Friday, December 3, 2021

'Collaborating with the mullahs': Iranian dissidents warn US not to return to the nuclear deal - Eric Shawn

 

​ by Eric Shawn

Ali Khamenei, wants an Iranian nuclear bomb "to guarantee his power.

Iran anti-government activists talk to Fox News, share urgent message for Biden

Activists urge President Biden to side with Iranian protests against the regime; Fox News senior correspondent Eric Shawn has the exclusive.

While Iran announced that it is escalating its nuclear program, despite the Vienna talks aimed at preventing just that, Iranian activists are speaking out to Fox News.

"My message to President Biden, it is that the regime of Iran does not represent the people of Iran," said Ali, an Iranian activist who, like the others, warns of the consequences of the U.S. dropping sanctions against Iran if it re-enters the Iranian nuclear agreement.

"If the U.S. goes back to the nuclear deal, that's the same thing would happen as happened back in 2015. Iran, the regime of Iran, is going to gain almost $160 billion and 1.7 billion Euros, and yet it is not going to stop its nuclear actions, and actually they even develop their ballistics and drone military drone programs."

BIDEN, EUROPEANS TAKE UP IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN ROME TALKS

"You asked what will happen if the United States returns to JCPOA? I say frankly that this will be a tragedy," says Sima, another activist who says the administration should not even entertain Tehran's demands about the deal, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

"The message of the U.S.’s return to JCPOA to us, Iranians, is that the U.S. is collaborating with the Mullahs in suppressing and killing the Iranian people and the Mullahs’ crimes against us, that serves the dictatorship and religious fascism. How can ransom be paid to a regime that brutally kills its own people?"

"After the JCPOA deal in 2015, the regime took the cash and spent it on terrorism. Our women in Iran resort to prostitution for a piece of bread," she says. "Lifting sanctions or giving cash to the regime will only prolong its life, the life of the dictatorship."

TOPSHOT - This picture taken on July 4, 2017, and released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on July 5, 2017, shows the successful test-fire of the intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 at an undisclosed location. South Korea and the United States fired off missiles on July 5 simulating a precision strike against North Korea's leadership, in response to a landmark ICBM test described by Kim Jong-Un as a gift to "American bastards".

TOPSHOT - This picture taken on July 4, 2017, and released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on July 5, 2017, shows the successful test-fire of the intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 at an undisclosed location. South Korea and the United States fired off missiles on July 5 simulating a precision strike against North Korea's leadership, in response to a landmark ICBM test described by Kim Jong-Un as a gift to "American bastards". (Getty Images)

For months, massive protests have spread throughout the country from people calling for the overthrow of the regime, unhappy with government policies that have led to a troubled economy, rationing, and shortages of goods. Reports say thousands of demonstrators have been arrested or killed by regime forces. Fox News is not identifying the activists whom we spoke to for their own safety. But they are united in their opposition to the regime and steadfast in their message to President Biden and the American people.

"I want President Biden to be by the side of the people of Iran, the people who have been participating in different uprisings against the regime of Iran. Actually, now we are approaching the second anniversary of the November of 2019, where there was one of the biggest uprisings in the recent history of the regime. Where they could only maintain the people by killing more than 1,400 people on the streets and capturing and imprisoning more than twenty thousand people," Ali told us.

"I want President Biden to know that the experience of the past 42 years has showed that the politics of appeasement does not work anymore. For instance, we saw that the nuclear deal of 2015 did not to limit Iran's actions towards achieving a nuclear weapon. Therefore, there is no time for the politics of appeasement."

Iran's new President-elect Ebrahim Raisi speaks during a press conference in Tehran, Iran, on Monday.

Iran's new President-elect Ebrahim Raisi speaks during a press conference in Tehran, Iran, on Monday. (AP Photo)

The administration has said that it will only return to the deal and lift billions of dollars in U.S. sanctions, if Tehran lives up to the agreement. But the Iranian negotiators in Vienna have demanded that the U.S. sanctions be dropped first, potentially freeing up billions of dollars in new revenue for the regime, even before the talks can consider the nuclear program.

Supporters of the nuclear deal have said that it has prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, and ensures transparency of the Iranian nuclear program for international monitors from the United Nation's IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the activists say the agreement will pave the way for Tehran to be free to obtain nuclear weapons when the agreement ends, which is now set for October 2025.

IRAN DIGS IN AT NUCLEAR DEAL TALKS, CONTRADICTING EU DIPLOMAT

Some of the protestors, including the ones we talked to, are members of the largest Iranian opposition group, The National Council of Resistance of Iran. The group's leader, Maryam Rajavi, has been warning about Iran's nuclear intentions.

"The IAEA believes that the regime is close to making a bomb, an outcome of the policy of complacency," Rajavi recently told the French National Assembly.

"Because of the lack of a firm policy, the regime has always taken advantage of negotiations to strengthen itself and prepare itself for further aggressions."

TEHRAN, IRAN - NOVEMBER 03: (----EDITORIAL USE ONLY â MANDATORY CREDIT - "IRANIAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE / HANDOUT" - NO MARKETING NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS - DISTRIBUTED AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS----) Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gives a live broadcast on state television on the occasion of Mawlid al-Nabi or Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) birth anniversary in Tehran, Iran on November 03, 2020. (Photo by Iranian Leader Press Office / Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

TEHRAN, IRAN - NOVEMBER 03: (----EDITORIAL USE ONLY â MANDATORY CREDIT - "IRANIAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE / HANDOUT" - NO MARKETING NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS - DISTRIBUTED AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS----) Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gives a live broadcast on state television on the occasion of Mawlid al-Nabi or Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) birth anniversary in Tehran, Iran on November 03, 2020. (Photo by Iranian Leader Press Office / Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) (Getty Images)

She says that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, wants an Iranian nuclear bomb "to guarantee his power. He wants to hold world peace and security hostage to gain concessions. The only factor that can stop him is the Iranian people’s organized resistance and uprising."

The group says that the regime's hold is fragile, and that the reported killing of more than 1,500 protestors during street protests two years ago is proof that the government will resort to deadly brutality to try and maintain its grip on power.

"The Iranian people want the overthrow of the regime and a free and democratic society," Rajavi says.

Ali, one of the activists we talked to, echoes those sentiments.

"The truth is, no one is going to hand us freedom on a silver platter. As Thomas Jefferson said, the Tree of Liberty, most from time to time be refreshed by the blood of the Patriots. We are ready and willing to pay the full price and give our lives for the future of Iran to be free."

Follow Eric Shawn on Twitter: @EricShawnTV

 

Eric Shawn

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/world/iranian-dissidents-warn-us-nuclear-deal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China Prepared to Launch Hostilities Against India Along Disputed Himalayan Border - Lawrence A. Franklin

 

​ by Lawrence A. Franklin

It is likely that China will again initiate armed skirmishes along disputed border regions to test the Biden Administration's will to defend U.S. allies.

