Democrats scored a big win when they flipped the Michigan Supreme Court by electing Justice Elizabeth Welch. Dems had promoted Welch, a radical leftist activist, with the promise that she would “Put People First”: instead in her latest ruling, she decided to put monkeys first.

The case had been brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project which brings lawsuits on behalf of the “right to liberty of animals”, arguing that “common law courts must recognize our nonhuman animal clients as legal persons with the fundamental right to bodily liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus” requiring that they should be released from zoos. The Project argues that monkeys like “African Americans, and Native Americans used to be considered legal things”: which is probably the most racist thing that anyone not wearing a KKK hood has ever said.

The rest of the Michigan Supreme Court did not show any interest in granting habeas corpus to monkeys, except for Justice Elizabeth Welch who wrote that she would like to explore whether “chimpanzees possess a common law right to bodily liberty” and rejected the idea that “the Book of Genesis is a sound foundation for Michigan common law”. Justice Welch cited Peter Singer, the godfather of the animal rights movement, who had argued for killing children and the elderly, and had defended having sex with animals. According to Welch, “chimpanzees can think, feel, love, grieve, and yearn” and we should follow Peter Singer’s call to expand our circle of moral concern.

Can babies feel and love? Apparently not enough to keep from being murdered in the womb.

Welch’s campaign had been backed by Planned Parenthood and as part of the new majority, she took part in the court’s suppression of any legislation protecting the rights of unborn children. In an IVF case, the court also took the position that the right of a male divorced parent to prevent a child from being born trumped the right of the mother to allow the child to be born.

This is in keeping with Peter Singer’s view that a child may be killed even 28 days after birth.

As soon as Welch was seated, she began issuing a string of radical decisions that favored her party, including campaigning to remove President Trump from the Michigan ballot in the 2024 election because of the J6 riots, and restricting Republican poll watchers from catching fraud.

Justice Welch also argued that adult criminals should be treated like children, but actual children should be killed. When it came to adult murderers, Welch complained that their “automatic condemnation to die in prison at 18 was cruel” and forced judges to use female pronouns when talking about transgender men who falsely claim to be women. Calling for granting human rights to monkeys on behalf of an organization equating black people and monkeys while rejecting the Bible in favor of a man who defended sex with animals as the moral touchstone for Michigan may well be the pinnacle of her young judicial career.

But it also gets at the larger question of what rights are and who deserves them. A chimp has a right not to be in a zoo and a group of left-wing lawyers should be allowed to bring a habeas corpus case on behalf of monkeys who have no concept of what a lawyer is and even less concept of the law than Justice Elizabeth Welch, but let a pro-life group try to bring a habeas corpus case on behalf of an unborn child and Welch would boot it in a land speed law record.

(What her position would be in a pro-crime habeas corpus case of the kind that was filed on behalf of the unborn child of a pregnant woman in prison in Florida might be more interesting since it would bring into conflict the abortion imperative to deny personhood to unborn children with the pro-crime agenda of freeing criminals using any and every possible trick in the book.)

Justice Welch rejected the historic origins of rights as the work of “18th century British jurists”, but then where does her conception of rights actually come from and that of her movement?

The answer gets at the grave threat that leftist jurisprudence poses to actual civil rights.

When choosing between a baby and a chimp, Justice Welch is making political choices, not ones based on any legal tradition, but that derive from her ideological empathy. A chimp is worthy of empathy because granting it rights ‘expands the moral circle of concern’ and overturns the Bible while granting rights to an unborn child would take away the right to abortion and affirm the Bible. The rest is specious reasoning that is inserted in order to achieve that political end.

Leftist empathy is not that of some tender ‘bleeding heart’ (a conservative stereotype of the 80s) but the selective weaponization of emotion that chooses to care about some while choosing not to care about others. That means caring about chimps, not babies, and caring about men who want to play women’s sports, and not the women being victimized by them, it means crying over 18-year-old murderers while dismissing the suffering of their victims, and siding with Islamic terrorists over those whom they kill. The ‘circle of moral concern’ cited by Justice Welch is really a Bermuda Triangle representing an odd shape in which pity disappears as often as it appears.

The movement that Justice Welch is part of kills children while claiming that it’s fighting for civil rights, in the name of intersectionality, it progressively destroys the rights of every group that it once fought for and it terminates the rule of law and replaces it with ideological hysterics.

The more the Left claims to be fighting for civil rights, the worse life keeps getting for everyone.

Justice Welch was supposed to “put people first”: instead she put monkeys first, but the monkeys shouldn’t get too confident. First the Left adopts your cause, then it sells you out.

And then before too long, the monkeys will be asked to check their privilege.

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

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.

Passenger airline crashes are unusual, intentional ones are rare and intentional pilot crashes are virtually unheard of. Passenger planes are generally flown by highly trained airline pilots, many of them are veterans of their respective air forces, and they remain calm in a crisis.

That’s why there hasn’t been a single case of an American airline pilot deliberately crashing a plane and only one case of an airline pilot taking down a western plane with all onboard and that took place in 2015 when a suicidal first officer crashed Lufthansa’s Germanwings Flight 9525.

The only other case involving a western pilot, but not a western airline, was the crash of Mozambique Airlines Flight TM470 in Africa by a Portuguese pilot. Every other case has involved non-western pilots with two Asian pilots and four Muslim pilots deliberately crashing or trying to crash planes: including the first known deliberate crash of a passenger plane by an airline pilot that took place in 1994 when Captain Younes Khayati deliberately disabled the autopilot on Royal Air Maroc Flight 630 and crashed the plane into a mountain.

The list of Muslim suicide pilots also includes EgyptAir Flight 990 in 1999 where the first officer kept shouting “Allahu Akbar” while downing the plane as well as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, the subject of endless fantastic conspiracy theories ranging from UFOs to black holes, but that was actually likely the work of Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah.

After the FlyDubai incident in which an Omani Muslim pilot stabbed an Indian pilot in a reported attempt to hijack Flight FZ1073 bound for Israel and possibly crash the plane, the list of Muslim pilots who tried to bring down airplanes is up to 4.

And that means that 44% of pilots who deliberately crashed tried to crash planes were Muslim.

These statistics are all the more startling since Muslim pilots and airlines make up a very limited percentage of the airline travel sector. The Asian and North American market together account for 66% of flights, Europe adds another 23%, Africa comes in at only around 3% and the Middle East only accounts for 5%. Despite that, the Middle East and Africa account for a disproportionate number of deliberate pilot crashes when they represent a tiny minority of flights.

The troubling statistic that nearly half of pilots attempting to crash their own planes were Muslim does not take into account Muslim hijackings, including the Islamic terror attacks of September 11, or any other hijacking attempts, but is limited only to pilots crashing passenger airline planes.

If we were to count hijackings, 9/11 alone would ensure a much worse track record for Muslims flying planes since these were by far the deadliest cases of pilots, however illegal and illegitimate, weaponizing jet airplanes to cause as much damage and loss of life as possible.

The latest incident raises serious questions about the risk entailed by both Muslim pilots and Muslim airlines operating in the United States of America and other known terror targets.

The EgyptAir Flight 990 crash off Nantucket led to claims of Islamophobia when investigators flagged the shouts about Allah on the cockpit recording as concerning even though the crash predated 9/11. The Egyptians initially refused to cede control of the investigation and experts were dispatched to explain Muslim theology to Americans. We were firmly told that when First Officer Gameel Al-Batouti took the opportunity to seize control of the plane while the captain was in the bathroom and sent the plane diving while shouting about “Allah”, this was normal.

It turned out that Al-Batouti had deliberately crashed the plane. The Egyptians refused to admit it and it took extensive work and an attempt by another Egyptian pilot to defector before we got anywhere close to the truth. Even then there were suspicions that it had been a terrorist act that were never proven, confirmed or even discussed because of the political sensitivity of the crash.

A similar cover-up would likely have ensued had the FlyDubai takeover ended in a crash. But instead the Israeli passengers stormed the cockpit, disabled the attacking pilot and allowed the relief pilots to take control of the aircraft. But it is unlikely that the authorities on the ground, currently the Saudis, will allow the truth about what really happened in the air to come out.

It’s unknown how many of the deliberate Muslim airline crashes were due to pilot terrorism because the Muslim countries involved tended to avoid any discussion of the motives involved.

Some of these crashes by Muslim pilots have been attributed to personal issues, ranging from workplace frustration to a failed love affair, while others, notably EgyptAir Flight 990, were falsely attributed to mechanical failure, but western investigators have rarely had direct access to family members, friends and local officials making it very difficult for them to learn anything.

There have been red flags in some of those crashes that raise the possibility of terrorism.

Is it really a coincidence that intentional pilot crashes began in 1994, two years after the first Al Qaeda attack and a year after the World Trade Center bombing, and further crashes have roughly paralleled an upsurge in Islamic terrorist activity?

The passengers on the Royal Air Maroc Flight 630, apart from a Kuwaiti prince, were mostly Europeans while the passengers on the EgyptAir Flight 990 were a mix of Americans and Egyptians, but notably included 33 Egyptian military officers who would have been seen as targets by the Muslim Brotherhood and its various splinter groups including Al Qaeda.

A plane full of Israelis flying to Israel would be viewed as a golden ticket to Islamic ‘paradise’ for any devout Muslim. Especially when that plane could have also crashed into an Israeli building or facility on the way down. The death toll from such an attack could have been extremely severe and also tempting enough to explain what happened on Flight FZ1073.

The troubling statistic that nearly half of deliberate pilot crashes were carried out by Muslim pilots should make us think about where we fly, who we fly with and whom we allow to fly into 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.

Everything white is a problem. Not just white people, who are obviously the worst, but also milk (“The Troubling Link Between Milk and Racism” George Washington University), white swans (“A Swan Has Been Accused of Attacking Students from Ethnic Minorities”) and now it’s time for white paint, all too ubiquitous in our racist society, to face its own long delayed racial reckoning.

The National Book Foundation has announced it’s doing its part to battle systemically racist paint by shortlisting “A Dead White: An Argument Against White Paint” for its non-fiction award.

Written by Columbia University Associate Professor Wendy S. Walters, “A Dead White” delves into the hidden racism of our walls which are white in most homes instead of black because paint was invented by dead white racist heteropatriarchal capitalist slave owners.

According to Professor Walters, there are “black transwomen murdered with alarming targeted frequency”. When she saw the walls of her children’s school, she felt “apprehension” and wrote, “I could not stop thinking about the walls. I said to myself: They are so very white.”

A less sensitive person might assume that white is the most reflective color and painting walls white maximizes the effectiveness of natural and artificial light. But that person is probably a white racist who drinks milk, lives in a house with white walls and has never even thought about the targeted campaign of mass murder against “black transwomen” by Sherwin-Williams.

After trying to convey her “disapproval of the new school’s white walls” to another black parent, only to be dismissed out of hand by a fellow black woman, Professor Walters “had a sense of foreboding, as if some kind of betrayal was imminent”. She began to weep while picking up “breakfast sausage” from the supermarket and thought “white paint is getting me down.”

Predictably, Walters claims that “white paint represents something beyond itself”. That’s just the academic version of Charles Manson believing the Beatles were telling him to kill people. White paint isn’t a symbol, it’s a function: wokeness compresses everything into a symbolic conspiracy theory which reduces its followers to conspiratorial loonies and makes everyone into the enemy.

In true intersectional fashion, Professor Walters decided that “my problem stemmed from the intersection of color and material. White paint.” The demonization of white paint rests on the demonization of all white things as symbols for white people. The familiar narrative is that white symbolizes cleanliness and purity, but is really an absence created and maintained by white supremacy so that white people don’t have to experience the messiness of diversity.

We’re surrounded by white because white people run everything and keep other colors down.

The idea that white is neutral is itself white supremacy and so anything white comes to represent white supremacy. Dress that academic Marxism up in the faux lyricism of Alice Walker and you end up with senseless sentences like “the viewers’ ability to recognize blankness depends on how much enthusiasm they put towards the practice of not seeing evidence of human, animal, astronomical, or celestial presence.” White people, am I right?

Academia is now full of woke Pauls having their ‘Road to Racist Damascus’ moment by hyper-sensitizing themselves to racism and then waiting for that anti-zen moment when they see something that triggers them into realizing that they’ve always been living in a white matrix.

It can be highways, milk or whitewashed walls and then the big money grants swiftly follow.

In 2020, Walters, who already had a Ford Foundation fellowship, received a $100,000 grant from Creative Capital to write a “book-length polemic against the use of white paint in both interior and exterior spaces” using money looted from the hijacking and destruction of the Doris Duke Foundation. Doris Duke had wanted the money to be used to maintain her lovely house and gardens, instead the gardens were trashed and the money was used to fund, among other things, denunciations of white people with their white skins, white milk and white paint.

Creative Capital awards are highly selective and “over 76 percent identify as people of color, 54 percent identify as women, and 12 percent as trans or gender nonbinary; two identify as being disabled.” Are they actually disabled or do they merely identify as disabled? That’s the kind of question only a person who sits surrounded by white walls (as I do) would probably ask.

