

The JDCA misleadingly describes Dexter as being a “strong advocate of a two-state solution “ There’s no mention that Dexter supports an end to arms sales to Israel, and went on the podcast of a Qatar-backed antisemitic figure to declare that “I refuse to be endorsed by AIPAC”

The JDCA’s list of endorsees who “share its values” also include Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Iranian congresswoman who also falsely accused Israel of genocide, tried to block arms sales to Israel, falsely accused Israel of “mass starvation”, and went on a Qatari antisemitic podcast to also accuse Israel of atrocities in Lebanon while fighting against Iran’s Hezbollah proxies there.

The JDCA endorsement merely describes her as” a steadfast advocate for a two-state solution “

The endorsement list includes Rep. Sara Jacobs, the Qualcomm heiress dating the grandson of a terrorist, who falsely claimed that Israel “might” have committed genocide and accused it of “ethnic cleansing”. Rep. Jacobs co-sponsored bills attacking Israel and blocking arms to Israel, promoted terrorist propaganda and even attacked the U.S. military for buying weapons from Israel. The JDCA endorsement innocuously claims that she “gives San Diegans a voice on some of the most important issues facing the world” without addressing her hatred of Israel.

The JDCA endorsed Rep. Madeleine Dean, who had falsely accused Israel of perpetrating a “man-made famine” in Gaza, co-signed a J Street letter accusing Israel of violating the non-existent ‘ceasefire’ and demanded that the Trump administration “hold the Israeli government accountable for its actions” through “maximum diplomatic pressure”.

Not only has the JDCA endorsed sitting anti-Israel members of Congress, but it has endorsed vehemently Democratic anti-Israel challengers running against solidly pro-Israel Republicans.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a former Navy SEAL, became the first member of Congress to visit Israel after Oct 7. The JDCA endorsed Rebecca Cooke, a Mamdani supporter who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is backed by J Street, and had declared that she would oppose military aid to Israel because, “I don’t think that taxpayer dollars should be going to fund the killing of children.”

The JDCA endorsed James Talarico who had declared that, “I have never taken a dime from AIPAC and I have already committed to never taking any” and was boosted by anti-Israel activists who claimed that his victory validated the Democratic Party’s growing turn against Israel.

I reached out to the JDCA and its leaders for comment, but received no response when I inquired if the Jewish Democratic Council had any specific standards for its endorsements, whether it had any ‘red lines’ when it came to Israel and whether it would rethink any of its endorsements now that the candidates had publicly come out against Israel.

The JDCA represents itself to Jewish Democrats as a safe haven and a counter to extremism, but in actuality it endorses and supports political candidates who are deeply hostile to Israel.

The organization is trying to dissuade Jewish Democrats from pulling back from supporting Democrats, even though that was the model successfully adopted by the Islamist ‘Uncommitted’ movement, while promising that the JDCA’s candidates have been vetted to be friendly to Jews.

That is untrue.

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

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 the morning of Dec 11, 2017, Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi Muslim and the nephew of a Diversity Lottery Visa winner, boarded the F Train near the ‘Little Bangladesh’ colony in Brooklyn. Wearing a hooded jacket and a backpack to cover the pipe bomb strapped to his body, Ullah switched to the A and headed for the crowded corridors of the Times Square station.

Christmas was coming and ISIS had promoted a poster of Santa next to a box of dynamite overlooking Times Square with the message: “We meet at Christmas in New York… soon.” Ullah had used Christmas tree lights as a trigger and detonated his bomb near a Christmas poster.

The meeting between Times Square and ISIS fizzled and only injured three people. Ullah unfortunately survived, with minor burns, and began his assault on our justice system.

9 years later, Ullah defeated the American legal system, with the aid of one of the most radical Biden judges, and his legal victory has serious implications for prosecuting ISIS terrorists.

The case against the Bangladeshi Muslim ‘Diversity Visa’ terrorist couldn’t have been any more straightforward. “I did it for the Islamic State,” Ullah declared. He had been consuming ISIS propaganda that told ISIS supporters to carry out attacks abroad if they couldn’t make it to Iraq and Syria. Ullah had used ISIS slogans and language, and told the court that he was angry because President Trump had been bombing Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.

Ullah’s taxpayer-funded public defender, Julia Gatto, who had previously represented another Muslim Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, only had one counterargument. She couldn’t deny that he had tried to bomb Times Square, but claimed that he wasn’t really a Muslim terrorist, but just a young man suffering from depression and in a “mental health fog” who was just trying to commit suicide and really hadn’t wanted to hurt anyone else in Times Square.

“Tooling around on the internet does not make you an ISIS member,” Gatto had argued.

A few months ago, a Biden judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed and, in the process, she also dismantled the ability to prosecute ISIS terrorists as terrorists.

Even among the legion of terrible Biden appointees, Myrna Perez stood out as the voting rights director at the Brennan Center. The Brennan Center is the leading pro-crime organization in the country and has endless blood on its hands for championing criminals against victims. Sen. Ted Cruz had warned that of all the Biden circuit nominees, “Myrna Perez is the most dangerous. She has been a radical, and an activist for what effectively amounts for her to her entire career,”

The prediction has now come true with her ruling in United States of America v. Ullah.

The radical pro-crime judge wrongly ruled for the ISIS terrorist, arguing incorrectly that “the evidence was insufficient to show that Defendant provided material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization” because carrying out an attack in support of ISIS does not count as “material support” to ISIS.

Judge Myrna Perez admitted that Ullah had been reading ISIS material, that he used ISIS slogans and that he had carried out the attack “on behalf of the Islamic State” and “for Allah.”

What she argues instead is that volunteering to kill yourself and others in support of ISIS is not “material support” because the ISIS terrorist hadn’t been formally “coordinating” with ISIS. The communication had all been one way, from ISIS to Ullah, rather than from Ullah to ISIS.

Perez wrongly contends that following the orders of ISIS does not count as being “work under that terrorist organization’s direction” and means that he was acting “entirely independently.”

There’s nothing “entirely” about following an ISIS call to attack Times Square at Christmas

Never mind that the entire strategy of crowd-sourced terrorism from Al Qaeda and ISIS depends on reaching aspiring Muslim terrorists and providing them with general directions, rather than specifically directing individual terrorist attacks by the terrorists. By following these general instructions to commit attacks, a terrorist, even if he is unable to communicate with the terrorist group due to fear of being caught, is acting at its direction. And the Christmas attack in Times Square clearly picked up on one ISIS call for a Christmas attack in Times Square.

According to Judge Perez’s pettifoggery, Ullah “chose” to carry out the ISIS attack, which means he wasn’t really under the direction of ISIS and that means it’s not providing material support. Had Ullah shipped some charging cables to ISIS, that would be ‘material support’, but killing and dying for it isn’t considered material support. Neither, she argued, did Ullah “provide a ‘service ‘to a foreign terrorist organization’” by independently carrying out his attack” because “‘to’ requires some ‘connection’ between the service provider and the organization.”

And so because of the definition of “to”, the ISIS terrorist wasn’t providing a service to ISIS.

Judge Steven Menashi, whose grandfather was a Jewish refugee from Iraq, and who was appointed by President Trump, correctly noted that Perez had decided to overrule the jury in the case and completely rewrite the law, that there was no basis for her decision to exclude ISIS propaganda as a form of direction or to define terrorist attacks in response to it as ‘entirely independent’, and that “direction” and “control” are not the same things.

Judge Menashi’s arguments are correct, but he was in the minority, with Perez and Judge Jed Rakoff, a showboating Clinton appointee, who had unilaterally decided that 18-year-olds, like a thug who shot up a Bronx block party, hitting a pregnant woman, were not really criminally culpable, and who had illegally ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional.

The Perez-Rakoff decision has minimal impact on Ullah, who is already behind bars on other charges, but effectively dismantles the prosecution of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists.

The majority of Al Qaeda and ISIS attacks in America have involved ‘lone wolves’ who came around to supporting these Islamic terrorist groups based on consuming online propaganda. Some directly communicated with the group, but instead often reached FBI personnel, others pledged oaths of obedience, while others simply carried out attacks for the terrorist group.

Judge Perez knowingly set out to dismantle a key tool for prosecuting them as she wrote in her ruling, “the resolution of that question will not affect the Defendant’s punishment, but it may make a difference in future cases, and it is our unflagging duty to say what the law is, in cases within our jurisdiction.” Perez was admitting that her ruling is irrelevant to the case, which is why she should not have made it, but will be relevant to other cases of future ISIS terrorists.

Unless it’s overturned, the ruling will make it impossible to prosecute ISIS terrorists for providing “material support” to a terrorist organization unless it can be demonstrated that they were following specific orders from the Islamic terrorist group. Since that rarely happens, Perez has effectively legalized ISIS terrorist attacks in America as long as there’s no direct ‘control’.

This may have limited impact in cases where the terrorists successfully carry out an attack, but it will cripple the ability to prosecute early plots where an attack had not been carried out. It means that some of these terrorists will walk away, as they routinely do in Europe, to carry out future terrorist attacks, some of which will be successful, leading to more dead Americans.

Judge Perez has also given ISIS terrorists a new template for their attacks and told them what they need to do to avoid being tried on ‘material support’ charges. That’s steering rather close to providing ‘material support’ to terrorists… whether it’s intentional or unintentional.

If this disastrous verdict isn’t overturned by the Supreme Court, Americans will die because a pro-crime judge was placed in a key position by extremist leftist judges who twist the law to champion criminals and terrorists at the expense of the United States of America.

The Perez ruling for ISIS shows how radical and disastrous the judges being chosen by Democrats have become and how they threaten the security, safety and lives of Americans.

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

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 last time an Islamic terrorist attack was carried out in New York City before Mamdani was in Times Square on the last day of 2022.

In the 7 months since Mamdani took office, there have already been two terror attacks.

The mass stabbing in Manhattan by an ex-con shouting “Allahu Akbar” followed a previous attack on a protest rally against Islamization at the mayoral residence of Gracie Mansion by two Muslim teenagers throwing homemade bombs.

In previous years, Christian Sturdivant, a convert to Islam, had been arrested on December 31, 2025, over a New Year’s Eve stabbing spree plot in New York City which, had it been carried out, would have taken place hours before Mamdani took office.

Sturdivant had posted, “May Allah curse the cross worshipers.”

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, a Pakistani Muslim operating in Canada, had plotted to mark the Hamas atrocities of Oct 7 with a terror attack against Jewish synagogues in Brooklyn on the same date in 2024.

Both of these religiously themed Muslim attacks, one aimed at Jews and one at Christians, were a once-a-year occasion, but there have already been two Islamic terror attacks in just the first 7 months of Mamdani’s reign, with possibly more to come before the first year is even out.

This is a shocking increase of 243% in terror attacks across just two and a half years.

3 out of 4 Islamic terrorist plots in New York City in the last three years took place after Mamdani’s election ‘victory’. What role did his campaign and election play in emboldening the Islamic terrorists who plotted them is an important question in understanding the terror surge.

A surge that some are already calling the ‘Mamdani Effect’.

Furthermore it is important to once again emphasize that the Muslim terror plots in 2024 and 2025 remained plans and were not executed, while the two attacks under Mamdani were.

We have to go all the way back to 2022 to find a successfully implemented Muslim attack.

To find a year where there were not just one but two Muslim terror attacks, we have to go all the way back to 2017 during which Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbek Muslim who had scored a Diversity Immigrant Lottery visa, rammed his car into numerous people in Manhattan, killing 8 and wounding 13, and Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi Muslim, whose uncle had also won a Diversity Immigrant Lottery visa, tried to detonate a pipe bomb in the New York City subway.

2017 was a record year for Islamic terrorist attacks because after years of coddling ISIS under Obama, the Trump administration had unleashed a ruthless campaign that broke the terror group. This led to a wave of global attacks by Muslims in support of the organization they believed had been chosen by Allah to destroy non-Muslims and usher in a new Caliphate.

There were no global events that should have led to a similar wave of Sunni attacks in 2026 and while Islamic terrorists continue to carry out attacks, there’s been no significant global surge.

And yet Islamic terrorist attacks are up 243% in New York City with the single worst surge of attacks in almost a decade. Whatever is causing this can only be attributed to New York City.

And it cannot be a mere coincidence that 3 of the 4 terror plots in the last three years line up with the Mamdani campaign.

Freedom Center Investigates had previously documented Mamdani’s ties to terrorism including his visit to the Al-Taqwa Mosque, which used to be under NYPD surveillance, embracing its religious leader, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the WTC bombing, who called America “filthy”, preached “I will never ever tell people, ‘don’t be violent, that is not the Islamic way.’ The violence has to be selected” and declared that getting involved in “politics is a weapon in the cause of Islam”. His son was later charged in a terrorism plot. Mamdani had also joined ‘prayers’ at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge whose imam had been caught on video praying for victory for Hamas, imploring “Allah to make them strong and guide their shooting.”

Mamdani had repeatedly spoken out to excuse and cover for Islamic terrorists on social media

His transition team and staff included multiple terror lawyersincluding Mamdani’s Chief Counsel, Ramzi Kassem, who had claimed that 9/11 was due to the “resentment these terrorists felt towards the United States” as a result of “our country’s policies” and argued that “terrorism is but one of many reactions to oppression and dispossession and not their cause.”

In Lebanon, Kassem had boasted about throwing stones at Israelis.

Mamdani’s political guru, Linda Sarsour, had bragged, “I would be honored to die a martyr” and, as Middle East Forum noted,she was involved in an organization a Hamas front group had tried to direct funds to. Mamdani’s first endorsement, Aber Kawas, now the Democrat nominee for state senate, had described an Al Qaeda terrorist and Hamas fundraisers as “imprisoned heroes” and called another Muslim terrorist who plotted to bomb a synagogue as “my brother.”

Can the 243% increase in Islamic terrorist attacks in New York City really be connected to anything other than the rise of a political network openly supportive of Islamic terrorism?

Across the river, Democrats have nominated Hisham ‘Adam’ Hamawy as a congressional candidate, even though he had translated for and testified for the ‘Blind Sheikh’ linked to the World Trade Center bombing and subsequent Islamic terror plots against New York City, and even though he had volunteered for an Al Qaeda linked group.

The growing political power of the Islamic terror lobby is naturally leading to a surge in Islamic terror violence. The mobs waving Hamas and Hezbollah flags in the streets of New York City are normalizing Islamic terrorism and the more it’s normalized, the more of it there will be.

Mamdani is a symptom of how the political support for Islamic terrorism among New York and New Jersey Democrats is translating into more Islamic terrorism in the region. The more power that the political supporters of Islamic terrorism get, the worse the terrorist attacks will become.

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

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.

Chicago commemorated the Juneteenth weekend by shooting 39 people and leaving 6 of them dead and surpassing last year’s relatively mild 5 dead and 16 wounded weekend. According to politicians and the media, crime is down in Chicago. According to reality, 861 people have been shot and 207 people have been killed so far this year and we haven’t even reached July.

(Editor’s note: it’s now 864 people shot and 208 killed. It’ll be higher when you read this.)

Mayor Brandon Johnson (pictured above) responded to the weekend massacres by declaring a ‘Transfemicide State of Emergency’ even though none of the people shot were transgender and the only transgender man killed this year was killed by his boyfriend, and calling for a $100 million Department of Gun Violence Prevention even as Chicago faces a $1.3 billion budget deficit.

The $100 million Department of Gun Violence Prevention campaign had been advanced by radical clergy, including Obama mentor Father Michael Pfleger, an associate of other Obama allies like Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright, as the solution to Chicago’s problems.

But what would that $100 million actually do?

The Biden administration had created a White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, that the Trump administration shut down, to largely push gun bans, but Chicago can’t do that.

Dozens of media stories have been filed pushing the permanent $100 million Department of Gun Violence Prevention without ever describing its function or how it would do anything.

The real goal is to take the Office of Violence Prevention championed by Mayor Brandon Johnson and make it a permanent institution in Chicago. This would implement the agenda of police defunding by treating its non-police strategies as equivalent to the police department.

So what does the Office of Violence Prevention and the various non-police alternatives to which Chicago politicians have already allocated $100 million to, despite the massive budget deficit and the looming pension bomb, actually do? ‘Trauma Reducing’ book clubs.

There’s no actual information about what ‘Trauma Reducing Book Clubs’ are or how they stop weekend shootings, but they’re packaged alongside ‘Self-Expression Creative Writing’ and Acupuncture as ‘Wellness Oriented Services’ even though the only ‘puncture’ that stops a shooter before he opens fire uses lead.

But the Office of Violence Prevention isn’t providing the book clubs, creative writing and acupuncture to victims of violence anyway, but to the perpetrators because it’s part of the Office of Violence Prevention’s Chicago Torture Justice Center (CTJC) whose services are provided to ‘victims’ of “police torture and other residents who report being traumatized by law enforcement actions.” In short, acupuncture and book clubs are for the criminals who get busted by police.

The Office of Violence Prevention also boasts Services for People Who Cause Harm (PWCH) also known as violent criminals or more specifically domestic abusers. PWCH vaguely describes the wife beaters “as individuals who are actively causing harm to their intimate partner.”

The rebranding of domestic abusers as “Services for People Who Cause Harm” is part of the larger trend of police defunding and ‘restorative justice’. Earlier this year, the Illinois Domestic Violence Hotline announced that it was also launching a hotline for domestic abusers.

Much as burglar alarm companies generally focus their marketing on homeowners rather than burglars, Jennifer Rosenkranz, the head of a domestic violence non-profit arm, explained that,

“We realized that the area of working with people who cause harm was underinvested and there was a lack of innovation in that space.”

It’s unknown if any book clubs or acupuncture is involved, but a similar operation in New York City which helped kickstart programs for ‘people who cause harm’ involved typical ‘restorative justice’ elements such as sessions focused on “trauma-informed healing” and accountability.

Its premise, like that of all pro-crime ‘restorative justice’ programs, was that police were the real enemy, not the abusers. Under New York’s DeBlasio administration, the forerunner of Mamdani, a report argued that there was debate about compelling “the state to treat intimate partner violence as severely as violence between strangers” especially in “communities of color and queer communities, to whom the system represented more of a threat than a sanctuary.”

The Left had taken a full turn from feminism and argued against protecting battered women.

Back in 2021, former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot had already been spending $500,000 on ‘Services for People Who Cause Harm’ offering “culturally appropriate non-mandated services for adults who cause harm within intimate-partner relationships” to be culturally sensitive to criminals.

“Our efforts to reduce gender-based violence throughout our city must not only respond to victims of violence and their needs, but the individuals and trauma of those who cause harm,” Lightfoot had argued.

This was in keeping with the central premise of pro-crime ideology that everyone had been paying far too much attention to crime victims and not nearly enough to the feelings of the criminals or ‘People Who Cause Harm’ who are really the victims of ‘systemic racism’.

5 years later, there’s no sign that catering to ‘People Who Cause Harm’ has done anything except harm. By 2025, domestic violence homicides were actually up 33%. Catering to ‘People Who Cause Harm’ was, like all pro-crime policies, leading to harm to victims of crime.

(The Chicago Police Department however conveniently erased its domestic violence statistics.)

After millions of dollars spent, domestic violence now accounts for 1 in 4 crime victims in Chicago. Most of the victims had taken out protective orders against their future killers, even as Chicago’s radical city government was wrecking the police department that might have saved their lives and instead spent millions helping their killers while also offering acupuncture and book clubs to the criminals who they claimed were really the innocent ‘victims’ of ‘police torture’.

Pro-crime policies always work, not by reducing violence, but by creating far more of it.

When President Trump proposed sending the National Guard to Chicago to stop the constant shootings, Illinois Gov J.B. Pritzker gave a press conference in which he complained that, “If Donald Trump was actually serious about fighting crime in cities like Chicago, he… would not be cutting over $800 million in public safety and crime prevention grants nationally, including cutting $158 million in funding to Illinois for violence crime-prevention programs.”

Chicago is proof that every penny that goes to so-called ‘prevention programs’ should be cut. Not unless taxpayers want to keep funding book clubs for criminals and funds being shifted from the victims of domestic abuse to the perpetrators of domestic abuse by pro-crime radical leftists.

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

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, a bipartisan group of members of Congress introduced H.Res.776: a resolution expressing concern about the persecution of Coptic Christians under Egypt’s Islamic regime.

The resolution has only picked up 8 cosponsors and has yet to make it out of committee.

By contrast, 103 House Democrats voted in favor of the Massie amendment to cut aid to Israel out of H. R. 8595 which also apportions $1.4 billion to Egypt and $1.6 billion to Jordan.

Meanwhile an amendment to zero out the $1.4 billion in military aid to Egypt never even made it out of the House Rules Committee while none of the Democrats who voted to cut off aid to Israel voted in favor of a similar amendment to cut off aid to Jordan, a totalitarian monarchy which harbors Islamic terrorists, including those who have murdered Americans, by 421-6.

The inability of resolutions and amendments critical of Egypt to make it out of committee comes a year after Sen. Bob Menendez was sent to prison over bribery and foreign agent charges, for taking “actions to benefit the Government of Egypt” and even “ghostwriting a letter for Egypt to be provided to his own Senate colleagues”: but that led no congressional action against Egypt.

Both Israel and Egypt aid use the ‘Foreign Military Financing Program”. There are, however, profound differences between Israel and Egypt. Israel has been a longstanding American ally while Egypt was a Soviet ally until the 1970s. Israel and America have cultural and religious ties while Egypt is one election away from becoming an Islamic terror state… as we saw in 2012.

Before his death, 1 in 5 Egyptians had expressed “confidence” in Osama bin Laden, about half of them support Hamas: a spinoff of the Muslim Brotherhood that was transplanted into Gaza.

Last year, Egypt and China conducted the joint ‘Eagles of Civilization’ air force drill. And Egypt has also taken to buying weapons systems from the People’s Republic of China. Despite that, the United States continues providing advanced weapons systems to Egypt, including nearly $5 billion in M1A1 tank upgrades conducted in Egypt, whose only possible target could be Israel.

Or perhaps the United States.

With an 83% favorable rating, the Israelis like us, while most Egyptians don’t like us and don’t even want our aid..In one survey a decade ago, 58% of Egyptians had a negative view of our military aid while only 10% had a positive one. It’s not surprising then that Christians continue to be a persecuted minority in Egypt despite making up 10% of the country’s population.

The persecution of Christians in Egypt has been a longstanding issue and includes both mob violence directed against Christians trying to build churches and worship in them that has led to incidents of ethnic cleansing as well as oppression that comes from Egyptian law and from the Egyptian state. The Egyptian constitution, like those of most Muslim countries, states that, “Islam is the religion of the State” and “Islamic law (Sharia) is the principal source of legislation”.

Egyptian ID cards include every individual’s religion making it easy to discriminate against Christians. Christians must apply for permission to build churches, preachers have been imprisoned for defending their religion in debates and Christian converts are threatened.

And yet aid to Israel is controversial, over ‘human rights’ while aid to Egypt sails through.

A number of Democrats claimed that they voted to end aid to Israel to ‘send a message’ to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but none felt impelled to send a message to Egypt’s government despite the State Department and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reporting multiple incidents in which Christians were sent to prison for their religion: including a prisoner who was placed in solitaryconfinement for copying bible verses.

But 103 Democrats believe that a Muslim country locking up Christians deserves $1.4 billion in aid while Israel has to be cut off because it’s bombing too many Hamas Islamic terrorists.

The Democrats who voted to cut off aid to Israel, complained about ‘democracy’, even though elections bring actual changes of government in Israel, while in Egypt they’re meaningless.

After being briefly run by the Muslim Brotherhood during Obama’s Arab Spring, Egypt is once again being run by the military. The same Democrats who have been scolding Israel and claiming that it’s undermining a “democratic future” by refusing to surrender to terrorists have generally failed to note that Egypt, just across the Gaza border, is run by political parties that act as fronts for the army, the police, militias and other elements of an authoritarian regime.

Egypt and Israel are fighting Islamic terrorists around 30 miles apart from each other.

Israel originally began fighting Hamas in Gaza. Egypt has been fighting on the other side of the border in North Sinai. Both conflicts intensified due to the fallout from the brief Muslim Brotherhood coup in Egypt. Weapons were smuggled in and out of Gaza, leading to street violence in Egyptian cities and an insurgency in the Sinai that involved Islamist groups, local Bedouin tribes and eventually ISIS. Egypt and Israel have fought their respective conflicts similarly with air strikes, ground deployments, and house demolitions. Both militaries have been accused by Islamist media of killing civilians. But only one of those led to a worldwide campaign on behalf of the Islamic terrorists. And with equal predictably, it was the one in which the conflict was between fellow Muslims, rather than between non-Muslims and Muslims.

The lack of any vote on Egypt shows that this isn’t about ‘democracy’ or ‘human rights’, it’s not about sending a message to a government, it’s about pandering to Islamist terrorist agendas.

In Egypt, 10 million Christians face persecution, lack equal rights and risk prison for speaking about their religion, and yet Democrats are willing to keep sending $1.4 billion in military aid.

The few Democrats who mention the human rights situation in Egypt generally focus on the status of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was banned after staging its coup, rather than on the millions of Christians who aren’t trying to take over Egypt, just to worship in their own way.

The message from House Democrats is that Christian lives don’t matter and Jewish lives don’t matter, only Islamic Jihadist lives and agendas 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.

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 group of radical female congresswomen who call themselves “the Squad” was supposed to be a triumph for feminism, but behind the scenes they serve as meal tickets for very shady men.

The latest scandal involving the “Squad Husbands” was the dead body of a teenage girl turning up in a house owned by Conan Harris: the husband of Squad member Rep. Ayanna Pressley.

Yoseliani “Liani” Marte, 18, was found shot and killed in a Boston home owned by Harris, who was already in the middle of a scandal over his company scoring a $2 billion contract to build a courthouse. Harris, who became a “public safety adviser” after leaving prison, co-owns the company whose other partner heads the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority. Their company received the high profile government contract despite Harris having spent 10 years in prison on felony drug trafficking charges and having been accused of assaulting a reporter.

Even while that scandal was breaking, former Rep. Cori Bush, who had been ousted in a previous election, was in the news for trying to mount a comeback while putting her husband Cortney Merritts on the payroll to provide her with security. Bush had argued for defunding the police only to be caught paying her husband with campaign funds to be her private police.

Bush’s loss was attributed in part to the scandal surrounding her diversion of over $150,000 to her “secret” husband for serving as her bodyguard. Merritts was indicted on two counts of wire fraud for allegedly fraudulent PPP loans after the feds accused him of lying on his application, but a hung jury in his court case resulted in an acquittal. Former Rep. Bush had also faced an ethics investigation for the six figure campaign funds payments to her husband.

None of the Squad members can seem to escape money problems with their Squad Husbands because Rep. Ilhan Omar is also in the news after initially filing a disclosure that claimed she and her Squad Husband had assets of between $6 million and $30 million only to ‘correct’ that down to a claim that her husband, who owns a venture capital firm, only made $200 last year.

Rep. Omar’s aides claimed that the disclosure form revealing millions to tens of millions of dollars in assets was an “accounting error” and “that Omar looked at the form before it was filed in 2025, but that the error didn’t jump off the page for her because she isn’t involved with her husband’s businesses.”

If we are to believe Rep. Ilhan Omar, she was so uninvolved with “her husband’s businesses” that she had no idea whatsoever whether he had $30 million or $200. Omar’s lawyer issued a statement contending that “as the busiest of people, it is very common for members and their spouses to rely on learned professionals like accountants to make calculations and determinations that appear on public filings.” And too busy to notice the minor difference between $30 million and $200.

But that’s just the latest chapter in Rep. Omar’s “Squad Husband” soap opera.

After previously being accused of marrying her own brother, leading to calls for a congressional investigation over possible immigration fraud, Omar was also accused of cheating on her second Somali husband, fellow Somali Ahmed Hirsi, with Tim Mynett, a white political consultant whose consulting firm, E Street Group, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from the Omar congressional campaign and would eventually take in $3 million.

Omar and Mynett divorced their spouses and married. The scandal reportedly led to Omar’s father, Somali war criminal Col. Nur Omar Mohamed (whom Somalilanders have accused of genocide), refusing to see his daughter for disgracing the family as he died of COVID.

However, Omar and Mynett were apparently just getting started. Shortly after their marriage, Mynett created Rose Lake Capital, described on his bio as “former members of Congress and Ambassadors, thought leaders and financial experts – skilled operators bringing the right people together to drive results. A multinational holding company committed to doing good in the world.” One of the ambassadors was a former Qatari lobbyist. Qatar is an Islamic terror state.

Between 2023 and 2024, Mynett’s organizations, Rose Lake Capital and eStCru, a California winery, went from being worth $51,000 with only $700 in cash to that aforementioned $30 million while Rose Lake Capital was supposedly being backed with a massive $60 billion in assets.

These business ventures led to multiple lawsuits, including one alleging fraud and involving a drug business, suggesting that the Omar family has benefited from marijuana sales. Another lawsuit by a Muslim D.C. restaurant owner claimed that he had been promised that the winery would triple his money or that he would be paid 10% interest. (Wine and taking interest are both in violation of Islamic Sharia law. As is adultery.) The winery has since shut down.

And since no “Squad Husband” could be without ethical and legal drama, even when he isn’t a husband, the decision by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to list her boyfriend as her husband led to a formal rebuke from the House Ethics Committee over AOC’s boyfriend, Riley Roberts, getting a complimentary $35,000 ticket to attend the Met Gala. That was the same event where AOC was also found to have violated ethics regulations with her infamous lavish “Tax the Rich” dress for taking “impermissible gifts” worth over $3,000.

Rep. Ocasio Cortez had tried to have it both ways, arguing that Roberts should have spouse privileges like a ‘spouse pin’ granting him access to Congress, and allowing him to come on sponsored trips abroad, while also arguing that Roberts should not be subject to financial disclosures because the two aren’t officially married.

Roberts has been listed as a “fiance” since 2022. That’s two whole congressional terms.

This is convenient because, while Roberts tends to be described as an “Arizona web designer,” he had financial ties to AOC’s campaign, with thousands of dollars coming to him from a PAC working for AOC and an official listing as a staffer. One of the trips where AOC wrongly listed her boyfriend as a spouse for travel purposes was to an event funded by a Soros-linked organization. Funding from Soros groups has led to concerns about the radical billionaire family buying control of the political process.

The Squad was praised as an example of strong female leadership, but 4 out of 5 of its female members used public office and campaigns to move money to their husbands and boyfriends.

Half of those husbands have been charged with serious crimes.

The Squad uses its Squad-Husbands to get rich while being accused of crime, fraud, corruption, and ethical violations. Feminism now means putting your deadbeat husbands and boyfriends on the payroll, making TikTok videos ranting about capitalism, while they make off with the money.

AOC, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush and Ayanna Pressley all paid their men with public money. They claimed to be reformers, but who’s going to reform them?

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

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.

Seven months after Mamdani took office, donations continue to pour into his campaign with nearly $300,000 in political donations showing up in just the last month even though the controversial radical politician’s next mayoral campaign would be in the 2029 cycle.

A massive flurry of political donations to a politician for a race this many years away is unusual.

A close examination of the donations by Freedom Center Investigates found some unusual patterns. Of the top ‘maxed out’ donations, a majority came from Muslims and a majority of those Muslim donors did not list an employer or occupation: another potential red flag. Two Muslim men with the same name, but different addresses, donated to Mamdani one day apart.

Muslims are a tiny minority in New York City and local Muslims were a minority among the current wave of top Mamdani donors showing that his political power was fueled by Muslim money and support from outside the city in ways that have been made difficult to track.

Of 5 of Mamdani’s top 2029 ‘maxed out’ Muslim donors, only one listed his occupation, and the other 4 all donated within two days of each other. Those 4 were all from outside New York.

This is another red flag.

Leaving out ‘employer’ and ‘occupation’ data, which should be filled in, makes it difficult to track the origin of the donation, the legal status of the donor and the potential influence of foreign money.

Read more

“There is a day that falls in August when the Temple of Solomon was burned,” David Bergelson told a Soviet tribunal. “On this day all Jews fast for twenty-four hours, even the children. They go to the cemetery for an entire day and pray there ‘together with the dead.’ I was so immersed in that atmosphere of that temple being burned—people talked about it a great deal in the community—that when I was six or seven years old it seemed to me that I could smell the fumes and the fire.”

The writer had bungled the date of Tisha Ba’av or the Fast of the Ninth of Av which in 1952 had instead come in late July, but he was right to smell ‘the fumes and the fires’ since his three year ordeal of torture and interrogations would soon end with a bullet to the head in the cellars of the KGB’s Lubyanka fortress on an August evening known as The Night of the Murdered Poets.

By then there were other ‘fumes and fires’ from the mass burning of Yiddish books at the Sholom Aleichem Library in Birobidzhan: once the center of the hopes of Jewish Communists like Bergelson for creating a ‘Jewish’ culture that would replace Judaism with Communism, replace the Bible with Das Kapital, and would jettison Hebrew and replace it with Yiddish

“As a Jew, I feel more intensely in Birobidzhan,” Bergelson had argued less than two decades before his murder. “In Birobidzhan I will help build a glorious Jewish culture, socialist in form and national in content, which can serve propaganda purposes… I wish to partake of those fascinating, delectable juices of life that our Soviet regime bestows upon me.”

On The Night of the Murdered Poets, the Soviet regime withdrew the “delectable juices of life” from Bergelson and the other victims of the massacre as it had from millions of others.

Some of those Jewish writers, poets and doctors killed on The Night of the Murdered Poets had at least questioned the regime, with Peretz Markish warning that “the time will come that the snake wrapped around our necks will choke us”, but Bergelson appeared to have remained a loyal Communist and for his devout allegiance, his support for the previous Stalinist purges of Jewish figures, Bergelson was taken away, beaten and forced to confess to the worst crime.

Zionism.

The story of Bergelson and the cohort of ‘Yiddishist’ pied pipers is once again relevant as anti-Israel groups propose to follow in the footsteps of the ‘Bundists’, who ended up serving as the ‘Yevsektisa’, the brutal ‘Jewish Section’ of the Bolsheviks, targeting synagogues and rabbis, before, like Bergelson, being killed off by Stalin, now circulating around ‘Jewish Currents’, the online Beinart site that revives the old Communist newspaper Morgen Frayhayt, which was boycotted by most Jews for its support for Muslim massacres of Jews and the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

The media recently took to touting a book by ‘Molly Crabapple’, aka Jennifer Caban, the daughter of a Puerto Rican father arguing for a revival of the Socialist ‘Bund’ movement as the alternative to Israel through a “radical vision of solidarity.” Calls for ‘solidarity’, by which the anti-Israel Left mean Jews allying with Communists, racist identity politics groups and Islamists to destroy Israel and America, are the Left’s solution to antisemitism.

Anti-Israel activists, some Jewish and some not, dig up Jewish ancestors, real or imagined, stumble through some awkward phrases in Yiddish and call for the destruction of Israel.

‘Solidarity’ with antisemites around a common hatred of traditional Jews never works out.

After having championed a ban on Hebrew, shut down synagogues, murdered countless Jews for the crimes of ‘Judaism’ and ‘Zionism’, the Yevsektsia and the Yiddishists were themselves purged in the 1930s, followed by growing crackdowns on Yiddish literature, and any Jewish Communists in America who could swallow the idea that their old friends had really been spies and terrorists, soon had to also swallow the alliance between Nazism and the USSR.

“How much pain and strain were required in the last ten years to maintain at least a shred of faith that everything going on in Moscow meant redemption,” Menahem Boraisha, a Yiddish poet who had left the Morgen Frayhayt, the Communist paper that had helped lure Bergelson and many others to their doom, when it cheered on the Muslim massacre of Jews in Hebron. “Iron dictatorship, concentration camps… socialists labored to find a vindication for all this, stifling their own conscience, explaining away through rationalization and casuistry, and with tooth and nail clinging to one consolation… still, Socialism is being built there.”

By then, anyone with a fraction of humanity in his soul, who had been misled by ideological enthusiasm, had left the Morgen Frayhayt, leaving behind only complete monsters. Jewish newspaper sellers refused to sell the paper. Members of its staff were threatened in the street.

After a brief pause, when the Hitler-Stalin pact collapsed with the Nazi surprise attack, the USSR resumed its crackdown on the Jews culminating in the Doctors Plot and the larger plan to exterminate the Jews of the USSR of which The Night of the Murdered Poets was only one minor incident, but which mostly came to an end with Stalin’s nearly miraculous death.

The Birobidzhan delusion never gained much of a Jewish population and existed only as a kind of ‘Anti-Israel’ for Jewish Communists to build a cultural house of cards around. The actual Israel became a primary target of the Soviet Union and its allies, who helped create modern Islamic terrorism, the practice of airline hijacking, and also invented the ‘Palestinian’ cause.

That’s the manufactured cause in whose name modern anti-Israel activists of Jewish ethnic origin want to destroy Israel.

The old joke about the Communist experiment is that no amount of failures are ever enough. Next time, it’ll be managed the right way. Jewish Communists have learned nothing from the fate of their forebears which is a shame because if David Bergelson died for anything, it was that. It is hard to know what was in the Communist’s mind when he invoked the fall of the Temple at his trial as a self-indictment, but it is easier to guess the meaning of his last words.

“Earth, oh earth, do not cover my blood!” The quote did not come from Marx or Lenin, it was not the hideous slogan, “Long live Stalin” adopted by loyal Communists being put to death, but came from Job 16:18. It was not as transcendent a moment as the death of Dovid Hofshteyn that same night, a talented poet and reluctant Communist, who underwent a religious revival in captivity, reciting the psalms from memory in his cell and going to his death joyfully singing.

But it was a powerful statement that should resonate with the Jewish anti-Israel Left.

In 1926, Bergelson had expressed his repentance for opposing the ‘Yevsektisa’ and its crackdown on Hebrew and Judaism, claiming that “I have fairly deserved my exile, and I am suffering now for misunderstanding the difficulties with which the Yevseks had to contend at the period I opposed them.” The letter was printed in Der Emes: whose editor would also be killed.

Facing death, Bergelson’s last words were Jewish religious ones, a quote from the Bible so reviled by the Communists he had belonged to, and a call that his murder be remembered. Today, it is not the earth that covers his blood, but those who claim to follow in his footsteps, who fantasize about reconciling the irreconcilable paradox of Jewish identity and Communism.

That act of treason can only end in murder and death today as it did in the USSR.

Bergelson began verse 18 of Job 16. He never reached Verse 19: “Even now, behold my Witness is in heaven and He Who testifies for me is on high.”

For now, if there is any testimony of the consequences of the evil road he followed and that the anti-Zionist radical movement wants to follow again, it will have to be here on earth.

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

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 2020, Bryce ‘Lindsay’ Hecox, who is a man, sued Idaho over the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, demanding to be allowed to compete against women playing for the Boise State cross-country team. After graduating high school, Mr. Hecox, who had a mediocre high school track record as a man, decided he was really a woman and sued to play on the women’s team. His lawsuit contended that playing against other men “would be inconsistent” with his gender identity, while playing against women was part of his “treatment plan for gender dysphoria.”

Speaking in defense of women’s sports were over 100 female athletes and coaches, dozens of female Olympic athletes, Women’s Declaration International, the International Consortium on Female Sport, the Independent Council on Women’s Sports, and the Women’s Liberation Front while arguing against the existence of women’s sports was the League of Women Voters.

“Transgender and intersex persons will be harmed by the enforcement of this law,” a League official complained. What about women? The League of Women Voters was however far more interested in its new demographic of transgender male voters claiming to be women voters.

The League of Women Voters claimed that keeping men who claim to be women out of women’s sports was “an egregious example of sex discrimination.” Deborah Turner, the League’s black former president, argued that keeping men out was racist and “will disproportionately target women and girls of color” even though Mr. Hecox was a white man and the most notorious men competing against women, like Lia Thomas, have been white men.

This senseless argument paralleled the descent of the League of Women Voters from its 1890s suffrage roots into a bland and interchangeable Democratic operation and then, by way of struggle sessions over BLM in 2020, into a generic leftist pressure group fighting over illegal aliens, global warming, gun ownership, DEI, and whatever leftist issue is trending right now.

And with little to show that it was founded to campaign for women and much to show that it isn’t.

The League of Women Voters denounces the existence of women and their resistance to letting men also be women. The LWV had accused Trump of waging a “war on women,” but he League of Women Voters are the ones who are actually waging a war on women.

Last month, the League of Women Voters, which, despite its name, has taken to erasing women in favor of “people who can become pregnant” defended its erasure of women. In an article titled “All Women’s Rights Depend on Transgender Rights,” the LWV contended that women’s rights really “encompasses infinite experiences and identities, like income, race, gender, sexuality, and more.” This is not a description of women’s rights, but of Marxist intersectionality which defines all the discrimination that it recognizes as part of a system of societal oppression.

The League of Women Voters, which had been created by white feminists, declared that it has a new enemy: “white feminism, or feminism that is focused on the needs of white women, is something we must constantly battle” and bragged that “we’re equipped to take on that battle.”

“There are many parallels between the exclusion of black people and the transgender and nonbinary communities within certain branches of the women’s rights movement,” the article argued, and further warned that banning men from the ladies room through “laws that dictate which bathrooms you can use based on our genitalia” somehow also threatened women, despite the attacks on women and girls linked to the elimination of safe spaces in restrooms.

“Evolving to become more inclusive is an ongoing, essential part of the women’s rights movement,” the LWV stated, declaring that “there is no true democracy without trans rights” and that “there are no women’s rights without trans rights”. But, as the League of Women Voters has shown, there’s actually no such thing as women’s rights if trans rights are imposed on women.

For women to have rights, they have to exist as a particular defined group, not “infinite identities.”

Rather than listening to the women and girls complaining about discrimination, the League of Women Voters not only doubled down on taking away their Title IX rights to women’s sports, once a hardfought project of the activists whom the LWV now dismisses as hateful ‘white feminists,’ but also dismisses all women who don’t want mixed restrooms or sports as bigots.

Fighting those women has become a central mission of the League of Women Voters.

Poll after poll has shown that not only majorities of Americans, but majorities of women oppose men playing against women in women’s sports under the guise of ‘transgender’ ideology.

The League of Women Voters is fighting against the majority of women in America whom it has bizarrely claimed are part of an “anti-gender movement”, when the LWV are the ones subscribing to a movement that denies the existence of the sexes, accuses them of crimes such as “white feminism” and ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism’ for believing that women exist.

A previous CEO had complained that “gender non-binary and trans women are often excluded from the conversation” in feminism and vowed that the LWV would spend more time listening to these ‘transgender’ men than to the women in the organization’s own name.

Rather than campaigning on anything relevant to women, the LWV has taken to fighting against Voter ID, another policy supported by the majority of Americans, on behalf of men who claim to be women by arguing that “Voter ID laws suppress transgender voters”. After the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the League of Women Voters bemoaned the impact that had on “women and people who may become pregnant” as if anyone who isn’t a biological woman can become pregnant.

The League of Women Voters complained that transgender men are worse off than “straight women,” of whom only 35% experience domestic violence, while “44% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual women” and more than half of transgender people suffer from domestic violence.

Women in abusive relationships were expected to check their domestic abuse privilege.

The League of Women Voters even highlighted the story of “Anna Kellar, a nonbinary trans athlete who has returned to skating to compete in amateur adult-level competition,” and who is “fighting for equality on the ice” against the “restrictive gender norms” in figure skating.

Kellar recently appealed for “support for trans figure skaters – and trans women especially – and oppose the discriminatory policies that keep them from competing.”

Kellar was also the longtime executive director of the League of Women Voters of Maine.

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

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 are two types of people: those who understand the Left and those who don’t.

The latter are forever good-naturedly assuming that their opposite numbers simply don’t understand how the market works and don’t understand that the added burden of onerous regulations will raise prices, force companies out of the marketplace and make life worse.

The former realize that the Left understands this all too well and that’s why it’s doing it.

Since the conservative movement is still full of people who studied Locke and Adam Smith rather than Lenin,and Mao and can lecture about the ‘wisdom of the market’, but don’t have a clue about what makes leftists tick, New York City’s rent freeze and latest round of regulations, accompanied by sky-high average rents in the city, led to a round of “but don’t you see”.

The Left sees quite well what it’s doing. That’s why Mamdani appointed Cea Weaver (pictured above) as his Tenant Director and stood behind her after she had tweeted that “private property is a weapon of white supremacy”, “Impoverish the *white* middle class” and “we’ll transition from treating property as an individual good to a collective good. Whites especially will be impacted.”

The plan isn’t to ‘regulate’ landlords, in Maoist style the plan is to eliminate them by driving as many of them out of the market as possible, then seizing the buildings and using taxpayer money to hand them over to allied ‘community groups’. Call it slow motion Communism.

Apply this sort of thing to every arena and you get a sense of how socialism is being ‘built’.

And the sooner we understand this, the better, because we are plagued by those who earnestly argue against insane tax proposals like the ones driving billionaires out of California by warning that it will wreck the tax base and the financial revenue models of entire states. The Left is not concerned with the tax base or financial revenue models, but with destroying capitalism.

Doing as much damage along the way is not a misunderstanding, it’s the point of the exercise.

The USSR and Communist China both touched off famines that killed millions of people, worsening their implementation at every stage and weaponizing them to wipe out populations and groups that they considered politically unsuitable. The Left isn’t ‘accidentally’ causing economic chaos in the United States because it doesn’t understand economics: it exists to expose and create weaknesses in our economy in order to impose its version of economics.

When the Left says that millionaires, billionaires, landlords, businessmen and private enterprise shouldn’t exist, that’s not an ‘unrealistic program’, it’s a horrible realistic one that it tried before across parts of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America with terrible consequences.

And the sooner we wake up to that, the better.

The only difference between the so-called moderates and extremists is that the former will work within the system to wreck free enterprise while the latter plant bombs and stage street riots. And, contrary to all the twittering over Antifa, it’s the ones wearing suits and issuing policy papers within the system who are a million times more dangerous than the rioters in black.

Even in the United States for nearly a century, government operations have been their means for eliminating one way of life and bringing another way of life into being. Over the last sixty years, the vast majority of government policies, statewide and nationwide, have existed to eliminate every American strength, to wipe out its economy, its finances and its people.

And for much of that time, they have faced little opposition except from free marketers farcically explaining to the Left that wrecking the free market will be bad for the free market. Since the 90s, only now has there been any kind of informed and meaningful opposition by people in public office to leftists at the policy level, not just from corporate lobbies and free marketers, but from those who have some understanding of what the Left is and what it’s doing to America.

Still very few will put it into simple words and lay the blame for the ‘affordability crisis’ on the same people who ramped up the price of everything, who created a wage-price spiral, who banned logging and complain about the price of housing, who banned drilling and complain about oil company ‘greed’, and who tax everything and complain that families can’t make it.

Their solution to the crises they created is to sneer about “late-stage capitalism” and replace it with socialism. Under socialism, everyone will have health care of the sub-Medicaid variety, on a 6-12 month waiting list, with euthanasia being offered to any patient in a bed. Under socialism, there will be housing projects for all (and homes only for the elite), there will be food rations for all (and restaurants for the elites), and there will be worthless inflationary money for all.

This program may not sound very appealing. At least not until the economy is sufficiently wrecked, that life is miserable enough, and the future bleak enough, that anything seems as if it would be an improvement. Until then there will be regulations meant to crush free enterprise and policies feeding a welfare state, and an ‘alternative economy’ run by leftist organizations and subsidized by the government that won’t work locally, let alone be suitable to run at scale.

But New York City will get to be the latest testbed for socialism as the Mamdani regime continues forcing apartments off the market, and then seizing apartments for public housing. Unlike free enterprise, socialism can only exist by eliminating the competition, and the only way to eliminate free enterprise is by using the government to make it unworkable and then forbidden. In a country with free elections, that requires a stealth campaign by radicals who pretend to be regulating free enterprise when they’re actually out to completely eliminate it.

It’s past time for conservatives to speak the plain truth about what is happening 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.

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 2025, Rep. Maxine Dexter gave a speech comparing Israel’s campaign against Hamas terrorists to the Holocaust, falsely calling it “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”.

“After the Holocaust, the international community made a commitment that such evil can never happen again to any people, anywhere. Never again, they said. That is why I recently signed on to a resolution recognizing Israel’s actions in Gaza led by the Netanyahu government as a genocide,” Rep. Dexter said in her speech, backing Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s pro-terrorist resolution “Recognizing the Genocide of the Palestinian People in Gaza.”

The director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum criticized Dexter’s hijacking of the Holocaust to support Hamas, but the Jewish Democratic Council of America endorsed Dexter’s reelection campaign anyway along with other vehemently anti-Israel candidates including one who had supported Mamdani and was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders..

After the rise of anti-semitic nominees, the JDCA sent out a message from its director Halie Soifer, most of which is dedicated to complaining about Trump and the “algae-ridden reflecting pool”, as if the color of the pool were the biggest issue for Jews in America, and then towards the end, warned Jews against dropping support for the Democratic Party.

“Some, including in the Jewish community, concerned about DSA’s rise, may believe that this difficult moment means holding back support of Democrats or involvement in general in the midterms. To voters questioning their political home in the wake of an ascendant far-left, JDCA offers a clear response – we don’t have to support all Democrats, including DSA, to help ensure Democrats who share our values win in November,” Sofer urged.

“JDCA has endorsed more than 140 Democratic candidates,” Kamala’s former foreign policy advisor claimed, suggesting that these politicians “reflect our views on democracy, antisemitism, Israel, and other issues of importance to Jewish voters” who will drown “out the extremes.”

Those 140 candidates however include Rep. Dexter, who believes Israel defending itself against genocidal Islamic terrorists is as bad as the Holocaust, as well as other far leftist politicians who have falsely accused Israel of ‘genocide’, ‘apartheid’, and ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘war crimes’.

The JDCA misleadingly describes Dexter as being a “strong advocate of a two-state solution “ There’s no mention that Dexter supports an end to arms sales to Israel, and went on the podcast of a Qatar-backed antisemitic figure to declare that “I refuse to be endorsed by AIPAC” .

The JDCA’s list of endorsees who “share its values” also include Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Iranian congresswoman who also falsely accused Israel of genocide, tried to block arms sales to Israel, falsely accused Israel of “mass starvation”, and went on a Qatari antisemitic podcast to also accuse Israel of atrocities in Lebanon while fighting against Iran’s Hezbollah proxies there.

The JDCA endorsement merely describes her as” a steadfast advocate for a two-state solution “

The endorsement list includes Rep. Sara Jacobs, the Qualcomm heiress dating the grandson of a terrorist, who falsely claimed that Israel “might” have committed genocide and accused it of “ethnic cleansing”. Rep. Jacobs co-sponsored bills attacking Israel and blocking arms to Israel, promoted terrorist propaganda and even attacked the U.S. military for buying weapons from Israel. The JDCA endorsement innocuously claims that she “gives San Diegans a voice on some of the most important issues facing the world” without addressing her hatred of Israel.

The JDCA endorsed Rep. Madeleine Dean, who had falsely accused Israel of perpetrating a “man-made famine” in Gaza, co-signed a J Street letter accusing Israel of violating the non-existent ‘ceasefire’ and demanded that the Trump administration “hold the Israeli government accountable for its actions” through “maximum diplomatic pressure”.

The endorsement list includes Mallory McMorrow, a former senate primary spoiler candidate, who called Gaza a “genocide” and declared, “I’m not accepting AIPAC support… I’ve never accepted their support. And what we are seeing in the Middle East is a moral abomination.”

Not only has the JDCA endorsed sitting anti-Israel members of Congress, but it has endorsed vehemently Democratic anti-Israel challengers running against solidly pro-Israel Republicans.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a former Navy SEAL, became the first member of Congress to visit Israel after Oct 7. The JDCA endorsed Rebecca Cooke, a Mamdani supporter who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is backed by J Street, and had declared that she would oppose military aid to Israel because, “I don’t think that taxpayer dollars should be going to fund the killing of children.”

The JDCA endorsed James Talarico who had declared that, “I have never taken a dime from AIPAC and I have already committed to never taking any” and was boosted by anti-Israel activists who claimed that his victory validated the Democratic Party’s growing turn against Israel.

I reached out to the JDCA and its leaders for comment, but received no response when I inquired if the Jewish Democratic Council had any specific standards for its endorsements, whether it had any ‘red lines’ when it came to Israel and whether it would rethink any of its endorsements now that the candidates had publicly come out against Israel.

The JDCA represents itself to Jewish Democrats as a safe haven and a counter to extremism, but in actuality it endorses and supports political candidates who are deeply hostile to Israel.

The organization is trying to dissuade Jewish Democrats from pulling back from supporting Democrats, even though that was the model successfully adopted by the Islamist ‘Uncommitted’ movement, while promising that the JDCA’s candidates have been vetted to be friendly to Jews.

That is untrue.

The ‘D’ part of the JDCA commands far more of its loyalty and agenda than the ‘J’ part does.

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

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.

35 years after the fall of the USSR the first official Communist DSA member, who admired Stalin, will likely be headed to Congress for the next term, in defiance of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and the Communist Control Act. But who is out there voting for Communists?

Despite the countless millions dead at the hands of the Communist regimes, a significant portion of the electorate has a positive view of Communism as a political movement.

A recent Cato poll shows that more members of Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, have a positive view of Communism than those who have a negative view with around a third splitting each way. Some of this can be attributed to social media propaganda, the educational system and popular culture and helps explain the young activists flocking to the DSA.

43% of ‘students’ rate Communism favorably and only 29% rate it unfavorably making it clear that the higher educational system isn’t just broken, it’s actively recruiting the next generation into extremism, domestic terrorism and totalitarian ideologies of the most terrible kind. This tracks with other polls showing campus support for violence and suppression of free speech.

The ‘Very Favorable’ rating for Communism of 15% by Gen Z and 13% for millennials is in sharp contrast to the 7% rating for Gen X and 2% rating for Baby Boomers who were once seen as the most radical generation. The Communist Party in the 1950s had only 50,000 official members while the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) which is run by Marxist and Communist caucuses already has more than double that many members.

Edgar Hoover’s estimates of Communists and fellow travelers stood at under half a million. The level of “very positive” supporters for Communism among Gen Z is already projected to stand at 10 million, another 9 million or so for Gen Z, another 4.5 million for Gen X and another 1.3 million for the Baby Boomers for a combined projected total of over 25 million Communists.

And that’s only counting those who are “very favorable” to Communism, not the additional 35 million who are only “somewhat favorable” to the murderous totalitarian ideology making for a total of 60 million Americans who are positively disposed towards Communism.

Who are the Communists among us and who is most at risk of going Communist?

The youngest generation tends to have the most radical politics and produces the largest share of Communist, Nazi and Islamist recruits, but there are other indicators as well.

27% of those who define themselves as ‘liberals’ are also either very or somewhat favorably disposed towards Communism: making a further mockery of the term liberal. 29% of Democrat men, 21% of Democrat women and 22% of Kamala Harris voters are also favorable towards Communism.

Demonstrating once again that at least part of the problem is the extended educational system, postgrads are the educational group with the highest level of support for Communism. Their 16% “very favorable” rating for Communism exceeds that of even Gen Z.

Government employees are among the most positively disposed towards Communism with 14% “very favorable” towards Communism and 17% somewhat favorably disposed so that 31% or nearly a third of government employees have a positive view of Communism.

A few generations ago we would have seen that as an urgent national security crisis. Now it just helps explain why our system works so badly and why the bureaucracy is so radical.

While some women have been overrepresented in the ranks of the radicals, men at 26% are far more likely to view Communism positively than women are at only 15%. (This may however be partially balanced by the longer lifespans of women and the shorter lifespans of men.)

At 17%, white people have the lowest support for Communism of any group, while at 37%, black people have the highest rate, with Hispanics at 30%, falling in the middle. The 17% of black people ‘very favorable’ towards Communism is not surprising as Communists had targeted the black community over a hundred years ago, organized some of the first race riots and continue to recruit heavily in the black community.

Communists traditionally used to begin their addresses with “workers and peasants”, but Communism in America doesn’t have much rural appeal. 30% of city dwellers view Communism positively while only 14% of people in rural and 17% of people in suburban areas do. That’s why despite the flannel and gimme cap, Graham Platner is failing among non-college rural voters.

Dense, diverse urban environments with lots of students and young people are the most fertile ground for Communism, which helps explain recent DSA victories in New York City, but suggests that it will have limited headway outside a limited number of areas in the country.

Considering the radical foreign composition of the DSA’s push centering around foreign nationals like Zohran Mamdani, Dariazila Avila Chevalier, Melat Kiros and others, one might have expected Communism to be an immigrant problem, but Americans born to American parents are more susceptible to Communism (22%) compared to the children of immigrants (21%) and immigrants (17%) reflecting the reality that younger generations of Americans have no clue what Communism is while a number of immigrants came to America from countries that were ravaged by Communism. As the son of a refugee from Communism, I have insights into Communism that all too many younger Americans just don’t have as part of their history.

The bad news for the Democrats from these statistics is that Communism has become all too popular among the demographic groups that the party has come to depend on, leftists, younger voters, students, urbanites, black people and the overly educated.

The Democratic Party alienated much of its working class base, southern white people disappeared, so did rural voters in general, and non-college voters, leaving an electorate prone to leftist extremism and a party machinery that had lost the ability to push back against it.

It’s no coincidence that the rise of the ‘Berniecrats’ accompanied the ‘Obamaization’ of the party and the loss of the rural and the working class base. Every political cycle, Democrats have become more radicalized, more prone to extremist ideology, and Socialists, Marxists and even Communists are their next steps on the road from democracy to tyranny.

Unless the Democrats break the cycle of extremism, theirs will be a Communist Party.

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

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.