  • While working talks have resumed, both China and India have reinforced their air and ground assets. China has advanced fighter jets at three air bases within striking distance of Indian military positions.

  • Indian diplomats have loudly denounced a recent law passed by the Chinese national legislature, the National People's Congress, which makes it mandatory for China's leaders never to negotiate away one inch of professed Chinese territory. The legislation referred to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity as "sacred and inviolable."

  • China also has underscored its inflexibility by constructing extended civilian housing along the Line of Actual Control, thereby defying Indian counterclaims that these future habitats are being built on territory seized by China.

  • It is likely that China will again initiate armed skirmishes along disputed border regions to test the Biden Administration's will to defend U.S. allies.

  • China will doubtless factor U.S. responses to its attacks on allied countries in the Indo-Pacific region into its decision-making calculus on how best to seize Taiwan.

Despite bilateral military talks between Chinese and Indian officers, tensions remain high along the "Line of Actual Control" border between China and India, where military clashes occurred in May and June 2020. Both countries have reinforced their air and ground assets. China has advanced fighter jets at three air bases within striking distance of Indian military positions. Pictured: An Indian army convoy travels towards Leh through Zoji La, a high mountain pass bordering China on June 13, 2021 in Ladakh, India. (Photo by Yawar Nazir/Getty Images)

Chinese missile-laden bombers flew over a contested border area with India recently, following the breakdown of bilateral talks between Indian and Chinese regional military commanders.

The near-simultaneity of the collapse of military negotiations and the threatening fly-over by People's Liberation Army Air Force bombers underscores China's willingness to punish India for having resisted Beijing's territorial claims and aggression in the region.

China's aggressive stance may also be, in part, motivated by Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's testing of the U.S. effort to develop strategic cooperation among America's Pacific allies in order to curb Chinese expansionist policies. China is most likely also attempting to weaken the resolve of the non-U.S. countries of the so-called Quad -- India, Australia and Japan -- to rely on American promises to defend them.

Military clashes between China and India occurred in early May 2020, continuing until mid-June, along the "Line of Actual Control" (LAC) border near India's Eastern Ladakh region, which abuts the Chinese territory of the Tibetan (Xizang) Autonomous Region. After these clashes, China and India implemented a three-tiered negotiating system between field-grade officers, colonel-level officers, and general officers of the two sides. This bilateral de-confliction apparatus, called the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) between Chinese and Indian Corps Commanders, collapsed in acrimony during the WMCC's 13th meeting in New Delhi.

During the hiatus period between WMCC meetings, China's Air Force, in a clear warning to India, dispatched H-6K bombers to the disputed border. Subsequently, on November 18, China and India's foreign ministries agreed to hold a 14th WMCC session in the near future, in an apparent effort to restore border stability. During the months that followed the deadly clashes in 2020, during WMCC sessions, both sides withdrew forward-deployed heavy weapons in the Gorga and Pangong Tso (Pandong) glacial lake disengagement areas. But in the bitterly contested Eastern Ladakh area of Hot Springs, concentrations of bilateral troops remain dangerously confrontational and proximate.

Despite these bilateral military talks between Chinese and Indian officers, tensions along the LAC remain high. While working talks have resumed, both China and India have reinforced their air and ground assets. China has advanced fighter jets at three air bases within striking distance of Indian military positions. In Ladakh, India has deployed Apache attack helicopters, and MiG-29 and SU-30 fighter aircraft. India also has deployed air defense weapons near the LAC and reportedly plans to purchase Russia's most advanced deployed S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

The latest political moves by both China and India also indicate that border tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals will continue. Indian diplomats have loudly denounced a recent land border law passed by the Chinese national legislature, the National People's Congress, which makes it mandatory for China's leaders never to negotiate away one inch of professed Chinese territory. The legislation referred to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity as "sacred and inviolable." China also has underscored its inflexibility by constructing extended civilian housing along the Line of Actual Control, thereby defying Indian counterclaims that these future habitats are being built on territory seized by China.

It is likely that China will again initiate armed skirmishes along disputed border regions to test the Biden Administration's will to defend U.S. allies.

China will doubtless factor U.S. responses to its attacks on allied countries in the Indo-Pacific region into its decision-making calculus on how best to seize Taiwan.

 

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17994/china-india-himalayas-border

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

University of Toronto’s Jewish Problem - Richard L. Cravatts

 

​ by Richard L. Cravatts

Social justice warriors seek to blacklist and purge pro-Israel Jews from campus.

 


As if to confirm the depth of its anti-Israel animus, the Student Union of the University of Toronto at Scarborough (SCSU) passed a poisonous motion during its virtual November 24th meeting stipulating that the student union “reaffirm its commitment to the BDS movement by . . . rais[ing] awareness about Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine and war crimes against Palestinian peoples;” in light of this, the union decided the University must “refrain from engaging with organizations, services, or take part in events that further normalize Israeli apartheid . . ,” and even ban speakers from campus who “support the military occupation of Palestine.”

More insidious was an item from an original motion passed in 2013 that will require that any kosher food brought to campus must be sourced from firms that do not support “Israeli apartheid,” not to mention the creation of a pernicious “BDS List” that will serve to blacklist organizations that support Israel.

This recent vote is the latest in a long campaign of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic actions at the University of Toronto, activism which has created a hostile climate for Jewish students, a situation which has not gone unnoticed. In June of 2020, for example, B’nai Brith Canada’s League for Human Rights, together with two U of T professors, Stuart Kamenetsky and Howard Tenenbaum, produced a lengthy and substantive report, “Confronting Antisemitism at the University of Toronto: A Path Forward,” written for the University’s president, Meric Gertler. That report, which fastidiously reviewed a long list of anti-Israel events and their deleterious effect on Jewish students, went largely ignored by the university’s administration, troubling in light of the many bigoted events cataloged in the report.

At this particular university, specifically, the University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union (UTGSU) has the dubious distinction of being the only student union in Canada with a committee dedicated solely to promoting the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and in 2019 outrageously rejected Hillel’s request to recognize the “Kosher Forward” campaign to have kosher food offered on campus since, as the Union decided in their grotesquely anti-Semitic way, Hillel is pro-Israel and therefore kosher food should not be allowed.

What is next for the purge of anyone who might be considered pro-Israel? No Jews allowed in cafeterias that use Soda Stream products? The removal of Jewish names from endowed professorships or campus buildings if those benefactors supported Israel? Will “Open Hillel” centers—those renegade Hillels which allow pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel dialogue and events to take place in their spaces—be allowed to remain on campuses but conventional, pro-Israel Hillels not?

Will professors who teach Jewish studies courses, or within Middle East studies departments, have to confess their opposition to Israel and Zionism in order to remain on the faculty? Will pro-Israel students be allowed to run for student government positions at all, given that they have admitted their support for and allegiance to what is alleged to be a racist, militaristic, colonial, apartheid regime? Will these pro-Israel students even be allowed to participate in the activities of other campus student clubs and organizations?

These future prohibitions seem irrational and improbable now, but a campus of woke students who feel empowered by their own sense of righteousness and moral rectitude—and who have the temerity to banish Kosher food from a campus to injure their fellow Jewish students—might well enforce even more pernicious regulations to purge campuses completely of any Jewish supporters of Israel in the name of Palestinian self-determination. Why would they not take these actions in the name of social justice once they have deluded themselves with a false narrative of the irredeemable guilt and immorality of the Jewish state and innocence and worthiness of the Palestinian Arabs?

If Israel is the new Third Reich—as many of its enemies assert—then who would not support moves to purge its supporters from polite society?

That is the precise danger of such campaigns to marginalize and expel individuals, or, in this case, a country—Israel—from the academic community: that as it ratchets up in intensity and reach, it becomes more destructive, more bigoted, more fanatically anti-Semitic because it focuses only on one country’s behavior and politics, even though many other countries are worse human rights abusers and have far more egregious and long-standing records of oppressing minority or fringe groups in their respective societies.

If the U of T students focus only on the so-called “occupation” of Judea and Samaria but ignore China’s occupation of Tibet or Turkey’s of Crete; if they are silent about China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims languishing in veritable concentration camps; if they ignore the treatment of gays in Iran where offenders are hung from cranes or thrown off tall buildings; if they close their eyes to gender apartheid and the repression of women in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East; if they refer to Palestinian terrorism as “resistance” and excuse its use in the murder of Jews—if they fecklessly side-step judgment about any or all of these serious current human tragedies but singularly obsess, as they do, over Israel and its supporters, then they are exhibiting anti-Semitic behavior and speech as outlined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IRHA) definition of anti-Semitism.

Given the stench of anti-Semitism that has been emanating from UT’s student government for several years now as a result of the school’s repugnant anti-Israel activism, Jewish students responded at the November 24th meeting with a motion of their own, “Re-Affirmation of Rights of Jewish Students at UTSC,” written to help insulate them from further anti-Jewish bigotry. Despite the good intentions of the Jewish students submitting the motion, however, Israel’s opponents in the student government outrageously redacted key language in the motion which would have protected pro-Israel Jews from being targeted, maligned, and excluded from campus dialogue.

One key section deleted from the motion, for example, reasonably requested the student union to “re-affirm its commitment to ensuring that Jewish students are unencumbered by discriminatory policies or actions by the union or its officers . . . by recognizing the right of Jewish students, like all students, to organize & advertise events to express their political, cultural and/or religious views.” For any other minority group of campus, this language, of course, would never be controversial; when the debate is about Israel and Jews, however, normality disappears.

One tactic of campus anti-Israel activists—groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, for example—is to attempt to suppress any pro-Israel views or any efforts at answering back to the calumnies spread about the Jewish state. Free speech and the opportunity to openly debate important issues are, of course, fundamental to the role of universities, but the pro-Palestinian camp has been determined to allow only one narrative—one which portrays Israel as a racist, militaristic, colonial occupier of stolen land. So it was unsurprising that another section of the Jewish students’ motion that was excised was the section that requested that the SCSU “Defend the principles of academic freedom” so students, faculty, and staff would be able to “attend lectures, workshops, and films about Israel and/or Palestine;” “participate in joint research with Israelis and Israeli institutions;” “enroll in classes in conjunction with Israeli universities;” and “travel and study abroad in Israel or with organizations that support Israel or Zionism.”

No other country in the world is targeted by woke students as being such a global pariah that students are forbidden from visiting, yet this entire benign section was deleted precisely because it allowed students to create and maintain an academic or spiritual affiliation with Israel.

Imagine if a student government yanked accommodations for halal food on campus because Islam can be linked to terrorism, the same spurious linkage these social justice cretins have created for “apartheid” Israel, Zionism, and Kosher foods from pro-Israel companies. The campus-wide howling about Islamophobia and bigotry would be deafening. And since when are Jewish students—who may not support or even care about Israel—responsible for the political behavior of a foreign country thousands of miles away from campus and made to suffer for it?

This campaign, of course, is part of a broader effort to marginalize Jewish students, malign Israel and Zionism without debate, contort history and facts to elevate the Palestinian cause and denigrate the Jewish state, and promote hatred and hostility to any supporter of Israel. So, in addition to denying Jews access to Kosher food on campus, Israel-haters have made moves to: reject the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism, as well, claiming it suppresses Palestinian solidarity; decide who are “bad” Jews and who are “good” Jews based on their support or opposition to Israel; proclaim, mistakenly, that anti-Zionism never amounts to anti-Semitism, although the IRHA definition designates the denial of Jewish self-determination as actually being anti-Semitic; claim they speak for Jews in deciding that Zionism has nothing at all to do with Judaism; or announce that Zionism itself is anti-Semitic; in other words, that these toxic, bigoted activists want to continue to be anti-Semitic and reject any steps taken by others to reveal and sanction that hatred.

“A poisoned atmosphere of antisemitism has been allowed to fester for years at the University of Toronto. And it continues to roil campus life for Jewish students, faculty and staff,” observed the authors of the B’nai Brith report in a subsequent article. “It is beyond scandalous that a prestigious university officially committed to ‘diversity, inclusion, and respect’ could have permitted antisemitism to become, by its own admission, a systemic form of racism on campus.”

The fact that this same situation exists on campuses throughout Canada and the United States represents a grave moral failure and is a shameful reality for which administrators will someday have to answer.

 

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/12/university-torontos-jewish-problem-richard-l-cravatts/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Kyle Rittenhouse Case - Send in the Clowns - Larry Elder

 

​ by Larry Elder

Insanity based on falsehoods recklessly peddled by media and politicians.

 

 

During and after the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the white 18-year-old accused of murdering two white men and injuring another, one could hardly keep track of the insanity based on falsehoods recklessly peddled by media and politicians.

In Chicago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson marched in the front line of a group of protesters where some chanted, "When black lives are under attack, what do we do?"

Black lives under attack? Rittenhouse is white, as were the two men he shot dead and the man he injured.

In September 2020, presidential candidate Joe Biden posted a video that included a picture of Rittenhouse, slamming President Donald Trump for "refusing to disavow white supremacists." But the New York Post's Miranda Devine wrote: "The accusation has become holy writ, but there is zero evidence. The FBI scoured Kyle's phone and found nothing about white supremacy or militias, the court heard. All they saw were pro-police, 'Blue Lives Matter' posts from a kid who had been a police and fire department cadet, wanted to be a police officer or paramedic and once sat near the front of a Trump rally. That was enough for the media to brand him a white supremacist."

PolitiFact claimed that Rittenhouse was illegally in the possession of a firearm: "The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin."

But The New York Times wrote: "The judge in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial on Monday dismissed the misdemeanor gun possession charge the teenager faced after defense lawyers argued that he did not violate the state statute in question because of his age and the length of the barrel of his semiautomatic rifle. ... The statute says it applies to minors carrying a rifle or shotgun only if they are not in compliance with at least one additional statute (including) the prohibition of rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long.

"Mr. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings. The judge threw out the charge after nobody in court disputed the length of the gun's barrel."

Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said: "Here you have a 17-year-old boy who was driven by his mother across state lines with an automatic weapon — frankly, she should have been detained for child endangerment — to go to a protest."

But Fackcheck.org wrote: "The Smith & Wesson semiautomatic rifle that Rittenhouse used in the shootings was already in Wisconsin, according to court testimony and police interviews. ... Using money that Rittenhouse gave him, Dominick Black, a friend who also dated one of Rittenhouse's sisters, bought the gun at a hardware store in Ladysmith, Wisconsin, in May 2020. Black, who was 18 at the time, purchased the gun for Rittenhouse, who at age 17 was too young to legally buy it for himself. In court this month, Black and Rittenhouse said they agreed that Black would hold onto the rifle until Rittenhouse turned 18 in January 2021, and that it would be kept at Black's home in Kenosha."

NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said, "It's hard to reconcile the verdict with the experience that many African Americans have faced over the several decades." But reportedly the jury was not all white. Chicago's WTTW reported: "It consisted of seven women and five men, all of them were white except one person of color." If so, does that mean the other 11 white jurors browbeat "the person of color" into finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all five counts?

One more note of madness. Consider this tweet posted before the verdict by Gregory McKelvey, vice chairman of the Oregon Democrats Black Caucus: "Employers, consider giving your Black employees a day or two off after the Rittenhouse verdict. Regardless of the outcome, it's going to be hard for Black people to work and it isn't fair to expect them to."

Why complain? This means I'm not required to write a column this week.

 

Larry Elder

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/12/kyle-rittenhouse-case-send-clowns-larry-elder/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Vaccines and Power - Chris Farrell

 

​ by Chris Farrell

We must resist authoritarian impulses and exercises by various officials seeking to consolidate power and impose their will over the constitutional processes and guarantees we enjoy.

  • Given Germany's notorious history of brutally stigmatizing various minority populations, it is shocking and outrageous that a German "research institute" and the Hamburg-based weekly news magazine would sink to such sleazy malice.

  • The U.S. Constitution is not "waived" due to disease or natural disaster. We must beware of politicians and other officials who seek to exercise power through "mandates" without a single vote or the active exercise of informed consent.

  • COVID-19 is a serious disease, but it bears constant repeating that the recovery rate now is between 97% and 99.75%.

  • We must resist authoritarian impulses and exercises by various officials seeking to consolidate power and impose their will over the constitutional processes and guarantees we enjoy. Our Constitution was designed and ratified for exactly such challenges and it has endured 231 years through a myriad of challenges far more grave than a virus.

The U.S. Constitution is not "waived" due to disease or natural disaster. We must beware of politicians and other officials who seek to exercise power through "mandates" without a single vote or the active exercise of informed consent. Our Constitution was designed and ratified for exactly such challenges and it has endured 231 years through a myriad of challenges far more grave than a virus. (Image source: iStock)

COVID-19 is a serious disease that can have deadly consequences. The good news is that now the recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%. As the world approaches its second full year grappling with the ever-mutating virus and the public health response, some serious public policy and political questions require attention:

  • Are some people looking to leverage vaccination status to stigmatize and marginalize political opponents?
  • Is vaccine status being equated with ideology or political affiliation?
  • Is vaccine status going to be the new societal discriminator for those who might be "more equal" than others?
  • Are we seeing efforts to control and pressure citizens for daring to question government officials?
  • What about officials who seek to change the meaning of terms such as "fully vaccinated," or altogether abandon terms and conditions that were used to persuade the public to shut down businesses and society at-large.

The German news magazine, Der Spiegel, recently featured a story titled: "Study Finds Link Between Far Right and High Corona Rates in Germany." The subtitle of the story is:

"The number of coronavirus infections is rising sharply in parts of Germany where the far-right AfD party enjoys greater support. Is it a coincidence? Researchers took a close look at the corollaries and drew some conclusions that surprised even them."

Der Spiegel reporters Holger Dambeck and Peter Maxwill reported:

"An interdisciplinary team at the Research Institute for Social Cohesion and a researcher from Munich systematically investigated the connection between the election results and the spread of the pathogen. The experts' findings are clear: The higher the number of votes the AfD got in a region in the 2017 election, the faster the coronavirus spread there in 2020."

The broader political messaging is clear: Conservatives are disease-spreading troglodytes that endanger civilization.

The sensationalized findings focus on correlation and not a causal relationship, so the study and the speculative reporting are transparently sloppy smear-jobs. The real objective of both the study and the magazine reporting is clearly to damage political opponents by associating them with a deadly disease.

Given Germany's notorious history of brutally stigmatizing various minority populations, it is shocking and outrageous that a German "research institute" and the Hamburg-based weekly news magazine would sink to such sleazy malice.

Sadly, the United States has its own set of operatives seeking to marginalize those who question vaccine mandates, as well as persons with valid reservations concerning the long-term safety and efficacy of the various vaccines. In the British medical journal, The Lancet, Dr. Günter Kampf, a professor at the Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Science at the University of Greifswald in Germany, wrote an important, brief piece, published on November 20, 2021: "COVID-19: Stigmatizing the Unvaccinated is Not Justified." Kampf wrote:

"In the USA and Germany, high-level officials have used the term pandemic of the unvaccinated, suggesting that people who have been vaccinated are not relevant in the epidemiology of COVID-19. Officials' use of this phrase might have encouraged one scientist to claim that 'the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated for COVID-19'. But this view is far too simple."

Kampf goes on to detail substantial, documented evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in COVID-19 transmission. He describes a July 2021 COVID outbreak in Massachusetts, wherein 74% of the cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated. He closes his argument with a plea:

"I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatization of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together."

Kampf is not alone. Dr. Paul Elias Alexander is a clinical epidemiologist who teaches evidence-based medicine and research methodology. He was also a senior advisor on COVID pandemic policy for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Alexander has been published by the Brownstone Institute, writing:

"... existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination... Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable."

Alexander's report on naturally acquired immunity to Covid-19 seems to be ignored in the media and by government officials. Why is that? 130 research studies discussing the relative merits and protections of natural immunity appear to be scrupulously ignored. One would think that a full, open and honest public dialogue and corresponding public treatment plan would discuss the full spectrum of medical facts, conditions, and treatments.

Conspicuous for defying convention and taking the broader, holistic approach to COVID-19 is Florida's Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who holds both MD and PhD degrees from Harvard. He is the refreshing exception to authoritarianism and a seemingly endless cycle of public scare tactics.

We are seeing a growing authoritarianism by governments across the globe concerning the drive to vaccinate everyone: mandates, lockdowns, vaccine passports and restrictions on civil liberties. We are also seeing a corresponding resistance to heavy-handed, government imposed measures. Protests have erupted across Europe over renewed lockdown drives by European governments. Australians are also now pushing back in protest.

The Biden administration attempted to issue an unprecedented federal mandate for vaccination, that has been thwarted (for the time-being) by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court made it explicitly clear that the mandate raises grave constitutional concerns. Nonetheless, the Biden White House arrogantly "encouraged" — some might say ordered – businesses to continue forward with forcing employees to be vaccinated.

Despite the Biden White House's seemingly power-mad drive to defy courts, browbeat businesses, and intimidate citizens, this is still the United States and the Constitution is still the law of the land. Even though the normally vocal "my body, my choice" crowd seems to have vanished hypocritically from the public square over vaccine choice — American workers are pushing back against the fascist-like government/corporate partnership demanding vaccinations.

COVID-19 is a serious disease, but it bears constant repeating that the recovery rate now is between 97% and 99.75%. The American public has never had a federal vaccine mandate imposed upon it. Fear, shock, intimidation and ultimatums are not the decision-making components of a representative democracy. The Constitution is not "waived" due to disease or natural disaster. We must beware of politicians and other officials who seek to exercise power through "mandates" without a single vote or the active exercise of informed consent.

We must resist authoritarian impulses and exercises by various officials seeking to consolidate power and impose their will over the constitutional processes and guarantees we enjoy. Our Constitution was designed and ratified for exactly such challenges and it has endured 231 years through a myriad of challenges far more grave than a virus. The Constitution guarantees that we remain a country of freedom and opportunity in spite of a pandemic and those officials seeking to address public health.

 

Chris Farrell is Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17984/vaccines-and-power

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Frogs Have Begun Fleeing the Government's Boiling Pot - J. B. Shurk

 

​ by J. B. Shurk

The world is waking up to the reality that only one real conflict exists — that between individual liberty and total State domination.

The federal government spies on every email, text, and call you make.  It uses your phone's location services to pinpoint where you are at all times.  It knows which I.P. addresses are associated with online comments that have been deemed "politically incorrect."  Its partnerships with Amazon and Walmart let it know what you're reading and buying.  Its partnerships with Google and Facebook let it know what you're thinking.  Its partnerships with Twitter and Hollywood allow it to censor unapproved messages before too many brains have the opportunity to consider new thoughts.  Its alliance with credit card companies allows it to track all your financial transactions and thereby understand your habits, preferences, choices, and addictions.  Its alliance with cellular companies allows it to monitor all your movements, contacts, and associations.  And all of these consumer comforts that are used by the "national security" surveillance state to watch everyone in real time constantly measure every American's potential for subversiveness, even when that American is engaged in the most mundane things during the course of an ordinary day.  

Now, whom does the government fear most under these conditions?  Hint: It is not the millions of illegal aliens who pour through our uncontrolled borders (during supposedly the greatest pandemic threat in a century), or foreign governments that bankroll American elected officials (How else could Biden and other lifelong politicians be millionaires?), or the threat of an electromagnetic pulse attack taking out America's aging electrical grid (because Congress's "infrastructure" spending won't bother fixing actual infrastructure when there are so many campaign donors and special interest groups to pay off).  

Rather, it is the person who has no problem walking away from the government's panopticon to go hunting in the woods, who decides to pay in cash, or who has woken up to the reality that the federal government is in the business of control.  It is the solitary American capable of questioning the government's official State narrative and willing to think for himself who scares the bejesus out of the powers that be.  It is the patriotic grandmother who has the temerity to show up at the nation's capitol after a heavily disputed election to wave a Trump flag while drinking hot chocolate.  It is the parent who has the gall to believe that the public should be in charge of public education.  It is the humble police officer publicly outed and fired for privately giving a word of encouragement to an innocent teenager politically persecuted for defending his life against a State-sanctioned Antifa mob.  It is the health care worker, firefighter, blue-collar worker, or soldier who refuses to let Big Brother pump him full of experimental gene therapies for the remainder of his life just because people who wear their prestige like crowns proclaim, "You must because we say."  In other words, governments pretending to protect freedom are most afraid of individuals who insist on being free.  

Does this seem like a system that is destined to survive?  

Although I am deeply sympathetic with those Americans who throw up their arms in hopelessness and fatigue at the growing authoritarian State that is visible everywhere, I would point out that self-sustaining human systems function best when individual, voluntary acts interchange organically and invisibly to keep the societal machine running from the bottom up.  When coercion and surveillance are required to artificially keep society intact through a top-to-bottom tyrannical squeeze, the whole system is at risk of collapse from a single dissenting voice that chooses to throw sand into the rusting, brittle cogs.  When the social fabric is knit together with individual free will, you get an American flag for which people are willing to die.  When governing elites choose to push their sinister interests upon the masses through the threat of punishment and the attractiveness of cheap rewards, you get a meaningless, multicultural ball of yarn that free-thinking people learn to kick around for sport.  

Authoritarianism has taken root in America?  Yes.  The police state is beginning to enforce its will at the expense of dissent?  Certainly.  All hope is lost because the political left's "long march through the institutions" is heading up the front drive toward total victory?  Au contraire!  The State's slow yet relentless takeover of society may have achieved success this last century by dedicating its enormous energy to rounding up all the independent-minded frogs and throwing them into the same barely simmering pot under close watch until those in power became hungry enough to feast, but now our totalitarian cooks have begun boiling the societal pot with such intemperance that the more slippery frogs have begun squirming to safety and threaten to topple over the whole cauldron, leaving the tyrants with nothing to eat.

Watching the government lay down fresh mandates and executive orders demanding that citizens submit to its will or suffer the consequences should be seen not as a sign of unstoppable power, but rather as evidence that its grip on power is spinning out of control.  For the time being, even its most important objectives — training Americans to accept forced injections and digital passports — have been put on hold because too much of the workforce has said, "No."  What's the lesson here?  That pushing back on the immoral and unconstitutional dictates of a government exercising illegitimate power works!  And, even more importantly, that the government is more afraid of the people than the people should ever be of their government!

Let me be clear.  We have had a three-body problem in the United States since World War II: (1) the Democrats have been steadily pushing Marxist socialism upon the American people while claiming to liberate them; (2) with the exception of small reprieves provided by Presidents Reagan and Trump, Establishment Republicans have falsely presented themselves as stewards of the inalienable rights and liberties defended by our Founding Fathers while actually providing aid and comfort to the Democrat's Big Government conquest of America; and (3) a nefarious shadow bureaucracy made up of the permanent D.C. Leviathan, multinational firms, and a financial aristocracy controlling and manipulating the dollar's value and therefore each American's personal wealth has pushed unprincipled elected "leaders" to do what's in its sinister interests while actively harming the best interests of the people they purport to represent.  This was as true thirty years ago as it is true today.  What is the difference now?  The cat's out of the bag, and more and more Americans are acutely aware that the U.S. government works against their self-determination.

On this side of the battlefield, our banners proclaim, "free speech," "freedom of conscience," and "free will."  Our warriors cherish liberty; the right to own property through the efforts of one's own labor; the right to approach the world with an open mind capable of seeking universal truths; and the certainty that they, and not some king or queen, are responsible for their own destiny.  On the other side is a crumbling system dependent on State propaganda, censorship, threats of force, and total control.  Those are all fearsome tools of government, to be sure, but they don't look so attractive when held high atop banners for all to see, nor do they rally the hearts of men to charge forth against some enemy army, especially when that might mean willingly sacrificing themselves in defense of the intangible virtues of glorious ideas that sometimes require the "last full measure of devotion" to persevere.

So the world is waking up to the reality that only one real conflict exists — that between individual liberty and total State domination.  Thanks to decades of taxation and money-printing, states sure do have a lot of pretty toys.  But with history as a guide, I'll bet every time on those poor souls who choose to defend freedom.

 Image via Pxhere.

J. B. Shurk

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/12/the_frogs_have_begun_fleeing_the_governments_boiling_pot.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

White House comms team is so desperate to dodge responsibility for supply chain crisis that it had Biden say something self-evidently stupid - Thomas Lifson

 

​ by Thomas Lifson

They are trying to defraud the American people, selling a senile, corrupt pol as a fitting occupant of the Oval Office.

I almost feel sorry for the people who tell Joe Biden what to say.  They are stuck with a guy who was never that sharp and who is in steep cognitive decline.  He stumbles over his words all the time, and he squints when he reads even the jumbo-sized teleprompters, making him look a bit like the dueling banjo guy in Deliverance.


YouTube screen grab.

Compounding their problem, they have to sell policies that are idiotic and indefensible and justify the terrible results.

Case in point: Yesterday, well aware that people are upset to find empty store shelves (which is not just inconvenient and frustrating, but an awful reminder that we're on the path toward becoming Venezuela), they had Biden compare it with the problem of children's toys becoming fads, and retailers unable to meet the sudden demand.  Seriously, he actually compared Cabbage Patch Kids and Beanie Babies being hard to find with supermarket shelves being bare of everyday necessities.  Watch:

 

Biden's staff, starting with chief of staff Ron Klain, are second-raters.  So I can't really feel sorrty for them.  They are trying to defraud the American people, selling a senile, corrupt pol as a fitting occupant of the Oval Office. 


Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/white_house_comms_team_is_so_desperate_to_dodge_responsibility_for_supply_chain_crisis_that_they_had_biden_say_something_selfevidently_stupid_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The sinister nature of electric cars - Jerold Levoritz

 

​ by Jerold Levoritz

Once again, Democrats are trying to force people to drive electric cars, but people need to consider the loss of power that accompanies driving one.

The Democrats are doing everything they can to get Americans into electric cars.  However, those cars come with the risk of a serious loss of power — not just for the car, but for those who buy those cars.

We have to begin with asking, why is the governing pushing electric vehicles?  And it's not just cars; it's also trucks.  Why are they ignoring hybrid vehicles?  If something happens to the electric guts of a properly designed hybrid car, the vehicle can limp along with its smaller gas engine until it reaches safety.  What happens to a fully electric vehicle if its electrical system fails?  Nothing, of course!  You're stuck.  All you have is a hunk of metal and plastic.  And if you run out of electricity while driving, you can't just get a gallon gas can to fill the tank until you get to the nearest service station.  Again, you're stuck.

The next question is, "Are electric cars cheaper than gas cars?"  No, they cannot be cheaper, and that's even if you run them on renewables.  Take solar energy, for example.  Even if sunlight is free, the laws of thermodynamics still control.

Every time energy changes form, there is a loss factor.  Sunlight impinging on solar cells changes only 14–47% of the energy to electricity.  The forty-seven percent figure is state-of-the-art, so it is not available for everyday use.

Electricity is then stored in chemical-based car batteries (with a loss).  And then chemical energy is reconverted back to electricity (with a loss) and finally to mechanical energy, where the tire rubber meets the road (with a loss).  At a guess, not more than 5% of the original sun power turns the wheels of an E.V.  That's awful.  What this means is that it is more efficient to run a gas-powered vehicle.

You can do similar analyses with other renewables, whether wind or water power.  They simply aren't efficient.


Image: Broken down Tesla outside Berlin.  Photo by Ralf Roletschek / roletschek.at.

Moreover, renewables are available intermittently (when the sun shines, the wind blows, or the water flows).  Because we want to drive when those power sources aren't immediately available, we will have to store excess sunlight in chemicals or in other ways, always remembering that storage and later reconversion is never free.  And we will always have to maintain fossil fuel backup plants in case of renewables' failure.

This energy loss is not a secret.  Smart people know about energy losses.  Why, then, do so many favor a less efficient mode of transportation?

This analysis begins by recognizing that these smart people are fully aware of the above two points — namely, that fully electric vehicles are a riskier transport system compared to hybrids, and renewable power is a less efficient use of limited energy resources than gasoline.

Given this information, it is time for our conspiracy theory.  By favoring a transportation system that can fail at a single point, we confer upon those in power the ability to shut down an entire civilization.  And even if they don't completely shut it down, the price of electricity will be centrally controlled, allowing a chokehold on all the people all the time.

Redundancy is more expensive than efficiency, but redundancy at least leaves options.  With our advanced understanding of complex systems today, no engineer would knowingly structure a system where failure at a single point makes everything inoperative for the foreseeable future.  One broken gear in a clock makes it useless for its purpose, but we can buy another clock.  Remaking a resilient transportation system is a herculean task.

The proper conclusion here is that society, meaning each and every one of us, should fight like hell before we allow such catastrophic vulnerabilities to be built into our future.  One EMP explosion will eliminate most of the affected population within six months — and it won't be pleasant.  Starvation is a particularly nasty way to end our days.  And all the time we are starving to death, we'll have time to think how stupid we were to allow such things to be done to us.

Why would anyone trust the government to look after our welfare?  Just don't do it.  Just don't allow it!  Just say no to E.V.s!  Long live carburetors!

 

Jerold Levoritz

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/the_sinister_nature_of_electric_cars.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, December 2, 2021

The nuclear talks in Vienna: Biden’s legacy at stake - Eytan Gilboa

 

​ by Eytan Gilboa

The return to negotiations is a positive step but says nothing about Iran’s true intentions.

Ahead of the return to nuclear talks in Vienna, the Biden administration declared that the United States would not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and that the preferred way to achieve that goal was through a diplomatic solution. If negotiations fail, the United States has “other means” at its disposal, according to the administration, but unfortunately, it has not elaborated. These statements by the administration have hindered rather than encouraged efforts to block Iran’s race to the bomb.

Most of the shortcomings in strategy are reminiscent of those of the Obama administration. Thus, it is doubtful whether Biden and his senior officials have learned the necessary lessons and will do better in the current round of negotiations.

The first failure is procedural. It may seem less important than more concrete matters, but it is always crucial.

The negotiations in Vienna are being conducted in a format known as “proximity talks.” Iran has refused to negotiate directly with the Americans; they only meet with British, German and French representatives, who shuttle back and forth between U.S. and Iranian officials. This format is advantageous to Iran. Instead of forming one Western bloc united against Iran, the Europeans serve as mediators, giving the Iranians an opening to play off the divisions between the Americans and Europeans. Iran wants to squeeze concessions from the Western powers in exchange for direct talks with the Americans.

Since the talks began in April 2021, Iran has determined the schedule. Tehran decides when the talks are suspended and resumed. There was indeed a pause in negotiations due to the June presidential elections in Iran. The Biden administration estimated that they could be renewed after President-elect Ebrahim Raisi took office. Still, the Iranians did not rush, preferring to buy time to enrich more uranium to a 60 percent level, very close to military-grade. Only after U.S. officials warned that their patience was wearing thin and that the United States would not wait endlessly did the three European powers and Iran agree to resume the negotiations.

Early in his presidency, Biden and his senior foreign and defense officials talked about the need to reach a new nuclear deal with Iran that would be “stronger and longer” than the one signed in 2015. The Americans adopted a two-step strategy. In the first phase, sanctions imposed by the previous administration would be lifted in exchange for Iran’s return to the limitations imposed on its nuclear program in the 2015 agreement. In the second phase, negotiations on a new deal would extend the duration of the 2015 deal and address issues omitted from that agreement, including Iran’s ballistic-missile program; its military interventions in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Gaza; and its sponsorship of international terrorism.

This strategy was far-fetched from the outset, and today seems out of reach—Iran has announced that it will not even discuss issues beyond its nuclear program. So Biden is now signaling that he will settle just to return to the 2015 agreement.

Contrary to common belief, establishing the negotiating agenda is not simple, and usually takes up significant time during preliminary talks. Then, the parties decide the issues to be discussed, and in what order they will be discussed. During the previous round of talks, two working groups were formed. One dealt with lifting U.S. sanctions and the other with returning to the 2015 agreement. With this round, Iran seems to have hardened its stance, taking the position that the talks will be entirely focused on lifting all US sanctions, including those unrelated to the nuclear program, such as those imposed for human rights violations.

One of the primary deficiencies of the 2015 agreement was the lack of an effective international inspection regime of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The inspection clauses left room for Iran to outwit International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Iran’s rulers have often stated that the country does not intend to develop nuclear weapons, and all the infrastructure it has been building is solely dedicated to peaceful purposes. Few policymakers in the United States and Europe believe them.

With good reason: there is sufficient evidence to claim that Iran has cheated and lied about the true purposes of its nuclear program. For years, the Iranians have concealed nuclear facilities and equipment. Iran’s nuclear archives—brought to Israel and unveiled in April 2018—prove that the Iranian goal has always been to attain nuclear weapons. If world powers would like to open a new page with Iran, it will require a detailed disclosure of the history of its nuclear program, something it has so far been unwilling to do.

However, with a credible military threat, stopping Iran from getting a nuclear capability, and reaching a good agreement, are possible.

Former President Barack Obama warned many times that “all options are on the table,” but it was clear that military action was not one of them. In light of the failed U.S. military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran concluded that Obama didn’t intend to use force. That assessment was reinforced after Obama set in 2012 a “red line” for Syrian President Bashar Assad, warning him that if he attacked his citizens again with chemical weapons, the United States would retaliate. In August 2013, Assad ignored this warning, but Obama did nothing.

In the recent strategic dialogue in Manama, Bahrain, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin criticized Iran. However, he reiterated the preference for a diplomatic solution. He said: “Our potential punch includes what our friends can contribute and what we have prepositioned and what we can rapidly flow in,” he said. “Our friends and foes both know that the United States can deploy overwhelming force at the time and place of our choosing,” he added. Here, too, Austin referred only to capability, not will. The United States has a vast military capability and can destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. The question lies in its willingness to use that force.

President Joe Biden has spoken about “other options” to be used if diplomacy fails, but many doubt he would order a military strike.

Recently, Iran attacked a U.S. base in Tanf on the Syrian-Iraqi border. The United States did not retaliate. According to officials quoted in The New York Times, the Iranians were trying to create a strategic equation whereby attacks on American targets serve as retaliation for Israeli strikes on Iranian bases in Syria. Instead of responding militarily against the pro-Iranian militias responsible for the attack in Tanf, the United States told Israel its attacks against Iran’s nuclear program were counterproductive, according to the Times. Such positions can only reinforce Tehran’s rigidity.

The return to negotiations is a positive step but says nothing about Iran’s true intentions. Countries often enter international negotiations with no intention of reaching an agreement. They have their own agendas. From Tehran’s perspective, the goals are lifting the sanctions and securing immunity from military attacks. Therefore, Biden’s strategy raises many questions. The withdrawal from the starting position of a more robust and longer agreement, and tolerating the Iranian conditions for negotiations, do not provide any leverage against Iran.

Given Iran’s strategy of buying time through months of negotiations as it proceeds forward towards a bomb means that the Biden administration’s position may erode even further.

This article was first published by the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies.

 

Eytan Gilboa is an expert on U.S.-Israel relations, international communication and public diplomacy. The founding head of both the School of Communication and the Center for International Communication at Bar-Ilan University, he has been a senior fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Gilboa received his MA and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University, and has authored many books and articles. He has served as an adviser to the government of Israel and several foreign governments, and also as director of International Studies at the National Defense College, chair of the Foreign Service Selection Committee; member of the Committee on Higher Education of the City of Jerusalem; and chair of the Political Science and International Relations Committee, and the Communication Committee, at the National Science Foundation.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-nuclear-talks-in-vienna-bidens-legacy-at-stake/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Moral Imperative to End China's Regime - Gordon G. Chang

 

​ by Gordon G. Chang

Cutting ties would result in ending the reign of the Communist Party, which has always been dependent on continual infusions of foreign cash.

  • The Communist Party of China operates one of the most immoral regimes in history. For instance, it kills in great numbers.

  • The Genocide Convention, in Article I, requires signatories, such as the United States, "to prevent and to punish" acts of genocide.

  • Preventing and punishing does not include strengthening the despicable ruling group by, for instance, buying Chinese products.

  • If there is now no reasonable hope for a benign Chinese communism — almost all observers and political leaders once thought the system would evolve in a welcomed direction — then we must not tolerate the regime, which means we have, in the first instance, a moral imperative to cut ties with it.

  • Cutting ties would result in ending the reign of the Communist Party, which has always been dependent on continual infusions of foreign cash.

The Communist Party of China operates one of the most immoral regimes in history. For instance, it kills in great numbers. China's impossible-to-justify crimes in recent years have been the work of one of the most dangerous figures in history, Xi Jinping, the current Chinese ruler. (Photo by Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

"We do business in 100 countries," said Jamie Dimon to Fox News Channel's Maria Bartiromo in early August. "And we do, we do it under the laws of those lands and under the law of America as they apply."

"Foreign policy is set by the American government, not set by JPMorgan," Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, argued.

Dimon is correct. The U.S. government does not prohibit banks or other companies from doing business in China.

Yet doing business in China strengthens a horrific regime, so the issue is not about legality, as Dimon suggests. It is about morality.

We must, therefore, ask: Is it moral to do business in the People's Republic of China?

The Communist Party of China operates one of the most immoral regimes in history. For instance, it kills in great numbers.

We begin in the metropolis of Wuhan. The world still does not know how COVID-19 started, but it is 100% clear that Beijing deliberately spread the disease beyond China's borders. While lying about contagiousness for at least weeks — Chinese doctors knew it was highly transmissible human-to-human but officials said it was not — Beijing was busy locking down Chinese cities while pressuring other countries to not impose travel restrictions and quarantines on arrivals from China. Then, after finally admitting transmissibility, China's officials said the disease would infect fewer than SARS, the disease at the turn of the century that sickened 8,400 people worldwide and killed 810.

Therefore, each of the more than 5.1 million COVID-19 deaths outside China should be considered a murder. The intentional spread of the disease is, so far, the crime of this century.

Also murdered are the tens of thousands of Americans who each year have overdosed on fentanyl compounds, which are formulated in China. The ingredients — and sometimes the final products — are made in that country. The Chinese fentanyl gangs are far-flung and international in scope. They have their money laundered by other Chinese gangs through China's state banks.

The Communist Party, in its near-total surveillance state, knows about the activities of these gangs and therefore approves of them. Chinese officials undoubtedly profit from the fentanyl trade. The intentional killing of others without just cause — the inevitable result of Beijing's protection of the fentanyl gangs — is also murder. In one year alone, from May 2020 to April 2021, fentanyl killed about 64,000 Americans, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

China, in addition to murdering foreigners, is "disappearing" and killing its own people, starting with critics and dissidents.

Most notably, it has, in the horribly misnamed Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, built a chain of concentration camps that have held an estimated three million Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Turkic minorities. Minorities are dying in those camps in large numbers. We know this because officials built a crematorium and cemetery between two of their internment camps, in Aksu City.

Inside those facilities, inmates are systematically tortured. Beijing has institutionalized slavery, offering the labor of tens of thousands of minorities to domestic and foreign companies. The Chinese state maintains a policy promoting the rape of Uyghur and other Turkic women. Officials are organ-harvesting minorities and imprisoning children in "orphanages" resembling prisons. Policies imposed on Tibetans appear to be similar in many respects to those forced on the Turkic peoples.

These crimes against humanity in Xinjiang constitute "genocide" as defined in Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have declared that China is committing this unspeakable crime.

The Genocide Convention, in Article I, requires signatories such as the United States, "to prevent and to punish" acts of genocide.

Preventing and punishing does not include strengthening the despicable ruling group by, for instance, buying Chinese products. "We are each responsible for our actions, whether they're in our backyard or an ocean away," Jonathan Bass, CEO of Los Angeles-based WhomHome.com, told Gatestone. "In 2010, I realized that the way Chinese factories treated workers was not in line with the values that America represented. Slave labor in any form is unacceptable." Bass then moved high-value jobs to North America and assembly jobs to Mexico.

Is there a moral imperative to leave China, like Bass? There is such an imperative if the Chinese regime cannot be dissuaded from committing atrocities.

Those impossible-to-justify crimes have been the work of one of the most dangerous figures in history, Xi Jinping, the current Chinese ruler. Some have suggested that Xi is merely an aberration of China's communism, implying that his crimes are his doing, not inherent in the communist system.

Xi's era, marked by an attempt to return to totalitarianism, resembles that of Mao Zedong, the founder of the People's Republic. Mao turned what was supposed to be a regime run by a committee into a regime run by one man, and then he almost destroyed the Chinese state with ruinous campaigns such as the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.

Mao's eventual successor, Deng Xiaoping, normalized politics. Deng started institutionalizing the Communist Party by developing norms, guidelines, understandings and rules. Foreign observers gushed over the rise of what they called a "meritocratic" system.

Xi, in a Mao-like grab, has reversed the process, deinstitutionalizing the Party by seizing power from just about everyone else. Mao has also been called an aberration, but he was not. China has been ruled by strongmen both at the beginning of the Communist period and now. That system, which from its Maoist beginning has idealized struggle, demands a strongman. It is Deng and his two successors who are the aberration.

The Chinese communist system, by its very nature, demands uniformity, and to further its goals justifies the elimination of all refusing to conform. All China's communist leaders, but especially Mao and Xi, are blood-soaked.

If there is now no reasonable hope for a benign Chinese communism — almost all observers and political leaders once thought the system would evolve in a welcomed direction — then we must not tolerate the regime, which means we have, in the first instance, a moral imperative to cut ties with it.

Cutting ties would result in ending the reign of the Communist Party, which has always been dependent on continual infusions of foreign cash. Among other things, ending Chinese communism would make Jamie Dimon, who quipped this month that his bank would outlast the Communist Party, look prophetic.

 

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17981/end-china-regime

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter