Monday, December 31, 2018

The International Criminal Court appoints a Palestinian official who overlooked torture in Palestinian jails - Ezequiel Doiny

by Ezequiel Doiny

A joke that is not the least bit funny

On December 26, 2018, Ambassador Alan Baker reported for the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs:
The election of the Palestinian Attorney-General, Dr. Ahmad Barrak, to serve as a member of the “Advisory Committee on Nominations” of judges of the International Criminal Court, if it were not so serious, could be seen as comical. It cannot but invoke the ancient Latin maxim “ovem lupo commitere,” or in its literal and colloquial version “to set the wolf to guard the sheep.”
This sums up the acute absurdity to which respected international institutions in the international community, and particularly the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, have descended. Sadly, they have permitted themselves to be abused and manipulated by an irresponsible Palestinian leadership, intent on hijacking international organizations for obvious and blatant political purposes….
Headquarters of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands
Photo credit: Vincent van Zeijst

The election of the Palestinian Attorney-General, Dr. Ahmad Barrak, to serve as a member of the “Advisory Committee on Nominations” of judges of the International Criminal Court should be cancelled because while Dr. Ahmad Barrak acted as Attorney General of the Palestinian Authority, Human Rights Watch reported that the PA used threats, arbitrary arrests and violent abuse, including beatings, electric shocks and stress positions to crush dissent.
The Palestinian security forces "systematically" abuse and torture opponents and critics in what could amount to crimes against humanity and undermine Palestinian accusations against Israel, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.
"Systematic torture as part of a government policy is a crime against humanity," Omar Shakir, HRW's Israel-Palestine director, told AFP.
The rival authorities of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas both used threats, arbitrary arrests and violent abuse, including beatings, electric shocks and stress positions, the New York-based rights group said in a report released in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.
Both particularly focus on those allegedly affiliated with the rival faction, including protesters, dissidents, journalists and bloggers, with the aim of crushing dissent, the report said..."
On December 2, 2018 Bejamin Kerstein reported in the Algemeniner about an interview between the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat on Deatche Welle’s TV show Conflict Zone,
Facing a series of withering questions from hard-nosed interviewer Tim Sebastian, Erekat sought to defend himself and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on issues ranging from their dealings with the Trump administration to the peace process, corruption, and PA human rights violations...
Sebastian then asked about a recent Human Rights Watch report that found 147 incidents of “shocking abuse” by Palestinian security forces. Erekat protested that a committee had been formed to “investigate every single matter.”
“You say this every time. You have exactly the same answer,” said Sebastian.
“The people who committed these atrocities will be held accountable. That’s my promise,” Erekat replied, then said, “Security figures in certain areas were fired. They were demoted.”
“How many?” asked Sebastian.
“I really can’t…” said Erekat.
“It doesn’t mean anything unless you have a number,” asserted Sebastian.
“I will get you the number,” Erekat replied.
Pressed further on the issue of human rights abuses, Erekat cried, “When it happens we stop it! We admit it! We don’t hide it! We don’t find excuses! We don’t buy people!”
Sebastian pointedly asked Erekat, “Aren’t you ashamed of all this?”
“In some cases I’m ashamed, yes,” Erekat said, but added, “Sometimes I can’t because I’m a young Authority. I’m 23 years old. I cannot differentiate between freedom of expression and incitement.”
Asked what a future Palestinian state would look like, Erekat responded, “The future Palestinian state would look like the discussion that’s going on now. The future of the Palestinian state will be the future of democracy, human rights, women’s rights, accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. This is my promise.”
“So very different from what you have now,” Sebastian noted dryly.
On March 30, 2013 David Rose wrote in the Daily Mail:
Chilling confessions made by a former official from the Palestinian Authority:
Said in nineties people were tortured 'badly' and 'beat them hard'....
Nowadays, he adds, the preferred method is termed ‘shabeh’ – the hooding and tying of the prisoner in a variety of agonising positions for up to eight hours. He does not elaborate on the details, but claims: ‘It works with 95 per cent of the subjects.’ It also takes considerable skill: ‘You have to deal with it as if you were playing a guitar. Each case has its own specialty.’
This extraordinary interview is the first admission by a former perpetrator of the widespread torture of Palestinians – not by Israel, but by the Palestinian Authority (PA).
...Just what ‘it’ means was described by a very recent victim, a professional man in his 40s who was freed without charge two weeks ago after more than a month in Mukhabarat detention.
‘For most of the time I was held, they gave me shabeh every day,’ he says. ‘Always I was hooded, and sometimes they tied my arms in front of me and attached me to the wall, leaving me like that for long, long hours, on tiptoes. You have pain in the arms, in the legs and in the body, and swelling in your muscles. Often I could also hear screaming from the prisoners.
‘But it was worse when they suspended me with my arms tied behind me. Your body is curved, like a banana. Most of the time they do not let your feet touch the ground.’ He showed me his arms and hands – they were still puffy and swollen. ‘During the shabeh, they looked much worse,’ he added.
In another variant, the suspect was hog-tied – laid on his back on top of a chair with his wrists and ankles lashed together beneath the seat. Usually the torture happened at night: ‘When you’re exhausted, they take you back to your cell.’
He was arrested because someone claimed he had an illegal weapon. ‘But I’ve never had a weapon and I am opposed to Islamic extremists. I’ve criticised the PA at social gatherings – maybe that’s why someone denounced me. That was the worst thing of all – that I was in jail at the hands of my own Authority.’..."

Ezequiel Doiny is author of "Obama's assault on Jerusalem's Western Wall"


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Video: The Truth About the 'Yellow Vest' Protests - Paul Joseph Watson

by Paul Joseph Watson

Are we witnessing a European Spring?

In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson unveils The Truth About the 'Yellow Vest' Protests, and he asks: Are we witnessing a European Spring? Don't miss it!

Paul Joseph Watson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The West's Big-Ticket Power Grabs - David Brown

by David Brown

Why Should People Respect the Social Contract when Politicians Do Not?

  • The assertiveness of supra-national organisations with a focus on global policy-making is direct threat to the sovereignty of the nation state, and a dilution of the power of the individuals within it.
  • Most alarmingly, as MEP Marcel de Graaff neatly surmised from the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: "Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense." At what point have we left all pretext of democracy and moved into the sphere of dictatorship, manifest at a supranational level?
  • "It's very simple: the globalist political elite doesn't respect nation-states, nor does it give a damn about the views of ordinary people. Indeed, it despises them so much that it would much rather make their views illegal than listen to what they have to say." — James Delingpole, Breitbart, December 9, 2018.

French President Emmanuel Macron's recent dismissal of nationalism as "selfish" and a "betrayal of patriotism" is at odds with strengthening populist movements sweeping across Italy, Germany and Spain. Pictured: Macron shares a laugh with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the European Council leaders' summit on June 28, 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

It is a strange time to be a citizen in a Western democracy. Our society is based on exchange -- we transact in the free market, we share ideas online, and most significantly we give up some of our natural liberty in exchange for a civil society and a vote.

But increasingly, the freedoms supposed to be protected by civil society are being eroded away. At the level of the individual, our freedom of speech is under attack. Criticism of migration is apparently about to become "hate speech" and a prosecutable offence.

When the authority of the nation state is ceded to a supra-national body, such as the United Nations, our power as citizens is diluted.

Based on the contractual theory of society and the works of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau from the 17th and 18th century, real power is supposed to sit with the people; in order to retain moral character, government must thus rest on the consent of the governed, or the volonté générale ("general will"):
"What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract)
What happens if you start to interfere with this contract? What happens, for instance if clauses within this contract are removed, or the contract ripped up altogether?

In the United Kingdom, the people were asked to decide between Leaving or Remaining in the European Union. 17.4 million people voted to Leave -- 52% of the total votes cast and a clear majority. The general will of the people was Leave.

It appears increasingly likely, however, that this vote is being frustrated, either by legal obfuscation, a potential second referendum or other political manoeuvring. The possibility of a leadership contest in the U.K. over the coming weeks adds further uncertainty for Brexit supporters.

The powerful elite made it clear their preferred outcome was to remain in the EU.

Boris Johnson correctly called thwarting the results of a vote "treasonous".

According to "social contract theorists":
"... when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the 'general will' in Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey or change the leadership, through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence".
Perhaps this helps explain the recent protests by the "Yellow Vests" (Gilets Jaunes) in Paris. Many had voted for Macron based on his promises to improve the lives of the ordinary French. They were outraged by his subsequent cut to the "wealth tax", while increasing taxes for fuel.

Macron's message seems: Global before national, wealthy before poor. But his dismissal of nationalism as "selfish" and a "betrayal of patriotism" is at odds with strengthening populist movements sweeping across Italy, Germany and mostly recently Spain.

Today, dissatisfaction with Macron's Quixotic globalist aspirations -- concerning the seriously disputed policies of "climate change" rather than with the economic and other concerns of the people who elected him -- is increasingly widespread.
"Macron launched and shaped the movement as a bottom-up, revolutionary political organisation offering change, but since his presidential victory, LREM [La République En Marche!] has proved unable to evolve. It's not just a party – it's "Macron's party", a unique political creature whose only public face and leading figure is the president."
Away from the anarchy on the streets in France, and the threat to democracy itself in Britain, other clear power grabs are in progress across our Western democracies.

The assertiveness of supra-national organisations with a focus on global policy-making is direct threat to the sovereignty of the nation state, and a dilution of the power of the individuals within it.

A useful example is the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which was "adopted in Marrakech on 10 December by 164 Member States." The word "regular" should jar.

The United Nations intends to make it easier for migrants to relocate to new countries -- with safeguarded routes, medical and financial assistance, and open access to public services and a means of income on arrival.

The document includes details on the "harmonization" of borders, rejects the right to detain illegals, and the options for facilitating the transfer of welfare payments back to the migrants' country of origin.

Many countries with strong national political parties did not attend the meeting or sign the agreement; including Australia, the Netherlands, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Latvia, Slovakia, Estonia and Italy. And for good reason. The US has made clear its opposition to the document:
"In addition to our broad concerns regarding emerging attempts to 'globalize' migration governance at the expense of State sovereignty, the United States has specific objections to Compact text and objectives that run contrary to our law and policy... the Compact strikes the wrong balance. Its pro-migration stance fails to recognize that lawful and orderly immigration must start and end with effective national controls over borders."
Most alarmingly, as MEP Marcel de Graaff neatly surmised from the Global Compact; "Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense."

Objective 17 of the Global Compact seeks to:
"Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
"We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.
"To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
"a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims..."
This censorship of dissenting views appears to go hand in hand with insanely expensive power grabs by supra-nationals. If opposition cannot he expressed, acceptance can be asserted. Acceptance must be made mandatory. This method was used to create the EU itself. Many in Europe were obliged to keep voting until they "got it right" -- the way the elites wished.

At what point have we left all pretext of democracy and moved into the sphere of dictatorship, manifest at a supranational level?

If we know we are to be censored at the supranational level, to what extent does that awareness coerce self-censorship at the individual level? Given the disappearance of so many voices from Twitter, together with the vitriol of the on-line mob who demand that those with opposing views be "de-platformed" or forced from their jobs, many in Western Europe now fear to express an opinion outside of their own homes.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the US Declaration of Independence that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," which refers to the Enlightenment idea of natural rights -- rights that the government cannot take away. Jefferson wrote that "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If our governments sign us up to supranational bodies, such as the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Union, or the European Court of Human Rights -- with their rules about the curvature of cucumbers, or their ambitions regarding migrants or policing speech -- to what extent are we free? Our rights are being steadily eroded away.

The Declaration of Independence says:
"We 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
When a government does not protect the inalienable rights that are due to its constituents, the people have the right to change or get rid of it and to start a new government that will bring about their safety and happiness.

Given that these rights will be denied to those countries the leaders of which now support the Global Compact -- including Germany, the U.K., Ireland and Canada -- to what extent do the politicians deserve to remain in power?

A poll conducted across all 28 nations in the European Union in 2018 revealed:
  • "78% of respondents are worried about illegal immigration in their countries"
  • 73% think that "handling immigration will pose a huge financial burden on receiving countries."
  • 81% agreed that immigrants should be helped in their own countries, with almost half (48%) agreeing that "The EU should provide substantial financial support to countries with the highest number of immigrants currently residing (Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey)."
The governments that signed the UN's Global Compact appear to be acting in direct opposition to the general will of the people.

James Delingpole writes:
"It's very simple: the globalist political elite doesn't respect nation-states, nor does it give a damn about the views of ordinary people. Indeed, it despises them so much that it would much rather make their views illegal than listen to what they have to say."
The real question, is for how much longer will the people continue to respect the social contract when the political elites do not?

Just how much power will be ceded to supra-nationals, how censored will our voices be by law, how meaningless will the "general will" become before we exercise Jefferson's Right of the People to rip it all up and start again?

David Brown is based in the United Kingdom.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Disparities Galore - Walter Williams

by Walter Williams

A truth about the only equality.

Much is made about observed differences between sexes and among races. The nation's academic and legal elite try to sell us on the notion that men and women and people of all races should be proportionally represented in socio-economic characteristics. They make statements such as "Though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32 percent of the US population, they (constituted) 56 percent of all incarcerated people in 2015" and "20 percent of Congress is women. Only 5 percent of CEOs are."

These differences are frequently referred to as disparities. Legal professionals, judges, politicians, academics and others often operate under the assumption that we are all equal. Therefore, inequalities and disparities are seen as probative of injustice. Thus, government must intervene, find the cause and engineer a policy or law to eliminate the injustice. Such a vision borders on lunacy. There's no evidence anywhere or at any time in human history that shows that but for some kind of social injustice, people would be proportionally represented across a range of socio-economic attributes by race and sex.

Indeed, if there is a dominant feature of mankind, it's that we differ significantly over a host of socio-economic characteristics by race, sex, ethnicity and nationality. The differences have little or nothing to do with any sort of social injustice or unfair treatment. Let's examine some racial, ethnic and sex disparities with an eye toward identifying the injustice involved. We might also ponder what kind of policy recommendation is necessary to correct the disparity.

Jews constitute no more than 3 percent of the U.S. population but are 35 percent of American Nobel Prize winners. As of 2017, Nobel Prizes had been awarded to 902 individuals worldwide. Though Jews are less than 2 percent of the world's population, 203, or 22.5 percent, of the Nobel Prizes were awarded to Jews. Proportionality would have created 18 Jewish Nobel laureates instead of an "unfair" 203. What should Congress and the United Nations do to "correct" such a disparity? Should the Nobel committees be charged with racism?

Jews are not the only people taking more than their "fair share" of things. Blacks are 13 percent of the U.S. population but, in some seasons, have been as high as 84 percent of NBA players. Compounding that "injustice," blacks are the highest-paid basketball players and win nearly all of the MVP prizes. Blacks are also guilty of taking 67 percent, an "unfair" share, of professional football jobs. Blacks are in the top salary category in every offensive and defensive position except quarterback. But let's not lull ourselves into complacency. How often do you see a black NFL kicker or punter?

Laotian, Samoan and Vietnamese women have the highest cervical cancer rates in the United States. The Pima Indians of Arizona have the highest reported prevalence of diabetes of any population in the world. Tay-Sachs disease favors Ashkenazi Jews. Cystic fibrosis haunts white people. Blacks of West African ethnic origin have the highest incidence of sickle cell anemia. The prevalence of prostate cancer is lower in men of South Asian ethnicity than in the general population. Black American men have the highest prostate cancer rates of any racial or ethnic group in the United States. Black males are also 30 percent likelier to die from heart disease than white men.

There are some highly fatal sex disparities. An Australian study found that sharks are nine times likelier to attack and kill men than they are women. Another disturbing sex disparity is that despite the fact that men are 50 percent of the U.S. population and so are women, men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. Of those killed by lightning, 82 percent are men.

There are loads of other disparities based upon physical characteristics, but it would take a fool to believe that we are all equal and any difference between us is a result of some kind of social injustice that begs for a societal remedy. The only kind of equality consistent with liberty is equality before the law — which doesn't require that people be in fact equal.

Walter Williams


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ice isn’t melting in the Arctic and Antarctic, yet big insurance rate hikes on coastal properties loom for purported sea level rise - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

At what point does extracting money from people based on erroneous predictions of climate disaster become criminal fraud?

The warmist fraud has a big problem: its predictions of doom have consistently failed to generate any serious pain. Yes, they blame hot weather in the summer in global warming, and if there are hurricanes, they must be caused by “climate change,” though when we have a year with few hurricanes, or, as in 2018 no tornadoes at all, nobody sings the praises of the benefits of “climate change.”

But they’ve hit a gold mine with their predictions of island nations being sunk beneath the waves, and coastal communities (especially in rich countries) forced to be abandoned. Their institutional clout is considerable, as they have Big Science, Big Education, Big Government, and Big Business all on board with their scheme to extract money from people for the crime of using energy (while exempting wealthy members of their elite from the strictures). Especially when there’s money to be made from fear-mongering.

The theory is that melting ice at the earth’s polar regions will swamp us. And that is triggering moves to raise insurance premiums on coastal properties that are supposed to be flooded, in low-lying coastal places like Florida, as the Sun-Sentinel writes:
In just two or three years, Congress may change the way it sets rates in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reflect more realistic assessments of risk, including the expected impacts of sea-level rise.
According to the chair of Miami’s Sea Level Rise Committee, FEMA officials believe the largest provider of flood insurance in the United States will be aligning the cost of premiums much closer to the heightened risks of flooding. And that the changes will come sooner than many expect.
Indicating that change is in the air, a FEMA spokesperson said Friday that the agency plans to announce a risk-rating “redesign” next year that “will allow us to better reflect the resilience and vulnerability of homes and other structures covered under the NFIP.” It would begin in 2020.
“This is a big game-changer,” Wayne Pathman says. “South Florida is ground zero, in many studies, for the economic impact of sea-level rise. So I’ve said many times that the tip of the spear of this economic issue is insurance.”
A huge rise in insurance premiums would inflict the sort of major pain that could generate support for “anti-Warming” measures (like handing seven grand to purchasers of luxury Teslas).

But, as an independent examination of the actual data from the measuring stations in the polar regions shows, if naything, we are in the midst of a cooling phase where most of the ice hangs out. Pierre Gosselin, building on the work of Kirye in Tokyo:
We constantly hear from the untrustworthy media how polar ice is melting rapidly – due to human-induced global warming.
But when we look at the real data, we understand why audiences worldwide increasing distrust the mainstream media and their constant stream of doomsday reports, which they uncritically produce.
Recently I looked at some island stations near Antarctic, a continent where we are told melting ice will lead to many meters of sea level rise if we continue emitting CO2 into the atmosphere business as usual. (snip)
The temperatures at the six stations, which are not subjected to any urban heat island effects and located in the middle of the natural elements, are plotted below and show no warming at all. Instead we see a bit of overall cooling (snip) Looking at the rest of Antarctica, not a single of the following stations shows a warming trend over the past decades (snip)
At the other end of the earth at the North Pole, Arctic sea ice has not been cooperating at all with the doomsday scenarios of the global warming alarmists. Some of them said it should have gone ice-free in late summer by now.
A recent chart shows that late summer Arctic sea ice volume has GROWN over the past 12 years, and not plummeted as the alarmists once warned:
Note how predictions made back in 2007 by “leading experts” were completely wrong, and sea ice volume instead has been rising modestly, thus totally surprising and shaming the doomsday prophets.
At what point does extracting money from people based on erroneous predictions of climate disaster become criminal fraud?

Hat tip: Ron Pate

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Democrats’ Biggest Expert Accusing Republicans of Russian Trolling Was a Russian Troll - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

They invented the Russian conspiracy, then they faked the crimes.

When the Democrats and the media wanted to prove that Russian trolls were everywhere, and supporting Republicans, they turned to Jonathon Morgan and Renee DiResta.

Morgan and DiResta had originally been part of Obama’s futile effort to fight ISIS on social media, before discovering a much more lucrative field. ISIS was losing on the battlefield and the Democrats were losing elections. The Hillary campaign had hatched a conspiracy theory blaming its loss on Russian trolls. And Morgan and DiResta soon became the experts providing the data linking Republicans to Russian trolls.

Every time there was a story on Russian election interference, Morgan would show up on CNN or NBC. And his message was the same, the Russian bots were everywhere and they were a major threat.

Morgan and DiResta soon had a company name, New Knowledge, and were brought on board by the Senate Intelligence Committee to produce a report on Russian influence operations in the 2016 election. Despite the fact that a second report found that most of the Russian trolling efforts had been directed at African-Americans, the New Knowledge report claimed that this was a Russian conspiracy to aid Trump.

The New York Times, which frequently promoted and published New Knowledge conspiracy theories, all but credited DiResta for having exposed the whole Russian-Republican troll conspiracy, and wrote that, “Senate and House staff members, who knew of DiResta's expertise through her public reports and her previous work advising the Obama administration on disinformation campaigns, had reached out to her and others to help them prepare for the hearings.” They seemingly included Senator Warner’s office.

And it wasn’t just the 2016 election. Morgan, who made no secret of his loathing for conservatives, claimed that the Russian bots were everything and aiding Republicans.

When the #ReleasetheMemo hashtag went viral, Morgan, now running his own company, New Knowledge, was there suggesting it might be Russian bots. The debates about gun control after the Parkland school massacre? More Russian bots. The migrant caravan? Obviously a fake news conspiracy.

"That whole news cycle was dominated by this type of conspiratorial fear-mongering," Morgan sniffed, even though his current career is based around conspiratorial lefty fear-mongering.

And the midterm elections?

"Russians Meddling in the Midterms? Here’s the Data," Morgan and Ryan Fox, a New Knowledge employee, warned. “Our company is currently detecting more overall activity in real time from continuing Russian online influence operations targeting the midterm elections than has been disclosed by social media platforms or detected by researchers during the same period before the election in 2016.”

The Russians were even going all the way into Alabama. “Russian trolls tracked by #Hamilton68 are taking an interest in the AL Senate race. What a surprise,” Morgan tweeted.

It wouldn’t have been much of a surprise to him because the “Russian trolls” supporting Roy Moore in Alabama were actually his trolls.

A New York Times story was forced to reveal that Morgan had participated in what a report described as, “an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet” thereby “radicalizing Democrats with a Russian bot scandal”

The goal was to “enrage and energize Democrats” and “depress turnout” among Republicans.

The bots used Cyrillic letters and pictures of celebrities. Just in case anyone still didn’t get the message, they included, “I love Russia” in their profiles. When the Moore campaign accused the Democrats of being behind the dirty trick, the Jones campaign doubled down on the Russia smear, declaring, "Maybe Moore should check with Vladimir Putin, who shares his views on depriving people of their civil rights."

But Moore had been telling the truth. It had been a Democrat operation. The media’s greatest expert on Russian trolling had not only falsely claimed that Russian trolls were backing Moore, he was involved.

Morgan, the New York Times and the Washington Post attempted to spin this as an experiment, but influencing an actual election is not an experiment. When Morgan’s people faked Russian bot support for a Republican candidate, and Morgan then helped spread the allegations, that’s not an experiment, it’s a dirty trick. And it raises serious questions about the Democrat’s entire Russian troll narrative.

How can we know that an Alabama special election was the only time that Democrats tried to frame Republicans with false flag operations meant to portray them as traitors and tools of foreign interests?

The Alabama project may have been an experiment, but not an abstract academic one. Its funding allegedly came from LinkedIn billionaire Reid Hoffman who has poured millions of dollars into ventures to harness “Silicon Valley” smarts to help Democrats win. Hoffman had previously been caught backing another slimy Facebook effort targeting conservatives and Trump supporters.

An internet disinformation campaign headed by a disinformation expert would be very “Silicon Valley”.

Hoffman had teamed up with Mark Pincus, the co-founder of Zynga, a slimy Facebook firm  whose unofficial motto was allegedly, “Do Evil”, on WTF, to explore new strategies.  New Knowledge also had backing from French-Iranian billionaire Pierre Omidyar who had made his fortune with eBay. Silicon Valley lefties have been pouring money into new tech efforts for the Left.

It’s worth asking whether some of the dot com billionaires who backed Morgan, New Knowledge or similar efforts to push regulation of Facebook had a plan for profiting from its fall.

The Alabama project’s success could have been used to convince Hoffman and other lefty dot com donors to back similar false flag campaigns targeting Republicans around the country.

Alabama likely was an experiment in tactics. Morgan’s exposure won’t make it go away.

Hillary’s Russian conspiracy theory has evolved into a Cloward-Piven strategy aimed at free speech on the internet in which disinformation is used to attribute conservative speech to a Russian conspiracy requiring immediate regulation of Facebook and other social media companies to avert the crisis.

And if the Russians won’t cooperate, the Russian bots will be lefty hipsters funded by Silicon Valley.

Jonathon Morgan had tweeted, “Facebook and the other social media companies should not be trusted to police themselves. The self-serving attempts to undermine the credibility of those holding these companies accountable are reprehensible.”

New Knowledge's Director of Research, Renee DiResta, had written an editorial titled, “Why Facebook and Twitter Can’t Be Trusted to Police Themselves”.

After years of demanding that regulators force Facebook to crack down on Russian fake news trolls, Morgan finally got what he wanted when Facebook suspended his account over Russian trolling.

Russian election interference was a crisis that the Democrats had manufactured and that their media echo chamber had amplified. Morgan is accused of manufacturing it in the most explicit way possible.

But we can’t really know to what extent Morgan’s experiment has already been replicated. What we know about Russian election interference has largely come from experts like Morgan and New Knowledge. The internet is a shadowy realm and it’s not hard for actors to impersonate one another.

The Russians may have started out by impersonating Americans, only to have Americans impersonate Russians. When public trust in institutions fails, conspiracy theories and conspirators thrive. Morgan’s dirty tricks arose from the same paranoid atmosphere of conspiracy theories weaponized into investigations, opposition research transformed into armed raids, research being secretly planted into the DOJ, and national emergencies being declared over Facebook memes, in which he thrived.

The Russian conspiracy theory had given Democrat outrage form, substance and an agenda. Having invented the conspiracy theory, they also had to invent the crimes that made it real.

To paraphrase Pogo, the Democrats had finally found the Russian troll enemy and he is us.

Daniel Greenfield


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Democrats’ Sanctuary State Claims Another Victim - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

Police officer Ronil Singh, legal immigrant, falls to criminal who “doesn’t belong here.”

On December 26, Newman, California, police officer Cpl. Ronil “Ron” Singh pulled over a suspected drunk driver.  “Shots fired,” Singh radioed, and those turned out to be his last words.

Officer Singh died of injuries sustained in a gunfight, and the shooter fled the scene. Police weren’t releasing his name, but did reveal that he was an illegal. “He doesn’t belong here,” Stanislaus County sheriff Adam Christianson told reporters, “he is a criminal.”

Two days later, police in Kern County arrested Gustavo Perez Arriaga, 33, a Mexican national with gang affiliations who had entered the country illegally and previously arrested for drunk driving. In a news conference Friday, sheriff Christianson told reporters Arriaga had five Facebook pages under fake names, and when arrested he was attempting to return to Mexico.

In the Friday press conference,  Reggie Singh, the victim’s brother, broke down as he thanked law enforcement and homeland security for apprehending the suspect. Officer Singh came to the United States legally from Fiji, and his dream was to become a police officer. The immigrant had trouble with English, California’s the official language by a landslide 1986 vote, but he took courses and became proficient. Singh was popular in rural Newman, which had never seen an officer gunned down.

“While we absolutely need to stay focused on officer Singh’s service and sacrifice, we can’t ignore the fact that this could’ve been preventable,” Christianson said in the press conference. “And under SB54 in California, based on two arrests for DUI and some other active warrants that this criminal has out there, law enforcement would’ve been prevented, prohibited from sharing any information with ICE about this criminal gang member. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not how you protect a community.”

Backers of SB54 claim that the sanctuary law will encourage illegals to cooperate with police. In this crime, illegals protected Arriaga from law enforcement, and by Saturday police had made seven arrests, including Arriaga’s brother, and brought charges of aiding and abetting the suspect.

While Arriaga was still on the run, outgoing governor Jerry Brown issued a statement extending condolences to Singh and his family and acknowledging law enforcement. Brown, who during an earlier term protected violent fugitive Dennis Banks, said nothing about the suspect or the state’s sanctuary law, the so-called “California Values Act,” which the governor supports.

SB54 author Kevin de Leon, whose name on voter rolls is Kevin Alexander Leon, claims his father is a Chinese cook from Guatemala. De Leon issued no public statement on the killing of Ronil Singh, and neither did state attorney general Xavier Becerra, who plays the same role as those who shielded Arriaga from the police.

Becerra’s beef is not with illegals but those who report illegals to federal authorities. On Becerra’s watch, MS-13 has inflicted a reign of terror in Mendota, near Fresno. The gang has murdered 14, hacking victims to death with machetes and leaving the mutilated bodies on display.

Becerra took no action against MS-13 until the feds stepped in, and even then the attorney general made it clear that he was not concerned with the gang’s “status.” So ignoring violent criminal illegals is business as usual for the MEChA razaista, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate.

While Arriaga was still on the run, President Trump tweeted, “There is right now a full scale manhunt going on in California for an illegal immigrant accused of shooting and killing a police officer during a traffic stop. Time to get tough on Border Security. Build the Wall!” San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi believes the border wall is “immoral,” and has shown a soft spot for the “divine spark” in MS-13 gang members.

Pelosi issued no public statement on the slaying of officer Singh, and neither did Dianne Feinstein, who failed to speak out on the suspect’s “gun violence.” State supreme court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is on record that ICE agents are “stalking” illegals in courthouses.

The Chief Justice, Pelosi, Brown, and Becerra kept rather quiet when a criminal illegal gunned down Kate Steinle, and when racist Mexican Luis Bracamontes murdered police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis in Sacramento. So for ruling-class Democrats, the death of officer Ronil Singh is of secondary concern.

For criticizing the sanctuary law, and openly stating that the suspect was not supposed to be in the country, sheriff Christianson will become the target for leftist Democrats and their media allies. They will charge that the sheriff is unfairly targeting the “undocumented,” who serve as the Democrats’ imported electorate. 

California has given driver’s licenses to more than one million illegals, and the DMV automatically registers them to vote. Secretary of state Alex Padilla  refuses to reveal the voter rolls but prosecutors in the Singh case might get a court order to see if Gustavo Perez Arriaga and those who shielded him from the police also voted illegally, perhaps under all their fake names.

California Democrats have made false-documented illegals, even violent criminals, a privileged, protected class. Until the rule of law again prevails in the Golden State, more legitimate American citizens and law abiding legal immigrants are certain to fall.

Officer Ronil Singh leaves behind a wife, Anamika, and a son five months old. The Stanislaus Sworn Deputies Association has established a memorial fund in Singh’s honor.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation, recently updated, and Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Movie IndustryBill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield, is a collection of his journalism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Huawei and National Security - Peter Skurkiss

by Peter Skurkiss

It is surreal to think that countries of the West would even consider having a critical part of their communications infrastructure dependent on a company in communist China.

Huawei is a massive Chinese multinational telecommunications equipment and consumer electronics company. Some basics facts about the company include:
  • It employs over 170,000 people,
  • It is currently the largest telecommunication manufacturer in the world,
  • It was started in 1987 by an engineer formerly in the People's Liberation Army (PLA),
  • It invests heavily in R&D, and
  • Its name can be translated to mean "China is able."
Huawei has been in the news lately because Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer and daughter of the company's founder, was arrested on December 1 in Vancouver as she was switching planes. Canada did this at the request of the United States which is seeking Wanzhou's extradition to face charges of violating economic and financial sanctions on Iran

But the alleged violation of Iranian sanctions is small potatoes compared to the real risk Huawei poses to national security. This mainly revolves around 5G technology.

Without getting technical, 5G is the fifth generation in wireless communication. It is designed to run at a higher frequency than today's 4G technology allowing the network to transmit data much faster. 

5G will be lightning fast. Verizon says that its 5G network will likely be 200 times faster than the 5Mbps speeds many of its users get on 4G LTE. That means 5G speeds will hit 1Gbps, which is currently the fastest speed you can get from Google Fiber. At that rate, you'll be able to download an HD movie in seven seconds. speeds are expected to increase even higher than 1 Gbps as well, as 5G evolves.

The rollout for 5G is expected to come in 2020. From there, it is soon expected to be fully integrated into the wireless communication system in countries around the globe. And here Huawei plays a major role as the world's largest supplier of telecommunication equipment. Huawei edged out Ericsson to become the largest telecommunication provider in Europe. As such, it's products will be deeply embedded in the 5G networks going up there.

National security concerns have nothing to do with how fast movies can be downloaded. Rather it's the rational fear that Huawei-made equipment could be designed with backdoors in them to allow unauthorized access by the communist Chinese government for intelligence gathering and other nefarious purposes.

Huawei has vehemently denied all allegations that it might be involved in intelligence gathering for the Chinese government. The fact is that no company in China is free of government control, especially those in the hi-tech sector. In addition, China's ethical and legal standards are not those of the West. China is a grasping country and will do anything to advance itself in the world. Case in point: China's economic rise owes a great deal of its success in stealing intellectual property and deceit on trade agreements.
Fortunately, the Trump administration is not as naïve as past administrations. It does not turn a blind eye to trade abuses. This past summer, the president banned Huawei technology from use by the U.S. government and government contractors as part of the larger Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019. 

To underline how credible this national security threat is, even Democrats are worried. Sen. Mark Warner, vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is calling for sanctions on Huawei equipment and is urging Canada to similarly ban its products. And prior to the 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent warnings to campaigns not to use phones or other devices from the Chinese manufacturers ZTE and Huawei, 'even if the price is low or free.'
The Trump administration has been pressuring Europe to ban Huawei equipment for security reasons. As a result, countries like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Czech Republic are carefully scrutinizing Huawei equipment as they prepare to accept quotes to build their respective 5G networks starting next year. 

Already it looks like this is having an effect. Britain's telecoms group BT (BT) confirmed that "it would not buy equipment from the Chinese tech company for the core of its next generation wireless network. The company also said it would remove existing Huawei technology from the heart of its 4G network within two years." And in early December, Japan announced that it is also excluding Huawei and ZTE equipment from its government contracts for fear over cyberattacks and intelligence leaks. 

Apart from security, Europe has other reasons to look askance at Huawei's penetration of its wireless networks. 5G is the future. Europe may be used to being left in the technological dust by the U.S., but to be left behind by China would be too tough a pill to swallow. And that is what will happen if the Continent's critical wireless infrastructure has to rely on a Chinese manufacturer.

It is surreal to think that countries of the West would even consider having a critical part of their communications infrastructure dependent on a company in communist China. And why would they? Because Huawei's equipment is marginally less expensive than that which Western companies produce? To give the devil his due, there is wisdom in Comrade Lenin's observation when he said, "Capitalists will sell us the rope by which we'll hang them."

And where did Huawei get the technological knowhow to advance so far, so fast in the first place? It wasn't homegrown in China. It was obtained by hook or by crook from the West, primarily America. Technology giveaways is another area that the Trump administration is addressing.

The noose is tightening around Huawei (and ZTE). The company's stock is down 55 percent YTD and the exclusion from the West's 5G networks can only dim the company's future prospects. And perhaps more importantly, the point being driven home more than ever to the communist leaders in China is just how dependent their economy is based on goodwill of the West. 

Peter Skurkiss


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lost votes could sink the Right - Mati Tuchfeld

by Mati Tuchfeld

The one thing that disturbs PM Netanyahu more than the Likud losing votes in the upcoming Knesset election is that former leader of Habayit Hayehudi Naftali Bennett could smash the Right into pieces.

The departure of Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked from Habayit Hayehudi has left the religious Zionist party confused and reeling, but it's not the only one. Polls published on Sunday, a day after the split was announced, seemed no less bewildered, showing Bennett and Shaked's new party – the New Right – receiving anywhere from six to 14 seats in the next Knesset. In other words, even the pollsters are at a loss, and the voters seem to be, too.

The New Right will soon be shaping its image. Throwing off the bounds of Habayit Hayehudi will allow Bennett and Shaked to distance themselves from moves that they themselves have spearheaded on issues including separation of religion and state; military conscription for the ultra-Orthodox; the attitude toward Reform Jews, and more. Until now, they could claim that their stance on these questions reflected that the leaders of the religious Zionist camp, which is no longer relevant.

The big question is what target audience Bennett and Shaked are trying to reach. Are they trying to get at the right-wing voters who are considering supporting former IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz, Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, or MK Orly Levy-Abekasis, as they said when they announced their new party on Saturday night? Or are they after voters who would otherwise cast ballots for the National Religious Party or the Likud? These are two separate groups, each of which requires a different campaign and different messages to woo.

For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the question has been decided. The denigration of the new party by Likud ministers and the Likud party indicate that Netanyahu's major concern is that the New Right will steal votes from the Likud, not from Gantz or Levy-Abekasis.

Netanyahu can handle the latest split in one of two ways. The first is to go into battle, like we saw Likud ministers Miri Regev and Yariv Levin do on Sunday, attacking Bennett and accusing him of being behind a plot to bring down Netanyahu. The second way would be to embrace the new party, as he embraced Bennett ahead of the 2015 election – a warm, suffocating and neutralizing embrace. An embrace that caused Habayit Hayehudi to lose votes, which went back to the Likud. But that will happen only if Bennett announces that he will recommend that Netanyahu serve as prime minister of the next government. As long as that doesn't happen, he will be a target.

But one thing bothers Netanyahu more than the Likud losing votes – the possibility that Bennett could gobble up the small parties on the Right and take a big bite out of the nationalist camp. A situation in which Habayit Hayehudi, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu party, Yisrael Beytenu, and Shas are all hovering near the minimum electoral threshold would be a dangerous one. So dangerous that the Right could lose power. One of those parties failing to make it into the Knesset could bring down the entire right-wing camp and allow the Center-Left and the Arabs to form a successful opposition bloc.

Mati Tuchfeld


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter