Identity politics is about perpetual division. Its goal is not to unite, but to find new ways to break down groups, turning former allies into enemies.


	Here's California <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/08/10/california-descendants-slavery-data-disaggregation">dividing black people</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		California has become the first in the nation to require state agencies to include a separate category for descendants of enslaved people in its collection of employee data.

	
		Why it matters:&nbsp;Advocates say the data disaggregation will help identify and address long-held inequities within black communities. Many descendants see it as a model for other states — and the federal government —&nbsp;to follow.
</blockquote>


	An obvious point is that many of the country's highest black officials are the children of African immigrants or visitors, including Obama and Kamala Harris.&nbsp;

<blockquote>
	
		A&nbsp;2016 study&nbsp;found that in Los Angeles, the median net worth for a black descendant of enslaved people is $4,000 compared to $72,000 for a recent immigrant from the African continent.
</blockquote>


	Also obviously true. And it makes a certain amount of sense to focus affirmative action benefits on American black people rather than African immigrants. But the upshot is that this pushes further subdivisions into identity politics.

<blockquote>
	
		Organizers took a page out of Asian American advocates' book after seeing their successful effort to push the state to&nbsp;break down different ethnic groups&nbsp;in health data collection.
</blockquote>


	If you thought American identity politics wasn't divisive enough, we'll start creating black ethnic groups to build new models of privilege and oppression within the black community.

<blockquote>
	
		No one is denying that back people&nbsp;at large are marginalized in America, said Chris Lodgson, lead organizer of the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California. But the kind of historical oppression he faces as a descendant has different consequences than the inequities more recent immigrants face, he added.

	
		"One of the things that is core to any group's existence is their identity," Lodgson noted. "When we use these big broad categories called black or African American, not only do we hide the differences between the different groups ... [it also] prevents us from even being able to do anything about any of those differences."
</blockquote>


	What the Axios story doesn't mention is that the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California is all about ":reparations" and this paves the way for deciding who gets them and who doesn't.


	Sorry, Kamala.

Identity Politics Now Pits Black People Against... Other Black People

Identity politics is about perpetual division. Its goal is not to unite, but to find new ways to break down groups, turning former allies into enemies.

Identity Politics Now Pits Black People Against... Other Black People

Here's <a href="https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/08/fbi-delivers-subpoenas-to-several-pa-republican-lawmakers-sources-say.html">some more</a> "election fortification".

<blockquote>
	
		Federal investigators delivered subpoenas or paid visits to several House and Senate Republican offices in the Pennsylvania Capitol on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to multiple sources.

	
		At least some of the individuals receiving subpoenas were told they were not targets of an investigation, according to at least six sources reached by PennLive, but that they may have information of interest to the FBI. All of the sources had been briefed on the investigative moves in some way, but demanded anonymity in order to discuss them.

	
		The information being requested centered around U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., and the effort to seek alternate electors as part of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to remain in office after the 2020 election, several sources said.
</blockquote>


	Criminalizing election strategies is about elections.


	Was the FBI actually looking for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago? I'd bet that they were looking for materials related to the electors stuff which is the current bugaboo of the Biden administration, its legal operatives, congressional investigators and the rest of the gang.


	The pattern isn't hard to spot and the timing is painfully obvious.


	A political investigation, as I wrote yesterday, is always about politics and elections.&nbsp;


	This is about the 2024 election. Biden and his allies know they can't win it at the ballot box. They're using the FBI to criminalize political opposition again.

FBI Targets PA Republicans Because This Is About the 2024 Election

Here's some more "election fortification".


	
		Federal investigators delivered subpoenas or paid visits to several House and Senate Republican offices in

FBI Targets PA Republicans Because This Is About the 2024 Election

The big question about the legal legitimacy of this move comes down to this.


	As Alan Dershowitz <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/08/mar-lago-documents-center-fbi-raid-had-already-daniel-greenfield/">had pointed ou</a>t,&nbsp;"Searches and seizures should only be used when subpoenas are inappropriate because of the risk of evidence destruction."


	The feds had already gone in and asked Trump's people to secure the room. A padlock was put on. The feds didn't think it was secure enough.&nbsp;


	In June, they retrieved documents <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/11/politics/mar-a-lago-search-subpoena-latest/">using a subpoena</a>.&nbsp;

<blockquote>
	
		The FBI&nbsp;search at Mar-a-Lago this week&nbsp;came months after federal investigators served an earlier grand jury subpoena and took away sensitive national security documents from former President Donald Trump’s property during a June meeting, people familiar with the matter tell CNN.

	
		Investigators executed Monday’s search in part because they had developed evidence, including from at least one witness, that there were potentially classified documents still remaining at the Palm Beach, Florida, property months after the National Archives arranged for&nbsp;the retrieval of 15 boxes of documents&nbsp;that included classified information in January of this year, a person briefed on the matter said.

	
		Authorities also believed the documents remaining at Mar-a-Lago had national security implications, CNN reported earlier this week.
</blockquote>


	So why not go through the&nbsp;subpoena process? If nothing else it would have provided a veneer of legitimacy.&nbsp;


	CNN claims that negotiations turned "confrontational". So what? Get s subpoena. But that's the same reason the search warrant is being kept secret. Biden's DOJ specifically did not want to list what they were after in order to freely conduct a fishing expedition.


	Now I suspect this will be backed up by some sort of informant who will claim that the feds couldn't go through proper channels because of some sort of threat to the documents which had sat at Mar-a-Lago for years without being harmed. And the informant will likely be of the same caliber we've seen thus far.


	The FBI is being used to conduct raids of Trump and of Republicans. That's not a coincidence. It's not about the documents, it's about the election.

Feds Used a Subpoena to Remove Docs in June. Why Couldn't They Do It Again?

The big question about the legal legitimacy of this move comes down to this.


	As Alan Dershowitz had pointed out,&nbsp;"Searches and seizures should only

Feds Used a Subpoena to Remove Docs in June. Why Couldn't They Do It Again?

Attorney General Merrick Garland was asked twice by reporters about the Mar-a-Lago raid. And twice he refused to answer.&nbsp;


	This Newsweek story, supposedly from an inside source,<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-informer-told-fbi-what-docs-trump-was-hiding-where-1732283"> claims that</a> Garland didn't specifically approve the raid.

<blockquote>
	
		The senior Justice Department source says that Garland was regularly briefed on the Records Act investigation, and that he knew about the grand jury and what material federal prosecutors were seeking. He insists, though, that Garland had no prior knowledge of the date and time of the specific raid, nor was he asked to approve it. "I know it's hard for people to believe," says the official, "but this was a matter for the U.S. Attorney and the FBI."
</blockquote>


	The language here is ambiguous. It seems implausible that Garland would not have okayed such a move and while he might have avoided knowing about the timing, it's implausible that he wouldn't have signed off on the tactic itself.


	Garland keeps dodging accountability even while the media goes back and forth on whether the DOJ is being "politicized".&nbsp;


	Considering that the Garland regime just launched an effort to lynch the police officers who shot back at Breonna Taylor's drug dealer boyfriend, and insisted on talking about that rather than his decision to raid a former president in pursuit of his administration's political goals, there's really little to no ambiguity here.


	Garland's DOJ has always been politicized. But what Democrat DOJ hasn't been? The corruption of Janet Reno's DOJ paled before Eric Holder's crimes. Garland is a pale apparatchik whose job is following in their footsteps.&nbsp;

Garland Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Trump Raid

Attorney General Merrick Garland was asked twice by reporters about the Mar-a-Lago raid. And twice he refused to answer.&nbsp;


	This Newsweek story,

Garland Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Trump Raid

Blaming the FBI for the latest instances of DOJ Democrats weaponizing the system to criminalize political opposition ignores the forest for the trees.


	I know that "eliminate the FBI" is a popular take, but whatever would replace it would simply serve the same function because the problem is the federal government itself.


	There's a much better argument for eliminating the Justice Department than there is for getting rid of the FBI. Dumping the DOJ would get rid of its most pernicious civil rights component which is being aggressively used to rig elections, suppress political dissent and lynch police officers.


	But the forest here is the federal government.


	We saw in Trump's first term how thoroughly the administrative state has been corrupted when federal bureaucrats openly coordinated as members of a "resistance".


	What's really at issue here is the infrastructure of a career bureaucracy that tilts strongly leftward and wields far more power than voters or elected officials do. What people dislike about the FBI, the careerists pushing political agendas while ignoring any limits on their authority, is the entire federal government.


	That's why any national rebuilding agenda can't be separated from a small government agenda despite moves by some on the right to embrace a vision of a big government that serves them.


	What we have is a weak political system and a strong federal government. The two tend to go together. Certainly in the latter stages. If we want elections to count, we need a smaller and weaker federal government.&nbsp;


	Until we're ready to make that our agenda, the administrative state is going to rule. And it doesn't matter which alphabet soup agency, bureau or organization it's operating under the name of.


	You want an ambitious agenda? Start by eliminating the DOJ, not the FBI.

Don't Eliminate the FBI, Eliminate the DOJ

Blaming the FBI for the latest instances of DOJ Democrats weaponizing the system to criminalize political opposition ignores the forest for the trees.


	I

This is an old problem with a critical <a href="https://jewishjournal.com/news/337740/complaint-alleges-stanfords-diversity-program-has-advanced-anti-semitic-tropes/">new urgency </a>in the age of critical race theory.


	Jews may be the target of a disproportionate amount of hate crimes, but they're not an official minority. As critical race theory rolls out in organizations, people are pressured into joining segregated groupings. Official minorities go to minority Oppressed Victim caucuses, while designated white people go to the White People are Evil Oppressors and Must Apologize&nbsp;Every Day for Their Existence caucuses.


	And that means the descendants of Holocaust survivors being told they're guilty of white supremacy.


	That's how <a href="https://www.jweekly.com/2021/06/15/stanford-therapists-allege-hostile-climate-for-jews-in-the-workplace/">things went</a> <a href="https://www.jweekly.com/2021/06/15/stanford-therapists-allege-hostile-climate-for-jews-in-the-workplace/">over at Stanford</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Dr. Ronald Albucher, a psychiatrist and associate professor in the medical school, and&nbsp;Sheila Levin, a therapist specializing in eating disorders, describe being pressed into joining a “whiteness” affinity group by staffers with the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program, being told they were “privileged,” and seeing antisemitic incidents downplayed.

	
		The university responded inadequately to their concerns, made over the course of a year, Albucher and Levin say, thereby fostering a “hostile and unwelcoming environment” for Jewish employees working for Stanford’s Counseling and Psychological Services office (CAPS).
</blockquote>


	The justice of their case is pretty clear whether it will lead to any meaningful response in the era of critical race theory and under the Biden regime is another matter altogether.

<blockquote>
	
		The trouble began in November 2019, Albucher and Levin say, when CAPS employees were asked to join weekly seminars run by the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program within the clinic, formed earlier that year.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	The seminars predictably began with Robin DiAngelo and concluded with segregated groups.

<blockquote>
	
		Before their first meeting, CAPS staff were asked to read “White Fragility,” the 2018 New York Times bestseller by Robin DiAngelo. Albucher said the assignment did not appeal to him as an introduction to DEI training because it is deeply pessimistic about race relations in the U.S., and it argues that all white people are fragile on race issues, no matter what.

	
		When he expressed that view, according to the complaint, “several CAPS co-workers verbally harassed and intimidated” him.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	That's how struggle sessions begin.

<blockquote>
	
		To discuss “White Fragility,” the complaint says, DEI members split up CAPS staff by race, facilitating “space for white staff” to “process [their] reaction” to it. The group was later named the “Whiteness Accountability group/book club.”
</blockquote>


	First you join a 'white' group, then the group is defined as guilty and forced to engage in accountability.

<blockquote>
	
		“No affinity group was ever created for members of Jewish ancestral identity,” it continues. “As a result, there was no ‘space’ in the DEI program for Dr. Albucher and Ms. Levin to safely express their lived Jewish experience.”

	
		Albucher said he was deeply uncomfortable with the discussion groups reserved for white people and refused to join them, although he continued to attend DEI seminars.

	
		“As a gay Jewish man, I have have my own perceptions on white supremacy, and the history of this country,” he said. “My family has had to contend with white supremacy,” he said, adding that he has family members who died in the Holocaust.

	
		Levin also did not want to join the whites-only group, telling a DEI member that “as a Jewish person, she does not feel an affinity with white identity,” according to the complaint. She said the individual responded that “this was the direction the clinic was going” and she needed to participate if she “wanted to be part of a collegial environment.”
</blockquote>


	You must join our segregated group if you want to work&nbsp;on campus. Critical race theory quickly morphed into straightforward antisemitism.

<blockquote>
	
		DEI committee members “justified the omission of anti-Semitism,” the complaint says, “by insisting that unlike other minority groups, Jews can hide behind their white identity.” During the meeting, Albucher and Levin say they were “subjected to anti-Jewish stereotypes,” such as that Jews are “wealthy and powerful business owners.”

	
		On May 30, 2020, Levin emailed a DEI leader asking how she could support the program. According to the complaint, the person responded that “as a Jewish, White cis woman you have immense power and privilege. It is important to understand how you are a part of the systemic racism and oppression that takes place in this country.”

	
		On June 24, 2020, the complaint alleges that during a seminar that Levin attended, participants “lamented that the group was comprised of privileged people,” specifically “white, pass for white and Jewish people.”
</blockquote>


	There was also plenty of intersectionality between antisemitism and anti-Israel.

<blockquote>
	
		On Jan. 8 of this year, the complaint alleges, Levin was again subjected to a hostile environment when, during a seminar for psychology students – prospective CAPS interns – a DEI program facilitator said the program would “explore how Jews are connected to white supremacy and will address anti-Semitism.” Another DEI representative said she “takes an anti-Zionist approach to social justice.”
</blockquote>


	The kicker goes well beyond what's happening here. These tactics create paradigms that affect people far beyond those at Stanford.

<blockquote>
	
		Albucher said it concerned him that it appeared politics were being infused into health care.

	
		“How are they going to work clinically with Jewish students? We need to be improving our skills within the mental health field,” he said. “It’s clear these people will put politics ahead of science.”
</blockquote>


	That's the whole point.

Critical Race Theory at Stanford Leads to Antisemitism Complaint From Jewish Faculty

This is an old problem with a critical new urgency in the age of critical race theory.


	Jews may be the target of a disproportionate amount of hate crimes

Critical Race Theory at Stanford Leads to Antisemitism Complaint From Jewish Faculty

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


	A few years ago the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) was demanding government regulations that would force internet providers to carry the content of members like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Now it's suing Florida to fight regulations that would force some of those same members to carry the content of ordinary Americans.


	Net Neutrality, or forcing cable and DSL companies to carry all content without picking and choosing, "helps preserve free speech, access to information — and democracy," former CCIA boss Ed Black argued two years ago.


	But when Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law barring Big Tech monopolies from deplatforming candidates for public office and journalists, and forcing Big Tech to adopt clear and consistent standards for how they treat users, including deplatforming, as is the norm in every other industry, the CCIA went to war against free speech, access to information -- and democracy.


	Governor DeSantis says that Big Tech is suppressing free speech. Big Tech argues that DeSantis is taking away its free speech which it defines as censoring people’s speech.


	“We are bringing this suit to safeguard the industry’s free speech," current CCIA boss Matt Schruers claimed. “A digital service that declines to host harmful content is exercising its own First Amendment rights.”


	Does Facebook have free speech? And can speech consist of denying service to conservatives? Should Mark Zuckerberg’s speech nullify the speech of millions of Americans?


	In 1948, the first program ran on a computer. It was also the year that George Orwell finished 1984 with its infamous slogan, “Freedom is Slavery” and “Slavery is Freedom.” Big Tech’s version of it is, “Free Speech is Censorship” and “Censorship is Free Speech.”


	When Big Tech censors millions of Americans, it’s engaging in free speech. And when those Americans rise up and fight back against their illegal monopolies, that’s censorship.


	But Big Tech already dismantled all the arguments it’s putting forward with Net Neutrality.


	If a digital service picking and choosing its content is a First Amendment right, then why don’t cable companies have the same right to bar access to the harmful content on Twitter?


	A trade association whose members include Twitter and Facebook insists they have a right to ban the President of the United States and any conservatives because that’s free speech, but that AT&amp;T or Comcast don’t have the right to ban access to Twitter because of free speech.


	If censorship is also free speech then that cuts both ways. Otherwise it’s free speech for me, but not for thee, which is exactly the argument that Big Tech’s lobbies and front groups are making.


	Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter want to force internet service providers to have no choice about carrying them, but they want to pick and choose whose speech they carry. And yet Google, Amazon, and Facebook have much broader monopolistic powers than internet service providers. The cable provider market has too little choice, but it’s incredibly diverse compared to an e-ecosystem with Google, whose search engine controls 80% of the market, Facebook, which controls 80% of the social media market, and Amazon’s massive ebook dominance.


	If any aspect of the ‘net’ needs more neutrality, it’s the platforms, not the providers.


	If Comcast’s control of 40% of the broadband market gives it so much power that it can’t be allowed to pick and choose what content it carries, what about Facebook’s 80% control?


	And if Comcast potentially deciding not to carry Twitter is an assault on “free speech, access to information — and democracy”, then why isn’t Twitter’s decision not to carry President Trump and other conservatives an assault on “free speech, access to information — and democracy”?


	Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the Big Tech crew want to argue that denying access to platforms is an attack on free speech, but that platforms denying access to users isn’t.


	Big Tech’s position is that only its monopolies have free speech and they should use that speech to deny everyone else free speech. That’s a surreal mockery of the First Amendment.


	Big Tech’s trade group is relying on the same compelled speech argument that Christian bakers have used to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding. But there’s a multitude of bakeries, most of whom will be happy to bake a cake for anything if you pay them enough.


	How many Facebooks and Googles are there?


	Christian bakers and photographers argued that they’re artists and taking part in a gay wedding would compel their speech. Are Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey artists? Are Facebook and Twitter their artistic creations that would be spoiled by allowing conservative speech?


	And yet the same media that ridiculed the idea that a Christian baker should be allowed to pick and choose which cakes he bakes is insisting that telling a social media monopoly not to censor candidates for public office is a violation of Zuckerberg and Dorsey’s free speech rights.


	But if the speech on Facebook and Twitter is the speech of these billionaires, then they can be held accountable for it. If it’s not their speech, then free speech isn’t an issue. The CCIA is in the absurd position of arguing that speech on platforms is and isn’t really theirs speech. And that platforms express their speech by taking away the ability of others to speak.


	Call it the No Free Speech version of the First Amendment.


	If Big Tech speaks by eliminating the speech of others, then maybe we would be better off without this novel black hole theory of speech on whose basis it’s going to war against Florida.


	The CCIA was advocating for the so-called “Save the Internet Act” to impose Net Neutrality. But the internet appears to be in no particular danger from the lack of Net Neutrality. Despite all the alarmism about the end of the internet and even death threats (one activist was sentenced for threatening to kill the family of Trump’s FCC Chairman Ajit Pai), little has actually changed.


	That’s not the case with Big Tech censorship which silenced millions of people from POTUS on down, influenced the outcome of a national election, and defined the national debate. Net Neutrality advocates could not point to any measurable harm caused to them, but opponents of Big Tech censorship can easily point to the harm being done to them and to the United States.


	Florida is bringing real Net Neutrality to the table. Unlike Net Neutrality, which was an effort by platforms to enlist the government and dumber lefty internet users into their war against broadband providers, real Net Neutrality begins with monopolistic platforms not providers.


	“The internet has been historically neutral. After decades of legal battles by those who want to either make money from discrimination or look the other way, we are glad to see legislation to protect consumers’ and businesses’ access to the open internet," the CCIA argued a mere two years ago in defense of Net Neutrality and the “Save the Internet Act”.


	Unfortunately the internet hasn’t been neutral. It’s dominated by a speech cartel which deploys the rhetoric of an open internet and free speech when it serves its business interests, but is fighting tooth and nail when Governor DeSantis and Florida asked Big Tech to be neutral.


	Conservatives looked the other way while Big Tech consolidated its control over the internet. They’ve gotten tired of looking the other way, but Big Tech is just as eager to gaslight them, to hire Republican lobbyists to argue that speech is censorship and censorship is speech.


	We need a real Net Neutrality and a real Save the Internet Act.


	The CCIA has unintentionally made some great points over the years. Americans paid for the internet, from the earliest networks down to Google. We put our economy and our political system on the internet. Now Big Tech monopolies are consuming our wealth and our freedom.


	Americans deserve an open and neutral internet. Consumers and businesses need access to an open internet, but so do elected officials, journalists, and anyone who cares about the way that our country is run and has an opinion about government, culture, and education.


	Big Tech engaged in blatant election rigging and voter suppression in the 2020 election. And it’s marginalizing and suppressing the views of half the country from the marketplace of ideas.


	Its front group laughably claims that it’s suppressing half the country in the name of free speech.


	A true net neutrality applied to the CCIA’s Big Tech bosses would "preserve free speech, access to information — and democracy." Florida’s move is a good first step in the war to take back free speech on the internet and force platforms to host political speech in an open and neutral way.


	Big Tech claims that it loves free speech. Governor DeSantis and Florida are showing what real free speech looks like.

Big Tech Fights Florida Over Free Speech

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic

[Order David Horowitz's new book: <a href="https://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-enemy-within-how-a-totalitarian-movement-is-destroying-america">The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America</a>.] 
	 
	Trump derangement is a crippling mental disorder. It turns otherwise capable minds into Munchausen fabulators, so detached from reality that it’s hard to know what world they think they’re in. It leads to accusations like this: “[Trump was] AWOL during the country’s greatest health crisis in a century.”


	You can say many things about Donald Trump, and many negative things if you wish, but to call a man AWOL who declared a national health emergency the day after the World Health Organization did the same, banned travel from China, which was the viral source, immediately thereafter, withstood Democrat attacks calling him a racist, a xenophobe and hysteric for this life-saving move; to call a man who supplied record numbers of ventilators, masks and other health paraphernalia that the Obama-Biden White House had depleted and never replaced, who held daily public briefings on the virus with the heads of the CDC, and who performed a political miracle in getting vaccines approved and distributed in record time – to call this man AWOL during the pandemic is tantamount to calling the earth flat and the sky purple. 
	 
	Yet ignoring Trump’s alleged absence during the pandemic, while joining his “cult,” is exactly the accusation leveled at me in a <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/162227/david-horowitz-profile-trump-propagandist-radical-leftist">New Republic cover story</a> by Ron Radosh and Sol Stern, who have called their attack, “Our Friend the Trump Propagandist.”


	In their article, I am accused of writing three mindless books about Trump as I marched into the MAGA cult. Actually, I wrote two books – both of which were NY Times best sellers and neither of which the authors seem to have read. If they had, they would certainly have engaged a specific argument or two in order to make their accusation credible. How exactly is what I have written propaganda and not analysis? Instead, they are appalled by my failure to embrace the Democrat lie that Trump was AWOL during the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, they are oblivious as to their own hypocrisy in giving the anti-Trump president, Joe Biden, a pass for blowing up the border in his first week in office, and allowing an estimated 100,000 coronavirus carriers to flood the country this year and infect his fellow Americans. Pompous self-righteousness based on non-existent “facts” is unfortunately what one has come to expect from the left.


	The third and newest book of mine referred to is The Enemy Within: How A Totalitarian Movement Is Destroying America, which is not really about Trump. It’s about the Democrat Party and the totalitarian movement that has swallowed it and made it a threat to our country. Trump is a figure in only three of the twelve chapters: as a voice for law and order during the Black Lives Matter insurrections, and as a target of the Democrat hate attempting to blame him for every death resulting from the virus. He also appears in a brief “Coda” to the book that deals with the 2020 election and the January 6 attempt to stiffen the spines of what Trump called “weak Republicans” so they would challenge the result. Democrat fantasists have condemned this protest as an act of treason, of which anyone who questions the election result is also guilty.


	And that is my crime, according to Radosh and Stern: “We were once political comrades. But by lying about the election, our old friend has become a danger to American democracy.”&nbsp;In fact, if either of them had read The Enemy Within, they would have seen that my book and political agenda are quite the opposite: a systematic defense of America’s constitutional framework against the attacks on its principles and institutions by their political friends.


	The accusation that dissent is dangerous and must be suppressed mimics the fascist voice of the Democrat Party in its campaign to criminalize anyone who questions the 2020 election. Calling the break-in to the Capitol “an armed insurrection,” when there were no arms and no insurrections, ordering 25,000 troops to the Capitol to deal with a non-existent threat, calling Republicans “enemies of the state” (Pelosi), authorizing witch-hunts of (right wing) “extremists” in the military, the Capitol police and the Department of Homeland Security, seeking the expulsion of Senators Hawley and Cruz and the impeachment of the president for questioning the legitimacy of the electors are of a piece with Radosh and Stern’s malicious charge against me. The aim is to criminalize dissent and make it a high crime in the process.


	The reality of course is that Democrats themselves have challenged the legitimacy of every Republican presidential victory this century, including the election of Trump, which they have never accepted. Their “resistance” has caused great damage to the republic, which they prefer not to notice.


	In fact, no one can say with authority that the 2020 election was or was not decided by fraud. Thanks to concerted efforts by Democrats across the country and the timidity of “weak Republicans,” virtually no audits of the actual voting process were conducted. Nor did I myself claim in The Enemy Within that the election was fraudulent.


	What I did suggest was that there was ample evidence of irregularities and illegalities sufficient to question the result: “The prima facie case that there were problems with the results is overwhelming.&nbsp; To believe that fraud did not take place on a significant scale, as the anti-Trump political universe claimed, one would have to believe that while Trump outperformed every incumbent president before him [increasing his total by 10 million votes] and won 94 percent of the Republican vote,” he lost (by .027% of the vote) to the lackluster Alzheimer’s case who had finished fourth in the Iowa Democrat primary, fifth in New Hampshire and a distant second in Nevada, campaigned from his basement, drew tiny crowds on the rare occasions that he ventured out, and was called a racist and a rapist by his own running mate. One would have to believe that despite all this, Biden received 16 million more votes than Obama at his peak.


	Buoyed by their accusation that - along with 75 million other Americans - I am a Trump sycophant supporting a man whom no one in his right mind, and certainly no one who cared about American democracy could stomach, Radosh and Stern proceed to create a caricature of me as a right-wing bully and ideological bigot. &nbsp;According to them, I used to invite people who disagreed with me to my events but in my Trump-inspired “drift away from heterodoxy toward party-line orthodoxy,” I stopped the practice. As it happens at the last event I hosted before the pandemic, my keynote banquet speaker was Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and against Trump. During the question period, three members of the audience, including one of my board members attacked Dershowitz passionately for his pro-choice position on abortion. I hurried up to the podium, went to Dershowitz’s side, and put my arm around him and scolded them, reminding everyone that Alan was our guest. I did this, even though I disagree with him on the abortion issue.


	Typical of leftists who have no self-awareness, Radosh and Stern accuse me of being belligerent and aggressive, as though Trump and I invented this political style; as though it is conservatives like us who have declared war on Democrats and not the other way around. This requires a political amnesia that is truly impressive. The left was calling the mild George Bush “Hitler” when Trump was still a resort builder, and accusing him of treason. They accused him of lying America into war in Iraq, which is treason, when it was impossible for him to do so since the Democrats – who authorized the war - sat on the Intel committees and had the same access to intelligence about weapons of mass destruction as the White House did.


	I am further held guilty of taking the “Mike Tyson approach to American politics” with the implication that I and like-minded conservatives are responsible for the nastiness that has infected political discourse. “In his 2017 book, Big Agenda, he proposed that Republicans take lessons in electoral strategy from the ex-heavyweight champ, who had famously observed that ‘everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.’ In order to win the struggle for America’s future, Horowitz declared, conservatives ‘must begin every confrontation by punching progressives in the mouth.’”


	Here’s the crucial part of the equation their account leaves out: Like Trump’s political style, mine is reactive. We are counter-punchers. When we go on offense, it is virtually without exception a counter-attack. I have written three books on political strategy, the first published in 1999, long before Trump. There are many facets to a successful political strategy. One of my chapters is called “Compassion is a Virtue,” another: “Go for the Heart.” Radosh and Stern ignore these complications. The point of my Tyson quote was that Democrats have many punches in the mouth for Republicans, and they use them all the time, while Republicans have virtually none with which to respond.


	Democrats call Republicans “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” “enemies of the state,” “insurrectionists,” “white supremacists,” “terrorists” and “extremists.” What do Republicans call Democrats? “Liberals”(!), and more recently, “Radical Liberals.” This is obviously a losing battle for Republicans. So, for more than twenty years, I have advised Republicans to call Democrats what they are: “racists” “oppressors of blacks and other inner-city minorities,” and – more recently - “fascists.” This is not advice I gave because of Donald Trump. It is the reason I am a supporter of Donald Trump. Because he fights back.


	One would think that two writers who have admired my work in the past would want to read the books I have written specifically about Trump, and assess my responses to the accusations that have been made against him and his achievements. Instead Radosh and Stern ignore – and probably haven’t read – any of the arguments I have made in Trump’s defense. Worse, they have constructed a caricature of my present views and activities and – far worse – have advised federal authorities to de-platform me and suppress the very ideas they failed to examine. 
	 
	Before addressing this assault, let me interject something about “old friends.” I met Ron Radosh at a Communist youth club meeting when he was 14 and I was 12. We were friends for 67 years, and went through the political wars, which he and Stern now disparage, together. We remained friends and political allies through our transition from the anti-American left to the conservative right, until our differences over Trump’s election created a wedge between us as Radosh returned to the left. We struggled over the next years to salvage our friendship which we did not want to sacrifice to our political differences. This is a struggle shared by family members and friends across the country who have been put at odds by the political schisms of these difficult times. Some months ago, I thought Ron and I had finally reached a point of agreement and resolve – to avoid personal attacks, emotional language and attempts to persuade the other to change his views. I now see I was wrong. 
	 
	I’m on Ron’s Facebook and Twitter lists so I usually get his posts; but a couple of months ago his feeds went silent. I began to worry that something might have happened to him. Ron is 84 years old, two years ahead of me. I began to worry whether he was ill. So I emailed him: “Haven’t seen a post by you in a while. Are you ok?” He emailed me back the same day, March 18: “No time for Facebook or Twitter right now. I'm fine.” 
	 
	In fact, he had no time to post because he was busy slipping a knife between my ribs, attacking my character and even my income, misrepresenting who I am, and calling for a campaign to pressure the I.R.S. into investigating my Freedom Center with the goal of stopping me from expressing my political opinions. It was important to silence me because I am an alleged threat to American democracy.


	“One of the laugh lines in The Enemy Within is the outrage Horowitz directs against what he calls the liberal ‘tax-exempt advocacy culture,’ in which he includes the Southern Poverty Law Center … Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.” Some laugh line. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a notorious blacklist site that conflates neo-Nazis with conservatives like Dr. Ben Carson. It posts lists of “The Ten Most Dangerous Hate Mongers” and is so dishonest and corrupt that its scams have been exposed by liberal sites like Tablet Magazine and even far left ones like The Nation. Its mistreatment of black and female staff members became so scandalous recently that its founder Morris Dees had to leave in disgrace. I am on their hate list and was actually defended in 2018 by Radosh himself, when I was slandered by a group of leftists using SPLC misinformation. The creator of the SPLC lists, Mark Potok, is on record admitting that his goal is to “destroy” conservatives. I have written over a million easily available words that refute every slander Potok has made against me, yet the leftist media continues to cite them as “facts.” 
	 
	This hypocritical assault on my “laugh line,” however revealing, is a sideshow. The real agenda of Radosh and Stern is to mobilize the IRS to investigate me and deprive me of the resources to criticize and oppose the tyranny descending on us from Washington. Like a pair of commissar wannabes they issue a call to war: “Our old friend must be defeated on every political front on which he operates, a counter-offensive that should begin by investigating and exposing the Horowitz Center’s fundraising scams and the potential abuse of its tax-exempt status.” 
	 
	Blacklists and appeals to law enforcement to cripple and suppress a political opponent are the characteristics of a totalitarian mentality. So is erasing lifetime personal friendships over political differences.


	In democracies we resolve our disputes by arguments and elections. As it happens, like every effective conservative I am familiar with the harassments of the IRS, which was turned into a political weapon by the Obama administration. To defend ourselves against its attacks, my Freedom Center has assembled a team of top-tier tax lawyers, whom we consult often and listen to carefully. This keeps us honest, and protected. As it happens, we are not scammers, and have not abused our tax-exempt status. As it happens (and should be obvious) Radosh and Stern are not my friends, and I am left wondering if they ever were.

My Former Friends Have Joined the Fascists

[Order David Horowitz's new book: The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America.]
	
	Trump derangement is a crippling mental disorder.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


	The vulnerability of political freedom and popular sovereignty to tyranny has been a constant theme in political philosophy for 2500 years. It profoundly influenced the creators of the Constitution, an important purpose of which is to forestall the tyranny that destroys political freedom and citizen rule. In the writings of Classical philosophers and historians the Founders could see the blueprint for such a tyranny––one we have seen unfolding in the last few decades, and accelerating in the policies of the current administration.


	The Greek historian Polybius in the second century B.C. laid out how a democracy degenerates into tyranny:

<blockquote>
	
		So when [the rich] begin to hanker after office, and find that they cannot achieve it through their own efforts or on their merits, they begin to seduce and corrupt the people in every possible way, and thus ruin their estates. The result is that through their senseless craving for prominence they stimulate among the masses both an appetite for bribes and the habit of receiving them, and then the rule of democracy is transformed into government by violence and strong-arm methods. By this time the people have become accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and their prospects of winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors, and as soon as they find a leader who is sufficiently ambitious and daring . . . they introduce a regime based on violence.
</blockquote>


	Many of these preconditions already exist in our country. Since Roosevelt’s New Deal, ambitious politicians of both parties have “stimulate[d] among the masses both an appetite for bribes and the habit of receiving them.” We call them “entitlements” rather than “bribes,” funded not by violently seizing the property of the rich, but by annually redistributing $1.6 trillion of the wealth of the upper middle class and the rich through the federal income tax. Indeed, the top one percent of all earners pays 40% of income taxes. The modern update of ancient “bribes” also comprises massive borrowing and electronically printing money. These practices have created nearly $27 trillion in government debt, five trillion more than GDP. The tyrants of Polybius’ day redistributed the wealth of the rich; today we redistribute the future wealth of the young and unborn who will be stuck with the bill.


	And this largess will increase dramatically if the current administration successfully passes into law several new <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/bidens-trillion-dollar-train-wreck/?utm_source=Sailthru&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=MJ_20210428&amp;utm_term=Jolt-Smart">mechanisms</a> for redistributing wealth:

<ul>
	<li>
		$1.9 trillion America Rescue Plan</li>
	<li>
		$2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan</li>
	<li>
		$1.8 trillion American Families Plan</li>
	<li>
		$1 trillion Green New Deal for Cities</li>
	<li>
		$180 billion Green New Deal for Public Housing</li>
	<li>
		$15 trillion over 15 years Thrive Act</li>
</ul>


	Most of this money will be spent on various transfers to voters, and subsidies to favored businesses and feckless state governments that run their own redistribution engines.


	As for “government by violence and strong-arm methods,” modern tyranny for decades has relied on de Tocqueville’s “soft despotism,” an insidious coercion through a regulatory regime that Tocqueville predicted, one which “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate.” All the money to be redistributed will come with a plethora of such intrusive regulations from the agencies managing it. These rules and regulations limit citizen freedom in numerous ways, from what they can do with their own property to how they run their own businesses, all accompanied by fines and fees that extract even more revenue.


	During Donald Trump’s presidency, however, we saw another form of “strong-arm methods.” The politicizing of the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ, along with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation–– agencies with coercive investigative powers backed by military-level lethal force–– produced the tyrannical bullying of several members of Trump’s administration, most egregiously General Michael Flynn. Meanwhile, old-fashioned physical violence and intimidation in the streets dogged Trump’s political rallies, and even followed Trump supporters to restaurants and other public venues.


	Just as Biden’s redistributive ambitions have gone far beyond what passes for “normal,” the violence in the streets last year exploded to levels not seen since the Sixties. Led by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, these “peaceful protestors” looted, burned, and vandalized cities across the country, the mayhem mysteriously abating in time for the election. Billions of dollars in property damage and scores of killed and wounded were the toll. Just the threat of such violence undoubtedly intimidated the judge and jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial. Why else wouldn’t the judge approve a change in venue, or sequester the jurors?


	Violence is now the trump card in daily politics and culture. Corporations have gone “woke,” sending millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter and promoting their “systemic racism” lie. City governments and public school districts must factor in the chance of violent protests in their policy decisions. Even worse, the principle of equality before the law, a bedrock of political freedom, has been abandoned for political favoritism, in part because authorities are wary of igniting violence. Derek Chauvin was convicted of two murder charges, decisions not even close to being beyond a reasonable doubt. But the unidentified DC cop who murdered a protestor at the Capitol on January 6––a woman veteran who was not threatening the officer’s, or anybody’s, life––has not even suffered professional sanction, let alone an indictment and trial.


	Violence for me, but not for thee.


	Worse yet, Antifa has openly said that their violence is a tool of intimidation in the pursuit of political goals. CrimetheInc., an Antifa ally, has bragged that the outcome of the Chauvin trial was due to the street violence. It goes on to make explicit this link between violence and political aims: “You put yourself in a weaker bargaining position by spelling out from the beginning the least it would take to appease you. It’s smarter to appear implacable: So you want to come to terms? Make us an offer. In the meantime, we’ll be here blocking the freeway and setting things on fire.” This tactic is exactly what Hitler instructed his Sudetenland Nazi stooge, Konrad Henlein, to do in negotiations with the Czech government in 1938: “We must always demand so much that we cannot be satisfied.” What “satisfied” the Nazis was the destruction of Czechoslovakia.


	What is disturbingly different from the Sixties, moreover, about last year’s violence is that the Democrat establishment has not just tolerated the violence, but often encouraged and promoted it––just as Representative Maxine Waters did during the Chauvin trial when she incited protestors to get “confrontational” if the wrong verdict was given. Apprehended rioters were rarely charged or tried, and police forces were ordered to stand down, or forbidden to use crowd-control tools. Many mayors seemed to embrace the philosophy of Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings, who during the riots in 2015 told the press, “We gave them [rioters] space to destroy.”


	As Daniel Henninger <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-art-of-the-non-deal-11619647864?mod=hp_opin_pos_1">suggests</a>, this tactical use of violence may be why the Biden administration has not even tried to make a deal by compromising with Republicans, despite the Democrats’ razor-thin margin in the House and Senate, or the lack of a popular mandate. Instead, the administration wants to bully Americans into accepting their policies:

<blockquote>
	
		Mr. Biden is no street anarchist, but the political “change” confronting Americans after more than a year living with Covid—constant antipolice protests, migrants streaming across the southern border, D.C. statehood, blowing up the legislative filibuster, packing the Supreme Court and some $6 trillion in new federal spending—is a lot of nonnegotiable bulldozer.
</blockquote>


	Finally, Polybius’ link of tyrannic ambition to mediocre politicians who “hanker after office, and find that they cannot achieve it through their own efforts or on their merits,” describes Biden to a T. Biden is a long-time senator with few legislative achievements he still will own, a vicious pit-bull on the Senate Judiciary Committee where he shamelessly demagogued Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, a plagiarizer and unseemly harasser of women, a two-time loser in his bid for the presidency, a fabulist and grifter who monetized the office of Vice President to enrich his family, and a lightweight so light that his own boss, Barack Obama, said, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.” Only a pandemic, disruptive lock-downs, and the Democrat primary threat of socialist Bernie Sanders––along with a probably fraudulent election, and a groveling media running interference–– could get such a meritless mediocrity into the Oval Office.


	If the Biden administration is successful at leveraging street-violence for political gain, the century-old progressive dream of transforming our Constitutional Republic into a tyrannical technocracy will be much closer to fulfillment, our country’s fisc much closer to bankruptcy, and our government much closer to a “regime based on violence.”


	On that dismal day, we won’t be able to say that we hadn’t been warned for 2500 years.

A Blueprint for Tyranny

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


	The vulnerability of political freedom and popular sovereignty to

Black Supremacy

[Order David Horowitz's new book: The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America.]


	When a white police officer in Ohio shot and

[Order David Horowitz's new book: <a href="https://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-enemy-within-how-a-totalitarian-movement-is-destroying-america">The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America</a>.]


	This article originally appeared in <a href="https://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia.com</a>.


	The national lynch mob has claimed another victim. Kim Potter a 26-year veteran of the Brooklyn Center police force with a stellar record of protecting the city’s residents has been arrested, assigned a $100,000 bail bond and charged with second-degree manslaughter. All in the absence of an investigation of the facts—in other words, without a scintilla of due process. But that is the essence of a lynching. First the verdict, then the trial. Or else. No justice, no peace.


	Because the lynch mob includes the corrupt media, even the circumstances of the shooting of Daunte Wright at a traffic stop have been suppressed. Daunte Wright was a violent criminal who resisted arrest because he had jumped a $100,000 bail for armed robbery and was facing significant jail time if he surrendered to police. His crime was particularly heinous, revealing a mentality that made him a menace to anyone in his path. He and a friend had attended a house party that went late. His female host invited them both to spend the night at her house. In the morning, Daunte Wright repaid her kindness by grabbing her by the throat, waving a gun in her face and demanding her cash, some $850. This is the man being portrayed as a victim of “white supremacy” by the lynch mob set on destroying the career and life of officer Kim Potter, and ultimately disarming the police.


	The Wright family has stepped up to provide the lynch mob with pictures of Wright looking innocent and benign with a small child on his lap, feeding the malicious narrative that innocent blacks are being slaughtered for the color of their skin. Who can blame them, since their reward for this service will be a multi-million dollar “settlement” arranged by the black racist mayor of Brooklyn Center who fired his black city manager for saying that Kim Potter deserved “due process,” perhaps the most basic right of Americans against the tyrannies of the state. The settlement will probably not be as large as that of the family of lifetime criminal George Floyd, who received $27 million, or the family of criminal accomplice Breonna Taylor, who received $12 million after her boyfriend shot a police officer and got her killed.


	Traffic stops are among the most dangerous encounters police may have with potentially violent criminals like Daunte Wright. Because a car can also be an arsenal of concealed weapons, an officer takes her life in her hands when attempting to make such an arrest. That’s why they order the occupants to show their hands at all times and step out of the vehicle, where they can be safely cuffed. The week before the Wright incident, a criminal arrested at a traffic stop had stepped out of his vehicle as though he were cooperating only to lunge back into it, retrieve a rifle and kill the officer. The video was shown all over the news.


	Kim Potter was aware of this incident and also of the warrant for Daunte Wright’s arrest for armed robbery and skipping bail. Having initially stepped out of the vehicle, Wright lunged back into it, triggering Officer Potter’s response. Shouting “taser, taser, taser,” Potter shot Wright with her firearm, which she had mistakenly grasped instead of her taser. Was she panicked and reacting rather than thinking? Probably. But if ever there were a justifiable homicide this was it. Or at least that’s what a fair investigation rather than a police state intervention—arrogating the roles of judge, jury and executioner to the mob—would determine.


	The lynch mob’s view of these events was expressed in a statement by its corporate wing—Ben &amp; Jerry’s Ice Cream—whose woke leftists explained that “The murder of Daunte Wright is rooted in white supremacy and results from the intentional criminalization of Black and Brown communities.” So white supremacists are responsible for making Daunte Wright a violent criminal. This is the kind of racist garbage spread by such celebrated figures as Ta-Nehesi Coates, a National Book Award winner and MacArthur Foundation “genius” whose highly praised book actually argues that whites are responsible for all black crimes.


	The Ben &amp; Jerry’s activists also made clear the practical goal of the lynch mob’s attacks on police officers like Kim Potter. “The system can’t be reformed. It has to be dismantled.” In other words, police forces as we have known them have to be destroyed. This is the voice of insurrection, encouraged by a seditious White House and Department of Justice whose Civil Rights Division head, Kristen Clarke, has herself supported the defunding of police and who ordered the indictment of Officer Potter.


	As it happens, on the same day that Kim Potter was arraigned, Kristen Clarke and the DOJ announced that there would be no charges filed against the Capitol Police officer who murdered 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt on January 6, and that his identity would be concealed. Ashli Babbitt was unarmed when she was shot and killed. Her murder was filmed by an Hispanic journalist. On the same day as this coverup was announced, the journalist was arrested for being present to film it.


	The January 6 mob did not set fire to the Capitol or kill anyone, or do anything worse than rabid anti-Semite and diehard Democrat Linda Sarsour did in organizing a mob to invade the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with the purpose of obstructing them. This resulted in hundreds of arrests throughout the hearings but no real jail time for the insurrectionist. By contrast, Nancy Pelosi, who controls the Capitol Police and authorized the protection of Ashli Babbitt’s murderer, has seen to it that demonstrators at the January 6 protest, who murdered no one, are still being held in jail without bail.


	This is the face of an American fascism. The suspension of due process, the suppression of dissident voices, the support for vigilante mobs bent on dismantling the democratic system itself. And the leaders of this fascism are in the White House and running the Department of Justice itself. 
	 
	David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of the newly published book,&nbsp;<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://secure.anedot.com/david-horowitz-freedom-center/theenemywithinbook&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1618426106699000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFFYpDgYPvov8qvdLHG_lH5vxX4ag" href="https://secure.anedot.com/david-horowitz-freedom-center/theenemywithinbook">The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement Is Destroying America</a>.

American Fascism

[Order David Horowitz's new book: The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America.]


	This article originally appeared in PJMedia.com

The relentless de-platforming of conservatives in general and of the David Horowitz Freedom Center specifically, continues.


	On March 3rd the Editors at FrontPage received an email from Disqus, the networked community platform used by hundreds of thousands of sites all over the web.&nbsp; The statement reads:

<blockquote>
	
		It has come to our attention that your site is included in the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map">Hate Groups listed</a> on&nbsp;the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map:

	
		As fostering Hate is a violation of the Disqus Terms of Service and Basic Rules, we can no longer support your site on the Disqus network. Disqus will be removed from your site on March 17th, to allow time for transition and a comment export. If you will need a manual export, please let us know before the removal date.
</blockquote>


	That was it.&nbsp; As of today, Disqus is de-platforming us.&nbsp; They have refused to respond to inquiries seeking further explanation. Disqus has taken on faith the libelous accusations of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/southern-poverty-law-center-splc/">widely-discredited</a>, partisan group that frequently characterizes mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups.”


	As loyal and dedicated readers of FrontPageMag.com, you know how vital the comments section is to a website.&nbsp; It engages the readers, provides a platform for lively debate and discussion, and allows for a community of like-minded readers to converse with each other.&nbsp; Comments are critical to the lifeblood of a website that engages in opinion and discussion.


	Rest assured, we will still have comments flowing soon. We are switching to a new service and while the look and feel will be a little different, we ask for your patience in getting used to the new section.


	Meanwhile, we must remain vigilant and continue to fight the egregious leftist cancel culture that has overtaken our country.&nbsp; This is not our first battle in this war. In just the past couple of years, MasterCard temporality shut us down, one of our local banks closed our account due to our “controversial positions on issues,” and a brokerage firm closed our account for “unknown reasons.” Amazon will not allow the Freedom Center, a 501 c3 IRS designated nonprofit, to participate in their Amazon Smiles charity campaign because of the SPLC’s designation of the Center has a “hate group” and now Disqus, the largest networked community platform on the Internet, has canceled our service.&nbsp;


	These disruptions are costly and hinder us from what we should be doing—pursuing our mission in educating citizens of the dangers of the Left—but they also shine a light on just how dangerous the Left is and now how tenuous our liberties and freedom are.&nbsp;


	Thank you for your readership and support. We have just begun to fight.


	Editors at FrontPageMag.com

Disqus’ De-Platforming of Frontpage

The relentless de-platforming of conservatives in general and of the David Horowitz Freedom Center specifically, continues.


	On March 3rd the Editors at

In less than a month in office, the Biden administration has clearly defined itself and its party as a fascist vanguard, driven by a racist agenda, and unconstrained by constitutional principle. It chooses to rule by presidential diktat, even though it controls both Houses of Congress.&nbsp; It is an aggressive pursuer of political division behind a deceptive smokescreen of “healing” and “unity,” It is busily exploiting a fake “armed insurrection” to justify witch-hunts of the military, the capital police, members of Congress and the opposition media, at the moment Fox and Newsmax, whom they want to suppress. Its legislative radicals have called for the expulsion of half the Republican conference, without rebuke from their leaders. Because these actions are indefensible in a democracy, the Democrat Party is brazenly advancing these destructive, anti-democratic measures using Orwellian doublespeak.


	Thus, Merrick Garland, Biden’s nominee to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land, has claimed under oath that terrorist acts can only be committed in the daytime – a transparent move to protect the domestic terrorists of the left who laid siege to 220 American cities at night last summer, showing utter contempt for authority and law, while attacking federal buildings and local police offices along the way. In other words the fake insurrection in the Capitol – an event conducted mainly by Trump supporters in which only Trump supporters died – is an act of domestic terrorism because it took place in the daytime. But violent armed insurrections and attacks on federal buildings conducted by leftists at night, cannot be regarded as terrorist events. How can Americans expect blind justice from a sophist like this? The nauseating sophistry has an obvious bottom line. Only violent protests by Trump supporters can justify the political witch-hunts and purges the Democrats are currently conducting against all conservatives and Republicans.


	The so-called “armed insurrection” in the Capitol on January 6 was used to impeach Trump? It was allegedly so dangerous as to justify impeaching him after he left office? But it deserves to be called a “fake armed insurrection” because there were no firearms present, and no plausible plan to overthrow the government. The malicious fantasy that this effort was an armed attempt to overthrow the government is just that: a malicious fantasy.


	Four people died at the event – all unarmed. The one who didn’t die of a heart attack, stroke or medical emergency, Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, was murdered by a Capitol police officer – with no consequences to the officer. The Capitol police officer who died – Brian Suknick, and was laid in state and honored by Democrats as a defender of their faith, died of indeterminate causes the day after the melee, and was a Trump supporter.


	The January 6 mob scene, according to investigators, was planned by “Oath Keepers” – a fringe pro-Trump group - two months before Trump gave the speech for which he was impeached under the bogus charge that he had “incited an insurrection.” In fact, he had offered to deploy 10,000 National Guardsmen to defend the Capitol for the January 6 certification. Some insurrectionist!


	Trump’s infamous speech was perfectly normal, law-abiding and democratic. It was given a mile from the Capitol and was an appeal to his supporters to stiffen the spines of Republican members of Congress so they would challenge the election result. This was something Democrats and their impeachment leader – the devious Jamie Raskin - had done at the certification hearings in 2017 after Trump’s election (and also in 2001 and 2005 after both Bush elections). Democrats’ hypocrisy apparently knows no limits and no restraints and evidently has no decency filter. If Trump’s supporters failed to stiffen the spines of “weak Republicans” as Trump urged them to do in so many words at the Ellipse, they needed to go back home and primary them in the 2022 elections. Totally respectful of the democratic process.


	The reality is that given the three months of violent assaults by Black Lives Matter and Antifa criminals on 220 American cities last summer, January 6 was an unexceptional event. Where was the respect for government courthouses, national monuments, police stations and public order all summer? For three months and more, those violent insurrectionary riots were supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party leadership, and even funded by them.


	Thanks to the Democrats, violent attacks on people and property and government buildings had become a “cultural norm” – to use Biden’s unconscionable phrase for looking away when confronted by Chinese genocide and enslavement of 2 million Uighur Muslims. Yet with the help of cowardly Republicans, afraid to call these aggressions by their proper names, the Democrats were able to turn the Capitol melee into a preposterous Reichstag Fire – the same that provided Hitler, the elected chancellor of the Weimar Republic with an excuse for destroying the Republic and silencing his opponents.


	The difference was that for Hitler the phantom enemy that justified his depredations was the Jews, while for the fascist Democrats it is “white supremacists,” whose actual numbers are fewer even than the Jews. The Marxists of Black Lives Matter are the actual authors of the lie that the January 6 melee in the capital was a “white supremacist coup.” But even the pathetic Merrick Garland was forced to repeat the canard - without offering a shred of evidence - at his confirmation hearing. That’s how pervasive this racist ideology has become in shaping the Democrat Party’s drive to destroy our constitutional Republic. The hour is actually late, and Americans better wake up and start fighting for their country or there will soon be nothing left to defend.


	David Horowitz is the author of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-Within-Totalitarian-Movement-Destroying/dp/1684510546/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1614183836&amp;sr=8-1">The Enemy Within: How A Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America</a>, which will be published by Regnery on April 6, 2021.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Fascist Democrats &amp; the Fake Insurrection

In less than a month in office, the Biden administration has clearly defined itself and its party as a fascist vanguard, driven by a racist agenda, and

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


	Jordan Peterson was a relatively unknown clinical psychologist and University of Toronto professor until his brave 2016 challenge to a draconian Canadian law on transgender pronouns drew widespread attention. Millions watched his brilliant, wide-ranging YouTube lectures about life, truth, feelings, personality, and values. For a while there he seemed ubiquitous, giving interviews and lectures around the world and, in the process, becoming the planet’s most famous living public intellectual. He published a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life. 


	Then, suddenly, he disappeared. For the last two years he’s been in medical hell, experiencing torturous pain and being brought to the brink of death by a puzzling malady that took him, in search of answers, to hospitals, clinics, and rehab centers in Canada, the U.S., Russia, and Serbia. Meanwhile his wife was diagnosed with a rare and deadly cancer from which she now seems, miraculously, to have recovered. On top of everything else, he, his wife, and his deeply devoted adult daughter all contracted the COVID virus.


	Emerging from this nightmare and prepared to step back onto the public stage, Peterson agreed to a major interview with Decca Aitkenhead for the Sunday Times of London. The <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jordan-peterson-depression-drug-dependency-daughter-mikhaila-rehab-russia-0xtz2ph32">story</a> appeared on January 31; on the same day, Peterson posted on YouTube a recording of the nearly three-hour Zoom conversations that he and his daughter, Mikhaila, had with Aitkenhead. In the recording (which as of Wednesday had accumulated half a million hits), Peterson is friendly and forthcoming, but emotionally fragile as a consequence of his long torment; at one point he breaks into tears and has to step away from the microphone. Mikhaila, for her part, spends an hour and a half telling Aitkenhead the full story of Peterson’s illness, complete with vivid particulars. And Aitkenhead poses throughout as entirely sympathetic, sounding more like a compassionate social worker than a journalist.


	But – and this is why Peterson felt compelled to post the audio of the interview – Aitkenhead’s piece for the Times proved to be a masterpiece of pure snideness and dishonesty. She reduced Peterson’s deep learning and richly nuanced wisdom about life to “bracing advice about how to be a real man.” She caricatured the multitudes of people whose lives he’s helped to turn around as “young men who idolise him” as a “fantasy father figure.” Grotesquely simplifying and vulgarizing his message, she described him as “defend[ing] traditional masculine dominance.” Noting that his critics view Peterson as “the respectable face of reactionary misogyny, and a dangerous gateway drug to online alt-right radicalization,” she certainly seemed to agree.


	Even worse than Aitkenhead on Peterson was Aitkenhead on Peterson’s daughter, who, as her father faced one health crisis after another, appears to have played a heroic role in scouring the globe for doctors who might understand what was going on and might know what needed to be done. Aitkenhead’s passages about this topic were one long sneer:


	If this was a movie, its director would unquestionably be the 28-year-old Mikhaila Peterson, CEO of her father’s company. She and her Russian husband appear to have assumed full charge of his affairs, so before I am allowed to speak to him I must first talk to her. Unrecognisable from the ordinary-looking brunette from photos just a few years ago, Mikhaila today is a glossy, pouting Barbie blonde, and talks with the zealous, spiky conviction of a President Trump press spokeswoman.


	Barbie? Trump? What? Where did this nastiness come from? And what’s Trump doing here? Admirers of Peterson who’ve heard him discuss his family in interviews know that Mikhaila herself grew up with a horrific illness that she overcame valiantly. Writing about that ordeal, Aitkenhead was dubious, almost flippant:


	According to her website she has suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disorder, since early childhood, which necessitated a hip and ankle replacement at 17. Other symptoms — chronic fatigue, depression, OCD, nose bleeds, restless legs, brain fog, itchy skin, the list goes on — forced her to drop out of university, “and it finally occurred to me that whatever was happening was likely going to end in my death, and rather soon. After almost 20 years, the medical community still had no answers for me.” So she decided to cure herself.


	Eliminating everything from her diet except for red meat, Mikhaila found herself getting well. In 2018, Peterson adopted the diet too, and was pleased with the results. Good for them. I don’t pretend to know anything about these matters; all I know, without having looked into the details of their regimen, is that I don’t see any reason for them to lie about it, and that every indication is that Mikhaila is an estimable and conscientious woman who has at all times only wanted the best for her father. But for Aitkenhead, Mikhaila was, quite simply, a dangerous quack and Peterson a patsy.


	In the recorded interview, Mikhaila, knowing she’s talking to a reporter, is at pains to get every detail right, down to the dosages of various drugs; but for Aitkenhead, the young woman’s impressive mastery of these specifics merits only mockery:


	Like every medical autodidact I’ve ever met, Mikhaila rattles off pharmacological jargon at 100 miles an hour, sweeping from one outlandish tale to another with breathless melodrama that becomes increasingly exhausting to follow.…By now my head is spinning. The blizzard of obscure pharmaceutical terminology keeps on coming, as Mikhaila reels off the names of more antibiotics and antidepressants and antipsychotics prescribed to her father, recounting her objections to this one and that one until it all becomes a blur.


	Well, one wants to say, nobody forced you to do the interview. Appallingly, Aitkenhead asserted that after her 80-minute conversation with Mikhaila, “the one thing of which I’m certain is that, were I as close to death as she assures me her father repeatedly was, this is not the person I would entrust with saving my life.”


	The uncomfortable truth, however, seems to be that Mikhaila did save his life. These things happen. Jordan Peterson is not the only person with a mysterious malady ever to have been rescued by the tireless efforts of a fanatically determined loved one to track down just the right doctor, the right hospital, the right diagnosis, the right therapy. Some of us have learned through experience that, yes, doctors can be ignorant, stubborn, lazy, indifferent, or just plain busy, and that a smart layman willing to put in the work can learn a lot more about this or that recondite malady than an off-the-rack specialist is likely to know.


	You might think that Aitkenhead would grasp this, and would recognize Mikhaila’s breathless account of Peterson’s medical journey as a story of the triumph of love and determination over even the most horrific of circumstances. But no. For her it’s all one big “medical circus.” For her, all that matters is that Mikhaila “doesn’t have any medical training.” Asked about this, Mikhaila replied that “because of my experience of being ill, I’ve done a lot of research. There’s this trust people have of doctors that I don’t have. Because doctors are just people, right?” On the tape Aitkenhead responds to this attitude with empathy; in the article, she mocked it: “This opinion is not uncommon in North America, where surprising numbers regard YouTube as a viable substitute for medical school.” Oh, those stupid North Americans! You’d think that Mikhaila, instead of simply making endless phone calls and writing endless e-mails to track down the right doctors, had prescribed drugs and performed surgery.


	As dismissive as she was of Mikhaila’s efforts to find a proper diagnosis and cure for her father, Aitkenhead was eager to proffer her own diagnosis. What if his book tour – “a different lecture each night at 160 cities in 200 days,” during which was “busy dispensing advice to fans about their mental health” – crashed his mental health? Could “toxic masculinity…have been a culprit”? Could his illness be the price he paid “for his bootstrap philosophy”? She also seems deliberately to have tried to get everybody to think that Peterson is schizophrenic – a lie that media around the world have repeated in the last few days.


	Aitkenhead palpably relished the idea “that when life became excruciatingly stressful, Peterson’s stand up, man up, suck it up mentality didn’t work” – that “when the most famous public intellectual on the planet was preaching a regime of order and self-discipline, he was privately in chaos.” In fact, the tale of how Mikhaila went the extra mile – thousands of miles, really – to save the life of her father is something right out of a Jordan Peterson lecture. So, for that matter, is Peterson’s ability during his spin through hell to write a whole new book, Beyond Order, which is about to be published.


	But for Aitkenhead all of this was little more than a good excuse for her to mention once again the 45th president of the United States: “Parallels with Donald Trump come to mind; another unhappy man closed off from his emotions, projecting strong man mythology while hunkered down in a bunker with his family against the world.” No one who has seen a representative sampling of Peterson’s online lectures and interviews – or who has heard him break into tears on the recording of his conversation with Aitkenhead – could ever describe him as “projecting strong man mythology” or as an “unhappy man closed off from his emotions.”


	As of Wednesday evening, Aitkenhead’s interview had garnered almost three thousand comments, almost all of them justifiably accusing her of misrepresentation and slander and calling her article a “hatchet piece.” A reader named Russell Sharpe commented: “If anyone were in any doubt why people nowadays go to longform podcasts for intelligent reflection on contemporary issues rather than to the legacy media, where they know to expect only conventional platitudes, disinformation and lies, then a comparison of this article with the unedited audio interview now available on Mikhaila Peterson's YouTube channel would be a good place to start.”&nbsp;


	One commenter was puzzled as to how Aitkenhead could be so heartless, given her own personal history. Knowing nothing about Aitkenhead, I looked her up. It turned out that she has had cancer – and, moreover, like Mikhaila Peterson, has challenged orthodox medical treatment. In 2016, she <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/03/how-to-get-through-chemotherapy-decca-aitkenhead-cancer-treatment">wrote</a> for the Guardian about her discovery that “there are ways to ease” the horrors of chemotherapy “that feature in none of the official advice.” Despite her mockery of Mikhaila’s all-meat diet, Aitkenhead herself, in her 2016 article, urged chemo patients to fast, citing an arcane study’s preliminary finding that “periods of severe fasting significantly increased the efficacy of chemotherapy.”


	That’s not all. In 2016, Aitkenhead published a memoir, All at Sea, about her ten-year relationship with a man named Tony who couldn’t have been more different from Jordan Peterson. I will quote from it at some length because her relationship with this thoroughly vile fellow is fascinating when viewed in light of her ugly take on Peterson. Tony, she <a href="https://www.elle.com/life-love/a38273/all-at-sea-excerpt/">wrote</a>, began his career as “a highly proficient hustler” in Soho, London, where he haunted “the clip joints and late-night illegal drinking dens, promising fictional pornographic beauties to gullible tourists and passing off bags of tea leaves for cannabis, before disappearing into the shadows with pockets crammed full of cash.” After shooting up some pimps and spending five years in prison for it – mostly in solitary because of his hyperaggressive personality – he “became a violent gangster who made a lot of money out of drugs, gunrunning, protection and so forth,” although eventually, after marrying and having a daughter, he “wound up the more ostentatiously lawless aspects of his criminal lifestyle, and confined his business concerns to the discreet wholesale trade of cocaine.” Somewhere along the way he became a crack addict.


	Then Aitkenhead entered the picture. She and her husband, Paul, were Tony’s neighbors in London, and while Paul was away in Afghanistan, she and Tony grew intimate. “Why I did not find [his crack addiction] more off-putting was a puzzle,” she claims. But he had such “magnetism.” Also, “charm.” Plus “beauty, mesmerizing to the point of hypnotic.” Aitkenhead even admits that she may have been attracted to Tony not despite but because of his criminality. “I very much hoped it was the former,” she wrote, “and thus pleasing proof of my good liberal credentials. I worried that it could be the latter, and nothing but the cheap thrill of vicarious transgression.”


	Of course, the whole thing was a cliché: white lefty journo falls for black “bad boy.” Her attraction to criminals and drugs was hardly a secret: she’d written a whole <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/13/travel.features">book</a>, The Promised Land: Travels in Search of the Perfect E (2002), about (to quote a Guardian review) her “global quest for the perfect ecstasy tab,” which led her to some of the seamier corners of South Africa, Thailand, Detroit, San Francisco, and Amsterdam, and into the company of “leading figures in the drug gangs.” Anyway, Tony and Aitkenhead left their spouses and spent ten years together until, on vacation in Jamaica, Tony was swept out to sea while trying to rescue one of their two sons (who survived).


	To judge by the testimony of Aitkenhead, the woman who loved him, the best thing you can say about Tony is that he perished while performing a selfless act. But he lived the life of a total creep, profiting from doing great harm to others. In this regard he was the polar opposite of a man like – oh, let’s see – Jordan Peterson. Which raises a question: what to make of a woman like Decca Aitkenhead, whose moral compass appears to point due south? She hooked up – and had two kids – with a total reprobate, knowing that he’d brought pure evil into heaven knows how many lives; but she’s capable of cruelly ridiculing a man who’s done so much good for so many people and who’s still laboriously climbing out of the pit of hell.


	How exactly does that work? Is Aitkenhead so defined by the most fatuous and ethically perverse kind of leftist ideology that she’s capable of finding an appealing rebelliousness in a savage monster like Tony but can only be outraged by an extraordinarily sensitive and gentle soul who speaks eloquently about personal responsibility and who openly strives to practice it, even when times are toughest? Does Peterson’s day-to-day struggle to be a better husband, father, friend, teacher, neighbor, and fellow citizen strike too close to home for this woman who wrote a book about her struggle to find the best tab of Ecstasy? Does she experience his very life, which has been focused for decades on helping other people to be better human beings, as a personal rebuke to her own life, which for a long time, anyway, was by her own account focused on the most puerile kind of self-indulgence? Has his determination to dig deeper and deeper into himself, in a preternatural attempt to comprehend, to correct, and to cultivate, shamed her own chronic superficiality?


	How else to explain someone who, having lived for ten years with an odious thug like Tony, manages to see Jordan Peterson, of all people, as an embodiment of toxic masculinity?


	Or is Aitkenhead, when you come right down to it, just one more supremely callous – indeed, sociopathic – left-wing hack who will destroy anyone to get a juicy story? Maybe it’s really just that. Let’s face it: when you look at what the New York Times and The Washington Post have been doing every day for the last few years, why should any of us be surprised that the Times of London is capable of running a surpassingly disingenuous profile of someone whose greatest offense is being a good man?


	Can it be that we owe Aitkenhead, and the Times, a debt of gratitude for showing us just how nakedly hostile the leftist media are, in 2021, to sheer decency?


	Investigating Aitkenhead’s background, I ran across one curiosity. A Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/19/travel.travelbooks">review</a> by Ian Penman of her Ecstasy book began as follows:&nbsp;


	Where is Decca Aitkenhead's The Promised Land coming from? Is it a drugs book? Traveller's confessional? Political reportage? All, or none, of the above? There ought to be a German word for it: gimmickschwerk, say. In an ingeniously disingenuous introduction to a determinedly tentative book, Aitkenhead claims that even she doesn't really know for sure any more.


	Reading this, I was reminded immediately of the opening lines of Aitkenhead’s piece on Peterson:


	I thought this was going to be a normal interview with Jordan Peterson. After speaking with him at length, and with his daughter for even longer, I no longer have any idea what it is. I don’t know if this is a story about drug dependency, or doctors, or Peterson family dynamics — or a parable about toxic masculinity. Whatever else it is, it’s very strange.


	Yes, very strange. Very strange indeed.

Crucifying Jordan Peterson

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


	Jordan Peterson was a relatively unknown clinical psychologist and University of

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


	During the election, Speaker Pelosi had <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-trump-gop-domestic-enemies-mailed-voting">railed</a> against Republicans as “domestic enemies” and “enemies of the state.” Now, Pelosi<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EroDt8FXAAMCVGx.jpg"> can be seen </a>addressing soldiers outside the U.S. Capitol.


	Fascist theater is now as common an occupation for the D.C. elite as upscale cocktail bars.


	Pelosi’s fascist state and its crackdown on enemies is here with a militarized occupation of D.C. by 25,000 troops whose politics had to be<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-joe-biden-capitol-siege-ap-top-news-857bacc273e16ff82dc9fefed1242ae8"> cleared</a> by the political commissars at the FBI, a ban on protests, and political opponents being silenced, fired, and banned by corporate monopolies.


	Scenes that Americans would have once associated with banana republics and fascist dictatorships are now playing out daily as media propaganda broadcasts warn of a grave threat that requires a military occupation of Washington D.C. and the total repression of the opposition.


	The wave of censorship that began with Facebook and Twitter banning President Trump has escalated to a takedown of Parler, a conservative alternative, to media campaigns urging crackdowns on a variety of alternative apps and services like Signal, Telegram, MeWe, and Zello, and a push by CNN to have AT&amp;T and Comcast ban conservative cable networks.


	There’s even an FCC crackdown on conservatives using ham radios to communicate.


	Proposals are percolating through the media and its national security commentariat to transform the FBI from a law enforcement agency to a “domestic spy agency” monitoring Americans.


	Last year, Hillary Clinton was <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/09/hillary_clinton_classic_pattern_of_fascist_takeover_is_happening_in_the_us_today.html">warning </a>that fascism was coming to America.


	"The idea that it can't happen here is just old fashioned," Hillary had insisted while falsely claiming that the 2016 election had been stolen from her. Now her party is rolling out actual fascism while criminalizing any questions and concerns about the 2020 election.


	It is happening here.


	Hillary’s latest op-ed in the Washington Post, a paper owned by the richest man in the world whose company deplatformed Parler, calls for expelling Republican legislators, passing “new criminal laws”, and government oversight of social media platforms. This is fascism.


	All House Democrats voted for a resolution calling for an unconstitutional 25th Amendment coup and when that failed for an impeachment that falsely blames President Trump for the violence because, even though he urged peaceful protests, his speech contained the word, “fight”.


	Democrats <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/01/pennsylvania-lt-gov-accusing-us-election-fraud-not-daniel-greenfield/">warn that</a> questioning their election wins is “incendiary”, “incitement”, “shouting fire in a crowded theater”, and “not protected speech”.


	The basic norms of political protest and legislative opposition are rapidly being criminalized.


	Many Democrats have endorsed an illegal 14th Amendment push to expel Republican Senate members, including Senator Ted Cruz, for merely questioning the election.


	Expelling political opponents for questioning your abuses is the behavior of fascists.


	Attorney General Karl Racine in D.C., who cheered the Black Lives Matter race rioters, is investigating conservative rally speakers for incitement for questioning the election results.


	The only places where questioning election results is illegal is in dictatorships.


	We now live in a country with politically vetted soldiers in the streets, political propaganda, and a climate of political terror against the people that Speaker Pelosi called “enemies of the state”.


	The same Democrat machine that supported a year of Black Lives Matter riots that killed 8 people, wounded over 700 law enforcement officers, and caused over $2 billion in damage, which included violent attacks on the White House and on federal buildings, exploited a single day of violence on Capitol Hill to declare a national emergency and claim an “insurrection”.


	When President Trump and Senator Tom Cotton proposed using the Insurrection Act to stop the year of Black Lives Matter violence, Democrats had accused them of fascism.


	“This is Fascism,” The New Republic blared then. Now that fascism has actually arrived, it’s cheering the military occupation and the Democrat purge of the “enemies of the state”.


	Exploiting a moment of crisis, real or feigned, to unroll a system of domestic repression from Stalin’s exploitation of Kirov’s murder to launch the Great Purge, to the Reichstag fire being used by the Nazis to eliminate the political opposition, is how totalitarian regimes are born.


	A totalitarian fascist regime is being birthed again by the Democrats in Washington D.C.


	This is not the first time that Democrats have exploited violence to criminalize and delegitimize the political opposition. After the Kennedy assassination by a socialist traitor who had defected to the USSR, Democrats blamed a climate of “right-wing hate” in Dallas. The false claim of a right-wing conspiracy was invented by the KGB and <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/soviets-claimed-us-right-wing-lyndon-johnson-behind-kennedy-assassination-files-show/28820677.html">fed to the</a> Washington Post by Khrushchev.


	Democrats and the media spent two generations convincing Americans that “right-wing hate” had killed Kennedy and reviving that smear to attack every new conservative movement.


	The narrative of “right-wing extremism” began before the Kennedy assassination in the same way that it always does as a pretext for suppressing political opposition to a new Democrat administration. Kennedy’s death helped solidify what would become a well-worn template.


	The Clinton administration built its domestic program around fighting “right-wing extremism”. Democrats and the media focused on “anti-government extremists” while ignoring the growing threat of Islamic terrorism from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda that would lead to 9/11.


	While Biden cracks down on the conservative political opposition, history is likely to repeat itself with the rise of Islamic terrorists and a growing new threat to America.


	But cracking down on conservative populism was key to Clinton’s agenda while 9/11 wasn’t.


	When Obama came into office, Bill Clinton revived the smear that the Oklahoma City bombing had been caused by "right-wing, radio talk-show hosts" and that history was repeating itself. The Obama administration jettisoned the fight against Islamic terrorism and instead focused on fighting conservative populism while ISIS built a terror empire and beheaded Americans.


	When the Obama administration didn’t have enough material from genuine extremists, Democrats and the media falsely blamed a shooting by a mentally ill man that killed a Republican judge and wounded former Rep. Gabby Giffords on Sarah Palin and the GOP.


	No amount of time or contradictory events has managed to part Democrats from this lie.


	And so the New York Times responded to the violence on Capitol Hill by rolling out an op-ed connecting the Giffords shooting with the events there. Other media outlets linked it to the Kennedy assassination and other equally discredited narratives about “right-wing hate”.


	The Biden regime is following the familiar pattern of suppressing a conservative populist movement rising against its radical agenda by criminalizing it as a dangerous threat. But no previous Democrat suppression campaign, not even after the murder of a president, ever involved the scope, ruthlessness, and brutality of the one we are witnessing right now.


	In the generations and decades since, the Left has gained a great deal of control over some of the biggest companies in America. Previous Democrat administrations had repressed their political opponents by abusing the IRS, the FCC, and the FBI. These forms of political repression were ugly, but fell far short of fascism. But the new partnership between the government and the monopolies has spawned a crackdown more closely resembling fascism.


	The integration of governmental, cultural, and economic power within a single agenda while using it to conduct a full-spectrum campaign of criminalization, deplatforming, and banning against the political opposition has created an all-encompassing totalitarian fascist machine.


	Fascism is rooted in the ancient symbol of the ‘Fasces’: the bundle of bound rods that have come to embody the centralization of power. And power has never been as centralized in America as it is today with political, cultural, and economic power in a handful of hands.


	But that’s just the beginning.


	The Democrats don’t want unity or healing. What they want is to bring about a one-party state just as they have in California where massive election fraud, ballot harvesting, ghost districts of illegal aliens, and the concentration of economic power in Big Tech gave Senator Kamala Harris a national political career when she won her Senate seat by running against another Democrat.


	D.C. isn’t under military guard to protect our government, but a partisan political agenda.


	The Democrats didn’t want troops in D.C. when their own were rioting during President Trump’s inauguration or violently attacking the White House. They don’t need 25,000 troops to stop a few hundred protesters. They need them as a show of force to suppress political opposition.


	Biden and the Democrats are using a military deployment for a show of political force, using a manufactured crisis to rally support behind their radical agenda, while suppressing dissent.


	That agenda is deeply unpopular among Americans. It entails eliminating election safeguards against voter fraud, opening the borders to illegal aliens, passing illegal alien amnesty, transforming D.C. and Puerto Rico into states, and packing the Supreme Court to prevent the judiciary from stopping its abuses. All of this is meant to create a one-party state.


	The Democrats are marshalling all their political, economic, and cultural forces to distract attention from their agenda and to suppress the rising opposition to its plot against America.


	That’s why anyone listening to 15 seconds of CNN would imagine that we are at war when the only war is the one that the Democrats and their media allies have declared on Americans.


	America is not a banana republic. There is no place for military theater, lists of enemies, or declaring political opponents to be enemies of the state. The Democrats have already embraced fascism before even formally taking power. Fascists always claim to be seizing power in reaction to an emergency. The manufactured emergency is here. The power grab comes next.

Fascist Democrats are Using a Manufactured Emergency to Create a One-Party State

The destruction of the freedom of speech in America today is being carried out by the Leftist establishment that dominates the political sphere, the social media giants, the establishment media, the educational system – virtually everything, really. The Left is using the Capitol riot of January 6 as its Reichstag Fire moment to criminalize, silence, and destroy utterly not just President Trump, but all Americans who still dare to oppose its sinister woke totalitarianism. In doing so, Leftists are revealing themselves, for all their rhetoric about how Trump and his supporters are fascists, to be quintessential fascists themselves.


	This fact is all too often waved away by those who insist, quite correctly on one level, “They’re not fascists, they’re Communists.” The National Socialists of Germany strongly identified with Mussolini’s Fascists in Italy, and brawled on the street with the Communists. Hitler made his determination to destroy Communism in Europe a centerpiece of his agenda. So many assume that Leftists today, carrying the banner of Antifa, an organization that was born in 1920s street fights with the National Socialists, could not possibly be fascists.


	Yet they can be and they are. Contrary to what many believe, being a Communist and a fascist is not a contradiction in terms, like being a Republican Democrat or an honest journalist. Communists and National Socialists were bitter enemies in Weimar Germany in large part because they were competitors in the same arena: in the late 1920s and early 1930s, they were the two major German parties that wanted to destroy the Weimar Republic and impose authoritarian rule. They just disagreed over who would be in charge.


	They disagreed about more than that as well, of course. Marxism is based on total government control of the means of production, whereas the National Socialists, although they flirted with this idea in various ways for years before coming to power, allowed for private enterprise. However, this, too, was not as large a gap between the two as many people assume it to be. Hitler biographer Peter Longerich notes that “six months after the ‘seizure of power’ with its various upheavals, Hitler had reached a deal with German business, according to which their authority within their enterprises was increased in return for an agreement to submit to overall direction by the state.” The means of production were still privately owned, but they were wholly under the control of the National Socialist state.


	This deal between Hitler and the German business titans was one of the principal reasons why his regime is called “fascist” at all. The word “fascist” comes from the Latin fasces, “bundles,” usually bundles of wooden rods. It might seem at first glance to be an odd name for a political movement, but the idea was that the disparate forces in society were bundled together in a unity of purpose and allegiance. Thus for the ancient Romans the fasces were a symbol of governmental authority, and from that Mussolini took the name of his movement. In ensuring that private businesses could remain private but had to work for the good of the state as a whole and under direction of the National Socialist government, Hitler was bundling together the titans of business, unifying them in service to his agenda.


	So it is today. The social media giants and the Leftist government elites, the swamp that has reasserted its hegemony by installing Old Joe in the White House, are working in lockstep. The government doesn’t own the social media outlets, and it doesn’t have to: whether Big Tech is submitting to overall direction by the state or the state is submitting to overall direction by Big Tech, the outcome is the same: every major force in American society is marching in the same direction, while dissenters are stigmatized, demonized, framed for crimes they didn’t commit, silenced, and isolated.


	Thus what we are seeing in the last few days, with the banning of the president of the United States from the main means of communication today, and the unity of purpose between the media, Big Tech, and the Democratic Party in propagating the Big Lie that Trump incited violence and attempted a coup on January 6, is fascism in action. And if the fascists aren’t stopped soon, what we have already seen will be just the beginning.


	Robert Spencer is the director of <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/">Jihad Watch</a> and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260131/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=pjmedia-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0895260131">The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985283/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=pjmedia-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1596985283">The Truth About Muhammad</a>. His latest book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1642935352?pf_rd_p=ab873d20-a0ca-439b-ac45-cd78f07a84d8&amp;pf_rd_r=1PFJA0BC9S0NZD85DX0M">Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster</a>. Follow him on Twitter&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/jihadwatchRS" target="_blank">here</a>. Like him on Facebook&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/robertspencerJW?ref=hl" target="_blank">here</a>.

Fascism Comes to the U.S.

The destruction of the freedom of speech in America today is being carried out by the Leftist establishment that dominates the political sphere, the social

Twitter, the popular microblogging website President Donald Trump masterfully exploited to win office in 2016, has permanently banned the president on false charges, expanding Big Tech’s ongoing, unprecedented wave of digital repression against conservatives and Republicans.


	Twitter took action January 8, two days after several individuals bearing Trump campaign flags and paraphernalia ran amok in the United States Capitol while lawmakers were attempting to officially certify the results of the hopelessly fraud-ridden, compromised November 3 election that the dementia-suffering leftist Joe Biden and his Chinese Communist Party-influenced corporate allies claim he won. This Big Lie that 81 million Americans voted for a vegetable is so important to the Left that anyone who questions it on social media is swiftly persecuted and marginalized.


	Now that the fog of war created by the lying media is dissipating, we have learned that many of the so-called Capitol invaders were not invaders at all. They did not “storm” the complex but were well-behaved and allowed in by Capitol police. It was not much of a coup attempt, which may explain why Capitol police <a href="https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520">posed for selfies</a> with the Americans who allegedly forced their way in.


	One of the more interesting voices on Twitter throughout this crisis has been, interestingly enough, fashion model Emily Ratajkowski who <a href="https://twitter.com/emrata/status/1347247031895552000">tweeted</a> January 7, asking if anyone else felt that Capitol police “being absent/letting Trump people in/providing insane visuals of MAGA dudes on the floor of the house was wildly convenient to justifying big tech’s rollout of censorship?”


	Moving along, Twitter, long a safe haven for jihadists and other terrorists, is the website that promised to be available to everyone for free speech.


	“Twitter stands for freedom of expression,” Twitter CEO <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/jack-dorsey">Jack Dorsey</a> tweeted October 5, 2015. “We stand for speaking truth to power. And we stand for empowering dialogue.”


	But that was long ago, before Donald Trump became the 45th president of the United States and Herbert Marcuse’s doctrine of “repressive tolerance” –or simply, no free speech for alleged fascists— took hold.


	Dorsey, king of the Silicon Valley hipsters, has long pretended to support free speech and civil society, but the Rasputin-bearded eccentric with a nose ring favors those radicals who would turn society upside-down.


	While Black Lives Matter and Antifa were burning down American cities and murdering cops, washed-up football player Colin Kaepernick, now one of America’s leading race pimps, used his Twitter account to urge radicals to burn down more cities and murder more cops. People like Kamala Harris cheered the rioters on and urged people to give money to bail funds to get the rioters back on the streets to keep the mayhem going.


	“When civility leads to death, revolting is the only logical reaction[,]” Kaepernick tweeted May 28, 2020. “The cries for peace will rain down, and when they do, they will land on deaf ears, because your violence has brought this resistance. We have the right to fight back! Rest in Power George Floyd[,]” a reference to drug addicted-career criminal George Floyd, the BLM martyr whose weakened body gave out while he resisted arrest in Minneapolis.


	Instead of banning Kaepernick for his seditious talk, the woke Twitter billionaire rewarded Kaepernick’s wokeness with cash.


	“More #startsmall grants[,]” Dorsey tweeted June 3, 2020. “$3mm to Colin @Kaepernick7’s @yourrightscamp to advance the liberation and well-being of Black and Brown communities through education, self-empowerment, mass-mobilization to elevate the next generation of change leaders.”


	On January 8, after racist, America-hating agitator Michelle Obama <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/michelle-obama-calls-on-facebook-other-platforms-to-ban-trump-forever.html">urged</a> “Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling [Trump’s] monstrous behavior,” Twitter <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html">announced</a> it had “permanently suspended the account [of Trump] due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” even though Trump didn’t incite violence.


	Twitter must rely on a Newspeak dictionary.


	“Incitement” has a specific legal definition in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The conduct complained of must be both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and be “likely to incite or produce such action.”


	As I <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/trump-coup-attempt-wasnt-matthew-vadum/">showed</a>, the president did not incite violence in his January 6 speech. If anything, he urged his supporters at the pep rally at the Ellipse to remain calm and peaceful.


	And as Joseph Klein <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/left-slanderously-accuses-trump-inciting-capitol-joseph-klein/">wrote</a>:


	“President Trump and his supporters at the rally were simply exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. The president’s refusal to concede an election marred by reports of widespread fraud which troubled many voters&nbsp;was not an incitement to violence, nor was his presentation of evidence of a stolen election.


	“President Trump told his supporters, ‘We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women.’ In so doing, he was clearly urging them merely to march peacefully and petition their government.”


	But these facts conflict with the leftist narrative of Trump-as-Hitler so they must be suppressed.


	Trump sent out an old-fashioned press release, according to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/muzzled-on-twitter-trump-rails-against-the-platform-in-press-release/">New York Post</a>, denouncing Twitter.


	“As I have been saying for a long time, Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech, and tonight, Twitter employees have coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me — and YOU, the 75,000,000 great patriots who voted for me. Twitter may be a private company, but without the government’s gift of Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act] they would not exist for long.


	“I predicted this would happen. We have been negotiating with various other sites, and will have a big announcement soon, while we also look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future. We will not be SILENCED!”


	“Twitter is not about FREE SPEECH. They are all about promoting a Radical Left platform where some of the most vicious people in the world are allowed to speak freely.”


	At The Federalist, David Marcus <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/09/twitter-is-the-enemy-of-the-american-people/">argued</a> in a column aptly titled, “Twitter is the Enemy of the American People,” that Twitter, is an “evil company” that is carrying out an “assault on American liberty.”


	“For all its talk about safety, community, and the health of discourse, we see today that Twitter acts in favor of one interest and one interest alone: its own, even when it means destabilizing the American people,” Marcus wrote.


	“On Friday, the company permanently banned Trump from its platform and began a purge of conservative voices.


	“They claim this is needed to protect America from a coup. That is a farcical lie. They did it because their political enemies such as Trump and Sen. Josh Hawley are now out of power, and they mean to keep it [that] way.


	“As a private company, Twitter is free to do as it pleases. And I am free to call them what they are: a&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/chinadaily/status/1257249358367674368?s=21">shill for communist China</a>&nbsp;that seeks the destruction of America.


	“Do you doubt that? Then explain why Iran can call for Jews to be killed on Twitter’s platform and China can spread propaganda about how rounding up Uyghur men and forced sterilization of Uyghur women is actually good, but Donald Trump can’t tweet. It is evil. And anyone defending Jack Dorsey’s death machine is complicit.”


	The column is well worth reading.


	Twitter also <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/09/twitter-blacklists-trump-campaign-and-digital-director-gary-coby/">erased</a> the accounts of the Trump campaign&nbsp;and its digital director, Gary Coby. All across social media, people who support Trump are being banned, unpersoned, throttled, and shadow-banned. The events of January 6 at the U.S. Capitol were used to justify a massive, ongoing online purge of anyone affiliated with Trump, including Apple and Amazon’s efforts to kill Parler for refusing to end free speech by Trump supporters. Apple banned Parler from its app store as Amazon, owned by gazillionaire Jeff Bezos, who also owns the propaganda factory known as the Washington Post, suddenly informed Parler it could no longer use its servers.


	In a test run at tech totalitarianism, Twitter <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/29/meet-the-man-who-deactivated-trumps-twitter-account/">banned</a> Trump for 11 minutes on Nov. 2, 2017. Users visiting his page were informed, “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!” Twitter claimed the account was “deactivated due to human error.”


	The Left was overjoyed that Trump was silenced, if only briefly.


	“Just gonna say it, the employee at Twitter who shut off Trump's account for 11 mins could become a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize[,]” <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidJollyFL/status/926257441817415685">tweeted</a> former U.S. Rep David Jolly, a Republican turned Independent, on November 2, 2017.


	A day before Twitter permanently banned Trump, Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/09/9-big-tech-platforms-that-have-blacklisted-president-donald-trump/">banned</a> the sitting president of the United States, hindering his ability to communicate with the people who elected him.


	“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/how-zuckerbucks-funded-biden-matthew-vadum/">gave hundreds of millions of dollars</a> to left-wing groups to rig the election against Trump, piously intoned January 7. “Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”


	An incensed Ratajkowski <a href="https://twitter.com/emrata/status/1347247385152405504">tweeted</a>, “This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off[.]”


	Twitch, a video-streaming website owned by Amazon, <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/07/twitch-suspends-donald-trumps-account-indefinitely/">locked down</a> Trump’s account January 7, preventing him from live-streaming. The same day e-commerce store provider Shopify deleted&nbsp;two stores affiliated with Trump — one run by the Trump campaign and another belonging to the Trump organization, TrumpStore.com.


	On January 6, Snapchat <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/533204-trump-suspended-indefinitely-from-snapchat">silenced</a> Trump. Months before that the website took Trump off its Discover feature as it embraced the violent Black Lives Matter movement.


	Although President Trump does not have a Pinterest account, the company has been limiting hashtags pertaining to pro-Trump topics, such as #StopTheSteal. “Pinterest isn’t a place for threats, promotion of violence or hateful content,” a Pinterest spokesthingy told Axios. “Our team is continuing to monitor and removing harmful content, including misinformation and conspiracy theories that may incite violence.”


	The Communist Chinese-owned TikTok is banning videos of Trump’s speeches to his supporters, claiming such content violates the company’s misinformation policy. The president does not have a TikTok account.


	Shopify kicked out stores associated with Trump, claiming “that the actions by President Donald J. Trump violate our Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits promotion or support of organizations, platforms or people that threaten or condone violence to further a cause.”


	All these leftist claims that President Trump is engaged in a coup d’état are the products of fevered minds. A coup involves overthrowing an existing government, not keeping a government in power.


	But semantics aside, honest observers know the actual coup, which has been in progress since 2016, is being attempted by the Left. Its most recent publicly exposed iteration was when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) violated, at a minimum, her oath of office, by pressing the Pentagon to ignore the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Removing the president from the chain of command “would amount to a military coup,” the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-pelosi-nuclear-military.html?fbclid=IwAR05RYIYARxzIm2AxVByk5o4TDpvdybVbSpS_6Q1U6wkgeIN0c72Q74Ptok">New York Times</a> reported Jan. 8, quoting officials.


	Pelosi is now pushing to impeach Trump a second time on his way out the door. Newly drafted articles of impeachment dishonestly accuse the president of having “gravely endangered the security of the United States.”


	Given the mass hysteria gripping Capitol Hill, Trump could actually become the first president ever impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office, but time is not on the side of Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Trump had weeks or even months remaining in office, there might be time for leftists to blackmail, burn down the homes, and kill the family pets of reluctant Republican senators to force them to oust our duly elected president based on Democrat lies.


	But there isn’t.


	According to soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the earliest the matter could reach the Senate floor would be after Trump leaves office at Noon on January 20. The only way around that, under Senate rules, would be if all 100 senators agreed to allow to waive the rules to allow an impeachment trial, assuming the House could ram articles of impeachment through in coming days.


	So President Trump will probably complete his term of office, only to face a tsunami of baseless criminal prosecutions and vexatious lawsuits after serving his fellow Americans faithfully for four years without pay.


	When fake president Joe Biden and his communist sidekick Kamala Harris take office, patriotic Americans will have to ramp up their efforts to take the country back from these leftist usurpers and other criminals.


	Let us pray it is not too late.

Twitter Unpersons Trump

Twitter, the popular microblogging website President Donald Trump masterfully exploited to win office in 2016, has permanently banned the president on false

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


	Even as last week’s election results are being contested and the Democrats’ massive voter fraud is being exposed, the supporters of empty-suit candidate Joe Biden are already claiming victory and chafing at the bit to implement their radical agenda. And in contrast to his <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-vows-to-heal-divided-nation/ar-BB1aNz15">hypocritical call</a> to “put away the harsh rhetoric” and unify Americans after the purported divisiveness of Donald Trump, Biden’s supporters have already begun threatening their political opponents with vicious retribution for supporting their #MAGA nemesis.


	True to their totalitarian nature, newly-reelected New York Rep. <a href="https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/" target="_blank">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</a> and other high-profile Democrats <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/11/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-trump-supporters-held-accountable/" target="_blank">tweeted Friday</a> that Trump supporters essentially should be blacklisted for their role in advancing his unacceptable agenda to make America great again. “Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future?” the socialist Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future.”


	“Lol at the ‘party of personal responsibility’ being upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over last four years,” she added later. It takes enormous chutzpah to accuse Republicans of misbehavior in our current, thuggish “cancel culture” marked by rampant leftist violence.


	“Complicity” is a loaded word, which she no doubt chose intentionally. It means participation in criminal or wrongful activity. The implication, of course, is that both President Trump and his supporters are not simply political opponents but are legally guilty of wrongdoing and must be punished.


	In a democratic political system, one party “punishes” the other by beating it in elections. Losing the election – being denied the opportunity to implement your agenda – is the punishment. The opposing parties then move forward together in an often uneasy or even contentious coexistence until the next election. But totalitarians by definition reject coexistence; after seizing power they punish their opponents literally and brutally, out of pure vindictiveness and with the intent to eradicate any opposition once and for all.


	<img height="905" width="1608" style="width: 316px; height: 177px; float: left;" class="media-element file-default" data-delta="1" src="https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2020/11/tweet_1_1.jpg" alt="" />In a related tweet on Friday, Never-Trumper columnist Jennifer Rubin, the&nbsp;Washington Post’s token “conservative” (until she officially dropped the label from her bio two months ago), embraced her inner totalitarian: “Any [Republican] now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society,” Rubin stated with eyebrow-raising directness. “We have a list.”


	We have a list. The left is gleefully boasting about putting together an enemies list to ostracize – no, to destroy – Trump supporters. This echoes unhinged Rep. Maxine Waters’ <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html">reprehensible call</a> two years ago to her supporters to publicly confront and harass Trump cabinet members: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.”


	Not welcome anymore, anywhere. This kind of ugliness goes far beyond agreeing to disagree. It is a rabble-rousing call to wage mob intimidation against fellow Americans, ostracize them from what Rubin calls “polite” society, and ruin their livelihoods. This is a totalitarian threat.


	And who has this enemies list? Other social media users announced on Friday the launch of an ominous new initiative: the <a href="https://www.trumpaccountability.net/">Trump Accountability Project</a>, the purpose of which, as Emily Abrams, former campaign staffer for failed presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, <a href="https://massachusettsdaily.com/2020/11/07/it-begins-liberals-start-trump-accountability-project-to-target-all-trump-supporters/">tweeted</a>, is “to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.”


	“We must never forget those who furthered the Trump agenda,” the Trump Accountability Project website states. “We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically. But those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart.”


	Don’t assume that the Party of Tolerance and Inclusiveness will “welcome” Trump supporters under a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime, or that their retribution will be limited to paid employees of the Trump administration. As the Massachusetts Daily <a href="https://massachusettsdaily.com/2020/11/07/it-begins-liberals-start-trump-accountability-project-to-target-all-trump-supporters/">noted</a>, in addition to campaign workers, political appointees, and Trump donors, the Trump Accountability Project site originally added to its hit list “Individuals and Organizations that publicly endorsed either of Trump’s campaigns for President, in 2016 or 2020. – This means you.” So paid or not, anyone who publicly declared they were voting for Trump is a target. [That part of the statement disappeared from the website by Saturday morning, no doubt because it exposed just how broad and “inclusive” their vengeful scope really will be.]


	We have already witnessed innumerable violent examples in the recent past, caught on video, of just how “welcoming” the left is to Trump supporters even while Trump is still in office. Are we now expected to believe that, if Biden is confirmed as President, the Democrats will treat Trump voters with any less cruelty, as long as the latter didn’t receive an actual paycheck bearing Trump’s signature?


	The website continues: “The world should never forget those who, when faced with a decision, chose to put their money, their time, and their reputations behind separating children from their families, encouraging racism and anti-Semitism, and negligently causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation from our country’s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”


	Every one of these points is either misleading, an outright lie, or pure Democrat projection. Temporary separation of illegal alien families at the border is for the protection of the children and a check against human trafficking -- not, as the left insists, just capricious cruelty (nor did it originate with Trump; Barack Obama, with Biden as Vice President, separated families as well). It is the Democrats who have divided us with their inherently racist identity politics. It is the Democrats who openly express anti-Semitism (Ilhan Omar, anyone? Rashida Tlaib? Linda Sarsour? Black Lives Matter?), not Trump, who is widely-considered the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel American president ever. It was not Trump but Democrat state leaders like the incompetent New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and tyrannical Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who exacerbated the “unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation” from the coronavirus.


	Right-wing social media reaction to these threatening tweets was swift and defiant. Conservative actor and Twitter gadfly James Woods <a href="https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/11/07/boom-james-woods-lets-aoc-know-why-hed-be-honored-to-be-put-at-the-top-of-the-list/">tweeted to AOC</a>, “Are you literally making lists? I understand you’re an ignorant nitwit who’s never had a passing acquaintance with a history book, but political lists are EXACTLY what Communists do: Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro. So put me at the top of your list, you moron. I’d be honored.”


	Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn too <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/06/marsha-blackburn-stares-down-radical-leftists-seeking-to-target-trump-supporters-with-hit-list/">proudly offered her name to the list</a>: “If by undermining America you mean stopping Democrat socialists, not defunding police and blocking the Green New Deal, add me to your list,” she wrote, adding the hashtag #MAGA.


	Today’s Democrat Party – proudly far-left, anti-Constitution, anti-capitalism, and anti-American – has demonstrated through its ruthless "cancel culture," its violent assaults and mob harassment against conservatives, and its lawless urban rampages which the media dishonestly dismiss as "mostly peaceful protests," that it is totalitarian to the core. Can anyone seriously doubt that, given enough power, and aided and abetted by today’s media propagandists, the left would not merely eject conservatives from their “polite” society, but would establish re-education camps and eventually even gulags for those who hold “incorrect” opinions? It has happened everywhere that totalitarianism reigns. All freedom-loving Americans must defy and vigorously denounce the left’s call to exact revenge upon their political opponents.

The Left Goes Full-Fascist With an Enemies List

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


	Even as last week’s election results are being contested and

Frontpage Mag

FPM SERIES: Progressive Fascists

Critical Race Theory at Stanford Leads to Antisemitism Complaint From Jewish Faculty

Big Tech Fights Florida Over Free Speech

My Former Friends Have Joined the Fascists

A Blueprint for Tyranny

Black Supremacy

American Fascism

Disqus’ De-Platforming of Frontpage

The Fascist Democrats & the Fake Insurrection

Crucifying Jordan Peterson

Fascist Democrats are Using a Manufactured Emergency to Create a One-Party State

Fascism Comes to the U.S.

Twitter Unpersons Trump

The Left Goes Full-Fascist With an Enemies List

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

Identity Politics Now Pits Black People Against... Other Black People

FBI Targets PA Republicans Because This Is About the 2024 Election

Feds Used a Subpoena to Remove Docs in June. Why Couldn't They Do It Again?

Garland Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Trump Raid

Don't Eliminate the FBI, Eliminate the DOJ

Events