Articles

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Who Can Count the Dust of Jacob

"Who can count the dust of Jacob or number the seed of Israel." Numbers 23:10

The sun sets above the hills. The siren cries out and on the busy highways that wend among the hills, the traffic stopsthe people stop, and a moment of silence comes to a noisy country.

Flags fly at half mast, the torch of remembrance is lit, memorial candles are held in shaking hands and the country's own version of the Flanders Field poppy, the Red Everlasting daisy, dubbed Blood of the Maccabees, adorns lapels. And so begins the Yom Hazikaron, Heroes Remembrance Day, the day of remembrance for fallen soldiers and victims of terror-- Israel's Memorial Day.

What is a memorial day in a country that has always known war and where remembrance means adding the toll of one year's dead and wounded to the scales of history? A country where war never ends, where the sirens may pause but never stop, where each generation grows up knowing that they will have to fight or flee. To stand watch or run away. It is not so much the past that is remembered on this day, but the present and the future. The stillness, a breath in the warm air, before setting out to climb the slopes of tomorrow.

Who can count the dust of Jacob.

And yet each memorial day we count the dust. The dust that is a fraction of those who have fallen defending the land for thousands of years. Flesh wears out, blood falls to the earth where the red daisies grow, and bone turns to dust. The dust blows across the graves of soldiers and prophets, the tombs of priests hidden behind brush, the caverns where forefathers rest in sacred silence, laid to rest by their sons, who were laid to rest by their own sons, generations burying the past, standing guard over it, being driven away and returning each time.

On Memorial Day, the hands of memory are dipped in the dust raising it to the blue sky. A prayer, a whisper, a dream of peace. And the wind blows the candles out. War follows. And once again blood flows into the dust. A young lieutenant shading his eyes against the sun. An old man resting with his family on the beach. Children climbing into bed in a village on a hilltop. And more bodies are laid to rest in the dust. Until dust they become.

In this land, the Maker of Stars and Dust vowed to Abraham that his children would be as many as the dust of the earth and the stars of heaven. In their darkest days, they would be as the dust. But there is mercy in the numberless count of the dust. Mercy in not being able to make a full count of the fallen and remaining ignorant of that full measure of woe. Modern technologies permit us terrible estimates. Databanks store the names of millions; digital cemeteries of ghosts. But there is no counting the dust. And when we walk the length and breadth of the land, as the Maker told Abraham to do, it the dust that supports our feet, we walk in the dust of our ancestors.

Some new countries are built to escape from the past, but there is no escaping it in these ancient hills. IDF soldiers patrol over ground once contested by empires, tread over spearheads and the wheels of chariots buried deep in the earth. The Assyrians and the Babylonians came through here in all their glory. Greek and Roman soldiers and mercenaries pitted themselves against the handful of Judeans who came out of the Babylonian exile. The Ottoman and the Arab raged here, and Crusader battering rams and British Enfield rifles still echo in the quiet hills.

Here in the silence of remembrance the present is always the past and the sky hangs like a thin veil fluttering against the future. The believers cast their prayers out of their mouths against the veil. The soldiers cast their lives and their hearts. And still the future flutters above, like the sky near enough to touch, but out of reach. Beneath it, the sky-blue flag, the stripe of the believer's shawls adorned with the interlocked star of the House of David.

Can these bones live, the Lord asks Ezekiel. And generations, after each slaughter, they come again, the descendants of the dead to reclaim the hills of their ancestors. Rising like the red flowers out of the soil. Like the bones out of the earth. They come up as slaves out of Egypt and out of the captivity of empires, their tongues as numberless as the earth. Here they come again to set up kingdoms and nations. And there in shadows on the dust, a handful of men fight off a legion; swords, spears and rifles in hand they face down impossible odds. They fight and die, but they go on.

The calendar itself is a memorial. Israel's Memorial Day, Independence Day and Lag BaOmer; the  commemoration of the original Yom Yerushalayim, the brief liberation of Jerusalem from the Romans, still covertly remembered in bonfires and bows shot into the air, all in a season that begins with Passover, the exodus that set over a million people off on a forty-year journey to return to the homeland of their forefathers.

The battles today are new, but they are also very old. The weapons are new, but the struggle is the same. Who will remain and who will be swept away. Some 3,000 years ago, Judge Jephthah and the King of Ammon were exchanging messages not too different from those being passed around as diplomatic communiques today. The King of Ammon demanding land for peace and the Judge laying out the Israeli case for the land in a message that the enemy would hardly trouble to read before going to war.

Take a stray path in these hills and you may find a grinning terrorist with a knife, or the young David pitting his slingshot against a lion or bear. This way the Maccabees rush ahead against the armies of a slave empire and this way a helicopter passes low overhead on the way to Gaza. Time is a fluid thing here. And what you remember; you shall find.

The soldier is not so sacred as he once was. The journalist and the judge have taken his place. The actors sneer from their theaters. The politicians gobble their free food and babble of peace. Musicians sing shrilly of flowers in gun barrels and doves everywhere. But the soldier still stands where he must. The borders have shrunk. The old victories have been exchanged for diplomatic defeats. From the old strongholds come missiles and rockets. And children hide in bomb shelters waiting for the worst to pass. This is the doing of the journalist and the judge, the politician and the actor, the lions of literature who send autographed copies of their books to imprisoned terrorists and the grandchildren of great men who hire themselves on in service to the enemy.

The man who serves is still sacred, but the temple of duty is desecrated more and more each year. Leftist academics dismiss the heroes of the past as myths or murderers. Their wives dress in black and harass soldiers at checkpoints, their children wrap their faces in Keffiyas and throw stones at them. Draft dodging, once a black mark of shame, has become a mark of pride among the left. Some boast about how easy it is, others enlist only to then refuse to serve. They call themselves Refusniks , accepting the Soviet view of Israel as an illegitimate warmongering state, but laying claim to the name of the Zionists who fought to escape the Soviet Union.

Some are only afraid, but some are filled with hate. They have looked into a twisted mirror and drunk of the poisoned wine. They have found their Inner Cain and go now to slay their brothers with words.

How shall I curse whom G-d has not cursed, asks Balaam. But the King of Moab is determined to have his curses anyway. And today it is to the UN that they come for curses. The Arab lands boil with  blood, but resolution after resolution follows damning Israel. China squats on the mountains of Tibet, Russian government thugs throw dissidents out of windows and Iranian thugs assault girls for removing their hijabs. And still the resolutions come like curses.

In a land built on memory, it is possible not to remember, but it is impossible to entirely forget. A war of memories comes. A war for the dust. Is this a day of remembrance or a day of shame. Were those men who fought and died for Judea and Samaria, for the Golan and Jerusalem, for every square inch of land when the armies of Arab dictators came to push them into the sea, heroes or villains. Were Nasser, Hussein, Saddam, Arafat, Gaddafi, Assad and the House of Saud the real heroes all along. The tiny minority of 360 million pitted against the overwhelming majority of 6 million.

Yet though men may forget, the dust remembers. And the men return to it. For some four thousand years they have done it. And they shall do it again. For He who has made men of the dust and made worlds of the dust of stars does not forget. As the stars turn in whirling galaxies and the dust flies across the land, so the people return to the land. And though they forget, they remember again. For the dust is the memory of ages and the children shall always return to the dust of their ancestors.

In the cities, towns and villages-- the dead are remembered. Those who died with weapons in their hands and those who just died. Men, women and children. Drops of blood cast to the dust, reborn as flowers on lapels. Reborn as memory.

All go to one place, said King Solomon, all that lives is of the dust, and all returns to the dust. There is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his works. And so memorial day precedes the day of independence. That we rejoice in that which those who sleep in the dust have died to protect. The skyscrapers and the orchards, the sheep ranches and the highways, the schools and the synagogues. For they who drained the swamps and built the roads, who held guard over the air and built the cities, may not have lived to see their works. But we rejoice in their works for them. And a new generation rises to watch over their dust and tend the works that they have built. Until the day when He that counts the dust of Jacob shall count them all, and the land shall stir, and in the words of Daniel, they that sleep in dust shall arise, and then rejoice with us.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

The Media's War on the First Amendment

The media took a brief break from its campaign against the Sinclair Media Group to go after the National Enquirer. The two don’t have anything in common except the perception of being pro-Trump.

In the good old days, going after rival media outlets meant writing nasty things about them. But these days the media doesn’t write nasty things for the sake of writing them. It writes nasty things to get someone fired, investigated or imprisoned. And that’s what its Sinclair and Enquirer stories are about.

CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times had wasted barrels of ink and pixels, to warn that Trump’s criticism of their media outlets represented a grave threat to the First Amendment.

And what better way to protect the First Amendment than by destroying it?

In its story about the FBI raid on Trump’s lawyer, the Times managed to suggest that the Enquirer’s support for the President of the United States might strip it of its First Amendment protection.

The Times tells its readers that the "federal inquiry" poses "thorny questions about A.M.I.’s First Amendment protections, and whether its record in supporting Mr. Trump somehow opens the door to scrutiny usually reserved for political organizations.”

That’s a thorny question alright. And there’s plenty more thorns where that one came from.

In ’08, the New York Times published an op-ed by Obama, but rejected McCain’s response. It just published an editorial titled, "Watch Out, Ted Cruz. Beto is Coming" which appears to have no purpose other than to help Beto O'Rourke raise money from New York Times readers.

The Times has a sharp thorn. So sharp it could punch a hole in it and the entire mainstream media.

“In one instance, The Enquirer bought but did not publish a story about an alleged extramarital relationship years earlier with the presidential candidate,” the Times sniffs. It’s not unprecedented for a paper to have damaging material about a politician without publishing it. Just ask the Los Angeles Times about the vault they’re keeping Obama’s Khalidi tape in. Or ask the Washington Post about its embargo of the photo of Obama posing with Nation of Islam hate group leader Louis Farrakhan at a CBC event.

Try and suggest that behavior like that should strip them of their First Amendment rights and a howling mob of pudgy pundits would descend on the green rooms of CNN and MSNBC like hornets out of hell.

On the Sinclair front, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and eight other Senate Democrats sent a letter to the FCC demanding that it take away its licenses because Sinclair condemned media bias.

No, really.

As “strong defenders of the First Amendment”, Bernie, Liz and Cory want to silence Sinclair because its anchors warned about "the dangers of 'one-sided news stories plaguing our country.'" And what better way to disprove such nonsense than by using government power to silence the news on the other side?

The Senate Stalinists accused Sinclair of a "systematic news distortion operation that seeks to undermine freedom of the press." But most people know that as the mainstream media.

Freedom of the press requires us to accept the idea that a handful of major lefty corporations control the country’s new distortion operation because it also allows conservatives to have their own media.

But the media left doesn’t accept that compromise. It isn’t willing to settle for the first spot in a two-man race. Like Tonya Harding, it wants to take a club to the knee of its political opponents.

In the media’s utopia, just like in a Soviet election or a movie tagline, there can be only one.

The press is perversely waging its war on the First Amendment in the name of freedom of the press. Its definition of the First Amendment is an exclusive club. And the only way to protect the club from Republican riffraff is to strip away their First Amendment rights. All for the sake of the First Amendment.

Like all leftists, the media doesn’t believe in freedom of the press. It believes in its own freedom. It identifies the First Amendment with itself and declares any threat to it to be a threat to the First.

That’s how the media can call for censoring rival media outlets in the name of the First Amendment.

After Trump’s victory, the media tore apart this country to boost its circulation and ratings (the New York Times and the Washington Post are so outraged that they can’t count the cash fast enough) and manufacture a crisis that would justify consolidating its control over the internet and print media.

Facebook was the biggest threat to the media’s bottom line. That’s why Mark Zuckerberg was testifying in Congress over data privacy issues that weren’t an issue when Obama Inc. had “ingested the entire social graph.” It was one of a series of fake news stories blaming Facebook for Trump’s victory.

Even the average leftist couldn’t care less about Facebook’s impact on the media’s business model. So the media instead rallied its mobs by accusing Facebook of collaborating with Trump and the Russians.

And the howls, imprecations and regulations began.

The media’s endgame was neutering Facebook and turning it into a profitable safe space for its content. The post-election accusations about “fake news” and the later conspiracy theories about “Russian bots” blamed Facebook’s “unregulated” spaces for powering Trump’s seemingly improbable election victory.

The solution to an unregulated space is regulation.

Facebook was blackmailed into letting the media’s fact checkers decide which stories should be allowed. Then algorithm tinkering wiped out the traffic of many conservative sites, leading several to shut down.

Google, Twitter and other social media companies have taken their own steps to prioritize lefty media views and silence conservative ones. The post-Trump environment in search and social has been rigged to be very favorable to the mainstream media and deeply unfriendly to Trump supporters.

The great media dream is a gated internet news operation completely under their control. But the attacks on Sinclair and the Enquirer show that even with the internet, old media is still in the crosshairs.

The media isn’t just going after websites; it’s also going after channels and print magazines. And it’s targeting them using the blunt tools of government censorship. FBI raids and FCC licenses are an escalation from pressuring Facebook into hiring its fact checkers to censor conservative media.

It’s the difference between monopolistic abuses and totalitarian ones.

The media has been using corporations to do its dirty work. But it’s never going to be satisfied with oligarchy if it can grab the brass ring of tyranny. Crackdowns by Citibank and the Bank of America on the Second Amendment or by Facebook and Google on the First Amendment are effective, but unsatisfying. The left didn’t spend over a century dying and killing just to have the Bank of America do its work for it.

As a dog returns to its vomit, the left returns to government repression.

The media will not accept any monopoly that is a hair short of total. FOX News, Sinclair and even the National Enquirer must be destroyed. Corporations and governments will be used as hand puppets to silence every voice of dissent. And it will be done for freedom of the press and the First Amendment.

The free press is a threat to freedom of the press, read about it in the mainstream media.



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

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

Thank you for reading.


Sunday, April 15, 2018

Another Election Conspiracy Theory Bites the Dust

In the middle of March, The Guardian, a British lefty tabloid, rolled out a fake scandal that has dominated the media. Its original article claimed that Christopher Wylie, a "whistleblower", had revealed how Cambridge Analytica, the company he had worked for, had helped Trump win by illegitimately harvesting large amounts of Facebook data and then exploiting it to target users.
The story has since fallen apart in every conceivable way that a story is capable of falling apart.
Obama’s people had also harvested data from Facebook friends. "We ingested the entire U.S. social graph," his media analytics guru had boasted. But so had everyone else. A platform operations manager at Facebook estimated that hundreds of thousands of developers had gotten access to friend data.
So much for The Guardian’s claim that, "information had been harvested on an unprecedented scale".
Free online services are part of a data marketplace. That’s the real business that Facebook is in. The story only blew up because it offered another conspiratorial explanation for President Trump’s victory.
Except it didn’t.
The Trump campaign had only used Cambridge Analytica's data during the primaries before switching to RNC data during the election. The fake news scandal had nothing to do with the actual election.
But that didn’t stop Mother Jones from running a story headlined, "Here (Was Once) a Photo of Cambridge Analytica’s CEO With the Russian Ambassador to the UK". The nebulous connections between the Trump campaign, Russia and Facebook data had become another red dot on the strange global map of lefty conspiracy theories struggling to explain President Trump’s victory.
The story just kept coming apart.
The Guardian had glamorized Wylie as a courageous whistleblower in numerous stories. The pink-haired “gay Canadian vegan” is described as agonizing over his role. He told British lawmakers, “Donald Trump makes it click in your head that this actually has a much wider impact. I don't think that military-style information operations is conducive for any democratic process.”
 Except the “whistleblower’s” own company and had been pitching Trump’s future campaign manager back when Cambridge Analytica had been working with Ted Cruz.
The Guardian’s whistleblower had been discredited. Its extended series of stories had never delivered on their claim that there was anything extraordinary about the data collection or illegitimate about either Trump’s victory or Brexit: a special target of the British lefty tabloid. The primary and secondary stories had casually conflated the two, breathlessly reporting on the data collection tactics and leaving it to readers to assume that there was also something shocking or illegitimate in how the data was used.
But that hasn’t dissuaded the media from its obsessive coverage of another scandal of its own invention. And most of its previous Facebook conspiracy theories about Trump’s win were even shoddier.
The original post-election Facebook conspiracy theories blamed “fake news” sites. Dubious metrics were assembled claiming that fake news stories outperformed mainstream media articles. The numbers behind the metrics turned out to be bad, but that didn’t matter.  The purge of dissenting views from social media was underway. And conservative sites continue to be banned and shadowbanned over it.
Then there was the even more dubious claim that Russian Facebook ads had rigged the election. Again, ridiculous metrics were assembled which asserted that the ads had reached 126 million Americans. Even though the Russians had spent fairly little relative to either campaign and all of the dark money in the race. And the fact was that the majority of the ad engagement had actually happened after the election.
When Facebook's VP of Ad Product pointed this out, the media forced him to apologize for challenging its conspiracy theory. Again, bad numbers and media hysteria kept the conspiracy theory going.
This latest Facebook conspiracy theory seeks to address the problem with the two previous conspiracy theories. How could fake news sites and Russian ads be more effective than the Clinton campaign? The answer was filled in with gibberish about “psychological warfare tools”. Voters hadn’t just been tricked. They had been brainwashed into voting Trump with “sophisticated psychological and political profiles.”
Except we’re still talking about ads here. 
If being subjected to constant brainwashing, lies, spin and manipulation by trained experts could rig an election, every media outlet in American that doesn’t start with an F would have made Hillary president.
Even assuming that all the allegations made about the data collection were true (and there’s no reason to assume that), that has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of either election or referendum. Facebook’s data privacy has nothing to do with Americans picking Trump and Brits choosing Brexit.
The various Facebook conspiracy theories, whether they involve Russian trolls, alleged fake news or this psychographic profiling, have one thing in common. They all seek to deny the agency of the voters.
A popular theme in British lefty tabloids after Brexit was profiling individuals who had voted Leave and now claimed to have been fooled into voting incorrectly. The latest Facebook fake news scandal hits all the same notes. Trump and Brexit voters didn’t really legitimately vote. Instead they were brainwashed by some sort of big data psychological weapon that persuaded the deplorables to do the wrong thing.
Like most conspiracy theories, it’s silly. But it’s also deeply dangerous.
When political elites start convincing themselves that democracy doesn’t work because they didn’t get the results they wanted, that’s much scarier than anything in Facebook’s data collection policies.
The political elites on both sides of the ocean have been talking themselves into the idea that free referendums and elections are a bad idea because the ordinary person is too easily manipulated.
Behind the rush to lock down Facebook, purge “fake news” from social media and push “fact checks” everywhere is a deep distrust of the individual. The utopian idealism of the elites conceals the cynical conviction that democracy is a hoax and most people are sheep who will do whatever they’re told.
That’s why the news media and the entertainment industry constantly tell us what to think.
All the assorted Facebook conspiracy theories converge around the paranoid notion that the only reason the elites badly lost with Trump and Brexit is that someone else did a better job of brainwashing their voters. The conspiracy theories range from Macedonian fake news sites to Russian trolls to a British data analytics company, but they all agree that there was an informational coup against their propaganda.
Projecting the source of the informational coup outward cloaks the lefty crackdowns in the garb of national security instead of domestic repression. Fighting foreign election interference sounds better than censoring the political opposition. Even if most dictatorships use the former to justify the latter.
Fake statistics and involved technical explanations give the conspiracy theories an air of credibility. But underneath them is the conviction that the only way to protect democracy, a frequent election conspiracy talking point, is to rig it by denying the voters their choice of information sources.
No one who thinks that voters can’t be trusted to make their own decisions believes in democracy. They only see the illusion of democracy as a useful tool for consensus building. The real thing frightens them.
The conspiracy theories fall apart when you examine them. Dig into the numbers and they don’t hold up. And none of them prove their central premise that the 2016 election was illegitimate. Like the Mueller investigation and most conspiracy theories, they go to all sorts of interesting places. But they never actually make the trip from A to B. Instead they’d like to tell you about Russian trolls, Canadian gay vegans, British intelligence agents, Macedonian websites, Japanese  servers and everything else.
They cast doubt, introduce elaborate theories and write longread reports that do everything but prove that the election was rigged, its results were illegitimate and that Americans really wanted Hillary.
Instead they make the case for censoring the internet and distrusting the voters. The conspiracy theory is always the conspiracy. And behind these conspiracy theories is a conspiracy against democracy.


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

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

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

The Betrayal of the Holocaust



When we talk about the Holocaust, we are talking about the mass murder of millions of Jews.

The dead included my grandparents and countless others, shot, starved, gassed, beaten to death and buried in mass graves. And yet the lessons of the Holocaust in its commemorations rarely have anything to do with Jewish lives. 

Millions of dollars have been spent building memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, even as Iran is spending its millions on building another kind of memorial to the Holocaust, in the form of nuclear technology. Ben Rhodes, the Obama crony who helped sell the Iranian Big Lie, sits on the board of the Holocaust Memorial Council. The Washington D.C. museum ignores the murder of Jews in Israel, but is very worked up over the deaths of Muslims in Myanmar, in Egypt and around the world.

Millions more are spent, by some of the same groups that claim an interest in Holocaust education, on bringing Muslim migrants to America and Europe to carry out the promise of an Islamic apocalypse in which, as the Hadith states, "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."

That is what the Islamic Holocaust looks like. If you want to see it slowly getting underway, visit Paris or Jerusalem.

But the murder of Jews, in Israel or Europe, somehow has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Virtually every major Jewish organization, even the Orthodox Union, was pressured into signing on to obscenely despicable statements equating Muslim migrants to Holocaust victims.

The Holocaust isn't just an uncomfortable subject for Germans, Russians or Poles. It's a very uncomfortable subject for American Jews. The same liberal Jewish organizations that took a vocal part in the civil rights movement remained deathly silent about the murder of six million Jews.

Why the silence? The same reason they didn't protest the Iran Deal too loudly.

The Obama of the Holocaust was named FDR. His administration was equally anti-Semitic. And chose to ignore the mass murder of Jews until protests by Zionist activists became too loud to ignore.

Saving six million Jews was not a feel good liberal cause. The civil rights movement was.

And it's never about doing the right thing. It's about what looks good. It's what's popular.

The same organizations that stayed silent during the Holocaust then rebranded it as a universalist civil rights program. The real lesson of the Holocaust isn't, "Don't allow Jews to be killed."

It's fight for every leftist cause on the planet... except that outmoded "not killing Jews" one.

The same Jewish organizations that wouldn't dream of missing a Holocaust commemoration broadcast their commitment to the "Two State Solution" almost as loudly as to the Holocaust.

The only lesson they learned is that another Holocaust needs better marketing.

The Final Solution, with its immediate extermination of the Jews, has been replaced by the Two State Solution, an intermediate process in which the land on which Jews can live is partitioned into smaller and smaller pieces.

The Lebensraum of Islam demands ever more breathing room. And fewer breathing Jews. Israel is carved up into smaller indefensible ghettos. And Jews are barred from living outside those ghettos. Those who are are "settlers" who must be evicted for the sake of the peace that Islam always brings.

Even if they're "settling" in Jerusalem.: the oldest Jewish city in history.

But the real lesson of the Holocaust is that if we don't destroy Israel, and bring the migrant synagogue bombers and senior citizen murderers of tomorrow to Europe, we're no better than the Nazis.

Just ask a leftist.

The Holocaust isn't very complicated because murder isn't very complicated. The easy lesson of murder is don't let it happen again.

It is easier to build another memorial than to look into your heart and ask why two generations later, the majority of the American Jewish community was still too cowardly to stand up to a liberal icon in the White House... when the lives of millions of Jews were on the line.

From FDR to Obama, American Jewish leaders had two opportunities to stand up to a liberal icon and save Jewish lives. No amount of memorials can disguise the fact that they learned nothing.

The best memorial to the dead is to stop aiding their murderers.

Every Jewish organization that bowed to FDR and Obama have blood on their hands. Every Jewish organization that trumpets the Two State Solution has blood on its hands. Every Jewish organization that mainstream BDS activists, that criticizes Israel and America for fighting terrorism, that imports Muslim migrants while demanding the expulsion of Jewish "settlers" has blood on its hands.

I don't remember the Holocaust because of a museum. I remember because of my grandparents. I remember because my Jewishness doesn't come from a memorial, it's always been a part of me.

The Holocaust told us a harsh truth about the world and human nature. Its commemorations soften the edges. But we need those harsh truths to know what lies behind the comfortable curtain.

Death is the harshest truth. The next harshest truth is betrayal. And the Jews have most often been betrayed by Jews escaping their Jewishness. Some, like George Soros, did it in the most literal way possible. Others did it by kvelling to an FDR speech while ignoring the ash drifting over Europe. Today, they affirm the Two State Solution, ignore Iran's nuclear program and click on that inspirational speech by Obama, Cory Booker or the political culture hero next in line.

They ignore the Jews being murdered in Israel or in Paris. Dead Jews have nothing to do with their Holocaust. That refusal to listen and understand is how it began. The Jews of Poland didn't pay attention to what was going on in Germany. The Jews of Hungary didn't pay attention to what was going on in Poland. And American Jewish organizations all too often ignored all of them.

The Holocaust doesn't need hundred million dollar museums. To commemorate it, we must pay attention. And we must never let the propaganda of the killers blind us to their crimes.

That's easy to say about the Nazis, it's a lot harder when it comes to the PLO, Iran and Hamas.

It's easy to feel good about disavowing a discredited and fallen ideology. There's no act of courage there. But try disavowing the Two State Solution and the Iran Deal. That's a commemoration.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

March For Our Lives Isn't a Youth Movement

A month after the Parkland shootings, a Quinnipiac poll showed that voters 18-34 were much less likely to support either an “assault weapons” ban or a ban on the sale of “semi-automatic rifles”.
80% of voters 65 years of age and older supported an “assault weapons ban”, but those 18-34 split over it. A majority of voters 65 and over backed the “semi-automatic rifle” bans, but a majority of 18-34 voters opposed it.
The Washington D.C. March for Our Lives rally was billed as a way for the next generation of youth to speak out. But only 10% of the crowd that cheered the bizarre drama club antics on stage was under 18.
The average age of the adults was 49 years old.
That’s young compared to the median age of the CNN primetime viewer:  60 years old. The media hype for the March was a cable news phenomenon. Few millennials even watch cable news.
Why would they show up for a media circus whose audience is approaching retirement age?
70% of the March for Our Lives attendees were women. 89% were Hillary Clinton voters.
The analysis by the University of Maryland sociology professor who conducted the survey found comparisons to the Million Moms March and the Women’s March. That’s not too surprising.
The March for Our lives permit application filed with the National Park Service lists Deena Katz, the co-executive director of the Women's March Los Angeles Foundation, as the “Person in Charge of Event”. The application papers for the March for Our Lives Fund describe her as the group's president.
Katz graduated from UCLA in ’88. She’s not the voice of the youth or a new generation.
Another of the Fund’s directors, Melissa Scholz, became involved in another political organization after meeting at the Women’s March. It wouldn’t be too surprising if a number of other directors also had participated in the same anti-Trump rally. And most of the new protesters at the March for Our Lives rally weren’t there to demand gun control. Only 12 percent of them had turned out for gun control.
42% were motivated by Trump.
March for Our Lives was just a rebranded version of the Women’s March with some teen acts.
But the audience wasn’t really there for them. Like the Women’s March, it consisted of Hillary fans expressing the same tired outrage that their candidate had lost despite her numerous scandals.
They didn’t care about Trump. They just wanted to show up and scream some more at the sky.
Another 56% of new protesters were there for “peace”. Anti-war and anti-Israel protesters are still the surest draw at any lefty rally. And they’re usually obsessive enough to show up at all of them.
Look closer and the astroturf group falls apart. Behind a few photogenic teens who live on cable news, March for Our Lives is run by left-wing middle-aged women and drew left-wing middle-aged women.
Along with a smattering of Sandernistas probably protesting the existence of the military and Israel.
Anyone who has ever covered lefty rallies knows that they consist of the same core participants regardless of their message. Changing the message just allows the media to inflate their influence.
The “youth” had better things to do with their time than be packed into a crowd and be yelled at by the drama club for CNN’s benefit. And they were less likely to agree with its message. Younger people are more socially liberal. But that doesn’t just extend to drugs and gay marriage, but also to firearms.
The cable news claim that the “youth” of Parkland had organized a national movement out of their living rooms was always a hysterical howler. March for Our Lives is funded by Hollywood celebrities and its fund and leadership appears to be mostly based out of Los Angeles. And despite all the theatrics that a former Emmy producer could pull off, the “youth” didn’t bother showing up to march for their lives.
Despite the cable news hysteria, the average teen outside Chicago or Baltimore doesn’t think that he is likely to be shot the next time he comes to school. The sense of hysterical vulnerability that underlies identity politics, emerging as black fragility in Black Lives Matter with its chants of, “I can’t breathe”, does not touch any of the same chords with normal teens who may be narcissistic, but not weak.
But it was the idea of a youth uprising that the left needed, even if it couldn’t deliver the reality.
The left always broadcasts its old discredited messages in the voice of a new generation. It’s the demographic version of its “right side of history”. If the young are on the left, then its victory is generationally inevitable. And it’s only a matter of time until its new generation takes over.
In the tide of human nature, young leftists become middle-aged and elderly conservatives. The inevitable victory never happens. And the youth can unexpectedly turn against leftist politics.
But the idea of adapting to inevitable demographic change compels politicians and corporations.
Republicans nearly forced illegal alien amnesty on the country because they were convinced that demographics made it inevitable. The towel was thrown in on a long list of social issues because the poll numbers showed that a new generation was so on board that further resistance was hopeless.
But the March for Our Lives endgame is more corporate than legislative.
Even the most ambitious cable news hysterics know that there’s only so far Republicans and even Democrats will go on gun control. Especially before midterm elections. There’s a reason that the NRA has a passionate and influential membership. There are far more single issue voters for the Second Amendment than against it. And Democrats who want to make red state inroads will play it cool.
The greatest gun control victories aren’t being won in legislatures, but among corporations.
Politicians are less likely to be panicked by the youth vote because there isn’t much of it. Voting frequency and reliability increases with age. Angry teens can make a scene, but that’s about it.
Corporations are obsessed with marketing to the youth. Advertising tore apart the old standards of family entertainment in a desperate hunt for young, affluent viewers. Every major brand has been taught to obsessively virtue signal to these wealthy twenty-somethings by vomiting up their social issue commitments in every ad while dismissing 90% of their own consumers as completely worthless.
Democrats know that gun control is a political poison pill. They’ve experienced its consequences. But corporations like Citibank, Google, Walmart and Delta Airlines don’t know about that and don’t care.  As the economy compresses into a diminishing collection of corporate monopolies whose leadership and marketing operate out of blue states, they can do what their Democrat minions are afraid to do.
The illusion of a youth movement is enough to justify their unprecedented political interventions to their shareholders. Why bother marketing to old conservatives when you can win the loyalty of leftist youth?
March for Our Lives is a vehicle to convince corporate boards to impose gun control. It’s got more in common with Madison Avenue than Main Street. And indeed, 42 West, the full service public relations firm handling the March for Our Lives PR, is located four blocks east of Madison. Like a lot of advertising, it’s a series of slick manipulative lies that fool corporations harder than they fool their intended marks.
Marketing leftist youth radicalism to corporate power isn’t new. But this assault on our civil rights is.
After Trump won, the left retreated from controlling us through elected offices to controlling us through unelected offices. Federal judges, the FBI, the media and major corporate monopolies have been pitted against the elected officials who represent the will of the people. This is the civil war we are now in.
March for Our Lives is not a youth movement, it’s another means that aging leftists are using to divide and control us. Theirs is not the voice of a new generation, but of a discredited 19thcentury ideology.




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

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

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, April 05, 2018

The Military Can Secure the Border and Build the Wall

The United States has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, 39,000 in Japan, 34,805 in Germany, 23,000 in South Korea, and around 5,200 in Iraq. Our military protects the borders of countless nations.
Except our own.

In 1919, we had 18,500 soldiers on the border. “Twice a day every foot of the border line is patrolled by cavalrymen and infantrymen,” the New York Times noted.

A hundred years later, President Trump’s proposal to use the military to secure the border is controversial even though Marines fighting drug cartels have come under fire from drug smugglers.

El Salvadoran migration has inflicted 207 murderers on this country. The migrant caravan threatening to invade this country includes migrants from El Salvador. Some of them may be MS-13 members. The Pueblo Sin Fronteras caravan of 1,000 migrants is the product of an alliance between international leftists and migrant invaders. Their goal is the invasion, colonization and occupation of America.

And the only ones defending us against them are the members of an outnumbered border patrol, threatened by both drug cartels on the other side of the border and sanctuary states in this country.

That’s why President Trump is mobilizing the troops to do the job that the Democrats won’t do.

“Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” President Trump said.

Some of the same politicians who oppose withdrawing our forces from Syria also oppose sending troops to secure the border. But which should be a higher priority?

If an enemy army were invading South Korea, our soldiers would swing into action. But the United States has already been invaded. The invaders have occupied and seized control of state governments, including California, while declaring that their rebel cities will defy Federal immigration law.

They mean to do the same thing to the entire country. Their DREAM is the end of America.

From fighting Indian raids to the banditry of Pancho Villa, the military has always secured the border against invasions out of Mexico. The military was our defense against the "Plan of San Diego" terror waged by Mexican racists who vowed to seize control of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado, liberate the “proletariat” and execute all "North American over sixteen years of age.”

And yes, the military can even “build the wall”.

Joint Task Force North's military engineers have already built 62 miles of road, and border fence construction. There’s no reason why its anti-terrorist and drug smuggling prevention mission can’t be expanded to include securing the border with a wall and other impassable physical barriers.
Presidents have taken action against urgent illegal migrant threats before.

"Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. ‘I like Ike,’ right?" Donald Trump said during a primary debate. "Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back."

Operation Wetback was fantastically effective in clearing illegal aliens out of California and Texas.

Under General Joseph Swing, who had done everything from hunting Pancho Villa in Mexico to going up against the Japanese in the Philippines, the INS caught, detained and deported over a million illegals. Wetback had been based on the Operation Cloud Burst plan, which would have used a presidential proclamation to authorize the use of military force if the Army had not been tied down in Korea.

Some commentators have claimed that the Posse Comitatus Act would prevent the use of any military forces other than the National Guard on the border. But securing the border against foreign invaders (as opposed to domestic law enforcement directed against citizens) has always been a military matter.

Furthermore the military is already authorized to operate in areas where drug smuggling occurs.

Stopping illegal migrants does not subject “citizens to the exercise of military power”. If the military does not supplement ICE, but directly secures the border, there would be no Posse Comitatus issue.
But the law also permits the use of military force to “prevent disruption of Federal functions”.

Sanctuary states like California have disrupted the functioning of immigration law and have even passed laws prohibiting citizens from cooperating with Federal authorities. 10 U.S.C. 332, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces to enforce Federal law when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States renders ordinary enforcement means unworkable.”

The unlawful obstruction of immigration law by sanctuary cities and states has made ordinary enforcement unworkable. The rebellion against the authority of the United States must end.
10 U.S.C. 333 further, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces when domestic violence or conspiracy hinders execution of State or Federal law, and a State cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens.” That’s the current state of affairs in California and elsewhere.

Californians are being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens because their government not only refuses to protect their constitutional rights, but criminalizes cooperation with immigration authorities.

Deploying the National Guard would be a helpful start. But hopefully it won’t end there.
Any forces deployed to the border must have the authority to stop anyone illegally crossing the border. Either that or they must be part of a wall construction effort. Obama and Bush had already deployed the National Guard as a show of force. But a show of force by forces unable to do anything is a farce.

America can’t afford any more border security theater when we need actual border security results.

Our cities are being overwhelmed, our borders are unreal lines on a map and the terror is coming home. Every day we are losing more of our country. The San Diego Plan envisioned the invasion and capture of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado. Over a century later, it’s becoming a reality.

The military can be used to secure the border as it has been since its existence. All we need is the will.

President Trump is right to call for using the military to guard the border. He’s right to contemplate using the military to build the wall. It’s been done before and it can be done again. The residents of terrorized border towns, the angel dads and moms of Americans murdered by illegal aliens, the sheriffs and other law enforcement officers, and the struggling ICE agents are waiting for military backup.

Our soldiers have been deployed to defend many countries. Now it’s time for them to defend our own.




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

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

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, April 03, 2018

A Muslim Immigrant Committed the Worst Anti-Semitic Hate Crime of the Year

The worst anti-Semitic hate crime of 2018 took place outside a restaurant in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Izmir Koch, an Ahiska Turkish migrant who had already been in trouble with the law, allegedly demanded to know if there were any Jews around. A man who been at the restaurant replied that he was Jewish. Izmir punched him in the head, and then kicked him while he lay on the ground.
The victim, who wasn’t actually Jewish, suffered bruised ribs and a fractured eye socket.
Now a federal grand jury has indicted Izmir for committing a hate crime. The violent assault was the single worst anti-Semitic hate crime of 2018. So far. And it’s generated very little interest from the same activists and media outlets who had been accusing the White House of not acting against anti-Semitism.
Izmir had already been facing two counts of felonious assault, one involving a deadly weapon, from 2016. He was found guilty a month after the Cincinnati assault, along with a number of comrades and family members. That assault had taken place outside their trucking company in Dayton, Ohio.
A former employee had come to collect the money that he was owed, and Izmir Koch, Baris Koch, Sevil Shakhmanov and Mustafa Shakhmanov allegedly assaulted him with crowbars, and possibly brass knuckles and a baseball bat. The victim, who apparently had a knife, fought back.
Izmir, Boris and Murad were Turkish Muslims from the former Soviet Union who had migrated to this country. A few years before that fight, the local media was talking up their “positive impact” on the community in Dayton. But it didn’t take long for the legal problems to begin. The benefits of bringing these Turkish Muslims to Dayton were quickly outweighed by the violence they had brought.
The Cincinnati assault is one of the most physically violent recent anti-Semitic attacks. But the perpetrator is a Muslim immigrant and the alphabet soup organizations don’t want to talk about it.
It doesn’t fit their profile or their agenda.
News stories about the Cincinnati attack don’t mention that the perpetrator is a Muslim immigrant. “Give me your violent, your bigoted, your anti-Semitic masses yearning to kill,” doesn’t sound as good.
Lefty Jewish organizations spend all their time forming alliances to support Muslim immigrants against President Trump. Meanwhile the DOJ is fighting the anti-Semitism that they refuse to fight.
While the media and these organizations ignore the most violent anti-Semitic assault of the year, they have been lavishing attention on (((Semitism))), a book by the New York Times'Jonathan Weisman. The thesis of (((Semitism))) is that Muslims are our natural allies and the worst anti-Semitism today is the alt-right trolling on Twitter. Israel is an unfortunate distraction from all the merchant memes and hashtags.
“Stop obsessing about Israel,” the New York Times writer barks at Jews, “Reach out to Muslim groups, immigrant groups.” Weisman is welcome to reach out to Izmir Koch. But he should watch his eyes.
Tweets of Jews in gas chambers may be ugly, but Cincinnati reminds us of that actually dangerous anti-Semitism looks like an anti-Semitic Muslim thug beating you hard enough to fracture your eye socket.
The triple parentheses that some on the alt-right use to mark Jews had their own counterpart in the New York Times which published a list of Democrats opposed to Obama’s Iran deal, and marked which were Jewish in yellow. Weisman was the man behind the left’s version of the triple parenthesis. And his response to being called out was his own version of the alt-right’s “just kidding” wrongfooting gambit.
(((Semitism))) is only the latest example of how discussions about the rise in anti-Semitism elide the perpetrators actually committing serious crimes and instead dwell endlessly on Twitter Nazi trolls.
The ADL’s widely hyped figures noted that more than half of the anti-Semitic assaults in the country were reported in New York. Quite a few of the serious incidents happened in Brooklyn neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Williamsburg where the only white people are lefty hipsters. The rest are largely African-American and Latino. The first listed assault in Brooklyn was carried out by black teens.  
The targets of these assaults are frequently Orthodox Jews who are visibly identifiable as Jewish.
The ADL’s own numbers show that anti-Semitism rates among African-Americans in some years have been nearly twice as high as among the general population. That’s why Tamika Mallory, Barack Obama, Keith Ellison and so many others were comfortable palling around with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. It’s why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are black leaders instead of cautionary tales.
That’s a quite different reality from the one that exists in (((Semitism))) and similar narratives. And yet it’s what violent anti-Semitism actually looks like. And it’s what no major organization wants to discuss.
And even when it comes to rhetoric, they would rather talk about Twitter than real life.
 On the University of California-Santa Cruz (UCSC) campus, African/Black Student Allianceprotesters harassed Jewish students celebrating Israeli Independence Day with shouts of “Free Palestine” and “F*** Jewish Slugs”. This is the sort of thing that Weisman and (((Semitism))) want us to ignore.
And when is praising Hitler and cheering the Holocaust on Twitter not a problem? When Muslims do it.
Canary Mission is constantly documenting anti-Semitism by members of campus hate groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, including calls for Jewish genocide, and praise for Hitler. But unlike the same behavior by the alt-right, no major Jewish organization wants to pay attention to the crisis.
MEMRI has documented multiple mosques in the United States preaching the mass murder of Jews.
It’s no surprise that the worst anti-Semitic hate crime of 2018 was committed by a member of a religion whose leaders praise the Holocaust and preach a final apocalyptic conflictbetween Muslims and Jews.
And it’s also no surprise that lefty Jewish groups enabling Islamic migration don’t want to talk about it.
The Koch clan went from an immigrant success story to a violent nightmare in a matter of years. But the nightmare was always there. We just chose not to see it. And we still aren’t seeing it.
Anti-Semitism is a matter of religion and culture. America is one of the least anti-Semitic countries in the world. When immigrants from anti-Semitic countries come to America, then anti-Semitism increases.
The ADL’s own numbers show that Hispanic immigrants are more likely to be anti-Semitic  than Hispanics born in the United States.  In 2016, only 10% of white people held anti-Semitic views, compared to 19% of Hispanics born in the United States and 31% of Hispanic immigrants.
The numbers are even worse for Muslims.
An extensive British survey found that negative views of Jews among Muslims were 2 to 4 times higher than in the general population. One German survey found that over 50% of Muslim refugees held anti-Semitic attitudes. An Austrian survey showed that 50% of young Muslim had anti-Semitic views.
The ADL claims that in the United States it’s only 34%. Even if that’s true, that’s more than three times as high as white Americans.
Which should we be more concerned about, 10% or 34%?
But not all attitudes are created equal. Most people have some sort of prejudices. But very few will actually violently lash out at someone, especially a total stranger, the way Izmir Koch allegedly did.
Islamic bigotry doesn’t just stay private. It can turn into a lot more than just a joke or a little graffiti.
The Koran doesn’t just preach hatred. It urges the devout to act on that hatred. That is the ground zero of terrorism. It’s why Jews have been repeatedly targeted in acts of Islamic terror in America.
And why these crimes have been repeatedly whitewashed, brushed aside and forgotten.
That’s why we aren’t talking about a man lying bleeding on the street because a Turkish Muslim immigrant thought he was a Jew.





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

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

Thank you for reading.