Wednesday, March 24, 2021

China Humiliates Biden's Team in Alaska - Michael Ledeen

 

​ by Michael Ledeen

Nothing of the sort took place during Trump's presidency.

 


The general consensus is that the top two Biden Administration officials -- Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan -- were outperformed in Alaska last week by their Chinese equivalents. The first, and so far as we know the most dramatic, example of Chinese showmanship came from Jang Jiechi, Beijing's top foreign-policy official. Talking for nearly half an hour instead of the customary two minutes, Jang lambasted the Biden Administration's human rights policy, and went on with a systematic demolition of its foreign policy "rules."

Nothing of the sort took place during Trump's presidency. The Chinese adhered to the prearranged rules, including the time limits on individual contributions. Nor did Beijing's representatives ridicule the American positions, as they did last Thursday and Friday. 
 
One is hard-pressed to explain President Biden's statement after the Thursday session that he was "proud" of the performance of Secretary of State Blinken, when most of the coverage gave a very different picture. If you read the press coverage from the rest of the world, you will get a clear picture of Chinese hegemony, whether in the debate or in the maneuvers between the two superpowers. 
 
To take just one example: the military press headlined the Chinese "humiliation" of the Americans, and focused at considerable length on Zang's diatribe at the outset of the talks. And to add insult to injury, Beijing introduced a new requirement: that would-be travelers to the People's Republic be vaccinated with a drug of Chinese manufacture.

In other words, the Chinese ran rings around the Americans, and let it be known that China, not the United States, would set the agenda of talks between the two superpowers. The historic role of Washington had thus been reversed, and the Americans would have to defend their record against Beijing's criticisms.
 
The most shocking thing about the sessions was the failure of American preparation for the Chinese assault. The top two representatives from Washington sat mutely by as the Chinese humiliation dragged on. The U.S. response came a day later and was at a far lower level than Beijing's opening critique of Biden's foreign policy.
 
Better luck next time.

 

Michael Ledeen  

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/china-humialtes-bidens-team-alaska-michael-ledeen/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Garland-Wray Axis Exploits January 6 to Criminalize Dissent - Lloyd Billingsley

 

​ by Lloyd Billingsley

“We are facing a far more dangerous period than we did in Oklahoma City."

 


“I certainly agree that we are facing a more dangerous period than we did in Oklahoma City at that time,” said Biden Attorney General pick Merrick Garland in his Senate confirmation hearing. The reference was to the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people.

Garland supervised the prosecution of the bomber, Timothy McVeigh. On the other hand, according to remarks Garland made before confirmation as U.S. Attorney General, that deadly bombing would not even qualify as an act of terrorism.

According to Garland, nationwide BLM-Antifa violence does not qualify as terrorism because it took place at night. So if Timothy McVeigh had detonated his bomb at midnight, he too would have escaped the domestic terrorist tag. So much for the great legal mind all attorneys general are supposed to display.

For Garland, job one will be prosecution of those involved in the “heinous attack” of January 6, in which no bombs were detonated and the only people with guns were the police. One cop gunned down Air Force veteran and Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, but Garland appears unconcerned about that police shooting.

The January 6 mob, Garland says, “sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy.” No word about James Comey, Peter Strzok, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, and others who attempted to take down duly elected president Donald Trump. Not a single major player faced any criminal charges. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith forged a document but got no jail time from judge James Boasberg, who doubles as presiding judge of the FISA court.

FBI director Christopher Wray denied any “spying” on Trump had taken place. Wray kept rather quiet during the Antifa-BLM violence, and the live-streamed execution of police officer David Dorn elicited no official statement from the FBI boss. Wray sees no evidence of any Antifa or anarchist involvement on January 6. As for Biden and Garland, it was domestic terrorism, and the FBI response is instructive.

Florida man Christopher Worrell never entered the Capitol Building on January 6 and was cooperating with the FBI. Even so, on March 12, the FBI mounted a massive attack on his house. According to neighbor Lynn Elias, it was “like military” with six or seven “big black vehicles,” and helmeted troops “busted down the front door.” That recalls the massive pre-dawn FBI raid on Trump associate Roger Stone.  

Behind the scenes, the FBI was deploying forged documents against Carter Page and entrapping Gen. Michael Flynn. FBI counterintelligence boss Peter Strzok raged against Trump supporters and told Lisa Page “we’ll stop it,” that is, the election of Donald Trump. When that failed, the FBI deployed the Crossfire Hurricane operation against President Trump.

Such criminality will not come to light under AG Merrick Garland and FBI boss Christopher Wray. Their campaigns against “domestic terrorists” and “white supremacists” recall Stalin’s actions against those less than worshipful of his collectivization campaigns.

Malcolm Muggeridge, Moscow correspondent of the Guardian, broke the story of Stalin’s terror famine in Ukraine, which Walter Duranty of the New York Times denied. Muggeridge later authored the novel Winter in Moscow, which historian A.J.P. Taylor called the best book on Soviet Russia. “For fear that the class war should die down,” Muggeridge wrote, “an organization was created whose business was to keep it alive by, on the one hand, by making class enemies, and on the other, destroying them. This machinery of destruction is a non-stop puppet revolution.”

Garland and Wray are making January 6 their non-stop puppet revolution. Troops occupy Washington DC and out in the hinterlands a militarized FBI, in effect the American KGB, smashes down doors. Joe Biden and Merrick Garland have no problem with it.

“I am not the president’s lawyer,” proclaimed Garland, who claimed he would “resign” in the face of any undue pressure from the White House. For Garland, “my job is to protect the Department of Justice,” presumably against any public exposure of political bias, illegal surveillance, or outright criminal activity.

Merrick Garland was a  Supreme Court pick of the composite character David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. Under his transformation, the outgoing president picks his successor and deploys the FBI and DOJ to help her and attack her opponent. The composite character also ignored Islamic terrorism and deployed the FBI against ordinary Americans who advocate limited government and constitutional rights.

In 2009 the FBI, then under Robert Mueller, knew that Nidal Hasan was communicating with terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about killing Americans. The FBI mounted no armed raid to arrest the self-proclaimed “soldier of Allah.” As Lessons from Fort Hood explains, the Washington office of the FBI dropped the surveillance and Hasan murdered 13 unarmed American soldiers. For the composite character president, it was not Islamic terrorism or domestic terrorism, only “workplace violence.” 

Under Joe Biden, by contrast, the FBI mounts massive raids against people not charged with any violent crime. The president’s lawyer Merrick Garland gives full support. This partisan sophist vows to protect the DOJ, not the constitutional rights of the people. If anybody thought Joe Biden, Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray are out to criminalize dissent it would be hard to blame them. As Garland says, we are facing a more dangerous period now.

 

Lloyd Billingsley  

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/far-more-dangerous-period-lloyd-billingsley/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Dept. of Homeland Security flirting with totalitarianism - Thomas Lifson

 

​ by Thomas Lifson

If the DHS bureaucrats apply the label "domestic extremist" to you, kiss your right to travel good-bye.

Now that the Department of Justice and FBI are using the 1/6/21 Capitol incursion to demonize all who attended the massive rally that day, imputing “insurrection,” “white supremacy,” and “extremism” to them, massive political repression may be coming. Consider this from Politico:

The Department of Homeland Security is considering monitoring the travel of domestic extremists and expanding its use of the No Fly List, law enforcement sources told POLITICO.

The discussions are part of the Biden administration’s strategy of treating domestic terror as a national security threat, and not just a law enforcement problem. They're also part of broader conversations in government about how to use tools developed for the Global War on Terror to combat domestic extremism. And, if past is prologue, the approach could prove politically contentious.

Don't forget that the head of the DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, has shown himself to be a willing liar in service to the powers running the Biden regime.

The No Fly List is an arbitrary means of denying the right to travel long distances quickly to anyone. While it can be challenged in court, be prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees and wait years for the appeals process to work. In the meantime, forget about organizing a national political movement, starting a new business, attending distant weddings or funerals, or otherwise living life to its fullest in “the land of the free.”

Who is a “domestic extremist”? Plenty of Democrats think anyone who expresses support for Trump or even Ron DeSantis qualifies, especially if they are Caucasian. DHS bureaucrats get to apply that label to anyone they want.

The Deep State is already hashing out its plans:

A second law enforcement official told POLITICO that conversations about monitoring domestic extremists’ travel have involved multiple federal agencies at the interagency level, including the FBI.

“Domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal, persistent terrorism-related threat to our homeland today," a DHS spokesperson said in response to a request for comment. "DHS is committed to improving security and is reviewing options for enhancing screening and vetting protocols and travel pattern analyses, consistent with privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.”

The FBI declined to comment.

Sundance at The Last Refuge comments:

As we have seen from the factual example of the January 6th DC protest rally, if you attend an event labeled as ‘extremist’ by a 20-something ideologue with access inside the system, you may find yourself on a “no-fly” list.

Expand your thinking to what was initiated with the COVID model for “contact tracing” and you can quickly see how physical proximity to a rogue dissident, a person with wrong thoughts – aka a domestic extremist, can result in you being labeled along with that dissident…. and you are on the list.  Then overlay the efforts of Big Tech to assist the administrative state with an electronic trail of your habits, contacts, phone calls, text messages and internet patterns…. and you are on the list.

Remind yourself what FBI “contractors’ with access to the NSA database already did in their quest for political opposition research and surveillance {Go Deep}.  Then overlay all of the above and you get an alarming picture that is not something to dispatch.  This is a very serious matter in a nation that prides itself on freedom and liberty.

Now that the Democrats have power with bare-majority control of Congress and an addled front man in the Oval Office, they are trying to cement their control of the powers of the federal government in perpetuity.  Unconstitutionally federalize election regulations and make mail in voting mandatory (with no identity checking, so as to enable cheating), persecute the opposition party, seize civilians’ firearms, and let the Antifa and BLM paramilitary adjuncts of the Party control the streets as police are defunded.

Just try and dissent once those pending steps are accomplished. You will be looking out from inside a new iron curtain.

 

Thomas Lifson  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/dept_of_homeland_security_flirting_with_totalitarianism.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

On gender madness, don’t let Canada be the future - Andrea Widburg

 

​ by Andrea Widburg

What’s happening in Canada when the subject is trangenderism is a dystopian nightmare that could easily happen in a Democrat-run America.

Jordan Peterson became world-famous in 2016 because he stood up to Canada’s human rights law, which made it a crime to “misgender” someone. Since then, Canada has slid even further into gender totalitarianism. The latest example is a Canadian man who was sent to prison for refusing to adopt his teenage daughter’s new masculine pronouns.

The father and mother were not raising the child together, so it was only when his daughter was 13 that the father learned that the girl’s public school and his ex-wife had been working with the child to turn her into a boy. This included pushing the child to take hormones to mimic male sexual attributes such as facial hair and a deep voice.

The father (who cannot be identified under Canadian law because doing so would also identify his daughter) went to court, saying that he needed to give parental consent before his child was permanently mutilated. Not only did a British Columbia court rule against him, saying the father’s consent wasn’t necessary, but the appellate judges also lectured him to understand gender dysphoria better.

While the father could do nothing to stop the permanent changes wrought on his daughter via hormone treatments, he steadfastly refused to refer to his daughter by masculine pronouns. In today’s Canada, under the same “human rights” laws that Peterson opposed, that is a criminal matter. Last week, the Canadian government sent him to prison for “misgendering” his daughter:

There is a man in Canada who can only be alluded to as He Who Shall Not Be Named, the father to a child who is undergoing gender transition. For the sake of natural justice, it is important to speak this man’s name. He is now the Canadian state’s prisoner of conscience.

The warrant was issued by a judge for the arrest of a father after calling his biological female child his “daughter,” and referring to her with the pronouns “she” and “her.” The father was found to be in contempt of court.

The father is a father to a gender non-conforming biological female 16-year-old who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. The father has repeatedly called this person his daughter, though the court has forbade it. The transition has been underway for more than two years.

On Tuesday at 10 am Vancouver time, the father surrendered himself to the court in response to the Attorney General of British Columbia’s warrant his arrest for contempt. He was the arrested and jailed. The warrant was issued by Judge Tammen on March 4, 2021.

You should read the entire article at The Post Millennial to appreciate the dystopian nightmare taking place north of us. Rather than continuing to recount this long, depressing tale, I have two separate points to make.

First, there is no science whatsoever to support pediatric transgenderism. This 2016 Harvard University article is a perfect example of the doubletalk masking this fact.

If you drill down into the pediatric literature, you quickly discover that the medical community has simply accepted transgenderism as a real thing and wrapped “treatments” around this assumption. You can confirm this by checking the “transgender” articles at the American Academy of Pediatrics, the preeminent pediatric medical association in America. None of the articles question transgenderism. Instead, they encourage surgical and hormonal interventions.

Second, you may not be surprised to learn that the girl’s mother is both a psychologist and an endocrinologist. In other words, it’s likely that she pathologized the child as part of her own issues and expertise.

In 1991, when transgenderism was still treated as a mental illness, not a political matter, a study comparing mothers of boys who claimed they were transgender with mothers of boys who did not discovered something fascinating: “Fifty-three percent of the mothers of boys with GID compared with only 6% of controls met the diagnosis for Borderline Personality Disorder on the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines or had symptoms of depression on the Beck Depression Inventory.”

Although the plural of anecdote is not data, the above finding is consistent with family dynamics seen in Jeffrey Younger’s fight against his ex-wife, who was determined to turn their son into a girl. That is, once again, it was a situation involving a mother acting without the father's input. Additionally, as conservative commentator Matt Walsh observed after watching HBO’s documentary about allegedly transgender kids, crazy moms and weak or absent dads seem to lie at the center of many of these stories.

Don’t point and laugh at the crazy Canadians. This is where Democrats are pushing America and it won’t be funny at all when you find yourself in a cell with a big guy named Bruno because you called your son “he” or your daughter “she.”

IMAGE: Post-breast mutilation surgery by Aiden Craver on Unsplash (cropped and labeled).


Andrea Widburg  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/on_gender_madness_dont_let_canada_be_the_future.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Report: Boulder shooter swore allegiance to ISIS, targeted 'Jewish store' - Arutz Sheva Staff

 

​ by Arutz Sheva Staff

King Soopers store in Boulder, where 10 were killed in shooting attack, calls itself “Your One-Stop Shop For Kosher Groceries.”

Scene of shooting in Boulder, Colorado
Scene of shooting in Boulder, Colorado
Reuters

The shooter who on Monday killed 10 during an attack in Boulder, Colorado had targeted a “Jewish store,” the Loomered.com news site associated with journalist and former Florida congressional candidate Laura Loomer reported.

Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty has said that investigators have not identified a motive for the suspect, who has been identified as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, from the Denver suburb of Arvada. Alissa was reportedly born in 1999 in Syria.

The suspect was booked into jail on murder charges on Tuesday and is scheduled to have his first court appearance on Thursday, ABC 7 reported. 

However, Loomered.com reported that the King Soopers market targeted by the shooter is known as a “Jewish store” with a majority Jewish clientele due to the large supply of kosher items the store carries.

King Soopers website indeed advertises the grocery chain as “Your One-Stop Shop For Kosher Groceries.” The store is also included on a Vaad Hakashrus of Denver list of stores that carry kosher items.

Citing a source in Boulder law enforcement, Loomer also told the National File that the shooter had sworn allegiance to ISIS before the attack.

“Source tells me shooter carried out attack in the name of ISIS. Biden admin has already given orders to keep it under wraps to avoid conversation in the media about Islamic terrorism and reversal of trumps travel ban, which the terrorist was opposed to,” she wrote on her Telegram channel.

“The irony isn’t lost on me how a Radical Islamist, and ISIS member drove 25 miles out of his way to get to this specific store just to shoot everyone in sight. Yet, not a single mainstream outlet wants to talk about the fact that the location of the attack is a Jewish store, with a majority Jewish clientele,” Loomered.com concluded.

 

Arutz Sheva Staff  

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/299160 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Muslim Terrorist From the Capital of ISIS Shot Up a Supermarket. Biden Blames Guns - Daniel Greenfield

 

​ by Daniel Greenfield

Biden ended Trump’s Muslim ban claiming it “undermined our national security.”

 


Two years ago, Ahmad Al-Issa shared a post titled, “Why refugees and immigrants are good for America.” On Monday, the Syrian Muslim immigrant shot up a supermarket killing ten Americans.

Biden declared that he was "still waiting for more information regarding the shooter, his motive, the weapons he used. The guns, the magazines, the weapons, the modifications that have apparently taken place to those weapons that are involved here."

Why do the modifications to the Syrian immigrant's weapons matter more than his motive?

Obama joined in, demanding that it is, “long past time for those with the power to fight this epidemic of gun violence to do so.”

Guns don’t kill people. Muslim terrorists do.

Ahmad Al-Issa spent much of his time in America accusing his classmates and everyone around him of being ‘Islamophobes’. He repeatedly got into furious confrontations with the Americans whom he claimed were disrespecting his Islamic religion.

The media is spinning this as a mental illness, but if hating non-Muslims is a mental illness, then it’s a common one in his home country.

While Ahmad Al-Issa came to America at a young age with his family, the Al-Issa clan originated from Raqqa. The name of the Syrian city may not mean much to most Americans, but it was the former capital of the Caliphate of the Islamic State.

Or ISIS.

And that was after it had been previously taken over by the Al Nusra Front, linked to Al Qaeda, and by Ahrar al-Sham, which had coordinated with ISIS. Multiple Jihadist units and groups used the name ‘Raqqa’ to symbolize their determination to stake a claim to the Syrian city and region.

Raqqa has a sizable Sunni Islamist base even beyond ISIS.

While Al-Issa grew up in America, his family would have likely maintained an extensive network of family connections with Raqqa. Family members insist that Ahmad Al-Issa was not a radical, but he was clearly a committed Muslim and his Facebook page, since taken down, is filled with Islamic content, and with attacks on President Trump and on America over ‘Islamophobia’.

Colorado took in a sizable number of migrants with multiple charities, religious and secular, springing up to help the alleged refugees. And once again Americans are reeling from a terror attack because Democrats and some Republicans refuse to secure our immigration system.

There were plenty of warnings that Ahmad Al-Issa’s hatred for America and obsession with Islamophobia could turn violent. In 2017, he assaulted a fellow student claiming that he had made fun of his identity. The Syrian immigrant got off with a misdemeanor, probation, and community service. Just imagine if the system had done its job and locked him up instead.

The angry outbursts and claims of Islamophobia are now being spun as mental illness.

But the most obvious explanation for why a Syrian Muslim immigrant whose family comes from the capital of ISIS would shoot up an American supermarket isn’t mental illness.

Nor is the solution gun control.

Democrats and the media had attacked President Trump for suspending the migration of Syrians into America. When Biden overturned the suspension, the media cheered.

“Beyond contravening our values, these Executive Orders and Proclamations have undermined our national security," Biden had falsely declared.

The bodies of ten dead Americans show what national security with terror migration looks like.

In 2016, Judge Posner had prevented Governor Pence from blocking Syrian refugees. Posner bizarrely claimed that Pence's attempt to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists was the equivalent of forbidding "black people to settle in Indiana."

The Trump administration’s moves would not have stopped the Al-Issa clan from coming here in 2002, but it would have prevented future terrorists from taking more American lives.

Biden and the Democrats responded to the King Sooper shootings by preaching “common sense gun control”. But their gun control has yet to work in Chicago or New York. Meanwhile what Americans need isn’t fewer guns, but fewer immigrant and refugee terrorists.

The tragedy of the Al-Issa family arriving here in 2002, after September 11, is a case study in the obstinate refusal of our political elites to reckon with even the worst terror attacks.

President George W. Bush had postponed the Presidential Determination for the number of refugees imported into America because of the September 11 attacks. But he nevertheless went ahead and issued it in November 2001 which allocated 70,000 refugee slots.

And, insanely, boosted the Near East/South Asia category from 10,000 to 15,000 which had been set at 4,000 under Clinton. In 2001, some 3,000 had already been referred to through Syria, Jordan and Turkey. These numbers may sound technical, but they show the terrible policy decisions that led directly to the brutal murder of ten Americans in an ordinary supermarket.

The American victims of Ahmad Al-Issa's rampage included grandparents and employees, an actress, and a police officer who charged the Muslim shooter and paid for it with his life.

Colorado Democrats clamor that this shooting didn’t have to happen. They’re right, but not because of gun control. It didn’t have to happen if we just reformed our immigration system.

Ahmad Al-Issa grew up in America and hated every minute of it. He hated his host country, his classmates and his peers. Over the years, his hatred grew until it consumed him. Then it consumed in his victims in a murderous rampage aimed at non-Muslim Coloradans.

In 2019, Al-Issa had fashionably tweeted, #istandwithrefugees. It's the sort of thing that many in Boulder, in Colorado, and across America have irresponsibly tweeted.

And it’s a hashtag that kills.

Bush’s decision to let in the Al-Issa family after September 11 killed ten Americans. It was a tragic decision that he might not have seen buried in the numbers. But it happened anyway.

There’s really no excuse for it today after two decades of continuous Islamic terrorism.

Every day that we keep our border open, that we welcome in more migrants from terror states, we are pointing a loaded gun at our own heads and pulling the trigger. Most of the time the chamber is empty, but every now and then, the immigration gun fires and people die.

Biden and the Democrats would like to talk about Al-Issa’s weapon modifications after opening the border to gang members and terrorists. They want to push restrictions on Americans owning guns, instead of restrictions on their own resettlement agencies bringing in terrorists.

The problem is not that a Syrian immigrant from the capital of ISIS had a gun. The problem was that a Syrian immigrant from the capital of ISIS was in Colorado and in America.

The authorities and the media will go on lying to Americans. They will blame mental illness, as they do with every Muslim terrorist, and depict Al-Issa as the victim of Islamophobic bigots. The Democrats will turn the killer into the victim and his victims into the perpetrators as they have done so many times. They will tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Al-Issa’s religion and his family origins in the capital of the ISIS Caliphate should be ignored.

And even in the midst of so many burning issues, we must not give up the fight on this one.

There are hard, cold truths about Islamic terrorism that decades after September 11 we seem to be no closer to understanding than Bush was in November 2001.

We can stand with the terror refugees killing us. Or we can stand with their American victims.

 

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/muslim-terrorist-capital-isis-shot-supermarket-daniel-greenfield/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Alexei Navalny: "Prepared to Lose Everything" - Jiri Valenta and Leni Friedman Valenta

 

​ by Jiri Valenta and Leni Friedman Valenta

"This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'." — Alexei Navalny, Twitter, November 9, 2020.

  • "I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship... Don't tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn't ban anyone ...." — Alexei Navalny, Twitter, November 9, 2020.

  • Among the people who have Twitter accounts are cold-blooded murderers (Putin or Maduro) and liars and thieves (Medvedev)... Of course, Twitter is a private company, but we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship. — Alexei Navalny, Twitter, November 9, 2020.

  • "If you replace 'Trump' with 'Navalny' in today's discussion, you will get an 80% accurate Kremlin's answer as to why my name can't be mentioned on Russian TV and I shouldn't be allowed to participate in any elections." — Alexei Navalny, Twitter, November 9, 2020.

  • "This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'." — Alexei Navalny, Twitter, November 9, 2020.

  • "The election is a straightforward and competitive process. You can participate in it, you can appeal against the results, they're being monitored by millions of people. The ban on Twitter is a decision of people we don't know in accordance with a procedure we don't know..." . — Alexei Navalny, Twitter, November 9, 2020.

  • "This [imprisonment] is happening to intimidate large numbers of people. They're imprisoning one person to frighten millions. This isn't a demonstration of strength — it's a show of weakness." — Alexei Navalny, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, February 3, 2021.

Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny was nearly murdered in August by poisoning with the nerve-agent novichok, and on February 2 was sentenced to two and a half years in a penal colony for an alleged parole violation. The resultant protests in support of Navalny have been attended by tens of thousands of citizens in more than a hundred Russian cities. Pictured: Navalny attends a hearing inside a glass cell at the Babushkinsky District Court in Moscow on February 20, 2021. (Photo by Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images)

The near-murder of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny by the nerve-agent novichok last August, his return to Moscow in January, and the resultant protests attended by tens of thousands of citizens in more than a hundred Russian cities, raise the question of how long the Russian people will continue to tolerate President Vladimir Putin's repressive acts against political enemies and rivals.

The crowds were rallying in support of Navalny after his return to Moscow on January17, 2021 from medical treatment in Germany, some in temperatures of -60 degrees Fahrenheit. The police, attacking the protestors with batons, arrested more than 3,300 people.

While recuperating in Germany, Navalny, aided by an investigative organization, filmed himself calling Konstantin Kudryatsev, a toxins expert in Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). Using a disguised telephone number, Navalny posed as an aide to the chairman of Russia's Security Council. He asked Kudryatsev for the details of his poisoning. In the 49-minute conversation that followed, Kudryatsev divulged full details of the poisoning, including how the novichok poison had been placed in Navalny's underpants in a hotel in Tomsk.

In December, Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) released the video of the telephone call.

After his January arrest in Moscow, Navalny released a nearly two-hour documentary entitled, "Putin's palace. History of world's largest bribe," that has drawn more than 100 million views on YouTube. The billion dollar plus residence was financed, claims FBK, through a corruption scheme run by oligarchs in Putin's inner circle.

On January 23, Navalny was arrested for allegedly violating the terms of his parole -- which was imposed in 2014 under a suspended sentence for what he calls a "fabricated" charge of embezzlement. The European Court of Human Rights in 2016 had already ruled that the 2014 conviction was unlawful.

According to the BBC:

"The case against Navalny was based on his failure to report regularly to police during 2020 - an absurdity, his legal team argued, as the authorities knew full well that he was getting emergency treatment in Berlin for the Novichok nerve agent attack. He reminded the court that for part of that time he was in a coma."

In a speech to the court on February 2, when the judge sentenced him to two and a half years in a penal colony for the parole violation, Navalny said:

"[Putin's] main gripe with me is that he'll go down in history as a poisoner. We had Alexander the Liberator, Yaroslav the Wise, and we will have Vladimir the Underpants Poisoner."

In the courtroom, Navalny drew a heart with his finger on the glass wall of his enclosure for his wife, Yulia.

Navalny, the next week, was hauled back to court for allegedly "slandering a World War II veteran who took part in the promotional video in support of last year's constitutional amendments that cleared the way for President Vladimir Putin to run for two more terms in office..." Navalny had "described those in the video as 'traitors,' 'people with no conscience,' and 'corrupt lackeys.'"

Meanwhile, nationwide protests continued. In the freezing winter, Russians gathered in groups and held up their mobile phone flashlights in a display of support for Navalny.

Why is this outpouring of support for Navalny significant?

Since 2018 he has headed a political party, "Progress," also known as "Russia of the Future." Its platform stands for, among other things, the decentralization of power; the rule of law; ending censorship; reducing government interference in the economy, and partnering with Western countries.

It is also no secret that Putin has a history of allegedly taking revenge on journalists -- such as Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov or Natalia Estemirova -- as well as enemies or opponents.

In 2004, Viktor Yushchenko, a pro-Western candidate for president of Ukraine was left with his face pock-marked and disfigured by a poisoning attack.

In 2006, Russian double agent Alexander Litvinenko was killed with radioactive polonium. Popular political reformer Boris Nemtsov was assassinated in 2015. His friend, Vladimir Kara-Murza, was poisoned twice, in 2015 and 2017, but survived. Sergei Skripal, a former Colonel in Russian military intelligence and allegedly a double-agent working for Britain, was also poisoned with novichok, along with his daughter Yulia, while living in the UK, presumably to underscore that no one was out of reach.

How did Navalny to rise to prominence in Russia? In 2007, holding a small number of shares in Russian state-owned oil and gas companies, Navalny obtained information on their corruption and misuse of funds, which he then publicized on his widely-read LiveJournal blog.

In 2011, he founded his Anti-Corruption Foundation. He also ran for mayor of Moscow but lost. The same year, he led a series of protests against election fraud. In addition, his organization created a "smart" voting platform, which advises the public of alternatives to Putin's candidates.

In the 2012 parliamentary elections, Navalny's party lost out to Putin's United Russia Party by a large margin. In 2020, however, thanks to Navalny's growing influence, Putin's party lost seats in Moscow, Khabarovsk, Tomsk and Novosibirsk.

In 2018, Navalny campaigned and sought to run against Putin in the presidential election. Navalny obtained 200,000 signatures and opened 81 campaign offices nationwide. But unlike less well-known candidates, he was barred from running against Putin because of his 2014 conviction for embezzlement and money-laundering, a case he called "trumped up."

Since then, waves of protests have swept Russia, along with growing admiration for Navalny worldwide.

Navalny has made some telling comments about former President Donald J. Trump and censorship. Indeed, comparisons between underdogs Trump and Navalny are hard to avoid, particularly as both are censored. Navalny tweeted on January 9:

"I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship...

"The election is a straightforward and competitive process. You can participate in it, you can appeal against the results, they're being monitored by millions of people. The ban on Twitter is a decision of people we don't know in accordance with a procedure we don't know...

Don't tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn't ban anyone (not that I ask for it)...

"Among the people who have Twitter accounts are cold-blooded murderers (Putin or Maduro) and liars and thieves (Medvedev). For many years, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have been used as a base for Putin's "troll factory" and similar groups from other authoritarian countries.

"Of course, Twitter is a private company, but we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.

"If you replace 'Trump' with 'Navalny' in today's discussion, you will get an 80% accurate Kremlin's answer as to why my name can't be mentioned on Russian TV and I shouldn't be allowed to participate in any elections.

"This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'."

Navalny had previously commented on the fact that unlike many other world leaders, Trump was unusually quiet about his poisoning. According to CNN:

Speaking to CBS on Sunday, Navalny said "I think it's extremely important -- that everyone, of course, including and maybe in the first of all, President of United States, to be very against using chemical weapons in the 21st Century."

In 2018, President Trump expelled 60 Russian diplomats from the US days after the British government positively identified the nerve agent used in the Skripal poisonings as novichok. He also ordered the closure of the Russian Consulate in Seattle. European Union countries, Canada and Ukraine followed suit in expelling Russian diplomats.

The use of novichok is banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international treaty of which Russia is a state party.

Before Navalny, opposition figures who survived attacks have retreated or fled. Navalny, physically attacked, jailed and released many times, has refused flight, emigration and silence.

So far, Navalny, now in the IK-2 penitentiary in the city of Pokrov, said "he had seen no violence in his new surroundings," which he called a "friendly concentration camp," in a message posted to his Instagram account on March 15.

"I have not yet seen any violence or even a hint of it, although due to the stiff posture of the convicts, standing at attention and afraid to turn their heads, I easily believe the numerous stories that here, in IK-2 'Pokrov', quite recently people were beaten half to death with wooden hammers. Now the methods have changed, and, to be honest, I don't even remember a place where everyone speaks so politely and in a way, kindly."

"He is prepared to lose everything," said the economist Sergei M. Guriev, a Navalny confidant who in 2013 fled to France after coming under pressure from the Kremlin. "That makes him different from everyone else."

On March 2, 2021, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on Russian officials and companies and are presently considering further steps. According to The Guardian:

"Senior administration officials described the measures taken, which are also a response to Navalny's continued imprisonment, as catching up with sanctions imposed on Moscow by the EU in October..."

They are not likely to be sufficient. Russia has already imposed sanctions of its own against European officials in reprisal.

Voices worldwide need to continue to call for Navalny's release.

Putin, of course, is still popular with much of Russia. Polls show his approval rating in the mid-60s. Russian media are portraying Navalny's supporters in a negative light amidst footage of violence directed against the police. Crackdowns on supporters are anticipated.

Yet Navalny has hope that his movement can carry on without him. Reacting to his sentencing, he addressed his followers in the courtroom:

"This [imprisonment] is happening to intimidate large numbers of people. They're imprisoning one person to frighten millions. This isn't a demonstration of strength — it's a show of weakness."

 

Dr. Jiri Valenta is a senior research associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan. A former tenured associate professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, he also served as coordinator of Soviet and East European Studies for the Master's program for intelligence officers of all armed forces. A member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, he is the recipient of the Jan Masaryk Silver Medal for his directorship of a post-revolutionary think tank in the Czech Republic. A recipient of several distinguished fellowships, he is the author of several books, some based on on-site research and covering Grenada, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Syria and Cambodia. For the last decade, he has worked with his wife, Leni, who holds a 3-year Masters from the Yale School of Drama in playwriting.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17203/alexei-navalny 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Pity poor Joe? No. - Anony Mee

 

​ by Anony Mee

Not only did Joe Biden choose the path he is now on, but it may have serious repercussions for America – more serious than most people realize.

President Biden fell three times while climbing the steps to Air Force One. What’s most noteworthy about this is that he had a firm grip on the handrail throughout. This should have kept him largely upright despite catching toes on the steps or misjudging their height or being knocked over by a breeze. There’s something really wrong where his internal gyroscope resides.

And not just physically. His interpersonal relationships seem to be suffering. Joe has a huge team of folks he relies on to prop him up as he stumbles, bumbles, and mumbles through the public aspects of his presidency. Surprisingly, several have been purged now due to the already known and vetted factor of prior self-impairment through drug use. Too bad VP Harris wasn’t one of them. This President is already reaching new heights of promise-breaking and hypocrisy.

We’ve just witnessed a notably cringe-worthy week from Biden and his administration – signing the $1.9 trillion boondoggle bill, then being sued by the State of Ohio; talking smack about Russian President Putin, who then pulled his ambassador back home; being baited by Putin and made to look like a fool when he refused to have a conversation with him; declaring in the face of all opposing evidence that there is no crisis at our southern border; and being threatened by North Korea on Monday only by Thursday to announce that we would be ready to fight them that evening. I hesitate to call it a catastrophe, as most likely the worst is not yet upon us.

Coming off the previous week, when he forgot who the Secretary of Defense was and where he worked, this past week Biden forgot who is the President of these United States, naming Kamala Harris in that position.

For months now, I’ve been listening to conservative commentators decrying elder abuse and asking, “Why are they doing this to poor old Joe?” Forcing him to run when he’s clearly unable, with Dr. Biden right next to him acting as though all is well, or at least normal. And then to serve in a position he simply hasn’t the capacity to comprehend, with both Jill and Kamala hovering every moment. It takes Biden a week to carry out a schedule that President Trump could have completed in one day and still been home for supper.

Although a plagiarist, mean-spirited, and not a great student, candidate Joe Biden was not ignorant. He would have been smart enough to perceive when his mental acuity began to fade and his memory capacity diminished. We who are aging are all aware that certain dementias can be slowed significantly in their progress if attacked soon enough. A simple web search reveals that 44% of Americans between the ages of 75 and 84 have some form of dementia. Biden’s family doctor, or even the White House physician, would have advised that changes in routine and environment, as well as increased stress, can make dementia symptoms worse.

Why did he do it? Well, I have a theory: Promises made but not yet kept.

VP Joe was in and out of China. As we know, he took Hunter with him and they came back $1.5 billion richer. The quid pro quo? He made promises but didn’t have enough time left to keep them all. China trusted Joe, but 2016 was not Joe’s turn, it was Hers. China trusted Hillary. Hillary let them down by not winning, and Trump’s victory slowed the implementation of China’s program for unquestioned regional dominance.

So, it was up to Joe -- to run, to win, to serve, and to keep promises made to the Middle Kingdom that would probably terrify us if we knew. And run he did, and win, for all intents and purposes, however fraught with deceit, he did. Now he must serve.

What would those promises have been? O’Biden was famous for standing America down. Together their administration stood us down and funded Iranian expansionism and proxy terrorism. Stood us down in confronting nuclear threats and ISIS. Stood us down while Russia resurrected its imperialist designs starting with Crimea and Ukraine.

China’s increasing military aggressiveness these past couple of years was at war with its need to concede to Trump to keep commerce flowing. Then the Wu flu threw a monkey wrench into their plans. Lately, they’ve been all over the map behaving badly.

What “standing down” would Joe have promised the Chinese? Tibet, Kashmir (the gateway to vast under-utilized Afghan agricultural land), Hong Kong, Taiwan, the South China Sea lanes, strengthening both Iran and Venezuela who look to destabilize the United States in any way possible, continued cyber-attacks, the Uighurs, a still partially slave-based economy? What other horrors was Biden prepared to look away from in exchange for Hunter’s position, power, and wealth, as well as Joe’s own?

It’s proper to feel sympathy for those among us who suffer from dementia and their families. Some are my friends. But I don’t feel sorry for Joe Biden. He chose this path.

Anony Mee is a retired public servant.

IMAGE: Joe Biden. Rumble screengrab, edited by Andrea Widburg.

 

Anony Mee  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/pity_poor_joe_no.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cornel West Blames Jews For Not Receiving Tenure - Hugh Fitzgerald

 

​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

But was he even on a tenure track position?

 


Elder of Ziyon dismisses Cornel West’s blaming his failure to be given tenure on those angry with his position on the Palestinians and Israel:

West is not telling the truth.

He was not denied tenure – his position was not a tenure track position!

As this article notes, most academic jobs — even senior ones — are not tenure track anymore. West’s position wasn’t ever eligible for tenure to begin with, and he knew this when he rejoined Harvard in 2016.

During his normal 5-year review, the faculty committee offered him a raise and a 10 year contract, which for a 67-year old man is as good as tenure. But he refused, insisting that they change his position itself into a tenured position – something that this review board couldn’t do. “As the Boston Globe reported, “The faculty committee was only in charge of reviewing his reappointment and does not have authority to conduct a review for tenure, [Harvard’s] spokesman said.”

Now, it is obvious why he wasn’t granted tenure – he did not have a tenure-eligible job and one cannot make that change at the drop of a hat. West asked for the job to be changed, which is quite a different matter than being denied tenure!

Yet West is insisting in multiple interviews that he was forced out by Zionists at Harvard rather than his own hubris. Yet if the Zionists at Harvard were out to silence him, why did they offer him a raise and a ten-year contract?

And is it really that difficult to find professors in Ivy League schools who are anti-Israel?

If the “Zionists” are so powerful at Harvard, how is it that so many other anti-Israel professors have been hired and given tenure? There is West’s own colleague in African-American Studies, J. Lorand Matory, who speaks of a Zionist cabal managing to prevent anti-Israel speakers from coming to the campus; there is Professor of Psychology Patrick Cavanagh; there is the now-retired Professor of History John Womack; and many others. As for the notion that Harvard prevents anti-Israel speakers from being invited to the campus, the poet Tom Paulin, well-known for his anti-Israel views that he spews forth on every conceivable occasion, was invited to speak after he made many anti-Israel remarks including, in an interview he gave to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, his remark that Brooklyn-born Jews who had settled in the West Bank ”should be shot dead,” adding ”I think they are Nazis, racists; I feel nothing but hatred for them.”

Now, what does it look like when a professor lies about being denied tenure – and claims that the Jews (sorry, “Zionists”) are secretly behind it?

It sounds far more like West planned to leave Harvard anyway, and decided to make a stink accusing “Zionists” of mistreating him.

Cornel West has throughout his career been a spoiled child of the academic system. Thousands of graduate students over the past three decades, when universities began to contract, and Race and Gender pushed aside all other matters, have been unable to find suitable and stable employment, and have suffered in various ways. Some adjust to the constant insecurity of jobs that must be renewed yearly; some give up searching for university employment after years of fruitless applications and become high school teachers; some attempt to eke out livings as private tutors, or as college-application-essay advisors; some go back to school to earn a law or business degree.

But Cornel West has never suffered; he has always been hired by the most prestigious universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia’s Union Theological Seminary. He has spent much of the time that any other professor would have been expected to devote to his teaching and scholarship, to instead making a name for himself as a dispenser of his wisdom on what he calls “race matters,” and as a far-left political activist. For years he had a radio show with the now-disgraced Tavis Smiley (fired after multiple credible charges of sexual misconduct with his NPR subordinates); he’s been a speaker at countless events for BLM; he’s marched and sung; he’s campaigned vigorously for Al Sharpton and for Bill Bradley, and spent much of 2016 speaking for Bernie Sanders as a surrogate — rather than preparing for his classes, or meeting with students. Although West famously hands out A’s like confetti, which of course helps his “Rate My Professor”ratings – it’s an easy way to get good reviews — not all of his students have been so readily won over.

At Princeton, for example, the first two student entries for “Rate My Professor” judged him to be “Awful.” Here are their comments:

Rating #1

“This professor uses informal language in his books; he has trouble with academic English related to subject verb agreement related to NUMber, as in singular versus plural.

Rating # 2

“Unprepared and indifferent. He would come to class and wing it. He’d often let class out 45 minutes into a two-hour lecture when he ran out of material. Did not put any serious effort into the class or in getting to know his students. He was always off campus and reaching him personally was nearly impossible. But he does have a famous name.”

Naturally Harvard expects its faculty to concentrate on academic matters; that’s something Cornel West, appearing hither and yon, has not been doing. Dropping into his classes as if he were doing the students a favor, often unprepared (“he would come to class and wing it”), at times leaving early (“letting class out 45 minutes into a two-hour lecture”), if he had nothing to say, or didn’t feel like staying when there were other, so much more interesting, things for him to do outside of class: another interview for a newspaper, or on radio or television, a plane trip to a distant state to act as a candidate’s surrogate, a studio recording of one of his hip-hop albums, a movie part, an award to receive as “one of the leading intellectuals of our time” (or words to that preposterous effect). He’s also been named, don’t forget, by some British mass-market magazine as “the fourth greatest thinker for the Covid-19 era.” He’s very busy — he’s practically a conglomerate — is Professor Cornel West.

Harvard was simply not going to yield to his demand that his non-tenured position be turned into a tenured one. So he made his threat – “give me tenure or else I leave” — and then set in motion the protests on his behalf, including a letter signed by 60 graduate students bewailing what the loss of Cornel West would mean:

West’s departure, the students said, would deal “a devastating blow” to all scholars of color.

“If Professor Cornel West, one of the most important intellectuals of our time, is not deemed worthy of tenure, we must ask — what is the inherent [sic] message Harvard is sending to generations of Black scholars and intellectuals?” the students wrote in a letter posted online Monday. “This is an urgent matter of equity and parity for the University.”

In fact, if “equity” were rightly understood, Cornel West would no longer continue to be coddled beyond all reason by university administrators, having his outrageous demands uniquely met. If merit were the only consideration, such a person would not be a professor at all; his true academic soulmate is Ward Churchill. The “inherent” message that Harvard is sending is only this: a non-tenure post does not become a tenured post because Cornel West wants it that way. And West, who spends much of his time on matters having nothing to do with his teaching and soi-disant “scholarship,” has no cause for complaint. He should thank his lucky stars that, with the exception of Lawrence Summers, he has gotten away with a great deal, showing contempt for his students in his failure to adequately prepare for classes or to meet with them outside of class, and unable to produce the kind of scholarly writing one has a right to expect from someone at his level, yet here is Harvard, offering him a ten-year contract, a raise, and a named chair. Who else, with his dismal performance as a teacher and his record as a race-obsessed “scholar,” could hope to receive such treatment?

And was it a surprise that West would place the blame for his not receiving his tenure on the Jews – that is, on the supporters of Israel who, he has the sinister gall to suggest, are out to punish him for his stand “on Israel, the occupation and the Palestinians”? West portrays himself as “speaking truth to power, standing up for the oppressed Palestinians, daring to take on the all-powerful Jews.” It would be an outrage, according to Cornel West, if Cornel West were to be deprived of getting the tenured post at Harvard he knows he deserves, even if it was never supposed to come with his position. That is no way, Cornel West is thinking, to treat “the fourth leading thinker in the Covid-19 era.” Who are we to disagree?

 

Hugh Fitzgerald 

 Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/cornel-west-blames-jews-not-receiving-tenure-hugh-fitzgerald/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Netanyahu: A huge victory for the right and for the Likud - Elad Benari

 

​ by Elad Benari

Netanyahu responds to exit polls: It is clear that a large majority of Israeli citizens want a strong and stable right-wing government.

 

Binyamin Netanyahu
Binyamin Netanyahu
Marc Israel Sellem/POOL

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu responded on Tuesday evening to the television exit polls which predicted that the Likud party would win 31 seats.

"The citizens of Israel - thank you! You gave a huge victory to the right and the Likud under my leadership. The Likud is large by a huge gap compared to the next largest party," he said.

"It is clear that a large majority of Israeli citizens are right-wing, and they want a strong and stable right-wing government that will preserve Israel's economy, Israel's security and the Land of Israel. That's what we'll do. Love you!"

 

Elad Benari  

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/299091 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter