Login
Immediately after the burnings, rapes, mutilations, and killings of Jews on Oct. 7, I was not alone in noting the one moral difference between Hamas and the Nazis: The Nazis tried to hide their crimes against the Jews from the German people (and the world) while Hamas proudly publicized their crimes against the Jews to the Palestinian people (and didn’t mind that the world would inevitably see them bragging about killing Jews).
In addition to video-recording their atrocities, Hamas paraded captured Jews—dead and alive, clothed and naked—in front of cheering Palestinian crowds in Gaza.
This leads to a sobering realization.
Hamas boasting to their fellow Palestinians about what they did to Jews while the Nazis tried to hide what they did from fellow Germans means there is not only a moral difference between Hamas and the Nazis, but a moral difference between the German people during the Nazi era and the Palestinian people today—and for nearly the past hundred years.
Morally speaking, it would be difficult to name a less impressive people than the Palestinians over the past century. For those who do not understand that a generalization means, by definition, that there are exceptions, I should note that there are and have always been noble Palestinian individuals. But the cumulative Palestinian record of evil over the past century has few peers.
Let’s begin in the 1940s.
The leading Palestinian religious leader in the early 1940s, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a major supporter of the Nazis and their extermination campaign against the Jews. There is a famous photo of al-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler in Berlin on Nov. 28, 1941. As reported in the Holocaust Encyclopedia, “Al-Husseini pointed out that Germany alone recognized the global threat of the ‘Jewish problem’ and took steps to ‘solve’ it globally … .”
The encyclopedia further notes that “on December 18, 1942, Arab emigres opened an ‘Islamic Central Institute’ (Islamische Zentral-Institut) in Berlin, with al-Husseini as a senior sponsor and keynote speaker. In his speech, al-Husseini lashed out at the Jews, stating that the Koran judged the Jews ‘to be the most irreconcilable enemies of the Muslims.’”
The Haaretz newspaper—which is left-wing and rabidly anti-Benjamin Netanyahu—described al-Husseini as “the father of Palestinian nationalism.”
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the father of Palestinian nationalism as a war criminal for recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers to join the Waffen-SS and participate in its extermination of the Jews of Croatia and Hungary.
All of that Nazi-like Palestinian antisemitism predates the establishment of the state of Israel.
Before describing decades of Palestinian butchery of Jews in Israel, it is also important to note the moral record of the Palestinian people with regard to fellow Arabs. The Palestinians came to be widely loathed in the Arab world for good reason: Wherever they went in large numbers, they created havoc.
On Sept. 6, 1970, Palestinian terrorists hijacked Trans World Airlines, Swissair, and Pan Am airplanes. A few days later, they hijacked a British Overseas Airways Corp. (now “British Air”) airliner. The Palestinian terrorists segregated the flight crews and Jewish passengers, keeping the 56 Jewish hostages in custody, while releasing the non-Jews. In total, five planes were hijacked, and three of them were landed at a desert airstrip in Jordan.
These hijackings plus Palestinian violence in Jordanian cities led to a Jordanian-Palestinian civil war in September 1970, during which, according to the Palestinians, Jordan killed 25,000 Palestinians.
Seven months later, in April 1971, Yassir Arafat, the Palestinians’ leader, called for the overthrow of Jordan’s King Hussein. In November of that same year, four members of the Black September terrorist group (which took its name from the Palestinians’ September 1970 defeat in Jordan), assassinated Jordanian Prime Minister Wasfi Tal in Cairo.
As reported in The New York Times, an “assassin kneeled beside his victim to lick his blood.” A photo of a Palestinian assassin drinking (not merely licking) Tal’s blood was widely published.
After destabilizing Jordan and losing the civil war they caused, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians went to Lebanon, where they quickly proceeded to ruin that country. Their love of violence and terrorism led to the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975, which lasted until 1990. That war led to an estimated 150,000 Lebanese killed, tens of thousands wounded, hundreds of thousands displaced and left destitute, and a decrease in the Christian population of Lebanon from 55% in 1970 to 35% in 2022.
Meanwhile, throughout Israel’s history, Palestinians killed Jews in Israel whenever possible, blowing up school and municipal buses filled with passengers, blowing up Passover Seders and weddings and pizza parlors full of families, and wherever else Jews were assembled. On a regular basis, they stabbed and shot to death Jews who were simply going about their daily business.
To cite a few examples:
This brief list is nowhere near exhaustive.
According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, as of 2022, a majority of Palestinians support terrorist attacks against Israeli Jews. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank has been paying more than $300 million annually—about 8% of the Palestinian budget—to the families of imprisoned terrorists and of terrorists killed while engaging in an act of terrorism against Jews. Another Palestinian poll states that the vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank—more than 75%—support Hamas at this time.
The Palestinian people love killing Jews and have loved doing so for nearly a century. Palestinian women routinely pass out candy in the streets in celebration of terrorist attacks against Jews. Compare this to Israel, which has many human rights organizations holding Israel to account regarding its treatment of Palestinians. Compare this to Israelis, who for years had volunteered to drive Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to receive medical treatment in Israeli hospitals.
To be “pro-Palestinian” today means being pro-Hamas, just as to be “pro-German” during World War II was the same as being pro-Nazi. The only difference is that the Germans as a whole were a better people than the Palestinians. If you support the Palestinians, you should know who you support.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
The post WWII-Era Germans vs. Palestinians: An Eye-Opening Historical Comparison appeared first on The Daily Signal.
What are the mobs in Washington defiling iconic federal statues with impunity and pelting policemen really protesting?
What are the throngs in London brazenly swarming parks and rampaging in the streets really angry about?
Occupations?
They could care less that the Islamist Turkish government still stations 40,000 troops in occupied Cyprus. No one is protesting against the Chinese takeover of a once-independent Tibet or the threatened absorption of an autonomous Taiwan.
Refugees?
None of these mobs are agitating on behalf of the nearly 1 million Jews ethnically cleansed since 1947 from the major capitals of the Middle East. Some 200,000 Cypriots displaced by Turks earn not a murmur. Nor does the ethnic cleansing of 99% of Nagorno-Karabakh’s ancient Armenian population just last year.
Civilian casualties?
The global protestors are not furious over the 1 million Uyghurs brutalized by the Communist Chinese government. Neither are they concerned about the Turkish government’s indiscriminate war against the Kurds or its serial threats to attack Armenians and Greeks.
The new woke jihadist movement is instead focused only on Israel and “Palestine.” It is oblivious to the modern gruesome Muslim-on-Muslim exterminations of Bashar al-Assad and Saddam Hussein, the Black September massacres of Palestinians by Jordanian forces, and the 1982 erasure of thousands in Hama, Syria.
So woke jihadism is not an ecumenical concern for the oppressed, the occupied, the collateral damage of war, or the fate of refugees. Instead, it is a romanticized and repackaged anti-Western, anti-Israel, and antisemitic jihadism that supports the murder of civilians, mass rape, torture, and hostage-taking.
But what makes it now so insidious is its new tripartite constituency.
First, the old romantic pro-Palestine cause was rebooted in the West by millions of Arab and Muslim immigrants who have flocked to Europe and the U.S. in the last half-century.
Billions of dollars in oil sheikdom “grant” monies swarmed Western universities to found “Middle Eastern Studies” departments. These are not so much centers for historical or linguistic scholarship as political megaphones focused on “Zionism” and “the Jews.”
Moreover, there may be well over a half-million affluent Middle Eastern students in Western universities. Given that they pay full tuition, imbibe ideology from endowed Middle Eastern studies faculty, and are growing in number, they logically feel that they can do anything with impunity on Western streets and campuses.
Second, the diversity, equity, and inclusion movement empowers the new woke jihadis. Claiming to be non-white victims of white Jewish colonialism, they pose as natural kindred victims to Blacks, Latinos, and any Westerner now claiming oppressed status.
Black radicalism, from Al Sharpton to Louis Farrakhan to Black Lives Matter, has had a long, documented history of antisemitism. It is no wonder that its elite eagerly embraced the anti-Israeli Palestine movement as fellow travelers.
The third leg of woke jihadism is mostly affluent white leftist students at Western universities. Sensing that their faculties are anti-Israel, their administrations are anti-Israel (although more covertly), and the most politically active among the student body are anti-Israel, European and American students find authenticity in virtue-signaling their solidarity with Hamas, Hezbollah, and radical Islamists in general.
Given the recent abandonment of standardized tests for admission to universities, the watering-down of curricula, and rampant grade inflation, thousands of students at elite campuses feel that they have successfully redefined their universities to suit their own politics, constituencies and demographics.
Insecure about their preparation for college and mostly ignorant of the politics of the Middle East, usefully idiotic students find resonance by screaming antisemitic chants and wearing keffiyehs.
Nurtured in grade school on the Marxist binary of bad, oppressive whites versus good, oppressed nonwhites, they can cheaply shed their boutique guilt by joining the mobs.
The result is a bizarre new antisemitism and overt support for the gruesome terrorists of Hamas by those who usually preach to the middle class about their own exalted morality.
Still, woke jihadism would never have found resonance had Western leaders—vote-conscious heads of state, timid university presidents, and radicalized big-city mayors and police chiefs—not ignored blatant violations of laws against illegal immigration, vandalism, assault, illegal occupation, and rioting.
Finally, woke jihadism is fueling a radical Western turn to the right, partly due to open borders and the huge influx into the West from non-Western illiberal regimes.
Partly the reaction is due to the ingratitude shown their hosts by indulged Middle-Eastern guest students and green card holders.
Partly, the public is sick of the sense of entitlement shown by pampered, sanctimonious protestors.
And partly the revulsion arises against left-wing governments and universities that will not enforce basic criminal and immigration statutes in fear of offending this strange new blend of wokism and jihadism.
Yet the more violent campuses and streets become, the more clueless the mobs seem about the cascading public antipathy to what they do and what they represent.
Originally published by Tribune Content Agency.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
The post The West Is Sick of the New Woke Jihadism appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Noted left-wing organizations such as Arabella Advisors and the Soros network are bankrolling the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protests across the United States, according to a new website documenting the organizations and their funders.
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has launched a new website, ColorRevolutions.us, that details the nonprofit organizations, academic and financial institutions, and foreign governments that have put financial resources behind the anti-Israel protests after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel last Oct. 7.
“The stakes not only for the American way of life, but for Western civilization itself, could not be higher,” Mike Howell, executive director of the Heritage Oversight Project, told The Daily Signal.
“Our country is being overthrown from the inside. They’re not afraid. They’re blatantly and publicly celebrating terrorist causes,” Howell added. “This United States needs to get its pride and resolve back, or else we’re going to lose it all.”
The website contends this funding resembles a “color revolution in the United States.”
The website’s “about” section describes color revolutions as “uprisings supported by actors whose interests in protests are not primarily the protest topic.”
It continues:
The actors are distinct in terms of demographics, economic class, nationality, etc. from the bulk of the protestors. They use their significant resources to leverage a divisive event into self-serving political change that is substantially broader than the original protest topic. …
This site makes the case to Americans that behind the current outbreak of protests are well-resourced groups with a history of driving for radical social change that most Americans rightly identified as harmful and have come to reject.
The New Venture Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization operating under the umbrella of Arabella Advisors, has funded anti-Israel protests at Georgetown University and The George Washington University, both schools based in Washington, D.C.
Numerous other organizations funded by major institutional left-wing donors are engaged in organizing anti-Israel or pro-Hamas protests and activities.
For example, the website reports that billionaire funder of left-wing causes George Soros’ family’s Open Society Foundations have funded protest organizers Jewish Voice for Peace and U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.
The progressive political fundraising group ActBlue has funded organizing efforts by the groups MPower Change, an organization that purports to fight Islamophobia and white supremacy, and Until Freedom Inc., a group that says it seeks “intersectional social justice.”
The traditional left-leaning philanthropy group Tides Foundation financially supports the Adalah Justice Project, Jewish Voice for Peace, Justice and Education Fund, and Students for Justice in Palestine.
Beyond typical left-leaning organizations, the Chinese Communist Party is working with American millionaire entrepreneur Neville Roy Singham. Singham has a network that has funded protest organizers Justice and Education Fund and The People’s Forum.
It was The People’s Forum that organized the protests at Columbia University, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
The New York Times reported in May 2023 that Singham’s network pushed Chinese Communist Party talking points in its progressive advocacy. And The Jerusalem Post reported that Singham, a consultant for Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, was bankrolling the efforts. Singham has denied that he promotes Chinese propaganda.
Other American Muslim organizations are backing the anti-Israel efforts. These include American Muslims for Palestine, founded in 2005. The Anti-Defamation League called American Muslims for Palestine “the leading organization providing anti-Zionist training.”
The Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation, for Americans for Justice in Palestine, is a fiscal sponsor of American Muslims for Palestine.
The Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund also donated to the Justice and Education Fund and The People’s Forum.
“This was not Goldman Sachs money. We administer a Donor Advised Fund in our asset and wealth management business, and as with all donor advised funds, donations are made to 501c3 charities, at the client’s direction, using a client’s contributions to the fund,” a Goldman Sachs spokesperson told The Daily Signal in a statement after the initial publication of the story.
The Daily Signal reached out to all the funders listed on the Color Revolutions website. None responded by publication time.
Some responded afterwards.
“As a donor-advised fund, Schwab Charitable facilitates grants recommended by donors to 501(c)(3) charitable organizations deemed eligible by the IRS and state regulators,” Schwab Charitable Trusts said in a written statement after publication. “Grants recommended by donors do not reflect the values or beliefs of Schwab Charitable or its management. Schwab Charitable is an independent 501(c)(3) public charity regulated by the IRS and a separate legal entity from Charles Schwab. We encourage anyone with concerns about a charitable organization to contact the IRS (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf) or state regulators (http://www.nasconet.org/resources/state-government/).”
This story was updated to included responses from some of the identified donors.
The post Who’s the Big Money Bankrolling Pro-Hamas Protests in US? You Might Be Surprised appeared first on The Daily Signal.
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Former President Donald Trump holds a double-digit lead over President Joe Biden on the four most important issues facing Americans today, according to new polling from Scott Rasmussen.
The RMG Research survey asked registered voters to rank the most important issues and then pick the candidate they trust more: Biden or Trump. Topping the list were inflation, the economy, immigration, and crime.
Trump has the largest lead on immigration (+17), followed by inflation (+11), the economy (+11), and crime (+10). He also has a big edge over Biden on the war between Israel and Hamas (+12) and a smaller advantage on gun laws (+4).
Biden dominates on climate change (+18) and polls ahead of Trump on abortion (+10), health care (+9), and education (+6).
The full chart below from RMG Research shows the percentage breakdown for each candidate.
On nearly every issue surveyed, Trump has gained ground since Rasmussen’s previous poll in April and earlier surveys comparing the two presidential front-runners. His survey did not include third-party candidates.
The RMG Research poll was conducted June 10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
The post Voters Trust Trump on 4 Most Important Issues appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Thousands gathered around the White House Saturday to demand that President Joe Biden stop all military aid to Israel amid its war against the terrorist group Hamas. The “Shut it Down for Palestine” movement, comprised of controversial groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, organized the giant rally against Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
Several organizations in the movement previously praised the Oct. 7 attack in which Hamas killed around 1,200 Israelis, raped women, and took hundreds of hostages. SJP, for example, referred to the terror onslaught as “a historic win” days after the news broke.
Saturday’s gathering proved a striking display of unity between Muslim, Marxist, LGBTQ, and even Jewish activists. Many organizers and demonstrators made it clear that they were not just demanding a “cease-fire” between Israel and Hamas. “Resistance” against the Jewish state–and fierce anti-American sentiment–were the overall themes.
Here’s what I saw:
A group of masked individuals carried a sign calling for “jihad”—an Islamic term for holy war cited by those who believe God commands them to kill unbelievers—and “Al Qassam,” a reference to Hamas’ military unit.
Near the White House lawn, a group of people in head scarves hold a sign calling for "jihad" and "martyrdom" and referencing Al Qassam, the military unit of Hamas. pic.twitter.com/w3YtKv6qzk
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
A man walking by told the protesters to be careful about their “messaging,” to which one replied, “shut up.”
At least two others wore green Hamas headbands, one carrying a megaphone with a sticker on it that read, “I voted.” They frequently stuck together and led groups of people in pro-Palestinian chants.
At least two protesters are wearing Hamas-style green headbands.
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024pic.twitter.com/JwNyCUzseW
Another protester, an elderly man, attracted lots of attention by carrying a “stand with Hamas” sign. The Daily Signal talked to him to see whether he was serious.
A man who identified himself as Mike smiled as I photographed him holding this sign.
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
When I asked him about his stance, he said "resistance" is "the only way forward" against the "Jewish-supremacist state of Israel."
He denied that Hamas wants genocide against Jews. pic.twitter.com/yAHg6KwtvQ
His smile quickly faded as he declared that Palestinians are enduring “genocide” and must beat Israel “by any means necessary.” The Daily Signal asked what he thought about the genocidal elements of Hamas’s founding charter, which describes a “Day of Judgment” when Muslims will kill every Jew. Hamas is only “resisting genocide,” he said, his voice quivering and his body shaking with rage.
“Got that?” he asked sharply.
More than a few fringe actors explicitly praised terrorists at the event, however.
A leader with the Black Alliance for Peace said during his speech, "Oct. 7 was the beginning of the end of the genocide," prompting a round of applause and cheers.
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
It's safe to say this is a pro-Hamas rally. pic.twitter.com/SysIiGK8cm
Protesters celebrated other violent anti-Israel groups, in addition to Hamas.
A young person at the protest told me he is selling T-shirts of Leila Khaled, calling her an "O.G." for the "Palestine freedom fight."
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
Khaled is a member of the designated terrorist group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and she helped hijack planes. pic.twitter.com/5P1iQxoSJc
A few demonstrators made explicit attempts to distance themselves from antisemitism. Some signs claimed that “antizionism [is not] antisemitism” or that supporting the Palestinians “doesn’t make you anti-Jew.” Still, pushback against the more radical protesters proved scarce.
The small police presence failed to stop protesters as they spray-painted historic monuments and property surrounding the White House. To date, no arrests have been reported. The U.S. Capitol Police referred The Daily Signal to U.S. Park Police for comment, and the Park Police did not immediately respond when asked about arrests.
Monuments in front of the White House are being vandalized — the second time anti-Israel demonstrators have done this in recent memory. pic.twitter.com/6JbPndiHx1
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
Protesters also left graffiti on a truck parked on a nearby curb and at least one park bench.
Activists presented the U.S. as a force for evil due to its stance on Israel.
"Death to AmeriKKKa" written on a monument in front of the White House. pic.twitter.com/6KROzNxSIW
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
Demonstrators strongly condemned “Zionism,” the view that Jews have a right to their own state in the current land of Israel. Speakers onstage told their allies to help “smash” or “abolish Zionism.” One man scrawled “death to Israel” on a monument.
A protester writes "death to Israel" on the monument to Marquis de Lafayette, a Revolutionary War figure. pic.twitter.com/wgTvamUcqx
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
Agitators wrote, “Al Qassam, you make us proud[.] Kill another soldier now!” on another monument.
After a protester wrote “all Zionists are bastards” on the nearby Treasury Department building, a woman remarked, “that’s factual!”
Protesters advocated for socialism, signaled support for the brutal Cuban Revolution leader Che Guevara, and offered copies of “The Communist Manifesto” and other Marxist writings to passersby. Protesters held signs from the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a communist political party founded in 2004.
Protesters advertise communism and denounce "AmeriKKKa" in front of a historic U.S. war monument. pic.twitter.com/n5UyrjHCT3
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
A socialist group demands, "free all Palestinian political prisoners." pic.twitter.com/KthjvIXa4p
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
Another activist holds a sign praising Che Guevara, who led the bloody regime of the late communist dictator Fidel Castro. Others fly the Cuban flag alongside the Palestinian flag or display the Soviet hammer and sickle symbol. pic.twitter.com/TeEvCEGCsi
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
The crowds painted President Joe Biden as a mass murderer of Palestinians in tandem with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Some held giant posters showing the heads of the two leaders with blood dripping from their mouths. Others held a small severed head of the president.
Protesters occasionally chanted, “F— Joe Biden!”
Several protesters carried signs or flags promoting gay and transgender rights as they rallied for Gaza, where male homosexual activity is illegal.
The LGBT movement also made a strong showing today alongside Marxist and pro-Hamas groups. pic.twitter.com/tcIEq7fQbW
— Hudson Crozier ?? (@L0neStarTrooper) June 8, 2024
A few people presenting themselves as Jewish joined with pro-Palestinian protesters at Washington, D.C.’s Farragut Square shortly before heading to the White House event.
A young man wearing a yarmulke also walked around White House protesters with a sign that read, “Israel uses me as a human shield.”
The number of demonstrators significantly dwindled after around four and a half hours. At that time, a young man began kicking their signs off of the grass surrounding a monument, cursing them out, and flipping them off.
“I stand with Israel!” he yelled.
Another man followed the agitator as he walked away, filming him on his phone and asking repeatedly, “Do you support genocide?”
The counter-protester declined an interview.
The post 9 Things I Saw at the Pro-Hamas White House Rally appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib spoke over Memorial Day weekend at a conference endorsed by individuals associated with a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
The Michigan Democrat spoke at the People’s Conference for Palestine on Saturday, where she chided President Joe Biden for not doing enough to stop Israel from conducting a “genocide,” according to a video posted to Instagram by the Palestinian Youth Movement, one of the event’s organizers.
Salah Salah, a founding member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, endorsed the conference, and Wisam Rafeedie, another individual who produced literature for the PFLP, spoke to attendees about how “movements achieve transformation.”
The State Department designated the PFLP as a terrorist organization in 1997. The organization has conducted “suicide operations,” hijacked planes, and launched rockets at civilians, according to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The PFLP also reportedly participated in the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks and held Israeli hostages, according to NGO Monitor, an Israeli nonprofit. The terrorist group posted multiple images and videos of their fighters infiltrating Israeli military installations to its Telegram channel on and after Oct. 7, according to NGO Monitor.
A message from the Palestinian intellectual and revolutionary Salah Salah in support of the People’s Conference for Palestine, May 24-26 in Detroit, Michigan. We’ll see you soon at the conference — link to register in our bio! ?? pic.twitter.com/y8T3LJTgI1
— Palestinian Youth Movement (@palyouthmvmt) May 19, 2024
“I extend to you my thanks and regards for these efforts that are a continuation of your achievements organizing unprecedented protests across North America and other capitals and cities around the world,” Salah said in a May 19 translated video posted by the Palestinian Youth Movement. “This is an initiative of extreme importance, I call on members of the Palestinian and Arab communities and friends and supporters of our cause to participate in this People’s Conference.”
Salah compared the actions of “Zionist forces” to Nazis in his endorsement of the conference, according to the translated video.
“Participation in this People’s Conference is crucial on a large scale and on the highest level to set a plan that offers further coordination and an agreement on a strategy for unified action that guarantees continuity and consistency to achieve the goals and tasks posed by the conference,” he continued.
Rafeedie ran an underground publishing operation for the PFLP in the 1980s and was detained by the Israeli government for involvement with the organization in 1991, according to Amnesty International. He also endorsed the conference before it started, according to a post on X.
Yesterday, I saw that PFLP member Wisam Rafeedie, who is set to speak later today (presumably virtually), also endorsed it pic.twitter.com/FQFyx7wEVz
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 26, 2024
Rafeedie participated in a panel at the conference that explored how pro-Palestinian activists in America can “utilize this moment of heightened contradictions to advance our struggle for liberation from within the imperial core,” according to the event’s website.
“These Zionists lie like they breathe,” Rafeedie said during his appearance, according to the Palestinian Youth Movement.
“These Zionists lie like they breathe.” – Wisam Rafeedie pic.twitter.com/PTuRClVtzp
— Palestinian Youth Movement (@palyouthmvmt) May 26, 2024
Tlaib called Biden an “enabler” during her speech at the conference, according to video posted by the Palestinian Youth Movement.
“The International Court of Justice just ruled that the Israeli government must stop its invasion of Rafah. But President Biden says what’s happening in Gaza is not a genocide,” she said. “Where’s your red line, President Biden?”
The United Nations International Court of Justice ruled on May 24 that Israel must end its military operations in Rafah, a city in the southern region of Gaza, due to the impact the continued assault would have on the civilian population. Biden previously vowed to restrict aid to Israel if the Jewish state invaded Rafah, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken later confirming that the United States is holding back some of its aid.
Tlaib and the Palestinian Youth Movement did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment. Rafeedie and Salah could not be reached for comment.
Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation
The post Rep. Tlaib Addresses Conference Endorsed by Founding Member of Palestinian Terrorist Group appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Chris Rufo wrote “America’s Cultural Revolution” last year as a warning to conservatives about the radical Left‘s takeover of institutions—from business and government to education and entertainment. In addition to being an exposé, it also served as a call to action.
Now, a year later, Rufo is optimistic that Americans, including some to left of center politically, are “waking up.” He attributes the change to the gruesome and deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas and the Left’s unflinching (and often antisemitic) criticism of Israel that followed.
“After 10/7, when those same people who were marching for [Black Lives Matter], who were pushing trans in schools, who were ramping up DEI, when they’re out there celebrating the terrorists who butchered, raped, and murdered innocent people, I think it caused this moment of horror, but also this moment of clarity,” Rufo told The Daily Signal.
The popular writer, filmmaker, and activist—whose work is available at ChristopherRufo.com—was in Washington, D.C., last week to accept The Heritage Foundation’s prestigious Salvatori Prize.
Listen to the interview on “The Daily Signal Podcast” or read an edited and abridged transcript below.
Rob Bluey: It’s almost a year since you published “America’s Cultural Revolution.” It was a call to action for Americans to wake up to what’s going on in the Marxist ideology that’s infused so many of the institutions in this country. Do you feel that people are heeding that call today?
Chris Rufo: I think so. You always want a greater number of people to heed the call.
The story that I told in the book was certainly revealed to be true at the time, but it took on a new dimension following the Hamas terror attack on Oct. 7 of last year. That has just accelerated this waking up that is happening in the United States, and in particular on the center-left. A lot of people who would say, “Oh, woke is so overblown, it’s not so bad. DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] is good. Maybe it’s not perfect, but maybe we can improve it.” But those were rationalizations.
Today is the day. My book "America's Cultural Revolution" goes into publication as the #1 bestseller on Amazon. I put my whole heart into writing this book, hoping to reshape the national narrative and create a path for a conservative counter-revolution.https://t.co/u0eGLgCaRL
— Christopher F. Rufo ?? (@realchrisrufo) July 18, 2023
And after 10/7, when those same people who were marching for BLM, who were pushing trans in schools, who were ramping up DEI, when they’re out there celebrating the terrorists who butchered, raped, and murdered innocent people, I think it caused this moment of horror, but also this moment of clarity, “Oh, all of that leads to this.”
I’ve never seen anything like it. You’re seeing a lot of shift right now, not just in public opinion, but in political alliances. You’re seeing a shift in financing people pulling back from giving money to universities, including the Ivy League universities.
Bluey: Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, says that he’s very optimistic that the American people will take back their country from the elites that have set us down this path.
Rufo: That’s the right attitude. That’s what I love about Kevin. Maybe it’s a Texas thing, a little Alamo spirit, but I share the same conviction.
And look, a lot of people on our side are down in the dumps. They’re demoralized, they’re feeling pessimistic. We all feel that at times, of course, but we have to also have some greater historical perspective and read the history of the founding, read the history of the Civil War, read the history of the Second World War, read the history of the ’60s and ’70s. We’ve been through much more difficult challenges in the past.
The question is, can we meet the standard of the past? That’s the real question. It’s a question of our own culture, our own spirit, our own character.
I certainly feel doubts about that sometimes. Even in the pre-revolutionary period, the Patriots of the American Revolution doubted themselves the whole time. Even in January of 1776, all of the smart opinion in the Colonies was that most Americans did not want revolution. Most Americans did not want to separate from Britain. Most Americans would refuse to participate.
History is full of surprises, and I hope that we’re fortunate again, as we’ve been so many times in our past.
Bluey: You recently hosted a conversation with some individuals who go by pseudonyms who have been doxxed by what you call the left-wing smear machine that is quite coordinated in some of its activities. But you also sounded somewhat hopeful that maybe things were changing in that regard.
Rufo: Absolutely, yes. There’s a whole range of reputational destruction mechanisms and some of them are formalized, like the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center], for example, which is kind of a sham organization that would try to put you on a list and refer you to law enforcement for protesting a school career. They’ve run out of actual true hate groups. So, they have now labeled everything a hate group. It’s absurd.
But then down to the doxxing. A lot of people online want to maintain pseudonyms. Again, America has a long tradition of pseudonyms. The Founders wrote under pseudonyms for many of their works. Thomas Paine wrote anonymously “Common Sense,” which is the kind of literary work that helps spark the revolution. And then, as now, unmasking people as a way to put them toward reputational destruction. There are even more personal tactics to intimidate you, harass you, whatever.
Counterrevolution #3: The Left-Wing Smear Machine by Christopher F. Rufo
Pseudonymity, doxing, and the dissident Right.
Read on SubstackTwo things are happening, though. Those tactics have lost their steam. Those tactics have lost their effectiveness. Conservatives are getting much tougher and much smarter and much more courageous and much more sophisticated and adept at responding to those reputational attacks. Our audience, our supporters, our people automatically discount them: “Oh, OK, another person on the so-and-so list.” “Oh, OK, another person gets a smear piece and the X, Y, and Z, The Guardian, whatever publication.”
It was so overused for a period that it lost its rhetorical force, and conservatives have successfully adapted.
It can still be damaging to people who are in a vulnerable position—if you’re an employee at a big corporation, yeah, maintaining your anonymity is probably smart. But if you’re in politics or in the political world, we now have the tools, and we have now the support where some of these reputational attacks can be successfully countered.
Bluey: What keeps you going? You are sometimes outgunned 100 to 1, 500 to 1, maybe more, and yet it doesn’t seem to deter you.
Rufo: I love it. I enjoy it. I love the challenge. I enjoy the fight. I savor victories when they come and then I try to learn from defeats, which are inevitable. But I love the process and I enjoy the drama. I enjoy the conflict. All the things that you’re supposed to not like about politics.
The longer that I’ve been studying it and then participating in it, I realized that, actually, that is kind of the core of political life. And for whatever reason, I’m suited to it. And I find it to be an intellectual challenge, emotionally challenging, professionally challenging. It’s challenging from a business perspective. Of course, I run my own little shop as well as partnerships with these great institutions. And so, every day is an immense challenge, and the odds are often stacked against you. And that, for me, is an ideal environment.
It’s an environment that I love and I hope that it also inspires others. And I know that it has inspired many others to kind of follow suit and to try to really get in the fray.
The other thing that has been helpful is understanding that politics hasn’t really changed in a long time. And so, I’m realizing over the last few years, it’s like, all right, I have many flaws and many limitations, but I maybe have one gift. And it’s in the art of rhetoric, broadly speaking.
And so, I’ve been reading a lot of the old works from Greece and Rome about rhetoric, and it could have been written yesterday. It’s amazing. You’re reading Aristotle’s Treatise on Rhetoric and you say, “This is incredible.” It’s like nothing has changed. These guys were going down and they were duking it out intellectually in the Agora or in Rome, in the senate.
And, of course, they have grandeur that we don’t have. We live in a different era, but you get a sense in participating in something greater, you’re participating in a tradition that we’ve had in the West. For me, that is also a source of joy, a source of sustenance.
Bluey: With that being said, is there a particular goal that you have for 2024 or something that you’re working on, an objective that our audience may be able to support what you’re doing?
Rufo: I’m still finishing up this campaign to abolish DEI, which we launched last year. That’ll take me through the summer. The 18-month campaign cycle is probably the max, where after that, you start to lose effectiveness.
My goal is always to launch campaigns, entrepreneurial, from scratch, and then hand them off to others once they’re well developed. Launching critical race theory, launching trans ideology in schools, launching abolish DEI, launching this campaign against Harvard. Now others have taken up the mantle on many of those campaigns.
I feel like almost like a venture capital investor, startup operator. The startup phase is exciting. I like it. And then I hand it over when these campaigns are mature.
I’ll tell you, though, I don’t know what’s next. I know that we’re going to wind down abolish DEI. I do know that I’ll be hiring some additional staff in the coming months, but coming up with a campaign is not a work of mathematics. It’s a work of art. And so, part of the artistic process is the mystery of inspiration. I know that is maybe contrary to some other organizations that are a bit more logical, a bit more rational.
I tell my funders and supporters, like, “Alright, supporters want to support the work.” And I say, “Well, what’s the next thing?” It’s like, I don’t know, we’ll figure it out. But something will happen. And part of the success in political activism is sensing opportunity. Some of the best campaigns kind of emerged spontaneously or emerged by accident. Like a novelist or writer, sometimes you’re just waiting for that moment of inspiration.
There’s no end point to politics. I know that as long as I’m alive, there will be something to think about, something to fight about, something to work on. It’s just a matter of time before the next thing comes up.
Bluey: What are some of the ways that you would encourage people to follow your work or financially support you?
Rufo: Follow @realChrisRufo on X. Follow christopherrufo.com. On Substack, small supporters can become paid subscribers, $8 a month or $80 a year. We have a huge and growing audience there. And philanthropic donors can reach out to me. There’s a contact form on my site.
On the support side, it’s been really unreal. We have incredible people in our country that want to see success. And I actually don’t do any outbound fundraising. I don’t do any solicitation. I don’t do any calls. But people have just come out of the woodwork saying, “Hey, I love what you’re doing. I want to support it.” That’s a very encouraging sign because what it shows is that there are people around the country that have the sophistication, the means, the inspiration, the capacity. They want to see something better.
P.S. If you want to support further investigations into plagiarism at America's Ivy League universities, become a paid subscriber to my Substack. I have already committed $10,000 to this project, with the potential for more: https://t.co/etKtrVPEmL
— Christopher F. Rufo ?? (@realchrisrufo) February 22, 2024
The voting public, if you measure public opinion, has the right idea on many, many issues, if not most issues. The limitation is not the public. The limitation is not the funders or the philanthropists.
I’m sure anyone in this world can grumble about specifics, but actually, limitation is us as political leaders, as intellectual leaders, as movement leaders. I’m more and more convinced that the raw materials are there. It’s really up to us to shape them, to direct them, to point them in the right place, and to mobilize people in the most effective way possible. And so that, to me, is the big limitation right now. And a limitation is just another word for a challenge.
There’s a rich vein of opportunity there. It really is truly a rich vein. How do we get these? I mean, Hillsdale College is incredible, the Manhattan Institute, The Heritage Foundation, a whole range of other groups. We have brilliant people, we have great supporters, and now it’s time for action. And that’s really what I’m hoping that we’re driving toward.
Bluey: What’s holding us back then? Do you think that there’s an impediment, or is there a challenge that you want to leave us with and our audience?
Rufo: Yes, there are many challenges. Conservative institutions have to radically modernize the way they approach politics. They have to have an understanding of how media works in the 21st century. They have to have an understanding of how politics works.
We have to reconnect with the essence of political life, and we have to understand politics for what it is. We have to really refine our rhetorical sensibilities. … And then, of course, translate into administrative success. We’re actually fairly well there. But the rhetorical part is really the missing element on the Right.
If you actually look at the great political leaders in history—from the Greeks and Romans to the American Founders, to [Abraham] Lincoln, to, I mean, even in a less classical way, but of course, [Ronald] Reagan—they were very serious about rhetoric.
I actually think that that is the missing link. And rhetoric in a postmodern environment means media activism, mass persuasion, elite influence, digital communications, all of those five areas are how modern rhetoric plays out. If we can really radically modernize on those five practices, everything that we do could be much more successful.
The post Defeating the Radical Left: Chris Rufo Talks Strategy and Resilience appeared first on The Daily Signal.
New polling from Scott Rasmussen reveals that America’s elite 1%—those with high incomes, urban residences, and postgraduate degrees—are significantly out of step with the rest of the country on a range of issues.
It’s a troubling trend for America, and it doesn’t bode well for our future considering the elite 1% occupy many of the leadership roles in our cultural, educational, and government institutions.
There’s perhaps no statistic more shocking than the 69% of politically obsessed elites who think it would be better if only people with college degrees could vote. By comparison, just 15% of all voters hold that view. (Rasmussen defines “politically obsessed” as elites who talk about politics every day.)
Rasmussen’s latest survey, conducted by RMG Research, asked other questions ranging from government censorship to gun ownership. On nearly every issue, there’s a wide gulf between the ruling class and everyday Americans.
You can learn more about work on the elite 1% by tuning into “The Scott Rasmussen Show,” which airs Sunday at 10 a.m. ET on Merit Street Media.
In the meantime, listen to our full interview on “The Daily Signal Podcast” or read an edited transcript below.
Rob Bluey: What are the headlines coming out of your latest research?
Scott Rasmussen: As a reminder, the last time we talked about how the politically obsessed elites think the American people have too much individual freedom and people in this elite world really trust the federal government.
What we did this time is began to ask some of these same groups, the elite 1 % and the politically obsessed, what do they think America looks like?
Perhaps the funniest finding of all is we ask the question, “Do most Americans agree with you on most important issues?” Now, if we ask voters, about half say, “Yeah, I think most people agree with me.” Among the politically obsessed elites, 82% of that group thinks that most Americans agree with them on most issues. It’s not even close to true, but they’re looking in a mirror. They see what they want to see.
What’s scary about that, if you think about it in context of the administrative state, if these people believe that their views are representative of America, it justifies them cheating a little bit or bending the rules because they can say, “We’re fighting for the American people.” In fact, they’re fighting against the American people.
Bluey: Are there particular policy issues where you see that playing out more so than others? For instance, one that comes to mind is climate change.
Rasmussen: It’s actually harder to find places where the American people are with the elite. You mentioned climate change. About 2 out of 3 of this politically obsessed elite think that most voters are willing to pay $250 a year or more to fight climate change.
When we do polling to ask people how much they’re willing to pay—in terms of taxes or higher prices—about half say they’re not willing to pay anything, and 72% say nothing more than $100.
If you think about that in a policy sense, these influencers believe the American people are willing to pay something they’re not, and that’s why they can support some different policy ideas.
But look, it’s starts with a very basic thing: 71% of the politically obsessed elites think most Americans trust the federal government most of the time. That has not been true for 50 years. It’s been a half century since people tended to trust the government that much. Today, only 22% of voters voiced that much trust in government.
That is one of the core distinctions. If you trust the federal government, you trust the regulatory apparatus a lot more. You trust other rules and regulations, and voters just aren’t there.
Bluey: Another area that you polled had to do with social media. What did you find when you surveyed the elite 1% on that particular topic?
Rasmussen: Everybody, whether you’re in the elite or not, has some concern about disinformation and fake news. Where the difference comes is what to do about it.
Among most voters, they say that having the government decide what is misinformation and fake news is a bigger threat than the fake news itself. Among the elites, they say just the opposite.
Should the federal government be allowed to censor social media posts? Among all voters, 16% say yes. Among the politically obsessed elites, just over 50 % say, “Of course, we should have the right to censor social media.” Fundamentally different views.
The views of the elite 1% amount to a rejection of America’s founding ideals. Even on something as simple as, “Does the federal government listen too much or not enough to the American people?” Overwhelmingly, voters say the government is not listening to us and the elites are saying it’s listening too much.
Bluey: There seems to be a wide discrepancy of views when it comes to who should vote and who should have a say in our country’s future. That number to me was one that stood out and was quite alarming.
Rasmussen: Absolutely alarming.
We asked a question that seemed to me to be absurd, Would it be better if only people with a college degree were allowed to vote?”
Appropriately, most Americans just soundly reject that idea. But among the elites, they heavily believe this country would be better off if all those deplorables who didn’t go to college weren’t allowed to vote.
Bluey: And one issue where there’s also quite a big disparity is gun ownership. How do the elite view guns?
Rasmussen: Consistently for decades, voters say they want to live in a community where guns are allowed. Sometimes it’s in the low 60s, sometimes after a horrific shooting event, it moves down to the low 50s, but consistently a majority of Americans can support that.
Among the elite 1 % that politically obsessed portion of it, about 70% of them say, “No, we want to live where guns are outlawed.” And 76% of them want to ban the private ownership of guns.
If you are in that politically obsessed elite and you believe strongly that we should ban guns, and if you believe that most American people want to live in a community where guns are outlawed, then you take an almost religious fervor to the fight to ban guns because you can convince yourself that you’re fighting on behalf of the public. And once again, you’re actually fighting against what the American people are looking for.
Bluey: Do you feel that the elite 1 % are more out of touch in 2024 than maybe they were in past generations?
Rasmussen: First, I don’t have data from past generations, so I can’t make a clear assessment on that. But I think it’s probably a little bit different.
There have always been elites. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were clearly elites of their era, but they also had a commitment to something larger than themselves. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, said he was just articulating what the American people were feeling. At the same time, Alexander Hamilton said, “We need to establish a monarchy.” If you actually read his plan, it’s horrific.
So there have always been some people and elites who kind of rejected the founding ideals, who rejected the concepts of the Declaration of Independence.
>>> ‘Most Terrifying Poll Result I’ve Ever Seen’: Scott Rasmussen Surveys America’s Elite 1%
What’s changed in the last couple of generations are two things.
No. 1, we’re a little bit more sorted geographically. Members of the elite aren’t encountering non-elites on a regular basis. It’s not just that we live in gated communities or separate areas. Public transportation has been replaced by Uber. There’s not a lot of contact with people who aren’t like you.
The second part is there has been the rise of what a lot of people view as the global elite, where people begin to see others from other countries as more like them than they do their own countrymen.
Bluey: The use of pronouns has become quite pronounced in a lot of corporate settings, even in our federal government. There are some departments and agencies that now include them in email signatures and things of that nature. Is there a difference of how elites view pronouns vs. the rest of America?
Rasmussen: Let’s start with the fact that most Americans don’t even know what you’re talking about when you’re expressing your preferred pronouns. Only about 1 out of 10 voters has ever introduced themselves in that manner.
When they hear talk of it, it seems very foreign. But among the politically obsessed elite, about 60%, have introduced themselves expressing their preferred pronouns. And it’s hard to overstate the cultural difference at that point.
If you’re in this elite world—if you’re in the elite schools or many agencies of the federal government—it is absolutely normal and an everyday occurrence that you meet somebody and they tell you not only their name and their position, but their preferred pronouns. In the rest of America, that just doesn’t happen.
When you get into discussions about misgendering somebody, there are regulations being pushed right now that would require employers to punish somebody for misgendering—for not using somebody’s preferred pronouns. Only 9% of voters think that’s a fireable offense, but even more than that, they don’t even know what the discussion is about.
This is where that glaring gap between the elites and most Americans is quite visible. It is the cultural world they’re in, whether we’re talking about guns, or climate change policies, or preferred pronouns, or even the topic of should biological males be allowed to play in women’s sports.
Among the politically obsessed elite, 41% say they should. Now, that’s not a majority, but essentially, the politically obsessed elite is evenly divided on this question, whereas to most Americans, it’s ridiculous. Of course, biological males have a physical advantage. Of course, it is dangerous to let biological males into the women’s locker room. But the elite is having a discussion about it. That is out of step with the country. It is dangerous.
It’s fine to have different views. We all live on our own bubbles. Your bubble is a little different than mine, but probably has some overlap. But you have to be able to look outside your bubble and see what the rest of the country is doing.
If you’re in this elite world, you have enormous influence and you think your views are reflecting the public at large, that’s a really dangerous combination.
Bluey: One of the most notable examples of the last decade is when Donald Trump was elected president. It seemed that the elites were in shock. What might happen if Trump is victorious in November and how might they react?
Rasmussen: On Election Day 2016, most of the conversation was Hillary Clinton is up by three in the polls, but there’s a margin of error, she’ll probably win by six. There was a shock. They couldn’t believe it. They couldn’t imagine what was happening. And because in their mind, Hillary Clinton was the ideally prepared person.
Looking ahead to this year, first thing I will tell you is if the election is at all close, the way the last nine elections have been in, whichever team loses, they’ll believe the election was stolen. If Donald Trump wins, we will hear an awful lot about how he stole the election from these elites.
But something else is happening that’s playing a part in the election. It’s a distorted view of the public.
When we see the campus protests about the Palestinian situation, 62% of the elites have a favorable opinion. They think it’s great what these protesters are doing. Most voters don’t. Only 24% of voters support the protesters.
That leaves the pundits to misread the way a situation has played out. In fact, since the campus protest started, support for Israel has gone up—not what some of the protesters might have hoped for.
A lot of the elites are misreading the dynamics going on right now. About 80 % of the elite 1% approve of the way Joe Biden is doing his job.
The post 69% of Elites Want to Restrict Voting to College Graduates Only appeared first on The Daily Signal.
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Is it antisemitic to point out that the massive, left-wing funding apparatus set up by Hungarian American hedge-fund billionaire George Soros has bankrolled many of the organizations behind anti-Israel protests and riots on college campuses? The Southern Poverty Law Center says that it is, and it smeared Sen. Ted Cruz for citing a Politico report on Soros funding.
Cruz, a Texas Republican, isn’t letting it stand.
“Leftists cannot defend their ideas on the merits, so they instead resort to censorship and cancel culture,” Cruz told The Daily Signal in a written statement Tuesday.
“The SPLC is a chief smear apparatus of the modern Left, and it dutifully attacked me for citing Politico’s investigative report linking George Soros’s money to the antisemitic riots at college campuses across the country,” he noted. “Instead of attacking people for speaking the truth, the SPLC should investigate why George Soros was financially supporting rioters who used horrific antisemitic slurs and attacked Jewish students.”
Two weeks ago, Politico’s Shia Kapos wrote an article revealing that “some of the biggest names in Democratic circles”—specifically Soros, the Rockefeller family, and Hyatt Hotel heirs Susan and Nick Pritzker—have been funding the groups that support anti-Israel protests. Many of the protesters have reportedly harassed Jewish students, shouting antisemitic slogans.
Two groups, Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, receive funding from the Tides Foundation. That organization gets hefty funding from Soros’ charitable groups Foundation to Promote Open Society (which gave more than $10 million to Tides from 1998 to 2018) and Open Society Foundations (which gave more than $12 million to Tides during that same period).
Soros declined to comment to Politico, but a spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations said the charity has “funded a broad spectrum of US groups that have advocated for the rights of Palestinians and Israelis and for peaceful resolution to the conflict in Israel.”
A few days after Politico published the report, Cruz highlighted it during a news conference on Capitol Hill.
“I want to finally underscore a very important story that broke last week came from Politico, and it was a story [about] the funding for the anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-American protests occurring at universities across the country,” Cruz said. “Much of the funding came from Joe Biden and the Democrats’ biggest donors.”
“Here’s who Politico identified: George Soros, the Rockefeller brothers, Bill and Melinda Gates, and the Pritzker family,” the Texas Republican added.
The SPLC published an “analysis” Thursday condemning the “far right” for using “decades-old antisemitic tropes to denounce the protests as inherently antisemitic.”
The SPLC claimed that Soros “is not only a Holocaust survivor but also an outspoken critic of governments and administrations that stifle the free exchange of ideas.” Conservatives often portray him “as a boogeyman” and “a puppet master behind the scenes,” the organization noted.
The SPLC quotes author Emily Tamkin to suggest that any criticism of Soros’ funding is an antisemitic trope.
“We have moved past the point where it can even be called out as antisemitic because it’s now so baked into” American sociopolitics, Tamkin told the SPLC. People may even criticize Soros funding “not realizing it is an antisemitic trope,” she argued.
The Southern Poverty Law Center claimed Politico’s article merely “hinted at a supposed connection between Soros and the campus protests for a cease-fire in Gaza,” claiming that the fact-checking organization PolitiFact had “thoroughly debunked” any such connection. The SPLC added: “Politico has had to attach a long series of corrections to the piece.”
So how did PolitiFact supposedly “debunk” the connection? The outlet acknowledged that “Soros’ grant-making organization, Open Society Foundations, has awarded grants to some groups … linked to the demonstrations.” Yet PolitiFact downplayed this link, stating that “connections between Soros’ money and specific campus protesters involved several degrees of separation.”
Soros critics such as Ted Cruz don’t believe that the 93-year-old philanthropist is personally handing out checks to rioters on the front lines. Rather, they note that the financier’s massive funds contribute money to groups that help organize the anti-Israel protests. PolitiFact didn’t even try to “debunk” this, because it is simply true.
As for Politico’s corrections to its article, none directly involved Soros. Politico corrected the record on the Gates Foundation and the year in which the Rockefeller Brothers Fund contributed to the Tides Foundation.
Noting that Soros funding is behind the antisemitic riots is not itself antisemitic—it also is simply true. Soros himself may not support protesters’ harassment of Jews on college campuses, but it is completely fair to point out that his money, going through intermediaries, has helped the protests.
The Southern Poverty Law Center’s tactics here should not be surprising.
As I explain in my book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC rightly sued Ku Klux Klan groups into bankruptcy. It then took the program it used to monitor the KKK and weaponized it against mainstream conservative and Christian organizations, branding them “hate groups” and “antigovernment extremists.”
The SPLC also has benefited from Soros. The Foundation to Promote Open Society gave the SPLC a $75,000 grant in 2016, “to convene an ‘Anti-Hate Table’ of national anti-bias and Muslim, Arab, and South Asian community organizations.”
According to my analysis of IRS records, the Tides Foundation—one of the funds at the center of Politico’s article—gave the SPLC more than $1 million between 2018 and 2022.
The SPLC just might have a vested interest in responding to attacks on Soros funding and the Tides Foundation.
The post EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Sets the Record Straight After SPLC Claims He Spread ‘Antisemitic Trope’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Vaunce News 
