Shades of Daniel Penny, with one difference: there's a new sheriff in town. NJ prosecutes Jew acting in self-defense, Feds sue his attacker.

/

Altaf Sharif, Esq., attacking 65-year-old David Silberberg on the grounds of the Congregation Ohr torah synagogue. Video and photos can be seen in the federal government’s suit filed against Mr. Shaif et al.

Feds sue anti-Israel protestors who clashed with Jewish supporters at heated NJ rally that led to dentist’s arrest

“The Jew is here!” one of the defendants in the suit, Eric Camins, allegedly shouted at Jewish worshiper David Silberberg.

That’s when another protester, Altaf Sharif, attacked Silberberg, dragging him to a parking lot — before placing him in a chokehold, the suit alleged.

Glick rushed to help Silberberg and whacked Sharif on the head with a flashlight, according to the court papers.

The dentist has pleaded not guilty to felony assault charges — insisting he acted in self-defense — and cheered the feds’ support Tuesday.

“Today’s filing by the Department of Justice affirms what our community has been saying all along: the real violations were committed by those who intimidated, blocked and attacked a member of the community in front of a synagogue,” he said in a statement.

“The indictment by the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office against me was improperly obtained, and my motion has been filed seeking its dismissal. My defense team is confident it will be dismissed. 

“The charges brought against me in Essex County are baseless. I acted in defense of someone being viciously attacked when the police failed to respond.”

The Democrats made a fatal slip 36 years ago: in their eagerness to pass a bill protecting abortion mills from protesters, they allowed the Republicans to include a provision protecting religious facilities too. That clause was never used by the DOJ, of course, until now. Of note, perhaps, is that in the present case, the action being brought is a civil suit, seeking monetary damages and an injunction against further acts of violence, and not a criminal prosecution. That may make a judgement in favor of the government easier to obtain; we’ll see.

(If you’re curious, follow the link to the suit itself, which I’ve included in the photo-caption: it details exactly what these people did, and backs up the suit’s allegations with pictures, videos, victim’ statements and admissions against interest made by the defendants.)

FACE ACT of 1994

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit: (1) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a facility, or attempting to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a place of religious worship.

Sets maximum dollar amounts of fines (including for exclusively nonviolent physical obstruction) and maximum imprisonment terms. Includes in the available civil remedies injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs.

Authorizes civil actions by aggrieved persons, the Attorney General, and State attorneys general for violations.

Specifies that nothing in this Act shall be construed to: (1) prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) create new remedies for interference with activities protected by free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; (3) provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to conduct prohibited by this Act, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies; or (4) interfere with the enforcement of State or local laws regulating the performance of abortions or other reproductive health services.

DOJ Turns the Tables on the Left, Files FACE Act Suit Against Violent Mob at New Jersey Synagogue

…. Back in June, our own Rick Moran detailed how the Trump administration had planned to turn the left’s strategies on them by using the FACE Act to protect houses of worship — a part of the law the Democrats have conveniently ignored. 

Today Trump’s DOJ made good on that promise.

Earlier this afternoon, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint under the FACE Act against “entities and individuals who targeted a synagogue in West Orange, New Jersey, during a November 2024 protest that escalated into violence.” 

Those entities and individuals include the Party for Socialism and Liberation of New Jersey; American Muslims for Palestine New Jersey; Tova Fry (aka Terry Kay); Altaf Sharif; Matt Dragon; and Eric Camins. 

Last November, members of the Jewish community made plans for two gatherings: an Israel real estate seminar and a celebration. While the original site of the events was to be the home of a community member, it had to be moved to a nearby synagogue due to what the JewishLink news site called “multiple threats from pro-Hamas groups and protesters stalking the (member’s) home.” 


The JewishLink report added, “Despite efforts to keep the new location private, pro-Hamas protesters discovered the venue. They stormed the quiet neighborhood, chanting ‘Zionists are Nazis,’ ‘Intifada, Intifada’ and ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.’” 

The DOJ complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges that certain protesters “engaged in threats of force, intimidation, and violent conduct directed at congregants of the Congregation Ohr Torah synagogue.” 

In a statement, the DOJ said, “According to the complaint, the defendants’ actions were intended to interfere with the synagogue community’s right to freely exercise their religion, including gathering for a religious ceremony to honor the life of a deceased rabbi.” 

The FACE Act was enacted in 1994 to punish peaceful pro-life demonstrations in what its pro-abortion proponents framed as countering an organized, national campaign of obstruction, destruction, and violence against abortion clinics and their staff members. 

What they’ve always had a problem with is that the presence of peaceful pro-life protesters is a usually quiet reminder to expectant mothers that they are indeed carrying a living human being into that abortion clinic. 

While the FACE Act was designed to enhance access to the left’s sacred place in the form of an abortion mill, the act’s creators decided to throw a bone to Republicans – obviously, to give them some cover – by adding in “places of worship.” I

The FACE Act makes it illegal to use force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising their rights to seek, provide services, or worship. 

The DOJ lawsuit intends to “prevent the defendants from engaging in future violations of the FACE Act at synagogues or obstructing worshipers from synagogues throughout New Jersey — the fullest reach of the District Court. If granted, that injunction will ensure that congregants of the West Orange synagogue may attend religious services without harassment, intimidation, or violence.” 

Speaking of Islam ... (Updated — twice)

/


PodcastSocial

EnglandPakistanUnited KingdomIncest

British health service says marrying your first cousin has many benefits and "economic advantages"

The UK's National Health Service is the country's government-run (socialistic) healthcare system.

Last week, NHS England's "Genomics Education Programme" seriously published guidance that said incest is okay, even if such inbreeding comes with double the risk of genetic defects (this is basic science, folks!).

Even dumber (somehow) is the fact that the NHS uses King Henry VIII as an example of cousin marriage.

Are the people in charge of the UK's healthcare system actually this dumb?

Divorcing your wife and marrying her cousin is not consanguineous marriage under any sense of the word. The word "consanguineous" literally means "of the same blood" in Latin. It's talking about a man marrying his own cousin.

Third graders should be smart enough to figure that out (may God have mercy on England).

Fortunately, the NHS was forced to apologize (for the moment) after swift public backlash.

Dr Patrick Nash, an expert on religious law and director of the Pharos Foundation social science research group in Oxford, called the guidance 'truly dismaying'.

'Cousin marriage is incest, plain and simple, and needs to be banned with the utmost urgency - there is no "balance" to be struck between this cultural lifestyle choice and the severe public health implications it incurs.

'This official article is deeply misleading and should be retracted with an apology so that the public is not misled by omission and half-truths.'

Critics say the NHS is trying to appease the large number of Muslim migrants who have flooded the UK in recent years. 1.6 million Pakistanis lived in Great Britain as of 2021, or 2.2% of the population. Pakistanis have an insanely high rate of incest - a whopping 61% of all marriages are consanguineous. This has followed Pakistanis to the UK - 55% of all married Pakistanis in Great Britain are wed to their cousins.

The NHS responded to the criticism of its guidelines by claiming they are not the British government's official position (yet). The NHS says it just wanted to have a dialogue about incest as part of an important democratic discussion.

A spokesman for NHS England said: 'The article published on the website of the Genomics Education Programme is a summary of existing scientific research and the public policy debate. It is not expressing an NHS view.'

UPDATE I — watch for our CT Muslims to hop across the pond as this new CT law takes effect October 1st;

First-cousin marriage ban

Connecticut will join about two dozen other states in prohibiting the marriage of first cousins who are aware of their relationship. Current law bans people from entering into matrimony with their parents, siblings, grandparents, children, grandchildren, parents' siblings, siblings' children, stepparents or stepchildren. While the new law has no penalties, it is aimed at cutting down on birth defects related to familiar inbreeding.

UPDATE II. Totally unrelated:

No, Hillary, Islam is a religion, not a particular race; surprised you didn't know that

/

screw mohammed!

Hillary Clinton ripped for tone-deaf remarks about white men of ‘a certain religion’ damaging the US

UPDATE: CT Tempest’s comment, “I was just thinking the other day while reading the coverage on Kamala's book, how grateful I am that neither Harris nor Hillary Clinton got to be President” reminded me of this classic moment in the former First Lady’s career:

And from the comments to the old lady’s Tweet, this:

Above and beyond on Gilliam Lane in Riverside

/

7 Shaw Place (Gilliam Lane, but renamed when a house was put in at the end of Pinecrest and a driveway run to it from here), was listed at $2.495 million, went immediately to highest and best offer, and has sold for $2.550 million. It could be remodeled and reused, but almost certainly going to be replaced instead.

Reader Cobra’s childhood home, and just two-doors down from the Fountain Boyz’ homestead; the historical impact of each doubtless contributing to this property’s quick sale at a premium price.

Girly-girl books

/

Jamie K. Wilson is publishing a seven-part series on DEI’s effect on publishing. I’ve certainly noticed what she’s talking about; Amazon sends me monthly “First Read” suggestions, and almost all are by female authors — the few written by males tend to be Clive Cussler-type action/adventure crapola novels holding no interest for me.

I’ve nothing against female authors, and read plenty of them, but almost none written in the past twenty years because the plots as described involve “deep, psychological turmoil”,l and “victory over oppression”, and “personal angst” and … blah blah blah.

In any event, here are excerpts from Wilson’s series:

DEI vs. Story: How Publishing Lost the Plot. Part 1 of 7: The Gatekeepers

Once upon a time, an aspiring fiction writer had a fighting chance. If you wrote a good story, polished your manuscript, and braved the slush pile, you might just get picked up. The system wasn’t perfect, but it was meritocratic enough that talent sometimes slipped through the cracks and found its way into print.

That world is gone.

Today, agents and editors, the self-appointed gatekeepers of publishing, increasingly use submission guidelines not as a way to filter for quality, but as ideological purity tests. Want to query an agent? You’d better make sure your story features “marginalized voices,” that your characters are “diverse,” and that your personal identity matches the preferred checklist. Otherwise, don’t bother. Some agencies explicitly state they will not consider manuscripts by authors from “overrepresented groups.” Some agents state baldly that they will not be able to represent white males. Others signal subtly or overtly that unless your work advances the current ideological line — the one centered on race, gender, or sexuality — they are not interested.

This isn’t just rumor. It’s been noticed by people inside the industry. In 2022, Joyce Carol Oates, no right-wing firebrand but one of America’s most respected novelists, said that a literary agent friend of hers couldn’t even get editors to look at debut novels by white male authors. “They are just not interested,” she wrote, calling the situation “heartbreaking.” Best-selling thriller author James Patterson said much the same: white male writers face a harder time breaking in, a trend he called “another form of racism.”

Mainstream media rushed to shut them down. CNN ran a feature insisting the data “disagrees.” Their proof? A Penguin Random House audit showing that between 2019 and 2021, 76 percent of their authors were white (only 34 percent were men, but they downplayed that). A New York Times study that found 95 percent of novels in major houses were by white people. “Not a thing,” industry insiders declared.

But look closer. Those numbers are backward-looking, reflecting backlist contracts and long-established names. They say nothing about what Oates and Patterson were pointing out: the front door is closing. How many of those 2019–2021 books were new debuts by white men, as opposed to reprints or ongoing series from long-successful authors? CNN didn’t ask, because the answer might have proved Oates right.

And the truth is, this didn’t begin in 2019. I was hearing these stories nearly a decade earlier. Back in 2012, talented male writers were already telling me they couldn’t get their feet in the door, no matter how polished the work. If your manuscript smacked of conservatism in any way, you may as well self-publish. Stephen England is a prime example. His thrillers — more than twenty books, including the outstanding Shadow Warriors series — sell well and showcase an outstanding writer. Yet he is entirely self-published because his plots center around conservative themes. The gatekeepers would never give him a chance.

This was not an isolated story. Over and over, I heard the same thing: men with strong manuscripts, who in a more normal publishing climate would at least have received trial contracts, were locked out. But this is not a normal time for fiction. Instead of looking at quality, the industry is looking at equity. How do you boost minority authors? If that's your focus, you must exclude other groups, no matter how talented they may be. Inevitably, when you shrink the pool of potential talent, you wind up with weaker books — and you lose readers.

Unsurprisingly, the industry today is beginning to shrink. Readers are falling away, and new books are selling poorly. Publishing insiders seem baffled as to why this is happening. The answer is obvious: books are not widgets. Each one is different, and it must connect with an audience.

….

By refusing to bring in fresh male writers while leaning on the output of older, established ones whose production will inevitably slow down, publishers are ensuring they will also lose male readers. Then they shrug and say, “Well, men just don’t read anymore.”

But men did read twenty years ago. They still want to read. The problem is that they aren’t finding new books they want. So they turn to used bookstores and libraries, revisit their own shelves for overlooked titles, or simply buy classics. In other words, they keep reading — just not the new books the industry relies on for its profits.

DEI vs. Story, Part 4: How Publishing Lost the Plot: The Silencing of the Straight White Male

There's a story I keep hearing from male writer friends and acquaintances. They tell me, with variations on the theme: “I found a dozen literary agents right for my book, but when I sent them the manuscript, only six had the courtesy to respond, all with rejections. When I asked what I had done wrong, they said nothing was wrong with the book, but that editors are not considering titles written by straight white males. Then came the question: Do you maybe have Native American ancestry or something?” Considering that in 1970 about 70% of books were written by men, most of them white and probably straight, this is quite a swing.

…. The Numbers Tell the Story

In Compact, Jacob Savage lays out the evidence: by 2021, not one white male millennial appeared on the New York Times “Notable Fiction” list; the same in 2022; and only one apiece in 2023 and 2024. He concludes bluntly:

The literary pipeline for white men was effectively shut down.

The numbers bear him out. Between 2021 and 2024, the New York Times “Notable Fiction” lists, which tends to highlight debut novels, included an average of about fifty novels per year: 48 in 2021, 51 in 2022, 46 in 2023, and 47 in 2024. That is nearly 200 fiction slots across four years. Yet not one of those slots in 2021 or 2022 went to a white male millennial writer, and only one did in 2023 and again in 2024, for a grand total of 1% of the coveted Notable Fiction slots going to these writers. 

Older established figures, men like Cormac McCarthy, still made the cut. But the next generation of white male writers, those without an existing track record or industry allies, has been systematically locked out. The message could not be clearer: if you are a young, unproven straight white male, publishing has no place for you.

The Vanishing Pipeline

American literature has been built on the energy of young writers, especially young men. Roughly 85 percent of the authors who now form the pre-1950 American canon, nearly all of them male, published their first books before the age of 35. Washington Irving was 26 when he debuted, Herman Melville 27, Stephen Crane 22, F. Scott Fitzgerald 23, Ernest Hemingway 24, William Faulkner 29, John Steinbeck 27, Richard Wright 30. Their youthful debuts did not just launch their careers. They supplied the lifeblood of American literature, the raw brilliance that matured into the classics still taught today.

Today that entire pipeline has been severed. Straight white millennial men — the group that should now be filling the same role as those earlier generations — have been almost completely erased from the literary establishment. What once gave American literature its vitality has been deliberately cut off at the root. It is not merely silencing voices in the present. It is strangling the renewal of literature itself. That is not just exclusion or bias. It is, in the truest sense, literary genocide.

The Industry’s Justifications

Gatekeepers insist this exclusion is not discrimination but policy. They argue that white men have already had their turn, that publishing now carries a duty to promote “diverse voices,” that the market supposedly demands it, and that moral justice requires it. These claims form the industry’s defense of shutting out an entire demographic, but when examined closely, they collapse under their own contradictions.

The first justification is overrepresentation. Straight white men, they argue, have already dominated the shelves for centuries. Since the canon is “too full” of these voices, the industry must now impose limits on them to make space for others.

Next comes the diversity mission. Agents and editors increasingly describe themselves as cultural gatekeepers. Their job, they say, is not just to publish books but to reshape the future of literature — and that means elevating “marginalized voices,” even if it requires locking out whole demographics. It is why you can find submission guidelines that openly state they are “not accepting queries from straight white men.”

Then comes the market excuse. We are told that readers no longer want books from white male authors, that the public demands diversity. Yet the sales data keep proving otherwise: bestsellers are still often written by the very people the industry insists nobody wants.

Finally, there is the moral cover. Excluding white men is painted not as bias but as justice. It is “equity,” they say — a correction for past wrongs. The rejection letter is not prejudice; it is progress.

What Readers Lose

But here’s the reality: this collective punishment is not only destructive, it is profoundly unfair. Today’s white male writers had nothing to do with the preponderance of their forebears in the canon. They are simply trying to tell their stories, yet the industry tells them, in effect, you are guilty by birth.

It is unfair to readers as well. I have never once picked up a book because of the author’s skin color or chromosomes. I picked it up because I wanted to read the story. And some of the greatest voices in literature would be silenced if today’s submission standards had existed in their time. Tolkien, Lewis, Twain, Bradbury — men whose work shaped generations — would have been stopped at the door, not because they lacked talent but because they were the wrong classification of people: too white, too male, too straight.

And then there is H.P. Lovecraft. Not only would his race, sex, and orientation have disqualified him, but his conservative and sometimes racist views would have marked him untouchable. Yet his cosmic horror rewired an entire genre and continues to influence writers across the spectrum today.

This is what makes the industry’s new regime so destructive. By refusing to even consider a whole category of writers, they are strangling stories before they can take a breath. It is like killing the child in the cradle, or the womb. We will never know what voices might have risen, what novels might have reshaped our world. That is not mere bias. It is something closer to a cultural crime. 

….

The industry calls this progress, but for many, perhaps most, writers it feels like suffocation. It is not only men being pushed aside. Women who refuse to echo the leftist line are dismissed as well — we uppity women who won’t play the part assigned to us. The message is the same: you don’t have a voice unless you can claim the right identity and endorse the approved agenda. Some writers refuse and take the hard road. Others try to disguise themselves with pen names or invented ancestries. Either way, it breeds a quiet desperation. This is the writer’s dilemma.

Pending sales: two went in a flash, one stuck around for a while

/

Bobolink Lane

11 Bobolink Lane, $5.9 million, six days.

This one’s not to my personal taste, but the listing agent’s note that this part of Tinker Lane is not impacted by Merritt noise is entirely accurate; it’s actually quite nice down here at the end of the street.