Money In The Toilet: The Billion Dollar Cost Of Public Bathrooms

The fastest rising item in the country isn’t gold or bitcoin, it’s the cost of a public bathroom.

In ’08, a San Francisco Weekly article fumed that a park restroom in Golden Gate Park was costing taxpayers $531,219. Fast forward, a decade later the cost of a park restroom in the Golden Gate Boathouse had ballooned to $2 million or $4,700 per square foot.

The modern bathroom had a third All-Gender option that the ’08 bathroom didn’t. But adding a non-gender shouldn’t have quadrupled the price. Inflation would have kept the cost well below a million.

Why did a 15-foot by 28-foot bathroom cost millions? Part of the answer may be that San Fran privileges minority businesses and requires that 15% of work hours be carried out by “disadvantaged” workers.

New York City’s bathrooms were always pricey. In ’08, they ran to a million. A recent report noted that the overpriced real estate market had pulled off a new high with a $6 million bathroom. Fit not only for a king, but for Steve Austin. The bionic bathroom is a new record. Last year’s record was a $4.7 million bathroom in the Bronx. An average park bathroom in the Big Apple now runs to $3.6 million.

The Parks Commissioner blamed “market forces”. But while New York City is famously expensive with residents paying the cost of a home elsewhere for a closet in Manhattan, these bathrooms were being set up in parks. You can still pick up a Central Park West condo with multiple rooms for the cost of a public bathroom on Staten Island. Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez like to claim that they could put the money of wealthy people to much better use.

Their own city government demonstrates that for the money it takes to get a Central Park apartment with French Empire styling and celebrity neighbors, socialists will give you a toilet. Eventually.

One public bathroom has been under construction for twelve years. That helps explain the cost.

The Bronx bionic bathroom began to be designed in ’06, with a projected completion date of ‘14. Procurement took another year. Construction took 2 years.

By contrast, the entire Empire State Building was built in a year from plans completed in weeks.

It’s not about bathroom size either. A tiny $2 million public bathroom in Brooklyn built two years ago only had 2 urinals and one toilet. It cost came out to $5,000 per square foot.

New York City’s Parks Commissioner blamed the free market. “We do not tell contractors what number to give us — they determine what the market bears,” he pleaded.

There is no market though. Just a broken and corrupt government spending money freely. That makes public bathrooms more expensive than luxury condos and leads to $450 bike racks costing $6,000.

In ‘04, Seattle paid $5 million for 5 self-cleaning toilets. The toilets could clean themselves, freeing Seattle from having to pay for an attendant, but couldn’t clean out the drug users and prostitutes. Four years later, Seattle tried to get rid of them by putting them on eBay. It asked for an $89,000 minimum bid. But no one in the private sector had any interest in flushing that kind of money down the drain.

Seattle finally had to let its million-dollar toilets go for $2,500 each. That’s what market forces look like.

The buyer didn’t try to actually use them. Instead, he treated them like an investment, storing them and hoping to sell them to another city. Because city governments are where the real toilet money lies.

Now, Seattle is adding a Ballard Park bathroom for a mere $550,000. That makes it one of the few cities to cut the cost of a bathroom. But it’s a single occupancy bathroom known as a Portland Loo billed as the “perfect” public toilet which costs $90,000. But cities that buy them somehow always spend more.

San Diego bought two “Loos” and spent over half a million dollars to get them going. At one point there were fears that the bathrooms, which cost $175,000 to buy and ship, might run to $800.000.

Where did the money go?

$23,000 was spent by the city on permits. $245,000 on construction. And $41,000 on consultants.

Because you can’t install a public toilet without spending $20,500 per toilet on consultants.

But that wasn’t San Diego’s worst example of flushing money down the toilet. It also built a $2 million public bathroom designed by an artist to evoke Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Million-dollar public bathrooms are a growing controversy outside the big cities too. In upstate New York, Mayor Rick Davis of Tonawanda, a Democrat, came under fire for a “million-dollar bathroom”. The Democrat claimed that he was creating “a real community asset for generations”. In Pensacola Beach, there was outrage over the $1 million cost of a 900 square foot public bathroom. In Westport, Washington, there were protests and petitions over a plan to build an $840,000 bathroom.

Meanwhile, bathroom cost inflation continues to rise even when using the same exact public toilets.

In 2016, San Antonio came under fire for spending $191,000 on a single Portland Loo. Next year, a second Loo was priced at$290,000.

But California and New York continue to lead the nation in runaway bathroom costs and battles.

A Santa Monica park restroom recently came in at $2.3 million. The city manager blamed fair-wage guidelines and an OSHA audit. But Santa Monica was already the home of some of the country’s priciest bathrooms. A Sacramento public bathroom for the homeless was estimated to cost as much as $1 million. In San Diego, residents tried to fight a million-dollar beach bathroom by turning to McCain.

“We are sure Senator John McCain is not in favor of toilets being built close to his condo,” locals claimed of the beach bathroom, which was armored to survive flooding.

Some were concerned that the toilet proposal, which goes back many years, would help illegal aliens.

“All the illegals coming in, being dropped off… what a nice place to go and shower,” a local woman commented.

It remains unknown whether the McCain had ever gotten around to opining on the million-dollar toilet.

It’s not impossible to build public restrooms more affordable. Carolina Beach is looking at 12 stalls for $120,000. Plumbing can be expensive, but it’s not that expensive. The rising cost of bathrooms isn’t due to a shortage, but to a combination of corruption and incompetence with local governments drawing up sweetheart deals and imposing regulatory burdens so that only a handful of contractors get the jobs.

Costs are raised by everything from an insistence on dealing only with minority contractors, to mandates imposed on contractors that raise their expenses, to deals with contractors made by politicians who are in their pockets, to the cost of meeting assorted local regulations. Activists complain that there ought to be more money in city budgets for the poor when the money is being siphoned by regulations that are supposedly meant to help the poor, but in reality, help contractors gouge taxpayers for more money.

As spending in blue cities hits new astronomical heights with massive billion-dollar budgets, the rising cost of public bathrooms, doubling, tripling and even quadrupling, passes by unnoticed.

But public toilet costs in blue cities appear to be increasing at an even higher rate than its budgets.

San Francisco’s budget doubled to over $10 billion during the same period that its public toilet cost quadrupled. During that same time, New York City’s budget increased by $30 billion to $88.7 billion.

At some point, the toilet bubble will burst. But for now, billions of dollars nationwide are being wasted on building public toilets that cost more than mansions do in some parts of the country.

These public bathrooms are not, for the most part, works of art. Nor will they be around for very long. But as long as they endure, they serve as monuments to Democrat incompetence and corruption.

Socialism is popular again as Dem politicians promise that the government can do everything better. Forget socialized medicine, free college or any of the other 2020 Dem trillion-dollar plans for utopia.

Visit New York, San Francisco or Seattle, and you’ll realize that socialists can’t even build bathrooms.

All they can do is flush money down the toilet.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Bernie Sanders: Murderers & Rapists Should Vote From Prison

The ACLU launched its bid to push for criminals voting from prison. In the radical 2020 primaries, some candidate is bound to sign on to a leftist proposal, no matter how insane.

And usually, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Beto O’Rourke will take the lead in that regard.

So no real shock that Bernie jumped on this one.

At a town hall meeting in Muscatine’s West Middle School gymnasium Saturday, the Vermont senator was asked whether the imprisoned should have the right to vote. Only his home state and Maine allow felons to vote from behind bars.

“I think that is absolutely the direction we should go,” he said

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked about the issue during a recent forum on rural issues in Storm Lake. She said felons who have served their time deserve the franchise. But Warren stopped short of saying those in prison should be able to vote.


Bernie stole a radical march on Liz.

Now Bernie wants to see murderers, drug dealers, pedophiles and rapists voting because he thinks they’ll vote for him.

By the time these primaries are up, the winner will have endorsed gulags and killing all the kulaks.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Give To The Salvation Army & San Antonio Will Ban You

The San Antonio Airport was rated as the sixth worst airport in the country. So, the city fathers got together and decided to fix the airport by banning businesses that donate to the Salvation Army.

Or at least one business.

“San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior,” San Antonio Councilman Roberto Trevino declared, after blocking Chick-fil-A from opening at the airport.

Does Chick-fil-A prohibit homosexual people from buying chicken? No, but they donate to the Salvation Army.

Local media and ThinkProgress claimed that the move was in response to a report by the leftist anti-religious site accusing Chick-fil-A of giving charitable donations to groups with “anti-LGBTQ records”.

What are those groups? The Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army.

Specifically, the Chick-fil-A Foundation donated $1,653,416 to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and $150,000 to the Salvation Army. The FCA was denounced by ThinkProgress for its “sexual purity” policy. And what did the bell ringers of the Salvation Army trying to raise money for the poor do wrong?

According to TP, the Salvation Army is an anti-homosexual hate group because it “at the time of the donations had a written policy of merely complying with local ‘relevant employment laws’” which “since changed to indicate a national policy of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The standards for being an anti-homosexual hate group have really gotten low.

It’s 2019.

Two years ago, Chick-fil-A donated money to the Salvation Army, which had a policy of “complying with local ‘relevant employment laws’”, and must now be banned from the sixth-worst airport in America.

According to Councilman Roberto Trevino, San Antonio is a “city full of compassion” and therefore no company that donates money to the Salvation Army’s efforts to help the poor is allowed is the city.

Nothing says compassion like banning companies that give money to the Salvation Army.

In ancient times, there was a biblical city also starting with an ‘S’ whose city council so institutionalized cruelty to the poor that they terrorized any travelers who winged their way through their ‘airport’.

Today, it doesn’t have an airport. It does have a pillar of salt.

San Antonio’s crackdown is especially bizarre since the Salvation Army is a popular destination for corporate gifts. Major donors include American Airlines, Delta, FedEx and UPS all of whom, hopefully, operate in the sixth-worst airport in America. Does San Antonio Airport plan to ban Delta flights?

The Salvation Army has a major presence in San Antonio running shelters and helping seniors. It’s scheduled for an event with former First Lady Laura Bush in San Antonio in May. Just not at the airport.

But this story of politically correct cruelty to the poor and religious discrimination gets even worse.

“I want the first thing see is a San Antonio that is welcoming and that they not see … a symbol of hate,” Councilman Manny Pelaez ranted. “I don’t want a restaurant that isn’t available on Sunday either.”

The first thing that Christians will see in the sixth-worst airport in America is that they aren’t welcome.

Sunday was the official excuse that San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg also gave for banning Chick-fil-A.

“There are many people in the community that are uncomfortable with Chick-fil-A,” Nirenberg rambled. “Have you ever tried to buy waffle fries on a Sunday? They’re closed!  Fifteen percent of sales generated in the airport come on a Sunday.”

Chick-fil-A is anti-homosexual and should be banned. Also, they don’t let me buy their waffle fries on Sunday.

The complaint that closing on Sundays will mean revenue losses is spurious. Chick-fil-A is the best-performing large fast food chain in the country. Its revenues across the country haven’t been hurt by closing on Sundays. There’s no reason to think that even in the sixth-worst airport in the country, its revenues will suffer by maintaining its religious values of setting “aside one day to rest and worship”.

Chick-fil-A opponents like Nirenberg and Pelaez seized on the ‘Sunday’ excuse because it sounded better than banning the eatery from the airport because it donated to the Salvation Army. But Chick-fil-A’s policy of closing on Sundays is a reflection of its founder’s Christian beliefs. San Antonio’s move is the equivalent of punishing an Orthodox Jew for closing on the Sabbath. And is completely illegal.

San Antonio’s council violated its own laws, the laws of Texas and the laws of the United States.

Councilman Roberto Trevino claimed that by engaging in religious discrimination, “the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion.”

Discrimination is the opposite of equality and inclusion. And now San Antonio is in trouble.

“The City of San Antonio’s decision to exclude a respected vendor based on the religious beliefs associated with that company and its owners is the opposite of tolerance,” Attorney General Paxton warned, opening an investigation into the city’s illegal discriminatory conduct.

The Trump administration’s Department of Transportation has also been encouraged to take a look.

San Antonio’s discriminatory conduct exemplifies the brand of anti-Christian discrimination warned about by David Horowitz in his new book, Dark AgendaThe War to Destroy Christian America.

“Today, the free exercise of religion has ceased to be a guaranteed right in America. Instead, it has become a battlefield,” David Horowitz wrote.

It’s only fitting that San Antonio, the home of the Alamo, should once again be the battlefield of the war for America’s freedoms. And before coming after freedom, Trevino and the bosses came for the Alamo.

The last time, Roberto Trevino and San Antonio’s leadership had disgraced itself this thoroughly was during the campaign to vandalize the Alamo site and move the Cenotaph. Back then, Trevino had claimed that the goal was breaking down the divisions caused by the Alamo story.

“We can tell stories without making any one group of people feel like they’re villains,” Trevino had whined. “This is a complex story. Even our heroes are flawed, and I think it’s a time to show that humanity is complex.”

First, they came for the Alamo and then for the First Amendment.

Around that same time, Councilman Trevino’s office was accused by his former council aide of abusing taxpayer resources by assigning campaign activities during working hours. Our heroes may be flawed. But we do have villains. And they, like Trevino, are more than just flawed. They are evil. And hate good.

Punishing a popular eatery for donating to the poor isn’t the behavior of flawed people, but of villains. The villainous religious discrimination championed by Trevino, Nirenberg and Pelaez is un-American.

Councilman Roberto Trevino can’t be satisfied with vandalizing the Alamo and instead decided to also trash the First Amendment. San Antonio has enacted discrimination in the name of fighting discrimination. Chick-fil-A was not discriminating against anyone in San Antonio. Its crime was donating to religious organizations whose views about morality and decency, Trevino didn’t like. Or perhaps he hated their policy of helping the poor, providing shelter to families in need and offering disaster relief.

It’s hard to know.

In San Antonio, as in another ancient city starting with an ‘S’, cruelty is called compassion, intolerance is justified as inclusion, and banishing religious people is depicted as the conduct of a welcoming city.

When everything is this upside down, it’s hard to know just how upside-down San Antonio is.

To paraphrase Sinclair Lewis, when intolerance comes to America, it will be wrapped in inclusion and diversity. And it will land at the sixth-worst airport in America where the flights are always late, the seats smell like stale beer, and the only thing dirtier than the toilets are the agendas of the council members.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Mayor Pete Buttigieg Runs For President While His City Bleeds… Literally

On March 31, a South Bend grandma brought her grandson to the hospital. The 11-month-old baby boy had been shot. His grandmother’s car had also taken fire. It was another early morning in South Bend.

Around the same time, Mayor Buttigieg, was toting up the $7 million in donations from his charm offensive as his bid for the 2020 Democrat nomination got underway. The national media never bothered reporting the shooting of an 11-year-old boy in the city he was supposed to be running, but instead confined its coverage of South Bend matters to a publicity stunt wedding officiated by Buttigieg.

The horrifying shooting of an 11-month-old boy on the millennial mayor’s watch was not an unusual incident. In the last few days, even the media was gushing over Buttigieg’s presidential ambitions, two Indiana University South Bend players were injured in a shooting on Notre Dame Avenue, a blind date ended in a shooting, and yet another shooting added to the bloody toll in the real South Bend.

Those are quite a few shootings for a city of barely 100,000 people. But South Bend is a violent place.

While Chicago is notorious for its murder rate, in 2015, Buttigieg’s South Bend actually topped Chicago’s 16.4 homicides per 100,000 people with a homicide rate of 16.79 per 100,000 people. Those numbers put Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s city on the list of the top 30 murder capitals in the country for the year.

In January, three shootings in one week killed two teens and left a woman paralyzed from the waist down. In one summer week, the casualties included a 12 and a 13-year-old. Last year, a man shot 6 people when he opened fire on 50 partygoers in a house and was sentenced to 100 years in jail.

By 2017, shootings had risen 20% on Mayor Buttigieg’s watch. Rapes increased 27% and aggravated assaults rose from 183 in 2013, the year before Buttigieg took office, to a stunning 563 assaults.

It’s hard to know which are flying faster, bullets in South Bend or dollars into Buttigieg’s campaign.

Some of these stories, particularly the recent shootings of two baseball players which shocked Indiana University, should have been covered by the national media, which instead chose to broadcast Buttigieg’s publicity stunt of officiating at a pregnant woman’s wedding in a hospital. Had the media stuck around, it could have reported on the trail of shooting victims making their way into the hospital.

But reporting on an 11-month-old being shot in their hot new candidate’s city wouldn’t be as much fun.

The media’s bias has never been subtle, but its disinterest in a presidential candidate’s track record has never been this blatant. Mayor Buttigieg’s candidacy is being covered as if he weren’t the mayor of an actual city with actual problems. Instead, his prospects have been covered purely in terms of his identity, a gay millennial, his past career before taking office, and his current witticisms and applause lines.

At no point in time does the media stop to tell the viewers and readers it is regaling with stories of Mayor Buttigieg’s charm that he runs the most dangerous city in Indiana, recently rated as one of the “worst cities to live”, where nearly half the residents live at the poverty level, and even the water is bad.

These are significant data points in the track record of a politician aspiring to run the entire country.

The media keeps asking Mayor Buttigieg which of its wishlist of radical socialist policies he’s willing to sign on to, the Green New Deal, eliminating private health insurance, and freeing more convicts, rather than asking him which policies he used to try and solve problems in South Bend. And how they worked.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has tried to pass off South Bend’s crime problem as a national issue. But South Bend’s violent crime rates, double the Indiana and American average, run counter to national trends.

Buttigieg responded by doubling down on Group Violence Intervention, a trendy community outreach strategy to gang members, which despite being widely touted by the media, doesn’t work. Gimmicks, ranging from AI to wonkery, were rolled out and the shootings, the rapes and assaults have continued.

Mayor Buttigieg excels at buzzwords and gimmicks. He’s just terrible at actually running a city.

That’s why property crime in South Bend is rising. It’s why the city is overrun with gangs. It’s why South Bend is poor, blighted and miserable. Violence is just one of the many symptoms of Buttigieg’s failures.

South Bend’s top employers are the local schools and hospitals, and the local government. And a local casino. Unemployment and taxes are higher than average. Meanwhile, the average income is below $20,000. The poverty rate is 25%. African-American poverty rates are double. Hispanic poverty rates are 10% higher than the national average. And even Asian-Americans are poorer than usual in South Bend.

Buttigieg’s failed city is a tragic counterpart to Lake Wobegon where everything is below average.

The media has ignored the reality in South Bend while touting Buttigieg as a rival for the hearts of Rust Belt voters. But Buttigieg hasn’t won by winning over traditional Rust Belt voters. South Bend’s white population has dropped steadily on his watch and the city is on track for majority-minority status. The remaining white population is skewed toward a white lefty elite coming for its educational institutions.

South Bend isn’t a typical Rust Belt city. It’s a typical blue city, divided sharply between poor minorities and a leftist elite without any of the culture or tech industries that keep New York or Los Angeles going. Its traditional population has been leaving steadily and that departure only accelerated during Buttigieg’s disastrous time in office.

Much has been made of Buttigieg winning reelection by 80%. This isn’t a testament to his unique charisma. Democrats have had a lock on the mayorality in South Bend for two generations.

The media cheers that Buttigieg won 80% of the vote. It neglects to mention that it was 8,515 votes. That’s about the 8,369 votes that came in during the primaries. Buttigieg raised $337,161 dollars while his Republican opponent, Kelly Jones, had raised $584 dollars. The millennial wunderkind needed $40 bucks a vote while his unknown Republican opponent managed at around a quarter a vote.

Like South Bend’s poverty and crime statistics, these are figures that the media doesn’t report because it would reveal that their shiny new candidate is a hollow façade with nothing inside except spin.

Mayor Buttigieg isn’t winning 80% because he’s universally beloved. That percentage isn’t a testament to his popularity, but to a political system in which hardly anybody except a few lefties bothers to vote.

The truth about “Mayor Pete” is that he’s the son of a Marxist prof working in Notre Dame who used the death throes of a dying city to polish his brand and then jump into the 2020 race over dead bodies.

South Bend is a human tragedy. And while Buttigieg isn’t solely responsible for his woes, he has exploited it, instead of trying to fix it, using buzzwords and gimmicks to build a national brand.

That’s something he has in common with fellow failed hipster mayor and 2020 candidate, Cory Booker.

But Senator Booker was at least clever enough to put a little distance between his tenure in Newark and his 2020 bid. Mayor Buttigieg is betting that the national media won’t bother looking at South Bend.

So far he’s been proven right.

The media keeps touting Buttigieg’s Ivy League credentials, his identity as a gay politician, and his charm. When it mentions South Bend, it’s only to claim that he “turned it around” and that he won his last election by 80%. South Bend hasn’t been turned around. Downtown has gotten a hipster revamp, while the rest of South Bend chokes on crime, violence and misery. But Buttigieg knows that the national media will never bother doing more than reporting on new bike paths and an organic grocery.

The 11-month-old boy who came into the hospital with a wound in his shoulder won’t catch their eye. But as Mayor Buttigieg keeps raising money hand over fist, South Bend continues to bleed and die.

And Buttigieg is hoping that he can sneak into the White House before the blood gets on his hands.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Why Won’t Bernie Sanders Release His Taxes?

No major politician has had a bigger change in his financial status after the last election than Bernie Sanders. And both in 2016 and now, Bernie has been reluctant to release his taxes, and responded to calls to do so with stalling tactics.

He’s played games with financial disclosures before.

Here’s a flashback.

But when federal law required Sanders to reveal, by mid-May, current details of his personal finances, his campaign lawyer asked the Federal Election Commission for a 45-day extension.

Request granted.

On June 30, Sanders’ campaign requested a second 45-day extension, saying the senator had “good cause” to delay because of his “current campaign schedule and officeholder duties.”

Again, regulators approved Sanders’ punt.

Now that Sanders’ second extension has expired, spokesman Michael Briggs confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that the senator won’t file a presidential campaign personal financial disclosure after all.

Tracking TV ads in the 2016 presidential race

Who is on the air, and where?

“We were told that since the senator no longer is a candidate there was no requirement to file,” Briggs said.

Next year, in 2017, he once again dodged a deadline.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has missed the deadline to file his annual financial disclosures with the Senate, a move that continues to delay a complete examination of how his 2016 presidential bid affected his personal wealth.

Sanders’s Senate office missed the annual deadline to file his personal financial disclosure on Monday, instead requesting and receiving a 20-day extension. The Vermont news blog VTDigger first reported the extension.

Now he’s hiding behind ‘starving children’.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders sidestepped questions Thursday about when he will release his tax returns, with the Vermont independent hinting he could fulfill his six-week old pledge to make public 10 years of tax returns on April 15 — Tax Day.

Yet, as quickly as Sanders suggested that, he appeared to backtrack and wouldn’t commit that he would release them then.
“Do you know what April 15th is? It’s Tax Day,” Sanders told CNN on Capitol Hill when asked if there was an issue to releasing his taxes. “So, I think we want to make sure we have all of them together and as I said, they will be released soon.”

When asked if that meant he would not necessarily release his tax returns on April 15, Sanders responded, “That’s it. Thank you very much.”

An aide then stepped in front of CNN and said, “he answered your question” and referred CNN to follow up with a Sanders’ spokesperson.

That exchange followed a news conference earlier Thursday on the House passing a Yemen War Powers Resolution earlier. When asked about the tax returns at that news conference, Sanders declined to answer.

“Today let’s worry about the starving children in Yemen,” he said, before departing the room.

Pathetic and despicable. But those are two of Bernie’s middle names.

Why does Bernie Sanders keep playing these games? Considering his wife’s history, and his own with finances, behind all the smoke may be a fire. The Sanders Institute was recently shut down as Bernie prepared to run for office. The FBI chose not to pursue his wife over alleged fraud involving Burlington College. But there may be things still lurking in the paper underbrush.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Beto O’Rourke Funneled $100,000 In Campaign Funds To Family Firm

Whatever the polling numbers may say, Robert Francis ‘Beto’ O’Rourke, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are in a tight race to cash in on their political brands. Bobby O’Rourke is still an amateur. But he did manage to pick up $100K in campaign cash.

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke paid roughly $110,000 in campaign funds to a web development company while either he or his wife owned it, public records show.

Either O’Rourke or his wife owned Stanton Street — a small web development firm that O’Rourke founded in 1998 — during the vast majority of those payments.

Such payments are legal, so long as the campaign is charged for the actual cost of the services, but ethics watchdogs have criticized the practice as a form of self-dealing.

Which it obviously is.

But still less outrageous than the shenanigans that Mr. and Mrs. Sanders had allegedly gotten up to.

Still it’s bad.

The conflicts of interest and the impropriety are obvious.

O’Rourke didn’t break the law. But these are not the actions of the idealistic outsider that O’Rourke wants to market himself as, but as an old establishment hand who knows every angle for cashing in on his position, his brand and his image.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Joe Biden Put His Hand On Sexually Assaulted Woman’s Thigh At Sexual Assault Event

Just Bad Touch Joe being Joe.

On Tuesday alone, two more women told The New York Times that the former vice president’s touches made them uncomfortable.

That’s framed under a headline of, “Biden’s Tactile Politics Threaten His Return in the #MeToo Era”.

Also “Serial Killer’s Tactile Interactions Threaten His Workplace Career”.

Tactile politics may be the most interesting euphemism the media has come up with yet.

The list of women coming forward is growing. Caitlyn Caruso, a former college student and sexual assault survivor, said Mr. Biden rested his hand on her thigh — even as she squirmed in her seat to show her discomfort — and hugged her “just a little bit too long” at an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. She was 19.

Ms. Caruso, now 22, said she chalked up the encounter at the time to how men act, and did not say anything publicly. But she said it was particularly uncomfortable because she had just shared her own story of sexual assault and had expected Mr. Biden — an architect of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act — to understand the importance of physical boundaries.

Allegedly groping a woman who had been assaulted at an event on sexual assault is truly something else. I would like to say it’s unimaginable, but Biden’s fellow creepy Democrat, Bob ‘Filthy’ Filner, was accused of something similar.

D. J. Hill, 59, a writer who recalled meeting Mr. Biden in 2012 at a fund-raising event in Minneapolis, said that when she and her husband, Robert, stepped up to take their photograph with the vice president, he put his hand on her shoulder and then started dropping it down her back, which made her “very uncomfortable.”

Her husband, seeing the movement, put his hand on Mr. Biden’s shoulder and interrupted with a joke. Ms. Hill did not say anything at the time and acknowledged that she does not know what Mr. Biden’s intention was or whether he was aware of her discomfit.

That’s four women.

But the New York Times desperately tries to carry water for Biden by describing his behavior as affectionate and supportive.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Omar Investigation Over Paying Divorce Lawyer With Campaign Funds Reaches End – What’s The Conclusion?

Clearly the fault of the Jews.

WASHINGTON (SBG) – Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., the controversial freshman House Democrat, is soon to learn the results of a probe into her campaign spending as a state lawmaker in Minnesota, Sinclair has learned, with authorities there having recently completed their investigation and preparing to issue rulings in a pair of complaints Omar faces.

The complaints were filed last year, while Omar cruised to election to the House of Representatives, by a Republican state lawmaker, Rep. Steve Drazkowski. In referring Omar to the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, Drazkowski alleged that Omar improperly spent close to $6,000 in campaign funds for personal use, including payments to her divorce attorney and for travel to Boston and Estonia. Drazkowski’s filing of the two complaints followed an earlier episode in which Omar repaid $2,500 for honoraria she received for speeches at colleges that receive state funding, a violation of ethics rules for Minnesota lawmakers.

Here’s some background from Drazowski.

A formal CFB investigation into the Omar committee’s use of campaign money to pay legal fees to her divorce attorney also remains ongoing. According to statements made to the CFB by attorney Carla Kjellberg, Omar’s payment to Kjellberg’s law office was reimbursed for services that the Kjellberg firm initially paid for on behalf of the Omar Committee, which would be a violation of state law. Additionally, it appears that the reimbursed expenses may have been related to tax preparation and legal expenses related to immigration.

All this goes back to the weird incest thing in Rep. Omar’s background.

More recently Omar found herself in serious trouble because of campaign finance rules. In her end-of-the-year report, Omar recorded a $2,250 campaign finance disbursement to Kjellberg Law Offices on November 20, 2016. The same law office represents Omar in her divorce proceedings.

Last year, Alpha News investigated the interesting background of Omar after Powerline Blog writer Scott Johnson indicated Omar may have engaged in marriage fraud. Omar, who publicly identified Ahmed Hirsi to be her husband, is currently married to Elmi – who through extensive investigation appears to be Omar’s brother.

Court documents obtained by Alpha News show Omar filing for divorce almost a year later than she had planned to. “I have yet to legally divorce Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, but am in the process of doing so,” Omar said in an August 2016 statement.

Kjellberg has described the payments as relating to crisis management. That could cover all sorts of territory.

And if the results are unfavorable, look for Rep. Omar to go on another anti-Semitic rant to shift the conversation.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Hold Hillary Clinton Accountable For Russiagate Hoax

After the Mueller report plopped with a wet thud on the media, everyone is blaming everyone else.

MSNBC and CNN are blaming the fake experts they invited on and interviewed night after night, urging them to make outlandish predictions that Mueller would soon have Trump locked up for treason. Like Inspector Renault, they’re shocked that the baseless claims they had been repeating were nonsense. And a few of the experts who turned it up to 11 will no longer be invited into media green rooms.

Meanwhile, the politicians are blaming the media, even though Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Rep Ted Lieu, and many other political reps were every bit as bad as the ‘experts’. Some, like Schiff, are doubling down and will go on investigating Russian collusion until the media stops inviting them on morning shows to discuss the nothing that they found last week and the week before.

Oddly, no one is blaming the political arsonist who started the dumpster fire that is Russiagate.

The Russian conspiracy theory was invented by the Clinton campaign. It was used as a pretext for spying on Trump associates. And then became an argument for invalidating the results of the 2016 election.

And while the Republicans and Democrats tore each other apart over Russiagate, Hillary Clinton sipped her chardonnays and spent the evenings cackling madly at the TV while watching Washington D.C. burn.

The Russiagate conspiracy theory had multiple purposes. The most cynical one was exempting Hillary and her Clintonworlders from any of the blame for the election defeat. Invoking Russia was also an effort to create an election issue that Clinton, a former Secretary of State, could claim expertise on. It would also neatly counter Trump’s focus on Islamic terrorists and on China with a Cold War boogeyman.

Russia split lefties along interventionist lines. Hardcore anti-war types became Russia skeptics. Most of the rest went along because they hated Trump more than they cared about foreign policy. That’s why, aside from Israel, foreign policy has mostly been absent from the 2020 battles even as the radical primaries push Democrat candidates further leftward on a wide variety of domestic issues.

That’s strikingly different from the 2016 primaries where Hillary’s opponents repeatedly attacked her over the Iraq War. This time around, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate to run on a leftist foreign policy platform. And has next to nothing to show for it. Even Senator Bernie Sanders, a Castro and Soviet sympathizer, is carefully steering clear of foreign policy except for the ritualistic bashing of Israel.

Why is foreign policy out of bounds? One reason is a surplus of inexperienced candidates who have spent hardly any time in national office, some who never did, squatting in the 2020 clown car. But a big part of the reason is that Hillary Clinton’s domestic positions are seen as fair game for lefty critics, but, due to Russiagate, her foreign policy people and her international positions are viewed as off-limits.

2020 candidates have a choice between endorsing Hillary Clinton’s interventionism, “We came, we saw, he died”, which would earn them the ire of grass-roots leftists, or avoiding the subject altogether. The clowns in the 2020 clownmobile car don’t want to step on Russiagate trip wires or offend the lefties.

That’s why the only safe subject to tilt leftward on is Israel.

After the Mueller report fell, they may be a little bit more willing to question interventionism, but the base remains passionately convinced that Russia plotted to put President Trump in the White House.

The post-Mueller poll by Reuters shows 84% of Democrats still believe in collusion. 57% strongly agree.

Hillary Clinton may not be a 2020 honored guest, but her legacy is safe. 2020 Dems will be cautious about criticizing her, not only because she still has a fan base, but because she never really lost. The election was stolen by a bunch of Russian bots on Facebook. And no lessons, except for the need to censor social media, have been learned from her defeat. Once again, Hillary Clinton got away with it.

The media deserves plenty of the blame. But MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post, not to mention the outlets more explicitly tied to the Steele report, were acting as Hillary’s greedy ideological catspaws. They got rich off the hoax, but they didn’t invent it. Hillary Clinton’s people did.

Any real reckoning should begin with the mother of all the hoaxes.

But that too is very risky. Hillary Clinton tied in Obama’s people into the conspiracy. Any reckoning of Hillary’s role in Russiagate would rebound and take down sizable chunks of the Obama administration.

Once again, Hillary Clinton used complicity, tying multiple interests into mainstreaming her hoax, that her lie had become too big to fail. Like the banking system, it would take too much down with it. The media is a safer target. Its only collateral damage is its non-existent credibility. Obama’s people however committed actual crimes. Eavesdropping on the political opposition is redolent of Watergate.

And while the Dems no longer need Hillary, they very much need Obama. Especially if the top of the 2020 ticket ends up being a white New Englander with as much appeal to black people as mayonnaise.

Take down Hillary over Russiagate, and Obama goes with her. It’s safer to just leave her alone.

Any meaningful reckoning of the Russiagate hoax won’t end with the media. It will follow it through Fusion GPS, the DNC, and Clinton associates who hoped to swing the election with one last dirty trick. It will trace the passage of the Clinton conspiracy theory through the DOJ and the FBI. It will measure the institutional damage inflicted on the government, not just the permanent tainting of the 2016 election.

Nobody complicit in Russiagate is about to allow that to happen. And so everyone, from the media on down, is willing to be Hillary’s fall guys instead. The Clintons have never had a shortage of those.

Hillary Clinton’s political career is over. But despite the odds, she’s managed to evade blame not only for her crimes, but for her terrible political instincts and failures. And she is able to sit back and watch Democrats and Republicans still fighting it out over a game that she set into motion years ago.

It’s hard not to believe that she doesn’t feel glee at the damage she is continuing to inflict on America.

Russiagate was not a media failure. The media these days is just a Democrat messaging operation. Its broadcasts and articles exist to promote the partisan agendas of its political faction. Holding the media accountable for spreading smears, lies and conspiracy theories is like blaming the dog, instead of the owner, when it makes a mess on your lawn. The media makes messes, but it doesn’t originate them.

MSNBC, CNN and the Washington Post can’t and won’t clean up the Russiagate mess. The only one who can is a retired politician dictating books, doing speaking tours and watching TV in her home in Chappaqua, New York. She is also the only person to have escaped a Russiagate reckoning.

Unlike her fellow Democrats, she has nothing at stake in this post-Clinton political order and is happy to watch the country burn, and her party with it, to slake the frustrated anger of her final defeat.

Russiagate is Hillary Clinton’s revenge on everyone. On Trump, on Republicans, and on her own party. If she can’t have the White House, she can still set the agenda by watching her big lie take over the national conversation, hounding Trump and forcing the Dems to fight her war using her last dirty trick.

The only way to stop the damage that the last two years have inflicted on our country is to hold Hillary, Obama, their associates and officials accountable for the catastrophic dirty trick known as Russiagate.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Media Only Now Willing To Cover Joe Biden’s Creepiness When It Suits Their Agenda

Why did the media ignore Joe Biden’s creepiness for eight years only to report on it now?

Here’s a typical apologetic.

All of those frames made appealing pitches just a few years ago. Editors would be happy to get a “lovable Uncle Joe strikes again” story. The environment is not the same now. Certainly the media is not nearly perfect when it comes to covering gender and power. But in the era of #MeToo, there is far less appetite for a story that makes light of a candidate behaving badly toward women.

It’s not about #MeToo.

If Biden were a sitting senator who wasn’t running against prog favorites, this story would stay boxed up. And Flores, a former Bernie ally, would never have come forward.

It’s not a new enlightenment. It’s the media’s ongoing use as a political hit machine for certain political interests.

In the big picture, damaging stories against lefty Dems get covered up. Unless there’s an interest by even leftier Dems in taking them down. It’s no coincidence that this story appears just as Biden is prepping his entry into the race.

We saw the same thing with a Beto O’Rourke story.

Times have changed. Reporters now would look twice at a new politician who is handsy on camera. They’d ask questions about it and likely look into his private conduct. And women like Flores are taking big risks and speaking out.

Nah, they wouldn’t.

It took a lot of work to call Franken out and there’s constant talk of a comeback. 2014 was not some sort of dark age. Attitudes haven’t changed all that much.

Only the politics of it did.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Bernie Sanders Doubles Down On Wanting To Eliminate Private Health Insurance

Nobody likes health insurance companies. They’re the worst. Except for government health care. That’s even worse.

Now the bread line candidate is doubling down on his call to kill health care in America and replace it with Cuban medicine.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, late Tuesday reiterated his call for the elimination of private health insurance companies and moving to a single-payer, “Medicare for all” system of health care.

“You’re damn right,” Sanders wrote in a tweet in response to a Republican National Committee Research tweet pointing out that he called for eliminating private health insurance during an interview earlier in the day.

In that MSNBC interview, Sanders  said the “current system is incredibly dysfunctional and wasteful” and said universal health care can’t be achieved “unless you get rid of the insurance companies.”

It’s incredibly dysfunctional and wasteful. Because it’s a hybrid private-public system.

Much of it is dysfunctional because of insane government regulations that are driving doctors out of the industry and forcing huge mergers, creating massive beasts that serve as an argument for government health care.

It’s Obama’s Cloward-Pivenization of health care. With the eager cooperation of the big corps that saw short term profits without caring about long term consequences, and assumed that the government would be in business with them in some way, shape or form.

They didn’t foresee an old-line Trotskyist like Bernie getting the nom.

And Bernie would like to replace it with Soviet medicine and breadlines for pills.

“You are not going to be able, in the long run, to have cost-effective, universal health care unless you change the system, unless you get rid of the insurance companies, unless you stand up to the greed of the drug companies and lower prescription drug costs,” he said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes.”

“That’s the only way that you can provide quality care to all people.”

Unless you eliminate any alternatives.

And then “quality care” will be defined by government metrics. If 33% survive, it’s quality.

Sanders has previously called for the elimination of private health insurance companies.

“Yes, it does, because you’re not going to a have a need for private insurance,” he said earlier this month during an interview with NPR when asked if private insurance “goes away” under Medicare for All.

You might have a need. But Bernie has decided that you don’t. That’s how the Left works.

It decides what you need. And then tells you to comply.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Corrupt Clinton Governor Under Recent Fed Investigation May Run In 2020

Is it too early to tout a McAuliffe-Abrams ticket?

Everybody and their cousin is jumping into the 2020 race. It doesn’t matter if you’ve barely held public office or have had more corruption scandals than brain cells.

Come on down, Terry.

First on CNN: Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe under federal investigation for campaign contributions

Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and prosecutors from the Justice Department’s public integrity unit, U.S. officials briefed on the probe say.

That was in 2016. Now on CNN, three years later.

Terry McAuliffe is moving closer to a 2020 presidential run, Democrats close to the former Virginia governor tell CNN.

McAuliffe has been telling Democratic allies that he is leaning toward jumping into the Democratic presidential race next month, according to three people who have spoken to him. The former governor has long said he would make a decision by the end of March, with a potential announcement later in April.

McAuliffe has been flirting with the ideal for a while. Under the Clintons, he was really close to the center of power. And its financial rewards. He racked up a legion of Clinton scandals, impressive even by Clintonworld scandals, which, considering McCabe, keep on coming even now and the Clinton email investigation.

Here’s a summary from that notorious right-wing publication, Mother Jones, of his past.

 He cooked up the idea of essentially renting out the Lincoln bedroom during the Clinton administration as a fundraising vehicle, and he smashed all previous presidential fundraising records in the process. When McAuliffe was the Dems’ top fundraiser, a campaign finance scandal besieged the Clinton White House. Coincidence? No.

Or the New York Times.

A 2011 New York Times editorial chastised McAuliffe as “a walking symbol of the wretched excess of the Clinton years.”[36]

During the 1996 election, Martin Davis, a Democratic fund-raising operative, who later pleaded guilty to fraud in relation to their dealings, implicated McAuliffe in an illegal contribution swap scheme

In 1999, the New York Times wrote that McAuliffe “transformed the art of raising money for public figures into the art of raising money for himself, leveraging a personal fortune from his political fund-raising contacts.”

In 2013, the Washington Post reported that McAuliffe used his political connections to generate big profits for himself while many of his the businesses he invested in failed.

Clearly, the 2020 candidate that the Dems deserve.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

House Intel Chair Schiff Continues His Delusion: “Undoubtedly, There Is Collusion”

It doesn’t matter what’s in the Mueller report.

Russia collusion was a conspiracy theory invented by the Clinton campaign and kept alive by Democrat apparatchiks. Without Russian collusion, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is just a guy with a powerful job whose details nobody outside D.C. cares about.

With Russia collusion, he’s going to have a permanent seat on CNN and MSNBC, and he’s going to be able to fundraise and promote himself in ways that he couldn’t if he weren’t posing as the new champion of the Russia investigation.

Oh at some point, Dems will grow frustrated with the lack of results. And he’ll be accused of being a sellout.

But for now, Schiff is rising the collusion train to nowhere.

“Undoubtedly, there is collusion,” Schiff told the Washington Post, a social justice tabloid which has profited enormously from Russia conspiracy theories.

Of course, there is.

And WaPo will be there while Schiff goes to look for it in the dumpster bin.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Time To Investigate The Washington Post’s Qatari Collusion?

Even as the New Zealand government was condemning the Erdogan regime for using mosque shooting footage in its election rallies, the Washington Post decided to give the Islamist tyrant a platform.

It was the second time in six months that The Post had given Erdogan a platform.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan has prisons full of political dissidents. He has silenced the media and has tortured opponents. His brutal Islamist regime has been described as the world’s biggest jailor of journalists.

It’s been estimated that a third of the world’s imprisoned journalists have been locked up by his regime.

But that didn’t stop the Washington Post from giving the man who has locked up hundreds of journalists a forum to posture about the mysterious death of The Post’s own Qatari lobbyist: Jamal Khashoggi.

The Washington Post is a paper that is uniquely willing to not only advocate on behalf of Islamists and their causes, as it frequently does, but to provide a forum for some of the most toxic Islamists around. And those Islamists are invariably aligned with the Qatari-Turkish-Iranian axis and the Brotherhood.s

The paper’s decision to provide Osama bin Laden’s old friend, Jamal Khashoggi, with a forum for promoting Qatari interests, from the Brotherhood to attacks on Saudi rivals, and to then turn his death into a crusade, is part of a larger picture of collusion between The Post and Qatar’s Islamist axis.

Khashoggi was a Qatari lobbyist whose columns, as The Post was forced to admit, were shaped by the Qatar Foundation. The Foundation, an arm of the Qatari regime, proposed topics, drafted them and translated his columns. Jamal Khashoggi was not a journalist. He was a front for Qatar to plant columns attacking Saudi Arabia and promoting the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post.

Last year, the Post was criticized for running an op-ed by Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, the leader of Yemen’s Houthi Jihadis whose motto is, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam.” The Jihadist group is backed by Iran and had launched an attack on the USS Mason.

After the attack, its commanding officer noted that “Mason’s actions protected 1,000 U.S. sailors on the warships and countless more mariners in merchant vessels.” What the Houthis couldn’t accomplish with kinetic weapons, its Qatari and Iranian allies sought to accomplish using the instrument of the Post.

The op-ed was the tip of a much larger iceberg in which the media spread Qatari and Iranian propaganda falsely claiming that the campaign against the Houthis had caused mass death in Yemen.

Typical Post headlines such as, “85000 children have starved to death” and “Enough is enough. End the war in Yemen” amplified the Islamist propaganda leading to Senate resolutions demanding that the United States leave Yemen to the Houthis. And allow Iran to take control of a vital strategic area.

The media flooded the zone with false claims that Saudi intervention, rather than Houthi larceny, had caused the famine. The truth emerged in an AP investigative report that revealed that large amounts of food were entering the country, but were being diverted by the Houthis for their own Jihadis or were being resold by the Shiite terror group to finance its war. These were the same tactics that Hamas, another Islamic terror group backed by Iran, had successfully used while the media falsely blamed Israel.

The Yemen famine was manufactured for tactical purposes by the Houthis who profited from stealing food while using a humanitarian crisis to force an end to the Saudi/American campaign against them. The more food they stole, the more money they made, the more people died and the more the propaganda circulated in Islamist mouthpieces like The Post urging that the Houthis be left alone.

Despite the revelations in the AP report, The Post continued pushing Islamist famine propaganda and members of the Senate continued relying on its reporting to undermine the US fight against Iran.

Erdogan and al-Houthi, like Jamal Khashoggi, were featured under Global Opinions. A highly visible banner touts “Post Opinions Arabic”. The Post’s global op-ed section doesn’t advertise foreign language translations for any other language. Its goal isn’t just influencing middle eastern politics. It doesn’t push op-eds in Persian, Turkish or, for that matter, Hebrew. Its goal, like that of Qatar, is the Arab world.

The regular Global Opinion section is already a mélange of Islamist axis agendas, attacks on China’s counterterrorism in Xinjiang, on Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights, on Myanmar for fighting Islamic terrorism, promoting Iran’s puppet government in Baghdad, on Trump for backing the Saudis over Qatar, on French ‘Islamophobia’, and on Trump’s anti-Muslim ‘bigotry’.

But the Arabic op-eds read even more monotonously like Qatari propaganda with attacks on Saudi Arabia, Egypt’s President Sisi: a Saudi ally and opponent of Qatar’s Muslim Brotherhood allies.

There are no Arabic op-eds critical of Qatar. But there is one critical of Tunisia’s government by Fadil Aliriza. Fadil often writes for Middle East Eye, a Muslim Brotherhood site backed by Qatar.  MEE has been described as Qatar’s second media outlet. The Washington Post would be its third.

That’s no exaggeration.

Many of the Washington Post’s house headlines read like Qatari propaganda. “China has put 1 million Muslims in concentration camps. MBS had nothing to say,” a Fred Hiatt column headline screams.

MBS refers to the Saudi king. A prime Qatari target.

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with China? Not that much. Most Muslim countries, aside from members of the Islamist axis, have avoided offending China. Singling out MBS tells Americans nothing. It’s a message destined for Arab audiences in an Islamic slapfight between Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Many Washington Post columns on Saudi Arabia now read in this Hiattesque way, written in English for an audience of Arab and Muslim elites operating out of Washington D.C. and foreign capitals. There is a long history of the agents of influence of oil-rich states sponsoring Washington D.C. propaganda. But it’s the first time that they have managed to turn the leading paper in the District into their mouthpiece.

“Can I possibly work for such a regime, and still look at myself in the mirror each morning?” Hiatt demanded of anyone taking Saudi money. Meanwhile, on a PBS show, Hiatt fumed that the Saudis were hurting American interests. “Everything this reckless 33-year-old crown prince has done has hurt American interests. He entered this war in Yemen, which has been a disaster. He broke with Qatar, an American ally. That’s been harmful to U.S. interests.” None of this harms America. It harms Qatar.

Confusing our interests with Qatari interests is the sort of thing that a Qatari lobbyist would do.

The Post pretends to offer its readers, global perspectives. Instead, it treats them to propaganda from foreign regimes and terrorist organizations engaged in open and covert wars with the United States.

This would be a problem even if the Washington Post’s target audience weren’t our country’s leaders.

The Post took the lead in pushing foreign collusion narratives. But if a bunch of Russian bots on Facebook supposedly posed a gigantic threat to democracy, what sort of threat do agents of influence in a paper read by some of the most powerful people in Washington D.C. pose to our country?

There’s no sign that Russian bots on Facebook ever made a meaningful difference. But The Post’s Islamist propaganda has influenced Senate resolutions on Khashoggi and Yemen.

Now that the Washington Post’s efforts to push conspiracy theories about Russian collusion have failed, it may be time to look into its Qatari collusion.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Women Warned Not To Be Alone In Room W/Southern Poverty Law Center Founder

If these allegations are true, what does that say about the credibility of the Southern Poverty Law Center over the years? And why does their data continue to be treated as legitimate?

In a second letter, sent after Mr. Dees had been publicly let go, other employees asserted that the organization’s leadership had covered up allegations against Mr. Dees and been “complicit” in decades of discrimination and sexual misconduct.


That means the SPLC has been corrupt and deeply tainted for at least a generation. So why does its data continue to be used?

If the SPLC’s leadership couldn’t be trusted by its employees, why are their work products considered trusted?

But among employees, Mr. Dees has had a troubling reputation for a long time.

Several women who have worked at the center said they were cautioned against being alone in a room with him. Others who worked there said they had witnessed inappropriate touching or heard him make lewd remarks.

That culture of SPLC silence was really something. Wasn’t it?

The same people eager to blame conservatives for everything took decades to stand up to their own leadership.

“They weren’t even trying to be diverse in terms of reflecting the people who they served,” said Dana Vickers Shelley, a former staff member who was among the highest-ranking black employees at the center.

When Ms. Shelley told Mr. Cohen of her resignation, she recalled that he asked what a subordinate, a black woman, intended to do. Ms. Shelley said she replied that she did not know.

“His response to me that I will never forget was, ‘Well, the 13th Amendment says she can do whatever she wants,’” said Ms. Shelley, who left the organization in 2014. (The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.)

2014. 4-5 years ago.

And the national media reported none of this until the problems within the organization boiled over and went public.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

The Islamic Hate That Killed A Little Girl Still Haunts Toulouse

Seven years ago, Mohammed Merah pointed a gun at the head of 7-year-old Miriam Monsonego.

The blonde little girl was the daughter of the school principal and moments ago had been playing in a French schoolyard. The Monsonego family were Jewish immigrants from Morocco. The Ozar HaTorah school invaded by the Muslim terrorist was home to the children of Jewish refugees from North Africa and the Middle East who had fled to France after their countries had fallen to Muslim rule.

North African Jews had first received equal rights under French rule. When the French left, Jews lost their lives and their rights. Many began new lives again in places like Toulouse and its schoolyard.

But the Muslim violence that had deprived them of their rights and their lives followed them there.

Before Miriam, Mohammed had murdered a Rabbi and his two little boys, six and three years old. The other children ran. He cornered Miriam, grabbed the little girl by her hair, and pulled the trigger.

A miracle happened and the gun jammed. But with the determination that made him a hero to many French Muslims, he didn’t give up. He switched guns and shot her.

As she lay bleeding, he lifted up her head and shot the dying little Jewish girl two more times.

Miriam died in her father’s arms.

“I kissed her, I said ‘goodbye’, I did not think it was going to be the last time,” her mother later said.

Seven years later, the brutal Islamic massacre of March 19 was commemorated in France, but forgotten outside it. The same American corporate media focusing in detail on shootings in New Zealand, with a special emphasis on the victims, hadn’t paid much attention to Miriam even right after her death.

An AP story of a little over a hundred words briefly covered the anniversary. Miriam’s name was left out.

But the story isn’t over. It’s just beginning.

In 2018, anti-Semitic acts increased by 74% in France. Mohammed Merah, Miriam’s killer, remains a hero to many Muslims. Even though both Merah was a terrorist trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan, a popular French documentary portrayed the killer as suffering from mental illness. “I Love Death as You Love Life”, a play by Mohammed Kacimi about the terrorist was condemned by families of the victims.

The play was based on Merah’s rants to the police in which the “soldier of Allah” declared that Jews had to be “removed from the face of the earth” and that he regretted not being able to “kill more Jews”.

A year after the massacre, a man wearing an Arafat shirt was photographed performing the quenelle, an ironic version of the Heil Hitler salute spread by Muslim and leftists in French pop culture to taunt Jews, outside the school. Muslim hip-hop acts in France have celebrated Merah and his murderous spree.

Merah’s massacre of Jewish children was not accidental. Nor was it one man’s horrifying crime.

The origins of the attack lay in Islamic anti-Semitism. Merah identified as a “soldier of Allah”. His murderous hatred for the Jews came not merely from YouTube videos, but Islamic family values.

Mohammed had been “raised to be an anti-Semite because anti-Semitism was part of the atmosphere at home,” Abdelghani Merah, his brother, had said.

Another brother was an Al Qaeda supporter who was sentenced to twenty years in prison in 2017. Souad, his sister, praised Mohammed, and said that, “Jews deserved to be killed.”

When the New York Times ventured into a Muslim neighborhood in Toulouse later that year, it had no trouble finding locals who praised the Muslim terrorist as a “hero” and a “martyr of Islam”.

A Muslim family tried to name their child after him.

To understand the origins of Rep. Omar or Rep. Tlaib’s anti-Semitism, look to the Merah family.

Shortly after the attack, a rally in support of Merah was held. Slogans in support of the Muslim terrorist were spray-painted outside the site of the massacre and near the Great Synagogue of Toulouse.

The 2019 anniversary commemorations were held behind barricades under the protection of a heavy police presence. The Interior Minister described the dead as, “victims of anti-Semitism, this poisonous infection.” But there was no mention of the Islamic motivations for the massacre of Jewish children.

Statements by public officials attributed the attack, along with so many others, to “barbarism”, to “radicalism” and to “racism”.

“Seven years after the massacre,” Miriam’s father, Yaacov Monsonego, who still works at the school where his daughter was murdered, said: “Seven as the number of victims. As the age of Miriam, the little princess who should have been in her class right now.”

A few of Miriam’s classmates, now teenagers, remembered her as being a very special girl.

Outside the school, the haunting sounds of El Moleh Rachamim, Lord of Mercy, the Jewish prayer for the souls of the dead, rang in the air. “Holy and pure, they shine like the radiance of the heavens”, “beloved children who were murdered”, “shelter them eternally under your wings”, and “the Lord is their inheritance, may they rest in peace”.

Miriam, who will always be seven, and never eight, who will never join her classmates at the mall, will never date, will never have children of her own, is at rest on Jerusalem’s Har HaMenuchot, the Mount of Rest, where no one will scrawl Islamist slogans on her grave or perform the quenelle in front of it.

The Jews of Toulouse are also leaving. The Jewish Deputy Mayor of Toulouse urged the Jews to stop wearing identifiable clothing and declared that, “the future of the Jewish people in Europe is hopeless.” 600 Jewish families had left Toulouse and emigrated to Israel since the brutal schoolyard attack.

Merah’s crime had accomplished its purpose. The ethnic cleansing of the Jews of the area.

The Deputy Mayor was soon forced to apologize for blaming Jewish flight on political Islam and the sizable Muslim population. Toulouse’s mayor relived him of his duties and demanded his resignation.

In an echo of the Democrat refusal to support a resolution condemning Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitic comments, a move to have Muslims condemn anti-Semitism last year met with “violent” opposition.

Also last year, Imam Mohamed Tatai of the Grand Mosque of Toulouse urged Muslims to kill Jews.

The prophet of Islam, the leader of an interfaith dialogue group “told us about the final and decisive battle: ‘Judgement Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Jews will hide behind the stones and the trees, and the stones and the trees will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'”

The infamous Hadith not only appeared in the Hamas charter but is popular in the Muslim world. And the Islamic hate that killed Miriam still haunts the darkening streets and homes of Toulouse.

Many of Toulouse’s Jews had fled Islamic hate in the Middle East. They are fleeing it again in France.

The Muslim massacre of Jewish children in Toulouse came a few weeks after the Jewish holiday of Purim. Miriam and the other murdered children would have had one last year in which to dress up in costumes, eat candy and enjoy life in celebration of G-d’s defeat of Haman’s plot to massacre the Jews.

2,400 years ago in the Middle East, a man named Haman wrote a fatwa to, “exterminate, murder and destroy all the Jews, from lads to elders, children and women.” The Hamans of Islam have written countless such fatwas. “There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed,” Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi declared.

The New York Times dubbed Ghannouchi a “moderate”. The Washington Post praised him as a “scholar” and a “voice of hope”. Reuters called him a “respected scholar”. Obama’s State Department feted him.

The same media outlets that have cried in outrage over the New Zealand mosque shootings praise the “moderate” Islamist “scholars” who urge the mass murder of Jewish children.

Purim celebrates the defeat of Haman’s genocidal plot. But the Hamans of today are all the rage.

The seventh anniversary of the massacre occurred only a few days before Purim under the shadow of murderous Islamic anti-Semitism around the world, from threats in Toulouse to rockets over Tel Aviv, from Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism in Washington D.C. to support for Iran’s nuclear program in Brussels.

Its brief prayers are quickly silenced by the media’s propaganda, smears and silence.

The children of Toulouse who stood at a vigil mourning their dead classmates will once again put on costumes, deliver treats and sing. But they will do so quietly because, though it cannot be said, Toulouse has more Mohammeds than Mordechais. And many of them call Mohammed Merah a role model.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

NY Times Op-Ed: Trump Is Guilty No Matter What Mueller Report Says

Some in the media are playing the short game of spinning conspiracy theories about the release of the Mueller report. Others are going the longer game of claiming that the Mueller report doesn’t matter.

Trump is guilty… because!

The best example of this sordid species is a New York Times op-ed, “We Don’t Need to Read the Mueller Report: Even if it is never released, the public already knows enough.”

What does the public know? The stuff the media lied about.

“Mr. Mueller’s report may never go public, but we don’t need a peek at the recommendations he delivered on Friday to Attorney General William Barr to credibly assess that something unethical and likely illegal went on in 2016. The repeated lies told by Trump campaign staff members — lies about their connections to Russian figures — already spin a grand tale of conspiracy and deceit”


The argument here is that since some people were convicted of lying, there must be a conspiracy. Never mind that anyone familiar with federal law enforcement knows that charging people with lying is the fed equivalent of a police officer arresting somebody for resisting arrest. It’s a meaningless process charge meant to apply pressure or save face.

Plenty of people have been charged with lying to federal agents without having committed an underlying crime. Martha Stewart comes to mind.

“Remember, Richard Nixon was not indicted, and there was no commensurate special counsel report in the Watergate scandal. There doesn’t need to be one here to right wrongs so egregious they were apparently worth lying about.”


The apparently goes with the likely.

This is what the media does now. Spew hysterical innuendo while insisting that the facts don’t matter because we already know.

Sentence first. Verdict afterward.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Deplatforming “Anti-Vaxxers”

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen a surge of media stories claiming that “anti-vaxxers” pose a unique threat and that this threat is vectored through social media platforms, which have a moral obligation to take action.

We’ve seen this same deplatforming rollout before aimed at conservatives. It was interesting to witness it aimed at a group that is not conservative.

My aim is not to debate vaccines. It’s not my subject. Censorship however is.

The outcome of the media campaign has been predictable. A variety of platforms, most recently GoFundMe, where anyone no matter how noxious can raise money, as long as they aren’t conservatives, have followed suit.

The latest deplatforming campaign should serve as a warning that the use of tech platforms and media to promote censorship won’t end with conservatives.

Any group can be portrayed as socially unacceptable, if they fall afoul of the media a handful of tech monopolies, and then face blacklisting.

This is a bad and very dangerous phenomenon.

We now live in a world in which Islamic terrorist groups are more acceptable on social media platforms than Americans whom the media despises.

This is not about right or wrong views.

A liberal society is one where people can debate ideas. A totalitarian society decides which views are acceptable and suppresses everything else.

What began with conservatives will not end there. Totalitarianism has its own terrible and implacable logic. That of human nature.

Totalitarianism does not end of its own accord. It is either defeated from without or within.

Conservatives are still the best hope for defeating leftist totalitarianism from without. If they fail, then America, like Cuba or China or the USSR, will have to hope for a revolution from within.

And that is a dark tiding.

The alliance between tech monopolies and the media poses a grave threat to human freedom. If we fail to fight it, we will be silenced.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

How Small State Democrats Are Selling Out Their States To California

Colorado has a population of around 5.7 million. Or 1.75% of the country.

Despite that, Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact after Colorado’s General Assembly passed the National Popular Vote bill by 34 to 29.

The bill to disenfranchise Colorado voters was sponsored by Senator Mike Foote, a Democrat, Representative Emily Sirota, a “progressive” Democrat, and Jeni James Arndt, a Democrat. The bill passed in a party-line vote with Democrats lining up to make Colorado politically irrelevant.

The Popular Vote Bill conspires to bypass the electoral college and toss out the votes of Coloradans by awarding the state’s electoral college voters to the winners of the popular vote: also known as whichever candidate New York and California billionaires decided should run the country.

California has a population of almost 40 million. New York has a population of almost 20 million.

Both states would vote in a chicken, a serial killer or Adolf Hitler if he had a D after his name.

Colorado doesn’t even have 6 million people to put up against that 60 million. If the compact were to take hold, why then should any presidential candidate ever bother campaigning in Colorado again?

In the last election, both Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton held rallies in Colorado. But if Colorado’s electoral votes go to whomever New York and California elites pick, there would be no point.

New York City alone has 3 million more people than Colorado. They’re all boxed in within 300 square miles. Meanwhile, Colorado voters are scattered across over 100,000 square miles. Even Denver only has a population density of around 1,700 per square mile. New York City has 27,000 people per square mile.

Why would any presidential nominee bother hunting and pecking for Colorado voters when Los Angeles County has 10 million people with a density of 7,500 people per square mile that he can just scoop up?

“This really isn’t a red versus blue idea,” Senator Mike Foote lied. “This is about making sure that the president of the United States is elected by the entire nation.”

The only reason Colorado’s elected officials chose to disenfranchise their state is that they are thinking like Democrats, not like Coloradans. They’re satisfied with only having input during the Democrat primary process and they don’t care if both candidates ignore their state during the general election.

The eleven states that have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact are a curious combination of winners and losers. California and New York, the states with the most to gain from being able to determine presidential elections, are on board. But, on the other side of the dial are Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The three states together weigh in at a little over 3 million.

The compact puts Colorado in a grim place. But it’s still almost twice as populous as all three tiny states combined. Their only political assets were their electoral college votes. And they chose to give those assets away to New York and California in the hopes of rigging a future presidential election.

New Mexico, which is feverishly trying to join, has a little over 2 million people.

The electoral college was meant to protect the political power of even the smallest states. But Democrats in some of those states are eager to abandon local power for national control. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact nationalizes local votes in a trick of political socialism.

Why are small state Democrats so willing to abandon the rights and power of their states?

Take Jared Polis. He’s a California tech industry guy worth around $400 million, after inheriting a greeting card company from his parents, who bought his seat by outspending everyone else.

Polis is typical of the new blue elite transforming the country. His fortune may be impressive by the standards of Colorado politics, but spending a few million wouldn’t have bought him anything in California or New York. (Just ask Tom Steyer, who blew through tens of millions of dollars for nothing. Or Michael Bloomberg who spent over $100 million to buy just one mayoral election in New York City.)

Colorado elections are much more affordable.

Over in Rhode Island, the popular vote bill was signed by former Governor Chafee. His own conflicts were bad enough and his successor, Gina Raimondo, who worked in a venture capital firm in Manhattan, outspent her opponents by millions in a campaign funded by out-of-state donors, the finance industry and major executives. Her transition team was packed with banking executives.

Is that the bio of a politician who cares about state sovereignty?

Governor Raimondo managed to raise $2.2 million in campaign money in a non-election year in a state with a million people. $1.35 million came from out of state. Only $872K came from Rhode Island. Much of Raimondo’s cash came from California donors, including Hollywood and the tech industry.

When California and New York money elects politicians in Colorado and Rhode Island, is it any wonder that it also controls their votes?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact isn’t about fairness. It ratifies the power shift from the traditional political system that was built to protect the sovereignty of small states against the financial and cultural power of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, to new cultural and economic powerhouses.

The problem isn’t mere geography.

This isn’t a civil war pitting states against each other. New Yorkers and Californians aren’t the problem. New York and California are dominated by conglomerations of financial and cultural elites from outside the respective states that have disenfranchised state voters there as thoroughly as in Colorado.

When we talk about New York and California, what we really mean is the disproportionate power and wealth of certain industries and the manufactured elites they have gathered from around the country. These elites have hollowed out and disenfranchised actual New Yorkers and Californians, before going on to do the same thing to other states with puppet governments that run locally, but obey nationally.

Their scheme, cultivating a welfare class to disenfranchise the middle class, open borders and mass media propaganda by the alliance between the mainstream media and the tech industry, again New York and California, has worked in these respective states, but is meeting with opposition elsewhere.

The 2016 election was a backlash against the concentrated power of the elites and their tactic, mass migration to disenfranchise and impoverish American voters, became the central election issue. The geography of the resistance has also been concentrated in a handful of big blue states, and has used huge infusions of New York and California money to hijack local elections in smaller states and areas.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact formalizes the centralization of power in the few wealthy areas of a few powerful states at the expense of the multitude of smaller states of the country.

It overturns the balance of power keeping a handful of powerful states from controlling the country.

The compact’s backers claim that they want greater equality. But, like so many leftist reforms, their proposals centralize power in the hands of smaller numbers of people leading to greater inequality.

Opponents of the electoral college insist that what they want is for every voter to have a voice. The reality of what they propose is for California and New York Democrats to pick every president.

California and New York contain some of the country’s heaviest concentrations of major donors.

What the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact really does is allow a few New York and California billionaires to determine who will run the country until the San Andreas and Ramapo faults rupture.

That’s very promising if you’re a Hollywood studio boss or a Wall Street titan. It’s much less appealing if you’re a Colorado rancher or a Rhode Island fisherman who has been disenfranchised so that a few of Nancy Pelosi’s billionaire pals in San Francisco can always get to decide who sits in the White House.

And that is the “equality” at the heart of the vision that the Democrats have for America.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Chicago Cops Want Jussie Smollett Probe Of Leftist State’s Attorney

The fun is just getting started in the Jussie Smollett case.

Not all that long ago, the media was cheering Kim Foxx as brave and courageous, for breaking the glass and marketing herself as a survivor. She was supposed to implement pro-crime “reforms” in Chicago’s “broken justice system”.

Now the breakage is going the other way.

Chicago’s police union is calling for a federal investigation into the Cook County State’s Attorney’s actions in the Jussie Smollett case.

Three days after Smollett claimed he was attacked, Kim Foxx asked Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson to turn the case over to the FBI.

Which would have presumably arrested Manafort. Again.

Tina Tchen, Michelle Obama’s gal, had recruited Foxx.

The request came after Foxx exchanged text messages and emails with relatives and a supporter of Smollett, who said they were worried about leaks in the investigation.

Foxx later recused herself from the case.

The FOP wants federal investigators to determine whether Foxx broke the law.

It’s a start. I don’t expect that it will go anywhere but the effort to shift the case to the FBI smacks of fear that the local cops would do their job (which they did) and break up the hoax, while the Feds would have gone for the cheap media headlines.

A few hours later, Foxx received a text from a relative of Smollett, who said she’d received the number from Tchen.

In an interview with the Sun-Times last week, Foxx said that the family member expressed concerns about leaked information about the investigation — information that media outlets attributed to “police sources.”

“They had no doubt about the quality of the investigation, but believed that the FBI would have a tighter lid on the information,” said Foxx, adding that Johnson initially seemed receptive to the idea of turning the case over to the FBI.

Foxx said she has made similar calls to Johnson in cases involving lower-profile victims.

Leaks that suggested Smollett had faked the whole thing. Much like in Ferguson.

The concern was that the Chicago cops were exposing the hoax.

Meanwhile, the consequences are reverberating up the slimy ladder of Chi-town politics.

Mayoral candidate Toni Preckwinkle defended her political protégé on Tuesday amid allegations that State’s Attorney Kim Foxx acted inappropriately when she tried to persuade Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to transfer the investigation of Jussie Smollett’s claim of being the target of a hate crime to the FBI.

“Kim Foxx was my chief of staff for … a little more than two years. She ran for and was elected state’s attorney. I’m very grateful for the good work that she’s done there,” Preckwinkle told an unrelated news conference on the West Side.

“I think that she makes the decisions that she believes are in the best interests of the office.”

Pressed to explain why she believes that, the county board president said: “I think it was the right decision because it was a decision that she made and she’s in the best position to make it.”

Preckwinkle cut off the conversation when asked who else but someone with clout would have had a pipeline to the state’s attorney to even ask that a case be transferred.

“I’ve said what I have to say about this. Thank you,” she said.

Thank you indeed.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Media Once Again Falsely Conflates Neo-Nazis & Critics Of Islam

After the New Zealand shootings, it was inevitable that the media would once again run false stories attempting to link Neo-Nazis and white supremacists to critics of Islam.

The latest such effort attempts to target Robert Mercer over his donations to Gatestone Institute while trying to link that to the New Zealand attack.

The obvious problem is that Gatestone includes plenty of Jewish and Muslim contributors. Attempting to libel it, and Robert Mercer by extension, is the equivalent of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s very expensive failed smear of Maajid Nawaz as anti-Muslim because he’s been critical of Islamists. The bizarre leap in the media hit piece here attempts to link a Neo-Nazi to Daniel Pipes.

It shouldn’t even be necessary to point out how ridiculous that is. But the media necessitates it.

Here’s what I wrote the last time the smear campaign came for Gatestone.

The front page article on Gatestone’s site right now is Bassam Tawil’s piece on anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Authority. Tawil’s bio reads, “Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.”

Another of Gatestone’s major authors is Khaled Abu Toameh, the most prominent Muslim journalist in Israel.

A brief look through the names of Gatestone’s authors turns up,

Raif Badawi, the Saudi dissident,

Salim Mansur, a Gatestone distinguished senior fellow,

Najat Al Saied, a Gatestone Distinguished Senior Scholar,

Ahmed Charai, Chairman of Med Radio, Morocco,

Raheel Raza, The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow


M. Zuhdi Jasser, President, American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

not to mention Mohammad Amin, Shabnam Assadollahi, Uzay Bulut, Sara Al Nuaimi, Nuhu Othman, Shadi Paveh, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Abdel Jabbar Rawashdeh, Sohail Raza, Saied Shoaaib, Maha Soliman, Mohshin Habib, Hakim Haider, Khadija Khan, some of whom are Muslims and others, I believe, are former Muslims.

There are more Muslims writing and working for this “anti-Muslim think tank” than there are for NBC News.

Gatestone can and should sue over these attempts to smear it.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

How The Media Is Pushing 2020 Democrats To The Left

Timing is everything.

During Robert Francis ‘Beto’ O’Rourke’s awkward campaign rollout, we learned that a Reuters reporter had a damaging story about the politician’s past during the Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz that he promised to hold “until after the November election.”

It’s now March.

The Reuters reporter sat on the story until the day after O’Rourke announced his White House bid. And then he decided that the time was perfect to debut a mildly damaging story about a Democrat.

There were three points in time when the story could have run.

When it would have helped Ted Cruz and hurt O’Rourke, after the election it would have mildly hurt O’Rourke, and now when it would damage O’Rourke more seriously and help his Democrat rivals.

Going the first route would have been journalism. It would have meant a mainstream media hack putting the story above his political leanings. And the odds of that are as good as a snowstorm in July. It does happen sometimes, but you don’t want to pack your winter boots on the off chance that it might.

The second route would have been routine media bias, holding a damaging story on a politician until it’s not election season anymore. The third route, the route that was taken, is much more revealing.

The story was deployed when it could cause maximum damage, right with O’Rourke’s campaign rollout.

The strategic timing reveals the media’s political priorities, helping Democrats defeat Republicans, and then helping Democrats defeat other Democrats that are less leftist than the ones they are helping.

Within this hierarchy, the media will champion liberal Republicans against conservative Republicans. It will aid Democrats against Republicans. And then support socialists against Democrats. In every confrontation, the media will pick the side that is furthest leftward and use its power to back its cause.

Why are the 2020 Democrats each scrambling to ‘outleft’ each other on every issue?

A sizable segment of the Democrat primary electorate will be radical. But it makes no practical sense for almost the entire field to be competing for only one segment of the electorate. And indeed, poll numbers show that the strategy isn’t working. The clown car pileup in which every candidate in the race steered toward Marx led to a distorted field with Bernie Sanders leading the announced candidates.

If you’re going to vote for a leftist, why settle for shoddy imitations like Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Kamala Harris, when you can have a politician who was booing JFK in support of Fidel Castro?

The Democrat field favored candidates like Biden and O’Rourke who hadn’t yet announced because the base was actually hoping for more sensible options than Bernie and a bunch of professional politicians embarrassing themselves by embracing every radical cause in order to appeal to the Sandernistas.

Good luck with that.

Bobby O’Rourke entered the race by endorsing the Green New Deal and confessing his privilege. Biden is teasing a run by promising to be more “progressive” than any of the other candidates in the race.

Is this really a good strategy?

It’s not a great strategy for anyone in the back of the clown car trying to edge out Bernie and get a few points off Kamala, but it’s a sensible strategy for not being hammered with hit pieces that might not just end your chances at 2020, but force you to resign from your Senate seat and end your entire career.

The candidates aren’t going leftward because it’s the best strategy to win over the base. They’re doing it because it’s the best strategy for protecting their political fundaments from the partisan press.

The media never liked Hillary.

It didn’t resent her because she’s an unpleasant person, because she roped off the media or because of her numerous scandals. Her one unforgivable sin was steering slightly to the right in the Senate. Hillary had been plotting her own White House run and she voted for the Iraq War. And that was it.

The media helped build up Obama. Then it helped build up Bernie Sanders.

When Hillary went up against Trump, the media had her back all the way and was willing to help pull any dirty trick, just as Reuters never ran that O’Rourke story when he was up against Ted Cruz. But the media never liked her and it undermined her whenever she ran against a leftier Democrat opponent.

That is the political lesson that has shaped the 2020 Democrat field.

No one wants to be Hillary Clinton. A useful reminder of that came from her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, who became one of the lone voices condemning Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism. When Islamist activists harassed Chelsea, the media took their side, the side of anti-Semitism, rather than hers. If you want to understand why hardly any of the 2020 Dems dared criticize Rep. Omar and why some, Senator Elizabeth Warren, actually doubled down on her anti-Semitism, look at what happened to Chelsea.

Or what happened to Senator Dianne Feinstein when she bucked the Green New Deal.

Forget the mainstream issues that the Democrats once held mainstream positions on. That the only acceptable positions on illegal migration, infanticide and crime are “Hell, yeah”, is a foregone conclusion. But defying even the most extreme leftist positions, on any subject from banning planes to racial reparations to outright anti-Semitism, will be swiftly punished with media hit pieces.

That is the political backdrop against which the 2020 Democrat primaries are taking place.

In the democratic days of the Democrats, candidates went to places like Iowa or New Hampshire to appeal to voters. These days the actual electorate of the 2020 candidates isn’t in any of these places. Their real electorate is a media apparatus based out of New York and Washington D.C. The primary tour is an opportunity for Democrats to market themselves not to the electorate, but to the media.

And the only test that matters is how far the needle on the radioactive political counter tilts leftward.

2016 proved that the media doesn’t control the outcome of national elections. But it does control the outcome of Democrat primaries. Had a more viable leftist candidate than Bernie Sanders emerged in 2016, Hillary Clinton would not have made it through the primaries. And as it prepares for 2020, the media wants to find that candidate. Anyone who isn’t that candidate is being hit with hit pieces.

The 2020 media landscape is a scorched earth landscape of hit pieces being lobbed at various candidates for their progressive failings. The media civil war will end when a Democrat 2020 nominee emerges.

And then all the scandals will be as thoroughly buried as the O’Rourke story was before November.

The media doesn’t report. Its shoddy mockery of journalism consists of the same alternating flattery and fury, the boot-licking and head-kicking tendencies of propaganda operations in totalitarian states. America isn’t North Korea or Cuba. Yet. But we have the same malicious media operations as they do.

And it’s not just Republicans or even conservatives caught in the line of fire.

The O’Rourke story is a demonstration that every elected official lives with the knowledge that the dirty thumb of the media rests heavily on the scales. Every Democrat may benefit from partisan media bias, but he also knows that when an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez shows up, he will get the same treatment.

And Cortez knows, to whatever extent she knows anything, that one day her turn will also come.

To be a proper leftist is to live in perpetual terror of deviating from the party line. Leftists, like cannibals, form into lynch mobs for self-defense. If they’re lynching someone else, their neck is momentarily safe.

Yesterday’s progressives have long since become today’s racists, sexists and reactionary monsters. But the process is accelerating so fast that it’s no longer just the Democrats of another generation who have to fear that tomorrow the cultural revolution will come for them. Every Democrat official lives in terror.

Not of tomorrow. But of today.

Until the laws fail and the guillotines and gulags are upon us, the media is the arbiter and instrument of revolutionary justice. Its lies and smears are the sharp blade that hangs over the head of every 2020er.

The media has turned the Dem 2020 field into a clump of clueless and fearful posturing radicals. The clown car is out of control and it isn’t Biden, Beto or Kamala at the wheel. It’s MSNBC and the Post.

The Democrats no longer represent the people. Or even their own voters. They represent the media.

And the media party lives in perpetual terror of the radical red eye of its electorate.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

In The Coffee Shop At The End Of The World With Beto O’Rourke

“This is our final chance,” Robert Francis ‘Beto’ O’Rourke warned while gesticulating wildly in a hipster Iowa coffee shop. “The scientists are unanimous that we have no more than 12 years.”

While patrons of the Lost Canvas wait for the apocalypse to overtake us, they enjoy espressos, bubble tea and art classes. There are also “handmade items from local artisans” for those preparing for a world without technology after the Green New Deal, which O’Rourke endorsed in his prediction of a twelve-year climate apocalypse, has outlawed cars, planes, cows, industrial civilization and machine tools.

Local espresso hipsters weren’t too worried that everything they know will be gone in twelve years, possibly including mango flavored coffee, which tastes as bad as it sounds, because they know that Bobby Francis doesn’t really mean that the world will end in twelve years: they’ve heard it all before.

Also, on his journey across the country, Bobby had lost track of the timeline. The IPCC deadline is supposed to hit in 2030. It’s now 2019. That means 11 years and some months until the end.

Are the scientists unanimous about that twelve-year deadline until the sky falls?

Bobby was quoting the UN’s IPCC report to the espresso oppressed of Keokuk, Iowa. The only things that the UN is unanimous about are not following New York City parking laws and hating Jews.

“It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the IPCC’s working group on impacts, declared. “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilizes people.”

Roberts is a South African city official who is environmentalist royalty and has sat on endless numbers of commissions, panels, teams and moots. Which part of the “science community” does she hail from? Her CV, which the IPCC site decided to take down as part of its commitment to transparency, notes that she has a PhD in Urban Biogeography from a Durban university that no longer exists under that name.

The IPCC is famous for the same two things as most madmen standing on street corners and shouting incomprehensibly at the top of their hoarse voices: predicting and postponing the end of the world.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri had claimed in 2007.

In 2008, he appeared to have claimed that there was only 8 years left.

At a 2009 Senate hearing, two years later, Pachauri insisted, “we have just about 6 years left in which we will have to bring about peaking of emission.”

That would be in 2015.

Pachauri was replying to a question from Senator Jeff Merkley. A decade later, the world didn’t end. And Merkley is still warning that if we don’t listen to the IPCC, the world and all its coffee shops will end.

Last year, Merkley pushed a Senate resolution in support of the IPCC’s latest world ending memo warning that the world will end “as soon as 2040”. That’s safer than the world ending by 2015.

What’s Pachauri’s scientific basis for making all these claims?

His CV, which has also been taken down by the IPCC site, notes that he has a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics. That’s better than Urban Biogeography, but not exactly relevant.

As a railway engineer, Pachauri could probably make the trains run on time like Mussolini. But his apocalypses always keep getting stuck in a limbo of missed timetables and snarled tracks.

Democrat politicians keep getting their apocalypse timetables from railway engineers and urban biogeographers before wandering into the nearest coffee shop to warn that the “End is Near”.

Bobby O’Rourke claims that we have only twelve, or eleven years and change, left. And that the “scientists are unanimous” in forecasting a world without coffee shops. Are they really?

Last year, the head of climate and ecological science at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab was claiming that it was 25 years. Does that mean that California has 25 years while Iowa only has 12 years left?

And yet people are moving from California to Iowa.

The year before, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis was claiming that it was ten years. If you’re keeping track, that means the apocalypse may only be eight years away now.

In 2008, Andrew Simms, the co-director of the New Weather Institute, claimed that we had only 100 months to avoid disaster. And he urged a Green New Deal, long before AOC, as the answer.

Andy’s 100 months expired a few years ago. The world and its artisanal coffee shops are still here.

“I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change,” NASA’s James Hansen, the prophet of chicken littleism, claimed in 2006. “No longer than a decade, at the most.”

A decade later the planet is still here. So is James Hansen.

And NASA is back to reaching for the moon instead of warning that the world will end in [Insert Number of Years Here] unless we go back to the caves and cultivate tofu plantations under the stalagmites.

Then in 2009, Hansen warned that Obama had only four years to save the earth. So either by 2013, the earth was saved and we have nothing more to worry about.

Or this is heaven. Or perhaps hell, since Hansen is in it.

The world is always ending a few years down the road. If the false prophets are feeling casual, they may give us a decade.

Even two.

It’s always urgent that we sign the latest agreement, implement the latest program and push more money into the pockets of the very people telling us that the world will end if we don’t.

Warmists mock religious believers, yet their shady tactics and millenarian nonsense makes even the nuttiest Times Square cultist waving a cardboard sign seem credible. Their cult is always promising that the world will end next Tuesday and then changing it to next Wednesday and then the week after that.

The Democrats are stuck in the coffee shop at the end of the world with Bobby O’Rouke. There are espressos, lattes, handcrafted soaps that smell like rancid fat and predictions that the world will end.

This is the cult and this is its catechism.

Its priests are railway engineers and urban bioengineers. There is a consensus. An absolute truth. Put a dollar in the plate to save the icebergs and see you in church next Sunday for another latte.

Vote ‘Beto’ to save the planet from the people who have children, drive old cars and use shopping bags. The infidels who get their coffee plain black, for under three bucks, and use store bought soaps.

Stop by the coffee shop with Bobby and you’ll understand why.

“Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil,” Eric Hoffer, the longshore philosopher, once said.

In the hipster coffee shops, there is no god but the trend. The mass movement worships itself. The coffee shop is a celebration of yuppie consumerism infused with spirituality through the climate devil. Its leaders are narcissists who promise to save them from the apocalypse of the good life. That’s Bobby.

Twelve years. Twenty-five years. Six years. It doesn’t really matter.

The numbers create a sense of urgency in the latte section before the next art class. Their contradictory nature is one of those mysteries of faith that all religions have. And if the prophets are an Indian railway engineer and a South African municipal official, that is the diversity which passes for lefty spirituality. Any movement that brings together different people from around the world must be vaguely sacred.

And the numbers do one more thing.

To paraphrase Mrs. Iselin, no one is talking about whether the world will end. Only when it will end.

Meaningless numbers move the debate past whether the world is ending and to the exact date when it will end. It assumes that the apocalypse is nigh and it’s only a matter of determining whether we will be reduced to cannibalism and socialism in 2030, 2040 or 2052. Until then, have another mango espresso.

It tastes just like the end of the world.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Democrats & The Bigotry That Shows Their Bigotry Is Wrong

Every few weeks, some political or national figure demands a national conversation about race. (Most recently, Senator Kamala Harris insisted, “We have not had these honest discussions about race.”)

What does a conversation about race mean? Invariably, an indictment of the fundamental unfairness of our country, the historical roots of racism in white supremacy, and the national guilt of white people.

Or, to put it more simply, why Senator Kamala Harris deserves to be in the White House.

We don’t have national conversations about anti-Semitism because the problem can’t be narrowed down to an easily blamed demographic. The Democrats invariably try to blame anti-Semitism on the usual suspects, white male Republicans living more than two hundred miles from a Starbucks, but the largest toll of violent anti-Semitic attacks tend to fall on New York City’s black neighborhoods.

There is no single demographic for anti-Semitism. It’s a bigotry blasted out by Farrakhan supporters in Crown Heights, but it’s also harbored by white Elizabeth Warren supporters in Chelsea. Rep. Ilhan Omar is an immigrant from Somalia, a country with no Jews, but picked up the bigotry from Arab Muslims. And some of the worst anti-Semites aren’t black or white, Muslim or Christian, they’re Jewish in origin.

Even on the internet, some of the most militant anti-Semitic figures came from Jewish families.

There’s also no easy root cause to blame it on, like slavery. The origins of anti-Semitism lie in the distant past. Its earliest example may be the biblical Pharaoh turning on the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt. Jews encompass race, religion and culture. And anti-Semitism also encompasses racism, religious hatred and cultural hostility. It’s why people of Jewish origin can be anti-Semitic, hating not themselves, but Jews.

Anti-Semitism defies easy origin theories or solutions. And those are the things that politics is based on.

Leftists try to reduce anti-Semitism to a problem of the white male majority. But even a casual glance at hate crimes statistics show that’s nonsense. The solution, diversity, seems to make anti-Semitism worse, not better. The growth areas for anti-Semitism are found in diverse urban areas and college campuses.

Nobody thinks that the Kamala Harris or Obama solution, electing a Jewish president, would work.

There’s no political solution to anti-Semitism. And it is capable of infecting any part of the Democrat base, no matter how privileged or enlightened, oppressed or intersectional, with no immunities. It has no obvious root cause that can be fixed with social policies like affirmative action. It stubbornly refuses to have its expressions be limited to the convenient ideological narratives of leftist social justice.

Is it any wonder that the Democrats don’t want to talk about anti-Semitism? But that’s a mistake because grappling with anti-Semitism would allow them to understand why their policies don’t work.

Anti-Semitism has been around for thousands of years. Its existence defies the comforting idea that we can just get rid of racism by having national conversations about it. Tribal hatreds are part of human nature. We can be better people. But we’ll never be so angelic that we will stop hating other people.

America is the least anti-Semitic, and also the least racist country in the world. That didn’t happen because of national conversations about race, but because we learned to value each other as people. There’s no sign that the constant public indictment of white people has made America more tolerant. Instead, it deepened grievances, nurtured hatreds and brought division where there had been unity.

Immigrants are more likely to be anti-Semitic than Americans. Rep. Omar’s defenders have acknowledged this in a backhanded way. What this really means is that America’s approach to racism, defusing it through natural coexistence, actually works. Immigrants don’t have anything to teach us about race. Americans have something to teach them about getting along with different people.

Lefties insist on treating immigrants like Rep. Omar as being morally superior to us when it comes to racism because they come from minority groups. But, as Omar showed us, minorities, especially when emigrating from majoritarian societies, are morally inferior to us when it comes to prejudices.

Democrats try to reduce bigotry to a majoritarian prejudice, but minorities can hate majorities. And minorities (and majorities) can hate themselves. There are white people who hate white people and black people who hate black people. Bigotry spreads socially, but it can also grow in the humid darkness of the human soul. Social conditions make the transmission of racism more likely, but bad ideas can infect anyone. Forgetting that is the best possible vector for becoming infected by them.

The Democrats are more likely to come down with a bad case of bigotry because of their own moral superiority. The more they insist on their own tolerance and categorize bigotry as a Republican problem, the more vulnerable they become to coming down with the virus of hatred while denying they have it.

Anti-Semitism is one of the more common leftist infections because it’s been around long enough to be mutable, adapting its memetic strain to any ideology or group, and because they don’t understand it.

Leftists believe that anti-Semitism is a bigotry of unsophisticated backwoods racists. And since they have a PhD, and a 500 square foot apartment above a Starbucks, they can’t be anti-Semites. They know exactly what bad people look like, they have spent most of their lives studying that very question (and identifying them as white male southerners) and everything they know says they aren’t the bad guys.

That’s not just true of anti-Semitism. But it is more obviously and inescapably true of anti-Semitism.

Democrats only want to fight bigotry that makes them look good. It’s why they inveigh against anti-black racism while celebrating anti-white racism. It’s also why anti-Semitism makes them so uncomfortable.

If anti-Semitism only existed on the other side, as they insist, they could wholeheartedly fight it. And if it existed only on their side, they could just as wholeheartedly defend and excuse it. But anti-Semitism transcends those neat lines leaving them with the troubling feeling that their worldview is wrong.

And so the Democrats can neither fully condemn nor excuse anti-Semitism. They try instead to live in a world where anti-Semitism only exists on the other side, only to be reminded rudely that it doesn’t.

Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitic comments were one of many rude reminders, not only of the moral hazard of mainstreaming Islamists, and of the deeper root of anti-Semitism among their new coalition of leftists and minority identitarians, but that the progressive understanding of the problem of bigotry is wrong.

Anti-Semitism demonstrates that bigotry can fester among minorities at least as much as majorities, that oppression can co-exist with privilege, and that national dialogues don’t make bigotry go away.

Leftists have fought their War on Racism through a narrow ideological lens. But ideology can just as easily incubate bigotry, as oppose it, based on its own biases and priorities. That is what the reaction to Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitic comments are shown. Ideology is not an antidote to bigotry. Decency is.

Bigotry thrives in tribal environments. Ideological tribalism nurtured the anti-Semitism of the Nazis and the Communists in the last century just as it nurtures the tribal anti-Semitism of the identitarians, fanatics, supremacists, and conspiracy theorists of the extremist movements of the new century.

Ideological tribalism doesn’t just make a society more bigoted, it normalizes its existing bigotries.

The Democrats have been hijacked by ideological fanatics who extend the umbrella of their cause over their bigotries. That umbrella protected Rep. Omar as it has Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and many others.

The ideological umbrella did not invent Sharpton’s gutter anti-Semitism, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes”, no more than it invented Rep. Omar’s latest bigotry outbreak. What it does is normalize it by framing existing bigotries within the worldview of its political movement.

Leftists turned Sharpton’s anti-Semitism and Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism into the outcry of the oppressed, normalizing and mainstreaming tribal bigotries into the bloodstream of a movement.

As long as the Democrats choose leftism over liberalism, and ideology over decency, the toxic strains of anti-Semitism within every one of their factions will meld with their movement. Each outcry about anti-Semitism will lead to a backlash that will mainstream those attitudes, as the response to Rep. Omar did.

That is what Rep. Omar has been doing, trolling Jews by deliberately provoking outrage that will force her movement to either disavow her or embrace her bigotry. Like her Islamic counterparts in UK’s Labour, Omar has gambled correctly that her political allies will choose anti-Semitism over apology.

The complaints by Jews about anti-Semitism will be used to justify anti-Semitic attitudes toward Jews. The best defense against accusations of anti-Semitism by a political movement that has come to understand that a sizable portion of its base will refuse to stop engaging in anti-Semitic behavior, is to embrace anti-Semitism. After failing to rebuke Rep. Omar, the Democrats have taken the first step.

When they have taken a few more, the Democrats will no longer be a party with an anti-Semitism problem, they will be an anti-Semitic party.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Southern Poverty Law Center Fires Founder Over Sexual Harassment & Racism

Nobody saw this coming.

I believed that Morris Dees would be at the Southern Poverty Law Center for life. But something seems to have changed that.

The Southern Poverty Law Center fired Morris Dees, the nonprofit civil rights organization’s co-founder and former chief litigator.

SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a statement Dees’ dismissal over his misconduct was effective on Wednesday, March 13. When pressed for details on what led to the termination, the organization declined to elaborate.

“As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world,” Cohen said in the emailed statement. “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.”

The obvious question is what did Dees do? There are no clear answers, but there is room to speculate.

Dees’ termination is one of several steps taken by the organization this week, Cohen said.

“Today we announced a number of immediate, concrete next steps we’re taking, including bringing in an outside organization to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices, to ensure that our talented staff is working in the environment that they deserve — one in which all voices are heard and all staff members are respected,” Cohen said.

That suggests a #MeToo situation. And that’s what the gossip suggests.

“The SPLC fired Morris Dees yesterday and announced it today. Multiple sources have told me that the allegations of inappropriate conduct involve sexual harassment incidents. Multiple incidents that have come to light after an initial recent allegation.”

I have been sent a number of internal SPLC emails that address the ongoing situation and specifically discuss Dees. Looks like a combination of complaints regarding sexual harassment and racial biases in promotion and hierarchy led to this.

The racism part would be quite ironic. And a good reason for the SPLC to keep things quiet. But it’s not surprising coming from a klansman’s lawyer.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

From Farrakhan To Jihad: Omar & The Congressional Black Caucus’ Anti-Semitism Problem

“I want to thank Minister Farrakhan for offering up a number of precepts that we ought to adhere to,” Rep. James Clyburn said, at an event featuring the anti-Semitic hate group leader.

Eight years later, to the month, Clyburn, now the House Majority Whip, defended Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism. “There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this.’ It’s more personal with her,” he argued, dismissing the concerns of Jewish legislators.

Rep. Clyburn is one of the most powerful figures in the House. He’s also one of Farrakhan’s allies in the House who had once rejected a call from Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to withdraw from an appearance with Farrakhan and declared that he was “not bothered in the least bit.”

After protests against Omar’s anti-Semitism, Clyburn stayed the course by working to ensure that the resolution would not focus on anti-Semitism and would not name Omar.

Before the House resolution, which failed to condemn Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks, Clyburn and the CBC’s newest bigot hugged.

“I am trying to do everything I can to make her journey here a comfortable one,” Clyburn said.

It wasn’t just Clyburn.

The defense of Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism was led by Rep. Karen Bass: the new chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Last year, Tony Muhammad, Farrakhan’s Western Regional Representative, singled out Bass and Rep. Maxine Waters for their positive relationship with Farrakhan, in contrast to some other CBC members.

“I thank God for Maxine Waters and Congresswoman Karen Bass,” Muhammad said. “I think our Black politicians should stand down. Minister Farrakhan will take a call from a Maxine Waters or Karen Bass.”

Defending Rep. Omar, Bass had warned that she “absolutely would have a problem” if the resolution were to call her out for hate. “I think it’s inappropriate to just focus on one person. I absolutely do.”

Was that really true?

Back in January, Bass had demanded that Republicans take away Rep. King’s committee assignments and kick him out of the party. “If Republicans really believe these racist statements have no place in our government, then their party must offer more than shallow temporary statements of condemnation.”

She insisted, “Republicans should make clear Mr. King is no longer welcomed in their party or Congress. Anything less than these substantive actions is another tacit acceptance of racism from the Republican Party.”

But Bass resisted even a “shallow temporary” condemnation of Omar, let alone removing her from committee assignments, making it clear that anti-Semitism is accepted in the Democrat Party.

“In the Congressional Black Caucus, people were always against anti-Semitism,” Bass claimed while defendingRep. Omar. “That is never the question with anybody in the Congressional Black Caucus.”

It’s actually quite the question.

The CBC has a long history of associating with Farrakhan, of hosting him and meeting with him.

When Speaker Pelosi conferenced with CBC members on the resolution, Clyburn and Bass, along with Barbara Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee, were there to negotiate with her over how to protect Omar.

Rep. Barbara Lee had repeatedly met with and praised Farrakhan. She was caught on video hugging the anti-Semitic hate group leader who called her, “my sister”.

“The Nation of Islam has always been on the forefront of leadership without embarrassment, shyness or apology,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee had declared while appearing at a Farrakhan event.

Farrakhan praised Jackson Lee, stating, “She knows the struggle that the Black and Brown members of Congress have to influence that process.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has since refused to condemn Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic ideas.

When Pelosi brought these four CBC members in to negotiate over the resolution, she turned over the process to four elected officials who were themselves allied with an anti-Semitic hate group.

The outcome, a toothless resolution that failed to condemn a CBC member’s anti-Semitism, was certain.

And the ultimate responsibility for that falls to Speaker Pelosi for allowing Farrakhan’s House fan club to take control of the process and turn a condemnation of anti-Semitism into a cover-up of it.

The media, which cries for Republican accountability, participated in a cover-up for its political allies.

Key CBC members involved in watering down the resolution had participated in, what was described as, an “unpublicized strategy session” with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Can you imagine if Republican members of the House had participated in a strategy session with the KKK and then worked to shut down a resolution condemning one of their own for racist comments?

That story would have been covered very differently than the story of Rep. Omar and her CBC allies.

There is one more part of the story that the media has paid very little attention to because of what it reveals about Omar, Bass, the CBC, its relationship with Islamists and Marxists, and anti-Semitism.

As the controversy burned, Omar joined Bass and another CBC member on what she described as, “the first American delegation to Eritrea in decades.”

There’s a good reason for that.

Eritrea was sanctioned until last year for supplying weapons to the al-Shabab jihadists in Somalia. Al-Shabab is an occasional Al Qaeda ally and was responsible for many brutal terrorist attacks, including the massacre of shoppers in a Nairobi mall in which the terrorists killed anyone who couldn’t name Mohammed’s mother, using that technique to single out non-Muslim targets from Muslim comrades.

One theory has been that the Nairobi mall was targeted because of the presence of Israelis.

Eritrea’s regime has also been accused of hosting an Iranian presence that supplies weapons to Hamas in Israel and to the Houthi jihadis in Yemen whose motto is, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam.”

Bass and Omar’s surreal visit to Eritrea, a place described as the North Korea of Africa, took place even as its totalitarian regime continued holding American embassy employees and citizens in captivity.

After arriving there, Rep. Bass claimed that she had no idea until then that a member of her own district had been detained.

Why visit Eritrea? It may be an obscure place to most Americans, but its dictator, Isaias Afwerki, was the leader of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, a Marxist armed group popular with black nationalists. When the EPLF took over, Israel had evacuated Ethiopians living in the area who identify as Jewish.

A short time after 9/11, media reports claimed that there was only one Jewish family left in Eritrea.

The troubling issue of Bass and Omar’s visit to a country that no longer has a Jewish population during a scandal about anti-Semitism was widely overlooked.

The problem of Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism and the CBC’s defense of it is rooted in a larger dynamic of Marxism and Islamism, of black nationalism and terrorism, that has larger implications not just for the Jews, but for Christians, and for Americans, Africans and people around the world.

Anti-Semitism has been called the canary in the coal mine. Its presence reveals a breath of bad air, a totalitarian illness that threatens not only a small minority group of millions, but billions worldwide.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

2,287 Illegal Aliens Detained For Exposure To Contagious Diseases

Democrats wax furious over anti-vaxxers, but the same yuppie millennials who lose their minds over the thought that a kindergartener might not have all their shots shrugs at the masses of illegal aliens, including their nannies, crossing the border with contagious diseases.

Why do they hate science?

More than 2,000 people in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody are being quarantined amid an outbreak of mumps and other diseases.

“As of March 7, 2019, there was a total of 2,287 detainees cohorted for exposure to a detainee with a contagious condition,” said ICE spokesperson Brendan Raedy in a statement.

In the past 12 months, there have been health investigations at 51 ICE detention facilities for mumps, chickenpox and influenza, according to Raedy. There have been 236 reported cases of mumps, with another 16 suspected cases during this time period.

If only our elites could be 0.0001% as outraged over this as they are when a measles outbreak happens over lack of vaccinations.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Half of the 2020 Female Democrat Candidates Covered Up Sexual Harassment

It’s no secret that the top ranks of the Democrat 2020 field have a #MeToo problem.

Joe Biden is a walking #MeToo outrage. And one of his presidential campaign leftovers was recently dumped by Schumer’s office for “inappropriate encounters”. Bernie Sanders once wrote, “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.” His campaign was a swamp of sexism, sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior by staffers and political allies.

And Beto O’Rourke’s former political outreach director has been accused of rape.

That kind of behavior inspires Democrat activists to insist that we need more women running things. But the only woman that the Democrats picked for the White House had a career record of covering up the sexual harassment and possible sexual assaults that were being committed by her husband.

The victim of Beto O’Rourke’s former director was fired by her boss, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. The rapist was working at the congresswoman’s Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Leadership Institute.

Women are just as likely to cover for sexual harassment by a trusted male employee or aide.

Or even more likely.

Of the top 2020 candidates with a #MeToo scandal in their office, 2 out of 3 are female. Biden and Beto’s staffers disgraced their former bosses in #MeToo scandals after they had moved on.

Half of the top rank of 2020 female candidates had a #MeToo scandal happen on their watch.

That’s a worse statistical track record than even the male candidates.

The only 2020 candidates that had #MeToo scandals in their offices are Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand. While the sexual harassment scandals in the offices of the two female senators were no match for the sheer scale of the complaints in Bernie’s campaign, there was a pattern.

Both Gillibrand and Harris had close male aides, Abbas Malik in Gillibrand’s office and Larry Wallace in Harris’ office, who maintained very close relationships with their female bosses while allegedly sexually harassing other women in the office. The relationships between Malik and Gillibrand, and Wallace and Harris, appeared to cross professional lines with both men maintaining a personal relationship.

Malik was officially Gillibrand’s military adviser, but actually worked as her driver and gofer. In between the alleged incidents of inappropriate office behavior, Malik had the keys to Gillibrand’s house and was known in her circle as “the keeper of the purse”. Despite his lack of obvious qualifications, Malik may have come to Gillibrand’s attention while complaining that he couldn’t get hired as a security guard, he was on track for a promotion even though he was really working as Gillibrand’s driver.

Wallace had also built a close relationship with Kamala Harris. He had spent fourteen years as her deputy chief when she was working as a DA. Somewhere along the way their relationship had deepened and when she won her senate race, Wallace became her senior advisor. The Sacramento Bee described Wallace as her “close friend” and “closest confidante”. Former employees called Kamala Harris and the alleged harasser “incredibly close”. Wallace managed the future senator’s security team resulting in the two of them spending a great deal of time together. His duties appeared to be light, traveling only five times on official business, while earning a $90,000 salary as her liaison to law enforcement.

When Kamala Harris published her campaign bio, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, it contained a photo of Harris and Wallace, and praise for her longtime aide’s “leadership”.

Wallace and Malik had backgrounds in law enforcement and the military, they were officially serving as advisers on these issues, but in practice were being kept around because they had an emotional connection to a senator, and possibly received positions and rewards based on that relationship.

Underlying the dubious positions of Wallace and Malik were the dubious positions of Harris and Gillibrand. Kamala Harris had climbed the ladder through a relationship with Willie Brown. The former San Francisco mayor had appointed her to positions she was unqualified for and linked her up with his donor network. Brown had also gifted the much younger woman he was having an affair with a BMW.

Kirsten Gillibrand’s appointment to a Senate seat remains one of the more baffling developments in New York politics. Obama had hoped to turn Hillary Clinton’s seat over to Caroline Kennedy. Instead, Caroline had to settle for a disastrous ambassadorship in Japan while Gillibrand, a complete unknown representing a conservative area in upstate New York, joined the Senate. Gillibrand had previously only made it into the House because her Republican opponent had been accused of beating his wife.

Gillibrand was selected for the seat by former Governor Paterson, a corrupt politician who would later be accused of witness tampering in a domestic abuse case involving his own staffer. Gillibrand’s grandmother had allegedly built power through an adulterous affair with Albany Mayor Erastus Corning II. Her appointment to a prestigious office remains a mystery. The New York Times and other papers had inveighed against it at the time before agreeing to let it go and accept Gillibrand as a Senate member.

Both Harris and Gillibrand got their start in politics through dubious means that potentially blurred the lines between the personal and the political. And once in the Senate, it appeared that the lines continued to blur within their own offices and inner circles. Both powerful women appeared to form personal relationships with their advisors while ignoring the allegations of sexual misconduct.

Were Malik and Wallace able to get away with their alleged harassment because of their close relationships with female bosses who had built their brands around fighting sexual harassment?

Who would believe that senators so dedicated to fighting for #MeToo had a #MeToo problem?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, more than any other politician, had used the #MeToo movement as her platform. Senator Kamala Harris followed close behind her. The hypocrisy was stunning because Gillibrand’s staffer ended up trapped by a mediation requirement that her boss had publicly opposed. Harris’ staffer was silenced by a Non-Disclosure Agreement that her boss had publicly opposed in sexual harassment cases.

The very reforms that Harris and Gillibrand were campaigning for were off-limits to their employees.

Riding the coattails of the #MeToo movement, Gillibrand and Harris claimed that victims should be believed. Instead, they chose not to believe the victims when they were accusing their aides.

Malik and Wallace were only forced out when their cases went public. The feminist establishment that promised to protect women, instead did everything possible to protect their sexual harassers.

At Variety’s Power of Women luncheon, Gillibrand had touted #MeToo and warned, “For too many institutions, their actions speak louder than words.”

That proved to be true of Gillibrand, who talked endlessly about the evils of sexual harassment while turning a blind eye to it in her own office.

Senator Gillibrand’s solution to sexual harassment was more women like her in the Senate.

“Imagine the day when we have 51% of women in Congress. We only have 22 in the U.S. Senate, only 18% in the House of Representatives,” Gillibrand had ranted. “Do you think this U.S. Senate would still be doing nothing to change the sexual harassment system.”

And then Gillibrand demonstrated that having more women in the Senate would not prevent sexual harassment. No gender has a monopoly on misbehavior. Women may be less likely to sexually harass, but they are as likely, and 2020 statistics suggest perhaps even more likely, to turn a blind eye to it.

Gender diversity doesn’t fix sexual harassment. Ethics and values do.

Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris convinced women to vote for them by playing on the myth of sisterhood, telling other women that they could count on their support because they were women. But the women working for them quickly found out that the senators put their relationships with men first.

Leftist feminism is built on the same lie of gender solidarity. Diversity insists that only women can be trusted to treat women fairly, and only black people can be trusted to treat other black people fairly. And Congress makes a mockery out of the myth of solidarity through diversity every other week.

Decency has no gender and no race. Ethics has no identity. And diversity is no substitute for decency.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

2018 Gubernatorial Loser: 2020 Presidential Bid Is On The Table

The one thing that the 2020 field needs is more Democrats making hopeless runs for a nomination they can’t win in the hopes of either getting a Veep spot or higher speaking fees.. And the clown car is being chased by even bigger clowns. Like Stacey Abrams.

You may remember Stacey from her defeat in 2018. But these days just coming in second in a Senate race qualifies you to run for the White House.

So that person who gives literacy a run for its money, tweeted this.

“In #LeadFromTheOutside, I explore how to be intentional about plans, but flexible enough to adapt. 20 years ago, I never thought I’d be ready to run for POTUS before 2028. But life comes at you fast – as I shared in Q&A w @Yamiche at @sxsw. Now 2020 is definitely on the table…”

If anyone can translate this sentence into English, I would appreciate it.

Life comes at Stacey fast. Speeding into her brain is the revelation that no one will remember her name in 2022, let alone 2028, so if she’s going to cash in on her 15 minutes, it better be now.

2020 is on the table. So is Stacey.

Because what 2020 really needs is a candidate who looks like she wandered off the street, isn’t sure where she is, but wants to echo Bernie Sanders while barely understanding how her intentional flexibility comes at you fast when she’s definitely on the table.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: People Should Be “Excited” To Be “Automated Out Of Work”

Somewhere out there is a bot that can replace Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. It needn’t be very bright. It doesn’t have to be any smarter than the bots that post, “How you can make a trillion dollars working from home” in the comments.

And that would still make it too intelligence. But once we replace Cortez with a bot, we’ll see how excited she is.

New York congressional representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes that people should welcome robots taking their jobs — but not the economic system that can make it financially devastating. During a talk at SXSW, an audience member asked Ocasio-Cortez about the threat of automated labor. “We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work,” she said in response. “We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”

A huge chunk of the Dem base in New York doesn’t have a job. They’re doing just fine sponging off those who do.

But Cortez has no original ideas. Ever. This is the same old, “Let’s build a lot of robots that will make everyone free stuff, nationalize the robots and then everyone can focus on their art projects”.

The brilliant is about a century old. And the only problems with it are economics, politics and human nature.

But hopefully, Cortez will be very excited to be replaced by a bot that will tweet selfies, pick fights on Twitter and post random socialism quotes.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

While Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wants To Raise Your Taxes, She Hasn’t Paid Her Own

Why do lefties keep shrieking that they want higher taxes? They’re not stupid. They just expect that they’ll never have to pay them.

Case in point, the bright, shining face of Westchester socialism.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to pass sweeping tax hikes on the wealthy, but the freshman lawmaker might want to take care of her own unpaid tax bill first.

Brook Avenue Press, a company she founded in 2012 to publish children’s books in The Bronx, owes the state $1,870.36 in corporate taxes, public records show.

The state slapped the company with a warrant on July 6, 2017, two months after Ocasio-Cortez announced her candidacy to run against Democratic incumbent Joe Crowley for the district that encompasses parts of Queens and The Bronx.

Team Selfie Socialism has the usual Sergeant Schultz response.

“This is the first we’re hearing of it, and we won’t have any additional comment until we look into it,” Ocasio-Cortez’s spokesman, Corbin Trent, said Saturday.

And the comment will be more whining about how conservatives are stalking her.

Progs love taxes. For other people. They don’t think that they should pay them. They’ve done their public duty already by imposing them on others.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

As The Democrats Go Socialist, They Go Anti-Semitic

“Every government having regard to good morals ought to repress the Jews,” opined Pierre Leroux, the leftist credited with coining the term ‘Socialism’. “When we speak of Jews, we mean the Jewish spirit, the spirit of profit, of lucre, of gain, the spirit of commerce.”

“What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money,” Karl Marx ranted.

American socialism traces its ideological ancestry to Charles Fourier, a French socialist bigot who declared that Jews were the embodiment of capitalism, “parasites, merchants, usurers”, and the “incarnation of commerce: parasitical, deceitful, traitorous and unproductive”.

Even the term ‘anti-Semite’ was popularized by Wilhelm Marr, the socialist founder of the League of Antisemites. The inventor of anti-Semitism’s arguments were the same ones put forward by Marx, Fourier, H.G. Wells, Lenin and countless other socialists. The Jews were all about the ‘Benjamins’. They started wars. They were disloyal and manipulated society. They were a dangerous foreign element.

These are the same tropes that were put forward by Rep. Ilhan Omar and defended by her socialist allies in the House Progressive Caucus and across the media. Anti-Semitism is one of the meeting points between socialists and Islamists. The more anti-Semitism she spews, the more Rep. Omar unites the identity politics caucus of minority group racial nationalists and Islamists, with the traditional Left.

Anti-Semitism isn’t just a historical relic and Rep. Omar isn’t an outlier. The Democratic Socialists of America are rotten with anti-Semitism. Before she was defending Omar, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was chatting with Jeremy Corbyn. The British Labour leader has been widely condemned for his anti-Semitic remarks and for backing anti-Semitic allies whose hatred has been even more open than Omar’s.

The DSA endorsed Maria Estrada, a California State Assembly candidate, who had praised Farrakhan, accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust, and attacked a Jewish Democrat for not keeping “your party, your religion and your people in check.” It’s unsurprising that the DSA announced that it “stands” with Omar. Socialism doesn’t just have a history of anti-Semitism, but a burning problem right now.

The DSA loudly cheered a Corbyn representative at its 2017 convention even while British Jews and non-Jews were condemning Labour’s descent into anti-Semitism. Jewish Labour members have been forced out or have since announced that they were leaving on their own. One of them was MP Ian Austin, the son of a Holocaust survivor, who condemned its “culture of extremism, anti-Semitism and intolerance”.

In response, Labour’s Marcus Barnett, the DSA 2017 speaker, tweeted, “Good riddance.”

Also at the DSA convention was a representative from Melenchon’s France Insoumise.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, an ally of the Communist Party, responded to anti-Semitic violence accompanied by cries of, “Death to the Jews”, by claiming that they embodied French values while accusing Jews of dual loyalty for protesting in support of Israel. Then he attacked CRIF, the umbrella group of Jewish organizations in France for accusing leftists of anti-Semitism. There was no room in France, he bloviated, for “aggressive communities that lecture the rest of the country.”

Corbyn and Melenchon come by their anti-Semitism honestly. They’re the vanguard of socialist political movements that were anti-Semitic from their very origin.

Labour’s anti-Semitism problem dates back to Henry Hyndman, the founder of England’s first socialist party, and then of the National Socialist Party, which eventually became part of the Labour Party.

Hyndman was refreshingly blunt when explaining the necessity of melding anti-Semitism and socialism, “the attack upon the Jews is a convenient cover for a more direct attack at an early date upon the great landlords and Christian capitalists.”

The, “first we come for the Jews” approach is an innate strategy of extremist political movements.

Rep. Omar would much rather tap into anti-Semitism and turn the conversation to Israel, then discuss her past sympathy for Islamic terrorists. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez would rather turn the conversation away from why she believed we shouldn’t have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with a defense of Omar. Jews are a small and controversial minority. That makes them a good target for socialists, national and international, to make it seem as if their extremism only threatens the Jews.

Not the general public.

The division between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is a scam. Anti-Zionism is just a means of attacking American foreign policy by exploiting anti-Semitic stereotypes. Attacking Israel in support of Islamic terrorism allows leftists to use bigotry to shift the argument from our national security to Jewish conspiracies. Much as Hyndman rallied opposition to the Boer War by calling it a “Jew War”.

Anti-Zionists believe that the terrorists are right and that America, Israel and any nation that resists them deserves to lose. This toxic point of view goes over better with a spoonful of anti-Semitism.

Rep. Omar isn’t just mainstreaming anti-Semitism. She’s mainstreaming anti-Americanism.

The 20th century was rich with examples of socialists not named Adolf using Jews as scapegoats for the failures of their economic programs. After denouncing Stalin’s crimes, Khrushchev set out to improve his popularity by executing Jews for “economic crimes”. This was a continuation of a Stalinist program that attempted to blame the USSR’s food shortages on Jews with show trials and brutal killings.

The Jews put on trial were accused of not just selling food on the black market, but of colluding with Rabbis, Zionists and the entire spectrum of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Between 1962 and 1964, Khrushchev had over 70 Jews executed through these show trials even as the food shortages continued.

But we don’t have to turn to the Soviet Union to see examples of socialist anti-Semitic scapegoating.

FDR’s New Deal test cases focused in on Jews or Italians: two unpopular immigrant minority groups at the time. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the case that helped break the New Deal, targeted Kosher butchers for following Jewish religious law. The media played on every anti-Semitic stereotype, and while it won public opinion, socialist anti-Semitism lost in the Supreme Court.

August Bebel famously dismissed Anti-Semitism as “the socialism of fools”. But it’s hard to have socialism without anti-Semitism. Successful socialist movements unite different economic classes. Socialists from Marx to Hitler turned to anti-Semitism because traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes made their attacks on capitalism and the free market connect with a populist audience uninterested in theory.

As the Democrats embrace the socialist dog, the anti-Semitic flea comes with it. Political extremism brings with it a host of fringe theories and beliefs. A Democrat Party that moves leftward will open the doors to anti-Semites, but also to people who believe in UFOs and that lizard people walk among us.

But anti-Semitism is also deeply linked to socialism and its ideological stereotypes, the greedy capitalist and the warmongering businessman, inescapably express themselves in the language of anti-Semitism. Rep. Omar didn’t utter new ideas about Jews, but very old ones. And these ideas have nothing to do with Israel. They predate the Jewish State and even an organized Zionist political movement.

The Jew was the classic socialist villain because he showed that free markets can empower individuals. Socialists were obliged to disprove the legitimacy of Jewish entry into the middle class by employing classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The same problem bedevils today’s socialists who have replaced class with race, but still have to contend with the economic successes of Jews and Asians despite racism.

Jewish success disproves socialism and identity politics. It can only be met with anti-Semitism. And then the very element that disproves socialism instead becomes proof that we desperately need big government to protect us from the Jews. The same rhetoric at the heart of National Socialism is lurking there in the bowels of all socialism, from the New Deal to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In the realm of foreign policy, Israel’s successful resistance to Islamic terrorism must also be disproven so that the United States and other countries do not decide to adopt it as a model. The same anti-Semitic stereotypes that socialists used to inveigh against the Boer War, WW1 and any conflict in the last century, are once again deployed, this time using anti-Semitism to stigmatize counterterrorism.

Socialist anti-Semitism isn’t new. Rep. Omar’s controversy is a variation on an old theme. Variations on it are currently burning through the UK and France as they have for over a hundred years.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Disgraced Obama Attorney General Eric Holder Calls For Packing Supreme Court

Former Attorney General Eric Holder has a fever and the only cure is packing more justices on the Supreme Court to tilt it Dem.

Is it going to happen?

I would love to dismiss it as just a crazy idea pushed by assorted Obama officials. Like illegal alien amnesty by executive order or socialized medicine through reconciliation. Or eavesdropping on the opposing party using the fiction of national security.

In other words, probably yes.

The GOP has been successful in shifting the judicial balance of power. But it made the same mistake that Republicans always do in assuming that it had won by the rules, and that the Dems will just recognize that. And that’s not happening.

Democrat judges have become much more aggressive in response. And if a Dem gets into the White House, an aggressive campaign will start for packing the court in the name of diversity. The media will push it and embrace it. Whether or not it will happen largely depends on the Senate. If it does, it will destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judiciary.

And bring us that much closer to a conflict.

In other words, hope and change. Also forward!

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

Ocasio-Cortez’s Venezuela On The Hudson

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez cost 25,000 Amazon jobs that New Yorkers could ill afford to lose. The year that Cortez won her election, New York suffered the worst population decline of any other state.

Why are they leaving?

Some, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s mother, are leaving because of high taxes. “I was paying $10,000 a year in real estate taxes up north. I’m paying $600 a year in Florida,” Blanca Ocasio-Cortez explained.

Some claim that nobody leaves New York because of the taxes. Cortez’s mother proves them wrong.

But millennials are leaving in record numbers because there are no jobs. New York’s under eighteen population is down 4%. That’s not surprising since their unemployment rate is 78% higher than the New York City average. That leaves 100,000+ New York millennials with no jobs and no future.

New York City offers few options for a middle class outside government work. The formerly working-class city has been retooled to cater to hipster expat millennials. Cortez, child of a Westchester architect who parlayed a hipster gig into a spot in Congress and a social media following, is the perfect representative of the wealthy millennials treating working class neighborhoods as their playground. Cortez is popular because she’s living out their narcissistic fantasy of a slacktivist revolution.

But the Cortez crowd comes and goes. New York City isn’t a permanent destination, but an entertaining stop on their journey. They’re a reliable source of lefty chaos, but not a remotely reliable tax base.

Millennials who want a middle-class life are leaving for cities like Houston where they can still find it. Those left behind are stuck between the soap bubble economy of trendy restaurants and boutiques catering to expats that may pick up and go at any moment, and the dreary realities of an economy where millennial workers earn less at the bottom than they do anywhere else in the country.

New York City’s unemployment rate is already worse than the state and the national average.

City Hall’s solution is gulping more socialist snake oil. After the $15 minimum wage passed, restaurants responded by cutting hours and staff, and 3,000 restaurant jobs vanished. Instead of learning the lesson, Venezuela on the Hudson is doubling down with regulations preventing workers from being fired.

New York City can prevent employees from being fired, but it can’t prevent eateries from shutting down. Just as it can’t build a social justice wall high enough to stop millennials from fleeing New York for Texas. But its Venezuelan strategy doubles down on every bad regulation while destroying its own economy.

Restaurants closing down might not be that big a deal in some places, but hospitality and leisure are the closest thing that New York City has to a major non-government industry. Its other major sources of employment, health care and education, are heavily subsidized, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers.

Meanwhile publishing, one of those major expat industries whose employees throng hip urban hotspots, took a severe beating. Without niche industries like publishing and finance, New York City becomes thoroughly dependent on tourism, all those restaurants and bars, plus some terrible theater, to bring in the tourists to help employ its millennials and subsidize its huge public sector.

New York is the state with the highest ratio of full-time government employees to people in any state with a population of over a million. There are 316 government employees to every 10,000 New Yorkers. Those 632,162 people have to be subsidized by its wealthy and what’s left of its middle class.

But the wealthy are also leaving as the city and state bleeds millionaires headed, like Cortez’s mother, for the sunnier and friendlier financial climes of Florida.

“Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich,” Governor Cuomo said. “The rich leave, and now what do you do?”

Cuomo had to start rethinking the $176 billion budget after the revenue shortfalls began kicking in.

With 40,000 wealthy taxpayers covering half the taxes, that’s an even bigger issue for the city whose politics Cortez has carpetbagged her way into with socialist selfies and a dumb smirk.

Those 632,162 government employees are being carried by 40,000 taxpayers, many of whom have been joining Alexandria’s mother in Florida which has a higher population, but 200,000 fewer gov employees.

The most expensive thing about government employees isn’t when they’re working, it’s when they’re not. New York City has $142 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. It’s on the hook for $100 billion in retiree health care benefits with only $5 billion to show for it. While Mayor Bill de Blasio offered free health care for illegal aliens, health care for retiring workers was raided to pay for everything else.

New York City has around 300,000 employees, the most in its history, and 200,000 retirees. Anyone who works for only ten years is entitled to free health care on retirement.

And it’s only getting worse. Mayor Bill de Blasio has been going on a hiring spree, stuffing lefty activists and allies into places like the Sanitation Department, which doesn’t need them, with top salaries. New York City’s streets still aren’t being cleared of snow, but the Department is full of environmentalists promoting composting to a population living in one of the densest urban areas in the United States.

Who’s going to pay for all that with older wealthier residents fleeing, while the city is retooled into a lefty utopia for a shiftless millennial expat elite that has no plans to stay long term, while New York City’s native millennial middle class flees, leaving behind unemployed and poor millennials in an aging city with a huge pile of pension debt for more gov workers than the entire population of Atlanta?

There’s barely a middle class left. What’s left of it is weighed toward government workers and taxpayer-subsidized professions which can no more cover their costs than a man can lift himself by his own belt. The wealthy are losing their sense of humor about higher taxes for worse services. And the welfare class doesn’t contribute to revenues, it drains them dry. To say nothing of the city’s 500,000 illegal aliens who use all the services they can, from hospitals to prisons, but who don’t pay anything except sales tax.

If that.

As the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin points out, city government spending is up 25%. To the DSA political class, to which Cortez belongs, any cutbacks or spending slowdowns smacks of austerity. Spending, in their minds, is as detached from actual currency and revenues as it is in Venezuela.

When asked how she would pay for any of her proposals, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez spouted meaningless gibberish. The theoretical version of meaningless gibberish is the farce misleadingly named Modern Monetary Theory which, in layman’s terms, believes that there’s a giant money tree.

Modern Monetary Theory follows the Venezuela principle that all economic problems can be solved by printing more money. Venezuela’s finance minister, a left-wing sociologist, insisted that “Inflation does not exist in real life.” Back then the inflation rate was 3,000%. A year later it had passed a million. No amount of minimum wage increases, nationalizations, rationing and other socialist gimmicks worked.

Food became unaffordable. People starved in the streets. The military began to be paid with food.

On Wall Street, leftists rallied in support of Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship. When asked about the Maduro regime, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez refused to denounce the socialist butcher and instead condemned America. “I am very concerned about U.S. interventionism in Venezuela and I oppose it.”

The political solidarity that made Rep. Cortez, her mentor, Senator Bernie Sanders, and assorted allies like Rep. Ilhan Omar, leery of rejecting the socialist tyranny, is also economic. Venezuela’s collapse shines a harsh and unflattering light on Modern Monetary Theory and socialist fantasy economics.

New York City isn’t Caracas, but its main advantages are an accident of history. Like Los Angeles, it was home to a culture industry that featured it in countless novels, plays and movies. But that culture industry is dying and a generation of gentrification and migration smoothed away its personality.

What remains are a lot of restaurants being regulated out of business, overpriced and overrated colleges, homes that none of the permanent residents can afford and homeless on every block. And the whole thing has been financed with bubbles, pyramid schemes and dangerous gimmicks. Since 2002, two progressive mayors have used the city to test their radical policies while plotting presidential runs.

They just forgot to pay for any of it.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is the latest radical to emerge from an urban incubator powered by expat millennials like her for whom New York City isn’t a home, but a place to act out a coming of age story.

When the bill comes due, they won’t be here to pay it. Nobody will.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

The Myth That Senator Kamala Harris Is A “Frontrunner”

The media is a messaging operation. It’s in the business of trying to create its own reality, not reporting on reality.

Ever since Senator Kamala Harris announced that she was running, the media kept calling her a frontrunner. And yes, she usually is in the top 3 or 4.


Except she’s usually way back there and not all that far ahead of her competitors out back.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are leading the rest of the Democratic presidential primary field by double digits, according to a new poll released Tuesday by Morning Consult.

Biden, who has yet to announce whether he will enter the 2020 race, leads the pack with 31 percent, the survey found. Coming in a close second is Sanders, with 27 percent support among Democratic primary voters.

Where’s Kamala?

The Morning Consult poll shows Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) with 11 percent support among Democratic primary voters, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) took 7 percent and 6 percent respectively.

When it comes to Democratic primary voters in the four early-voting states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — Biden and Sanders have even more support, with 34 percent and 29 percent respectively.

Harris takes 8 percent support among voters in those states, according to the Morning Consult poll.

These are bad numbers.

The Dem 2020 race, for now, is between Biden and Bernie Sanders. That’s not surprising because they both neatly fit into the same slots as the 2016 race which split down between the old Dem machine and the hard left. It’s not clear that there is much space for another lane. And while the polls may say that voters don’t want a seventy-something or a socialist, Biden and Bernie are the second choices of their respective voters.

The rest of the field doesn’t have that much name recognition. And maybe Kamala Harris will benefit from a national audience the way that Obama did. Elizabeth Warren very clearly won’t. She’s had a lot of years of marketing with little result even in New Hampshire.

But it might be time for the media to start reporting on the election honestly, and for pigs to start flying.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

The Post-Child Democrats

“Is it okay to still have children?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wondered while making a salad.

“It’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question.”

It’s easy to dismiss her, but the loudest proponent of a Green New Deal doesn’t come up with original ideas, she just snatches extreme lefty ideas already being mainstreamed, and dumbs them down into a ridiculous and easily digestible form. Cortez hadn’t come up with the idea of cracking down on air travel or cows. And she hadn’t invented environmentalist proposals for human extinction on her own.

“Is It Cruel to Have Kids in the Era of Climate Change?” the New Republic had asked.

“If the looming 12-year deadline is missed,” the formerly liberal, and now radically leftist publication, suggested, “what purpose could life have in the face of an unavoidable, collective downfall?”

“Bringing children into a decaying world, without even the opportunity to do something about it, seems a cruel fate to inflict on someone, especially your own child.”

It was the very same argument about the cruelty of bringing unwanted children into the world that had been used for abortion that was now being deployed for a preemptive national infanticide.

But infanticide, personal or societal, of a child that exists or of all the children that never will, is not about compassion for the child. It is about the perception that the existence of the child is an evil.

The New York Times put that idea forward when it ran an op-ed asking, “Would human extinction be a tragedy?”

“It may well be, then, that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off,” it pondered.

More children mean more plane trips, more cows and more carbon emissions. Like the cows and the planes, the children must go for the environment to be saved to go on existing in splendid isolation.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If there isn’t a single human being left on the planet, does it matter how pristine the woods, lakes and skies are?

New York State rolled out a law legalizing abortion up to birth. Governor Cuomo called it a, “historic victory for… our progressive values”. New York’s birth rate had already been dropping steadily.

In 2015, black women in New York had over 25,000 abortions and only 23,116 births.

New York’s progressive values have made it a place where birth rates keep dropping and the death rate keeps rising. It’s progressively aging while its youth population fell 4% since the 2010 census.

Virginia’s Governor Northam backed an infanticide bill that would allow abortion up to birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he told a radio show. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue.”

Virginia’s birth rate hit a low in 2017. The state’s fertility rate trails national averages. Before Obama, the state had seen 108,884 births. In 2017, that number had fallen to 100,248 births.

Rhode Island’s Gov. Gina Raimondo backed its version of an infanticide bill. The state already has the lowest fertility in the country. It also has the country’s highest rates for out of wedlock births and births by welfare mothers.

Vermont debuted an infanticide bill declaring that a, “fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.” In 2016, Vermont had the lowest number of babies born since before the Civil War.

Present day Vermont has 5,903 babies being born, fewer than the 6,538 babies born to an 1857 population of 300,000. Current Vermont birth rates are 30% below birth rates in the eighties.

This is what progressive values look like.

Nationally, every Senate Democrat, except three, refused to back the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act compelling doctors to preserve the lives of babies born after a botched abortion.

“I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re OK with infanticide,” Senator Ben Sasse asked.

The answer was given.

Politicians were once known for kissing babies. Now, if they’re Democrats, they kill them.

The Democrat political calculus of infanticide is so brutally grim that it makes the infant exposure of their spiritual pagan forebears seem almost humane.

Population increases in states like New York are driven by immigration. First generation immigrants are the safest political bets for Democrats. As the generations pass, the immigrants become worse bets.

The safest pathway to a permanent Democrat majority is abortion and open borders.

Global Warming provides the perfect political cover for a policy of suppressing births and promoting migration. Abortion will reduce our carbon footprint even as we welcome in “climate refugees”.

The central idea put forward by Cortez, the New Republic and the New York Times is an ancient one.

When drought and famine struck, the Pre-Greek Pelasgians would sacrifice every tenth child in an appeal to their gods. As with modern infanticide, ideology served as cover for pragmatic policy.

Judaism gave the pagan world the prohibition against infanticide. As Judeo-Christian influences wane, our pagan ruling class which puts its faith in the apocalypses of its PhD priesthood turns once more to murdering children in a ritual cleansing to appease the anger of Mother Earth at our unclean science.

Kill 100,000 babies a year and perhaps global temperatures will drop. If not, let’s kill 200,000.

Having children is an act of faith, in the future and in ourselves. But what if you believe, like Rep. Cortez, that there is no future worth having? That the world is nothing more than the narcissistic carpe diem of the moment in which all that matters is the moment of fame and the instant rush of experience.

An interesting thing happens when we look at the children of the 2020 field.

President Trump has five children. Mitt Romney, the previous Republican nominee, also had five children. McCain, the GOP nominee before him, had four children by his two wives. Barack Obama has two children. His Democrat predecessors, Bill and Hillary Clinton, had one daughter.

Of the 2020 Democrat front runners who have officially announced that they are running, Senator Kamala Harris has no children. At her current age, she probably never will. Senator Cory Booker is unmarried and will probably stay that way. Senator Elizabeth Warren has two children. Senator Amy Klobuchar has one child. Governor Inslee has three. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has two children. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been married twice. She appears to have no children. Julian Castro has two children. Pete Buttigieg is gay and has no children.

Senator Bernie Sanders has one son with whom he appears to have almost no relationship.

There are more prolific candidates in the wings. Beto O’Rourke has three children and Joe Biden has four. But those numbers make them well above average for a 2020 field that is light on children.

Individual lives are complicated. That is no less true of politicians than it is of anyone else. And so this is not about passing judgment or making assumptions about the personal lives of individuals. But the statistical trend lurking in these numbers paints a picture of the Democrat political elite.

Four of the 2020 candidates are childless. Only three have families that are above the replacement rate. Replacement rate means that two people are doing more than replacing their own numbers. A society whose childbirth rates are at replacement rate isn’t growing. One that is below replacement rate is dwindling away. That’s true of much of Europe. It’s also true of the Democrat political elite.

The average number of children of the 2020 Dem field is 1.5. That’s below replacement rate.

By contrast, the Republican primary field average in 2016 was 3.1 Above replacement rate. The most fertile Republican in 2016 had twice as many children as the most fertile Democrat in 2020.

The Dem 2020 candidates have a total of 18 children. The Republican 2016 field had a total of 50.

These demographic snapshots are also philosophical trends. They show that on average, Republican leaders still believe in the future and their Democrat counterparts don’t. The enthusiasm for abortion is mirrored in their own lifestyles and beliefs. The future is doomed. A prematurely short amount of time from now the waves will roll over their beachside mansions. Starving refugees will flood Marin County. The future will belong to climate refugees from El Salvador and Somalia who will run the country. All the old white Democrats can do is graciously show them the ropes and implement socialized medicine.

And then have a chardonnay, short some energy stocks and watch the tide of change roll in.

Make America Great Again infuriates them with its assertion that the decline at the heart of the selfish nihilistic philosophy to which they have given their lives isn’t inevitable. And they will do everything to prove it wrong, and that the wreckage of their duty and country was right, by destroying America.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield