Friday, September 14, 2018

Iran's Shaky Foundations - Shoshana Bryen

by Shoshana Bryen

Events are closing in on Iran's Islamic government.

Current U.S. 5th Fleet exercises designed to ensure freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea are a welcome sight.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has spent years extending its claims across the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea. It has sponsored wars and militias in Iraq, Syria, Yemen plus terror organizations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, along with farther-flung activities in Africa and South America. That, plus its huffing and puffing, have made the mullahs look ten feet tall.
  • Iran claims to have designed and built a new jet fighter plane.
  • It  claims security control of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz and threatens to block oil exports from other countries if Iran is constrained by sanctions. Iran has ordered the U.S. Navy out of the Gulf.
  • It announced a military pact with Syria that it claims will give it access to all of Syrian territory.
But the regime is on shaky ground.
  • The “jet fighter plane” in the Iranian video is a 1950s-era American F-5F.
  • The United States Navy is in, and will remain in, the Gulf, and, in fact, the last Iranian harassment of U.S. Navy ships was in mid-2017, after the Navy received orders to respond to unsafe Iranian activity around American ships.
  • The military pact appears mainly a way for Iran to try to recoup its multibillion-dollar losses in Syria by claiming contracts for reconstruction when the war ends. It isn’t clear who the Iranians think will actually pay for reconstruction.
  • And, pact or no pact, Israel is maintaining red lines preventing an Iranian military buildup. Israel has acknowledged some 200 raids into Syria.
Internally, the country faces social and religious rebellion, drought and water mismanagement, and economic instability. This is partially related to the government’s exorbitant expenditures on revolution and terror abroad; it is also related to the increased ability of the Iranian people to know what is outside their borders.

All of this makes the Islamic Republic more, not less, dangerous.

The Iranian government understood it would receive a windfall from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA -- the “Iran deal”). It received billions in cash, plus Western investment as sanctions were lifted. But more money simply meant more for weapons and a Shiite mercenary army in Syria; more for Hezb'allah and Hamas; more for the Shiite militias in Iraq; more agents plotting terror in Europe and the U.S. 

Now the cash is gone, and the promise of Western investment is going. Facing the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. administration, Total, Maersk, Peugeot, GE, Honeywell, Boeing, Lukoil, Reliance, Dover, and Siemens -- among others --  have left or announced they will leave. The expenses, however, remain. Syria costs $15-20 billion annually, more than Iran’s budget deficit of $9.3 billion last year. Prof. Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University measured Iran’s annual inflation rate in late August at 191 percent and rising.

Iran is, in fact, a poor and angry country. And a dry one.

Iran faces a terrible combination of drought and water mismanagement. An Atlantic Council report noted that over 90% of Iran’s water is used in agriculture but “the sector’s efficiency rate was 35%” while the global efficiency rate is 75%. The problem is exacerbated by irrigating during the day and the failure of the government to repair water infrastructure. There are reports of cities without water or taps that run brown. Iranian authorities admitted that at least 13 people were injured in water protests in Khorramshahr.

Technology could help, but Iran can’t/won’t use the best water technology out there -- Israel’s. On the contrary -- the Iranian government blamed Israel for stealing Iran's rain. But the people know what’s up. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s YouTube video announcing a Farsi language website to help Iranians learn from Israeli water technology is a whopping success. More than 100,000 Iranians joined the Israeli government’s Telegram account in the first 24 hours.

The willingness of the Iranian people to go to an Israeli site is evidence of the widening divide between the government and the people. “Not for Gaza, not for Syria; my life only for Iran,” is a chant at anti-government demonstrations. “Death to Hamas; death to Hezb’allah,” is another. On September 11, 2018, hundreds -- or more -- Iranians marched with candles to commemorate the American losses.

Next door, Iraqi Shiites in the southern provinces have been demonstrating against their government for a lack of jobs and services, and against the Iranian presence in their country. They may all be Shiites, but Iraqis are Arab and Iranians are Persian, and a level of historic animosity may be coming to the surface.

Iran’s response has been ever more repression. Minorities, particularly Christians, have suffered, but three Kurdish activists were executed this week, despite pleas from Amnesty International and the UN. Prominent human-rights activist Nasrin Sotoudeh sits in the infamous Evin Prison. Twenty-nine women arrested for removing their headscarves have received sentences between two and 20 years, but more are doing it every week. Women have been arrested for dancing as well. Threats don’t appear to have stopped the individual acts of rebellion that accompany larger-scale taxi, truck driver, port worker, farmer, and other protests.

Wild animals become more dangerous as their situation deteriorates. Countries do as well.

Shoshana Bryen


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Only Trump Could End Palestine - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

A bad time for bad ideas.

The Soviet Union had a perverse genius for convincing the United States to not only adopt its most destructive ideas, but to also become their chief sponsor under the delusion that it would somehow stop the destruction that its old Communist enemy had unleashed around the world.  

It's fitting that President Trump struck at two terrible red birds with one stone by dumping the UNRWA. Both the UN and Palestinian nationalism were the brainchildren of Soviet Communists that the leftist American foreign policy establishment adopted under the supposed guise of fighting Soviet influence, and was then in turn quickly picked up by a clueless Republican foreign policy establishment.

Republicans embraced Arab nationalism since President Eisenhower sided with Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Hitler admiring military dictator and his nationalization of the Suez Canal, over the UK, France and Israel. In what he would later describe as his greatest mistake, Eisenhower threatened his former British allies with economic warfare to keep Egypt's Arab Socialist regime from going over to the Communist side.

It didn't work.

But every Republican administration until now had embraced Arab nationalism and its ugly malformed terrorist stepchild, Palestinian nationalism.

Even the Reagan administration.

All the Soviet Union needed to do was adopt a bunch of Islamic terrorists and the United States would show up like a jealous rival to shower them with love, flowers and chocolates. After the Soviet Union collapsed, its old Arab Socialist client states, the Islamic oil kingdoms that first corrupted our foreign policy, and domestic Muslim Brotherhood lobbies continued successfully playing this game of Br'er Rabbit and the Briar Patch with the American Br’er Fox. With no more Soviet Union to compete against, the rationale for supporting terrorists was to convince them to turn moderate or to stop them from allying with more "extreme" terrorists. The only way to stop the terrorists was to adopt them.

Late in the first decade of a new century, the Clinton administration’s normalization of Yasser Arafat and his PLO terrorists had become almost nostalgic reminders of a more innocent time. In its heyday under Obama, the foreign policy left was glutted with a wish list of Islamic terrorist groups to normalize.

Weapons were flowing to Islamic militias from Syria to Libya: Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen were handed on a silver platter to the Brotherhood and its Islamist allies, Iran was getting billions in cash, its Iraqi PMUs were using our air power for air support, Boko Haram was being kept off the list of sanctioned foreign terrorist groups despite its genocide of thousands of Christians, there were talks with the Taliban and support for a Hamas-PLO unity government in the Terrorist Occupied Territories in Israel.

Then President Trump showed up and, unlike so many establishment Republicans, showed no interest in the received wisdom that the Republican establishment had picked up from the left which had picked it up from the Soviet Union in the great rummage sale of the worst ideas in human history.

The failed foreign policy in which the United States curried favor with its enemies to moderate their positions,  fought terrorism by supporting it, served everyone's values and interests but its own, went out the door faster than a tweet. Diplomacy would no longer be about assembling stakeholders in the international community in fancy New York restaurants. Nor would it suffice for American interests to be served in some indirect fashion, dependent on the goodwill of its enemies, and in ways unlikely to ever materialize.

The Palestinian nation building project, one of the insane hubs around which American foreign policy had senselessly spun, is one of the first casualties of the Trump era in foreign policy.

The peace process with the terrorists had been underway for a generation with nothing to show for it except terrorism. The UNRWA had been around for generations, a special UN agency dedicated to perpetuating a war on Israel while acting as an employment agency and rocket storage firm for Hamas.

But getting rid of either one was unthinkable. "Just imagine the consequences," the entire spectrum of foreign policy experts, thought leaders, bureaucrats, media pundits and the rest of the gang of Chauncey Gardiners who represent the Republican establishment would chorus in unison.

And President Trump shrugged.

The PLO strategy of alternating threats with flattery, playing the victim, then throwing a tantrum, promising to make a deal while demanding concessions up front, has played very badly with Trump.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry's meddling by urging PLO officials to attack Trump personally while allegedly promising them that Trump would soon be gone and Kerry might replace him, backfired badly.

Instead of getting a payday, the Pallies are getting pressured. Defunding the UNRWA, like the recognition of Jerusalem, is a warning. Ending the UNRWA terror cash pipeline doesn't just save money; it's another sign that the United States is losing interest in the Palestinian nation building project.

The United States had adopted the Soviet Union's Palestinian nation building project as its own. Time and bureaucracy had made it a Washington D.C. fixture like one of those obscure statues on a side street off the city's hub whose purpose no one remembers, but which no one can get rid of.

Now President Trump is playing iconoclast.

The Palestinian nation building project was invented by the Soviet Union to destroy Israel, and to spread terror around the region and the world. Every effort to neutralize it, to buy off its leaders and fulfill their demands has only brought it closer to its goal.

But President Trump has never accepted the central premise of appeasement. He has never believed that buying off our enemies while getting nothing in return will turn them into friends. The more determined he and his team are to get something out of the PLO, the more the terror group falls back on its usual array of threats and victimhood, the closer the terrorists come to losing their biggest backer.

The PLO is already a historical artifact, a relic of a bygone Arab Socialism as dated as its Soviet -trained leader, a relic of 90s Clinton diplomacy, unpopular with its own people and other Arab States.

The left has moved on to BDS and Hamas. Democrats and Republicans clung to the PLO's Palestinian Authority because they couldn't think of anything else to do. Trump's people can and are.

The PLO exists because we fund it and support it. And without the United States, the PLO is history.

But the Palestinian nation building project is only one of many falling dominoes. Subsidizing a terrorist group in exchange for a peace it has never made is one of the more absurd entries in our foreign aid ledger. But it’s been on the books for so long, that no one dared to touch it or question it.

A warm wind of change is blowing through the halls of power even as fall touches Washington D.C. And that wind doesn’t only bear bad news for the PLO, but for all the bad ideas that the left borrowed from the Soviet Union and that the Republican establishment then decided to fight to the death to defend.

The left planted bad ideas like viruses in the echo chamber of our policy machine. What frustrates the left and the establishment is that Trump appears immune to the viruses infecting Washington D.C.

Only Nixon could go to China, the apologists once said. But only Trump could cut off Palestine.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Suggestion for Nikki Haley - Hugh Fitzgerald

by Hugh Fitzgerald

Time for a U.N. speech exposing Islamist propaganda.

It was recently revealed that the photograph posted online by an Arab propagandist, Abdullah Alsaafin, of a two-year-old girl identified as Bayan Abu Khamash, supposedly killed by Israeli bombs, had in fact been taken from Instagram, where the girl was identified as an American two-year-old, Elle Lively McBroom.

“War is deceit,” said Muhammad, and the uncovering of deceit is a legitimate defense in such a war. Now that we know the source of that photo, there are several things that might be done. Instagram or Twitter or wherever Abdullah Alsaafin has an account might be publicly appealed to, to remove his account in light of the fact that he has been caught malevolently misusing, for the purposes of propaganda, a photograph on Instagram. Instagram cannot police every misuse of its contents, but when such a blatant and dangerous example is brought to its attention, it has a responsibility to act. It should not only remove Alsaafin’s account (if he has an Instagram account; otherwise the places where he posted the false photo should remove his account), but explain that it is doing so because of his malevolent theft, with malice aforethought, of a two-year-old’s photograph.

This is one of many examples where the Arabs have used fauxtography. Recently, I was informed, Arab propagandists had posted pictures in the aftermath of the earthquake in Mexico, identifying them as scenes in Gaza. Photographs of destruction in Syria have been similarly applied. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Hezbollah — and willing Western journalists — engaged in fauxtography of every kind. Burning tires in the smoky distance were presented as burned out buildings, an untouched Qur’an was carefully placed in the middle of rubble, and then deliberately set on fire, long after the building it was said to have been in had been reduced to rubble.

Empty ambulances suddenly had their alarms and lights turned on for visiting journalists. Other ambulances — still whole, though rusted-out, and with a handful of bullet holes in them, were presented as having been “hit by Israeli bombs.” If they had been hit, they would no longer exist. Reporters used Photoshop to darken photos in order to make the Lebanese scenes even grimmer. Toys were always strewn carefully about, so as to “stage” a scene where children were said to have been hit (this happened so often that one alert journalist said the stagers must have had a charge account at ToysRUs). “Dead” people did not always stay dead. Some were seen breathing regularly as they lay on the ground. Still others were videotaped as they got up and walked away, when they thought — wrongly — that  all the reporters had left. These and many other examples of fauxtography can be found here.

Possibly Nikki Haley can deliver a speech at the U.N. about the misuse of Elle Lively McBroom’s Instagram photograph, showing side-by-side both photos of her, under two different names, on a giant screen set up before the General Assembly for maximum impact. Ambassador Haley, having made her point, might then go further, and offer a dozen different examples of various kinds of  fauxtography practiced in the past on behalf of the “Palestinians,” not just by Hamas in Gaza, but also by Hezbollah in Lebanon during the 2006 war. It would be quite a lesson, both startling and salutary, for the U.N. delegates, and for much of the world outside the kangaroo court of the U.N., that has been swallowing this malevolent stuff for far too long.

Hugh Fitzgerald


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tech Giants Are Obviously Biased - Andrew Syrios

by Andrew Syrios

Against all the evidence, some still deny that the tech giants are discriminating against conservatives.

It’s truly incredible at this point that anyone could deny the tech giants are discriminating against conservatives to an almost comical extent. Yet, may on the left still do. Of course, they do this while simultaneously demanding that tech companies actually do ban speech, which is always defined (by them) as “hate speech.” A very interesting approach, to say nothing else.

In some cases, this is too obvious to deny. Alex Jones was basically kicked off the entirety of social media in one day in what seemed to be a fairly obvious case of collusion. YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Vimeo, Linkedin, and Pinterest all gave him the boot. Only Twitter held out, for a very short while, before doing the same.

Alex Jones is, of course, a ludicrous conspiracy theorist who has said all sorts of wild and inflammatory things, such as the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax and something about gay frogs. But it’s not hard to find plenty on the left who have committed all sorts of similar “crimes.” But should tech companies really be deciding who can speak in the modern equivalent of the public square?

Progressives will respond, of course, that the First Amendment does not apply to multibillion-dollar, multinational quasi-monopolistic corporate conglomerates. Private companies can do and say what they want (as long as they are multibillion-dollar corporate conglomerates and not Ma and Pa bakeries that gross a few hundred thousand dollars a year, of course).

Obviously, this seems rather suspect. Can the gas company turn off your gas because they don’t like what you say? Furthermore, such arbitrary bannings should move Facebook, Twitter, and the like into the sphere of publishers instead of platforms. And publishers are held liable for everything posted on their sites.

And yes, arbitrary. Look at all the fake news floating around these days. You could start with the New York Times, which printed Judith Miller’s completely discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, pushed the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax harder than anyone, repeated the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie and had a correspondent who ran cover for Stalin while he was committing genocide against the Ukrainians.

Or how about Rolling Stone, which without a hint of self-awareness lobbied against the spectre of fake news despite pushing the most blatant hoax in recent memory. Then, of course, there’s CNN, which the Daily Caller has just put together a “sight to behold” of 20 recent fake news stories and retractions by that outlet. Examples include falsely claiming Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation for ties to Russia and that Comey would contradict Trump about whether the President was being investigated.

Or we could move outside the “respectable” outlets on the left and ask why Louise Mensch still has a Twitter account if fake news is a problem. This is the woman who claimed Putin had Andrew Breitbart killed to install Steve Bannon at and that Trump was being replaced by Senator Orrin Hatch, all of which turned out to be just regurgitated nonsense from a hoaxer feeding her fake news.

Or you could peruse the quality of content from the likes of, or and ask why they are allowed to stay.

Furthermore, if it’s about “violating the terms of service,” one must ask why virtually every Antifa account remains unmolested. Just peruse through Far Left Watch’s Twitter feed to see the wonderful things those on the far Left have been saying. Some blue checkmark examples include Vegan Wizard saying pithily “Kill Donald Trump” and Greater Seattle GDC pushing to dox ICE agents.

If you look through the Wikipedia list of people Twitter has suspended or banned, many are extremists and Nazis. Although it should be noted that both Richard Spencer and David Duke still have their Twitter accounts. And of course the anti-white, anti-male nutjob Sarah Jeong, who was recently hired as an editor for the New York Times, has hers (along with that coveted blue checkmark). It would seem like Spencer’s and Duke’s extreme rhetoric is a turn off to most people and they therefore don’t need to be silenced. Instead, relatively mainstream conservatives such as Gavin McInnes has his Twitter removed and Candace Owens has hers temporarily suspended for a blatantly satirical tweet. On the other hand, the number of communists Wikipedia notes as having been banned: zero.

Twitter has also been routinely accused of “shadow banning,” which means not showing controversial users’ tweets in their followers feeds or on hashtags. This was deemed a “conspiracy theory” until Twitter admitted it while simultaneously denying it by changing the meaning of the term, saying,

“We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile).”

“I didn’t rob you, I just took your stuff without permission.”

Twitter eventually admitted to “unfairly filtering” 600,000 accounts, including several Republican candidates! They say they’ve fixed that now. Or perhaps they’re afraid of government regulation and are pulling back now that the pressure is on.

And let’s not forget that James O’Keefe caught Twitter employees on camera admitted they censor conservative accounts.

Facebook has also banned a lot of prominent conservatives, including the popular Diamond and Silk (although they reinstated them after the pushback when it was determined to be an “enforcement error”). In mid-February, Facebook implemented a new “trusted sources” algorithm. A study by Western Journal found that afterward, liberal websites increased their traffic by two percent while conservative sites saw theirs plummet by 14 percent.

And then there’s Google. It would be hard to imagine that the company that fired James Damore for releasing an internal memo stating the scientific consensus’ on gender differences could be unbiased. And, of course, they aren’t.

Damore’s lawsuit itself (which was thrown out) had some pretty wild claims. For example, that Google maintains a blacklist of conservative personalities not allowed on company grounds and that white males are booed at company meetings. And while not all of this provable, we do know that Google will celebrate some obscure, Osama Bin Laden-apologizing Marxist with its doodles while all but ignoring Memorial Day.

Just type some political event or figure into Google and see what happens. I just typed in “Brett Kavanaugh” into Google and the first three results at the top bar were CNN, the NYT and The Hill; two leftwing, one center right. The three videos were MSNBC, the Guardian and Fox News; two left, one right. The articles on the first page other than Wikipedia were CNN, The Nation, Esquire, the Washington Post, Business Insider, CNN again, the NYT again and Slate. That’s seven leftwing sources, one center and one entertainment site. Very balanced.

Not surprisingly, a research report by Leo Goldstein found that “Google’s search functionality ‘is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains,’ and ‘against conservative domains’ with what he calls a confidence of 95 percent” and an analysis by found that “50 recent searches for political terms on Google surfaced more liberal leaning webpages than conservative ones, as rated by a panel of four people.” Google’s fact-checking feature also appears to only target conservative sites. And it should also be remembered that it appears Google was manipulating the auto complete feature during the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton, although Google denied this.

Many of these tech companies are becoming something of a government of the Internet akin to the way The East India company governed India until the Sepoy Rebellion. I’m generally not a fan of government regulation, but the risk of turning the Internet over to unaccountable tech companies all but ensures a one-party state. Something needs to be done.

Andrew Syrios


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Germany: Stifling Dissent to Mass Migration - Vijeta Uniyal

by Vijeta Uniyal

Rattled by the recent wave of protests against country's open-door immigration policy, establishment parties across the political spectrum are calling for the populist anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) to be placed under police surveillance.

  • Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of Germany's domestic intelligence agency, BfV, has dismissed claims that right-wing gangs chased non-Germans during the late August demonstrations in Chemnitz after the fatal stabbing of a German by a group of migrants. That news flew in the face of Chancellor Merkel's repeated use of the charge of a "hunt on foreigners" in describing the incidents.
  • According to the domestic affairs spokesperson for Merkel's Christian Democratic party, Maassen "would answer parliamentarians' questions about his comments at special meetings next week. In these "hearings," politicians are expected to bring more pressure to bear on the intelligence chief, in an apparent attempt to make him recant his statements.
  • Maassen is not the only one in the crosshairs of the mainstream politicians. Rattled by the recent wave of protests against country's open-door immigration policy, establishment parties across the political spectrum are calling for the populist anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) to be placed under police surveillance.
  • In early September, authorities in the states of Lower Saxony and Bremen placed their regional chapters of Young Alternative, the AfD's youth wing, under surveillance citing "suspected ties to extremists."

Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of Germany's domestic intelligence agency, is under political pressure to resign for stating inconvenient truths. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

In Communist East Germany, truth-telling involved risks. The penalty for it was often loss of one's professional career and social status, if not more. Today, challenging the state-approved narrative in Chancellor Angela Merkel's Germany can sometimes have similar consequences.

Germany's intelligence chief now faces the risk of losing his job for contradicting Merkel over what took place at recent demonstrations in the eastern German city of Chemnitz.

Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of Germany's domestic intelligence agency, BfV, has dismissed claims that right-wing gangs chased non-Germans during the late August demonstrations in Chemnitz, which were held after the fatal stabbing of a German by a group of migrants. That news flew in the face of Chancellor Merkel's repeated use of the charge of a "hunt on foreigners" in describing the incidents.

"We have video recordings of [people] hunting down others, of unruly assemblies, and hate in the streets, and that has nothing to do with our constitutional state," Merkel initially claimed after residents of Chemnitz took to the streets in reaction the deadly stabbing.

Merkel's statement echoed media reports that talked of demonstrators acting as "mob" and carrying out a "pogrom" and "witch hunt" against foreigners.

The authenticity of those reports has now been questioned by Maassen, who declared that there was "no reliable information that such pursuits had taken place." Maassen went a step further, accusing mainstream politicians and media of spreading misinformation to divert attention from the brutal murder of a 35-year-old German man, Daniel Hillig, by a group of immigrants, which spurred the demonstrations

"I share the skepticism towards media reports of right-wing extremists chasing down [foreigners] in Chemnitz," Maassen told the German newspaper Bild.

Maassen was not alone in his judgement. Michael Kretschmer, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the premier of Saxony state, where Chemnitz is located, sided with the intelligence chief. "One thing is clear. There was no mob, there was no hunt and there was no pogrom in Chemnitz," Kretschmer said.

Kretschmer criticized the biased way in which funeral march and demonstrations in the eastern German city of Chemnitz had been portrayed by the media. He said it was "astonishing that those who are so far away have passed a particularly sweeping and harsh judgment on this city."

Since then, German media and politicians from mainstream parties have attacked Maassen for daring to deviate from the narrative in which the citizens of Chemnitz who protested the killing of a fellow resident at the hands of armed migrants were perpetrators of crimes, and the immigrants were somehow victims.

Stephan Weil, a Social Democrat and the premier of the state of Lower Saxony, charged that the intelligence chief's "comments fuel suspicion that he is protecting right-wing extremists."

Politicians from the Green Party and the Left Party are calling for Maassen to be sacked. "I don't expect any trustworthy assessments from Mr. Maassen any more," said Katrin Göring-Eckardt, the leader of the Green Party's parliamentary group. Katja Kipping, the chairwoman of the Left Party (successor of the East German Communist Party), said that Maassen was "not tenable in this position."

According to the domestic affairs spokesperson for Merkel's CDU party, Armin Schuster, Maassen "would answer parliamentarians' questions about his comments at special meetings the third week of September, 2018, including in front of a parliamentary committee that oversees Germany's spy agencies," Reuters reported. In these "hearings," politicians are expected to bring more pressure to bear on the intelligence chief, in an apparent attempt to make him recant his statements.

Maassen is not the only one in the crosshairs of politically-correct mainstream politicians. Rattled by the recent wave of protests against country's open-door immigration policy, establishment parties across the political spectrum are calling for the populist anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) to be placed under police surveillance.

Thomas Oppermann, vice president of the German parliament, said "the refugee question divides society, and the AfD is riding ever more radically on this wave. That is why security services should be watching the collaboration between the AfD and neo-Nazis very closely."

Oppermann is specifically referring to the presence of AfD leaders at recent demonstrations in Chemnitz. According to German media reports, besides city residents, members of the Germany's neo-Nazi movement also showed up at some of those events.

The AfD distanced itself from the neo-Nazis present at the protests, many of which were organized over social media by grassroots groups. "It is naturally a problem with such events that the hooligans and right-wing extremists ride along," said AfD co-leader Alexander Gauland. "This, however, does not delegitimize the anger and the protest of the people of Chemnitz with respect to this crime."

Patrick Sensburg, the security spokesperson for Merkel's CDU and Armin Schuster, the homeland security expert for the party, similarly urged government to take measures against the AfD.

For her part, Chancellor Merkel doubled down on her allegations against protestors. "We saw pictures that very clearly revealed hate and thereby also the persecution of innocent people. One must distance oneself from that," Merkel said.

Apparently, the German public in large numbers disagrees. In the wake of the incidents, according to a recent opinion poll, the AfD has emerged as the third-strongest political force in Germany. With 17% popular support, the party trails behind only Merkel's Christian Democrats (31%) and the Social Democrats (18%) .

In early September, authorities in the states of Lower Saxony and Bremen placed their regional chapters of Young Alternative, the AfD's youth wing, under surveillance citing "suspected ties to extremists."

Vijeta Uniyal, a journalist and news analyst, is based in Germany.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Facebook Bans Outline to Stop Jihadi Attacks on Americans -


Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov told it's against 'community standards'.

[FrontPageMag Editors' note: To best understand why Facebook would ban Jamie Glazov on 9/11 for his article on how to best prevent more 9/11s, pre-order Jamie's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE. The book illustrates how the Jihadist Psychopath has successfully built his totalitarian plantation -- on which many in the West are now enslaved and dutifully following his orders. Jamie outlines the frameworks of this tyrannical plantation and how those who are trapped on it, and yearn for freedom, can best escape.]

Reprinted from

Somewhere in the “community standards” that Facebook demands everyone follow is a real doozy.

The social-media company has told author and commentator Jamie Glazov that their standards forbid his article about how to prevent jihadi attacks on Americans.

It’s all about Glazov’s new book, “Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.”

At FrontPage Magazine, where he is editor, he had posted “9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad,” which included recommendations such as “Label the enemy and make a threat assessment” and “Stop ‘partnering’ with Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”

That apparently was too much for Facebook, which declared “only you can see this post” because it “goes against our Community Standards.”

He was suspended from Facebook for 30 days on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the Islamic jihadist attack on America that killed nearly 3,000.

Glazov told Breitbart, “This is really getting surreal in the creepiest and most harrowing Stalinist sense.”
FrontPage Magazine reported:

Facebook’s Unholy Alliance masters are, without doubt, accelerating their totalitarian suffocation of free thought and expression. It is no surprise, therefore, that Frontpage’s editor, and host of ‘The Glazov Gang,’ was suspended from Facebook for 30 days yesterday, on September 11, after posting his article, ‘9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad.’ Glazov believed that the article was more relevant and urgent than ever due to the skyrocketing jihadist stabbings in Europe — and to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 that was approaching the next day.
The report said it appears “that daring to give suggestions on how our civilization can stop jihadist attacks and another 9/11 is against Facebook’s ‘community standards.'”

“Glazov’s advice also involves the promotion of supporting moderate Muslims – a move that is, clearly, horrifying to Facebook’s masters and therefore also violates their ‘community standards,'” the report said.
No doubt, Glazov’s consistent campaigning on behalf of Muslim women and girls in his efforts to protect them from FGM, honor killings and other Shariah barbarities, has gained him the anger and hatred of Facebook’s guardians — who are clearly on the side of the Shariah enforcers and oppressors of Muslim women and girls.
The report recalls that Facebook censored Glazov in April for posting screenshots of a Muslim’s threat to him.

Twitter also lashed out at him for quoting directly from Islamic religious texts, citing its anti-“hate” policies.
It is ‘hateful conduct,’ apparently, to reference what Islamic texts themselves say. Indeed, Frontpage’s editor had simply referred to Sahih Bukhari’s texts discussing Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was six years old (7.62.88) and to Quranic Suras that mandate the Hijab for women (24:31; 33:59) and sanction sexual slavery (4:3; 33:50).
Facebook also refused to respond to Glazov’s inquiry about “what it is specifically that violates Facebook’s ‘community standards’ when a person gives advice on how to best defend American lives from jihad.”

Glazov has written about the subject in previous books, including “High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown” and “United in Hate.”

In his “9 Steps” article, he points out that the Obama administration was “cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA.”

The government needs, he said, to “implement a concrete ‘countering-jihad’ strategy.”

And he said it needs to affirm “Shariah’s assault on the U.S. Constitution as seditious.”

A last key point, the said, is to ridicule the enemy.
Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Shariah and jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches.
Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces.
Editors' postscript: We ask everyone to get involved. Please go to Facebook and click on the blue question (“?”) mark on the top-right corner of your Homepage. Then select "Report a Problem" at the very bottom of the box and go to the "General Feedback" section and write in to request that Jamie Glazov’s ban be lifted. You can also do the same on Facebook HERE and HERE. Also protest on Twitter: @facebook and @fbnewsroom -- and directly to Mark Zuckerberg: @finkd. And make sure to FOLLOW Jamie Glazov on Facebook as well as on Twitter to strengthen his social media strength in the face of this censorship: @JamieGlazov. Thank you so much!


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Christians Who Oppose Conversion Therapy Need a Reality Check - Robert Oscar Lopez

by Robert Oscar Lopez

Ex-gays – yes, they do exist – have been fighting a lonely battle for conversion therapy.

To be loving does not mean to be gullible. Jesus Christ mentions that we will come across dishonest people, especially among those who have prestige (or are seeking it). We should love people, but that does not mean we should let them take advantage of us. Or fool us. Or trick us.

In that spirit, I want Rosaria Butterfield, Sam Allberry, and Jackie Hill Perry to answer a simple yes-or-no question. No long filibustering paragraphs. No detours into extensive complaints about what other Christians are supposedly doing. No lifeline block-quotes from Augustine. Just yes or no. Here:

Do you agree with the Anglican church's ban on conversion therapy?

Yes or no.

Here's why this question is urgent. Butterfield, Allberry, and Perry are currently superstars in the world of Protestant Christianity, constantly summoned to discuss issues of sexuality in the church. They all had experience with same-sex attraction. They all say they believe in Christ.

And they all attack conversion therapy. According to her profile on Alchetron, Rosaria Butterfield believes the following:
She does not identify herself as "ex-gay" and does not think any Christians should identify themselves as "gay Christians." She notes that "[t]he job of the adjective is to change the noun." Butterfield has criticized conversion therapy for contending that the "primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God's gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ's body and still struggle with sexual temptation." Butterfield suggests this is a version of the prosperity gospel.
The Alchetron page classes Butterfield with Matthew Vines and Alan Chambers. What a club.

Sam Allberry's group in London, Living Out, makes similar swipes at conversion therapy, though the prose below is actually attributed to Sean Doherty:
Why we do not support the idea of 'gay cure'
1) Homosexuality is not an illness. But using the language of 'cure' makes it sound like it is, which could be very damaging to vulnerable people (such as a young person coming to terms with their sexuality), making them feel ashamed of who they are at a very deep and fundamental level, and perhaps in some cases even contributing to suicidal feelings. Thankfully, we are not aware of any organisations in the UK which do support the idea of a 'gay cure'. Our belief is that all of us have fallen sexual desires (whether heterosexual or homosexual), and that what we need isn't more heterosexuality or less homosexuality, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.
Lastly, Jackie Hill Perry has come forward with a statement entitled "Don't Preach a Heterosexual Gospel," which also blasts the notion of conversion therapy:
Perry, who used to be a lesbian but is now married to a man and has two daughters, warns that the "heterosexual gospel" is problematic because it "tends to put more emphasis on marriage as the goal of the Christian life than on knowing Jesus."
"What the gay community needs to hear is not that God will make them straight, but that Christ can make them his," she continues.
"Someone trying to pursue heterosexuality and not Christ is just as far from a right standing with God as someone actively pursuing homosexuality. They have put their faith in a new 'orientation' rather than in knowing the living God."
Unfortunately, all three of them arrogate to themselves the right to speak for "same-sex-attracted" Christians. They do not speak for me. In fact, I doubt that they speak for almost anybody.

People who see themselves as gay, and who do not want to become straight, exist in a social world different from mine. They have both Vines and Chambers as go-to people to emulate. Neither Vines nor Chambers will tell them that sodomy itself poses any problem at all.

But let us think through who these gay affirmers are and what they want to hear. They do not want Allberry's tortured celibacy. Nor do they want Butterfield and Perry to exhaust them with long filibusters about how their identity is sinful but they have no hope of ever becoming straight, either. People who see themselves as gay and who do not want to become straight generally want to be "gay Christians.” They want to hear about how they can walk with Jesus Christ while still having gay relationships, period. They will not generally be fans of Allberry, Butterfield, or Perry.

So Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry’s popularity comes largely because straight Christians like to hear them talk about how they dealt with their homosexuality. It makes straight Christians feel tolerant for giving them platforms. Straight Christians imagine that gay people will respond positively to their message and will not reject the Christian position on sexuality as hateful.

People in the gay community who like being gay do not need their message since many churches are already okay with active, practicing homosexuals. If gay people have a problem with their sexual orientation and want to change, they will likely want to cease homosexual behavior and be freed of homosexual thoughts and identity. Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry denounce homosexual acts while claiming that it is equally wrong for them to engage in heterosexuality.

(It is not equally wrong, or wrong at all, for someone struggling with homosexuality to seek self-modification in hopes of getting married – again, to a member of the opposite sex, with whom alone marriage is possible.)

Butterfield and Perry, both of whom are married and raising children, come across as particularly annoying in that regard. They tell gay people that it's somehow ungodly for them to want the same godly life – marriage, parenthood – that both Butterfield and Perry have.

Another group of people has struggled with homosexuality and knows that it is a sin incompatible with Christianity. Similarly in this position are people like Stephen Black, Daren Mehl, myself, and the people who follow David Pickup or Restored Hope Network.

I won't try to speak for others, but I can speak for where I am. I find the rhetoric of Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry tiresome and callous. Their reasons for rejecting conversion to heterosexuality feel muddled yet judgmental. And terribly wrong. Jesus Christ said faith can move mountains. Jesus Christ also tells a parable about a persistent widow winning over a judge, as an exhortation to continue seeking the good things in life rather than surrender to discouragement. Jesus consistently advises His believers to ask, so that they shall receive, noting that no father, if his son asked for an egg, would give him a snake.

Yes, many people claim to have failed at going from gay to straight, just as many obese people decide that after so much dieting and exercise, they will never lose weight. Jesus Christ shares the powerful message that with faith, hope, and love, such great things do happen. They have happened in my life. Rosaria Butterfield has no place to tell me faith can't make me straight.

The Apostle Paul said faith, hope, and love are the most enduring of all human feelings. Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry suffocate all three. They deny the power of people's faith to heal themselves and live in obedience to God, largely because they assume too much when they predict that people's attempts to change toward heterosexuality will necessarily fail. They stifle people's hope by telling them, falsely, that God will not answer their prayers if they pray for something godly and fair. And they place stumbling blocks before people so they cannot feel love in the way God intended it, including the beauty of love for the opposite sex in all its splendor.

Also, they use straw man fallacies. They say they oppose conversion therapy because other Christians who support it supposedly engage in bad doctrine. In truth they err in doctrine and the Christians they criticize speak righteously. Hence, the Living Out statement accuses conversion therapy of harming young people, as if such young people do not already know, in many cases, that something is wrong with homosexuality anyway.

Rosaria Butterfield compares Christians who want to lead heterosexual lives to the widely reviled "prosperity gospel." She assumes that for others to have a goal – becoming heterosexual – their goal must necessarily be "the primary goal." Nobody I know has ever said that Christianity's primary goal is turning people into heterosexuals. The parallel to the prosperity gospel is wildly unfair, since poverty is not a sin, but homosexuality is. Also, heterosexuality is simply a word describing male-female intimacy, which is God's design as set down in Genesis and upheld by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

Jackie Hill Perry conflates people who want to become heterosexual with people who "want to pursue heterosexuality and not Christ." If someone is suffering in homosexuality, I bring glory to God by helping him out of it even if the person is not yet ready to confess belief in Christ. My charity may endear them to my God, and their better life may leave them more capable of drawing near to Jesus Christ later.

And what about people who want to pursue heterosexuality and Christ? By ignoring the existence of such people, she creates an exaggerated extreme to distract people from the real crisis at hand, the crisis that all three of these speakers fail to acknowledge and end up worsening:

The gay movement is trying to ban homosexuals from getting help so they can turn toward heterosexuality.

While a dozen American states, many foreign governments, and the Church of England have banned conversion therapy, no widespread movement exists anywhere to force churches to exalt heterosexuality more than they honor Christ.

So why, when ex-gays are being besieged from all sides, do we have to deal with Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry attacking us, too? By setting themselves up as Christians with same-sex attraction, they can discredit conversion therapy. The LGBT movement loves that. The LGBT movement can afford to have three Christian speakers denounce sodomy in Biblical terms if they get three resounding denunciations of conversion therapy.

The LGBT movement wants there to be no conversion therapy, so the maximum number of people stays identified as "gay." Such an outcome would give the LGBT movement a huge population base, which translates into massive financial and political power.

But I could rest my doubts about their motives if they could answer one yes-or-no question. In 2017, the Church of England banned conversion therapy. Do they support this move?

If yes, then we know where Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry are taking us. They serve the LGBT community, regardless of what they may claim. They want gay people to remain identified with that community, even if they may take on some other name like "same sex-attracted." They want to block strugglers from identifying as straight so that the gay community can continue to have a large constituency deprived of any exit strategy.

If the answer is no, then I wonder where they have been for all these years. Ex-gays like Stephen Black have been fighting a lonely battle for conversion therapy. I have worked hard to help gay men who want to go straight. It would mean the world to a lot of people if they could get off their high horses and encourage people instead of shooting down hopes and dreams that match God's promises. It would also hearten us to see them stand up to gay activists instead of just helping gay activists beat up on God-fearing Christians.

Robert Oscar Lopez - Follow Robert Oscar Lopez at English Manif. Also, check out his new series at Mass Resistance, called "Save Our Churches."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter