Saturday, December 8, 2018

Lebanon should be held accountable - Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

Hezbollah and the Lebanese army have a strategic relationship and it is impossible to rule ‎out the possibility that, in the next war between ‎the IDF and Hezbollah, Lebanon's military will side with the terrorist group.

The Lebanese government's responsibility for ‎Hezbollah's offensive activities on its soil against ‎Israel is a central and unavoidable issue, which ‎was at the heart of a dispute between Prime Minister ‎Ehud Olmert and IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz during ‎the 2006 Second Lebanon War.‎

Seeing Beirut as responsible for Hezbollah's ‎offensive actions from Lebanese territory, Halutz ‎demanded that the IDF be allowed to target strategic ‎assets in Lebanon, but Olmert prevented him from ‎doing so, in part, over pressure exerted on Israel by ‎the European Union.‎

The war ended with U.N. Security Council Resolution ‎‎1701, which expressed an expectation that the ‎Lebanese government would regain sovereignty over ‎its side of the border with Israel. To facilitate ‎that, the resolution imposed restrictions on ‎Hezbollah activity in southern Lebanon, and the ‎Lebanese army was to redeploy in the region. ‎

But this was only partially realized. Since 2016, ‎not only has Hezbollah's gain political power in ‎Lebanon, the Lebanese army has largely become part ‎of the Shiite terrorist group's efforts to bolster its ‎presence on the ground, including near the border ‎with Israel.‎

Hezbollah, it seems, used the very restrictions ‎imposed on it in Resolution 1701 to develop more ‎sophisticated collaboration mechanisms with the ‎Lebanese army. ‎

The legitimacy of working with the Lebanese Armed ‎Forces affords Hezbollah advantages that allow for ‎its interests to be represented in the international ‎arena, as is the case in the monthly meetings ‎between Lebanese, Israeli and UNIFIL officials. ‎

This means a new reality has developed in the sphere ‎between the Lebanese state and ‎Hezbollah, where the two's useful symbiosis and ‎strategic division of labor manifests, as ‎illustrated in the fact that Lebanese forces fought ‎shoulder to shoulder with Hezbollah operatives ‎against Islamic State terrorists on the Lebanon-Syria ‎border. ‎

Under these circumstances, it is impossible to rule ‎out the possibility that, in the next war between ‎the IDF and Hezbollah, the Lebanese army may ‎actively assist the Shiite terrorist group. This is ‎doubly concerning given that in recent years, the ‎Lebanese army has received American support, ‎including training and weapons. ‎

Lebanon, as a hybrid state, has maximized the ‎inherent advantages of being able to conduct itself ‎between two opposing poles: It maintains close ties ‎with the West, mainly with France and the United ‎States, with respect to military and economic ‎cooperation in the search for political stability, ‎while also maintaining close ties with Iran and ‎Syria – through Hezbollah – despite their nefarious ‎attempts to destabilize the region. ‎

To a great extent, this is where the secret to ‎Lebanon's success in preserving its existence as an ‎island of stability in the turbulent Middle ‎East lies. This pattern of behavior has also allowed ‎Lebanon to avoid being identified as a willing ‎accomplice to Hezbollah, something that would result ‎in its international isolation. ‎

Given Hezbollah's growing strength and its ‎aggressive deployment against Israel in Lebanon, ‎Jerusalem must devise a new approach to Beirut.‎

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right to ‎declare that Lebanon shoulders responsibility for ‎Hezbollah's attempts to breach Israeli sovereignty, ‎but it is not enough. The Israeli government must ‎embark on a diplomatic effort to clarify what is at ‎stake for Lebanon if it sides with Hezbollah in its ‎next war with Israel.‎

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen is a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

No way out for Clinton, Inc. corruption this time - Ed Timperlake

by Ed Timperlake

The Clintons were previously warned early and often about improper compliance

The legal dodge used by James Comey to exonerate Hillary Clinton from her prima facie crimes in using an unsecured server for official business won’t be any help to the Clinton Foundation as it faces charges coming from whistleblowers.

Clinton Inc. criminal defense lawyers trying to hide behind the word “intent” won’t work because the Clintons were previously warned early and often about improper compliance:
.. internal legal reviews that the foundation conducted on itself in 2008 and 2011.
Those reviews flagged serious concerns about legal compliance, improper commingling of personal and charity business and "quid pro quo" promises made to donors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of State.
"With a cloth?"

There is a great line in the fun movie, National Treasure, spoken by the accomplished, former Marine, Harvey Keitel, who was playing a very solid FBI Special Agent “Someone has to go to prison Ben.”

Sadly, as both the first Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Public Affairs and then in a reorganization as being in charge of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Veterans Administration, I did experience many scammers and real criminal types that actually did not go to prison but walked away without being charged after running truly horrific veteran charity scams.

The lesson I learned in trying to bring many veteran charity scams to justice was, sadly, that a legal strategy adopted by defendants often worked. Two FBI Special Agents who were investigating a $ 6 million scam out of the $ 7 million collected said DOJ Attorneys prosecuting charity cases have to respect the power of the word “intent”. Thus the cases were often dropped.

But now the FBI/DOJ does not have that excuse to withhold a prosecution going forward.

One of the elements of a crime is that the criminal behavior has to be documented as being undertaken knowingly and purposeful which is exactly what the whistleblower documents prove.

Often, charity scammers walk away clean because the Government cannot prove “intent” because the defendant if taken to court will simply say; look at our good work we are just bad managers.

Anyone watching cable shows have by now seen Clinton, Inc. supporters focus on all the “good works” the Clinton Charity supposedly has accomplished. However, whistleblowers now tell us it was willful criminal conduct on the part of the Clintons, thus legally spiking the no criminal intent defense.

I know that the “no criminal intent but we are just bad managers”, would be an audacious defense strategy by a former governor and president and his wife, a former Senator and Secretary of State. However, I have learned in over two decades of investigating all things criminal with Clinton, Inc, to never ever count them out in their powering through real criminal behavior. It is almost like a big game to them.

One can finally hope that the recent whistleblower revelations will tell us that a legal prosecution fuse has finally been lit to embrace the legitimate campaign chant of Trump Nation supporters to “Lock Her Up,”

Finally one can only hope that Bill and Hillary Clinton may legally have no way out.

Edward Timperlake was the Co-author of NYT Best Seller; Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Conservatives Triumph Over Free Speech-Hating UC Berkeley - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

The university has to pay YAF $70,000 and end its unconstitutional campus speech policies.

Conservatives scored a major legal victory against UC Berkeley which has agreed to compensate Young America’s Foundation and Berkeley College Republicans for trampling the First Amendment rights of conservative speakers and students on its campus.

"Young America’s Foundation is thrilled that, after more than a year of UC Berkeley battling against the First Amendment rights of its own students, the University finally felt the heat and saw the light of their unconstitutional censorship," said YAF spokesman Spencer Brown.

"YAF’s landmark victory for free expression—long squelched by Berkeley’s scheming administrators who weaponized flawed policies to target conservatives—shows that the battle for freedom undertaken by YAF on campuses nationwide is a necessary one."

The Trump administration previously weighed in on the side of the campus conservatives who argued UC Berkeley’s restrictive policies violated First Amendment free speech rights and the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on behalf of the two groups. The department “will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said at the time.

UC Berkeley’s hostility toward free speech is well-established. The school appears in the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s (FIRE) annual list of the ten worst colleges for free speech. Berkeley has a “yellow light speech code rating” from FIRE because it restricts speech, denies students accused of misconduct the “right to challenge fact-finders,” and denies students accused of sexual misconduct the right to counsel.

The administration at UC Berkeley only pretended to adhere to the First Amendment’s speech protections. When conservatives have been scheduled to speak on campus, the administration typically didn’t forbid their appearances. Instead, it made the speeches inconvenient to the point of impossibility, for example, forcing students to use venues a mile off campus or at times when students couldn’t attend. Berkeley also often required non-leftist groups to hand over thousands of dollars to defray security costs, a requirement not rigorously or consistently imposed on left-wing speakers or groups.

An aggressive crackdown on non-leftist speech came after Berkeley officials—emboldened by an Antifa mob blocking a Feb. 1, 2017 campus appearance by firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos—decided to formalize viewpoint discrimination in the school’s policy on speakers.

The speech, which was sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center (publisher of Frontpage), itself never happened. Police stood down and allowed left-wing students and activists to “no-platform” Yiannopoulos because they didn’t like his views. Demonstrators caused $100,000 in damage to the campus and several times as much damage to the surrounding town.

Court documents indicate UC Berkeley adopted an unwritten “high profile speaker policy” on March 1, 2017, to impose restrictions on speaking engagements by conservative intellectuals like David Horowitz and Ann Coulter. By Aug. 14, 2017, the university had published a written “Major Events Hosted by Non-Departmental Users” policy to restrict a speech by conservative radio host Ben Shapiro. As a result, Shapiro was reportedly charged $9,000 to speak at UC Berkeley, a fee the school called “lawful and appropriate.”

The threat of violence by Antifa at UC Berkeley also led to the cancellation of a planned on-campus premiere of a documentary film this writer executive-produced, America Under Siege: Antifa, during Yiannopoulos’s planned Free Speech Week at the school.

But all of this leftist insanity will be changing, assuming the university honors the agreement that ended the year-old federal lawsuit.

Under the terms of the out-of-court settlement YAF attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon reached with UC Berkeley this past weekend, the university will pay Young America’s Foundation $70,000, rescind its unconstitutional "high-profile speaker policy," rescind its viewpoint-discriminatory security fee policy, and abolish its heckler’s veto—protesters will no longer be allowed to shut down conservative expression.

“This landmark victory for free expression means UC Berkeley can no longer wantonly treat conservative students as second-class members of its community while ignoring the guaranteed protections of the First Amendment,” according to YAF.

Under the settlement’s provisions, UC Berkeley will no longer be able to impose a 3:00 p.m. curfew on conservative speech. Nor will it be able to ban advertisements for YAF-sponsored campus lectures or relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving leftist speakers access to preferred locations.

“Further, the policy that allowed Berkeley administrators to charge conservative students $20,000 for security to host Ben Shapiro—an amount three times greater than the fee charged to leftist students to host liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—is gone,” according to YAF.

“YAF and UC Berkeley agreed to a fee schedule that treats all students equally. Unless students are handling money or serving alcohol at an event, the security fee will be zero.”

This is one of those rare legal cases in which conservatives received justice.

Conservatives and other patriots should savor it.

Photo from John Morgan.

Matthew Vadum, formerly senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The unknown at the end of the tunnel ‎ - Yoav Limor

by Yoav Limor

Exposing Hezbollah's terror tunnels under the Israel-Lebanon border means Israel faces an operational dilemma going forward

Israeli soldiers near the border with Lebanon, ‎Tuesday
Photo: IDF Spokesperson's Unit 

Let's make something clear: This week's countertunnel operation on ‎the northern border did not defeat Hezbollah but rather was another ‎round in the complex, long and tumultuous battle the parties have ‎been waging for decades. ‎

This round seems to go to Israel, but things are far from over. ‎Hezbollah may have lost a significant strategic asset but it is far from ‎giving up, and this setback will not be what decides the next military ‎campaign. In fact, this is not even a tie-breaker – at most this is ‎another important marker in a long line of events that date back to the ‎early 1980s, which has no end in sight.‎

From the IDF's point of view, Operation Northern Shield is just that – ‎a full-scale operation in every respect, from intelligence gathering and ‎employing engineering technology, to the deployment on the ground ‎and dealing with any military, diplomatic and operational ‎implications; all seeking to inflict maximum damage on Hezbollah and ‎create maximum leverage for Israel, and all flawlessly executed thus ‎far. ‎

Keeping things in perspective is important, and calling military ‎engineering activities on the Israeli side of the border an "operation" ‎may be a bit of a stretch – to Israeli ears, the word "operation" ‎conjures up images of something daring and heroic, not those of ‎bulldozers excavating a tunnel – but the attempts by politicians to ‎dwarf the IDF's achievement are nonetheless very strange. ‎

 Reuters   - An IDF bulldozer digs near the Israel-Lebanon border, Tuesday

One may criticize the broader contexts of the operation, from the ‎decision to avoid a more severe response to the violence in Gaza to ‎the decision not to neutralize the tunnels' end on Lebanese soil, but the ‎contempt for the operation itself was odd, and proved that in 2018 ‎Israel, even matters of security are all about politics. ‎

Hezbollah's tunnel project can be traced back to 2014. Reeling from ‎Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, Hamas decided to accelerate its ‎terror tunnels' project. The information gathered by them was ‎eventually handed over to Hezbollah – through Iran, no doubt – ‎which decided to begin a tunneling project of its own. ‎

The IDF understood the challenge and especially its lacking ability to ‎meet it. When IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot took office in ‎February 2015, he made the tunnel threat a top priority and set up ‎technological-intelligence-operational teams to find a holistic solution ‎to the problem.

It is likely that Eizenkot's insistence to launch ‎Operation Northern Shield at this time despite the recommendations ‎of several General Staff officers, stemmed from his desire to see this ‎through and not leave the problem for his successor, Aviv Kochavi, ‎who will take office in mid-January.‎

At the time, the IDF's decision to form a special task force to tackle the ‎tunnel issue was oblivious to the fact that Hezbollah had embarked on ‎a tunneling project near the Lebanon-Israel border. Even within the ‎Shiite terrorist group, the project was top secret and only a handful of ‎senior officials knew about it. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah ‎wanted to keep the information on a need-to-know basis precisely to ‎avoid the kind of intelligence breach that stunned the group this week.‎

The military began gathering actionable intelligence on ‎Hezbollah tunneling project two years ago. The village of Kafr Kila in ‎south Lebanon, where the IDF identified digging operations, was ‎placed under 24/7 surveillance, revealing the slow but steady progress ‎made by Hezbollah. ‎

And slow and steady progress it was: Unlike in Gaza, the ground near ‎the northern border is rocky and tough, not sandy and yielding. ‎This allowed Hezbollah maximum progress of about six feet a week, ‎which in turn, allowed the IDF's seismic detection systems time to ‎pinpoint the areas where the excavation took place.

The harsh terrain ‎also explains the nature of Hezbollah's tunnels, which are straighter ‎and shorter than their Gazan cousins. Their advantage lies with the ‎fact that, being carved out of solid rock and not sand, like in Gaza, ‎Hezbollah's tunnels did not require any cement lining.‎

‎ ‎The fact that Hezbollah had no idea that Israel had exposed its secret ‎project made it possible for the IDF to focus its activities and reach the point where it ‎could launch a surprise countertunnel operation and announce it had ‎mapped Hezbollah's grid of tunnels in its entirety.‎

This was a dramatic statement not only because of the blow it dealt ‎Hezbollah, but also because it allowed the military to pinpoint the ‎operation to neutralize and destroy the tunnels instead of spending ‎months on a futile search along the border.‎

Prudence must prevail ‎

The suggested timetable for Operation Northern Shield ran counter to ‎the escalation in Gaza. The IDF consistently claims that it can take on ‎two sectors simultaneously, but when push came to shove, the ‎northern sector was prioritized. This decision stemmed not only from ‎the desire to effectively focus the military effort but also from a ‎consensus between Eizenkot and Prime Minister Benjamin ‎Netanyahu that tensions in Gaza were manageable even without a full-‎scale military campaign that would do little to resolve the enclave's ‎problems.‎

Members of the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet were red in on the IDF's ‎intelligence on Nov. 7 and were asked to greenlight a countertunnel ‎operation on the Israel-Lebanon border at a time of the military's ‎choosing.

Four days later, IDF special forces embarked on a covert mission in ‎Khan Yunis, in southern Gaza, which went awry and triggered one ‎of the worst border flare-ups the south has seen since 2014. Emotions ‎in Israel ran high and the public and ministers alike demanded ‎something be done about Gaza "right now," but Netanyahu and ‎Eizenkot did not falter, insisting in a Nov. 13 cabinet meeting that the ‎northern sector must remain the top priority. ‎

The cabinet agreed, with the exception of then-Defense Minister Avigdor ‎Lieberman, who resigned in protest, triggering political turmoil that ‎nearly toppled the government. Netanyahu hinted at "something big" ‎brewing in the north and called on all coalition partners to act ‎responsibly in what he called a "highly sensitive time, security-wise." ‎

Incidentally, the timing of the operation was not chosen solely over ‎military considerations: The days leading up to it were clouded by a ‎well-founded suspicion that the plans were leaked to the media by a ‎senior politician, and there was concern that Hezbollah will learn of ‎them and Israel would lose the element of surprise. ‎

The disappointment by some in Israel may have stemmed from the ‎fact that the expectation for a spectacular strike on Lebanese soil gave ‎way to clouds of dust stirred up by bulldozers and rather exaggerated ‎media hype. It is doubtful, however, that Hezbollah shares this ‎disappointment – it lost a valuable strategic asset, in which much ‎thought, resources and efforts were invested.‎

We should not make light of this. Hezbollah is plagued by a serious ‎economic crisis that is expected to worsen in 2019 given the ‎impact of new U.S. sanctions in Iran, which is expected to slash its ‎proxy's budget.‎

Unlike Hezbollah's armament efforts, which can be presented as a ‎defensive measure, cross-border tunnels that snake into Israeli ‎territory are a clearly offensive move that exposes its aggression. ‎Worse still, the tunnel enterprise refutes Hezbollah's claims that it has ‎no present south of the Litani, as stipulated in Security Council ‎Resolution 1701 that ended the 2006 Second Lebanon War.‎

Exposing Hezbollah's tunnels has made it abundantly clear to ‎everyone, especially to the U.N. peacekeeping force stationed in ‎Lebanon – which for the past few years has insisted it sees no evil, ‎hears no evil and speaks no evil with respect to the Shiite terrorist ‎group – that Hezbollah has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.‎

Still, Israel would be wise not to expect the U.N. ‎to revise Resolution ‎‎1701. ‎The U.S. will likely support such revisions, but ‎Russia will veto ‎such a move.

The tunnels' exposure is, however, a golden opportunity ‎for Israel to call out ‎Hezbollah on the international stage, as they are a ‎unique ‎public diplomacy asset that ‎illustrates clearly what Israel has ‎been saying ‎about Hezbollah's extensive web of lies, its ‎operational ‎plans and its ties to Iran.‎

This may also explain why Hezbollah has remained mum. A ‎speechless Nasrallah is a rarity but the organization has been stunned ‎silent by Israel's feat, and its officials will likely prefer to keep a low ‎profile until the dust settles. ‎

Leverage is key ‎

Hezbollah is busy licking its wounds and performing damage control. ‎It is unclear to it what Israel knows, and how seriously it has been ‎compromised from intelligence and operational standpoints. ‎Hezbollah's investigation will probably lead to Tehran, whose officials ‎were co-conspirators to the project. At some point, Hezbollah will ‎also have to retaliate, both because it is in Nasrallah's nature and ‎because it wants to keep Israel deterred. ‎

The first test of deterrence will present itself after Israel will expose all ‎the tunnels and turn its attention to their destruction. The IDF will ‎have to decide whether to destroy only the parts that infringe on ‎Israeli territory or step over the border and eliminate their origins in ‎Lebanon as well. This means infringing on Lebanese sovereignty, ‎which Hezbollah could use as a pretext to respond. ‎

For now, Israel is being extremely careful about infringing on ‎Lebanese sovereignty. The guidelines are clear: Do not cross the Blue ‎Line, i.e., the border demarcation ‎between Lebanon and Israel set by ‎the U.N. This is a prudent decision, but it raises an important ‎question: If Israel is so concerned about stepping only a few hundred ‎feet into Lebanese territory to destroy terror tunnels infringing on its ‎own sovereignty, how does it plan to destroy the precision-missile ‎production facilities Hezbollah is trying to build in Beirut? ‎

This dilemma will be the next chief of staff's to resolve, and he will have to do so against the ‎backdrop of Iran's continued attempts to do everything in its power ‎to upgrade Hezbollah's arsenal. ‎

Operation Northern Shield will take several weeks. The main effort ‎now is an engineering one and about 200 reservists, experts in their ‎field, have been called up for it. The military's Commando Brigade is ‎securing the work and not by chance, as its presence on the border ‎will allow the IDF to mount a rapid response to any flare-up if need ‎be. The tactical threat is palpable and all it would take is a sniping ‎attempt by Hezbollah, for example, to trigger a conflict. ‎

It is doubtful the Hezbollah will do that. The tunnels were a strategic ‎asset but their strength lies in the (now defunct) element of surprise, ‎while ‎Hezbollah's real strength lies with its sizeable ‎missile arsenal ‎and tens of thousands of operatives. ‎In other words, the fact that ‎Hezbollah lost its tunnels will do little to dramatically change the ‎course of the next war. Hezbollah is a mini-‎army of highly motivated ‎terrorists, and it can still cross the border relatively easy. ‎

Meanwhile, Israel will try to leverage its military achievement into a diplomatic ‎one not only in Washington but in other capitals as well, especially ‎Paris, which wields significant clout in Beirut, but also in London and ‎Moscow. After all, small victories are still victories.

Yoav Limor


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Canada: Opposition, Protests and a Petition Against the UN Migration Pact - Christine Williams

by Christine Williams

A Canadian movement rises against globalist Trudeau.

The UN Migration Pact represents a catastrophic dismantling of key components of democratic institutions by the United Nations, a body that has increasingly allied with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Pact — officially named the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” — indicates that it “offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination.” It also states that “No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own.” 

This means (sarcasm warning ahead) that all countries must depend on the competent, just and democratic United Nations to guide them to enjoying the benefits of mass migration. To do this, one would have to turn a blind eye to the globalist vision of open borders that has plunged Europe into crisis, a crisis that has led in turn to the rise of the so-called “populist” movement. Contrary to the media’s labeling of it as “racist” and “Nazi,” this movement supports democracy, supports Israel, and aims to defend free societies, marginalize Islamic supremacists, and stop their incursions into Western countries. So-called “populist” leaders have also sought to protect their citizens from the damage of unlimited, unvetted migration.

Canada, in contrast, has offered to “lead the charge” on the UN Migration Pact.

As a concerned, patriotic Canadian citizen and Royal Canadian Air Force F18 retired combat pilot, Major Russ Cooper — co-founder of the group Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms wrote a summary of his concerns about the UN Migration Pact:
Objective 2 which commits destination nations to the elimination of poverty and social inequity in originating nations;
Objective 5 requirement to assist migrants with identifying the best host country for their needs;
Objective 7 stipulation that calls for “irregular” status migrants to be considered for “regular” status;
Objective 16 direction to accommodate family reunification programs thereby expanding, exponentially, the flow rate of migration;
Objective 17 requirement to eliminate “all forms of discrimination” in the host population including those that call into question the political opinions of migrants. Here we can see Motion M-103 as a precursor for a larger, more comprehensive Global Compact initiative;
Objective 17 direction to tightly control criticism of migrants and migration programs;
Objective 17 restrictions on media outlets and professionals to ensure they are properly “sensitized” and “educated” in matters pertaining to migration;
Objective 20 stipulations that faster, better, more efficient remittance programs be developed to funnel monies out of destination and into originating nations; and
Objective 22 requirement to make all migrant-gained social benefits and pensions portable to any other jurisdictions of his or her choice.
The Migration Pact can be read in full HERE.

Canada’s opposition Conservative leader Andrew Scheer advised Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “Instead of signing international agreements that erode our sovereign right to manage our borders, the prime minister should focus on restoring order at home.” To that, Trudeau had no reply except to accuse Scheer of using “Rebel Media talking points.”

Restoring order in Canada and securing security, economic growth and jobs for Canadians, don’t appear to be on the agenda of the globalist Trudeau. It is well known that he welcomes anyone and everyone into Canada. Directly following Trump’s temporary immigration ban on Muslim countries, Trudeau tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” Already, at least 25,000 Syrian refugees were accepted into the country in 2016, while there were over 20,000 illegal border crossings into Canada from the US through the Quebec border from early 2017 up to Spring 2018. Over the Easter weekend alone, 600 illegal migrants crossed into Canada. During the summer, such entries were expected to be around 400 per day. The crisis prompted even the Washington Post to publish an article: Nigerians are walking into Canada, prompting request for U.S. to take action. Since Spring, there has been virtual radio silence on the matter. The U.S.-Canadian border is approximately 3,987 miles long. Add to that the Alaska-Canada border, at 1,538 miles. By way of comparison, the U.S.-Mexican border is roughly 1,933 miles.

Unfortunately, persecuted Christians and Yazidis have not been included in Trudeau’s big welcome. Instead, Trudeau has welcomed in Islamic State jihadists who kill, rape and torture, hoping that these jihadists would be a “powerful voice” in Canada once they became “deradicalized.” Trudeau also has an Islamic entryist problem in his own government. He even sent a delegation to the 44th session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and imposed Islamic blasphemy laws on Canada via the anti-Islamophobia motion M-103. A followup to that motion documents the objective to “monitor citizens for compliance” and train law enforcement officers to investigate online and offline “hate speech.” Meanwhile, Trudeau discriminates against Christians — referring to them as the “worst part of Canadian society”; he cut off summer job funding to any organization who opposes abortion.

Some more appalling information: the Trudeau government has spent an astronomical amount of taxpayer money on self-serving media and social media campaigns: over $13,600,000 on sponsored social media posts, along with an earmarked $675,000,000 in funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2016. And now with elections coming up in 2019, Trudeau has pledged a $595,000,000 media bailout for media news organizations of his choosing.

Now Canadians must pay for his migration project far into the future, just as Canada’s unemployment rate is the worst it has been in four decades.

This is the country, almost unrecognizable as Canada after three years of Trudeau, that now intends to lead the charge on the UN Migration Pact. President Trump has already rejected the pact, although since the U.S. shares a long border with Canada — as well as with Mexico — his administration’s work will clearly be cut out for it, amid his other battles against the relentless attacks from globalist Democrats. Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Australia and Italy have also rejected the Pact.

A rally against the UN Migration Pact is set for this upcoming Saturday on Parliament Hill. Canadians are encouraged to sign a petition against the Pact HERE. Canada is set to sign the Pact in Morocco on December 10-11.

Christine Williams


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Russia Undermines the European Order - Stanislaw Zaryn

by Stanislaw Zaryn

For Russia, the enhanced defense potential of Poland and U.S. military presence in our region will be a serious operational impediment.

Poland, Europe, and NATO have all been targeted by Russian information attacks. Moscow has been mastering the methods of covert aggression for years, bringing down the levels of security in many European countries, and particularly in the Central and Eastern European countries (CEE). The strengthening of NATO’s Eastern Flank would serve to curtail Russia’s influence over the region. Therefore, the Kremlin has intensified its aggressive activities. This was particularly visible during this year’s edition of the Anakonda military exercise, a key training event for Polish Armed Forces with a high participation of allied countries and organizations.

Several conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the activities Russian propaganda has taken against ANAKONDA-18. Russia sows fear by trying to convince public opinion in Poland that if a conflict between Russia and NATO broke out, our country would be doomed (it threatens us with a nuclear attack, puts forward hypotheses that Poland is in the gunsites of Russian missile launchers, pushes claims that “Poland will serve as a training ground for U.S. and Russian nukes”). The Kremlin would like to see the Poles feel threatened and bound to fail should there be a confrontation with Moscow. Therefore, Russia portrays the Polish Armed Forces as unable to conduct defensive operations, with low morale and far less training and skill than their Russian counterparts. In the same vein, NATO is depicted as an “empty” alliance that does not offer any guarantees. Moscow’s propaganda fabricates negative opinions about the Polish Armed Forces and puts them in the mouths of both Polish and allied soldiers and commanders. At the same time, the capabilities of the Russian army are lauded, in terms of modernization of the military equipment and the capabilities of troops.

The campaign of fear targeting Poland is aimed at paralyzing the minds and the will to act of our soldiers, but also our countrymen and decision-makers, in order to prevent our country from defending its interests effectively. Russia also tries to spread a false picture of NATO’s activity on its Eastern Flank, suggesting that the Alliance takes aggressive actions that Russia is forced to neutralize (according to the Kremlin propagandists, the USA and NATO want to clash with Russia, with ANAKONDA-18’s utmost goal being to exercise aggressive operation against Russia and Belarus). The Russian narrative is also about accusing Poland and other NATO members of being irresponsible. If you went by pro-Russian media, you would read that given the number of soldiers and the amount of equipment, ANAKONDA-18 might spark off an armed conflict. The same media presented a manipulated scenario of the exercise and lied about the number of troops. The alleged “100,000 soldiers” who were to take part in the exercise and pose a serious threat to Russia, turned out to be just 17,500 in reality. At the same time, Moscow accused the Alliance of covering up its activities and failing to comply with transparency requirements, which are, by the way, two things Moscow itself always does. The strategy of manipulating the facts about the activities of NATO has become a permanent tool of Russian propaganda where the Kremlin’s aggressive policy is portrayed as a response to the alleged aggressive posture of the West.
Information campaigns against ANAKONDA-18 are implementations of Moscow’s multidimensional goals. By disseminating this message, Russia seeks to trigger anti-NATO sentiments in Poland, undermine the morale of Polish people and servicemen, diminish their trust in their allies and military alliances (for example by claiming that due to the cooperation with the USA our country has become vulnerable to attacks by Russia and ISIS, and any guarantees given by NATO are empty). Further, it tries to weaken political decision-makers in order to impair or even immobilize the abilities of the Polish state to launch a defensive military operation against a potential kinetic military action (Russia suggests that Polish Ministry of Defense is torn by conflicts and that the society does not accept the policy of the current government). Russia undertakes similar actions in other countries of our region, with special focus on Ukraine, where Russia makes tensions skyrocket, but also in the Baltic states. By acting in line with the hostile influence theory, Russia strongly believes that it will be able to paralyze the activities of NATO members, particularly on the Alliance’s Eastern Flank, in order to push its own agenda. Russia uses a permanent disinformation campaign to pave the way for further steps, namely intimidation of opponents and immobilization of defense capabilities.

The aim of information offensives is to render the audience vulnerable to Russian influence to take for granted a distorted picture of reality. To achieve this, Russia uses very simple tools, namely it publishes false information, manipulates the content posted to credible media, and attributes fabricated words to authority figures. Websites that spread pro-Russian propaganda contain interviews with Polish and international military officers, scientists, and journalists during which they say things that sound as if they were taken directly from Russian instructions. But those interviews either never happened or were fabricated. Opinions presented by the interviewed were tampered with or completely made up. Due to the fact that those people really exist, such fake interviews appear quite credible. Not only words, but also images are found in the Kremlin’s propaganda toolkit. Pieces published in support of pro-Russian disinformation come quite often with photos taken at a completely different time and in a completely different situation.

Another strategy employed by Russian disinformation websites is to interpret texts posted to credible news websites in such a manner that their meaning is heavily distorted. This way pro-Russian disinformation platforms appear more trustworthy, as the readers are not expected to check facts. The activity of Russia is characterized by long-term goals, with the “endstate” being to permanently distort the way the whole social groups think. Ultimately, the target audience is supposed to draw conclusions that are in favor of the aggressor and take actions in favor of the Kremlin. The analysis of news regarding the ANAKONDA-18 exercise spread by Russian propaganda outlets has shown that pro-Russian content is actively promoted.

Attacking Poland has become a permanent measure employed by Moscow. Any change with in Moscow’s behavior with this respect is rather unlikely. Russian operations against Poland will continue, as now they have gained a strategic importance. Currently, Poland and the USA are working to strengthen their political, energy, and, most of all, military cooperation. An enhanced U.S. military presence in Poland, or maybe even a permanent military base, is on the table. This strategic project is of utmost importance not only to our country, but also to the whole of Europe and NATO. If negotiations between Warsaw and Washington conclude successfully, this will be a serious blow to Russia’s abilities to conduct subliminal operations in CEE. And Poland is the key country for the security of the NATO’s Eastern Flank. With an increased troop presence in Poland, the USA will contribute significantly to the enhancement to Europe’s resilience against hybrid activities undertaken by Russia. If a decision to set up a U.S. military base in Poland is taken, this will be a major breakthrough for the security of the whole Alliance. For this reason it is highly likely that one of the goals of the current Russian policy towards Poland is to paralyze decision-making processes that could lead to shifting the NATO’s strategic area of defense in the East towards the territory of Poland. The Russians are determined to prevent the NATO’s Eastern Flank from increasing its defense capabilities, as this would impair the Kremlin’s operations in Europe. Therefore, the disinformation campaign against “ANAKONDA-18” should be understood as only one of many elements of Russian policy against the interests of Poland and the whole Alliance. For Russia, an enhanced defense potential of Poland and a U.S. military presence in our region will be a serious operational impediment. For our country and for NATO it should be clear that Russia is playing here a strategic game.

Stanislaw Zaryn is the Spokesman for Poland’s Minister-Special Services Coordinator


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Escaping the Hotel USSR - Mark Tapson

by Mark Tapson

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

Despite the abundance of internet memes ridiculing New York Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s questionable grasp of economics, the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist’s rising star confirms what disturbing recent polls are showing: that socialism has a burgeoning appeal for millennial Americans. As historian Bruce Thornton has written for FrontPage Mag, trying to reason young people out of supporting socialist policies is likely a doomed strategy, so how can they be made to see the light about what many call “the gateway drug to communism”? The most effective way may be through the compelling personal experiences of those who have escaped its confinement, and there is arguably no better current record of that than Oleg Atbashian’s just-published memoir titled Hotel USSR.

A writer and graphic artist from Ukraine, disillusioned Soviet propagandist Atbashian emigrated to the United States in 1994 and created the hilarious The People’s Cube, a Communist-themed satirical website that brilliantly captures the tone and perspective of the totalitarian left. Rush Limbaugh has accurately called it “a Stalinist version of The Onion.” Atbashian is also the author of Shakedown Socialism, an illustrated study of why that economic system cannot work. David Horowitz has said of it, “I hope everyone reads this book.”

Hotel USSR, Atbashian’s second book, is the riveting, darkly comic, and poignant story of his coming of age in a totalitarian state, a real-life “Hotel California” (in homage to The Eagles song) that one could never leave – at least until it collapsed. The book follows his tragicomic adventures from childhood through his stages as a worker in Siberian oil fields, an army conscript, an inmate at a forensic psychiatry facility, a visual propaganda artist, a Soviet dissident, and finally an immigrant to America. It is illustrated with many examples of Atbashian’s own colorful, perceptive artwork which includes portraits of himself, loved ones and strangers, and landscapes both real and fantastical – all of which help immerse the reader in the artist’s own perspective of his world.

“People have often asked me what growing up in the USSR felt like,” Atbashian writes. “This book is my answer... Rather than debating Marxism directly, I demonstrate how it fails in practice and what absurdities ensue when the entire state lives in denial of its failures, forcing people not to trust their own eyes.”

Like other children under communism, the young Atbashian was propagandized about the glorious promises of abundance and freedom to be found in a collectivist paradise. He dreamed of a future as an artist, but his ambitions quickly met with resistance because art supplies, and art itself, were reserved for state-approved artists and restricted to propaganda. “I thought I could beat the system and continued to paint,” he writes. “My youthful enthusiasm lasted for several years, until I realized that I’d been beating my head against an impenetrable wall made of regulations that governed our existence within the state.”

“To make us equal, the state regulated our existence in a way that left very few things to our personal discretion,” he says. “We owed our lives to the state and had to abide by its collectivist rules. But with so many rules, not a day went by without breaking at least one or two, because we were human beings, not unfeeling robots.” Subversive music from the free world like rock ‘n’ roll and even the musical Jesus Christ Superstar threatened the Communist system and give Atbashian a taste of liberation. But ultimately, “[w]ith everyone pursuing collective happiness while sacrificing their own, no one ended up happy.”

He gradually woke to the realization that the Communist dream was a fraud; his country was a dysfunctional dictatorship governed by bullies, liars, and thieves. “Out of seemingly good intentions, communists had built an impossible system… locked in a perpetual war against human nature, an uphill battle against the instinct to be free, to pursue happiness, and to care for one’s children. These instincts were vices corroding the collectivist state.”

Atbashian observes that, despite its promises, the Communist revolution brought social, economic, cultural, and technological advancement to a grinding halt. It had frozen time not just in his neighborhood, but in the country as a whole, while progress marched on outside its borders:

In the rest of the world, life galloped forward, creating new music, new fashions, new household gadgets, and new ways of thinking. Some of it was being smuggled into our world, and that’s how we knew about it. That world had no need for smuggling because everything it had was made by the people who lived in it. I wanted to be a part of that world.

He asked himself, “Why did we pretend we were still building communism when most people had stopped believing in it? Why did we live isolated from the rest of the world? Why did we continue to sacrifice our wellbeing to a myth?”

After Atbashian eventually manages to emigrate to the United States and build a life here, he reflects on “the stories of how newly arrived Soviet immigrants would burst out crying on their first visit to an American supermarket”:

Those weren’t the happy tears at the sight of abundance, but rather the tears of anguish at the discovery that everything they’d been taught about the world was a lie, that pain was not the norm of existence, and their sacrifice for the bright future turned out to be a cruel joke played on them by sadistic despots. All the shortages, waiting in lines, the bribes and kickbacks, the art of getting through the back door – none of it had been necessary. The rat race to obtain essentials, which had been their way of life for several generations – it wasn’t normal. Abundance was possible without the five-year plans, quotas, rationing, propaganda, one-party rule, and fear of the all-powerful state.

In one of the book’s most touching moments, Atbashian has a similar revelation upon entering a gigantic art supplies store in Manhattan. “Rows upon rows of shelves brimmed with products that catered to every artistic need. No gatekeeper was checking permissions, and no Artists Union card was required to make a purchase... After the first floor I went to the second, and then to the third. And then I imagined how different my life could have been and broke down in tears.”

Oleg Atbashian’s book leaves no doubt that building a "real socialism that works" is no more possible than building a house based on a mirage. “I hope this story can be an eye-opener for younger people who believe in the false promise of socialism,” Atbashian told me in conversation.

Spread the word about Hotel USSR – it is more likely to change resistant hearts and minds, or at least plant a crucial seed of doubt, than any number of pro-capitalist arguments.

Mark Tapson is the Freedom Center's Shillman Journalism Fellow on Popular Culture - and the Center's Director of Marketing and Media.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Does The Netherlands Have a Problem? - Judith Bergman

by Judith Bergman

The threat assessment by the country's National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, for example, shows that Islamic terrorism has been growing for several years.

  • "The number of Dutch victims of grooming gangs has risen sharply in recent years". It is estimated that rape-groomers force around 1400 under-age girls into sex-slavery every year. — Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad.
  • "Despite stagnating growth, the size of the Dutch jihadist movement is cause for concern." — Terrorist Threat Assessment for the Netherlands (DTN), published by the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism.
  • It is estimated that 140 mosques in the Netherlands are affiliated with the Religious Affairs Directorate of the Republic of Turkey (Diyanet). One sermon, given in the city of Hoorn, was about jihad and martyrdom: "The one who dies in the way of Allah, never call him dead, but call him alive".
"Right-wing extremists are growing more confident. They continue to focus on protesting against the perceived Islamisation of the Netherlands, the arrival of asylum seekers and the perceived loss of Dutch identity..." [emphasis added] wrote Dutch authorities in a September threat assessment.

Islamization in the Netherlands, however, is not merely a "perception" of "right-wing extremists" but an increasingly established trend. The threat assessment by the country's National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, for example, shows that Islamic terrorism has been growing for several years. "Despite stagnating growth, the size of the Dutch jihadist movement is cause for concern," it wrote.
"This group, which grew significantly between 2013 and 2016, may be inclined to embrace a 'revenge narrative' that blames the West for the collapse of the 'caliphate'...Jihadists now no longer have a compelling reason to travel to that part of the world, and their focus has shifted to da'wa, or spreading the jihadist message. This may lead to a rise in the number of jihadists in the Netherlands. In addition to adherents of jihadism, there are also several thousand jihadist sympathisers, and ISIS sympathisers in particular, in the Netherlands."
The Netherlands has been the scene of several attempted jihadist terrorist attacks in recent months. In late September, police arrested seven suspected jihadist terrorists who were planning a massive attack there, including attacking a large event -- the police did not say where -- by attacking the site with automatic rifles and a car bomb. Earlier in September, an Afghan man who had a "terrorist motive" according to Dutch officials, stabbed two Americans at a train station in Amsterdam. "It is apparent from his statements that he believes that in the Netherlands, the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, Islam and Allah are repeatedly insulted," prosecutors said. In August, another man was shot and arrested at a supermarket in the city of Naaldwijk, where he was waving a knife at people while shouting "Allahu Akbar".

The threat level for the Netherlands remains at "substantial" (level 4 on a scale of 1 to 5), which means that the risk of an Islamic terrorist attack in the Netherlands is very real, although not necessarily imminent.

There are several other factors, apart from Islamic terrorism, that show an increase in the Islamization of the Netherlands:

One is the growth of Islamic parties. In the last parliamentary elections, Denk, a Muslim party that was formed six months ahead of the elections by two Turks who were former members of the Socialist party, received one-third of the Muslim vote and three seats in parliament. The party does not hide its affinity for Turkey: Criticism of Turkey is taboo, as is its predictable refusal to name the Turkish mass-slaughter of the Armenians during the First World War a genocide. The Denk party ran on a platform against the integration of immigrants into Dutch society (instead advocating "mutual acceptance", a euphemism for creating parallel Muslim societies); and for the establishment of a "racism police" that would register "offenders" and exclude them from holding public office. In July, a former political activist for Denk, Hussein Jamakovic, sent an email to the Telegraaf newspaper, as well as three other news organizations. The email said, "May you get cancer, you filthy, far-right cancer Jews." The email came after the news outlets brought reports claiming that Jamakovic had expressed sympathy for ISIS. In June, a van was deliberately driven into the entrance of the Telegraaf newspaper's building, where it burst into flames.

Another facet of the increasing Islamization is the preaching of jihad in mosques. The Religious Affairs Directorate of the Republic of Turkey (Diyanet) distributes its official Friday sermons to Turkish mosques across the world; the mainstream media in the Netherlands have publicized at least one case of such a sermon being preached, at the mosque in the city of Hoorn. It is unclear in just how many mosques this sermon was preached, but it is estimated that 140 mosques in the Netherlands are affiliated with the Diyanet. The sermon was about jihad and martyrdom:
"Our soldiers show the whole world that we are sacrificing everything to protect our faith, flag and country. (...) Every son of our country who, in the power of his life, drinks the sweet nectar of martyrdom, shouts at us. (...) The one who dies in the way of Allah, never call him dead, but call him alive".
According to the Diyanet representative in The Hague, Dutch-Turkish imams write their own sermons. He then claimed that the war sermon was not preached anywhere in the Netherlands. That is simply not credible -- why would the Diyanet make an exception for Turkish Muslims in the Netherlands of all the places it seeks to influence?

The new mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, said in September that she would close down mosques if imams are spreading messages of hate, but "only as a last resort". According to, Halsema said that closing mosques is "a very rigorous [action] and that is something you only do as a last resort." You must be able to act if "an imam gives disgusting sermons, such as saying women should be subservient or that homosexuality is a crime". According to the news report, she also said that, unlike her predecessor, Jozias van Aartsen, she did not plan to develop links with fundamentalist and Salafist organizations. "I will not invite people who are not democratic and who do not take equality between men and women seriously to the office," she said.

Another aspect of the increasing Islamization is that vandalism and violence against Jews have risen dramatically. A report published by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service in April listed 144 confirmed criminal offenses in 2017 involving hate crimes, including intimidation, vandalism, assault and incitement to hate or violence. Of those cases, 41 percent were "directed against Jews," who only account for 0.2 percent of the Dutch population.

A poll of 557 Dutch Jews published in November showed that nearly half of them were afraid of identifying themselves as Jews, with 43% saying they take active steps to hide their Jewish identity and 52% saying anti-Semitism on the street has become more common. In addition, 34% said they had experienced anti-Semitic remarks directed against them and 11% had experienced anti-Semitic violence directed against them.

In December 2017, a Syrian asylum seeker, Saleh Ali, smashed the windows of a kosher restaurant in Amsterdam. For that, he served just 52 days in prison even though he had reportedly told an officer that the attack was "only the first step." Asked about the next step, he said: "I will tell you later, no one needs to know."

In May, a Syrian asylum seeker, Malek F, stabbed three people in the Hague, while looking to harm "Christian and Jewish kuffars " according to the prosecution's report of the recent trial. He said that "kuffars" [unbelievers] were akin to "animals or retarded people". Two days earlier, Malek F. had brought a knife to a church in The Hague but when no one opened the door when he knocked, he left.

Yet another disquieting characteristic of the Islamization is the grooming and rape of under-age girls, as seen for more than a decade in the UK. According to recent reports, "The number of Dutch victims of grooming gangs has risen sharply in recent years". It is estimated that rape-groomers force around 1,400 under-age girls into sex-slavery every year. Known in the Netherlands as "loverboys", they groom the girls with drugs, alcohol and gifts and then blackmail them into sex-slavery. Research has shown that 89% of the rape-groomers have migrant origins and that 60% are Muslims. Some young girls have 20 "customers" a day. "Minors are set to work in another country [Belgium] as a method to keep them from running away" according to reports. The men can earn "up to 800 euros a day on a girl".

Does the Netherlands have a problem?

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter