America has a huge “Fake Indian” problem. It’s hard to know exactly how many people falsely claim to be descended from the nation’s early Indian population, but census numbers show either a massive population boom or a sharp growth in fake Indians.

According to the 2010 census, there were 2.9 million American Indians and Alaskans, and another 2.3 million who claimed to be a combination of Indians and another race or races.

The 2020 census however shows that 3.7 million claimed to be American Indians or Alaskans, and another 5.9 million described themselves as part Indian.

5.2 million to 9.7 million is an 86.5% rise. And going from 4.1 million in 2000 to 5.2 million in 2010 and then almost 10 million suggests that what we’re seeing here is not a natural increase that happened through a baby boom.

“Why the jump in the Native American population may be one of the hardest to explain,” CNN shrugged.

But the Census Bureau provides a simple explanation, “The American Indian and Alaska Native alone population grew by 27.1%, and the American Indian and Alaska Native in combination population grew by 160% since 2010.”

The biggest growth happened when the 2.3 million people who claimed to be part Indian in 2010 jumped to 5.9 million in 2020. That 3.6 million increase is responsible for the staggering growth.

While identity politics activists have claimed that the Census Bureau was undercounting the American Indian population on reservations, that’s not where the real growth is coming from.

The question of who is an Indian when it comes to the tribes is a fraught issue. Some tribes have attempted to preserve their population integrity with blood quantum requirements and documented evidence of ancestry, while others have thrown open the door to everyone. There have also been legal battles over the dubious move to count the descendants of former black slaves who belonged to members of Indian tribes as being enrolled in those tribes.

Some tribes are legitimate peoples while others are little more than legal fictions with white leaders who act as fronts for international gaming interests and shadowy corporations.

The membership rolls of even most legitimate tribes can grow a lot when money is on the table.

The Navajos boasted that they had reached 400,000 members, but an Associated Press story noted that, “Navajos also saw an enrollment increase as the tribe offered hardship assistance payments from last year’s federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, boosting the tribe’s rolls from about 306,000 to nearly 400,000 citizens.”

The Cherokee Nation shot up from 360,589 in 2018 to an alleged 400,000 now. Even media accounts conceded that “there was a significant increase in applications after Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. announced $2,000 COVID-19 assistance payments to enrolled Cherokee citizens as well as people approved for citizenship in the tribal nation by June 2022.”

But most of the growth in the American Indian population is not coming from the tribes.

Who are the “new” Indians?

The 2010 Census Bureau numbers showed that 63% of the mixed race population “identified as American Indian and Alaska Native and White.” In other words, more Elizabeth Warrens.

A percentage of Americans, especially in states like Oklahoma, have rightly or wrongly claimed Indian ancestry, but the striking growth in recent years is not the natural result of old family legends, but wokeness and career development based around affirmative action.

White people face growing discrimination in applying for college or looking for work. And for the new generation there is much less shame and fewer taboos around lying about race. Anecdotally, the number of millennials and zoomers who falsely claim to be black, Latino, Jewish, or members of any other minority group, has exploded according to employers.

One author, Circe Sturm, an anthropology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, theorizes in her book, “Becoming Indian”, that the explosive population growth among the American Indian population is actually driven by white people who are “fleeing whiteness”.

And even setting up fake tribes.

Strum writes, “The number of these new self-identified tribes is startling. Over the course of my research, I discovered 253 groups scattered across the U.S. that identify as some sort of Cherokee tribe. This is a huge number considering that there are only 573 federally recognized tribes, three of which are Cherokee.”

American Indian tribes have been fighting a rearguard campaign against fake Indians, but it’s one that they are likely to lose as fake Indian activists who are happy to put their fake identities at the service of radical political causes grow.

The fake Indian problem is not unique to America.

The exposure of Carrie Bourassa in Canada, after she appeared in Indian garb and blamed systemic racism, was a major scandal in that country. Even more absurdly, Australia’s “white aborigines”, leftist academics, often blonde and blue-eyed, who claim special status and privileges because of their alleged aboriginal status, are a longstanding problem.

But the rapid growth of America’s fake Indian problem suggests we’re heading for a crisis.

Indian tribes enjoy a unique legal status that has conferred significant economic and political benefits. The replacement and displacement of the tribal populations by a new activist base entirely dedicated to radical leftist politics would be a new Trail of Tears, but also quite dangerous. And yet it’s a crisis that’s been coming since the American Indian Movement.

Between 2010 and 2020, the number of part Indians went from a minority to a majority of the American Indian population. If this trend continues, the vast number of people who build careers and public identities around being American Indians will be fake Indians.

America’s fake Indians already outnumber real Indians. And it’s only getting worse.

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

The Democratic Socialists of America recently issued a statement praising Fidel Castro and accusing Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is of Cuban heritage, of waging a “genocidal war against the Cuban people” by maintaining the embargo.

The big lie of the Gaza ‘genocide’ had been based in part on falsely accusing Israel of starving the enemy population in the Hamas territory (in reality, the UN, which helped push the lie, had refused to deliver much of the food and admitted that 95% of its aid trucks were “intercepted”.)

After arguing that Israel had committed genocide by not sufficiently delivering food to Hamas, the DSA and some of the same players are arguing that America is committing genocide in Cuba by not allowing commercial dealings with the Communist dictatorship. Similar genocide smears had been hurled at the United States for imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq whose regime, like that of Castro, had engaged in the actual mass murder of its own people.

America did not commit genocide in Cuba, but the Castro regime imprisoned 100,000 people in prisons and camps and killed between 15,000 and 17,000 people. The DSA cheers Castro for his massacres while falsely accusing America of genocide. But it’s certainly not the first time that America and its allies were falsely accused of genocide by radicals complicit in covering up actual genocide by Communist regimes.

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

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

The 1966 tribunal was a slicker arrangement fronted by Bertrand Russell, whose occasional liberal anti-Communism had veered towards anti-Americanism, but was funded by Ho Chi Minh and the tribunal was dominated by Communists, Marxists and their allies including a Cuban official, Kwame Ture of the Black Panther Party and French ‘philosopher’ Jean-Paul Sartre.

Sartre was appointed as the president of the International War Crimes Tribunal and did much of the work indicting America for genocide even while an actual genocide was being plotted in Viet Cong camps by Communist Cambodians who had been inspired by Sartre’s works during their time in exile in France to implement what would become the Cambodian genocide.

By 1966, the Khmer Rouge had secured the support of the Chinese Communist regime, which was far more genocidally murderous than Vietnam’s Communists, and a decade later began a Communist genocide that took the lives of over 2 million people even as American and European socialists, and some members of the tribunal, lied and tried to cover up their crimes.

Sartre had already been an enthusiastic apologist for the massacres of both Stalin and Mao.

“A revolutionary regime must rid itself of a certain number of individuals who threaten it, and I see no other way than death. One can always escape from prison,” Sartre had argued in a 1973 interview, suggesting that during the French Revolution, “the revolutionaries of 1793 probably didn’t kill enough and thus unconsciously facilitated a return to order, and then the Restoration.”

“It was not our duty to write about Soviet labor camps,” Sartre had argued about Soviet genocide back in 1950. “We were free to remain aloof from the quarrel over the nature of this system, provided no events of sociological significance had occurred.”

The deaths of 3 million people were not of sociological significance to Sartre: after all Lenin and Stalin had not made the same mistake as the French revolutionaries by not killing enough.

When Soviet tanks entered Budapest, Sartre criticized the scale of the massacres, but argued that the Hungarians had brought it on themselves by allying with “reactionary elements” so that “the reappearance of conservative parties made the Russian presence (not brutal intervention) in Hungary practically necessary” and that really “the most enormous mistake was probably Khrushchev’s report” denouncing Stalin because, he argued, “the detailed exposition of all the crimes of a sacred figure, who represented the regime for so long, is madness”.

After visiting the USSR in 1954, Sartre claimed in an interview that there is a “complete freedom of criticism” in the USSR and “the Soviet citizen criticizes more and in a much more effective way” than Europeans do. His hosts plied him with so much food and drink that he became ill from boozing and claimed that by 1960, “the average standard of living in the USSR will be 30 to 40% higher than ours”. In reality, by the 1960s, there were food protests in the USSR resulting in more domestic repression including the Novocherkassk massacre in 1962.

Sartre justified everything, including his lies and those of the regime, because he argued that, “Communism must be judged on its intentions and not solely on its actions.” He laid out his position with painful clarity when he used this to explain why Communist atrocities were understandable, but America must always be condemned.

“It is possible that there are a million deportees in certain countries occupied by the Russians. Fine. I am told this: we must protest strongly against this. On the other hand, I am told: it is very distressing that a black man was lynched in Alabama, for example. But he is a black man. We have one here and a million over there.” Sartre, however, contended that America, not the Soviet Union must be condemned because “if this deportation takes place, it is profoundly reprehensible, but it is a means to an end” while the lynching is “a mode of oppression.”

The killing of millions of people in the USSR, China (“nowhere have I ever witnessed such solidarity”), and in Cambodia was a means to an end and that end was socialism. Sartre glorified murderous dictatorships including the “spiritual revolution” in Iran because he agreed with their objectives while smearing America as genocidal because he disagreed with ours.

Sartre’s ‘conviction’ of the United States for committing genocide in Vietnam rested on his contention that all the Vietnamese (or all the ones he cared about) were Communists and thus “the only anti-guerrilla strategy which will be effective is the destruction of that people, in other words, the civilians, women and children.” American imperialists were committing genocide “as a warning to all humanity” (by humanity, Sartre once again meant Communists), and failing to fight with the Viet Cong against American capitalism also “amounts to genocide”.

Most revealingly, if the Americans were to defeat the Communists, they would “rebuild the DRV with mountains of dollars” and “this would mean that they would destroy, with their private investments or conditional loans, all the economic basis of socialism. That, too, is genocide.”

Genocide, to Sartre, meant the defeat of Communism.

Sartre did not have a problem with the murder of millions of people. He did not use the term ‘genocide’ to describe the killing of millions under Communism, only to describe the defeat of Communism and everything that they stood for. As he concluded, “the Vietnamese are fighting for all men and the American forces are fighting all of us.”

The Sartre indictment is especially revealing when we examine the Gaza genocide lie.

Sartre had already justified Islamic terrorism against Christians and Jews in Algeria (“‘to kill a European is to hit two targets with one stone”) and against Jews in Israel and in Munich (“the Palestinians’ only weapon is terrorism… this abandoned, betrayed, and exiled people can only show its courage and the strength of its hatred by organizing deadly attacks.”)

His definition of genocide was the defeat of the revolutionary side by the capitalist side. This ultimate definition is filtered through terms such as “imperialist” or “colonizer”, but ultimately amounts to the same thing. The revolutionaries are fighting on the side of humanity and any defeat for them is genocide while if they kill millions of the “bourgeoisie”, that’s justified.

The very notion of human rights becomes a means to an end because the only possible means of preserving human rights is through an absolute radical victory by any means necessary, any resistance to radical leftist is genocide while a genocide carried out by radical leftist regimes is a defense of human rights. These rationalizations are mediated by declaring the perpetrators to be ‘revolutionaries’ and their targets ‘reactionaries’ or ‘colonizers’ who are resisting ‘oppression’ by the capitalists.

There was no genocide in Gaza (except the attempted one by Hamas), just as there was no genocide in Cuba (except by the Castro regime), in Iraq (except by Saddam, and the rival Sunni and Shiite Jihadis) or Vietnam (except by the Communists) or in Yemen (except by the Houthis) or any of the other places where America, Israel and the free world were accused of genocide.

‘Genocide’ has become a term of art that radicals bring out when they are trying to radicalize the public against a war that their side is losing. The 1966 tribunal coincided with a turning point in the war and the Communist forces relied on mobilizing an American fifth column to take over Vietnam. Similarly, the Gaza genocide lie was used to radicalize Democrats and liberals against Israel ahead of the DSA entry into elections in Democrat primaries while ensuring that Hamas, now included in the ‘progressive’ camp by the DSA, would maintain control over Gaza.

Even while Stalin was still killing millions, the Soviet Union masterminded a global propaganda campaign accusing the United States of genocide for trying to block Communist expansionism in Asia. Millions more died in Asia because American and European radicals promoted the lie.

The Soviet Union expanded its propaganda machine to the Middle East, manufacturing the ‘Palestinians’ to relabel the genocidal Muslim campaign by its allies as “resistance” to the Jews and on to Latin America where resisting Communism was once again deemed genocide.

“To keep hope alive one must, in spite of all mistakes, horrors and crimes, recognize the obvious superiority of the socialist camp,” Sartre insisted.

What sort of mistakes, horrors and crimes are being ignored today to maintain the myth of the moral superiority of the mass murderers?

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

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

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

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

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

The recent shift is likely driven by social media and the more open embrace of Islamic terrorism by radical leftist groups such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) within the social justice movement. Bowie mentioned having “picked up some anarchist literature at the social justice center” while Catherine was a leader in a leftist group called Direct Action Movement for Palestinian Liberation (DAMPL) whose members called themselves “Action Comrades”.

After posting fairly ordinary family photos to social media in early 2023, two years later, Catherine Washburn was posting Jihadist propaganda cheering on Hamas and pictures of herself in a hijab. Jessica Bowie went from a tattooed goth look to shopping for bomb supplies at Home Depot while dressing in a full black burka after swearing an oath to ISIS.

Rather than being repelled by the bloody violence of Islamic terrorism, they were drawn to it and cheered it on, with Catherine declaring “I wish every day were October 7” and Jessica exclaiming, “praise be to Allah for September 11th.”

We don’t know the exact pathway that they followed, but both women seemed to spend significant amounts of time on social media, both began communicating with Islamic terrorists over social media and both eventually agreed to be involved in advancing Islamic terrorism.

And both women appeared to have been recruited in the aftermath of the social media wave of activism in support of Islamic terrorism after the Oct 7 attacks. Jessica described going ‘from a little girl waving an American flag after 9/11 to now having stickers of the falling towers’ while Catherine assured her terrorist friend, “I hate the Jews very much.”

While both Jessica and Catherine lived in areas with large numbers of Muslims, it’s hard to say for sure how much influence that had on their descent into supporting Islamic terrorism. Jessica Bowie lived in an Albany building that appeared to have other Muslims living there, and seemed reasonably acquainted with some of the basics of Islam, but it’s unclear how integrated she was into any Islamic community. Unmarried white women wearing a burka in America have almost always been groomed into it on social media by ‘Niqabi’ influencers of the kind that were being promoted by Vogue shortly after Saudi women were protesting by stamping on their burkas.

DAMPL was a social media movement started by a Muslim, aimed at radicals, that encouraged real-life vandalism. Like much of the pro-terrorist activism after the Oct 7 massacres, it helped fill an activism void left between the implosion of BLM and before the rise of mass anti-ICE protests. Online social justice activism had become so popular because it gave heavy social media users an outlet and a sense of purpose in lives that appeared to be going nowhere.

Millennial liberal white women like Jessica and Catherine in their late thirties were some of the most likely to be involved in social justice activism or social media cults because they were often heavy social media users who were looking for an escape and feeling stuck because they were unmarried or married with young children, and desperately looking for a new life.

And they found it.

Jessica and Catherine were certainly not the first Americans to become interested in Islamic terrorism, but two women living three hours driving distance from each other both being arrested over Islamic terrorism a few months apart is more than random chance: it indicates a trend.

The growing appearance of white women in Islamic terrorism in the United States may be due to the social sanction provided for it by the role of the DSA and other radical leftist groups in social justice movements. Women often need more of a permission structure than men do before committing illegal actions: that’s why men are far more likely to commit crimes than women.

Over the last three years, the infiltration of leftist movements into the Democratic Party and its associated activist circles has created a permission structure for Islamic terrorism. And while some of it is expressed in support for Islamic terrorism against Jews, a phenomenon that is becoming mainstream with DSA candidates like Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed, and Dariazila Avila Chevalier, while El-Sayed, Aisha Wahhab, the Afghan congressional nominee to replace former Rep. Eric Swalwell in California, and others campaigning with Hasan Piker have already normalized support for the September 11 attacks, but Jessica’s case shows it also normalized ISIS and domestic terrorist attacks against largely elected officials in America.

The DSA’s decision to normalize and endorse the Islamic terrorist attacks of Oct 7, and the Democratic Party’s decision to normalize the DSA as part of its ‘Big Tent’ are translating into growing support for Islamic terrorism across the spectrum by the Democratic Party’s base.

This isn’t just about Israel. Normalizing Islamic terrorism, against anyone and anywhere, also normalizes it in America and encourages Americans to support it and to join in the attacks.

Just ask Cathy and Jessie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And incredibly, it still wasn’t over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so it continues.

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

“Wherever you came from, you came to America. And you came for one reason—for one reason only—to establish Allah’s deen,” Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a former vice president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), had told Muslims, “democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

“Muslims in America are the most strategic Muslims on Earth,” the top Islamic figure, who has posed with numerous politicians, including Zohran Mamdani, said.

“If you get involved in politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah. You don’t get involved in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.”

“If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate,” the unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing predicted. “Take my word, if eight million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

“If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time,” Imam Zaid Shakir, a repeat ISNA guest, preached. “What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

“Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country.”

“I believe that as Muslims we should participate in the system to safeguard our interest and try to bring gradual change for the right cause, the cause of truth and justice. We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction,” Muzammil Siddiqi, a co-founder of ISNA, had said.

Abdul Mohammed El-Sayed, the Democratic Party’s Michigan Senate nominee, will be joining Wahhaj, Shakir and Siddiqi at the Islamic Society of North America’s latest conference.

El-Sayed will be one of two Michigan Islamist Democrats, including Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud, who had told a Christian to leave the city over his opposition to honoring an Islamic terrorist supporter, to speak at the Islamic Supremacist conference whose speakers have a history of calling for an Islamic takeover of the United States and the imposition of Sharia law.

Dearborn and other Islamic controlled areas in Michigan played a significant role in the nomination of Abdul El-Sayed, who lost the non-Muslim Democrat vote, but secured the Democrat nomination by winning 94% of the Muslim vote, appearing to prove Wahhaj’s thesis of a unified bloc vote allowing Islamists to seize control of the American political system.

Abdul El-Sayed had spoken of his own dedication to Sharia law, a supremacist theocratic system that would deprive non-Muslims, women and most Americans of all their civil rights. And he will be attending a conference with ISNA’s co-founder Siddiqi, also its former two-time president and board member, who had predicted that, “once more people accept Islam, insha’allah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.”

That would include mutilation, sex slavery and the enslavement or genocide of non-Muslims.

ISNA has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of both Al Qaeda and Hamas, which critics have accused of infiltrating American political life, and the most notorious Hamas front group in America operated out of ISNA’s headquarters. ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror funding trial of that group raising national security issues.

The organization whose conference Abdul El-Sayed will attend had previously featured Islamic calls for Jewish genocide, predicting that, “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.’”

One of the speakers at the ISNA conference will be Imam Tariq Masood, who had “forced his 13-year-old niece into marriage, and who had advised his followers to do the same with their young female relatives” and as reported by Andrew Bostom at RAIR, had praised Hitler for carrying out the Holocaust.

“What Hitler said, the Qur’an had said 1400 years ago. Hitler did not do this by looking at the Qur’an, he did this by observing,” Imam Masood had said. “He said that if I wanted, I would have killed all of them. I would not leave even one alive. But I am leaving some alive. So that when the world remembers me, that the Jews were cruel, then the world will know why I killed them. I am leaving some alive. They will not sit peacefully. If Hitler was alive today, the world would have said that you (Hitler) were not a good person, but you did the right thing.”

ISNA’s speakers have similar plans for Christians and for the United States of America.

“If we go to war, brothers and sisters—and one day we will, believe me—that’s why you’re commanded jihad,” Siraj Wahhaj had preached. “When Allah demands us to fight, we’re not stopping and nobody’s stopping us.

“I pray one day, Inshallah, Allah will bless us to raise an army and I’m serious about this. We were very close, recently. We had made intention to raise an army of 10,000 men in NY City. Muslim men to go fight…And the day is going to come, when that happens,” the ISNA speaker and former official predicted at a fundraiser for an Al Qaeda front group.

“I will never ever tell people, ‘don’t be violent, that is not the Islamic way.’ The violence has to be selected.” Members of his mosque’s security team, where “several people connected to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center either attended or visited around the time of the attack”, called themselves ‘Jihad warriors.’” One of them, Farooque Ahmed, was sentenced to 23 years in prison for plotting an attack on a rail station in Arlington, Virginia, when he scouted the area and then handed over his findings to what he believed was an Al-Qaeda terrorist, advising him to plant the bombs during the commute to maximize casualties.

More recently, Wahhaj’s son and family members were busted running a terrorist training camp for kids in New Mexico. The targets were to be “military, law enforcement, and financial institutions.”

Siddiqi had translated remarks by Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheikh’ at the center of the World Trade Center bombing and a subsequent plot against New York City’s landmark. Hisham ‘Adam’ Hamawy, who had acted as Rahman’s translator, testified at his trial, won the Democrat nomination for Congress in New Jersey and volunteered for the same Al Qaeda front group that Wahhaj had been fundraising for when talking about raising an army of Muslims in New York.

Shaykh Akram Nadwi, another speaker at the ISNA conference, claimed that, “Muslims in the West” were living “in the territories of the active enemies of Islam.”

Imam Zaid Shakir had urged Muslims to function as a “state within a state.”

“In many places where Muslims are doing jihad and killing kaffirs (non-Muslims), this infrastructural work hasn’t been done,” he complained. “As a result, Muslims are fighting and dying, but there’s very little tangible political benefit as a result of that fighting and dying.”

“The work we should be doing is laying the infrastructure—the administrative, logistical infrastructure—putting that into place, so that if Allah put us in a situation where we did have to fight, physically, we could translate that fighting into tangible political gains,” Shakir advised.

“We have to start doing the real tough, nitty-gritty, unglamorous, boring work of developing our organizational and institutional strength in this country,” he said. “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time.”

“What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

This is only a small sample of the conference that Abdul Mohammed El-Sayed is set to attend. In a public statement, Abdul El-Sayed has denied having anything to do with the other speakers, without actually disavowing their calls for terrorism, mass murder and the conquest of America. His defenders have tried to make it sound as if these speakers, some of whom are or were important figures in the organization that is putting on the conference, are incidental.

Wahhaj, Shakir, Siddiqi and many others are not incidental, they embody ISNA’s worldview.

And Abdul El-Sayed’s participation makes it clear that he’s comfortable with calls to conquer the United States, to murder millions of people and to subjugate all non-Muslims to Islamic Supremacism. Even while El-Sayed is enmeshed in a controversy over his role in the killings of thousands of dogs and cats, he is set to attend a conference where speakers have called for the killing of far more Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims in the name of his religion.

(Note: I want to acknowledge the important work of the researchers who documented many of the Jihadist remarks especially ‘Muslim Mafia’ by David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, a very important book, as well as recent reporting on the ISNA conference by Chuck Ross at Free Beacon and Andrew Bostom at RAIR.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Leo’s distinction between migrants and migrant traffickers, an argument also taken up by some of these same figures in the Catholic Church in Spain, is another meaningless distinction. The best way to stop human traffickers is to disincentivize mass migration. Opening up more “safe and legal pathways”, as Pope Leo and clerics in Spain involved in mass migration have argued, results in more migration and ultimately also in more human trafficking. The invasion of Ceuta for the most part did not require traffickers, just lots of young men (and the rare woman) willing to climb a fence or swim around a sea barrier to make it to Spanish territory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new UNICEF survey shows that not only isn’t there a famine in Gaza, but the Hamas settlers of the terrorist enclave are some of the best fed in the Middle East.

The UNICEF-led survey rated ‘acute malnutrition’ among children under 5 years old in the Gaza Strip as being at 0.5%. As UN Watch noted, this compares to World Bank data showing a rate of 0.4% in the UK, 0.5% in Germany, 1.6% in Finland and 3.3% in Egypt.

What that means is that acute malnutrition is far worse across the border in Egypt, which controlled Gaza between 1949 and 1967, than in the Gaza Strip. And acute child malnutrition, the subject of hoax photoshoots in the New York Times showing disabled children, is on par and sometimes better than some European nations including Germany and even the UK.

So why are Germany and the UK sending aid to Gaza instead of feeding their own people?

Within the context of the Middle East and the Muslim world, these are some of the lowest numbers placing Gaza in first place with a low 0.5% rate, ahead of Lebanon at 1.3%, Turkey at 1.6%, neighboring Jordan at 2.3%, Iraq at 3.0%, Afghanistan at 3.6% and Pakistan at 7.1%.

Read more

In Greece, Elisabeth-Jane Ross, a Scottish woman who had come to work with migrants, was murdered and had her body stuffed into a suitcase and left in an abandoned building by an Afghan refugee who had his own refugee charity. In Ireland, Jamey Carney, a 43-year-old woman from upstate New York, hooked up with a ‘Palestinian’ refugee she met at an anti-Israel rally and he beat her to death and then fled. In Norway, Maren Sømme, a 30-year-old woman, was killed by an Afghan refugee previously facing deportation for abusing another woman.

But what may be difficult for the readers who scroll through these accounts in the tabloids to understand is that these horrific crimes are not aberrations or abuses, as they are in our culture, but normative behavior in the native Afghanistan of two of the alleged killers, or the ‘Palestinian’ areas in Israel, where men follow the teachings of the Koran to beat ‘disobedient’ women.

And in these cultures, women are routinely murdered in culturally sanctioned ‘honor killings’.

According to the UN’s World Health Organization, “almost 90% of women in Afghanistan have experienced at least one form of domestic violence.” The perpetrators were Afghan men following the dictates of an Islamic and Afghan culture where 92% of women “believe that a husband is justified in beating his wife.” After losing thousands of lives trying to redeem this brutal culture, we instead decided to import it to America and Europe in the form of ‘refugees’.

Afghan ‘refugees’ however don’t stop being Afghans. And they don’t stop beating women.

In Gaza, which after the Oct 7 massacres by Hamas became the supreme social media cause and looped in women like Jamey Carney, 70.4% of women reported domestic abuse. Carney became eager to learn about her new boyfriend’s religion, but learned about it the hard way.

And she’s far from alone.

The stories of these three women, abused and killed by Muslim ‘refugees’ across Europe within a short period of time are not unique and they show the threat that migrants from Muslim terrorist states pose to women and girls across Europe and the rest of the Western world.

Advocates for open borders hail mass migration as an engine of diversity, but what diversity really means is that the political, social, religious and cultural norms of America and Europe are being equalized with those of the rest of the world.

That doesn’t just mean more ethnic restaurants: it means that the situation for women in the West will resemble that of the cultures that the migrants are coming from… including Pakistan, Gaza and Afghanistan.

Each wave of mass migrants has been accompanied by a wave of violence against women.

The Arab Spring mass migration to Europe led to shocking events like the mass sexual assaults on 1,200 women on New Year’s Eve in the German city of Cologne. Pakistani Muslim mass migration to the UK resulted in the ongoing grooming gang crisis in the UK in which hundreds of thousands of young girls, many of them underage, were drugged, trafficked and raped.

The mass migration of Afghans is resulting in its own mostly invisible crisis of assaults that has played out against the background of vocal denials by the political establishment and the media.

Yet what is becoming painfully obvious is that women’s rights cannot coexist with open borders.

The same political establishment that welcomes mass migration has also set aside any expectation that Afghan, Iraqi or other Muslim migrants should adapt or leave at home any of their uglier cultural practices. Behaviors such as female genital mutilation (FGM), domestic violence and animal cruelty that were once a subject of reform efforts by activists have been subordinated to the supreme cause of unreservedly welcoming Muslim migrants to the West.

Traditional feminist concerns or criticisms have now been dismissed as ‘Islamophobic’. The authorities rush to excuse and even praise questionable behaviors such as cousin marriage, and ignore or cover up more problematic tribal ones, such as rape and violence that are sanctioned by the Koran when practiced by a conquering Muslim population against non-Muslims.

Mentions of this are quickly pigeonholed as ‘Islamophobic’, ‘anti-immigrant’ or ‘far-right’ even when those raising the issue are otherwise progressive or liberal, but worried about women. Even underage girls in the UK who complained about abuse were deemed ‘Islamophobes’.

No one wants to discuss what happens when a culture where even 9 out of 10 women find domestic violence acceptable comes into contact with our culture. And so women suffer and die.

It is not a coincidence that two of the three murdered women lost their lives because Islamic terrorism and mass migration were politicised and became a partisan issue, drawing in women to campaign for them. Politics has been used to censor away an issue that was once reported on in the pages of major newspapers, but that hasn’t eliminated its consequences.

Women keep on being assaulted, beaten and killed even if the media won’t report on it.

The wave of assaults on women and girls is only one of the undiscussed consequences of the larger crisis of Muslim mass migration. Misogyny, child abuse, fraud, corruption, antisemitism, terrorism, and extremism are the outcomes of the ‘equalization’ of Western nations to the level of the home countries of the migrants.

Just as Afghan refugees don’t stop beating women, they don’t stop shooting up gay nightclubs, like the Pulse Massacre in Orlando, they don’t stop stabbing Jews, like the Afghan man who stabbed a rabbi in the German city of Frankfurt, and they don’t stop joining ISIS like members of an Afghan refugee family who plotted an ISIS Election Day attack in Oklahoma.

Mass migration isn’t making Muslim refugees more Western. Just the opposite, it’s making Western nations more Middle Eastern, destroying the rights of women and minorities, wrecking public trust and civil society, tearing apart our moral codes and breaking apart the West.

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

Republicans and Democrats used to have a grand tradition of presidential candidates heading up to New Hampshire, putting on LL Bean jackets and trying to talk down to small groups of skeptical senior citizens in diners. It was a stupid way to choose leaders, but, like democracy itself, it was also the least bad option because it forced national candidates to get out of their comfort zones and talk to random people in a state that they would have otherwise ignored.

Then the DNC rigged the primary calendar by starting the season off with South Carolina to protect Joe Biden from any real competition in the 2024 election. The DNC claimed that it was urgent to replace New Hampshire with South Carolina for the sake of diversity, because nothing epitomizes diversity like an old white man.

New Hampshire was ordered to move its primary back. New Hampshire Dems explained that the primary dates were set by state law and that they had to proceed with the primary on the usual schedule. The DNC told Democrats not to vote in the primary and then launched a write-in campaign that Biden somehow won.

Once Biden had been ousted, the DNC could have put back the old primary calendar, instead it decided to host a showdown between South Carolina and Nevada to replace New Hampshire. Nevada and South Carolina were at the top because unlike New Hampshire they had fewer white people . The best argument for Nevada was that it was full of Latinos and the best argument for South Carolina was that it was full of black people.

And not picking South Carolina would be racist. The only question was whether not picking Nevada would be just as racist, more racist or slightly less racist.

“If South Carolina gets quietly bumped after one cycle of convenient praise, that sends a message louder than any speech at a Democratic dinner: the gratitude was performance, not policy,” Al Sharpton warned.

The DNC juggled two races until it decided that black people were the most important and so South Carolina will host the first state primary, Latinos were the second most important and so Nevada will go second, and white people were the least important, so New Hampshire would go third. Latinos however get a consolation prize with a fourth place spot for New Mexico, while fifth place goes to the all-important demographic of Hamas supporters in Michigan.

A statement by DNC leaders bragged that this was “the most diverse calendar Democrats have ever had for an open nominating contest” and the official site ranked the calendar based on the number of the 4.6 million black people, 4.2 million Latinos and 1.4 Asian Americans who live in the early window states. Sorry Asian Americans, you’ll need more votes if you want to rank.

Not only does this ensure that any emerging presidential nominee will be anti-Israel, but this also potentially sets up an AOC presidential nomination since as the most high-profile Latina and leftist candidate, she could potentially win 4 out of the first 5 primary states, and seal the deal before the other candidates even have a shot.

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

“NAM was an eclectic group of New Communist Movement activists and seasoned Marxists,” a current article by the editor of a Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) publication claimed, and asserted that the founding of the DSA “was a merger of the social democratic Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the New American Movement, a product of the New Communist Movement.”

In 1984, Michael Harrington, a key DSA figure, assured the New York Times that “in the democratic socialist milieu, there’s even a small but significant group of former Communist leaders. They’ve broken with their past, yet I’m sure they still feel a little uncomfortable with my visceral anti-Communism.” Key Communist DSA figures however were not on board.

Dorothy Ray Healey, a former chair of the Southern California chapter of the Communist Party, who turned on it after Khrushchev’s speech, joined the NAM and then the DSA and became a national vice chair of the DSA, however furiously disagreed, saying, “You know I was pretty angry at an article … where Harrington makes some remark that the people in DSA who’d been communists had “broken with their past.” I haven’t broken with my past – that’s ridiculous.”

The line of succession between the NAM and the DSA was so secure that the DSA was recently able to collect on a $5 million bequest that had been left for the NAM. After the merger between the anti-Communist DSOC and the Communist linked NAM, the NAM slowly digested the DSA and now the DSA has begun to slowly take over the Democratic Party.

Restrictions on Communists, like the one that the SDS had jettisoned in 1965 and that the DSA tellingly tossed aside an even 60 years later, were about the ‘entryism’ of disciplined cadres of radicals like the PLP into more moderate organizations in order to take them over. By the time that the DSA dropped its version of the Communist exclusion clause in 2025, the point had long since been moot with Marxist and Communist caucuses, like the Marxist Unity Group and Red Star controlling a majority of its National Political Committee leadership.

The ban on members “under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization”, a Leninist term for centralized top-down organizations, had long been a dead letter and largely aimed at the type of Trotskyist groups prone to collective takeovers.

While the DSA is certainly Marxist and Communist today, its history is instructive because of its descent from a line of anti-Communist socialist groups that were infiltrated and turned into Communist organizations. Democrats have taken to complaining that labeling the DSA and its Democrat candidates as ‘Communists’ is a revival of ‘Red Scare’ tactics, but the history of organizations like the SDS and the DSA shows how Communist takeovers actually work.

A small disciplined group is able to seize control of incrementally larger organizations, beginning with the DSA, then a marginal movement of thousands, and eventually the Democratic Party.

Every Congressional Democrat who is asked on a news show about the DSA, claims that the party is a “big tent” that can comfortably include what they misleadingly describe as “democratic socialists”, but that was how Harrington and DSA figures justified their party’s merger with NAM. In the fall of 2023, Richard Healey, Dorothy’s son and a key DSA figure, along with other early activists, senior figures and chapter leaders announced that they were leaving the DSA because the organization no longer resembled what it had been and “to remain loyal to the principles of democratic socialism which once led us to join DSA, we now renounce our membership in DSA.”

The current face of the DSA is National Political Committee co-chair Megan Romer of the Red Star Caucus who on a FOX News show called for abolishing the police, the military, borders, prisons and private property. Her Red Star Caucus is on a mission “to abolish capitalism and, ultimately, to achieve communism” using the DSA to “incubate” a “vanguard party”.

The DSA’s current state came after several past efforts to “incubate” revolutionary Communist vanguard parties inside less radical ones. The latest host doing the incubating is the Democratic Party. And if the history of the SDS and DSA is any indicator, the process will kill the host.

And possibly the host nation.

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

“I’m the Prime Minister of Spain. This Is Why the West Needs Migrants,” Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote in a New York Times op-ed. “Imagine you’re the leader of a nation, and you face a dilemma. Half a million or so people who are crucial to everyone’s daily lives inhabit your country.”

His government’s solution was to legalize the half a million migrants. Rather than the 500,000 migrants Sanchez was proposing to legalize, Spain received 1.2 million applications, suggesting that the migrant population was far larger than the estimated 900,000 or so and a month after the application window closed, on June 30th, the invasion began.

Another trigger for the invasion was the Spanish Supreme Court’s ruling that migrants entering by sea could not be deported and had to have their ‘asylum’ claims processed. Tens of thousands responded to the ruling by swimming around the border fence in Ceuta: a Spanish city in North Africa that shares a border with Morocco.

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

The mass invasion should not have been unexpected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tens of thousands of Moroccan Muslims would not have swarmed Ceuta if PM Sanchez and Spanish leaders had not given them the idea that they would be welcomed and allowed to stay. Why would they think that? Because it worked last time around.

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

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

Before Ceuta comes to their shores.

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

Faribault, Minnesota, is a small city about an hour’s drive from Minneapolis. On paper it should have the smaller crime rate of the alphabetically similar Farmington which is nearly the same size and only a half hour away. Instead, Faribault has more than twice as much violent crime, aggravated assaults, burglaries and car thefts, 30% more rapes, and 8 times as many robberies. Farmington has no arsons, but Faribault has the most arsons of any city outside major strongholds like Minneapolis, St. Paul or Duluth.

The city of over 20,000 used to be less troubled. The Minnesota Post described it, with a shudder as, “an almost entirely homogeneous white community, not much different from many towns across Minnesota.” But Faribault was an hour away from Minneapolis at a time when it was being overtaken by Somali mass migration, and it had a meat processing plant, now partly shut down, which is always a draw for illegal aliens and migrants.

Now Faribault is much more diverse and it has problems that it didn’t used to have.

Faribault was the epicenter of a $2.6 million Somali Medicaid ride fraud scam in which 8 Somalis, two of them named Mohammed, stole hundreds of names to bill taxpayers for rides, interpreters and acupuncture services that never happened.

It was also part of the $250 million Somali meal scam that first broke open Somali fraud.

Faribault’s part in the massive fraud in which nonprofits claimed to be providing free meals to hundreds of thousands of Somali kids who didn’t exist came through the Somali American Faribault Education (SAFE) run by Mohamed Hussein and Lul Bashir Ali, who made off with $5 million in meal funds after claiming that their restaurant in Faribault, which only had 9 tables, was serving meals to 1,600 children a day and had served a total of 700,000 meals.

The Somali American Faribault Education (SAFE) nonprofit also claimed to be providing meals to 2,500 children a day. Sizable amounts of kickbacks were paid to a man who then fled to Somalia. The Minnesota Post’s article praising the Somali takeover of Faribault had hailed SAFE, claiming that it “provides refugees with ESL programs and connects them to jobs”.

The other non-profit promoted by the Post article, the ‘Somali Community Resettlement Services’, which operates out of the massive 115-year-old historic Gale Mansion, often used as a wedding venue, has been linked to one Faribault meal site that claimed to be offering 2,000 meals a day.

The ‘Somali Community Resettlement Services’ solicited nearly $3 million for the free meals and Somali elected officials had proposed bills that would pour millions into the organization.

The fraud also penetrated the Faribault public school system as investigators are also trying to figure out where $1 million in grant money to stop Somali drug abuse solicited by Lul Bashir Ali, initially identified only as a Somali mother, went.

“‘We need help.’ This sentiment, expressed by a Somali mother about the specific concern of youth drug use and the more general frustration of trying to parent in a new culture, captures the heart of this grant proposal.” The Minnesota Department of Human Services responded with nearly $1 million for the Faribault schools that was supposedly used to provide Somali services.

Faribault is much more diverse now with an estimated 4,600 Somalis out of 25,000 people. The white population has dropped to 65% and the school system is even more diverse.

Minority enrollment in the city’s schools was up 243% in twenty years. By 2018, minority students made up a majority of the school system. Today, 60% of the school district is minority and only 36% white. A population of older white homeowners is subsidizing education and services for Somali and South American migrant meatpacking plant workers with their property taxes.

The Faribault School Board has recently been debating teaching science, health and social studies in Somali. As of 2022, there were over 900 Faribault students who didn’t speak English.

The Somali education program was proposed after complaints from Somalis and other migrants that their “home languages were being lost as students became more English-dominant” and “parents and children no longer shared a common language, weakening communication and cultural connections within families.” Rather than expecting their parents to learn English, Faribault schools are expected to prevent their children from learning English, instead teaching them in Somali.

Faribault might as well teach the students in Somali because state test proficiency scores showed that math proficiency was at 13.7%, science was at 16.1% and reading was at 29.8%. Test scores, graduation rates, attendance and every possible metric are below state standards.

What would Faribault be like if it were less diverse and Somali? Faribault school statistics show that students for whom English is their native language perform over three times better on math, science and more than twice as well on reading. Students who aren’t on welfare perform four times as well on math and science. Call it the ‘Somali Effect’.

Faribault is more diverse, it’s also more dangerous and has linked up with the epicenter of Somali fraud in the Twin Cities. Its schools are failing and it has no future.

“Faribault has become our city,” a Somali interviewed by the Minnesota Post bragged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or perhaps the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The attack on the young woman was one of a series.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathological empathy can be shaped by enemy propaganda, as we have seen after 9/11 and Oct 7, but exists within the pathological mind that chooses to empathize with killers over victims. The ‘women who run with wolves’, the title of a bestselling 90s book, sometimes get eaten by wolves, and sometimes, like the women who find other girls as prey for cults, predators and pimps, who love and champion Luigi Mangione, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Andrew Tate, who marry Muslim men, join ISIS, and keep sex slaves for them, fight to protect the wolves.

There are women who protect children from wolves because they love children more than wolves and those who protect the wolves that eat children because they love wolves more than children. Some part of them empathizes more with the wolf stalking the child than the child being dragged away by a wolf. Understanding that gets at the heart of the political pathology. Coyotes, unlike Islamic terrorists or serial killers, are neither good nor evil: they’re animals. But like terrorists and serial killers, given signs of human weakness, they will treat us as prey.

Civilization at its most basic is a choice between the wolves and our children. And the wolves are winning. When it comes to a physically superior group, moral weakness is the greatest weakness. A people physically incapable of protecting their children can still struggle to survive through sheer persistence, but a people who are morally incapable of protecting their children from the wolves are doomed.

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

In the winter of 1832, a merchantman flying a Danish flag pulled into a port in Quallah Battoo in the Aceh Sultanate of what is now known as Indonesia. The vessel had set out from New York City half a year ago, had circumnavigated the Cape of Good Hope, and had finally arrived here.

That the vessel was named for a river in America did not strike the locals as strange and when its officers left the ship after rubbing themselves with tar to look like disreputable sailors, claiming to trade opium for pepper, the locals were eager to waylay their boat and kill them, pleading, “what for you no come ashore?” even as the robbers brandished their weapons.

This was the fate that had befallen the Friendship, an American merchantman, last year.

The boat full of ragged sailors in red and blue shirts with dirty hands asked to meet with Po Mahomet, the local Muslim ruler, “He no come down, he be one so great man,” they were told.

But the ship was under the command of a far greater man thousands of miles away.

Some fishermen followed the ship and got close enough to see that her guns had been run in or covered with tarps and that she was no merchantman, but a disguised warship, and they had to be brought aboard, as they “cried aloud, Allah, in an imploring tone of voice.”

The disguised sailors had seen enough to know where the forts were and that further negotiations with the robber region would be futile. The attack began at dawn and soon the American flag was not only flying over the USS Potomac, but over the fort where Po Mahomet, too great a man to come down, met his death at the hands of the United States Marines.

By battle’s end, two Americans had fallen and so had three forts and the enemy. America’s first military engagement in Asia, as in Africa, fought against Muslim pirates, was done.

A year earlier, President Andrew Jackson had sent the USS Potomac on a mission of retribution for the attack on the Friendship and the killing of some members of her crew. “A daring outrage having been committed in those seas,” he had declared, “and the piratical perpetrators belonging to tribes in such a state of society that the usual course of proceedings between civilized nations could not be pursued, I forthwith dispatched a frigate with orders to require immediate satisfaction for the injury and indemnity to the sufferers.”

The USS Potomac had been commanded to “vindicate our wrongs in that savage outrage.”

And it had fulfilled its mission. The Battle of Quallah Battoo of what would become known as the First Sumatran Expedition ended in an unambiguous American victory with hundreds of enemy dead and as one participant put it, “heaping the heathen pile upon pile at every discharge and staining the green sward with the blood of the victories of our ungovernable fury.”

The ship left, after seizing the forts, defeating the Muslim enemy force, killing its leader and shelling their town to rubble with a warning that any future attack would lead to severe consequences against the perpetrators. But the real political battle would be fought at home.

The merchants who had urged the administration to dispatch the USS Potomac had wanted restitution for their losses, and President Andrew Jackson had been looking to expand American trade in the region and expected the USS Potomac to use its presence to leverage a treaty.

But Captain John Downes, who had served in the previous wars against Muslim pirates in Tripoli and Algeria, had a more realistic assessment of the problem and pointed out to the Secretary of the Navy and his boss that the Muslim pirates were treacherous and cruel, that showing off a warship without using it would be a futile show of weakness, and that besieging them was useless because they would simply disappear into the jungle or scatter to islands.

“The character of the people against whom I had to operate left me no room to doubt that a movement prompt and efficient in its character could alone carry with it the least possible hopes of success,” Downes wrote. The scouting expedition followed by a surprise attack against an enemy which had 500 armed men and fanatical beliefs proved efficient and successful.

The enemy “were never known to spare man, woman or child which had unfortunately fallen into their hands”, and could never be trusted to negotiate in good faith. But Congress was not happy.

Captain Downes was ordered by Jackson to preserve documents involving the expedition as Congress launched an investigation into his actions. Even though Downes had given the order to “not fire a gun upon the Malays, unless the attack first came from them”, seeking to capture their leaders and hold them hostage to extract compensation for the Friendship’s losses, and even though he had specifically ordered that women and children be spared, partisan newspapers accused Jackson and Downes of orchestrating a massacre of innocent people.

There was even less knowledge of the cultural differences in a Muslim society thousands of miles away back then than there is today and so there was very little understanding of the circumstances that the United States Marines had been operating under once they made contact with the enemy. Muslim attackers had opened fire from houses, making it all but impossible to avoid civilian casualties, and in at least two cases, women attacked Marines.

Captain Downes had done his best to uphold an impossible set of instructions which, had he followed them, would have led to either the failure of his mission or the massacre of his men.

Now, even before they returned home, the Marines who had attacked a numerically superior enemy on his own territory, were denounced as having attacked “a settlement filled with a mixed population” and were condemned as the “savage murderers of women and children.”

The debate followed lines familiar to anti-war arguments today. President Andrew Jackson was accused of illegally starting a war without congressional authorization even though he was following the precedent set by Jefferson’s campaign against Muslim pirates in North Africa.

Opponents of the attack argued that it had been a violation of American values which considers “a strict regard to the rights of others as the brightest jewel which adorns its character” which apparently included the Muslim pirates of Indonesia. The USS Potomac should have negotiated. It should not have flown a false flag even though Stephen Decatur, under whom Downes had served, had set the precedent for this by entering Tripoli flying British colors in the campaign that served as the first action of the Marine Corps during the Barbary War with Muslim pirates.

Jackson had wanted a direct settlement of the kind he had been securing from Europe to Asia, but he was also enough of a military man to understand the value of making a good point.

“The president wishes me to express his highest commendation for the coolness, firmness and skill evidenced by yourself, officers and men in the whole attack; and hopes that the best consequences to our trade and national character with result from it in that region of the world,” the Navy Secretary dispatched to Downes.

The attacks on American ships did not end, resulting in a Second Sumatra Expedition and the USS Columbia and the USS John Adams followed the USS Potomac’s example, shelling Malay Muslim forts until they surrendered and promised not to attack Americans again.

President Andrew Jackson dispatched missions to Asian countries while cautioning them to “accommodate yourself to the peculiar notions and customs of the country, however absurd they may be, whenever you can do so without such acknowledgement of inferiority as would be incompatible with the dignity of your Government.” By the time a successful agreement was reached with a Muslim country, Oman, President Martin Van Buren had replaced Jackson.

The Quallah Battoo Muslim robbers had been undone by the inferior quality of their weapons, old and poorly maintained British models or their own badly manufactured weapons and powder, allowing the Marines to defeat them while taking relatively few casualties from muskets that wouldn’t fire, from wooden bullets and cannons that fired too high overhead.

Sultan Sayyid bin Sultan of Oman, seeking a source of more reliable firearms to use against Europeans in the region, dispatched gifts to Van Buren, including two Arabian stallions and had reportedly considered sending women from his harem of 75 sex slaves, which had included kidnapped slave girls from Circassia and Georgia (a horrifying practice permitted under Islamic Sharia law that licenses Muslims to kidnap and rape non-Muslim women and girls.)

Emily Ruete, the name taken by Sayyida Salma bint Said Al Said, one of the children of the Sultan of Oman, described how her mother, one of the harem slaves, was kidnapped from her parents when she was a 7-year-old girl and sold as a slave while her parents were murdered. Ruete had an affair with a German merchant, fled to Europe and converted to Christianity.

Jokes went around about Van Buren, notorious for his corrupt love of luxury, building an added wing for a White House harem. Van Buren did not actually keep the horses, as that would have violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, and they were sold at auction. (The same went for the two lion cubs from Morocco which have been misattributed as coming from Oman.)

While the Sultan of Oman did not end up sending any slave girls, his ship was crewed by slaves who were lured away by abolitionists who were prevalent in New York City and convinced them that life under Christianity and freedom was better than being a slave of Allah and of a sultan.

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

Sanctuary cities, areas in the country that reject the enforcement of immigration law, did not emerge in response to the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or any actual genocide, but to rally opposition to the Marxist civil wars in Latin America.

And then to the War on Terror.

The sanctuary city movement emerged in the first years of the Reagan administration as Quakers, Catholic Liberation Theology and other leftist churches allied with the Soviet bloc intervened to protect leftist radicals fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua from deportation.

That’s why the original announcement of the sanctuary movement was timed to the anniversary of the killing of Archbishop Oscar Romero, an El Salvadoran leftist activist whose death was used to campaign against U.S. aid to the country’s anti-Communist government.

The leftist churches did not offer to defy the law for all refugees, but focused specifically on the Reagan administration’s policy of deporting refugees from “El Salvador and Guatemala” as “illegal and immoral”. Their real complaint was that the Reagan administration was taking in the ‘wrong sort’ of refugees from Communist countries, instead of those from south of the border who were fleeing government crackdowns on Marxist revolutionary movements.

The sanctuary city movement described Reagan’s policy of deporting Latin American Marxist revolutionaries as “illegal” because the administration continued to favor refugees from Communist countries. Carter’s 1980 Refugee Act, which opened the door to the current border crisis, had been meant to shift the flow of refugees away from Communist countries by putting the UN in charge of defining who a refugee was.

The larger agenda had less to do with refugees and more to do with aiding Marxist revolutions.

“I am looking for a confrontation,” Jack Elder, the activist who headed up Casa Oscar Romero, named after the archbishop, admitted. “There’s a moral force behind what we’re doing that has the potential to focus some light on foreign policy… There are bombing raids financed by the U.S. government.”

The sanctuary movement was smuggling migrants and then publicly announcing it to undermine the Reagan administration’s anti-Communist foreign policy.

At the Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, one of the founding places of the sanctuary movement, Rev. John Fife, who would later be arrested and convicted, had put up a sign reading “This is a sanctuary for the oppressed from Central America”. Key figures in the sanctuary city movement did not just harbor illegal aliens, they helped them cross the border, leading to deliberate confrontations with the government that allowed them to play martyrs and protest the war.

When San Francisco announced that it would become the first sanctuary city, it did not open itself to all the refugees in the world, but focused on those coming from Central America.

The sanctuary city movement was meant to create a crisis that would force the Reagan administration to stop supporting anti-Communist movements south of the border by bringing the chaos and violence to the United States. This was in keeping with what had become the larger radical mission to “bring the war home” in order to forcibly alter American foreign policy.

Much as the ‘Weathermen’ and their radical successors had carried out bombings to bring the Vietnam War home to Americans, the sanctuary city movement sought to bring the civil war in El Salvador to this country in order to dissuade Americans from fighting against Communism.

A year after the sanctuary city movement was announced, the number of illegal aliens rose 40% and hit 1.4 million by the end of 1983. Crime rates rose alongside the migrant invasion.

The sanctuary city movement led to the first manufactured border crisis. By acting as ‘magnets’ for migrants, sanctuary cities attracted large numbers of illegal aliens leading to the 1986 amnesty and eventually to the demographic shift of California to a Democrat majority state.

The number of illegals rose from 3 million before amnesty into the tens of millions.

The second wave of the sanctuary city movement occurred after 9/11. The end of the Reagan administration and some of the Central American civil wars had dampened interest in the movement, but the impetus for the second sanctuary wave, just as it had been for the original movement, was protecting an anti-American terrorist force by abrogating U.S. law.

The sanctuary city movement had been born as a protest movement against the Reagan administration and the second wave arose in response to a new global conflict. The Bush administration’s crackdown on Islamic terrorism rebooted the anti-war movement the way that Reagan’s Cold War had before it.

Veterans of the leftist domestic terrorist movements rushed to equate Marxist terrorists with the emerging Jihadists. Bernardine Dohrn of the Weathermen argued that “Prosecutions are underway that are reminiscent of the indictments of the early-fifties McCarthy period and the conspiracy indictments of the early seventies pre-Watergate Mitchell Department of Justice, the two most recent periods of overtly political repression. For example, John Ashcroft has orchestrated a series of high profile indictments against Islamic charities, including the Holy Land Foundation in Texas.” The Holy Land Foundation had been fundraising for Hamas.

Dohrn’s argument prefigured the formal leftist embrace of Hamas after October 7.

The sanctuary city movement was then revived with a third wave in the first Trump administration to protect illegal aliens and arrivals from Islamic terrorist states. The infrastructure that had been put into place during the original sanctuary city movement was mobilized to unite cities, states, universities and religious groups around lawsuits challenging the Muslim travel ban. And the third wave also brought together the two previous waves: protecting illegal migration from Central America and defending the activities of Islamic terrorist groups.

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

Zohran Mamdani campaigned on a promise to “shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods”. His tenant official Cea Weaver tweeted that she wanted to “impoverish the *white* middle class” because “homeownership is racist”, declared that “private property is a weapon of white supremacy” and warned that, “we’ll transition from treating property as an individual good to a collective good. Whites especially will be impacted.”

Now Mamdani has shown the first sign of implementing these systemically racist proposals. Hidden at the bottom of the first page of his proposals to increase revenue is a call to increase the estate tax “by lowering the exemption to $750,000 from its current value of $7.1 million” and massively raising the “top rate from 16% to 50%.”

Why specifically $750,000? Why is that the magic number? The proposal doesn’t explain but the demographics do: New York is already one of the few states with its own estate tax. Mamdani’s proposed changes to the state estate tax would make it the state that taxes middle class homeowners the hardest.

While a $750,000 house in many parts of the country might be a mansion, it’s the average price of a home in New York City. The median selling price of a house in New York City in recent years has been between $764,000 and $800,000. The official community survey figure is at $778,600. That means Mamdani’s estate tax would hit more than half of homeowners.

“Under Hochul and Mamdani’s death tax of 50%, children will lose half the value of their parents’ home and family businesses will have to be sold off just to pay this cruel tax,” Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman,a New York Republican official who’s running for governor, warned.

“With property values where they are today, families could be forced to sell the very homes they hoped to pass on to their children,” Councilman Phil Wong, a Democrat, warned.

The numbers are actually worse than 50% because within New York City, as many as 90% of homes will be hit with Mamdani’s confiscatory tax, as many as 60% of homes in Brooklyn and Queens, but fewer than a quarter in other boroughs. This matches Mamdani’s campaign promise to shift the tax burden towards white homeowners in inner boroughs.

But the real issue for the racially obsessed Mamdani administration is always race. And the estate tax proposal is specifically geared to target and seize the homes of white homeowners.

Read more

In 1833, Massachusetts became the last state in the country to ‘disestablish’ its church and separate church and state. In 2026, Massachusetts legislators are proposing to ‘reestablish’ Islam as a state religion with the power to propose laws and pick government officials.

13 out of 40 State Senate Democrat members backed a bill calling for a “permanent commission on the status of people who practice Islam”. The title of Bill S.2134 ‘An Act promoting the civil rights and inclusion of American Muslims in the commonwealth’ may appear innocuous, but the bill creates a quasi-government body, not for an ethnic or racial group, but for a religion, that will take government and private funding, propose legislation, recommend Muslims for government positions and “foster unity” and cooperation among Islamist groups.

The government commission will, among other things, use its government access to “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions”. This amounts to a government-created body making “the practice of Islam” into a religious test for government office, something that is completely illegal and would never be tolerated from a Christian government commission using the “practice of Christianity” as a test for recommending its members and allies for appointed office.

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is untrue.

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

In 2013, the Puffin Foundation issued a grant for what was described as a “Soviet Yiddish Songbook”. The CD, later issued as “City of the Future: Yiddish Songs from the Former Soviet Union”, is accurate only in that its songs, like Red Army and The Song of the Collective Farmer, are indeed in Yiddish. Otherwise they’re propaganda for a brutal antisemitic regime that killed countless Jews, including one of the men who wrote the song lyrics, and Yiddish culture.

The CD was working off an album titled For Youth, meant to be used to indoctrinate Jewish students who had been forced to attend the Soviet Union’s Yiddish schools. The Yevsektsia or the Communist Party’s Jewish Section tasked with destroying Jewish life in the USSR had worked to ban Hebrew, Zionism, and Judaism, while treating Yiddish as a legitimate language.

The Communist Party eventually purged its Jewish collaborators and a secret Hebrew revival began to take off among Jewish youth in the USSR. Meanwhile American Communists of Jewish ethnicity found an unexpected patron in a screw-maker with a screw loose.

Even while the Puffin Foundation funds the glamorization of Communism, its money comes not only from capitalism, but from one of the few outposts of the survivors of Communism. Perry Rosenstein had sold Brighton-Best Socket Screw Manufacturing to a Taiwanese consortium.

Rosenstein died of the coronavirus, but not before funneling money from the Taiwanese sale into Puffin. The millionaire leftist was never able to fulfill his dream of joining the Lincoln Brigade, but did fund the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives which spins off Common Core lesson plans about the Communist brigade intended for schools. Born to Bundist parents, he was a red diaper baby who spent his money supporting the radical extremists he loved.

The obituaries called him a philanthropist or a social activist continuing the long tradition of ignoring what was right in their faces. In a sea of leftist foundations, the Puffin Foundation stands out for its remarkable obsession with maintaining and preserving the products of bygone Communist propaganda, art posters, theatrical productions, and propaganda broadsheets. It does so with little to no distance from its poisonously murderous subject matter without ever being held accountable for it.

The Puffin Foundation has a great deal of fondness for the USSR. It sponsored a screening of American Reds which is described as, “The Communist Party USA, despite its grievous faults and failings, and its willful blindness to the tyranny of the Soviet Union, still had a vision of a better world.”

There’s Red Father, the “story of a Communist lawyer, from fighting for civil rights in the U.S. and against fascism in Spain”, At Home in Utopia, which highlights co-ops “where many of the residents were Communists or sympathetic to the communist movement”, and Pete Seeger’s Legacy which, it emphasizes, includes “a sizable segment on Seeger’s communism”.

A theatrical production in Baltimore states, “Our great achievement in the production was discovering how we could make a show about capital “C” Communism and still have it feel like something Michael Bay or Disney might create.”

You don’t have to be Roy Cohn to spot the agenda here.

There was a show at the Museum of the City of New York, a frequent Puffin venue, celebrating the Communists of the Lincoln Brigade which featured a can belonging to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg better known as the Atom Bomb traitors.

The New York Times noted that, “Perry Rosenstein, the president of the Puffin Foundation, the main sponsor of the exhibition, writes of these fighters: ‘They represented the best of our country and the best of our conscience.’”

“Did they?” The New York Times‘ art critic asked skeptically. You know you’ve gone too far when it’s the Times that has to slam on the brakes by quoting Ronald Radosh and George Orwell.

Until recently, the Puffin Foundation, and its affinity for all things red, had, unlike its namesake bird, flown under the radar of most people. But then the Puffin Foundation decided to revive a Communist rag that had been boycotted for praising the rape and murder of Jews.

Jewish Currents, a spinoff of the old Communist Party’s Yiddish paper, the Morgen Freiheit, had been all but abandoned in the vicious split over the Hitler-Stalin Pact, with most of its better writers fleeing to ‘The Right’ in the form of The Forward, a socialist paper, but which was opposed to the Bolsheviks, to reject ‘Communazism’.

At least it was until the Puffin Foundation decided to revive it with Peter Beinart, a longtime anti-Israel activist, at the center of the enterprise. While most of the coverage has focused on Beinart’s use of Jewish Currents to continue his old war against Israel, less attention has been paid to the paper’s old Communist roots.

Or its support for the murder of Jews.

When the old Freiheit had endorsed the Hebron Massacre of Jewish men, women, and children, with the headline, “The Arab Uprising is Spreading – Zionist Fascists Have Provoked the Arab Uprising”, Jewish communities burned copies of the paper.

Newspaper vendors, back then often Jewish, refused to sell the paper. Advertisers were forced to boycott it. When the Freiheit endorsed the Hitler-Stalin Pact, its remaining writers were taunted as “Communazis” and greeted with chants of, “Heil Hitler”.

But the Puffin Foundation decided to fund a reboot of the antisemitic Communist rag under a non-profit, the Association for the Promotion of Jewish Secularism. Jacob Plitman, a former deputy director of the anti-Israel campus hate group J Street U, headed the reboot. Beinart, a longtime anti-Israel activist, became its marquee name, and Bernie Sanders, an old friend of all things red and antisemitic, contributed an editorial about antisemitism.

Jewish Currents was recreated to be an incubator for the murderous leftist hatred of Jewish life, religious community, and nationhood that killed countless Jews under Soviet Communism. A leading writer at Currents, and the secretary of its parent foundation, the Association for Promotion of Jewish Secularism, is Naomi Dann, a founder of one of the most antisemitic chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine in the country, and a media program manager at Jewish Voice for Peace, which sponsored talks by a bigot who claimed Jews drink blood.

And the same story repeated itself again as Jewish Currents reacted to the mass murder of Jews on Oct 7 by falsely accusing Israel of genocide, complaining on the first anniversary of the Islamic massacres that Israel was plotting “to spread the trauma to the diaspora like a virus, creating an identification with the Israeli victim”.

Arielle Angel, JC’s editor, who wrote those words, also told a Hamas apologist, “Let’s accept the reality you lay out in your writing: that Hamas is basically the only force on the ground leading the resistance against Israeli oppression. And that in Israel’s failure to negotiate, the kind of violence we saw on October 7th is an inevitability.”

While the Association for the Promotion of Jewish Secularism has received funding from the Soros network, its allied Nathan Cummings organization, the New Israel Fund and various Jewish federations, including the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, the majority of the funding for the hate group still comes from Puffin.

Jewish Currents promotes BDS, attacks the Jewish State, and promises to expose Jewish power. Pieces at the hate paper take up the old Freitheit banner by accusing Jews of fascism and Nazism. Editor David Klion, formerly of Al Jazeera America, funded by a state sponsor of Hamas, which was sued over its antisemitism, recently tweeted, “At @JewishCurrents, we are launching a dedicated investigative reporting fund to do hold (sic) Jewish institutional power to account.”

Stalin would have been proud.