Americans who question government now 'threat actors,' DHS says - Eric Utter

 

by Eric Utter

If not stopped — and reversed — this is the end of the Great Experiment and the Land of Opportunity.

A new federal terror advisory contains a threat assessment that characterizes Americans who "mislead" others into questioning government-approved messages as being on par with terrorists.  That is as anti-American messaging as could be imagined.  America was founded on questioning governments, foreign and domestic.  And that has been her saving grace, the reason for her unique success.

The assessment specifically identifies those who engage in "the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions" as "threat actors."  It also cites "widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19" as having a deleterious effect on government institutions.

Actually, it's the actions of government institutions that often have a deleterious effect on (people's views of) government institutions...and on the people.  But no matter — our First Amendment rights are out the window.  Nineteen eighty-four is here.  "Wrongthink" has been criminalized.

If not stopped — and reversed — this is the end of the Great Experiment and the Land of Opportunity.

So, fellow threat actors, what are we to do about this?

First off, we must realize that "misinformation" is what has typically been put out by governments since governments were instituted among men.  The larger and more powerful the government in relation to the people, the more preposterous the misinformation, false narratives, outright lies, and other propaganda it will churn out.  And the less it will tolerate dissent and independent thought.  This is a historical fact.  It was true of feudal kings.  Offend the king, and it could be "off with your head."  The Third Reich blamed all Germany's troubles on the Jews.  So it imprisoned and exterminated them.  The Soviet Union killed millions of folks who didn't toe the party line.  Speak out against the government?  Hello, "re-education" camp or gulag.  And today we have Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, North Korea...and, of course, China.  (How's your "social credit score"?  You might be about to find out.)  China graciously exported the pandemic to the West, and it now appears that many Western nations are attempting to appropriate its system of government as well.  Talk about forgiveness and tolerance.  Amazing.  The governments of Australia, New Zealand, and Austria; several other European nations; and even Canada and the United States have quickly and zealously headed down the road to tyranny.

 Leftists in the U.S. are attacking the First and Second Amendments (among others).  These are the essence and guarantor of our freedoms, respectively.  They are marginalizing, canceling, and even incarcerating those who have the effrontery to challenge their narrative — meaning their power.  That is tyranny.  That is terrorism.  They are "threat actors."  And they do this while accusing Trump-supporters, Christians, patriots, rednecks, Rogan listeners, Republicans, rural residents, truck drivers — and anyone else with whom they disagree — of being a "threat to our democracy."

The truth is precisely the opposite.  They are the threat to our democracy.  Demonstrably and inarguably.  They want to squelch free speech and vigorous dialogue.  They wish to take away your right to protect yourself and your family.  They wish to pack the Court.  They wish to end the filibuster.  They wish to eliminate the Electoral College.  We don't wish to do any of those things to them or anybody else.  Oh, and they locked us all down and masked us all up for the past two years.

There has been much talk of a Second Civil War or a Second American Revolution. Either would be tragic, insofar as violence and bloodshed are concerned.  But what we really need, and what might help avoid either of the aforementioned, is a second Declaration of Independence.  If our elite rulers knew — were absolutely convinced — that we will no longer accept their forays into tyranny and despotism, will no longer meekly acquiesce to their every wish and whim no matter how banal, damaging, or evil, perhaps we could start reclaiming and restoring "our democracy."  Peacefully.

I'll even offer to write it.

It might go something like this:

"As Americans, we still hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  And that legitimate governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, not attempt to repeal them.  We must never forget that just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.  These are the defining characteristics of America, the blueprint for this nation, and we will not throw our birthrights away.  As our Founders noted, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.  Indeed, when a government is trending toward absolute despotism, it is their duty to do so.  For, as Americans, we owe it to our forefathers, ourselves, and our posterity to reclaim our former freedoms and see to a rebirth of our once blessed and unrivaled republic.

"The following are some of the abuses, injuries, and usurpations compelling us to make this Declaration:

"Our leaders have used a pandemic, that they partially paid for, to tell us that we couldn't leave our houses.  For the first time, they quarantined the healthy.  They told us we must wear a mask over our mouths and noses at all times, even indoors.  They said we couldn't visit our loved ones in hospitals or in hospice.  Pure, unadulterated evil.  They barred us from attending weddings and funerals.  They informed many of us that our jobs are 'not essential,' even as they paid many not to work.  Preposterous!  They have fomented and excused months-long violent protests and riots by some, which led to numerous deaths and billions of dollars in damage...while incarcerating without charge many who peacefully walked into our Capitol Building.  They have unilaterally instituted a two-tier system of justice, where laws apply utterly differently to different people based on ideology.  They have weaponized the FBI, CIA, DOJ, DHS, and IRS against the American people, and are now even attempting to do the same with our military.  They have, through extreme incompetence or malevolence, given succor to our enemies and created grave doubts in the minds of our friends and allies.  They have decided not to tend to or defend our Southern border, leaving us wide open to criminals, drug- and sex-trafficking, and potential acts of terrorism.  They do this because they wish to replace us legal citizens with those whom they can more easily control — and whom they can count on to vote for them in the future.  Monstrous!  Moreover, they have created conditions mandating that crime rates will surge across the nation, making all of us less safe.  They have disabled our energy industry, making us once again dependent on foreign actors and adversely affecting our national security.  They have mismanaged the economy, driving up inflation and diminishing our quality of life.  They have — in a myriad ways — caused absolutely needless pain and suffering for scores of millions of Americans, as reflected in the skyrocketing rates of substance abuse and suicides.  All these are egregious and frightening acts signaling a descent into tyranny.

"Yet, whenever we have petitioned for redress, we have been summarily rebuffed.  Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.  We have been mocked, scorned, canceled.

"Our leaders must know that we will not choose hopelessness and despair.  We will not tolerate their arrogance, scorn, and contempt.  We will, once more, be free.

"Therefore, we the citizens of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the universe for the righteousness of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare that, to this end, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

 

Eric Utter

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/americans_who_question_government_now_threat_actors_dhs_says_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

We Are All Truckers Now - Sally Zelikovsky

 

by Sally Zelikovsky

There’s something happening here. What it is, is exactly clear.

As momentum from the Freedom Convoy in Canada mounts and works its way into the US, and similar convoys spring up in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, people are collectively standing up to two years of COVID restrictions, lies, misery, and abuse at the hands of our government masters. And we owe it all to Canada’s truckers. Oh, Canada’s truckers! We love you!

But it’s not just the truckers. It’s their families traveling with them. It’s the ordinary citizens bringing them fuel, hot drinks, and meals. It’s the throngs of people braving the cold and raising maple leaf flags in solidarity. It’s those sitting on the sidelines, cheering them on—hoping they don’t cave; praying they continue to resist. It’s the non-MSM journalists actually interviewing truckers and hearing their well-articulated grievances for the first time and revealing that, it turns out, they aren’t the Nazis, terrorists, racists, white supremacists, small fringe minority, or Neanderthals the Trudeau-Biden elites would have you believe.

The truckers make a clear case for freedom. They understand tyranny when they see it. As trucker after trucker emerges as Sikh, Jew, Black, Asian, Ukrainian, and regular white guy, they scoff at the simplistic and over-used, now ho-hum and fully anticipated, fabricated accusations that they are racist terrorists. Those who came to the West from far lands are afraid, however, that the misery and oppression they left behind in their home countries are coming to their adopted homelands.

No hoods. No swastikas. No Confederate flags. Those are all just government-fed fictions.

And what’s the reaction of the officials both in Canada and the US? To pressure GoFundMe to cancel the $10 million raised for the Freedom Convoy; freeze out truckers and their children by having police remove their fuel cans in sub-freezing weather; arrest an old man for honking his horn; and starve out truckers and their families by threatening to arrest people who bring them food and drink. Meanwhile, the Biden administration and Pete Buttigieg plot to find alternate routes around bridges facing long delays because of the truck convoy and the state of Michigan brandishes the possibility of forcibly removing the big rigs and their supporters from the Ambassador Bridge.

Oh, let’s not forget the Department of Homeland Security promising to investigate as a domestic terrorist anyone who articulates viewpoints about COVID at variance with official government agitatsiya—attempting to thwart a US convoy before it even starts. You got that? That’s an unconstitutional prior restraint on expression if you ask me.

Forget the politicians. They’re worthless. But the police both in Canada and the US are going to have to decide if they want to support those fighting for the right to live free or be the jackboots and brown shirts of fascists past, robotically doing the bidding of their masters.

This is no longer run-of-the-mill law enforcement—to protect and serve, ensuring peace and safety of the citizenry. This is about our governments using a virus as an excuse to restrict our ability to work, live, travel, speak, pray, and parent; as a cudgel to exert power over our lives; and to spread disinformation to keep us living in fear and pitting us against one another. The police are being used to arrest and detain law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying citizens whose views on COVID the authoritarians don’t like, but who have been forced to the brink and have no choice but to take bold (but peaceful and lawful) action to regain their lives and liberties.

Image: The Freedom Convoy.  YouTube screen grab.

So many have been champing at the bit waiting to do something—anything—to stop the insanity. But too many have been intimidated by the Biden administration’s persecution of the J6ers and ongoing threats from DHS that differing viewpoints about COVID or the 2020 election will be treated as mis-, dis-, and mal-information. This intimidation is intentional.

But the truckers took the initiative and freed us from those fears. It had to be them. They were the ones destined to take action because not only did they work during the plandemic to keep us heated, fed, and medicated, but they also essentially control the supply chain. No truckers? The supply chain collapses. They are the only ones who could force the government’s hand—just as America’s parents were the only ones who could stop the CRT curriculum, LGBTQ grooming, and damaging COVID mandates in our schools.

If the government arrests all the truckers—who will deliver our food? If the government allows the convoy, who will deliver our heating oil? If the government prevents them from assembling and protesting, the truckers have made it clear they will not resume driving and delivering. They will not yield until the mandates are history. It’s their way or the highway. They are the purple squirrels for this job.

They swooped down out of nowhere to stand between us and the government. And so it is incumbent on all of us to support them—whether we make a donation at GiveSendGo, hang a Canadian flag from our front porch, get in the car and join the anticipated US convoy to DC, bring them food, or cheer them on from the roadside. This is how the plandemic ends.

And if this persists for a few months, so be it. If we can’t get all the supplies we need, we’ll make the best of it. Dig into our doomsday closet supplies. Stock up while we still can. Make sure we have enough medication for a few months.

In this Government vs. The People standoff, we will win. Elites have nothing but disdain for the very people they depend on to live—people who work with their hands so the elites don’t have to; who build their homes and buildings; manufacture just about everything they need; repair their electrical, plumbing, and heating systems; install their AC and repair their cars; care for their kids; deliver their food, fuel, building supplies, new ovens, whatever. Teachers, nurses, gas station attendants. The very people the left claims to care about are now domestic terrorists and racists. We’ll survive but the elites will fall apart.

We’ve lost so much: our loved ones, our health, our freedoms, our dreams, our jobs, our prosperity, and our humanity. We’ve lost the very essence of what it is to be an American or a Canadian.

This is our “let’s roll” moment. The truckers gave us this moment. Let’s not squander it because we are too busy or too scared. And we are legion. This movement is international and, unlike a worldwide Marxist movement, it’s a force for good. Truckers of the world, unite!

We’re all truckers now!

As for the rest of you? Truck you, you mother truckers!

 

Sally Zelikovsky

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/02/we_are_all_truckers_now.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Jig is up for Transgenderism as Child Abuse - Jay Tucker

 

by Jay Tucker

The consequences of the campaign to convince minors that girls can become boys and boys can become girls are now being exposed and are proving unacceptable.

The campaign to convince minors that girls can become boys and boys can become girls continues unabated.  However, the consequences of that campaign are now being exposed and are proving unacceptable.  Critics of the campaign have long known the dangers and have deemed them to be child abuse.  Federal, state, and local governments have ignored the obvious in a case of willful blindness, but the evidence that children and adolescents need protection is now so apparent that government must intercede.  Some states have already begun.  The Arkansas SAFE Act prohibits professionals from treating minors with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sexual reassignment surgery.  South Dakota has enacted legislation to prevent male participation in sports designated for females.  A sample of campaign actions and activities is instructive and compelling.

ACLU attorneys have filed a lawsuit against the Arkansas SAFE Act, claiming that there exists a consensus of medical organizations as to the appropriate treatments for minors presenting with gender issues. That claim appears patently false.  The 2012 American Psychiatric Association (APA) Task Force Report concludes that there is no consensus regarding treatment of children with gender identity disorder (now called gender dysphoria), one reason being lack of randomized controlled treatment outcome studies, and another being that “opinions vary widely among experts” as to treatments.  The ACLU attorneys then doubled down and cited the 2012 Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) as the standard for treatment for those presenting with gender issues.  Conspicuously absent from the claims is the necessary disclosure that, according to the APA Task Force Report, notwithstanding that WPATH issued standards, WPATH itself is not even a professional association of mental health professionals.  Also absent are disclosures that WPATH, at the time of preparation of its Standards of Care, was merely an association of about 400 worldwide transgender advocates (the number of such advocates who were American MDs experienced in treatment of minors, as opposed to adults, being unknown) and that a 2019 investigation by Lisa MacRichards has concluded that the WPATH Standards of Care are materially tainted by bias and conflicts of interest.   

Trans activists claim that treating minors with gender issues by administration of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sexual reassignment surgery is a so-called medical necessity.  The APA (currently about 88,000 MDs and residents) concludes otherwise in its current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5): Up to 88% of girls and 98% of boys presenting with gender confusion eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.  The APA also concludes in its Task Force Report that those minors who will persist and those who will desist cannot be distinguished as children.  The only conclusion is that most minors treated with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-reassignment surgery do not need treatment at all.  It follows that the Arkansas SAFE Act clearly protects minors who might persist in gender confusion from consequences of making unwise and foolish decisions during their minority and also protects minors who would desist and accept their biological sex from being ushered into transition by professionals who have no way to determine whether or not there is a need for such treatment.

The hypocrisy and lack of integrity of a large segment of professionals treating gender-confused minors are overwhelming.  Trans advocates deny that vulnerable minors need protection in that minors supposedly can know their authentic selves and make decisions that can materially adversely affect their long-term health and well-being.  That denial is nonsense.  Recognition of minors’ lack of maturity and judgment has motivated legislators to deny underage children the right (and to deny parents any right to authorize their children) to violate curfew, purchase firearms, enter into contracts, engage in sexual intercourse, vote, sit as a juror in a court of law, operate a vehicle, and use alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.  Where were these same activists/professionals with the same type of denials when Congress prohibited female genital mutilation for girls under 18 and when plastic surgeons issued a policy statement condemning breast enhancement/reduction for girls under 18?  Those laws and standards were justified on the same grounds that serve as justification for the SAFE Act, namely, (i) lack of maturity, judgment, and comprehension, (ii) the obvious fact that minors will further develop physically and outgrow any feeling of discomfort with their physical bodies, and (iii) a lack of controlled randomized outcome studies for such procedures.

However, encouraging developments are underway.  Gender-care leaders are now admitting that trans healthcare providers are treating kids recklessly.  One transwoman, former WPATH Board member and psychologist Erica Anderson, has even admitted to not being a fan of putting children in the early stages of puberty on puberty blockers.  Another transwoman, WPATH President-Elect and Board member and surgeon Dr. Marci Bowers, expresses great concern: “If you’ve never had an orgasm pre-surgery, and then your puberty is blocked, it is very difficult to achieve that afterward.”  Bowers emphasized: “I consider that a big problem, actually,” and continued: “I worry about their sexual health later and ability to find intimacy.”  Bowers implies that the failure of clinics and hospitals to inform patients of all material adverse risks and consequences of treatment and transition, including rates and severity, will preclude securing valid informed consent.  Are clinics informing patients of the percentage of transgenders (37.9% as to transwomen) who will become engaged in the sex trade or the percentage of transgenders (56% as to black African/American transwomen) who are living with HIV?  Actually, should anyone encourage vulnerable minors to transition into a lifestyle likely to be attended by such danger and illegality?

Although no consensus exists as to treatments, the APA confirms in the Task Force Report that there is a consensus as to mental health evaluations of the child and his/her parents which must be undertaken before issuance of any diagnosis or treatment recommendations.  There are many complaints that gender-care professionals are not following those protocols.  For example, one of the minors in the SAFE Act case was apparently referred to a gender clinic by a pediatrician and was diagnosed with gender dysphoria on the child’s first visit to the clinic.  Anderson describes such problems with healthcare as “rushing of patients through medicalization” and the “failure -- abject failure -- to evaluate the mental health of someone historically in current time, and to prepare them for making such a life-changing decision.”  Anderson reports further that a study of ten pediatric gender clinics found that half do not require psychological assessments before initiating puberty blockers.  Anderson notes that such mental health evaluations, done conscientiously, can take a few months when there are no simultaneous mental health issues, or up to several years in complicated cases.  Anderson adds that few are trained to perform evaluations properly.  Failures in transgender healthcare for minors are so egregious that in Sweden (at world-famous Karolinska Hospital) the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors under age 18, except in research settings, has ended.  Similarly, Finnish medical guidelines are now opposed to most puberty-blocking and adolescent transitioning, except in the most severe cases and, then, only in a research setting.

So, the jig is up.  The evidence is in.  The mea culpas are in hand.  As one gender-care psychologist has declared: “Therapists Have Betrayed the Parents of Gender-Confused Kids, and There’ll Be Hell to Pay.”  Children, parents, legislatures, and courts need to educate themselves to become fully informed.

Image: Pixabay

 

Jay Tucker

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/02/the_jig_is_up_for_transgenderism_as_child_abuse.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Free Speech in the UK? - Judith Bergman

 

by Judith Bergman

"All of them believed that they owned the truth, that they were profoundly good and that those who got in their way were therefore evil as well as wrong." — Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021.

• "It isn't hate to speak the truth." — J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, Twitter, June 6, 2020.

• "An entire generation are puzzled by the idea that anyone has the right to say things they don't agree with...for most people, true free speech has ceased to exist.... On some issues, such as the transgender controversy, it is virtually impossible to say anything without attracting the attention of the Thought Police." — Peter Hitchens, author and journalist, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021.

• "Among millions, the idea that you can defend someone's right to say something you disagree with is now puzzling. They have no idea why anyone would do that. For them, the debate is over, they have won, and those who oppose them are stupid and wrong." — Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021.

• "They also view my doubts about the theory of man-made global warming as 'denial' of a fact which they regard as proven. To them, this is little short of sabotage of efforts to combat this peril." — Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021.

• "All of them believed that they owned the truth, that they were profoundly good and that those who got in their way were therefore evil as well as wrong." — Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021.

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter book series, found herself denounced as transphobic. She received not just a storm of social media abuse, but death threats, for saying that biological sex is real and that biological males should not be allowed into women's spaces simply by declaring themselves to be women. Pictured: Rowling accepts the "Ripple of Hope Award" from Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, on December 12, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights)

Freedom of speech is doing extremely poorly in the UK, according to a recent YouGov poll. When Britons were asked what should be the priority, 43% said protecting people from offensive or hateful speech should be the priority, while only 38% said the focus should be on protecting free speech. Generally, men and conservative voters were more concerned about protecting free speech, while women, younger people and Labour voters were more concerned about blocking offensive or hateful speech.

The poll also showed that self-censorship is thriving: 57% of those polled said they have "found themselves stopping themselves from expressing their political or social views for fear of judgement or negative responses from others." According to the poll:

"In most cases, those holding what might be considered the 'un-progressive' view more frequently omit their opinions on that topic. For example, those who believe immigration has generally been a bad thing for the UK... those who disagree with the statement 'a transgender woman is a woman' feel they have to frequently keep bottled up."

Recent years have offered many examples of the dire conditions of suppressed free speech in the UK. Opinions that a person's biological sex takes precedence over "gender identity" -- that identifying as a woman is not the same as being born a woman, or that transgender men competing against women in sports creates an unfair playing field -- provoke some of the fiercest backlash.

Professor Kathleen Stock, for instance, from Sussex University, ended up resigning after being denounced as "transphobic" by students and receiving death threats for her views on transgenderism. According to one report:

Stock criticized the idea that "One aspect in particular that baffled her was the claim that a person's belief about their psychological identity, whether they are male or female, is more important than their material sex at birth — not least due to the impact such categories have on medicine, sport, science, education and more."

Stock decided to resign from her position after her own lecturer's union sent a letter urging the university's management to "take a clear and strong stance against transphobia at Sussex."

Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at the Open University, resigned from her position in December after receiving abuse from colleagues and the university. She had, among other problematic matters, spoken out about "the silencing of academic debate on trans issues" as well as pointing out the problems of housing transgender women in women's prisons.

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter book series, also found herself denounced as transphobic. She received not just a storm of social media abuse, but death threats, for saying that biological sex is real and that biological males should not be allowed into women's spaces simply by declaring themselves to be women. In response to the attacks on her, she tweeted:

"If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth."

As a reported consequence, Rowling had her name removed from a primary school, because Rowling's "views on this issue do not align with our school policy and school beliefs - a place where people are free to be," according to the BBC. But not, apparently, to speak.

Gillian Philip, a Scottish author of children's books, was dropped by her publisher for posting the hashtag '#IStandWithJKRowling' on Twitter. In a column for the Daily Mail, she wrote:

"I'm not remotely transphobic, but the idea that a man can simply declare himself to be a woman, fully intact, without surgery or hormones, and be allowed into women's prisons or hospital wards is a crazy situation that I sometimes want to shout about."

Rosie Kay, a leading choreographer, resigned from the dance company she founded in 2004, after she was accused of being transphobic, following remarks she made at a private dinner she hosted for the dancers in her company. Kay had said that "women are losing rights to males who identify as women, including rights to single sex spaces". She left after complaints made by the dancers about her remarks, and said they led to an "unfair, opaque and horrific investigation process that's still ongoing". According to Kay:

"This was a dinner in my own home, at which I was attacked by six individuals. The hostility was directed at me, and has lasted for nearly four months. I make no apology for standing up against this treatment... This is not aimed at the dancers, but at the toxic nature of a culture that will see women lose their livelihoods for believing that sex is real."

Jess de Wahls, an embroidery artist, had her work withdrawn from the gift shop of the Royal Academy of Arts (RA) in June 2021, after complaints about a blog she had written in 2019. She had noted that a woman is "an adult human female" and "not an identity or feeling". The Royal Academy published a statement declaring:

"The RA is committed to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and does not knowingly support artists who act in conflict with these values. We would like to reiterate that we stand with the LGBTQ+ community."

"Eight people had complained," de Wahls told the Telegraph, "It was ridiculous. The RA told me they stood with the LGBTQ community and I said, 'So do I.' I told them it was insane to call me a 'transphobe' just because I understand biological science."

"Cancel culture, this cancelling, this punishment, it's everywhere," said Dame Maureen Lipman, an actress and comedian, about the world of comedy. She expressed her concern that it is in danger of being "wiped out" because "comedians are scared that audiences will take offence, and... they self-censor their material as a precaution... It's in the balance, whether we're ever going to be funny again."

Patrick West recently wrote in the Spectator:

"Earlier this month, both Jack Whitehall and David Baddiel warned about the perils of 'cancel culture'. One comedian has made his name on the back of deprecating his own privileged background; the other made his in the 1990s as a right-on, anti-racist favourite among us teens and students – when students were funny.... comedy is under threat by this new orthodoxy. This is no joke."

Journalist and author Peter Hitchens wrote in his column for the Daily Mail, on December 11, 2021:

"Free speech is already dead in Britain. It is just that the chattering classes have not realised it yet. There is still a very limited liberty to say a few nonconformist things in some newspapers and magazines, and perhaps in some universities and schools...for most people, true free speech has ceased to exist. Step outside the borders of acceptable thought in a school or a workplace and you can very quickly find yourself being denounced and in serious trouble. On some issues, such as the transgender controversy, it is virtually impossible to say anything without attracting the attention of the Thought Police.

"They also view my doubts about the theory of man-made global warming as 'denial' of a fact which they regard as proven. To them, this is little short of sabotage of efforts to combat this peril.

"Among millions, the idea that you can defend someone's right to say something you disagree with is now puzzling. They have no idea why anyone would do that. For them, the debate is over, they have won, and those who oppose them are stupid and wrong... All of them believed that they owned the truth, that they were profoundly good and that those who got in their way were therefore evil as well as wrong."

• Follow Judith Bergman on Twitter

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18208/free-speech-britain

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Fauci’s War on His AIDS Critic - Lloyd Billingsley

 

by Lloyd Billingsley

And the collateral damage for today.

 

 

Peter Duesberg, former professor of molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley, turned 85 in December and hasn’t been picking up the phone or answering email. Fortunately, professor Duesberg’s experiences with Dr. Anthony Fauci are already on record, with insight for embattled Americans in 2022.

“The 71-year-old Duesberg could pass for a younger man,” noted Jeanne Lenzer in Discovery Magazine back in 2008. “AIDS ‘Dissident’ Seeks Redemption ... and a Cure for Cancer,” proclaimed the headline on the 5,406-word article, with the subhead explaining, “Biologist Peter Duesberg was all but banished from science for his views on HIV.”

Born in Münster, Germany, in 1936, Duesberg earned a PhD in chemistry from the University of Frankfurt in 1963. The next year he arrived at UC Berkeley as a postdoctoral fellow “hoping to unlock the secrets of cancer” and joining the hunt for retroviruses. In 1986, at age 49, Duesberg was elected to the National Academy of Sciences and given a National Institutes of Health Outstanding Investigator Award, as Lenzer noted, “one of the most prestigious and coveted grants.”

Duesberg knew that retroviruses don’t kill the host cells they infect, so he was skeptical when HIV was proclaimed to be the cause of AIDS, with no scientific study making the case. In March of 1987, Duesberg published a paper in Cancer Research questioning the role of HIV as the cause of AIDS. As Lenzer noted, the man colleagues might once have regarded as the “Einstein of biology” was then smeared as an AIDS “denier,” but there was more to it than name-calling.

For the previous 23 years, Duesberg never had an application for public funding turned down. That funding began to disappear under Anthony Fauci, who as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) controlled both AIDS policy and spending on medical research. Fauci also contrived to cancel Duesberg’s media appearances, and tailored policy to the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP), whose activists also harassed Duesberg.

Fauci promoted trials of AZT (azidothymidine), marketed as Zidovudine, a DNA chain terminator rejected for cancer treatment because of excessive cytotoxicity. Despite the dangers, Fauci and the AIDS activists urged those testing positive for HIV to go on AZT.

“These people are running into the gas chambers,” said Duesberg at the time. “Himmler would have been so happy if only the Jews were this cooperative.” For further reading see John Lauritsen’s Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story, with a foreword by Duesberg.

Fauci’s prediction that AIDS would ravage the general population was hopelessly wrong but he remained at the helm of NIAID.  In 1996, Duesberg authored Inventing the AIDS Virus, a virtual post-grad course on virology, a thorough investigation of AIDS controversy, and a meditation on the state of scientific research.

“The modern biomedical research establishment differs radically from any previous scientific program in history,” the Berkeley professor contended. “Driven by vast infusions of federal and commercial money, it has grown into an enormous and powerful bureaucracy that greatly amplifies its successes and mistakes all the while stifling dissent. Such a process can no longer be called science, which by definition depends on self-correction by internal challenge and debate.”

Duesberg challenged that powerful establishment, and it cost him. His laboratory once boasted two secretaries and jostled with graduate students and postdocs, but by 2008 the only occupants were Duesberg and one graduate student. Asked why he challenged the government AIDS orthodoxy when it meant financial losses, professional rejection, and social isolation, Duesberg said, “I don’t want to be a ‘good German.’”

As Dennis Prager explains, the “good German” was the term for “the average, presumably decent German, who did nothing to hurt Jews but also did nothing to help them and did nothing to undermine the Nazi regime.” Prager finds a parallel with Russians who did nothing against Stalin, Brezhnev et al, and in the “good American” who goes along with surging repressions in the United States.

The “good American” is supposed to accept Dr. Fauci’s dictates without a peep of protest. The Biden health boss, 81, gives the people good cause to be wary.

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but in 1968, to avoid treating wounded American soldiers, he took a cushy “yellow beret” job with the NIH. Fauci’s bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, yet he has headed NIAID since 1984. Despite colossal mistakes and repeated reversals, Fauci now claims “I represent science.”

In 2022, Dr. Anthony Fauci lays down public health policy and commands medical research spending. Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, is head of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, and in charge of “human subjects.” Whatever Dr. Fauci wants to do, dutiful wife Christine will tell him it’s okay.

Fauci’s “human subjects” now include the entire populace, right down to the children and infants now targeted for vaccination. If embattled Americans, particularly the parents, see shades of Nazi Germany it would be hard to blame them. As it happens, the damage is far more extensive.

Had Dr. Fauci been shown the door in the 1980s, and professor Duesberg received the funding his research deserved, a cure for cancer might be closer at hand. Instead Peter Duesberg was all but banished from science and the people suffer under Fauci’s regime of white coat supremacy.

 

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/faucis-war-his-aids-critic-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel calls on all citizens to leave Ukraine immediately - Lahav Harkov

 

by Lahav Harkov

IDF prepares to evacuate Israelis if necessary

 

People take part in the Unity March, which is a procession to demonstrate the patriotic spirit of local residents amid growing tensions with Russia, in Kharkiv, Ukraine February 5, 2022. A placard reads: "Kharkiv is Ukraine".

(photo credit: REUTERS/VYACHESLAV MADIYEVSKYY)

Israel called on all of its citizens on Saturday evening to leave Ukraine immediately, as a Russian invasion looked increasingly likely.

“Following the tensions and concern at escalation, the Foreign Ministry calls on Israeli citizens in Ukraine to leave the country as soon as possible,” the travel warning reads.

“In addition, the Foreign Ministry calls on Israelis planning to arrive in Ukraine soon to cancel their trips at this time,” the ministry stated. “The Foreign Ministry and Israeli Embassy in Ukraine call on Israeli citizens in the country to register [on the embassy website].” Some 4,500 had done so by Saturday night.

The elevated travel warning followed a Saturday evening meeting between Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, Defense Minister Benny Gantz and the heads of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), National Security Council and others.

They also discussed the possibility that it will be necessary to evacuate Israelis from the country, with the IDF and Foreign Ministry already planning for such a scenario.

Defense Minister Benny Gantz. (credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)

Before that, the Prime Minister’s Office spoke with Israeli airlines about increasing the number of civilian flights between the two countries.

There are currently 22 flights per week from Ukraine to Israel, and the airports are open, so there is no need for special flights yet, a Foreign Ministry source said, urging Israelis not to wait until the last minute to get out.

The Foreign Ministry estimated that there are 10,000-15,000 Israelis in Ukraine. About 200,000 Ukrainians qualify for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, according to the Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

The ministry began working in emergency mode and established a special team to handle the crisis. It sent additional consular staff to back up the six Israeli diplomats in Kyiv who will help Israelis and Jews leave the country. Israel is the only country currently increasing its consular staff in Ukraine, it said.

It also decided to evacuate the families of its diplomats stationed in Kyiv back to Israel; they are expected to arrive on Sunday.

Lapid spoke with Israeli diplomats in Kyiv and heard their assessment of the situation and how they are preparing for it. 

 

Lahav Harkov

Source: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-696273

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Mullahs Close in on the Bomb - Bruce Thornton

 

by Bruce Thornton

Darkness descends on a region’s stability.

 

While we try to figure out Russia’s intentions for Ukraine, Iran is getting closer to a deal that will leave it a nuclear power. Discussions in Vienna are back on, and hopeful dispatches are sent out by Western diplomats. But given Iran’s maximalist demands, and the Biden administration’s fetish of “diplomatic engagement,” things aren’t looking good for the region’s stability.

Ever since Biden rejoined the talks to restart the deal Trump wisely walked away from, Iran has shown patent contempt for this country and its diplomats. Meanwhile, the advanced centrifuges keep spinning weapons-grade uranium. What else explains the arrogant, dismissive tone Iranian negotiators take with the U.S., particularly the demand that we lift punitive sanctions before the real talks begin? When Biden’s team restored the sanctions waivers on European nations, “Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian called it ‘good but insufficient’ on Sunday, while Foreign Ministry spokesperson Saeed Khatibzadeh went further, calling sanctions relief a ‘red line’ in the talks.”

You don’t need a degree in foreign relations to see what Iran’s game is––keep talking until they can present their bomb as a fait accompli. North Korea successfully played that game for 30 years. With Biden’s team so eager for a deal that they’ll stand for this contempt, no wonder Iran thinks they can pull off that scam once again. In fact, they’re even more confident now that Russia and China are playing big-brother to the regime. China’s money and oil purchases have taken the sting out of U.S. sanctions. So of course, Biden restores the waivers so Europeans, faced with mounting energy costs, can contribute to Iran’s fisc as well.

But this cringing approach to the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism has characterized our response to Iran’s aggression from the beginning. Jimmy Carter set the tone with his tentative handling of the hostage crisis, allowing the new regime to humiliate a great power. The Soviets got the message, and invaded Afghanistan that same year. The kidnapped diplomats came home after Carter paid the Iranians danegeld, and lost the election to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s tenure, however, was a mixed bag. In 1983 Iranian-trained terrorists blew up 241 of our military personnel. While the French and the Israelis bombed terrorists in the Bekka Valley in retaliation for attacks on their diplomats and personnel, our troops were moved onto a ship offshore. Then there was the Iran-Contra scandal of 1984-86, in which the U.S. used Israeli middle-men to sell Iran advanced weapons, and then used the profits to arm the Contras in Nicaragua. No one seemed to get the moral hazard that comes from doing business with a regime that calls you the Great Satan and has declared war on you, and whose leader, the architect of the revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, proclaimed, “We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry ‘There is no god but Allah’ resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle,” i.e. jihad.

Towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war, however, Reagan showed the mullahs a glint of steel. When the Iranians tried to disrupt tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf, Reagan ordered severe punishment on its navy and terrorist units fighting from oil platforms. The Tanker War ended when Ronald Reagan retaliated for a missile attack on an American warship by eventually destroying two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six Iranian gunboats.

Yet since then, we have seldom called Iran’s bluff. Indeed, Barack Obama telegraphed his desperation for a “legacy” nuclear deal, and signed an agreement that not only put Iran on the glide-path to nuclear weapons, but ignored its development of missiles capable of delivering nuclear bombs. Nor was Iran’s malign adventurism, its sponsorship of terrorist gangs across the Middle East, on the table. Iran just pocketed those gains for free, along with pallets of cash. Obama gave the mullahs everything, and got nothing other than the feckless praise of the “rules-based international order” clerks who put “diplomatic engagement” ahead of our country’s security and interests.

Then came Donald Trump. He knew, as did many Americans, that as the Russian fable has it, “You don’t talk to wolves until you’ve skinned them.” He ditched the preemptive cringe our diplomats employ to show hardened, ruthless enemies that we are noble and civilized. He left the deal, recognizing it was inimical to our security and interests. He also took steps that the foreign policy mavens all declared would ignite a war. He moved our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, killed Republican Guard hero Qassem Suleimani, and brokered agreements between Israel and four Muslim states. Any of these achievements were impossible to the professional diplomats, who run on old paradigms they return to over and over, no matter how many times they’ve shifted.

So of course, such achievement would not be allowed to stand. They by comparison made the “lightworker” Barack Obama look juvenile. The simulacrum of a president we call Joe Biden followed his handlers’ instructions regarding the Iran nuclear deal, which was their great success in “diplomatic engagement,” instead of recognizing the Munich-class disaster it was.

At this point, our negotiators––with whom the haughty Iranians won’t deal directly––seem eager for a deal no matter what. The Europeans want oil and trade with Iran, and if they have to sup with the devil to get it, so be it. The can will be kicked down the road yet again. An enemy of over forty years, with the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands, will end up with weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, this renewed deal will harm the interests and security of our allies in the region, especially Israel. Allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons will put the whole region in peril––if only because Israel’s history has taught them that when a lunatic says he wants to destroy your people, you’d better listen and not wait for him to try conclusions.

The “international community,” as we call it, has abused Israel since the day it was created. Israel, a liberal democracy that acknowledges human rights and rule by law, has had to face three invasions and endless terror attacks, with its every defensive move second-guessed by “new world order” globalists who find Israel’s patriotism and faith gauche.

Finally, if we leave it up to Israel alone to take action against Iran’s nukes, we will have besmirched our country’s history forever.

 

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/what-about-iran-mullahs-close-bomb-bruce-thornton/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, Joe Rogan and Leftist Double Standards - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

The corruption of the American public square.

 

Everyone knows the double standard is in place. It is taken for granted so much that people barely remark upon it anymore. When someone who dissents from the Leftist agenda offends Leftist sensibilities, his or her career is ruined for good. Remember Roseanne Barr, Tim Allen, and a host of others. Now the Left has Joe Rogan in its sights for daring to dissent from COVID orthodoxy and has suddenly discovered that years ago, he used a racial slur. Spotify has removed over a hundred of his podcasts, and the end is not in sight. But if someone who is reliably Leftist says something that offends the self-appointed guardians of acceptable opinion, the punishment is slight at best, as we have just seen with Whoopi Goldberg’s two-week suspension for Holocaust denial (which doesn’t really bother the hard Left, but they have to keep up some semblance of an attachment to truth and basic decency). And if the offending speaker is a member of a group with enough victimhood privilege, he or she won’t be punished at all, as the career of Mehdi Hasan indicates.

Mehdi Hasan is a hate-filled far-Left MSNBC host who espouses fashionable Big Lies such as the claim that “white supremacy is now a key ideology of the Republican Party” and “the far-right domestic terror threat is more dangerous than even Al Qaeda after 9/11.” During the Whoopi Goldberg controversy, remarks that Hasan made in 2009 resurfaced, leading many to question why Hasan’s star has consistently risen in the Leftist media, despite his manifest hatred and contempt for non-Muslims.

Hasan, a Shi’ite, said of the early Sunni caliph Yazid: “All of these ulama unanimously agree that at the very minimum if Yazid was not a Kaffir [unbeliever] — then at the very minimum he was a fasiq, a transgressor, a breaker of Islamic laws, a corrupt individual, a tyrant, a killer, a drunkard, a dog lover, a music lover, a homosexual, a pedophile, a sexual deviant, someone who slept with his own mother.”

Now, the Left has no problem with corrupt individuals such as Hunter and Joe Biden if they’re on the right side of the political divide. Tyrannical themselves, Leftists have no problem with tyrants, either. Killers? Depends on who is being killed. Drunkard? Dog lovers? Music lovers? Come on, man! Homosexuals, pedophiles, and sexual deviants? Are we talking about the staff of CNN now?

Anyway, Hasan then broadened his targets to include atheists: “In this respect the Koran describes the atheist as cattle. As cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.” The Qur’an does indeed say: “Already we have created many of the jinn and mankind for Gehenna, having hearts with which they do not understand, and having eyes with which they do not see, and having ears with which they do not hear. They are like cattle, no, they are worse. These are the neglectful.” (7:179)

It is no surprise that Mehdi Hasan, a pious, believing Muslim, would repeat the Qur’an’s distaste and disdain for non-Muslims. It isn’t even a surprise that the Huffington Post and MSNBC would have no problem with his statements, because both are much more concerned about “Islamophobia” than they are about jihad violence, Sharia oppression of women, or the dehumanization of non-Muslims in Islamic texts and teachings. MSNBC was avid to showcase a Muslim host in order to demonstrate that they weren’t “Islamophobic,” and Hasan, a fast-talking, glib propagandist, fit the bill. Anyone who raised any objection to his hiring based on his statements about homosexuals, atheists, and unbelievers in general could himself be accused of “Islamophobia,” but that would take care of any problem.

Meanwhile, Hasan’s colleagues and friends have pursued any and all critics of jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression with undying fury, persecuting and harassing even their relatives and friends in their totalitarian quest to crush and destroy all dissent. If Mehdi Hasan had been a non-Muslim who said about Muslims what he said about non-Muslims, he would be but a dim memory as a public figure today, and if he ever were mentioned, would be reviled as a “racist” and an “Islamophobe.” But as it is, he remains a rising star.

The double standard is obvious because the Left isn’t really interested in policing the public discourse and cleansing it of “hate,” no matter what they say about Joe Rogan right now. Leftists’ actual agenda is to demonize and intimidate their opponents into silence and rule any dissent from their agenda beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse. That’s why Mehdi Hasan has a show on MSNBC today and was never in danger of any professional difficulty because of his 2009 remarks. He is useful as a pit bull of defamation and smears against dissidents, and so his career is unassailable. Mehdi Hasan is, in fact, the epitome of the corruption of the American public square today.

 

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/msnbcs-mehdi-hasan-joe-rogan-and-lefts-cancel-robert-spencer/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

COVID-19 in Israel: 22,360 new cases, R rate in decline - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Jerusalem Post Staff

New cases continue to drop * R rate drops to 0.74

A total of 22,360 new COVID-19 cases were recorded in Israel on Friday, according to a Saturday evening Health Ministry update.

The number of serious cases was reported to be 1,048, continuing the trend of decreasing cases from the previous days. Out of those in serious condition, 336 people were reported to be in critical condition, 270 were intubated and 22 were connected to ECMO machines.

The number of serious cases has fallen by 21.1% in the last seven days, and there has been an overall reduction of 35.7% when it comes to new daily cases.

Out of 98,223 PCR and antigen tests taken on Friday, there was a positive return rate of 22.76%. 

The R rate - representing the number of people a sick person will infect - has also continued its steady drop, currently standing at 0.74. 

To date, 4,454,167 have received a third dose of the coronavirus vaccine in Israel and within that number, 691,246 have also received a third dose.

The number of COVID-19 related deaths in Israel currently stands at 9,458, and 268 of the deaths have occurred within the last seven days.

 

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-696207

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Middle East: The US Is All In or All Out - Pete Hoekstra

 

by Pete Hoekstra

It is vitally important the Biden administration stabilize relationships with key U.S. allies in the Middle East before Iran and Russia destabilize them, or it will justly receive the blame for the chaos that will ensue.

• Despite multiple attacks on Abu Dhabi, which include an air base that hosts American military personnel, the current American administration seems unwilling to designate the Houthis as the terrorist organization it is. At the same time, however, it wants to put constraints on the use of weapons the U.S. might sell to the United Arab Emirates, whose civilian population has been targeted by the Houthis... For Yemen, this is no longer acceptable.

• While the Biden administration has made clear its desire to restart nuclear talks with Iran, why not try doing it from a position of strength, for instance deterrence? One of the pillars of strength would be presenting a united front against Iran, with our Gulf allies and Israel at its core. Iran recognizes and responds to strength. It also recognizes weakness and responds by taking advantage of it.

• It is vitally important the Biden administration stabilize relationships with key U.S. allies in the Middle East before Iran and Russia destabilize them, or it will justly receive the blame for the chaos that will ensue. The Middle East is one area where the U.S. is a dominant power-influencer, and we must make clear to our friends that we will stand by them and to our enemies that they are endangering only themselves.

• We are seeing our adversaries exploiting perceived U.S. weakness and lack of resolve in other parts of the world. We cannot let that happen in the Middle East. We must have a long-term, strategic plan that does not rely on hope but instead on determination and strength. Let us go all-in: anything less will be perceived as not being in at all.

The Middle East is one area where the U.S. is a dominant power-influencer, and we must make clear to our friends that we will stand by them and to our enemies that they are endangering only themselves. Pictured: U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph T. Guastella Jr. (left) speaks with Chief Master Sgt. Shawn L. Drinkard at Al Dhafra Air Base in Abu Dhabi, on January 15, 2020. (USAF photo by Tech. Sgt. Kat Justen)

It is time for the Biden administration to come to terms with the challenging situation in Yemen. It seems that the administration is trying to pick a middle ground, but the Houthis' ongoing terrorist attacks and the massive scale of the humanitarian crisis rules out staying the course of strategic compromise.

Despite multiple attacks on Abu Dhabi, which include an air base that hosts American military personnel, the current administration seems unwilling to designate the Houthis as the terrorist organization it is. At the same time, however, it wants to put constraints on the use of weapons the U.S. might sell to the United Arab Emirates, whose civilian population has been targeted by the Houthis. As so often happens when you fail to identify a clear direction, the status quo is maintained. For Yemen, this is no longer acceptable.

Recently on these pages I argued for the U.S. State Department to redesignate the Houthis as a terrorist organization. While hopeful, I am not optimistic that the decision will be forthcoming. Even though it is not a strategy, hope, not deterrence, is exactly what the Biden administration seems to be hanging its decision-making on -- hoping the Houthis will stop civilian attacks and hoping the Iranians will help President Joe Biden complete his campaign promise to reenter the disastrous 2015 Obama-era nuclear deal.

Now another big decision is looming on the horizon. Shortly before the end of the Trump administration, the U.S. finalized an agreement with the UAE for $23 billion worth of U.S.-made weapons. The sale included F-35s, the latest drone technology, and other miscellaneous equipment. Recently the UAE suspended finalizing the agreement due to its belief the restrictions being placed on the deal by the U.S. government would infringe on its national sovereignty.

The Biden Administration needs move swiftly to remove these obstacles and enable the arms sale to move forward. While most of the sales of advanced weapons will not happen for several years, it is important to signal to the UAE and other players in the region, most notably Iran, that the relationship between the U.S. and UAE is ironclad. The UAE and its leadership have, unlike Iran, demonstrated strong support for the U.S. and stability in the Middle East by embracing people from other cultures and other religions. The leaders of the UAE, should be recognized and rewarded for it, instead of rewarding countries that call for the death of America and other democracies. Otherwise the message being sent, as the late historian Bernard Lewis wrote, is that it is far better to be America's enemy than its friend.

While the Biden administration has made clear its desire to restart nuclear talks with Iran, why not try doing it from a position of strength, for instance deterrence? One of the pillars of strength would be presenting a united front against Iran, with our Gulf allies and Israel at its core. Iran recognizes and responds to strength. It also recognizes weakness and responds by taking advantage of it.

It is vitally important the Biden administration stabilize relationships with key U.S. allies in the Middle East before Iran and Russia destabilize them, or it will justly receive the blame for the chaos that will ensue. The Middle East is one area where the U.S. is a dominant power-influencer, and we must make clear to our friends that we will stand by them and to our enemies that they are endangering only themselves. Having stood along the Damascus Road and talked with people in this region, I can attest that they have long memories. This is the time to strengthen the modernizing, stabilizing relationships and solidify a foundation that will enable them to survive for decades. The U.S. and its allies can stand strong against Iran, which is not only a disruptive and dangerous player in the region, it also is one of the few countries there forging increasingly strong ties with Russia and China.

As Russia and China challenge America's status as the global superpower -- politically, economically, and militarily -- in Europe with Ukraine, in Asia with Taiwan, India and Japan, and throughout east Asia and Africa with China's Belt and Road Initiative -- now is not the time to open a window of opportunity for them to exploit in the Middle East.

At the moment, the U.S. has a chance effectively to slam the door shut on Russia and China in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. Agreeing to provide the UAE with some of the most advanced, American-made military technology sends a strong signal that the U.S. is fully committed to having a long-term, strategic relationship with a great ally, the UAE. Delaying, or perhaps even potentially having the entire sale collapse, signals the exact opposite.

We are seeing our adversaries exploiting perceived U.S. weakness and lack of resolve in other parts of the world. We cannot let that happen in the Middle East. We must have a long-term, strategic plan that does not rely on hope but instead on determination and strength. Let us go all-in: anything less will be perceived as not being in at all.

 

Pete Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18223/middle-east-us

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China and Scientific Funding - Michael Curtis

 

by Michael Curtis

The time for a reassessment of rules for scientific research and funding involving China is long overdue

Chinese military-linked conglomerates and universities are sponsoring high-technology research centers at many universities in the UK. There have been more than 1,000 academic collaborations between British and Chinese academics, a number that has tripled in six years.  The basic issue is that UK scientists and universities have been generating research or cooperating with Chinese researchers, that is sponsored by or is of use to Chinese military bodies.

The facts of academic collaborations between Western, especially British scientists, and Chinese academics and government and commercial bodies are not new.  The UK academic world was warned more than two years ago that hostile state actors were targeting UK universities to steal personal data, research data, and intellectual property, and that these could be valuable for military, commercial, and authoritarian purposes.

In 2019, more than 600 Chinese military scientists, working on technology with military application, were attached to UK universities.  Manchester University for a time had a contract with a Chinese company, Electronics Technology Group, that was used by the Chinese government to produce military aircraft, some used to deal with the Uighur Muslims, a treatment akin to genocide.  Imperial College has worked with the Harbin Institute of Technology, a unit that worked for the PLA. The Henry Jackson Society reported in 2021 that 900 graduates of Chinese universities allegedly linked to the PLA were enrolled in studies at 33 British universities.

Collaboration between China and UK has grown in recent years. British universities have since 2015 accepted 240 million pounds from Chinese institutions for research. Specifically, the Imperial College London has got 44 million, the University of Cambridge 46 million, the University of Oxford 24 million, the University of Manchester 19 million, and the University of Edinburgh 13 million. In addition, the universities also receive income from student recruitment and research grants.   One calculation is that about 120,000 Chinese students account for 2 billion pounds in revenue for UK universities:  nine of them depend on Chinese students for more than 20 percent of their revenue from tuition fees.  Manchester University has more Chinese students than any other in Europe.

It is meaningful that since 2007, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has sponsored more than 2,500 military scientists and engineers to study abroad. The PLA slogan is “picking flowers to gain expertise and training abroad to make honey.”

Reports, including one by Civitas, a think tank based in London, show that at least 20 UK universities have established relations with 29 militarily linked Chinese universities, as well as to nine weapons suppliers or other military-linked companies.  The UK research sponsored by Chinese organizations could have both military as well as civilian uses. The UK research is likely to be of use to Chinese military bodies and may have helped China build weapons of mass destruction. Cambridge University has ties to a Chinese military installation blacklisted by the U.S. Nottingham University has a large deal with China’s main supplier of military aircraft.

The Chinese companies sponsoring UK research include manufacturers that produce rail guns, fighter engines, nuclear warheads, stealth aircraft, drones, tanks, and ships. There is particular concern in the UK about research in two fields: hypersonic technology at a time when China is developing hypersonic missiles and graphite research regarding material used in armed helicopters. This is occurring in a context when China is probably involved in superfast quantum computing and applications for artificial intelligence.

Four questions arise; one is whether the UK has lost any comparative advantage by opening its doors to Chinese academics and handing over what might be considered secrets. Second, does the Chinese connection impinge on national security?  Can China now be considered a greater threat to British interests and security than is Russia? Third, have the recipients in British universities which have got Chinese money lost their moral bearings? And is the collaboration undermining UK strategic interests if sensitive information is being exported to China?

The research on technology to develop rail guns, weapons that use magnetic fields to fire projectiles, drones, fighter jets, and missiles, and other military technology and high-tech aerospace raises the fear is that the joint research between the two countries could be the basis of super weapons for Beijing. Of the total 240 million pounds, 60 million have come from sources sanctioned by the U.S. Of this amount, 40 million came from Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei.

There is some awareness of the impact of these Chinese grants and connections. At Oxford University, the Wykeham chair of physics was renamed the Tencent-Wykeham in honor of Tencent, a Chinese software computing conglomerate, after it offered a 700,000-pound donation to Oxford. Tencent, founded in 1998, is worth 500 billion pounds and received money and support from China’s ministry of state security, the main intelligence agency, when it was founded. It owns WeChat communications which, like TikTok, censors material that the Chinese Communist Party regards as politically sensitive and which keeps tabs on Chinese citizens living abroad. It is taken for granted that Chinese companies pass on information to Chinese security agencies on demand.  

The UK is aware of the issue, as the U.S. has been for some years when in June 2015 it found that hackers linked to China had gained access to sensitive information. The University of Manchester ended its research project with the China Electronics Technology Group after the conservative MP Tom Tugendhat revealed that the technology of that firm was being used against the Uighurs. The license of the China Global Telecommunications Network to broadcast in the UK was withdrawn because the firm was controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

In 2020 Boris Johnson, aware that Huawei was linked to the CCP and had gained access to government security, banned its 5G networks and ordered all its existing technology to be stripped from UK telecommunicators networks.

The time for a reassessment of rules for scientific research and funding involving China is long overdue. That reassessment must consider the stated aim of China to equal the U.S. military by 2027, and to enhance its advanced military technology.

Image: reinhold möller 

 

Michael Curtis

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/02/china_and_scientific_funding.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter