Monthly Archives: March 2018

Civil War: Racism By The Political Left

LInda Sarsour Carmen Perez Tamika Mallory

Liberals’ willful blindness to the anti-Semitism raging on the left is a dangerous game.

Recently the national co-chair of the Women’s March, Tamika Mallory, attended a Nation of Islam event in which Louis Farrakhan called Jews his “enemy” and held them responsible for “this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men.” Mallory had previously posted a photo of herself with Farrakhan and praised him as the “GOAT” or “greatest of all time” in her caption.

When Mallory finally responded to critics, she cast herself as a victim and defended Farrakhan. Fellow Women’s March co-chairs Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez also defended Farrakhan.

While liberal groups (Jewish and otherwise) have indicated they’ll put up with the anti-Semitism in the name of left-wing social justice, some Jews declined to participate in the Women’s March-sponsored National School Walkout against guns this month.

Writing in the Forward, Abigail D.M. Fisher criticized the dissenters. One school, SAR Academy in Riverdale, merely held its own anti-gun march on a different day, to both protest against gun violence and anti-Semitism. Fisher attacked the kids for protesting anti-Semitism: “By distancing themselves from the official protest, SAR made clear that anti-Semitism is more important to them than gun-violence. In other words, ‘Judaism First.’ ”

Fisher’s ugly smear, of course, plays into centuries of anti-Semitic libels casting Jews as disloyal or indifferent to the blood spilled by gentiles.

Resorting to hateful stereotypes in response to accusations of anti-Semitism is, sadly, a bit of a trend on the left. When the Republican Jewish Coalition demanded the resignations of seven Democratic members of Congress who have met with Farrakhan while in office, one of the RJC’s targets, Andre Carson, responded by refusing to denounce the preacher of hate and asking Jewish Republicans to denounce Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — playing the classic anti-Semitic dual-loyalty card.

In a story on Thursday, Josefin Dolsten at the Jewish Telegraph Agency spoke to several leaders of various Jewish organizations. None of them were leaving the Women’s March. “Jewish progressive leaders told JTA that they were hurt and disappointed by Farrakhan’s statement and Mallory’s presence at the event, but not ready to walk away from the movement that advocates for women’s rights, immigration reform and LGBTQ equality, among other issues. Rather, they would prefer to engage with its leadership,” Dolsten reported.

Similarly, when Washington, DC, City Councilman Trayon White Sr. made the eye-popping comment last week that Jewish wealthmongers are “controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities,” it was again liberal Jews who gave him cover.

The group Jews United for Justice released a statement of support saying they “look forward to working with him toward deeper understanding of anti-Semitism and toward our collective liberation.” His Jewish colleague Brianne Nadeau put up a Facebook post accepting White’s apology but blaming President Trump.

When video surfaced of other anti-Semitic comments by White, this time about their supposed control of banks and of the government, Rebecca Ennen, deputy director of Jews United for Justice, made White the victim: “I hope that people will accept this apology in a compassionate spirit, and I’m disappointed in some of the ways that racism has come out towards Councilmember White in this moment, that everyday politicians in this country say all kinds of bigoted things, and people are calling for his head on a platter when he’s really trying to learn and grow.”

Getting condemnation of the Farrakhan-aligned pols from the Anti-Defamation League, meanwhile, was like pulling teeth. And when the group, now run by a former Obama staffer who has made ADL’s mission increasingly partisan, finally commented, it excluded Keith Ellison — the Minnesota congressman and current deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, who has had a decades-long relationship with Farrakhan and has continued to meet with him in office.

In a New York Times op-ed this month, Jonathan Weissman called out Jews who ignore growing anti-Semitism — except his criticism, too, was limited to the alt-right.

Weissman writes: “For Jews, this is personal. Had ordinary Germans and Poles and Ukrainians and Austrians and Frenchmen not played along, had they continued to shop in Jewish establishments and visit Jewish doctors, the Final Solution may, just may, not have been quite so final. To stand up to creeping totalitarianism, we needn’t throw ourselves under the tank treads. We just need to not play the game.”

Exactly. So it’s time for liberal Jews to stop playing along.

By Karol Markowicz

The Doomed Crusade To Erase Gender Differences

Gender Issues Schools

A Swedish preschool earns praise from the New York Times for its attempts at social engineering.

Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a lengthy piece about the Seafarer’s Preschool in Stockholm, Sweden. The piece gushed about the school’s strategy for training pre-schoolers to avoid the strictures of gender identity. According to the Times, prior to the teachers’ intervention: “The boys were clamorous and physical. They shouted and hit. The girls held up their arms and whimpered to be picked up. The group of 1- and 2-year-olds had, in other words, split along traditional gender lines.”

The teachers, however, had been trained for just such a crisis. They “cleared the room of cars and dolls. They put the boys in charge of the play kitchen. They made the girls practice shouting ‘No!’”

None of this is atypical in Sweden, where many teachers refuse to refer to children with sex-specific pronouns and use instead a gender-neutral pronoun, “hen.” That’s because in centralized-government Sweden, “state curriculum urges teachers and principals to embrace their role as social engineers, requiring them to ‘counteract traditional gender roles and gender patterns.’”

“Science may still be divided over whether gender differences are rooted in biology or culture,” the Times sweet-talks, “but many of Sweden’s government-funded preschools are doing what they can to deconstruct them.”

All of this is, of course, the sheerest nonsense. The science is certainly not divided on whether gender differences are rooted in biology or culture — the answer is both, but with a heavy emphasis on biology. Even among monkeys, male adolescents prefer wheeled toys and females prefer dolls. Male toddlers are far more physically active than female toddlers. Boys generally have better spatial navigation than girls. Cross-culturally, boys are less dependent than girls, girls are slightly more sociable than boys, and boys are less compliant and more aggressive.

Boys, in other words, are different from girls.

But you already knew that if you’ve ever met a little boy or a little girl. My four-year-old girl loved buses and trucks when she was two. Without any prodding, she now refuses to wear anything but princess dresses. Her little brother, age two, runs around the house bonking things with sticks. If you hand him a doll, he will immediately try to smack a table with it.

Instead of recognizing the differences between boys and girls, however, leftist social engineers seek to confuse boys and girls by having them engage in activities in which they have no interest. Forcing small boys to massage each others’ feet — as the Swedish school does — does nothing but promote puzzlement among children. It certainly doesn’t teach little boys to become responsible men. It teaches them to become bizarre. And forcing small girls to open windows and scream out of them doesn’t teach them to become responsible women. It teaches them to behave like obnoxious brats. The Times tells the story of one girl whom teachers trained to scream at the top of her lungs when challenged (my four-year-old girl needs no training, it should be noted). When the girl was sent home, she was rude, messy, and loud. “The girl’s parents were less than delighted,” one teacher reported. But parents matter little here. The teacher calmly explained, “This is what we do here, and we are not going to stop it.”

Ironically, all of this idiocy is pursued in order to supposedly end gender stereotyping on behalf of advocates who say that gender is a social construct. But those same advocates will then proclaim that transgender children know that they are members of the opposite gender from childhood. So, which is it? Is gender biological, or socially created?

Such questions require no answers in the land of social leftism. All that matters is tearing away the old in search of the new, evidence be damned. None of this will end up erasing gender differences. It will merely end up suppressing them until they burst forth in unexpected ways. The Times casually acknowledges as much: “Exactly how this teaching method affects children is still unclear.” But again, who cares? Socially engineering children is far less of a problem for the social Left than allowing boys to be boys.

BEN SHAPIRO — Ben Shapiro is the editor in chief of the Daily Wire.


Che the Racist

It’s not uncommon to see Che Guevara t-shirts worn proudly across the world. His portrait is one of the most iconic in history and the most reproduced image in the history of photography.

In fact, Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century. He is revered almost as a god in Cuba. School children start their day by reciting “we will be like Che.”

Unfortunately, many are not educated about the true nature of the Cuban Revolution, much less Che’s part in it. Despite its claimed goals of liberty and social justice, the Cuban Revolution was instead marked most of all by violence and strife. But in typical communist fashion, the regime in Havana has mixed propaganda and violence to portray a romantic image of this revolutionary criminal.

1.) He ordered hundreds of executions without trials.

Forget due process. During the Cuban Revolution, Che condemned to death many who had never been properly charged or given a lawyer. The New York Times estimated that in the first two months of the Cuban Revolution, there were approximately 528 firing squad executions. The Black Book on Communism cites a total of 14,000 executions by the end of the 1960s. Che was quoted in 1962 by the editor of the RevolucÍon, Carlos Franqui, as saying “We executed many people by firing squad without knowing if they were fully guilty. At times, the Revolution cannot stop to conduct much investigation.”[i]

Dissenters from the new regime, including unarmed civilians, were not tolerated. Che explained his approach to justice thus: “We don’t need proof to execute a man. We only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him.” He made no secret of his disdain for conventional legal standards, calling evidence and burden of proof “archaic bourgeois detail(s).”[ii]

In a speech before the United Nations in December of 1964, Che confirmed his government’s ruthless reputation, declaring, “Yes, we have executed, we are executing, and we will continue to execute.”[iii]

2.) He openly despised the United States.

Not only did Che despise the “imperialists” of the United States, but he also freely stated he wanted to launch a nuclear war against America.

In 1962, after the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, Che told London’s Daily Worker, “If the missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of the United States, including New York. We must never establish a peaceful coexistence.”

Che believed the only way to deal with the American “hyena” was through extermination, and that building a better world required nuclear war.

3.) Hatred and mass murder were at the heart of his revolution.

Che was a cold-blooded killer – and he enjoyed it. He said “a relentless hatred” toward the enemy transforms the men in his army into “an effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machine.” He even wrote to his own father that, “My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood…I’d like to confess, Papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.”

Che was absolutely merciless when it came to seeing the revolution through, and was willing to countenance mass murder towards this end. “What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims.”[iv]

4.) There was no room for freedom of speech in his revolution.

In a truly free society, people are allowed the freedom of expression. With this freedom of expression comes freedom of speech, press, and dissent. Che spoke openly with José Pardo Llada, a Cuban journalist, and told Llada, “We must eliminate all newspapers; we cannot make a revolution with free press.”[v]

Having an open dialogue about different opinions was not an option in the “free Cuba.” Che’s fanaticism even infected his personal relationships—he only made friends with those who were like-minded: “My friends are friends only so long as they think as I do politically.”[vi]

5.) He enacted a prison system much like that of Soviet Russia.

Like Stalin with his Soviet Gulag camps, Che set up political prisons where hard labor was enforced. These re-education camps were a way to punish accused counter-revolutionaries, dissenters, and political opponents. “We send to Guanahacabibes [i.e., Cuban labor camp] people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals…it is hard labor…the working conditions are harsh…”[vii]


Included in this criminal system were ‘delinquents’ or those who were involved with drinking, disrespecting authority, and being lazy or playing loud music. Homosexuals were singled out for particularly brutal treatment.[viii] Also included in the definition of ‘delinquents’ were Catholic priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other religious persons. In 1959, Fidel Castro appointed Che as the commandant of a fortress turned prison called La Cabaña in Havana. At one point, between 800 and 1,000 prisoners were housed in the facility when full capacity allowed for 300.[ix]

So before you jump on the pop-culture bandwagon and purchase your Che Guevara t-shirt and other Che paraphernalia, understand who he was and what he REALLY stood for: hatred, intolerance, and mass murder.




[iii] ibid.

[iv] ibid.



[vii] ibid.



The ‘Crusades’ As Counter Terrorism 1,000 Years Ago?


A liberal, the old joke attributed to Robert Frost goes, is someone too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.

The word “crusade” does have different meanings to different people.

And that’s the irony. For most of the last millennium, if you talked about the Crusades, you’d offend Christians. Why? Because the Christian West lost the Crusades, for the most part. Meanwhile, Muslims rarely talked about the Crusades, and if they did it was a matter of pride.

In the last century or two, the story of the Crusades was rewritten to fit an anti-imperial, anti-colonial, anti-capitalist narrative. The European invasion of the Middle East was the first chapter in the evil empire that was Western civilization.

This is all nonsense. Christianity — which is older than Islam — was in the Middle East far earlier (and Judaism has squatter’s rights going back millennia). Christianity originates as a Middle Eastern faith (you can look it up). The forces of Mohammed took the Holy Lands from the Christians, but this was not some indigenous anti-colonial uprising. It was a relatively minor conflict in a backwater region of the Muslim world. The real action was to the west, in Constantinople (now Istanbul).

Bernard Lewis, arguably the greatest living English-language historian of the Muslim world, writes: “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

Or, as historian Thomas Madden has written: “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The Crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”

I object to the reflexive assumption that the West is the villain in every tale.

It is absolutely true that horrible things were done on both sides of the conflicts. And as a guy named Goldberg I don’t have much skin in this fight.

But what I object to is this reflexive assumption, peddled by a diverse unintended coalition of Western social-justice warriors and Muslim radicals, that the West is the villain in every tale and that to demonstrate a progressive worldview, Christians — and Westerners generally — must shed their own cultural heritage to appease people looking to be offended by things they don’t understand.

JONAH GOLDBERG — Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review.

SHAME ON Iceland UK Denmark The ‘final solution’ For Down Syndrome Babies

Down syndrome

FYI my oldest sister was born with Down syndrome  and she is still alive at 60 and she smiles and laughs and brings joy to all of us. Dale Yeager

Iceland must be pleased that it is close to success in its program of genocide, but before congratulating that nation on its final solution to the Down syndrome problem, perhaps it might answer a question: What is this problem?

To help understand why some people might ask this question, consider two examples of the problem. One is Agusta, age 8, a citizen of Iceland. The other is Lucas, age 1, an American citizen in Dalton, Ga., who recently was selected to be 2018 Spokesbaby for the Gerber baby food company.

Now, before Iceland becomes snippy about the description of what it is doing, let us all try to think calmly about genocide, without getting judgmental about it. It is simply the deliberate, systematic attempt to erase a category of people. So, what one thinks about a genocide depends on what one thinks about the category involved. In Iceland’s case, the category is people with Down syndrome.

This is a congenital condition resulting from a chromosomal defect. It involves varying degrees of mental retardation (although probably not larger variances than exist between the mental capabilities of many people who are chromosomally normal — say, Isaac Newton and some people you know).

It also involves some physical abnormalities (including low muscle tone, small stature, flatness of the back of the head, an upward slant to the eyes) and some increased health risks (of heart defects, childhood leukemia and Alzheimer’s disease).

Average life expectancy is now around 60 years, up from around 25 years four decades ago, when many Down syndrome people were institutionalized or otherwise isolated, denied education and other stimulation, and generally not treated as people.

Highly (almost but not perfectly) accurate prenatal screening tests can reveal Down syndrome in utero. The expectant couple can then decide to extinguish the fetus and try again for a normal child that might be less trouble, at least until he or she is an adolescent with hormonal turbulence and a driver’s license.

In Iceland, upward of 85 percent of pregnant women opt for the prenatal testing, which has produced a Down syndrome elimination rate approaching 100 percent. Agusta was one of only three Down syndrome babies born there in 2009.

Iceland could have moved one-third of the way to its goal if only Agusta had been detected and eliminated. Agusta’s mother is glad the screening failed in her case.

An Iceland geneticist says “we have basically eradicated” Down syndrome people, but regrets what he considers “heavy-handed genetic counseling” that is influencing “decisions that are not medical, in a way.”

One Icelandic counselor “counsels” mothers as follows: “This is your life. You have the right to choose how your life will look like.” She says, “We don’t look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended.” Which makes Agusta and Lucas “things” that were not “ended.”

Because Iceland’s population is only about 340,000, the problem (again, see problem Agusta and problem Lucas) is more manageable there than in, say, the United Kingdom. It has approximately 40,000 Down syndrome citizens, many of whom were conceived before the development of effective search-and-destroy technologies.

About 750 British Down syndrome babies are born each year, but 90 percent of women who learn that their child will have — actually, that their child does have — Down syndrome have an abortion. In Denmark the elimination rate is 98 percent.

America, where 19 percent of all pregnancies are aborted, is playing catch-up in the Down-syndrome-elimination sweepstakes (elimination rate of 67 percent, 1995-2011). So is France (77 percent), which seems determined to do better.

In 2016, a French court ruled that it would be “inappropriate” for French TV to run a 2 ¹/₂-hour video (“Dear Future Mom”) released for World Down Syndrome Day, which seeks to assure women carrying Down syndrome babies that their babies can lead happy lives, a conclusion resoundingly confirmed in a 2011 study “Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome.”

The court said the video is “likely to disturb the conscience of women” who aborted Down syndrome children.

So, photos of Agusta and Lucas are probably “inappropriate.” It speaks volumes about today’s moral confusions that this — the disruption of an unethical complacency — is the real “Down syndrome problem.”

By George F. Will

CDC: Youth Suicide Skyrockets 70% Over Last Decade. Here’s Why.

Dale Yeager Blog

According to the Centers for Disease Control, youth suicide is in the midst of a precipitous and frightening rise. Between 2006 and 2016, suicides by white children between ages 10 and 17 skyrocketed 70%; while black children are less likely than white children to kill themselves, their suicide rate also jumped 77%. And as The Blaze points out, CNN reported last year that “the suicide rate among girls between the ages of 15 and 19 rose to a 40-year high in 2015.”

It’s not just young people. According to Tom Simon, a CDC report author, “We know that overall in the US, we’re seeing increases in suicide rates across all age groups.” As of 2016, suicide levels were at 30-year highs.

So, what in hell is going on?

A few years back, the trendy explanation was economic volatility — the market crash of 2007-2008 had supposedly created a culture of despair, cured only by suicide. But the economy is booming, and has been growing steadily since 2009. There are those who blame the rise in drugs as well, particularly opioids — but according to a study from the National Institute of Drug Abuse, drinking, smoking and drug use may be at the lowest levels “seen in decades,” as the Los Angeles Times reports.

So, what in hell is going on?

There seems to be a crisis of meaning taking place in America. And that crisis of meaning is heavily linked to a decline in religious observance. As The Atlantic observed in 2014, citing a study in Psychological Science:

The researchers found that this factor of religiosity mediated the relationship between a country’s wealth and the perceived meaning in its citizen’s lives, meaning that it was the presence of religion that largely accounted for the gap between money and meaning. They analyzed other factors—education, fertility rates, individualism, and social support (having relatives and friends to count on in troubled times)—to see if they could explain the findings, but in the end it came down to religion.

So, what’s to be done? First, we need to get off the weak sauce of “spirituality without religion.” Spirituality is an aimless search within for some sort of transcendental values that simply can’t be found within. Religion is about practice — it is about acting in moral and ethical ways because your Creator demands it. This doesn’t mean you have to join an organized religion. It does mean that human beings need individual meaning — a belief in their holiness and specialness as beings made in the image of God, rather than a cluster of meaningless cells wandering through a cold, empty universe. And it means that human beings need collective meaning as well: brotherhood in this journey. If we can’t supply those things to our children, it’s no wonder they’re in increasing levels of despair, no matter how many tennis lessons we buy them.


The Movement Behind The Extremists in America And Why You Should Care

Dale Yeager Blog

What do we now see? The Last Stages of Cultural Marxism

The American common sense public, that is the majority of non ideological citizens that just want to raise a family and/or live constructive lives, looks with astonishment at the so called left and what they perceive as their peculiar and or absurd ideas, including political correctness and a bevy of artificial grievances.

Instinctively they reject them and wonder how they came to gain such prominence. If you are doing your job you are not interested in terms such as Cultural Marxism and you can’t be blamed. It’s not a theme for common sense people but it has infected the American universities and found its way into societal mores and public policy. That is why you should know something about it. We will try to give you a succinct review of several decades of the history of this movement because one of its tenets is to go slow and unnoticed until the proper time arrives.

It started with Antonio Gramsci an Italian communist who in the 1920s returned from a visit to Stalin’s Russia convinced of two things. The proletarian revolution had never taken hold in the west or in Russia for that matter, and that soviet methods were not going to succeed in Italy.

Why? Because the proletarian class believed in patriotism, religion and the family. Patriotism defended the concept of nation state while communism wanted a world without frontiers united under one idea and one rule. Religion posited the concept of an after life and opposed communism’s atheistic earthly paradise. The family was the cradle where children learned patriotism, religion and respect for paternal authority. Communism wanted control of the children’s minds. They were the future new men and women.

For Gramsci these institutions produce “hegemony”. It is in this way, said Gramsci, that the ruling class maintains societal control. Marxist success requires a radical change of ideas and values.

Mussolini put Gramsci in jail where he died in 1937 but not before he had written 3,000 pages of essays and developed his theory of cultural hegemony. To turn the culture around he proposed several things the most important being:

a) The organic intellectual who would grow and work with the neighborhood and indoctrinate it. The community organizer of Saul Alinsky is simply its American version.

b) University intellectuals were to be recruited.

c) Figures of influence such as sportsmen, artists, scientists were to be gained for the cause even if they did not fully comprehend the doctrine and its political ramifications. A simple spousal of some of the ideas would be sufficient. That is why you see so many Hollywood figures and the like talking with great pomposity about topics way beyond their sphere of competence.

d) Infiltrate the churches and get them to support selected causes.

e) Infiltrate the judiciary through ideas planted at the university level and through peer review papers. Eventually some of the professionals so formed would gain access to judgeships.

All of this must be done with patience and as subtly as possible because otherwise a counter revolution would be provoked. When the time comes and power centers fall under Marxist control then the clenched fist can be shown.

By Alberto Luzarraga in Futuro de Cuba

Herman Bell Domestic Terrorist and Cop Killer Freed: NYPD

Dale Yeager Blog

A man convicted of killing two police officers in the 1970s was granted parole after serving 44 years, upsetting members of the New York police community who believe he should spend life behind bars, according to WCBS-TV.

What happened?

Herman Bell, who was a member of the Black Liberation Army, was convicted in the 1971 murder of Officers Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini.

The Black Liberation Army was an offshoot of the Black Panther Party, involved in numerous violent crimes and police officer killings.

In an apparent trap by Bell and co-defendant Anthony Bottom, Jones and Piagentini were shot multiple times while responding to a domestic dispute call in Harlem.

Bell and Bottom maintained that they were framed by the FBI for years, but later admitted to the murders in parole board interviews.

Why was Bell released?

The parole board said Bell had paid his debt to society by admitting to his crime and being productive in prison, and that his release will “denote rehabilitation as core to our system of criminal justice.”

Bell earned a bachelor’s and master’s degree in prison, and counseled other prisoners.

The son of one of the officers, Waverly Jones Jr., supported Bell’s release and said in 2014 that the only reason to keep Bell in prison would be for revenge.

Was there any opposition to the decision?

Diane Piagentini, the widow of one of the officers, came out strongly against the parole board’s decision to free Bell.

“How can we ask our police officers to risk their lives to protect society when society fails to appropriately punish their animalistic killers?” she asked in a statement.

Piagentini said the decision devalues her late husband’s life.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was also against the decision.

“I’m very troubled by it,” de Blasio said. “This was a premeditated killing of a police officer. That should be life in prison, period. There’s nothing else to discuss. I don’t understand how there was a possibility of parole in that situation.”

What about police officer outrage?

NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill called the decision to release Bell “indefensible.”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Today’s decision by the NYS Parole Board to release admitted cop-killer Herman Bell — who carried out the premeditated assassinations of Officers Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones — is indefensible. My complete message to the brave men and women of @NYPDnews is attached:

Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said union members are “disgusted, offended and extremely angry with this parole board’s decision.”

Bell is set to be freed on April 17.

NYPOST by Aaron Colen

Racism In Women’s March Leadership And Black America

Truth Hate Crimes in the U.S.

‘Time’s up,” the slogan of the Hollywood anti-harassment movement, has a very different meaning for Louis Farrakhan.

At his annual Savior’s Day conference in Chicago last weekend, the Nation of Islam leader boasted, “And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”

Farrakhan is as immodest as he is anti-Semitic. He may seem like yesterday’s Jew-hater, since he could never gather the kind of crowds he did for the so-called Million Man’s March in Washington, DC, 20 years ago. Yet he still has a following. Thousands showed up to hear him spew his usual garbage during his Savior’s Day speech, including one of the organizers of the Women’s March.

The CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, calls Farrakhan “quite possibly the most popular anti-Semite in America today.” Certainly, the haters of the alt-right don’t measure up. The white nationalist Richard Spencer would surely love to get Farrakhan’s crowds and have such a relatively robust institutional presence and publishing operation, let alone manage to maintain influence with more mainstream figures.

Tamika Mallory, the Women’s March organizer, wasn’t abashed about her attendance at the rally. She posted a photo on Instagram of herself at the event, and showed no sign of distress at Farrakhan’s greatest hits (“the powerful Jews are my enemy”; Jews are “the mother and father of apartheid”; “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door”; the Jews control Mexico, and a swath of Europe; and any number of other vicious lies).

Called out on her presence at the speech, Mallory tweeted a response worthy of a fellow-traveler with the Nation of Islam, “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!”

What enemies could she be speaking of?

Mallory further pushed back by stating, “I am a strong black woman.” Actually, her putrid equivocation over Farrakhan speaks to the opposite of strength.

She added that the black community is “complex.” So is any community, but that doesn’t justify tolerating rank hatred.

And it wouldn’t be an argument with a left-wing activist if she didn’t cite the buzzword of the hour, explaining that she has “done intersectional work for 20+ years.”

He has updated this theme slightly to account for transgenderism — “the Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men.”Ah, yes, intersectionality. Farrakhan has his own notions of that. In 2007, he declared that “it’s the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality.”

Mallory isn’t the only Women’s March organizer with a soft spot for the lunatic minister. Carmen Perez is another admirer. “There are no perfect leaders,” she explains, although there is a lot of daylight between normal human imperfection and Farrakhan’s paranoid rantings.

Yet another organizer, Linda Sarsour, took part in a Nation of Islam event in 2015.

Are these activists too minor to bother about? Well, if Tea Party organizers 10 years ago had been friendly toward David Duke, we would — understandably — have heard no end of it.

Just as mainstream conservatives must ostracize the alt-right, the center-left should guard against progressives making excuses for Farrakhan. With the exception of Jake Tapper of CNN, though, the media has ignored the latest eruption of the Farrakhan story.

As a reminder of how much this hygiene is necessary, Rep. Danny K. Davis of Illinois popped up to justify his relationship with Farrakhan. He told the Daily Caller, “The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth.”

Could anyone say this about David Duke and remain in office?

Farrakhan’s time should be up, but it never quite is.

By Rich Lowry NYPost

Hate, Inc.: The SPLC Is a Hyper-Partisan Scam


The purported fact-finding group is in fact a machine for turning leftist hysteria into cash.

There was a time when the Southern Poverty Law Center did useful work reporting on actual hate groups such as the KKK. These days, though, the SPLC is simply a MoveOn or Media Matters–style outfit. Its core mission now is trying to marginalize and shut up even mildly right-of-center voices by calling them instruments of hate, making increasingly strained attempts to tie conservative commentators, authors, political figures, and professors to the alt-right or neo-Nazism. At the same time it elevates absurd bloggers to the level of potential leaders of lynch mobs.

The equivalent of a Drudge-siren moment for SPLC is when it rolls out yet another faux-neutral report on hate, which is always getting worse and threatening to engulf the republic. The SPLC’s report on “Male supremacy,” which it calls “a hateful ideology for the subjugation of women” and ties to the men’s-rights activists lurking on 4Chan and Reddit who boast about their supposed dominance of women, lists as pernicious allies the psychologist, author, and PJ Media columnist Helen Smith and the American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, calling them “anti-feminist female voices” who “give the men’s rights movement a veneer of even-handedness” and lend a “mainstream and respectable face to some MRA concerns.”

You will search Smith’s and Sommers’s writings in vain for the sort of chest-thumping idiocies espoused by men’s-rights bloggers such as Paul Elam of the site A Voice for Men or “Roosh V.” (a.k.a. Daryush Valizadeh), a self-proclaimed “pickup artist” from the site Return of Kings. The SPLC is designating both of these websites “hate groups,” which offers an answer to the question of why the number of hate groups always seems to be growing in the SPLC’s tabulations. Got a blog you use to attract clicks by saying the most outrageous things you can come up with in between playing shoot-’em-up games on the PlayStation? Congratulations, you’re a “hate group.” Just like the Nazi party.

Elam and Valizadeh have said plenty of controversial, indeed hateful, things, but what fault is that of such distinguished scholars as Sommers and Smith? Nothing either of them has written gets quoted in the report. We’re meant to take the SPLC’s word for it that these women somehow “give a mainstream and respectable face” to the louts. Sommers told The Weekly Standard that she used to admire the SPLC, but now “they’re blacklisting in place of engaging with arguments. They blacklist you, rather than try to refute you.” Smith (a contributor to the Instapundit blog run by her husband, Glenn Reynolds) wrote at PJ Media, “I get emails and letters from men across the US and even other countries who tell me about the difficulties and downright atrocities that they are dealing with” but they find themselves subjected to “contempt by society, the courts and miserable, misandric places like the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

SPLC, founded by a direct-mail zillionaire named Morris Dees, spends far more on direct-mail fundraising pleas ($10 million) than it ever has on legal services, according to an analysis by Philanthropy Roundtable, and has never passed along more than 31 percent of its funding to charitable programs, sometimes as little as 18 percent. Meanwhile it has built itself a palatial six-story headquarters and an endowment of more than $200 million. In essence it is a machine for turning leftist hysteria into cash that portrays itself as a non-partisan, fact-finding group and has long been treated as such by media institutions such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. Yet it has also targeted Senator Rand Paul, surgeon–turned–HUD secretary Ben Carson, and human-rights activists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, calling them extremists or agents of hate (though it removed Carson from its list after an outcry), and it tagged both the Family Research Council and Mark Krikorian’s think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, as hate groups, though the latter has been invited to testify before Congress more than 100 times.

SPLC’s tactics inspired a Politico piece wondering whether, in an era when the group’s “biggest fights seemed to be behind it,” it was “overstepping its bounds.” “There is a desperate need for more objective research on hate crimes and domestic extremism,” J. M. Berger, a researcher on extremism and a fellow with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism at the Hague, told Politico. He said that “the problem partly stems from the fact that the [SPLC] wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information.” Progressive journalist Ken Silverstein, who in Harper’s compared SPLC’s practices to those of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, told Politico, “The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote.”

The SPLC is, as Philanthropy Roundtable put it, “Hate, Inc.,” or “The Anti-Hate Group That Is a Hate Group.” Its shameful attacks on Smith, Sommers, Ali, Carson, Paul, Krikorian, and others are simply scaremongering for suckers. It may portray itself as a justice-minded team of Atticus Finches. In reality it’s more like a goon squad of David Brocks.