But hopefully the check from Creative Capital wasn’t white.

Six years later, a book on the evils of white paint is on the shortlist or the longlist for the National Book Awards. The book would have been timely back in 2020 and 2021 when any insane critical race theory polemic made the publishing industry swoon all the way down 5th Avenue.

BLMers can no longer afford mansions and they’ve been overshadowed by illegals and Hamas.

Winning isn’t a sure bet, after all other contenders in the NBA (the more woke and less athletic one) include a book by the spawn of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn about the revolutionary virtues of murdering innocent people as well as “The Rise of Islamophobia in America” so this is going to be a matchup between two generations of terrorism. And terrorists won the last one.

I’m not sure a warmed-over BLM manifesto is going to do it. But Walters got a lucky boost when Bret Stephens, the token non-woke New York Times columnist, included her book in a roundup of National Book Award absurdities including Hannah Lillith Assadi’s novel “inspired by the life of her late Palestinian father”, a novel that “explores Colombia’s queer underground community”, a “queer epic” set in Kingston, Jamaica and one about “a trans healthcare worker” who has been diagnosed with autism”. It’s a reminder that AOC’s claim about ‘Woke 1’ is a disingenuous political dodge and wokeness is alive, well and completely dominating everything.

But if Prof. Walters wins, maybe she’ll finally make enough money to paint her walls some other colors. Mobs of activists can rampage down hallways and paint them black. And we can have another reckoning over race because the last one just didn’t have a high enough body count.

Curiously enough, “A Dead White: An Argument Against White Paint” is written on white paper.

No one has thus far announced a book on the evils of white paper and the virtues of blackness because a serious commitment to its principles would require printing it in dark mode. And most people don’t actually like reading entire pages full of white letters on a black background (probably because they’re racists who prefer blankness to encountering celestial myopia.)

But then most people don’t like dark spaces, let alone black walls, but prefer light. This isn’t a symbolic commentary on race, it’s just how our eyes and our souls work.

At least for those of us who can see light instead of race.

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.

Ousman Ceesay, a Muslim migrant from the Gambia, collected a list of gay venues, went to Venture-N, a Tucson gay bar, and killed two people, and the media didn’t mention Islam.

It’s not the first time. Since 2023, Muslim terrorists have targeted gay people every single year.

The Tucson Police Department has said that “this shooting was a targeted attack motivated by hate toward the LGBTQIA+ community,” but carefully avoided mentioning where that hatred was coming from even though just two months ago a Muslim terrorist had rammed a car into the Berlin Pride Parade and last year three Muslim men from Dearborn, Michigan, two of them named Mohammed, had been arrested in a plot to shoot up gay bars in Detroit.

There have been 4 Muslim terror plots against the Chicago, Phoenix, Seattle and Philly Pride parades in just the last 5 years without a single media report connecting the dots.

The Gambia, a 95% Muslim country, is notorious for its particular hatred for gay people.

“We are in a Muslim dominated country and I will not and shall never accept such individuals,” former Gambian President Yahya Jammeh had warned, vowing to “cut off the head” of any gay person and bragging about laws “stricter than those in Iran”. The Islamic Council of Gambia had cheered, “We thank President Jammeh for leading the battle against homosexuality in Africa.”

Gambia was one of the countries placed on President Trump’s restricted travel ban. Unfortunately, gay rights groups chose to fight the ban and invite in more gay bar killers.

Gay rights groups promote the mass migration of Muslims to America despite the fact that Muslims have been vastly overrepresented in the list of violent attacks on gay people. GLAD and the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project filed briefs opposing efforts to limit travel from Muslim terror states to America. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) opposed the travel ban, claiming that the gay rights group “will continue to stand up against all forms of Islamophobia and call out the danger this travel ban creates for LGBTQ people abroad.”

The lack of a travel ban from Muslim terror states is creating danger for gay people in America.

Two of the three worst mass murders at gay clubs in America, the Pulse Massacre and the Venture-N shooting, were carried out by Muslim believers acting in the name of Islam.

Omar Mateen, the Afghan Muslim terrorist who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, carried out the largest massacre of gay people in America. While Mateen may not have known he had selected a gay club, he began his manifesto with the words, “in the name of Allah”. And many subsequent Muslim terror plots, including those inspired by the Pulse massacre, deliberately targeted gay people.

In 2014, Musab Mohammed Masmari, a Libyan Muslim immigrant, used gasoline to set fire to the staircase of Neighbours: a gay club in Seattle in order to burn alive those instead. There were 750 people upstairs in the crowded gay bar. Mohammed had reportedly told a man whom he met at a mosque that “homosexuals should be exterminated”. Then he tried to flee to Turkey.

That same year, Ali Muhammad Brown killed two men outside R Place, a gay nightclub in Seattle, “because he believed they were homosexual” as a form of ‘Jihad”. The Muslim terrorist had lured the men through the Grindr app. “My mission is vengeance,” Brown, who was wanted as a sex offender for trying to solicit a minor, warned, calling it his “jihad against Americans.”

The two locations were two blocks apart in the Capitol Hill gay area in Seattle. And yet two Muslim terrorist attacks against two gay bars two blocks apart in the same year were never connected together as part of a larger pattern or reported on as a threat by the media.

“I’m going to place a bomb in a gay club, Wallah,” Amer Al-Haggagi, a Yemeni Muslim living in California, pledged. He was arrested in 2017 for allegedly planning bombings in the Bay Area a month after the Pulse massacre. “I live close to San Francisco. That’s like the gay capital of the world. I’m going to handle them right.”

Even though Al-Haggagi had been sentenced to 15 years in prison, Judge Milan Smith, who had previously cracked down on a coach praying before a high school football game, intervened to cut down the terrorist’s sentence to only 6 years, forcing his premature release from prison.

In 2019, Fabjan Alameti, an Albanian Muslim, was arrested after talking about carrying out an attack against a government building, “gay club,” or Jewish temple. In 2021, Elvin Hunter Bgorn Williams, a Muslim convert, urged another Muslim to attack the Seattle Pride Parade. “‘Come on do it with me. Let’s go f____ do the gay pride parade in downtown Seattle.’ It’s one of the biggest pride parades in the United States,” he urged. “If we get a semi-truck, we can drive all the way through the parade.”

The number of Muslim terror plots against gay venues has continued to increase and since 2023, there has not been a single year without a Muslim terror plot targeting gay people.

In 2023, Muhyyee-Ud-din Abdul-Rahman was arrested in a plot to allegedly place bombs in trash cans along the route of the Philadelphia Pride Parade. In 2024, an ISIS chat room discussed an attack against the Chicago Pride Parade. “We will be att@cking the Chicago pride parade with a backpack,” and that same year, Marvin Aneer Jalo, talked about using a bomb drone to attack the Phoenix Pride Parade.

In 2025, Mohmed Ali, Majed Mahmoud and another Dearborn Muslim man were arrested after scouting gay bars in Detroit as possible targets around Halloween. (This Halloween terror plot by three Muslim men should not be confused with the other Halloween terror plot by three other Muslim men that same year to massacre Jews and rape Jewish women in New Jersey.)

And much like liberal Jews, LGBTQ groups are inviting the biggest threat to their people inside.

After the Venture-N shooting, local and national gay rights groups complained about ‘homophobia’ and tried to imply that Republicans were the problem. Ousman Ceesay wasn’t MAGA, he was a Muslim migrant from a Muslim country on Trump’s travel ban list whose former leader hated gay people so much that he bragged about wanting to cut off their heads.

Gay rights groups fought for the rights of Gambian Muslims like Ousman to come to America.

One of the men killed in the Venture-N shooting had been a vocal advocate for Muslim terrorists in Gaza. It didn’t save him from being killed by Muslim terrorists in America. Gay rights groups that advocate for Muslim mass migration to America are ensuring the murder of gay people.

Fighting for the Islamization of America isn’t gay rights: it’s gay suicide.

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 same liberal American and European politicians who routinely ignore the abuses of the Chinese, Pakistani and Qatari regimes rushed out to condemn the 3,000 acre expansion of the Israeli city of Ma’ale Adumim (Red Rock Heights) into the neighborhood of Mevaseret Adumim (Red Rock Herald) or, as its mayor has promised, it will be named after Trump once it’s actually built.

That is assuming it ever is.

The project has been underway for 30 years and has been stalled due to political pressure. It was last shut down by the Netanyahu government, after threats from Biden, in June 2023.

Since then the political landscape has changed.

“The Israeli government’s decision to advance the illegal E1 settlement project is unacceptable,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned.

British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband claimed that issuing a tender authorizing bids to potentially build houses on those 3,000 acres is “the crossing of a longstanding red line.”

The “longstanding red line” isn’t killing Jews: it’s Jews living.

19 Senate Democrats, including half the Jewish Dem delegation consisting of Sen. Adam Schiff, Sen. Eliza Slotkin, Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Brian Schatz, a militant anti-Israel figure, are joining in a bill to sanction Israel backed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose hostility to Israel’s existence only narrowly falls short of Sen. Bernie Sanders who probably only failed to join this bill because it fails to formally call for destroying Israel.

The bill proposes sanctions on “the investment in, or construction of infrastructure that has the purpose or effect of facilitating the establishment of Israeli settlements, Israeli settlement units, or related structures in the E1 area of the West Bank, including roads, water systems, sewage systems, and electricity infrastructure” and “facilitating the transfer of Israeli civilians into Israeli settlements.”

Build water pipes for a Jewish community or maintain them as a plumber and 19 Senate Democrats will sanction you and then send millions more to Islamic terrorists.

What’s actually at stake here?

According to to the politicians and many media accounts (none of which give the actual acreage of land involved), having Jews living on the 3,000 acres near Jerusalem would “make the two-state solution unviable” (Miliband) or “would largely sever the northern half of the West Bank from the southern half, complicating the prospect of a viable, contiguous Palestinian heartland” (New York Times), but if your ‘Palestinian state’ can be severed by 3,000 acres, how viable was it?

The ‘Palestinian state’ in question is run by a 90-year-old dictator who hasn’t held elections in 20 years. Its budget consists of demanding money from other countries to give to terrorists. In the decades since it was set up, the Palestinian Authority depends on Israeli or foreign aid for pretty much everything and its only real efforts are directed at demanding UN recognition.

If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, the Palestinian Authority would vanish 5 minutes later.

The ‘Two State Solution’, which after nearly 50 years has solved absolutely nothing and destroyed everything, has never been threatened by terrorism or the mass murder of Jews, but a few thousand homes filled with living Jews can somehow always threaten to destroy it.

Media coverage and statements by politicians make it sound as if an expansion in the city of Ma’ale Adumim is some conspiracy made by maneuvering people into living there for no reason except to block the existence of an otherwise “viable” ‘Palestinian’ state run by a 90-year-old dictator who last held an election when Borat (coincidentally) was in theaters.

But if that were so, an apartment in Ma’ale Adumim wouldn’t be going for $650,000. The housing shortage in the Jerusalem area has been badly exacerbated by international pressure to stop building houses anywhere that the bankrupt Islamic terrorist group out of Ramallah might want to claim for its own at some indefinite point in time when it will agree to a peaceful settlement. Considering that its ruling Fatah party just called for unity with Hamas to “defeat Israel”, that might take a while. And meanwhile thousands of people need someplace to live.

UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband lives in a $3.6 million four-story London mansion near the former site of the Soviet TASS propaganda agency, but not everyone can get by that way.

The real objection is not that building houses on 3,000 acres will ‘cut off’ a ‘Palestinian state’, but that it interferes with the goal of building up terrorist base communities to cut off Ma’ale Adumim and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and make living there unviable.

The real lesson of Oct 7 was that when the corrupt Olmert government expelled the Jewish population of Gaza, it also took away the defensive barrier that prevented a Hamas invasion of Israeli communities near the border with Gaza. Israeli towns and cities don’t threaten Arab Muslim settlers in the area because their residents are never going to swarm them, rape the women, kill the men and take whoever is left hostage. The same can’t be said for ‘Palestinians’.

The Israeli solution to Palestinian Authority complaints about ‘contiguity’ is to build a bypass road for them to use while the Palestinian Authority solution was taking part in the Oct 7 attacks.

Massacres and real estate are not the same, but only one is a ‘red line’ to the UK government.

The Israeli government after Oct 7 sees no reason to continue delaying Mevaseret Adumim in the hopes that the other side will come around because there is nothing to come around to anymore. Israel was told to hold off on building up ‘Metropolitan Jerusalem’ because one day it would be needed as a bargaining chip and a concession for a ‘Palestinian’ state.

Families in Jerusalem have lived in squalor and been unable to afford housing for generations while waiting for the Messiah to come or, even more improbably, for their Arab Muslim neighbors to agree to a final deal and end the violence. The construction of houses on those 3,000 acres for some 3,000 families means that they won’t be held hostage to a peace that will never come.

The propaganda barrage about “settler violence” filling the media is just confirming that the other side is not only acting in bad faith, but intends to ‘Gazafy’ the conflict in Judea and Samaria. And if so, Israel might as well head off another Oct 7 by building around Jerusalem.

If Democrats and the European Union really wanted to change that, it could take a break from condemning Israel for anything and everything, and actually create some expectations and accountability for the terror state whose depredations its members keep funding with billions in foreign aid. The Biden administration had set new records in sending money to the ‘Palestinian’ areas ahead of Oct 7 and as of last year, the EU had promised $1.8 billion to the Palestinian Authority across three years.

Instead, as ‘no go zones’ rise in London and New York, they want a ‘no go zone’ for Jews in Israel.

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.

“Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens. These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that,” President George W. Bush had claimed in remarks at a mosque after 9/11 while accompanied by terror-linked Islamists. “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace.”

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently asked the former president to talk about his mosque visit after the attacks to “make sure that our Muslim American citizens knew that we didn’t blame them for what had happened.” Bush chimed in, “I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion.”

Muslims, however, don’t agree. It’s not just the generation of Islamic terrorist attacks that have taken place in America since then, the vast majority of which were not organized or planned out by any central terror network like Al Qaeda, but by ordinary Muslims living in the United States.

Some of them may have even paid their taxes.

While Bush was nostalgically recalling his comments after 9/11, the father of Todd Beamer, one of the heroes who led the effort to retake Flight 93 from the Islamic terrorists who had hijacked it, was recording a commercial against Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. David Beamer had not previously gotten involved in politics, but El-Sayed had been campaigning with Hasan Piker, a Turkish Muslim influencer who said that “America deserved 9/11” and recently told an interviewer that “pound for pound”, America was worse than Al Qaeda and that was too much.

What does it say that Abdul El-Sayed and Zohran Mamdani, the two most prominent Muslim politicians right now, have both been tied to a Muslim who said, “America deserved 9/11”?

Or that the biggest expansion of Islamic political power in America came after Muslims rallied on behalf of Hamas after Oct 7 (Hasan Piker had defended Hamas as “a militant resistance comprised of orphaned soldiers born into a 77-year occupation” and dismissed its atrocities as “rape fantasies”) and in doing so hijacked the Democratic Party to elect terrorist supporters.

Their current crop of candidates includes Melat Kiros, a Colorado congressional candidate who refused to condemn a Muslim terrorist setting a Holocaust survivor on fire, Dariazila Avila Chevalier, a Muslim congressional candidate in New York City who attended a rally celebrating the Oct 7 massacres, Aisha Wahab, a Muslim congresswoman in California who called for diplomatic relations with the Taliban, and Hisham ‘Adam’ Hamawy, the former translator for the Blind Sheikh terror leader at the center of the World Trade Center bombing, and who had volunteered for an Al Qaeda front group. The mask is off and they aren’t hiding it anymore.

Last year, every Muslim member of Congress called for reparations to Muslims for 9/11.

Bush’s sanctimonious lectures about how Muslims oppose terrorism and how terrorism is incompatible with Islam are as dated as he is. Since then, the narrative has pivoted from “Muslims oppose terrorism” to “Muslims support terrorism and that’s a good thing.”

The thing that isn’t happening has become the thing that was happening all along. And now we’re being told that it’s a very good thing by the very people who lied that it wasn’t happening.

Zohran Mamdani arranged to have a 9/11 commemorative pen passed to terror lawyer Ramzi Kassem, whom he appointed as New York City’s top lawyer, after his work representing Islamic terrorists and his contention right after the attacks that, “This is not a battle of good versus evil” but were the result of the “resentment these terrorists felt towards the United States” and argued that “the legacy of 9/11 ought to be recounted primarily through the stories of Muslims the world over who have largely paid the price of American power and prosperity.”

Mamdani didn’t pick him despite his past actions and words, but because of them.

Piker, El-Sayed and Mamdani don’t represent every Muslim in America, but their political activism follows the trend of institutional Islamic political power in America embodied in Islamist groups like CAIR and ISNA, both unindicted terror funding co-conspirators, local Muslim governments from Dearborn to Hamtramck, and local Muslim Democratic clubs, like the Muslim Democratic Club of New York where Mamdani got his start, whose co-founder Linda Sarsour had bragged, “I would be honored to die a martyr.”

There may be Muslims who oppose Islamic terrorism, but they have no political representation.

When CAIR, an unindicted terrorism funding co-conspirator whose leader celebrated the Oct 7 attacks, announced that it was trying to register 3 million Muslim voters, it suggests that the vast majority of Muslims living in America see things more Hasan Piker’s way than Bush’s way.

Rather than push back against it, we’re being pushed to accept and normalize this behavior.

Hasan Piker has made a grand tour of the media from the Wall Street Journal to Axios to expound on how much he hates America and how much better Al Qaeda is than America. Abdul El-Sayed has refused to disavow him even while facing a competitive Senate race because normalizing Islamic terrorism is more important to the Islamic movement than a Senate seat.

And they’re betting that Abdul El-Sayed can normalize Islamic terrorism and win the seat too.

MSNOW (the former MSNBC) praised Piker as an “anti-imperialist”. Similar euphemisms are being used to describe Hamas supporters and, in some sectors of the Left, Hamas.

Islamic terrorism has been rebranded as the new anti-imperialism.

When a Muslim terrorist rammed his pickup truck into a Michigan synagogue, targeting the 100 kids in its preschool, the media rushed to defend the act by insisting that the terrorist had lost family members in an Israeli strike. They neglected to mention that his brother had been a Hezbollah commander. Abdul El-Sayed excused the attack with “hurt people, hurt people”.

CNN shamed the 45% of Michigan voters who reportedly responded that they were hesitant to vote for a Muslim as ‘Islamophobes’, but when the top Muslim politician in their state makes excuses for Muslim terrorists killing kids and pals around with an influencer who argued that “America deserved 9/11”, is it really ‘Islamophobic’ to be worried about the consequences?

Bush asked Americans to accept that most Muslims were not terrorist supporters and were disgusted by the September 11 attacks. And most Americans wanted to believe it was true.

Now they’re being asked to accept that Muslims support the September 11 attacks. And that’s a good thing because America had it coming. No one seems to have asked what we have coming now. If the killing of 3,000 people in New York, D.C. and Pennsylvania was justified by our foreign policy a generation ago, what kind of massacre of Americans would be justified today?

And what role would Hasan Piker’s political Islamic friends play in enabling such a genocide?

The establishment has gone from assuring us that Muslims don’t want to kill us to assuring us that we deserve to be killed by Muslims for all the ways in which we have wronged them.

Accusing Muslims of supporting terrorism has gone from the unthinkable to a progressive virtue.

Muslims support terrorism and it’s a good thing. After all that’s why leftists like them. It’s not the foot washing, the special anal cleansing rituals, the obsession with covering the hair of their women or the female genital mutilation that made them the central cause of pomo leftism.

There’s only one reason that leftists like anyone and it’s because they kill people.

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 month, Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations revealed that the “Fiqh Council of North America issued a legal ruling (fatwah) in coordination with the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America” that allowed Muslim charitable contributions or Zakat to be used for political donations. Sperry estimated that this could unlock a “potential political war chest of more than $140 million a year in mosque and other donations” for pro-Islamic candidates.

While the political implications of that ruling are quite significant, what is revealing is the basis on which the ruling was made. The Fiqh Council based this ruling on the precedent of “mu’allafah qulūbuhum” which is translated as “for those whose hearts are attracted ˹to the faith”. The specific application of this lay in the past when Mohammed was just beginning his conquests and bribed various tribal chieftains to become Muslims or to ally in his reign of terror.

The Fiqh ruling states that this was done “during a crucial and sensitive time after the Conquest of Mecca” to keep non-Muslims, ”from coalescing amongst themselves and uniting to attack the Muslims” and emphasizes that “those who were given were not Muslims at this stage.” Yet.

The basis for Muslim political donations in the United States, is preventing non-Muslims from “coalescing amongst themselves and uniting” to defend themselves. This isn’t civic participation: it’s the tribal divide and conquer politics of the origins of Islamic colonialism and imperialism.

The same old conflicts that Islamized the Middle East are now playing out in America.

The Fiqh Council’s chairman, Yasir Qadhi, operates out of the highly controversial East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) and while serving as its public face has met with members of Congress, and has praised Islamic candidates like Zohran Mamdani, Ilhan Omar and Abdul El-Sayed.

Muzammil Siddiqi, another Fiqh Council member, had called for Islamizing America, arguing, “I believe that as Muslims we should participate in the system to safeguard our interest and try to bring gradual change for the right cause, the cause of truth and justice. We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Politicians from Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders to Rep. Ro Khanna have appeared at ISNA events without likely understanding the contempt that their hosts have for them. When they receive political donations, they’re being bribed, in the words of the Fiqh ruling, that allows giving Zakat to “non-Muslims for whom giving zakat helps in repelling their evil from Muslims.”

What do the Islamists giving political donations think of them? The Fiqh ruling argues that Zakat or charity may be diverted to “non-Muslims, or to those of questionable personal character, when that secures a general benefit for the Muslim community.” The contempt that the Fiqh Council has for America and Americans is almost as great as the contempt that the politicians who take their money have for themselves by allowing Islamic groups to bribe them.

This ruling is controversial within Islamic theocratic law because many Muslim jurists argue that such bribery was a temporary response by Mohammed until he and his successors became powerful enough to subjugate and terrorize everyone in the region into submitting to Islam. And there is no “mu’allafah qulūbuhum” now that Muslims are strong and feared worldwide.

The question of whether Zakat can be used to bribe American politicians is largely strategic.

What’s the long-term future? The Fiqh ruling cites the precedent that “the Prophet gave to a group of non-Muslims solely to minimize their criticism against Islam; and that Abu Bakr gave to non-Muslims in his caliphate; but in the reign of Umar, he decided that there was no longer any need in his time to do so.” To understand the historical context here, Abu Bakr had been expanding into Iraq and Syria, while Umar conquered them, as well as Israel, Egypt and parts of Armenia, while assailing the Byzantine and Persian empires. The bribes are only needed to divide and conquer non-Muslims until the point where Muslims have gained power over them.

Islamic leaders see this as being as true in America as it was for them in the Middle East.

Koran 9:60’s idea of using Zakat to bribe non-Muslims operates within the larger context of the jihad against non-Muslims. It begins with Mohammed and Allah declaring that non-Muslims were doomed, that any treaty with them was temporary and ordered Muslims to, “kill the infidels wherever you find them.” (This quote from Koran 9:5 has been used by Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups.) Only those non-Muslims who convert to Islam will be safe. While Islamic apologists have claimed that this only applies to ‘pagans’, subsequent verses make it clear that it applies to Jews and Christians (“They have taken their rabbis and their priests as lords instead of God, as well as the Messiah son of Mary” – Koran 9:30) and the Muslim mission is to “make it prevail over all religions” including Christianity and Judaism.

The Fiqh ruling also raises certain ‘mosque and state’ legal issues.

Under United States election and tax law, there is a legal separation between organizations that engage in lobbying and especially for PACs that donate to candidates, and between non-profits and religious groups. However, the Fiqh ruling asserts that “individuals should not decide by themselves which candidates and causes are worthy”, but that “reputable institutions” composed of “diverse groups of scholars” should “collect and distribute zakat funds on behalf of the body of Muslim in any locality or country” for “influencing political causes”.

These institutions would function in the role of Mohammed (“the category of ‘al-mu’allafah qulūbuhum’ has always been the purview of the walī al-amr – the leader of the community”) and (a “group of trusted scholars and reputable specialists will effectively take on the role of a walī al-amr in order to decide which politicians to hand out ‘zakat’ to”). What that means is that a Sharia system of Islamic scholars would centrally direct the flow of money to politicians for the sake of the Ummah or Muslim community. Individual Muslims might donate the money, but they would not be in a position to decide whom to donate money to. This ‘crosses the streams’ of religious and political institutions and would likely violate tax-exempt and election regulations.

But that’s not even the biggest problem with this proposed Islamic financial political coup.

A Sharia-backed Islamic theocracy would in effect be trying to select American elected officials.

This is a massive violation of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If successful, it would create an Iranian system in this country in which Islamic clerics would control puppet legislatures and executives who would be directed by a shadow Sharia regime.

Muslim PACs previously claimed that they were just people representing their communities. The Fiqh system pulls back the curtain to show a central body of Islamic scholars trying to use money to control the outcome of American elections for “benefitting the Ummah” (meaning the global Muslim community’s local or foreign interests) “either in one’s own country or locality (such as countering a clearly anti-Muslim politician with an agenda of harm) or internationally.”

Any politician taking money routed through this method would be acting as a puppet for an Islamic theocracy which would be using them to covertly exert its control over Americans.

It’s hard to think of anything more un-American than a foreign theocracy hijacking our elections.

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 plenty of good reasons to be concerned about AI: destroying jobs, dumbing down students and the spectacle of people copying and pasting chatbot answers instead of doing their own research. We are looking at the very real possibility that the next generation will primarily relate to the internet, interact socially. and gain information, through AI.

And then there’s the anti-AI op being run by shady groups with prior involvement in ‘disinformation’ speech censorship and climate hysteria, using alarmism to push a deal with Communist China that would impose a global government and eliminate our freedoms.

The op kicked off in D.C. when Sen. Bernie Sanders, an 84-year-old socialist politician whose previous position on technology was that he had no apps on his phone, didn’t seem to recognize the names of major platforms, and had a woman named ‘Melissa’ tell him what he was doing, suddenly announced that he was teaming up with Chinese AI professors for an AI ‘safety’ event at the U.S. Capitol. The professors had been involved in China’s AI governance.

This was followed by a recent ‘Pro-Human Assembly’ featuring such luminaries as Sanders, teachers’ union boss Randi Weingarten, actress Ashley Judd, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Stephen Bannon under the apparent auspices of the Future of Life Institute: which had been involved in the China-Sanders event. Last year, the Institute issued a PhD fellowship proposal for US-China AI governance, urging “global governance” to reduce “the risks associated with a US-China AI competition” and the deployment of advanced AI systems.

Anyone who remembers past deals with China or arms deals with the USSR knows, such a deal would be completely worthless, would be violated by China, and would be used to cripple us.

Future of Life’s ‘Human Statement’ was endorsed by Susan Rice, Bannon, Ralph Nader, Annie Lennox, Stephen Fry and Xiaohu Zhu, the founder of China’s ‘Center for Safe AGI’: a senior researcher at China’s Nanjing University and a member of the ‘Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI’ that is pressing for a global governance deal with China to limit AI development.

The ‘Coalition’ bills this as a ‘Deal of the Century’, a “fast-tracked, temporary bilateral China-US AI treaty to enact controls” over AI in an ‘open call’ endorsed by a number of figures and organizations including Zhu. The Coalition, which is headquartered in Rome, also claims to be “forming a steering board of US AI treaty-advocacy organizations” and to have engaged “ media figures (e.g. Bannon, Carlson, Rogan)” to push its agenda of a China AI treaty.

What is the ‘Coalition’ really calling for? A “powerful and democratic global federal organization with exclusive control over all potentially dangerous AI research, facilities, and source materials.” China isn’t ‘democratic’, so democracy is out, but this organization would be global and would be powerful, and would have control over America, but obviously not over China.

A world government for dangerous AI applications sounds like the worst possible idea ever.

The Coalition proposes an “intergovernmental constituent assembly” that would then be “extensible to other inherently global challenges and public goods, like climate, nuclear, bioweapons, and our digital public sphere.” The latter means a renewed push for internet censorship through a vastly “powerful” global organization with governmental powers.

If this sounds familiar, that’s the exact same ‘fix’ that had been previously advanced for nuclear weapons, global warming and disinformation. Define an urgent threat, propose global governance as the solution, and panic the public so they don’t know they’re losing their rights.

The rash of ‘pop-up’ organizations no one had ever heard of before demanding AI regulation through a deal with China follows the familiar pattern of ‘disinformation’ groups that popped up after President Trump’s win in 2016 claiming to offer expertise on the dangers of online speech and demanding urgent government intervention. In a matter of months, the media, politicians and activists were citing a network of ‘experts’ warning that democracy would soon fall apart.

And some of the organizations advancing anti-AI hysteria were involved with environmentalism and disinformation. We’re told to listen because otherwise the world will end. Sound familiar?

“It may be tempting to succumb to powerlessness, by sticking our heads in the sand or watching doom unfold from the sidelines. But how can we find true peace or look our children in the eyes if we do not at least try to do something to save their future?” The Coalition’s open call clamors.

What are we saving them from? Who’s about to doom our children? The same canned rhetoric they used during the Cold War and for environmentalism is being dusted off all over again.

Who are the ‘experts’ behind the anti-AI campaign warning us of doom?

The ‘Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI’ was spun off from Rufo Guerreschi’s Trustless Computing Association. Trustless was a platform for promoting ‘Seevik’ (civic) , a device that promised to fight ‘disinformation’ by having everyone carry a $200 Seevik encryption around with them to “create and regulate a new global democratic digital public sphere and defend democratic institutions from the rise of authoritarianism.”

Seevik never went anywhere, so Guerreschi, who lists a degree in architecture through Arizona State and one from the University of Miami, and an MS in Urban Planning switched to AI hysteria. It’s not at all clear how his expertise in urban planning qualifies him for regulating AI.

PauseAI US, another member of the Coalition, which is calling for “a global, indefinite pause on frontier AI research until we know that it’s safe”, was founded and is headed by Holly Elmore, a Harvard PhD in Evolutionary Biology, who went to work as an expert on animal welfare, fighting against rat poison, for Rethink Priorities, a left-wing environmentalist group from the Effective Altruism movement, and then formed PauseAI and suddenly became an AI expert.

How did the switch from rat birth control to banning AI happen?

In Holly’s own words, “I was working on wild animal welfare, which is thinking about the welfare of wild animals. But it’s an interesting field. I was pretty qualified to do it, even though it’s such a new field – who really has qualifications – because I have a PhD in evolutionary biology.” But then “around that time, ChatGPT came out and eventually I got so taken by the possibility of pushing for a pause, once I saw that there was such support among the American public for it that I thought, ‘This is a huge opportunity. I have to take it.’”

And she took it.

The former grad student is now all over the media and social media while tweeting that “I want to write an op-ed about how the AI company execs and employees deserve jail” and “It’s not okay to be friends with people who are risking the entire world and the future of humanity. It’s just not. Stop protecting them and making them comfortable. You are taking part in their crime when you tolerate their recklessness.” This is the shrill and unserious state of the movement.

There are legitimate concerns about AI, but the anti-AI hysterics are rarely grounded in any kind of specific concerns and facts. Instead, much as with global warming, it’s heavy on freak-outs and short on science, and unlike global warming, can’t even seem to articulate the threat.

That’s because there are no specifics worth destroying our freedom and national independence.

Actual dangers from AI can be regulated the way we regulate all other products. The anti-AI movement is hyping SciFi intangibles about a superintelligence while using as its example chatbots that have trouble understanding simple commands. They’re seizing a narrow window in which they can frighten us, wield power over us and impose their system on us. And their agenda is about a whole lot more than AI. It’s “extensible” to our entire lives.

AI is not a threat, except in the wrong hands, people looking to control us are the real threat.

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 prior anniversary of the Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11, Rep. Lateefah Simon, the 4th Muslim in Congress, joined the prior 3 Muslims, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Andre Carson, in sponsoring a resolution calling for reparations to Muslims for 9/11.

The resolution claimed that “in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, individuals experienced hate and were targeted by the government on account of their faith, race, national origin and immigration status” and called for “various forms of relief to support those affected.”

The resolution demanded that America acknowledge the “climate of hate” suffered by Muslims, create a commission to work with Islamist groups to dismantle national security, allocate funds to Islamist groups, create “alternatives to law enforcement” to work in Muslim communities and use the National Institutes of Health to study the “impact of hate” on the health of Muslims the way that the health of NYPD and FDNY heroes had been studied after the 9/11 attacks.

It had been a quick start by Rep. Lateefah Simon, who bragged about being the ‘First Muslim Congresswoman in California’ after she had been endorsed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to replace the former Rep. Barbara Lee who had gone on to become the mayor of Oakland. In a short time, Rep. Simon managed to vote against listing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, falsely accused Israel of “genocide”, voted to cut off aid, signed a letter claiming that criticism of Zohran Mamdani was ‘Islamophobic’ and condemned President Trump for cracking down on Antifa.

But she will soon be joined by Rep Aisha Wahab, California’s second Muslim congresswoman, who has already proposed opening diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Wahab was supported by Islamist groups in the election to replace Rep. Eric Swalwell and her call for relations with the Taliban is being viewed by some critics as a payback to the terror-linked groups that backed her.

Rep. Aisha Wahab had targeted both Hindus and Jews, introducing hostile state legislation against Hindus that many in the Indian-American community described as bigoted, and falsely accused Israel of ‘genocide’ for fighting back against Islamic terrorism after the Muslim massacres of Oct 7. Both Hindus and Jews have been longtime targets of Muslim Supremacist groups and some of them jumped in to smear Hindu criticism of Wahab’s hate as ‘Islamophobic’.

Wahab spent much of her political career crying ‘Islamophobia’. When she ran for a city council seat in the Bay Area, Wahab claimed that she was being targeted because she was an Afghan Muslim “There is no Afghan elected official in the entire United States. We are cracking that ceiling of acceptance,” Wahab had whined in 2018, claiming that she was getting ‘racist’ emails asking, “Do you want to live by Sharia law” and inquiring “if I took money from ISIS”.

While there’s no evidence that Rep. Wahab took money from ISIS, she was backed by CAIR Action, an arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which was named as an unindicted terrorist funding co-conspirator, and which ran phone banking for her together with CAIR’s Unity & Justice Fund PAC. CAIR’s leader had celebrated the Oct 7 attacks by Hamas and government exhibits revealed ties between Hamas front groups and CAIR. CAIR has been listed as a terrorist organization by two states. That’s not all that far from taking ISIS money.

(CAIR also expressed support for Rep. Simon. The unindicted terrorist co-conspirator was one of the backers of Simon’s Muslim Reparations for 9/11 bill and might have benefited from it.)

And as for Sharia law, Rep. Wahab’s only notable legislative achievement was co-authoring a bill to add two Muslim holidays to the state calendar, and close public schools and colleges on those days, and teach children about “the history, cultural traditions, and civic significance of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha”, Muslim holidays, violating the separation of mosque and state.

This Islamic intrusion into the public square and the educational system is what Islamists want.

After her racist bill targeting Hindus, Wahab once again played the victim, complaining, “my last name is Wahab, so they love to tie it to Wahhabism, or call me a jihadist or a Talibani. Basically, every racial slur and dog whistle.” Now, Rep. Wahab is under fire for advocating for the Taliban.

Prominent figures in the Afghan diaspora have called out Wahab’s proposal for maintaining diplomatic relations with the Taliban. “We, members of the Afghanistan-American diaspora residing in California’s 14th Congressional District and beyond, unequivocally condemn the recent statements made by congresswoman Aisha Wahab regarding the normalization of the Taliban regime,” a community statement read.

“Aisha Wahab was adopted and raised by Tawab Wahab, a fascist who believes in the ethnic supremacy of the terrorist Taliban,” Yusuf D. Naza, the CEO of the Massoud Foundation, tweeted. “Given this context, it is clear why Wahab, who shares the ethnicity of the Taliban, is, on her first day on the job, advocating for Taliban terrorists who share her ancestry against the multi-ethnic resistance.”

How does California happen to not only have two Muslim congresswomen, but two who are supportive of the worst kinds of Islamic Supremacism? Even though Muslims only make up 1% of California’s population, they control four times their actual representation in California’s congressional delegation. That’s not an organic development, but takes a lot of money.

While anyone can run for office, some are asking why the Muslim congresswomen from California stand up for the Taliban, Hamas and Iran rather than with America. And it also raises the question of whether the rise of Rep. Simon and Wahab is natural or reflects the role of radical leftists and Islamists in moving their allies into public office in support of terrorism.

Rep. Lateefah Simon has built a media image of being a product of oppression and segregation, in reality the former non-profit executive who was pulling in six figures was one of the most politically connected and privileged figures in the Bay Area with ties to Vice President Kamala Harris, Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Ford Foundation and megadonors in the wealthy area.

Simon had been mentored by Kamala Harris and had played leading roles at radical foundations for some of the biggest Democrat megadonors in the state, including the Meadow Fund, founded by Patty Quillin, the pro-crime wife of billionaire Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, and the Akonadi Foundation of Wayne Jordan and Quinn Delaney, also pro-crime megadonors, who together with Quillin had become radical kingmakers in California Democratic political circles.

Both couples had pumped millions into Kamala’s campaigns. Hastings had donated $3 million to the effort to keep Newsom in office while Jordan had been the third biggest donor to the campaign. Little wonder then that Newsom had appointed Simon to a disastrous tenure heading BART, San Francisco’s public transportation system, where she tried to remove police from the trains in the face of a wave of crime and violence, and falsely accused the rest of the board of racism for trying to protect the public from her radical ‘police defunding’ agenda.

Simon was temporarily removed from the BART board after she turned out not to be living in the district, but the radical activist claimed that she had been “receiving multiple threats due to my work on police reform” and after threats from multiple state officials, including Rep. Mia Bonta, the wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta, the BART board illegally agreed to reinstate her.

That’s why Rep. Simon could brag about raising $300,000 in just one month, package endorsements from Gov. Newsom, raise $1.4 million in total campaign cash and declare in her campaign video that her district was “the birthplace of the Black Panther Party.”

In Congress, Rep. Simon has introduced a bill to defund transit police across the country. After just joining the House, while barely knowing how to even cast a vote, the Democratic House leadership made her a deputy whip for policy reflecting not her talents, but the power of her political backers who donate millions to politicians and whose foundations wield billions.

The rise of Rep. Lateefah Simon and Rep. Aisha Wahab, two Muslim congresswomen in a state with only a 1% Muslim population, isn’t natural or organic, it’s the work of wealthy radicals and Islamists who are hostile to the United States of America and friendly to Islamic Supremacists.

That’s why Rep. Simon, out of the gate, wanted America to pay reparations for 9/11 to Muslims and it’s why Rep. Aisha Wahab came out after her election advocating for ties to the Taliban.

While California’s political elite corruptly gerrymander to eliminate the political opposition, they collude to send supporters of the worst kinds of Islamic violence and oppression to Congress.

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

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 Democratic Socialists of America recently issued a statement praising the murderous Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and accusing Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is of Cuban heritage, of waging a “genocidal war against the Cuban people” by maintaining the embargo. After arguing that Israel had committed genocide by not sufficiently delivering food to Hamas, the DSA and some of the same players are arguing that America is committing genocide in Cuba by not allowing commercial dealings with the Communist dictatorship. Similar genocide smears had been hurled at the United States for imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq whose regime, like that of Castro, had engaged in the actual mass murder of its own people.

While leftists have falsely accused America of committing genocide in every war from the Korean War (“the American forces are guilty of the crime of Genocide” – International Association of Democratic Lawyers) to the Iraq War (“an act of genocide” – Workers World), the high point of the genocide lie came during the Vietnam War where the ‘International War Crimes Tribunal’ was convened by intellectuals to convict America of the crime of genocide.

In 1951, the Civil Rights Congress, a Communist front group, and Paul Robeson, a Stalinist, who had defended a regime that murdered millions, had presented We Charge Genocide, a petition to the UN accusing America of genocide in Korea and domestically through racism. During this same period, there were an estimated 2.5 million prisoners in Stalin’s gulag camps.

Read more

After horrifying images of Muslim migrants who had invaded the Spanish North African territory of Ceuta killing a baby dolphin went viral, animal rights activists rallied to their defense.

“The party rejects the instrumentalization of the suffering of a people or of its animals to foment hatred,” Spain’s Partido Animalista (PACMA) party declared. The party whose former name was the ‘Animalist Party Against the Mistreatment of Animals’, was willing to defend animal abusers as long as it advanced the greater cause of Muslim migrants invading Europe.

But that makes PACMA no different than the feminists and gay rights groups advocating for Muslim invaders to enter Europe. Baby dolphins, once the most ironic image of beleaguered animals on whose behalf environmentalists once rallied in the streets, demanding the dismantling of modern industries, and the end of tuna fishing, are now just another sacrifice.

As the siege of Ceuta continues, more images continue to emerge of the animal cruelty that typifies Islamic culture. Beyond the scenes of Muslim migrants beating a baby dolphin to death with a stick, there are more scenes of animals from house pets to geese to an octopus being killed by laughing Muslim mobs demonstrating their control over the beaches of Spain.

Local animal welfare groups report that dogs and cats have been disappearing, seagulls once plentiful on the beaches seem to be absent La Gaceta reports that the bodies of numerous mutilated cats have been turning up “missing half their bodies or pierced with an awl, as well as abused cats”. Islamic scripture is particularly negatively disposed towards dogs, the best friend of civilized man, however cruelty to a wide range of animals has become commonplace in Muslim societies whether these animals are considered ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’.

Unlike geese and seagulls which are being eaten by the invaders, cats appear to be taken and tortured for sport by Muslim migrants who may have anticipated inflicting their cruelty on the local population in Ceuta only to find them barred in their homes and are torturing cats instead.

Some local workers report that the migrants “kill them for pleasure.”

While some social media reports claim that the migrants have been eating cats, doing so would be a violation of Islamic law. The killing of cats appears to be purely malicious.

But what is truly revealing beyond the savage cruelty is the willingness of animal rights activists and leftists to excuse it.

“We shouldn’t focus on the dolphin when people are starving,” a Spanish TV hostess insisted, and “must focus on the migrants” who are only trying to survive. “Of course I love marine life, I’m passionate about dolphins… but focusing on the dolphin when there are people starving kids on the streets is just misplaced.”

In reality, the invading migrants are not starving, nor as she falsely claimed, dying of thirst.

“They’re not hungry, I can tell you that, because they’re fed every day,” a cleaning worker said.

Starving people don’t have the energy to parade around a baby dolphin for the cameras on their $900 iPhones for half an hour before finally killing it.

The dolphins, the cats and dogs, and other animals, wild and domestic, join the long list of causes that leftists pretended to care about before they stopped pretending to care about them, like the working class, women, gay people, Jews, unions, and the environment in general.

Why is the cause of Muslim migrants more important than that of everything else? It’s not.

The reason why the cause of importing invaders into America, Europe and the rest of the free world tops all others is because the real agenda isn’t protecting any single groups, but using them as weapons to destroy capitalism, the middle class and the identity of western civilization.

That is the only way to ensure the completion of the radical revolutions of over two centuries.

Everything else is simply a means to that end. Leftists don’t protest about the environment because they care about whales, dolphins, trees or the planet, but because it’s a means of destroying free enterprise and the middle class. The moment that they discover a better weapon than the environment to enable their revolutionary cause, the dolphins can all go hang.

That is what we’re seeing in Ceuta.

The same cause for which leftists in recent years vandalized cars, paintings and statues across America and Europe, the one which they claimed threatens the survival of the planet, stops mattering the moment that a horde of Muslim migrants storm their way onto Spanish soil.

If environmentalists really cared about the planet, they would be fighting against mass migration. Mass migration to America under the Biden administration by around 11 million migrants led to the emission of a grand total of between 2,200,000 and 11,000,000 million metric tons of CO₂. The drop in mass migration between 2023 and 2025 amounts to a net carbon savings of between 271,245 and 2,260,375 metric tons of CO2. It would take over 21 square miles or 13,980 acres of utility-scale solar panels to achieve the same effect. We would have to cover the entire island of Manhattan or 10,575 football fields with solar panels to achieve the same carbon reduction that Trump’s deportations did.

Are environmentalists celebrating that Trump saved the planet? Of course not. They want open borders. And they want them because they’re a tool for bringing America to its knees.

Leftists don’t want to ‘save the whales’, they want to destroy America and Europe.

The same radicals who vandalized art museums for the environment are now okay with Muslim migrants killing baby dolphins because the issue was never the issue… the issue is destroying western civilization.

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.

California’s ruling Democratic Party officials are engaging in unprecedented efforts to drastically limit freedom of the press with legislation such as Assembly Bill 1821 to stonewall requests for public records and Assembly Bill 2624 to criminalize investigations of social services fraud even while the state uses non-disclosure agreements signed by elected officials to block reporting on its corruption.

Now the same political machine that blocks journalists and prosecutes is promising to aid journalism by handing out over $18 million in grants. Applications for the California Civic Media Program’s $18.6 million pot will close in late August. The program, funded by California taxpayers and Google, will dispense up to $20,000 per journalist and as much as $250,000 per media outlet.

In an environment where newspapers, and radio and TV stations are struggling to survive that could make a big difference. But the agenda is not hard to spot. The draft mission statement for the program states that “the Civic Media Program aims to empower people to participate in civic life.”

The cash will be administered by the James B. McClatchy Foundation, a leftist media group focused on radicalizing the more conservative Central Valley, condemning ICE and working to build a “multiracial, multilingual democracy in the Central Valley” through mobilizing the “momentum of community-powered civic non profits during a pivotal election year.”

The McClatchy Foundation was proposed by former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, the directress of California’s ‘journalism’ initiative, because of its focus on “equity” and “inclusion”. McClatchy’s Democracy Fund brags of a “Black Men Vote campaign” that “combined community events and strategic media to transform overlooked neighborhoods into active civic hubs, resulting in higher turnout among registered voters”.

The California Civic Media Program rules emphasize that the funds will be directed towards reporting on “inequalities among underserved communities” and “reinforcing the vital role of journalism in our democracy”.

This isn’t journalism: it’s a minority media voter turnout operation.

Despite record corruption in California government, with 576 officials convicted of corruption in the last decade, and current investigations targeting the governor, his former chief-of-staff, and the attorney general, none of the funds are being directed towards investigating corruption. But that’s only natural since it’s a corrupt governor who is under investigation and a corrupt legislature that blocked public disclosure of the money it was spending on defense lawyers that will be disbursing millions of dollars to the media.

What’s in it for Google?

California Dems had blocked Assembly Bill 886: The Journalism Preservation Act which would have forced Google to pay out far more than $10 million to the media. Participants in the push included some of the same media figures sitting on the advisory board of the California Civic Media Program including the general counsel of the LA Times.

This is a massive conflict of interest in what is already a corrupt mess.

Assembly Bill 886 had been opposed by Free Press, a media organization founded by Robert McChesney, a Marxist who had argued that “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be a part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist political economy”, arguing that most of the money would go to FOX News and other popular media, and that it should be replaced by something like the California Civic Media Program.

That’s the “revolutionary program” of state-funded media to overthrow the capitalist economy.

The model was the California Local News Fellowship, which intersects with Free Press, and which uses the UC Berkeley School of Journalism to spend $15 million a year in taxpayer money funding “local journalism” in “under-represented communities from Humboldt to the Imperial Valley”. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever that this represents absolute state media, the introduction claimed that its activist reporters “like our state lawmakers” are “holding power to account, bearing witness and documenting the stories of those who can be overlooked.”

California’s heroic “state lawmakers”, or those yet to be indicted, funded more of it.

Even while California businesses are fleeing the state at record rates due to the corruption and mismanagement of the political leadership, Gov. Gavin Newsom exploited the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to set up a multi-million dollar fund to subsidize a voter turnout operation in Republican areas under the guise of helping local papers.

The other partner for the California project will be Journalism Funding Partners, a left-of-center organization that works with left-wing foundations to parachute reporters in to promote its political agenda into local newspapers. For example, The Raleigh News and Observer announced that JFP and two foundations had embedded Lily Carey, a ‘climate change reporter’, into the paper where she promptly filed an article warning about the environmental impact of a data center.

The media is already heavily biased leftward and there’s nothing new about politically skewed non-profit journalism such as operations like ProPublica, which allow donors to fund hit pieces on political targets like supreme court justices, but political non-profits embedding activist reporters into established newspapers is a further corruption of what’s left of the media.

Nonprofits like Journalism Funding Partners, which was selected by Google to administer $10 million of the California media fund, are out to radicalize and corrupt newspapers while fundamentally changing their function from reporting to advocacy while in the process creating new activist fields such as ‘Climate Change Reporter’ or ‘First Amendment Reporter’.

Angele Latham, billed as the country’s “first-ever First Amendment reporter”, was embedded by JFP and the Freedom Forum into The Tennessean where she files ‘stories’ complaining that professors who gloated over Charlie Kirk’s murder were fired. There’s been no parallel coverage of leftist restrictions on free speech making the ‘First Amendment’ reporting into a partisan farce.

The work of the California Civic Media Program and Journalism Funding Partners poses a threat to the First Amendment as government officials collude to restrict and criminalize journalism that holds them accountable while offering millions to fund ‘journalists’ who will promote their political agenda. Liberal journalists used to warn about the separation of media and state, but now that the state funds them, they eagerly promote the rise of a state media.

From the LBJ administration’s Great Society relic of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to the Obama administration’s decision to allow the use of Voice of America programming domestically, state media has been a longtime left-of-center project that threatens the press.

California desperately needs journalism: instead there are a handful of reporters like Ashley Zavala at KCRA still challenging elected officials on their corruption and abuses even as the unchallenged ruling party aims to spend millions of dollars buying up reporters and outlets.

What kind of journalist will sell him or herself to the state for $20,000? We’ll find out soon.

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.

When 60 Minutes debuts its 59th season, the one thing we can be certain of is that the media will announce that it’s a disaster and blame Bari Weiss and clamor for government intervention.

The former New York Times columnist who had the temerity to not only leave the storied paper, but also start her own successful media venture, The Free Press, before getting hired to clean up CBS News, and to do all that while questioning wokeness and defending America and Israel, is more loathed than Trump in media circles. The media hates Trump, but it fears Bari Weiss.

Even before the first 60 Minutes episode of the season aired, the media was already running articles blasting Weiss for ‘destroying the journalistic legacy of CBS News’. The New York Times ran its preview by repeating the false claim that Weiss was “trying to insert political bias into the show”, which she did by asking for a comment from the White House about a 60 Minutes story.

The media considers asking the target of a hit piece for comment to be a case of “trying to insert political bias into the show”. As opposed to the political bias being the whole point of the show.

It would be awful indeed if Bari Weiss were to tamper with the journalistic legacy of CBS greats like Walter Cronkite, Les Moonves (accused of forcing a woman into oral sex), former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Jeff Fager (accused of sexually harassing women), former 60 Minutes correspondent Charlie Rose (accused of sexually harassing women), former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt (accused of sexually harassing women) making “accused of sexually harassing women” into an official requirement for CBS News legends.

At least there was Dan Rather, who broke the network’s curse of sexually harassing women by merely trying to pass off a Microsoft Word document as if it had come from the Vietnam War.

Obviously, Bari Weiss doesn’t belong at CBS News. She hasn’t even raped anyone yet.

(When Scott Pelley stomped off in a huff over Bari Weiss, the AP contacted Jeff Fager for a comment without mentioning he had been forced out over allegations of groping women. To the media, groping women is less of a sin than asking it to meet ethical standards.)

60 Minutes founder Don Hewitt had such an incredible legacy that one of his victims settled with CBS News in the 90s for $450,000 to keep quiet and then another $75,000 every year for the rest of her life so she would stay silent. This dirty deal, which paid $5 million to a woman to keep her quiet about what was going on at 60 Minutes, was only discovered in 2018. None of the intrepid 60 Minutes journalists busy targeting political opponents ever got around to it.

If only Don Hewitt had been a Republican or Israeli or something appropriately newsworthy.

But you can’t fault Don Hewitt’s high journalistic standards. Consider the time he tried to add (and potentially sexually assault) Murphy Brown to 60 Minutes. Hewitt, a winner of more journalistic awards than the entire cast of Cats, decided that Candice Bergen, who played a fictional journalist on Murphy Brown, would make a great real journalist. Bergen, who had more integrity than the great newsman, decided she was actually an actress, not a journalist.

The same, however, is also true of most of the on-camera talking head talent at CBS News.

CBS News has a long proud legacy of things to be ashamed of. Especially 60 Minutes whose star Mike Wallace conducted interviews while zonked out on drugs and then tried to commit suicide because the news network had been sued by General Westmoreland after it lied about his actions during the Vietnam War. The media turned this into a teachable moment about coping with depression, rather than correctly portraying Wallace as the same kind of unstable egomaniac con artist that he had made a career out of claiming to expose.

Had Mike Wallace been the face of any other profession and tried to commit suicide after his lies were exposed, the takeaway would not have been “he was so brave for coping with depression”. But the media is always kind to the media whether it’s guilty of lying or raping.

Wallace had already made it clear which side he was on when he was asked what he would do if he were embedded with a North Korean unit that was about to ambush American soldiers. ABC News’ Peter Jennings had said, “I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans”. Wallace mocked him, “I’m a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you’re an American, you would not have covered that story.”

But the good news is that the sorts of stuff that internal CBS News reviews flunked 60 Minutes for back in the good old days of 1982, (selective editing, a key witness doubling as a paid consultant, ignoring contradictory evidence) are so routine that anyone objecting to them would probably be accused of “trying to insert political bias into the show” by asking for basic ethics.

By the time the Dan Rather era arrived, it was one lie and lawsuit after another. There was the time that Dan Rather interviewed a fake Vietnam War combat veteran who told him John Kerry-style stories of killing lots of innocent Vietnamese civilians. ‘CBS Reports: The Wall Within’, produced by Rather and Hewitt, was hailed by the media as compelling journalism that finally told the real story of how evil America had been during the Vietnam War. The minor problem was that the Navy SEAL who claimed to be “one of the highest trained, underpaid, eighteen-cent-an-hour assassins ever put together by a team of people who knew exactly what they were looking for” had actually been an equipment repairman far from combat.

Whoops. CBS News denied everything.

Before that, 60 Minutes had been sued by a doctor in Los Angeles after he was accused of signing a medical form that he hadn’t actually signed. CBS News hadn’t bothered to verify it.

The grand finale of Rather’s career came with another Vietnam War story, this one a pre-election hit job on George W. Bush which relied on the Killian memos that were supposed to have been typed up in 1973, but were as perfectly proportioned as a modern Word document. Dan Rather denied everything, but eventually had to leave to pursue a lucrative career in not being Connie Chung, Rather’s former anchor-partner, who had to leave after baiting Newt Gingrich’s elderly mother into calling Hillary Clinton a bitch. Damn that Bari Weiss.

CBS News personnel involved in the Killian memo scam doubled down on claiming that a laptop had somehow traveled back in time to 1973 and was used by a local secretary to type up the memos. A CBS News producer wrote a book titled ‘The Truth’, which blamed the whole thing on the “right wing” and which was later turned into a movie starring Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford as courageous journalists determined to expose the truth about time traveling laptops.

The Truth (2015), which was a lie, only made back $5.6 million of its $9.6 million budget.

These days, the media tunes in on Dan Rather’s frequency every now and then to lecture about how Bari Weiss is letting down the proud CBS News tradition of making up lies about Republicans to help elect Democrats. And Weiss insists on actually fact checking the lies.

She hasn’t raped anyone or pushed any lies. If this keeps up, she’ll destroy CBS News.

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.

After 19 Muslim terrorists killed nearly 3,000 people in the United States, the most sensible thing would have been to close the borders and keep out the people most likely to carry out attacks.

25 years later and with hundreds more dead and wounded in Islamic terrorist attacks since then, we’ve done the exact opposite and allowed the Muslim population to more than double from 1.8 million to 4.5 million. In New York, the epicenter of the attacks, the insurgent Muslim population shot up from 400,000 to over 700,000 so that New York City is now run by an Islamist politician.

Before 9/11, there had been a handful of Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil. This year alone there were three terror attacks and plots in New York and the summer isn’t even over yet. Multiple mosques in New York City openly preach hatred and terrorism in videos posted to social media and nothing is done since Zohran Mamdani has visited some of those mosques.

Mamdani appointed a lawyer for the 20th 9/11 hijacker who had argued that the terrorists were not driven by evil and that “the legacy of 9/11 ought to be recounted primarily through the stories of Muslims” as New York City’s Chief Counsel. More of the Muslim candidates running for office, like Mamdani, or Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, and Dariazilia Avila Chevalier in New York City “I just wiped my hand on the American flag”, express hostility and contempt towards America.

The political ascension of Islamists who openly despise us reflects our hatred for ourselves.

Mamdani, an Abdul El-Sayed, Avila Chevalier or Aisha Wahhab exist because large numbers of voters agree with their pal, Hasan Piker, that America deserved 9/11. The initial protestations of innocence, the clamor that it was only a ‘tiny minority of extremists’, has given way to pride. That’s why Mamdani, El-Sayed and all the others keep grinning at us even while they lie to us.

And it’s a justified pride. Muslim terrorism killed thousands of New Yorkers and now run the city.

Islamists in America celebrate 9/11 and claim that we had it coming the way they say Israel had Oct 7 coming. And in their religion, we did and still do. That’s why they keep killing us.

After 9/11, we learned to love our killers and when they proved unlovable, blamed ourselves and learned to hate ourselves for not being able to save them, for not being worthy of their love.

It didn’t have to be this way, but our leaders clung to the zombie ‘democracyism’ of three world wars, and set off to find the Kaiser, Fuhrer or Commissar holding Islamic terrorism together to replace him with ‘democratic’ elections in the certainty that would make it all better. We would unselfishly send generations of our young men to bring elections to a culture that can only think in tribal power whether it’s in Basra, Iraq or Dearborn, Michigan, with all the predictable results.

And then we learned the hard way that they really did hate us, not because of some mustachioed dictator, but because their religion teaches them from the earliest age to hate us.

But by then we had also learned to blame ourselves.

When Republicans decided to reach back to Woody, FDR and Ike, Democrats reached back to the Vietnam War movement. If Republicans were going to borrow their old ‘War for Democracy’, they were going to fast forward to LBJ and chant, “How many Iraqi kids did you kill today?”

Before long, Islamic terrorists had switched from being a vital part of the Republican coalition, back when it was run by oil money and the regime change ambitions of the Iraqi Shiites of Dearborn, to becoming a vital part of a new Democratic coalition against democracy, for terrorism and ultimately for the destruction of Israel, India and the United States of America.

Along with any other countries that got on the bad side of the Ummah and its Islamist operatives who by the 25th anniversary have a death grip on the Democrats, have bought up academia, wield significant influence over the media and are swallowing up much of social media which increasingly consists of Pakistanis and the Americans they pay to echo their propaganda.

Rather than creating clear boundaries between ourselves and the perpetrators, America after 9/11 perversely opened itself to the Muslim world, began feverishly studying Islam, seeking to fix Muslim countries with democracy and regime change, and inviting Muslims to come here as ‘refugees’ so when they carried out attacks, they no longer needed to do so on temporary visas.

Not only did we fail to fix the Muslim world, but we Islamized America so that terrorist attacks stopped being a rarity and are now a regular phenomenon that we do our best to ignore.

First we blamed the lack of democracy in the Muslim world. Then we blamed our own intolerance. We blamed Israel. We blamed global warming. We blamed mental illness.

And we blamed everything except Islam.

We contorted our worldviews, our foreign policy, our culture and our military into pretzels and went to great lengths to evade the conclusion that most people, including liberals, reached in those immediate shocking moments, hours and days after the September 11 attacks.

The heretical conclusion, the one you can spot only in the negative images of the propaganda that shot out from George W. Bush, from the media and from every good liberal and not a few good conservatives and libertarians, was that we could absolutely co-exist with Islam.

No one dared to discuss the possibility that we couldn’t. And what to do if indeed we couldn’t.

25 years later we would still rather hate ourselves, agonize over our folly in wasting blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq, conduct circular firing squads blaming each other (“I was against the Iraq War”, “No, I was against the Iraq War first”), mainline conspiracy theories (“The CIA was really behind 9/11”) or suggest that an Islamic takeover would actually be a good thing (according to Tucker Carlson, no one steals cars in the UAE) than speak the unspeakable.

And so the thing that we can’t say has instead led us to accept truly unspeakable things.

We’ve accepted that an Islamist whose associates defend the 9/11 attacks runs New York City and we’ve accepted that an Islamist can run for the Senate in Michigan while accompanied by a streamer who celebrated 9/11. These are just the latest outrages we’re willing to accept rather than even entertain the possibility that we cannot co-exist with the people who think this way.

And so we’ve learned all the wrong lessons from that Tuesday morning twenty-five years ago.

We’ve learned to keep quiet. We’ve learned to hate each other. We’ve learned to die for Muslim elections. What we haven’t learned to do is live and fight for our country. And if we truly want to remember the attacks and the dead, that is the real unspeakable thing to be spoken.

Over the years I have rebuked the foolish liberal Zionists who hold up Golda Meir quotes like, “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, we cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children” and “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us” as arguments for Israel. These quotes and their sentiments are completely backwards.

A people who would forgive the killers of their children but turn to self-hatred for having to kill their enemies is not moral or honorable: it is a contemptible people that doesn’t know how to survive. The people who unthinkingly repeat such slogans should be ashamed of themselves and ashamed before the children they would sacrifice to show their suicidal moral nobility.

The ability of a people to live in peace should never depend on the goodness of their enemies.

Governments do not exist to tell their people how to die well, but to defend them. America’s liberal elites imploded in the face of the Islamic enemy just as they formerly imploded in the face of the Communist enemy during the Cold War: momentary patriotism quickly giving way to shame, guilt, and outrage for wanting to live in the face of killers with the ‘right’ politics.

We’ve spent generations experimenting with governments of national suicide and it has nearly killed us. Now we’ve been exploring the controversial notion of a non-suicidal government.

And everyone is deeply upset over it.

The lesson of 9/11 is that we cannot co-exist with those who want to kill us. That simple. And the day we truly understand it, we won’t need any more anniversaries, tearful tributes, and candles on concrete, and we won’t need the self-hatred, because we will finally stand up for ourselves.

When America arises, then the thousands of dead, turned to ash, will finally be able to rest.

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.

“We need your voice,” Abdul El-Sayed told a sex offender who had been sentenced to prison for sexually soliciting what he thought was a 14-year-old girl online and then for “distributing child sexually abusive material and multiple counts of accosting children for immoral purposes.”

The sex offender had reinvented himself as an activist against incarceration and claimed that he had suffered, “I was only allowed to have the type of phone without a browser, and several times had my phone confiscated” and argued that the answer “is to address the root causes of crime… address the real problems… like education, lack of economic opportunity.”

“I hope that you’ll run, and I hope that when you do, you’ll find me out and let me have the opportunity to support,” Abdul El-Sayed endorsed his political activism. “We need your voice, folks who are affected by the experiences that you’ve had uniquely need your voice.”

One of the sex offender’s alleged former victims, said that he had “solicited me as a minor” and that he had “worked with Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed” and together with other politicians made it possible to expunge criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree and “removing rape from 17-24 year old’s permanent record.” The anonymous victim posted that “Abdul helped lead the decarceration movement. He was the president of the non-profit Michigan United.”

Abdul El-Sayed had served as the president of Michigan United aka the Michigan Organizing Project as part of a board with a number of Muslim figures including Aamina Ahmed of AAPI Rising, appointed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to head Protect Michigan, Senegalese immigrant activist Fatou-Seydi Sarr and Dearborn Magistrate Judge Rula Aoun. One of the organization’s missions was combating ‘mass incarceration’ and it was part of the Michigan Justice Advocacy coalition alongside Safe & Just Michigan where the sex offender worked as a lobbyist and argued for keeping sex offender registries secret and for allowing them to live near schools.

Michigan has one of the largest sex offender lists in the country making the threat worse.

Why was Abdul El-Sayed advocating for a man who had been “distributing child sexually abusive material” and “accosting children” and whose victim has spoken out against El-Sayed?

This was only one of a series of pedophilia scandals and intersections involving El-Sayed.

Subscribe now

Earlier in August, Abdul El-Sayed had come under fire for a planned appearance at the Islamic Society of North America, an Islamic group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror funding trial, alongside numerous figures who had called for violence and terrorism, including Imam Tariq Masood who had praised Hitler and describing having “forced his 13-year-old niece into marriage, and advised his followers to do the same with their young female relatives.”

El-Sayed tried to disavow any connection to the imam who had been accused of “pedophilic rhetoric” but a book by yet another Islamic figure with troubling views on child rape was spotted on his bookshelf despite his efforts to prevent coverage of the hateful text from being broadcast.

Abdul El-Sayed had asked documentarians covering his previous campaign to “not get these things in the shot” and, as reported on by the Free Beacon, the book in question was by Bilal Philips, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, who in other writings had ‘advocated that young girls are fit for marriage the moment they begin menstruating.’

“The prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty, with his practice he clarified what is permissible and that is why we shouldn’t have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman, which is looked down upon by this society today, but we know that Prophet Muhammad practiced it, it wasn’t abuse or exploitation, it was marriage,” Philips had argued in another book.

In that same book, Bilal Philips also argued that monogamy was “illogical”, “men are polygamous by nature” and the alternative was prostitution, that the Koran allowed men to rape their wives, “a woman is obliged to give herself to her husband and he may not be charged with rape”, and that “Sharia does permit a husband to hit his wife.”

Bilal Philips had complained that the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed “has been accused of being a pedophile due to his marriage to Aisha at the age of 9” and argued that “pedophilia involves adults taking advantage of children by purchasing sexual favors from them” when they “are not seeking marriage but only sex” and that the “age of consent for women set in the West” and has “no actual relationship to the woman’s ability or inability for sexual relations.” By contrast “Islam sets the age of marriage at puberty”. And that having sex with a nine-year-old is completely fine.

Presumably, according to Islamic Sharia law, the 9-year-old can be both raped and beaten.

It is unclear whether Abdul El-Sayed, who is running on his ‘public health experience’ agrees with this, but the pattern of complicity raises troubling questions about his position on the sexual abuse of children. Most political candidates can’t even afford one pedophilia scandal, El-Sayed is up to three scandals which had arrived at the incredible rate of one a week during August.

El-Sayed’s involvement in Michigan United has been downplayed, as has its link to advocacy for sex offenders and his own political support for a sex offender has largely been buried as well. The intersection between the Islamist political candidate and Islamic figures who have normalized pedophilia was reported on by the Free Beacon, but did not go far beyond that.

Advocates for children have long expressed concern of a hidden epidemic of child abuse happening in Islamic enclaves like Dearborn and Hamtramck where Islamic local governments have the ability to suppress complaints and cases. Under Islamic Sharia law, the sexual abuse of children as young as 9 years old might not be considered a crime, and as Abdul El-Sayed and other Islamic figures in the state have argued, Sharia law is fundamental to their way of life.

Where does Abdul El-Sayed draw the line? Is it at pedophilia? If so, why did he advocate for a sex offender and why was he comfortable keeping a text by an Islamic figure who argued for sex with 9-year-old girls on his bookshelf? And if El-Sayed is comfortable with pedophilia, is that an Islamic value that Michigan Democrats are comfortable integrating into their multiculturalism?

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 September 11, every Muslim in Congress and some of their radical allies teamed up on a congressional resolution demanding reparations to Muslims for their suffering after 9/11.

House Resolution 741, introduced a week after the anniversary of September 11, claimed that “in the aftermath of September 11, 2001” Muslims “experienced hate and were targeted by the government” and called for “various forms of relief to support those affected.”

The money would have potentially gone to Islamic groups listed as terror co-conspirators.

While the resolution did not specify which “community-based organizations” that “center the experiences and demands of Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern” and others would have benefited from Congress “allocating resources”, potentially millions of dollars, the official endorsees of the resolution included the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an Islamic terrorist funding trial raising the possibility of these 9/11 ‘reparations’ going not just to Islamic groups, but even to those linked to Islamic terrorism.

Other Islamic groups that endorsed and could have potentially benefited from the ‘9/11 Muslim reparations bill’ including Muslim Advocates, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Muslims for Just Futures and the Muslim Justice League had their own ties to unindicted co-conspirators in terror funding. These include CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) where key figures had championed violence and whose former officials included an unindicted coconspirator in the World Trade Center bombing as its former vice president raising the troubling possibility that ‘9/11 reparations’ money could have benefited advocates and organizations tied not only to Islamic terrorism but even to the original WTC attack which had been carried out by the nephew of the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

The four Muslims in Congress at the time had joined forces to equate the Americans killed in the 9/11 attacks with the Muslims, including Al Qaeda terrorists, they claimed had suffered at the hands of the United States of America. The congressional resolution complained about “overreaching policing, surveillance, and criminalization policies”, “discriminatory searches and seizures of Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern” and others, as well as “torture at Guantanamo Bay to extrajudicial drone strikes” against Al Qaeda members.

While the Muslim reparations resolution claimed that innocent Muslims were wrongly targeted, the text of the resolution included Al Qaeda terrorists and made no distinction between them.

Beyond “resources”, the resolution also called for dismantling counterterrorism measures, both private and public, arguing that “Joint Terrorism Task Forces Preemptive Prosecutions, Countering Violent Extremism Programs, Suspicious Activity Reporting, Watchlists” continue to “profile and unfairly target Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern” and others, and called for an “independent commission to work with community-based organizations to review these government policies, investigate and document their impact, and provide recommendations to dismantle those policies.”

These “community-based organizations” could potentially have included unindicted terrorism co-conspirators and Islamic organizations that partnered with terror-linked groups and who would be put in charge of dismantling counterterrorism measures and asked to “create alternatives to law enforcement” which would have meant applying police defunding to national security defenses against terrorism.

Finally, much as studies were conducted on the health of police officers and firefighters who were at Ground Zero, the resolution called for the National Institutes of Health to study the ”impact of hate, government targeting, political rhetoric, and profiling” on the health of Muslims as if they had been breathing ash, instead of complaining about negative media coverage.

The insulting premise of the resolution that Muslims suffered after 9/11 and deserved reparations was based on a series of lies. The Muslim 9/11 reparations resolution claimed that “Waqar Hasan in Dallas, Texas, and Adel Karas in San Gabriel, California, were killed on September 15, 2001” as evidence of some large American campaign of hate against Muslims.

Adel Karas, a Christian, and Waqar Hasan were killed in attacks by criminals on stores.

Muslims insisted that the Karas murder was Islamophobic because his store was a block away from a mosque. In reality, Karas was a Coptic Christian who had fled Egypt because of the Muslim persecution of Christians. Homicide detectives believed that the storeowner had been targeted in an extortion attempt and identified the killers as Latino gang members who had previously threatened him. Despite that, the murdered Christian store owner’s name continues to be falsely listed as evidence of an American “climate of hate” after September 11.

Hasan was one of two store personnel, one Muslim and one Hindu, killed in a series of armed robberies in Texas. Mark Stroman, who committed his first armed robbery at only twelve years old, had an extensive criminal record and had ordered a Hindu man working the counter to “open the register or I’ll kill you”. The case became famous because Stroman, a career criminal, mistakenly thought the authorities would let him get away with it by claiming that he had done it out of “patriotism” and to avenge his imaginary sister who died in the World Trade Center.

In reality, there was never any sister and Stroman wasn’t a racist Neo-Nazi: his wife was actually Hispanic. Despite that, the media, activists, and politicians spent the next 10 years helping Stroman keep the lie alive. A documentary was filmed about Stroman getting over his racism and the media covered the campaign by one of the Muslim clerks whom he shot, but who survived, to forgive him and spare him the death penalty. Skeptics wondered whether this was because Stroman was more useful while alive. The propaganda campaign went on with Supreme Court appeals and press interviews until the serial robber was finally executed.

If there really were a campaign of violence targeting Muslims after 9/11, lies like these wouldn’t have been necessary. The victimhood narrative peddled by Islamic groups, some of whom continue to support Islamic terrorism, is out to erase the horrific crimes carried out by Muslim terrorists against Americans on September 11 by claiming that Muslims were the real victims.

Americans deserve reparations and apologies for the crimes committed against them by Islamic terrorists whose motivations were derived from the Koran and from Islamic law, and which were backed and enabled by Muslim governments including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar and Iran.

Instead of offering an apology or a statement of heartfelt contrition for the 9/11 attacks, Muslim members of Congress arrogantly demanded reparations from Americans for September 11.

The congressional resolution supported last year by every Muslim in Congress spat in the faces of every American who was murdered on September 11 and did it on the anniversary of their murders while arguing that the real victims of 9/11 were the terrorists locked up in Gitmo.

What will they do this year?

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 every election cycle there is a speech that throws the stakes into painful clarity.

In the 2026 election cycle, at least for Jews, that speech came from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the last Jewish Democrat holdout in the state, who had skipped the party’s convention because she didn’t feel safe, but unlike Mallory McMorrow, who had also faced threats because of her Jewish daughter, and Haley Stevens, hadn’t gotten on board with the Abdul El-Sayed campaign and the alliance of Marxists and Islamists taking over her party.

But addressing an event for Michigan Jewish Democrats, Nessel made her best case in a speech that will last long past this cycle because of the nakedness of its horrifying argument.

“We have a moral imperative to place the needs of the world above even our own self-interest and, yes, even our own survival,” Nessel told Jewish Democrats. Those “needs of the world” required Jews to vote for Democrats, including presumably El-Sayed, who had made excuses for a Muslim terrorist attack against Jewish children in the preschool of a Michigan Temple.

But Michigan Jews were told to look past the attempted massacre of their own children.

Many Jewish Democrats feel they “must choose between our faith and our party,” she said, and she then argued in favor of choosing faith in the Democratic Party over faith in Judaism.

Attorney General Nessel suggested that Queen Esther, who had risked her life for the Jewish people, should be the role model for Jewish Democrats. “It is perhaps up to us now to follow in her path and sacrifice the comfort, safety and security and even the very future of our own people in exchange for the opportunity to save the rest of humanity.”

This Jewish version of Jonestown, a universalist Masada in which the Jews sacrifice their “faith”, their “self-interest”, their “survival” and even the “very future of our own people” to elect Socialists who want them dead and thereby “save the rest of humanity” from global warming, is the very best remaining argument that any honest Jewish Democrat can offer for the party.

What is the glorious cause for which Jews must end their faith and the future of their children?

Attacking Republicans, AG Nessel claimed that “their support of selfishness and blind obedience to the world’s biggest and most dangerous fool is a direct abdication of our responsibilities as Jews whose traditions demand a profound obligation to the world and compassionate action toward others.” In short, stopping Trump necessitates Jewish extinction.

Trump, according to Nessel, is so terrible that Jews must be willing to vanish from the earth and support Abdul El-Sayed, Hasan Piker, Mamdani and every Marxist and Islamist antisemite. That is to be part of our “obligation to the world” and “compassionate action” by siding with our killers.

But if Trump is so terrible and the Democrats are so good, wouldn’t the threat to Jewish survival come from him rather than from the Democrats? The case for voting for Abdul El-Sayed over Trump should be straightforward and the story of Queen Esther needn’t be turned inside out.

Jews wouldn’t be committing suicide by voting for Democrats, but saving themselves that way.

And yet, Jews are instead told to vote for the party that will end their “faith”, their “survival” and even the “very future of our own people” rather than vote for the party that wouldn’t do that.

Sure, voting for Trump and Republicans might save the Jews, one of the highest-ranking Jewish elected officials in the state argues, but it’s nobler to let the Dems destroy them instead.

We’ve gone from “is it good for the Jews” to “it’s bad for the Jews and that’s a good thing.”

But if the progressive side is really so good and compassionate, if it’s the only hope of saving mankind, the side of Tikkun Olam and the right of history, why does it require the end of the Jews? It’s a curious question especially since Nessel chose to stay away from the party’s convention because, “I don’t want to get chased around. I don’t want to get harassed. I don’t want to get yelled and screamed at. I don’t want to get booed off the stage, irrespective of what I’m saying.” Is this really what the side of the angels looks like or the side of the devils?

The inescapable conclusion is that either the Jews are bad or the Democratic Party is.

Trying to square the circle leads to Nessel’s call that the Jews should vote for the Democrats even if they kill them as some spiritual human sacrifice on behalf of all mankind. When Emma Lazarus, whose poem appears on the Statue of Liberty, recited, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him” as she was dying, she was quoting Job to G-d, not to the Democratic Party.

Nessel dodges the issue by arguing that the Democrats are god, even if a cruel and viciously antisemitic one, who alone have the ability to save mankind and the planet. “What good is defending the historic homeland of our ancestors and demanding that candidates acknowledge its right to exist if the planet upon which it rests is no longer inhabitable?” she argued.

But if the issue is anything short of the magical Democrat ability to save mankind while killing all the Jews, there is no longer an argument for Jews to commit suicide by voting Democrat.

Dana Nessel is being attacked for these remarks, but all she really did, in her crisis of the soul, was bring out the text from the subtext. Ever since Obama, the discourse for most Jewish Democrat groups has focused on all the things that are more important than not killing Jews, like abortion, global warming, affirmative action and the whole right side of history.

Nessel is the first high-ranking Jewish Democrat to admit that the Jews, like some progressive Moses, will never make it to the political promised land, but will have to die for the leftist cause.

It’s not a new idea. The more honest Jewish Communists made the same arguments. Once Lenin had declared that the Jews were an illegitimate people brought forth by capitalism (echoing earlier socialist dogma going back to Marx and Fourier), it was obvious they would have to disappear: the only question was whether they would go quietly or go to synagogue. Those who went to the synagogue, like my great-uncles, were shot, while those who shut down the synagogues and told the NKVD which Jews to shoot… ended up being shot anyway.

And that’s the point that Nessel and the party’s Jewish apologists are missing.

Jewish survival is never incompatible with doing the politically right thing. The sorts of movements whose success is incompatible with Jewish survival are evil movements anyway. That’s a lesson that Nessel and Jews of all political stripes should have learned from Nazism and Communism. Any movement that will kill the Jews is not going to stop with the Jews. Its promises to save mankind and the planet are just excuses for killing even more people.

A movement that is reduced to telling Jews they must die for the right side of history is a profoundly evil one that is the actual threat not just to Jews, but to the entire human race.

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.

When 80,000 Muslim migrants invaded the Spanish territory of Ceuta through Morocco, the Sanchez government refused to declare an emergency because mass migration wasn’t classified as an emergency. Three weeks later, PM Pedro Sanchez came back from vacation and announced that he will declare a national security crisis under a single command.

And by then it will be too late.

Despite initial promises from the prime minister that all the migrants would be returned, many thousands of the invaders have remained behind. Some sources estimated the number of remaining invaders who have occupied beaches and overrun entire areas at only 8,000, but Spain’s Ministry of Health is sending 45,000 doses of vaccines to deal with the migrant outbreaks including 10,000 polio, chickenpox, and diphtheria-tetanus vaccines and 15,000 MMR vaccines suggesting that the true number may be between 10,000 and 15,000.

What the vaccine regime reveals even more than the numbers is the fact that they’re staying.

The fiction that the migrants will soon go back is falling apart. There would be no need for over 10,000 vaccine doses for the migrants if they were on the verge of being deported back home.

MMR vaccines with the second booster shot operate on a 4-week schedule. The chickenpox vaccine is spread out over 2 months, and the polio and diphtheria-tetanus vaccines operate across 6-12 months. The Spanish government expects thousands, and perhaps even a full ten thousand migrants, to stay for at least a year which means that they will probably never leave.

The new unified command is preparing to seize housing for the migrants for the rest of the year which means that the government expects the occupation to continue until at least then.

Meanwhile crime in the formerly quiet territory has soared. According to a police union spokesman, the number of calls regarding crimes being committed increased 1,000%.

“Normally, we get 20 or 30 calls a day to report crimes, and that number increases on weekends. But we’re registering more than 200 calls every day. What we’re experiencing is overwhelming.”

Women and girls in particular have become targets, but even law enforcement isn’t safe with an off-duty Civil Guard officer beaten and robbed by 5 Moroccans at a gas station. Officers are working 16-hour shifts, sleeping on base, and then going back to work, and it still isn’t enough.

“Ceuta cannot normalize robberies, brawls, sexual assaults, and attacks on members of the State Security Forces,” a police union spokesman complained. Unfortunately, it already has.

Prime Minister Sanchez, who famously wrote a New York Times op-ed titled, “I’m the Prime Minister of Spain. This Is Why the West Needs Migrants” to promote his policy of legalizing 500,000 illegal migrants, helping spur the invasion, has been running out the clock by offering meaningless reassurances and delaying any emergency intervention until now.

As Spain’s former head of immigration, Ramón Caudevila from Ceuta, pointed out, under the law “after 31 days from the application date, undocumented immigrants have the right to go to the Spanish mainland.” What that means is that in around a week, thousands of invading Ceuta migrants will enter Spain proper and then all of Europe will lie open before them.

No wonder they’re getting vaccinated.

And that is only the beginning. As the former official pointed out, “they’ll be granted residency and a work permit. And they can apply for family reunification: five people on average. But it doesn’t end there. His older sister, who is married, brings her family over too… from one minor, you can legalize 25 or 30 people in four or five years.”

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s reassurances that this will never happen and the defamation campaign against Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni were all based on lies. His claim that critics warning about an invasion of Europe out of Ceuta were “driven by prejudice, fake news, ignorance, or political interest” has turned around to show that his lies were the real fake news.

“No one will stay in Ceuta, no one will go to the mainland, no one will be granted legal status,” Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska had promised a few weeks ago. Now the Sanchez government has begun testing the waters by proposing to bring at least 500 female migrant minors from Ceuta to the Spanish mainland. (Migrants routinely claim to be minors. There is often no way to know whether that is true and fake migrant minors have been caught before.)

Sanchez’s Minister of Youth and Children, Sira Rego, blasted calls to return the migrants back home, claiming that it was “racist.” Disregarding her warnings, a large Ceuta protest rallied with calls to expel all the migrant invaders back to Morocco, chanting, “I don’t want invaders, I want my freedom” and calling for the resignation of the pro-migrant open borders Sanchez regime.

Elma Saiz, Spain’s Minister of Inclusion and Migration, insisted that migrant minors would not be deported. “That is not the kind of country we are; we have commitments to international law, and it is also a matter of values,” she protested, and, dismissing warnings about disease outbreaks, claimed that the problem isn’t sickness because “what is contagious is xenophobia.”

Meanwhile, the Sanchez government has continued insisting that the campaign that led 200,000 migrants to plan to invade Spain had nothing to do with the Moroccan government while appearing to blame Israel and Russia. A Spanish paper reprinted a bizarre claim from an Egyptian political scientist who said that China had told her that Israel was behind it all.

And as for Morocco? Minister Saiz claimed that Morocco was a “reliable partner” and insisted, “they didn’t know, just as we didn’t.”

The one thing that everyone has avoided discussing is the Islamic motive for the invasion.

Then the Moroccan Minister of Islamic Affairs cited the “sacred struggle to liberate the occupied cities along the Atlantic Ocean” while referencing the Islamic history of Ceuta and its connections to Mohammed. This was never simply about migration: it was about jihad.

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.

At the end of June 2026, Catherine Beth Washburn, a 37-year-old white woman from an upstate New York town, was arrested for sending $30,000 in crypto to a member of Islamic Jihad in Israel. Washburn kept texting him, encouraging him that, “you do not need equipment, you only need Allah” and showing off a picture of herself with hand grenades and a Hamas flag.

Now, in August 2026, Jessica Bowie, a 35-year-old white woman in Albany, New York who converted to Islam, changed her name to ‘Aisha Saif’, put on a burka, and began chatting with what she thought were ISIS terrorists and plotting to bomb the New York State Capitol by disguising the bomb in a DoorDash delivery bag. Bowie shared thoughts such as “blowing non-Muslim brains out is beautiful” and said she wanted to “harm the enemies of Allah.”

Cathy and Jessica lived around 3 hours driving distance away from each other in upstate New York. Both the Rochester and Albany areas have large Muslim populations and Rochester in particular has been an epicenter of Islamic terrorist plots including another Muslim convert who plotted to attack a bar on New Year’s Eve in 2015 for ISIS, a Muslim terrorist who wanted to shoot soldiers for ISIS in 2014, and Omar Mohammed’s bomb threats against Kodak in 2013.

But white women in their mid-30s were not the usual Islamic terrorist cohort. Until recently most cases of white women engaging in Islamic terrorism were coming out of Europe and involved the converted wives of Muslim men trying to move to Iraq and Syria to be with their husbands.

Read more

“Woke 1 was crazy,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez laughed on an ABC News show, dismissing questions about the radical views of DSA members while implying that they were some sort of past phenomenon we no longer had to address because the page had been turned on the era. “What’s important is that we have to assess what a candidate is saying now.”

The DSA is now being co-run by a leader of the Communist Red Star Caucus, its platform calls for abolishing the constitution and its leadership calls for abolishing most of the government.

Communism puts the kibosh on the idea that Woke 2 is any more moderate than Woke 1.

Nevertheless liberal media pundits quickly rushed out to borrow the term and explain that Woke 1 had disappeared and the party’s new embrace of Communists is actually a moderate position.

Never mind the Communists, ‘Woke 1’ never went away. Woke 2, as AOC all but admitted, is just a dodge to explain why DSA candidates shouldn’t have to be asked about their old tweets.

AOC was quoting Councilman Chi Osse’s reply when asked about his past racist comment, “a cis white man should not be the next speaker of the Council” all the way back in 2021.

In 2025, Osse (pictured above) announced he was a socialist and called for ‘Nuremberg trials’ for ICE.

No word on whether that’s Woke 1 or Woke 2, but the difference is only stylistic anyway. Enough people were disgusted by wokeness that they voted Trump. Now AOC wants to repackage wokeness as a new brand much the way that lefties have at times called themselves liberals, progressives, socialists and other names before abandoning them after the public backlash.

Wokeness, a term that long ago became cringe and virtually no leftist has used in years, is just the wrapper. What’s inside it is the same set of abusive and opportunistic radical politics.

The central tenets of Woke 1, that people should be judged by an intersectional category, that equity trumps equality, and that problematic speech should be suppressed never went away. The three categories of woke topics that make AOC and DSAers most uncomfortable, defunding the police, transgenderism, and calls to demolish American history, haven’t gone anywhere either just because Democrats now avoid talking about the unpopular subjects.

Woke 1 was organized around cultural criticism, critical race theory, the BLM riots, and transgender identity politics while Woke 2 is much more oriented around Islamic political organizing, anti-ICE and anti-Israel activism, and Communist revivalism, but those are just different flavors of the radical social media pool of slop. A decade ago it was the turn of the black panther diaper babies and drag queen story hour, now the tankies and the antisemites get their turn. All it means is that Ta-Nehisi Coates went from explaining the evils of 9/11 first responders to explaining the evils of Israel and the ladies who used to go to racial justice lunches at which black women would yell at them about whiteness now go to open borders events to learn to how to ram ICE personnel with their $115,000 Land Rovers.

Woke 2 is just Woke 1 transmuting its cultural victories into political victories. After seizing control over academia and the culture, the same mob is now seizing actual political power.

In Woke 1, people lost their jobs because they had the wrong ideas and popular culture turned into a hideous festival of grotesques. Fast forward to Woke 2, and people are still losing their jobs for having the wrong ideas and popular culture is just as bad. The difference is that the radicals who perpetrated Woke 1 are now taking over cities and moving into Congress.

The primary difference is that Woke 1 was primarily aimed at mobilizing the grievances of radical fringe groups, e.g. black nationalists and transgender men, while Woke 2 is scoring political victories by jumping on the bandwagon of affordability and economic concerns.

No wonder AOC wants to pretend that the new ‘Kitchen Table’ Socialists are a fundamentally different and more mature creature than the activists that were trying to punish college students for wearing sombreros, but they’re no more mature and no less cruel than their old counterparts.

The DSA consists of rich kids with no clue as to what affordability for working class people actually entails. (The recent furor over the $20 burrito in woke right circles demonstrated much the same thing.) Affordability for radicals like Mamdani is just another way of selling socialism without having any more understanding of economics than the Modern Monetary Theory proponents of infinitely printing money did. The recent revelation that a top New York DSAer was living in his daddy’s $1.5 million townhouse while being evicted was perfectly on brand.

Wokesters 2.0 understand people are outraged about the price of basic food staples and they can use that to call for abolishing capitalism. What they’re offering isn’t ‘democratic socialism’, it’s what DSAers are calling a “violent process” for eliminating private enterprise and replacing it with their private dictatorship. Kind of you makes you nostalgic for Woke 1’s race riots.

At least those only caused billions in damages and only led to the deaths of thousands.

Despite AOC’s denials, this exciting new focus on reviving Communism and Marxism hasn’t actually rejected Woke 1’s fetishes. While old school Commies might be suspicious of identity politics, as indeed Sen. Bernie Sanders used to be, he and they long ago bent the knee to Woke 1. Abolishing prisons and police hasn’t been abolished either. Pro-crime officials at every level, governors, mayors and prosecutors, have implemented portions of the agenda through the mass release of criminals from prison, the elimination of bail and diversions for offenders.

And no one has actually sworn off the larger ‘abolition’ agenda. Much like ‘transgender’ athletes, all the old policies and proposals are still in place, they just aren’t discussed during elections.

The only thing crazier than Woke 1 is the idea that AOC can pretend it went away somewhere.

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.