Friday, January 7, 2022

There Was No Insurrection But There Was A Coup - Vince Coyner

 

​ by Vince Coyner

Stepping away from the left’s relentless narrative allows one to see with clarity the coup that allowed Democrats to place Joe Biden in the White House.

The debate is over. After a year spent investigating claims of election fraud, the media has determined that any fraud in the 2020 election was too insignificant to have changed the outcome and Joe Biden legitimately won. Now we can get back to our normal lives, or whatever passes for normal now…except that’s fiction.

In 44 BC, Roman Senators murdered Caesar, claiming they acted to protect the Republic. In fact, they simply sought power. Their coup d’état put the final nail in the coffin of a republic that had been dead in deed, if not name, for decades.

Coup d’états differ from revolutions in that they’re generally orchestrated by or include people within government who seize power—often by narrowly using or just threatening violence—resulting in a rapid transition of power. Revolutions are often longer affairs that include much of a country’s population and exponentially more bloodshed.

Most coups try to keep much of the society and government apparatus intact, merely changing who’s in charge. This illusion of continuity is intended to gain the population’s acquiescence by avoiding the appearance of a bloody civil war.

And that’s exactly what we got. While Donald Trump does not lie in a bloody toga on the floor of the Senate, America witnessed a coup d’état equally as vicious. Many will deny one took place because their guy won but, make no mistake, virtually every American knows one did, even if only 56% admit it.

The moment the coup began to reveal itself Americans knew something was amiss. Many went to bed on November 3rd believing that Trump was leading in enough states to secure an electoral victory, including in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Strangely, however, while America slept, densely populated Democrat counties like Fulton (Atlanta) in Georgia and Allegheny (Pittsburgh) in Pennsylvania “stopped counting“ votes only to “restart” later when Biden suddenly got enough votes to swing the state blue. Similarly, Philadelphia stopped “reporting” at 1 AM and later announced Biden had won the state.

The morning of the 4th, as cries of fraud came from red areas across the country, the side that cried “election fraud” for four years suddenly fell silent. Apparently, 2020 had become the “most legitimate election in American history“.

Joseph Stalin said, “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” That’s exactly how we went from being a constitutional republic to a banana republic, but rather than the United Fruit Company or the CIA running the coup, it was Mark Zuckerberg, Democrats, the FBI, and the media.

Image: The Death of Julius Caesar by Vincenzo Camuccini. Public domain.

Immediately after Biden was sworn into office Molly Ball of TIME Magazine wrote a glowing paean to the coup:

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers, and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction.

And as with any good coup, Democrats threatened violence: “The nation was braced for chaos. Liberal groups had vowed to take to the streets, planning hundreds of protests across the country.” In this context, “protests” is a metaphor for Democrat-approved BLM and Antifa violence unleashed across America. Ball points out that, following Biden’s victory, Democrats called off the threatened violence: “There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs.”

While Ball’s homage may be insightful, the definitive account of the coup comes from Mollie Hemingway in “Rigged.” Unlike Ball, who couches everything about the coup in the fiction of patriots seeking to “protect” America from the fascist Donald Trump, Hemingway exposes how the leftist cabal set the table for the coup and, upon its execution, unleashed a propaganda machine to pretend the coup never happened.

Hemingway showcases incompetent GOP functionaries like Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger empowering Democrats, led by the treacherous Marc Elias and Stacy Abrams, to make unconstitutional voting rule changes. From corrupt jurists ignoring legislation and others explicitly ignoring the Constitution and allowing arbitrary election rulemaking that favored Democrats to the FBI and the media spending years attacking Trump, Hemingway exposes the coup step by step. She demonstrates exactly how Mark Zuckerberg wrote a $400 million check and financed the coup d’état that undermined our Republic.

In perhaps the single most telling line in Rigged, Hemingway quotes a reporter for the Wisconsin Spotlight: “The City of Green Bay literally gave the keys to the election to a Democrat Party operative from New York.” (p. 222.) Similar dynamics played out across the country.

The model was simple. Red counties in half a dozen states gave their counts while blue counties stopped counting or reporting. Once the red totals were in Democrats knew exactly how many votes they needed to “produce” and those numbers magically started coming in. Georgia’s Fulton County gave Biden a 250,000 margin of victory, enough to win the state by 12,000 votes out of 5 million cast. Pennsylvania’s Allegheny gave Biden a 150,000 vote margin, enough to take Pennsylvania by 80,000 votes out of 6.8 million.

When the dust settled, Biden was declared the 46th President with “81 million votes” to Trump’s 74 million. But Presidential elections come down to the Electoral College. Joe Biden won there because of three states and 103,000 votes: Pennsylvania, 20 Electors, by 80,000 votes; Georgia, 16 by 12,000; and Arizona, 11 by 11,000 votes.

After two months of being caricatured and called conspiracy nuts or white nationalists, almost a million frustrated Trump voters went to Washington on January 6th to demand Congress investigate the election. After a rally where President Trump explicitly said to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard“ a riot with a few hundred people broke out at the Capital and, suddenly, an “Insurrection” worse than anything “since the Civil War“ occurred. Anyone questioning the election was a guilty participant. That riot, which the FBI may have planned or empowered, suddenly changed the national conversation from investigating November’s coup to impeaching Trump for “incitement of insurrection.” And that was it. End of debate. Biden won and Trump tried to incite a coup. Any contrary ideas were verboten....

But of course, Americans know a lie when they see it and the debate isn’t really over. When the propagandists say there was no way fraud could have affected an election with 150 million voters, that’s a red herring. The cabal behind the coup didn’t have to affect 150 million votes. All they had to do was affect (or create) 100,000 well-placed votes, which is exactly what they did. Zuckerberg-funded Democrats in a few states merely had to wait until the red areas reported their totals and then magically produce more votes from their stopped or paused machines. And that’s how it’s done, a real-life enactment of Stalin’s adage, and it’s just another day at the office for Democrats.

Mark Anthony could only eulogize Caesar after the Ides of March, but Donald Trump is still very much with us. We still have an opportunity to reverse this treachery and avert the disaster that naturally follows when the Rule of Man subverts the Rule of Law. But will we seize it before it’s too late?

 

Vince Coyner

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/there_was_no_insurrection_but_there_was_a_coup.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Fighting Back Against the Establishment Anti-Semites - Civis Americanus

 

​ by Civis Americanus

Out and proud anti-Semites are organized and have the backing of large and prominent corporations and nonprofits. But others are fighting back – and winning.

Jew hatred is no longer a fringe phenomenon. Out and proud anti-Semites are organized and have the backing of large and prominent corporations and nonprofits. But others are fighting back – and winning.

Steven Emerson reports in The Algemeiner that Jewish Voice for Peace, which I call Jews for Jihad, is now on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Top Ten list of anti-Semites. I do not like, however, the frequent comparison of JVP to kapos, or Jewish concentration camp inmates who collaborated with the Nazis. The kapos almost always had guns to their heads, and often literally; they would have been killed had they not done what they were told. JVP does not have the excuse of duress with regard to its support for the agenda of terrorists who want to make the Middle East Judenrein.

There is indeed an intersectionality between Hamas, Al Qaida, Hezb’allah, and ISIS. All consist of violent extremists who abuse Islam as an excuse to murder those unlike themselves, including those they deem to be the wrong kinds of Muslims. None have any use for women, unless for sex or as punching bags, or for LGBT people. Anybody who supports any of these entities even indirectly therefore supports, regardless of intention, school shootings such as the Ma'a lot massacre and the Beslan massacre, church, synagogue, and mosque shootings, the murder of U.S. Marines in Beirut by a suicide bomber, the murder of three thousand people (including roughly three dozen Muslims including emergency responder Mohammad Salman Hamdani and yes, we will say his name) on 9/11, the Mumbai Massacre, bombings of pizza shops and Seders, hanging LGBT people in Iran and throwing them off rooftops as practiced by ISIS, "honor killings" of women including rape victims, and rocket attacks that would rightfully draw overwhelming retaliation from any nation on earth except apparently Israel. They support the foreign terrorist counterparts of school shooter Adam Lanza, church shooter Dylan Roof, and synagogue shooter Robert Bowers, along with domestic abusers who batter and even kill female family members. This is what you support if you support BDS.

JVP is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. While the Internal Revenue Service will not, contrary to the apparent belief of Hamas stooges Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D), Rashida Tlaib (D), Ayanna Pressley (D), Cori Bush (D), and Jamaal Bowman (D), revoke an organization's tax exemption because somebody on either side does not like it, it will act on efforts to influence elections and (possibly) ultra vires activities outside its charter. Any JVP web pages, or public statements by its people while speaking on the organization's behalf, that support or oppose the election of any political candidate should be reported to the IRS via Form 13909. Ultra vires could meanwhile apply to BDS involvement by various 501(c)(5) unions but it is up to the IRS to make this determination; our role is to bring this to the agency's attention. As a final note, the IRS needs objective evidence it can verify for itself, and not opinions.

The BBC's ex-employee Tala Halawa

The BBC also found itself in the Top Ten due to BBC reporter Tala Halawa's tweet, “Hitler was right.” The BBC, however, fired Halawa as a result. This nonetheless leads to two questions. The first is whether Halawa and her kind would like to tell Queen Elizabeth II, who served as a mechanic during the Second World War, or veterans or families of the countless veterans who died in the war against that evil—a full quarter of the Royal Air Force pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain did not survive—that Hitler was right. The second is why a civilized country like the UK allowed this individual to immigrate in the first place.

Facebook and Twitter

The Wiesenthal Center also cited Facebook and Twitter, both of which banned Donald Trump but tolerated and continue to tolerate anti-Semitic hate speech. Facebook, for example, said Jewish Ritual Murder did not violate its community standards before a massive outcry compelled it to remove the page. I have also seen 9/11 conspiracy theories. If they can ban Trump then they can ban hate material and 9/11 conspiracy theories. If they won't, the best course of action might be to send the links to their advertisers (assuming you haven't blocked the ads as clutter) to show them what their money is supporting. Don't tell them their ad appeared on a hate page or 9/11 conspiracy page if it didn't; just say that you reported the material (if you did) and that it is still online. A screen shot of your complaint could help.

Council on American Muslim Relations (CAIR)

CAIR also makes the list, which underscores the need for Muslims to distance themselves from this group the way Christians distance themselves from the Westboro Baptist Church, Caucasians distance themselves from white supremacist groups, and JVP is to Judaism what bacon-wrapped scallops are to kosher.

Ben & Jerry's: Where Social Responsibility is a Slogan

Last but not least comes Unilever and its subsidiary Ben & Jerry's. The SWC explains, "From the outset, the SWC labeled the boycott a purely political act. It was pushed forward by its activist board Chairwoman, Anuradha Mittal, who has a track record of endorsing the BDS movement and defending Hezb’allah and Hamas terrorist groups."

Ben & Jerry's needs to learn the hard way that there is a genuine shooting war between the civilized world and terrorists such as Hamas, Al Qaida, Hezb’allah, and ISIS, and it has made itself a party to the nonviolent domestic theater of that war. This means we can and should target Ben & Jerry's interests with whatever nonviolent and lawful means are at hand. We cannot state accurately that Ben & Jerry's ice cream is unhealthier than its competitors because all non-diet ice cream contains substantial saturated fat. We cannot say it tastes bad if we have never tried it.

We can however express the informed opinion that Ben & Jerry's is grossly overpriced in relation to store brands. It comes in one-pint containers which are the least economic size, and we can speculate or opine that this is by intention. Ben & Jerry's doesn't let you buy its product in the three-pint containers that are typical of store brands. We can make the rational argument, therefore, that its management wants customers to pay a premium price for the Ben & Jerry's label along with pictures of celebrities like Colin Kaepernick. The Ben & Jerry's label, therefore, adds cost but no value.

Ben & Jerry's Doggie Desserts meanwhile throw every single word the company has ever said about social responsibility into the nearest dumpster. The company advertises them as "Fairtrade certified" and "non-GMO" but also stipulates, if you look at the ingredient list, the first two items are water and sugar. Water adds no value which means the customer is paying for water rather than actual food. Sugar is even worse because it is as harmful to dogs as it is to humans, if not more so. Ben & Jerry's can blatter about social responsibility all it wants, but its addition of sugar to dog treats tells us everything we need to know about its brand. If Unilever does not like this, then its directors need to take action to protect the interests of its investors and employees with regard to not only BDS but also Doggie Desserts.

 

Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. He or she is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/fighting_back_against_the_establishment_antisemites.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Russia's Putin to NATO: Commit Suicide or Face All-Out War - Soeren Kern

 

​ by Soeren Kern

Germany appears to be the West's weak link the face of Russian pressure.

  • The Russian demands, which effectively require NATO to commit suicide, are so obviously outrageous and unmeetable that Western analysts are split over interpreting Russian President Vladimir Putin's motives. Some say he is using the impossible list of demands as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Others think he is playing a weak hand to try to divide the West and reorder Europe's security architecture in Russia's favor.

  • Germany appears to be the West's weak link the face of Russian pressure. On January 3, the German newspaper Bild reported that Scholz is seeking "a new beginning" in relations with Moscow. This has alarmed smaller European countries which fear that Germany will reach an accommodation with Putin behind their backs.

  • "The Russian leader... believes he has a window of opportunity to act. He is worried that the risk of Kiev joining NATO will increase if a stronger U.S. leader... comes to power.... Regretfully, the Biden administration's 'experts,' like Obama's before them who fecklessly sought a 'reset' with Russia, are likely to fall into Putin's trap." — Rebekah Koffler, a Russian-born U.S. intelligence expert.

  • "A second Russian attack on Ukraine, should it happen, ought to serve as a long-overdue wake-up call for the West about Russia's intentions to establish an exclusive sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and assert Moscow's claims to exercising influence in Central Europe, within NATO's perimeter.... Europe's security would deteriorate dramatically. The zone of competition would shift from Eastern Europe to Central Europe and the Baltic states." — Andrew Michta, geopolitical analyst

  • "The West should immediately impose tough sanctions on Russia, provide serious defense assistance to Ukraine, demonstrate unambivalent support for Ukrainian sovereignty, and project moral and strategic resolve. Unfortunately, current trends and past behavior provide little cause for optimism that the 'free world' will rise to the challenge." — Anne Pierce, foreign policy expert

  • "Westerners do not seem to understand what is at stake. They think that only the fate of Ukraine is being decided, which is of less concern to them than that of Armenia.... They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler's demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different." — Françoise Thom, French historian of Russia.

  • "In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia into Hitler's clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonor, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor. We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls." — Françoise Thom.

Russia has threatened war if the United States and its NATO allies fail to comply — unconditionally — with sweeping demands for a new security arrangement in Europe. Western analysts are split over interpreting Russian President Vladimir Putin's motives. Some say he is using the impossible list of demands as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Others think he is playing a weak hand to try to divide the West and reorder Europe's security architecture in Russia's favor. (Photo by Mikhail Metzel/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)

Russia has threatened war if the United States and its NATO allies fail to comply — unconditionally — with sweeping demands for a new security arrangement in Europe.

The demands, issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry, require the United States to remove its nuclear umbrella from Europe and allow Russia to reestablish its Soviet-era sphere of influence over Eastern Europe.

The Russian demands, which effectively require NATO to commit suicide, are so obviously outrageous and unmeetable that Western analysts are split over interpreting Russian President Vladimir Putin's motives. Some say he is using the impossible list of demands as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Others think he is playing a weak hand to try to divide the West and reorder Europe's security architecture in Russia's favor.

Nearly all Western analysts agree: Putin is taking advantage of the weakness of U.S. President Joe Biden, divisions between the United States and Europe, disagreements within the European Union, and the fecklessness of the leaders of Europe's largest countries, particularly France and Germany.

On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry published two draft treaties: one between Russia and the United States, and the other between Russia and NATO.

Russia's draft "Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees" listed more than a dozen demands, including:

  • NATO membership must be denied to all states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which have been members of the alliance since 2004.
  • NATO is prohibited from expanding further eastward, including to countries such as Sweden and Finland.
  • The United States is prohibited from flying bombers or deploying warships, including within the framework of NATO, in areas outside of its national airspace and national territorial waters, respectively.
  • The United States is prohibited from deploying its armed forces or armaments, including within the framework of NATO, in any area where such deployment could be perceived by Russia as a threat to its national security.
  • The United States must remove all its nuclear weapons from Europe.
  • The United States is prohibited from deploying ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside of its territory.

Russia's draft "Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization" put forward additional demands:

  • NATO member states are prohibited from deploying military forces to any country that became a member of the alliance after May 27, 1997, when NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations. This includes 14 countries that have become NATO members during the past 25 years: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
  • NATO is prohibited from deploying land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles to anywhere where such missiles can reach Russia.
  • NATO is prohibited from any further enlargement, including the accession of Ukraine as well as any other state.
  • NATO is prohibited from military cooperation with Ukraine as well as other states in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declared that both texts are part of a whole and are not to be understood as being "a menu, where you can choose one or the other."

While Russia expects NATO and the United States to comply with its demands, Moscow, in return, has offered only a vague commitment to "not create conditions or situations that threaten the national security of the other parties." The draft treaty imposes no requirements for Moscow to redeploy Russian forces.

On December 20, Konstantin Gavrilov, a Russian diplomat in Vienna, said that relations between Moscow and NATO had reached a "moment of truth." He added:

"The conversation needs to be serious and everyone in NATO understands perfectly well despite their strength and power that concrete political action needs to be taken, otherwise the alternative is a military-technical and military response from Russia."

On December 23, Putin, during a four-hour press conference, repeated his stance that "any further NATO movement to the east is unacceptable." A few days later, the Kremlin described NATO expansion as "a matter of life and death" for Russia.

On December 26, Russia warned Finland and Sweden against joining NATO. "It is quite obvious that the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO would have serious military and political consequences that would require an adequate response from Russia," said Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.

Russia hopes to obtain new security guarantees during a series of upcoming meetings with American and European officials. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman are scheduled to lead bilateral security talks in Geneva on January 10.

Russia is set to hold talks with NATO in Brussels on January 12, before a broader meeting in Vienna on January 13 involving the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which includes the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet states.

Meanwhile, Russia has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops on Ukraine's eastern border amid fears of an imminent invasion.

Evaluating Russian Demands

Françoise Thom, a renowned French historian of Russia, wrote that Putin is trying to "bind NATO through the United States, the United States through NATO." She added: "There is nothing to negotiate, you have to accept everything as a whole."

Thom, in a lengthy and incisive analysis of the Russian demands, described them as "an orchestrated blackmail":

"The Russian blackmail is explicit and is directed at both the Americans and the Europeans. If the West does not accept the Russian ultimatum, they will have to face 'a military and technical alternative,' according to Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko: 'The Europeans must also think about whether they want to avoid making their continent the scene of a military confrontation. They have a choice. Either they take seriously what is put on the table, or they face a military-technical alternative.'

"After the publication of the draft treaty, the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets (similar to those that Israel inflicted on Iran), was confirmed by former Deputy Minister of Defense Andrei Kartapolov (Duma Defense Committee): 'Our partners must understand that the longer they drag out the examination of our proposals and the adoption of real measures to create these guarantees, the greater the likelihood that they will suffer a pre-emptive strike.'

"To make things clear Russia fired a 'salvo' of Zircon hypersonic missiles on December 24. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, commented on this event: 'Well, I hope that the notes [of December 17] will be more convincing.' Editorialist Vladimir Mozhegov added: 'What are our arguments? First and foremost, of course, our most reliable allies — the army and the navy. To be more precise, the hypersonic Zircon missile (the 'carrier killer,' as it is affectionately called in the West), which makes it absurd for the United States to have a fleet of aircraft carriers. The impact of the Zircon cracks a destroyer like a nut. Several Zircons will inevitably sink an aircraft carrier. The Zircon simply does its job: it methodically shoots huge, clumsy aircraft carriers like a gun at cans.'

"An article in the digital newspaper Svpressa eloquently titled 'Putin's ultimatum: Russia ... will bury all of Europe and two-thirds of the United States in 30 minutes' dots the i's: 'The Kremlin will have to prove its position with deeds. It is probably only possible to force the 'partners' to sit at the negotiating table by coercion. Economically, the Russian Federation cannot compete with the West. There remains war.' Military expert Konstantin Sivkov believes that 'to bring the United States and NATO to the negotiating table, some kind of super weapon is needed to... demonstrate our determination to strike if NATO expands. After that, I can assure you that they [the West] will be afraid.... It is naive to rely on diplomatic procedures. [...] Russia's move is a signal that already radical measures are going to be taken. You refused, so you will have yourselves to blame...'"

Official Responses

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the United States would consult with its allies.

Polish Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lukasz Jasina added: "Russia is not a member of NATO and doesn't decide on matters related to NATO."

Ukraine's foreign ministry said Kyiv had an "exclusive sovereign right" to run its own foreign policy, and only it and NATO could determine the relationship between them, including the question of Ukrainian membership.

Finland, an officially neutral country which shares a border with Russia, underscored its right to seek NATO membership at any time. "Let it be stated once again," said Finland's president, Sauli Niinistö. "Finland's room to maneuver and freedom of choice also include the possibility of military alignment and of applying for NATO membership, should we ourselves so decide."

Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde added:

"We must have a rules-based world order, where we have international law and each country has the right to make its own security policy choices. Rejecting any future expansion of NATO will reduce the opportunities to make independent political choices."

Germany appears to be the West's weak link the face of Russian pressure. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz wants to reset relations with Moscow and is planning a face-to-face meeting with Putin sometime this January.

On January 3, the German newspaper Bild reported that Scholz is seeking "a new beginning" in relations with Moscow. This has alarmed smaller European countries which fear that Germany will reach an accommodation with Putin behind their backs. In an interview with Bild, former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves said:

"Everyone saw [German Foreign Minister] Annalena Baerbock and hoped that she could shift the German foreign policy focus to human rights and the observance of basic values. Europe basically hoped that the new government would mean an end to mercantilism, but then Mr. Scholz took over the helm. What we see now is unfortunately more of what we already know and not a good start to his term in office and not a good sign for European unity."

Select Commentary

Former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in an opinion article published by Politico, warned that Putin is seeking Russian control over the security of Central and Eastern Europe:

"Under the new Russian proposals, NATO would have to seek consent from Moscow to deploy troops in Central and Eastern Europe, refrain from 'any military activity' across Eastern Europe, the southern Caucuses and Central Asia, and halt any NATO drills near Russia. The agreement also demands a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be offered NATO membership, and a draft treaty with the United States would ban it from sending warships and aircrafts to 'areas where they can strike targets on the territory of the other party,' like the Baltics and the Black Sea.

"This is not a serious proposal from a man who wants peace.

"Putin is skilled at creating crises only to later extinguish them, like a firefighter trying to douse his own arson attack, and by threatening to invade Ukraine, he has calculated that the U.S. and other Western powers might negotiate directly with the Kremlin — potentially over their Eastern European and Baltic allies — offering concessions and allowing him to maintain influence over former Soviet countries in exchange for peace.

"Putin plays a bad hand well — but his tactics will only work if we fold. And it's time for NATO to call Putin's bluff.

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. or NATO give commitments on future enlargement, real or de facto.... NATO cannot have an open-door policy on enlargement in which it continues to allow Putin to act as the doorman.

"NATO cannot negotiate down the barrel of a gun. And if we back down now, that signal will be heard loud and clear by both the democracies that rely on us, and the autocrats who lament and fear our freedom."

Rebekah Koffler, a Russian-born U.S. intelligence expert, argued that the evidence is overwhelming that Russia is about to invade Ukraine, and that Putin was taking advantage of the weakness of the United States under President Joe Biden:

"The Russian leader... believes he has a window of opportunity to act. He is worried that the risk of Kiev joining NATO will increase if a stronger U.S. leader...comes to power. He also knows that the Pentagon is only beginning its transition from counter-terrorism operations onto a new footing focused on major states such as China and Russia.

"Russian troops are primed to fight in the cold, as they always have been, and Putin likely believes the West won't wade into the snow to help Ukraine. Emboldened by his ability to blindside the West, such as by previously invading Georgia and taking Crimea, and by extorting concessions from Joe Biden, Putin is positioning to outmaneuver Washington.

"Regretfully, the Biden administration's 'experts,' like Obama's before them who fecklessly sought a 'reset' with Russia, are likely to fall into Putin's trap."

Steven Pifer, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, wrote that the substance of the Russian demands, and the way they were publicized, suggest that Putin is not serious about negotiating with the West:

"The unacceptable provisions in the two draft agreements, their quick publication by the Russian government, and the peremptory terms used by Russian officials to describe Moscow's demands raise concern that the Kremlin may want rejection. With large forces near Ukraine, Moscow could then cite that as another pretext for military action against its neighbor."

Veteran geopolitical analyst Andrew Michta, writing for the inestimable blog 19fourtyfive, argued that Putin is trying to divide NATO, humiliate the West and eject the United States from Europe:

"Judging by the scope of the demands presented by Russia in the two so-called 'draft treaties' with NATO and the United States, respectively, Moscow must have no illusions that these would be accepted, for they would remake Euro-Atlantic security, creating conditions that would undermine NATO and America's ability to work with its allies. Putin may have already decided to move militarily, and calls for the West to negotiate could create a 'maskirovka' [Russian military deception] and in doing so provide a casus belli for Moscow, which would try to claim that Washington had refused to consider its terms.

"If the demands to negotiate have a larger aim it is to divide the alliance. Most importantly, the idea that Russia would need a written treaty guarantee to forestall Ukraine or Georgia's accession to NATO is absurd. Putin knows that so long as he occupies Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine and Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, the countries have no chance of making it into NATO, for a vote to enlarge the alliance would mean in effect a vote to go to war with Russia. Moscow's demand that the effective status quo be confirmed by treaty is thus nothing short of an attempt to humiliate the West.

"It is critical to consider what might happen should Russia invade Ukraine, and what might happen if we do not start thinking long-term about the impact of this crisis. A second Russian attack on Ukraine, should it happen, ought to serve as a long-overdue wake-up call for the West about Russia's intentions to establish an exclusive sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and assert Moscow's claims to exercising influence in Central Europe, within NATO's perimeter....

"Should the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine be more of the same, Europe's security would deteriorate dramatically. The zone of competition would shift from Eastern Europe to Central Europe and the Baltic states, where the next round of Putin's demands could be a de facto 'Finlandization' of the Baltic States and pressure on the United States and NATO to remove military assets from the intermarium [Central and Eastern European countries] between the Baltic and the Black Seas, especially from Poland and Romania. In this scenario Putin would target Germany as his 'partner of preference,' with the expectation that by applying its energy weapon Moscow could eventually coax Berlin into a 'neo-Bismarckian' [German dominance of the European Union] accommodation that would in effect divide Europe into two spheres of influence, rendering the United States increasingly irrelevant to the overall strategic balance in Europe."

American foreign policy expert Anne Pierce warned that the United States and Europe are at a "tipping point":

"If they do not move decisively to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine, they will send a dangerous message to China vis-a-vis Taiwan, position Russia to coerce more former Soviet satellite states, and further ruin their international reputation, which is already in tatters after the betrayal of Afghanistan and failed diplomatic overtures to Iran. The window is closing to deter Russia from instigating major war or from conquering Ukraine by intensifying its current campaign of paramilitary assaults, disinformation, energy blackmail, and threats backed by escalation.

"It is nearly past time to alter Vladimir Putin's shrewd calculus and deny Russia crucial geopolitical territory and a defining anti-democratic victory. The West should immediately impose tough sanctions on Russia, provide serious defense assistance to Ukraine, demonstrate unambivalent support for Ukrainian sovereignty, and project moral and strategic resolve. Unfortunately, current trends and past behavior provide little cause for optimism that the 'free world' will rise to the challenge....

"In the face of Russia's alarming advances and brazen disregard for international norms, Western leaders have hesitated to impose serious costs. They've issued 'expressions of concern,' agreed to treaties that give Russia an advantage, failed to enforce those treaties, haltingly imposed weak sanctions, and generally exhibited inertia that contrasts with Putin's drive....

"Recent Western responses to Russian aggression resemble the Munich peace process. In hopes of satisfying Adolf Hitler from wanting more, the West buried its head in the sand about Hitler's vast ambitions and escalating atrocities and forced Czechoslovakia into concessions that facilitated German occupation. History, and the failure of generous compromise to stop Putin so far, tells us where all this is likely to lead."

Françoise Thom, the French historian, urged the West to wake up:

"Reading the Western press, one is under the impression that nothing is happening. Westerners do not seem to understand what is at stake. They think that only the fate of Ukraine is being decided, which is of less concern to them than that of Armenia.... They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler's demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different....

"In a word, Russia is demanding that NATO commit suicide, and that the United States be reduced to the role of a regional power.... As a result, Russia will have the upper hand in Europe. The countries of Western Europe are already taken for granted, with Moscow counting on the pool of collaborators that it has cultivated for years within the European ruling elites: it has just sent them a strong signal by appointing François Fillon [former prime minister of France] as director of the petrochemical giant Sibur. Deprived of American support, the 'Russophobic' countries that crystallize the resistance to Moscow's hegemony will only have to bow to the inevitable....

"Westerners must first perceive the situation as it is, however unpleasant it may be for our democratic states more accustomed to futile undertakings than to ensuring their preservation. To do this, we must extricate ourselves from the Russian lie....

"When Moscow talks about 'security' one must understand 'Russian domination' and 'impunity,' because that is what it is all about. In the Kremlin's view, everything it does not control can jeopardize the regime.... What Moscow fears in Ukraine is not a few NATO instructors, but freedom. It wants a disarmed Ukraine so that it can intimidate the Kiev rebels and set up a regime hated by its people, thus totally dependent on the Kremlin....

"If Russia succeeds in driving the United States out of Europe, it will soon feel threatened by the freedoms of Western European countries, and under the pretext of ensuring its 'security,' it will display the same determination in our country [France] as in its own to enslave the media, to eradicate democratic institutions and independent parties....

"In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia into Hitler's clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonor, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor. We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls."

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18096/russia-putin-nato

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Threat of Iran's Drone Swarms - Seth J. Frantzman

 

​ by Seth J. Frantzman

Based on Tehran's state-run and semi-official media, we now know the Shahed-136 exists and is not only a kamikaze drone but that Iran has created a new way to launch the drones in a kind of multiple-launch, or drone-swarming, format.

Originally published under the title "Is Iran's New Drone Swarm Shahed-136 Tech a Gamechanger?"

Iran's December 20-24 "17th Great Prophet" drill witnessed numerous missile and drone launches.

Images of a new Iranian drone launcher have appeared online and in Iranian media over the past several days. The drones, dubbed Shahed-136, were combined with missiles in a drill that Iran says took place last week.

Iran has called these types of drones a "suicide drone," or kamikaze drone. This means they fly into a target and self-destruct.

These types of drones have been mentioned before but have not been shown in such close-up detail.

In January, Tom O'Connor wrote in Newsweek: "Imagery seen by Newsweek and confirmed by an expert who follows Iranian activities in the region indicate the presence of Iranian Shahed-136 loitering munitions, also called 'suicide drones,' deployed to the northern Yemeni province of Al-Jawf, an area of the country controlled by the Ansar Allah, or Houthi, Zaidi Shiite Muslim rebel movement."

This was the first time this type of drone was mentioned in overseas deployment. Prior to this, Iran had built kamikaze drones, but this specific type had not been seen in public military drills.

Based on Tehran's state-run and semi-official media, we now know the Shahed-136 exists and is not only a kamikaze drone but that Iran has created a new way to launch the drones in a kind of multiple-launch, or drone-swarming, format.

Wreckage of a Shahed-136.

Drone swarms are a new technology whereby multiple drones are used to strike at targets. This can overwhelm air defenses and/or wreak havoc. In the past, drones such as the US Predator were not usually used alongside other drones.

In addition, drones have not often been used to enter contested airspace, such as the well-defended airspace of Israel or Saudi Arabia. This is because drone technology was mostly dominated by the US, Israel and several other countries up until recently. Iran, China and other drone powers have now entered the game.

Iran has invested heavily in kamikaze drone technology, including the types of drones known as Qasef in Yemen and Hamas's Shehab. These are based on Iranian technology and models. Recent reports from the Alma Research Center have said Hezbollah may have some 2,000 drones – many based on Iranian models.

The new launcher that Iran unveiled in its recent drill appears to have five layers, or racks, on which drones can be fitted before launch. The launcher can be mounted on the back of a truck, so it could be disguised as freight and look like any other commercial truck plying the roads.

Pro-Iranian groups have done this before in Iraq, where they mounted 107-mm. or 122-mm. rockets on the back of trucks. In one documented case, they disguised the rockets under the bed of a normal commercial truck to fire them at a US facility in Iraq. In September 2020, Iran put rockets into a shipping container to hide them.

Iran's new launcher for its Shahed-136 ostensibly gives it the ability to not only hide them but to put five drones in these types of converted trucks. It could conceivably launch dozens of these drones at a target in a kind of "swarm."

Although there is no evidence the drones can communicate with each other or that they have the kind of advanced AI-swarming capability that exists in the West, it does not mean they do not pose a threat. A truck with a secret drone compartment can be used to strike at vulnerable targets or be used to probe air defenses.

Iran did this in 2019 in Saudi Arabia, using drones and cruise missiles to attack Abqaiq, a Saudi Aramco oil facility. Despite radar and air defense, the Saudis did not stop the drones.

Iran's advances since then clearly pose a greater threat now throughout the region. The Shahed-136 is not a very large drone, according to the images, and it contains a warhead, making it a potentially dangerous weapon and possibly not easy to detect because of its size and small radar cross section.

Iran's innovations with the Shahed-136 are not necessarily new. It has based the design of the drone on existing loitering munitions used by other countries. In addition, it is not the first nation to dream up the idea of a multiple drone-launcher system.

Azerbaijan released a music video in April 2018 that included a truck with a launcher on the back that had 12 doors for drones to fly out of. According to reports at the time, the video showed Harop drones, a loitering munition made by Israel Aerospace Industries. Azeri officials praised this drone in September 2020, and according to Israel Hayom in October 2020, a report from Armenia said a Harop had crashed in Iran.

"The Armenian Unified Infocenter reported the aircraft was an Israeli-manufactured IAI Harop kamikaze drone that crossed from Azerbaijan to Iranian territory and was shot down by Iranian forces, or crashed in Ardabil, not far from fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh Region," the report said.

It is not known if Iran used that Harop as a model in 2020 and based its launcher on the Azeri system. The Iranian launch system is different in its positioning and method. However, the overall concept is the same. The concept is to give the forces the ability to launch several drones at the same time.

Newsweek reports this January said the Shahed-136 had a range of some 2,000 km. This is a long range for such a small drone, but it may be possible if Iran has made advances in its technology.

It appears unlikely it can achieve this range, but the reports appeared to coincide with claims that Iran had sent this drone to the Houthis in Yemen. A 2,000-km. radius around Yemen would mean the drone could reach Eilat in southern Israel or threaten shipping in the Gulf of Oman.

The threat of a drone swarm of the type Tehran has now showcased is rising. Iran has experimented with this before, but its new launcher and new drones appear to present a more serious threat than in 2019.

If Iran were to traffic these systems to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or Yemen with the types of multiple launchers it has built, this would put a new threat in play in any future conflict with Israel.

 

Seth J. Frantzman is a Ginsburg-Milstein Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and senior Middle East correspondent at The Jerusalem Post.

Source: https://www.meforum.org/62921/is-irans-new-drone-swarm-tech-a-game-changer

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran’s Khamenei Threatens Trump on Twitter - Robert Spencer

 

​ by Robert Spencer

Twitter yawns.

 


On Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, tweeted: “Martyr Soleimani is an eternal reality that will live on forever. His assassins – including Trump & the like – will go down in history’s garbage bin, but of course after receiving retribution in this world for the crime they committed.” This is a clear threat, but Twitter has not banned or suspended Khamenei’s account. After all, he was threatening Donald Trump, and as far as Twitter is concerned, what could be wrong with that?

Khamenei was referring, of course, to Qasem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force commander who was killed in a Trump-ordered American airstrike on Jan. 3, 2020. Soleimani was killed near Baghdad International Airport shortly after an Iranian-backed militia attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, as a clear warning to Iran not to continue to target Americans and American installations.

The Islamic Republic, however, has consistently portrayed the killing of Soleimani as an unprovoked, gratuitous strike by the Great Satan. Yet the Supreme Leader’s belligerence is longstanding. Before Soleimani was killed, he was just as hostile to the United States and American leaders as he is now. Khamenei has also threatened Trump before. Iran’s state-controlled Ahlul Bayt News Agency reported on Jan. 23, 2021, that the Supreme Leader’s official website “posted a photo-montage of former US President Donald Trump playing golf under the shadow of a drone, vowing to avenge the assassination of Iran’s Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani.”

Khamenei also thundered in December 2020, “Revenge is certain.” He added, “The assassin of Soleimani and the one who ordered the murder should be punished. As an esteemed person said, Soleimani’s shoe is worth more than the assassin’s head and even decapitation of the assassin will not compensate for Soleimani’s shoe; but they did the wrong thing. They should be punished. The one who ordered and the assassin should know that they should be punished at any time possible.”

Trump was a favored Khamenei target even before Soleimani was killed. In February 2019, the Supreme Leader declared to a military gathering that “as long as America continues its wickedness, the Iranian nation will not abandon ‘Death to America.’ ‘Death to America’ means death to Trump, (National Security Adviser) John Bolton, and (Secretary of State Mike) Pompeo. It means death to American rulers.” Oh, well, then, that’s okay — at least with Twitter.

In May 2018, the Supreme Leader said in a speech, “A few days ago, Trump wrote a letter to the leaders of some Persian Gulf countries, to which we have access. In the letter, he indicated that he spent $7 trillion on these countries, so they must adhere to his orders. Well, Trump, you have spent all this money to dominate Syria and Iraq, but you couldn’t do it; you will go to hell with your failures. … This man’s corpse will also be worm food while IRI [the Islamic Republic of Iran] stands strong.”

Even when Iran was concluding the nuclear deal with Barack Obama, Khamenei was just as aggressively anti-American as he is now. On Sept. 23, 2015, two months after the nuke deal was finalized, Khamenei published an article entitled “The Idols Will Be Shattered,” illustrated with a drawing of the Statue of Liberty shattered in pieces. In it he declared, “The idol of the soul, the idol of pride, [and] the idol of sexual lust; the idol of tyranny and subservience; the idol of global tyranny [that is, the U.S.]; the idol of sloth and irresponsibility; and the other idols that shame the precious human soul—a plan that will spring forth from the depths of the heart will shatter them.”

And now Khamenei has vowed “retribution in this world” against Trump and others. He is in the enviable position of hating the same people the Leftist self-appointed guardians of acceptable opinion hate, so he is able to spread his hatred on social media without fear of suffering the fate of his nemesis, Trump. If Iran’s Supreme Leader had issued a similar threat against any current or former head of state of any country, he would have been banned from Twitter immediately. But when Twitter is apparently fine even with open threats such as those Khamenei has issued against Trump, its own agenda becomes all too clear: Twitter’s own hatred for Trump and his supporters is practically as intense as Khamenei’s.

Originally published at PJ Media

 

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/irans-khamenei-threatens-trump-twitter-twitter-robert-spencer/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones falsely claimed Civil War began in 1865 - Kyle Morris

 

​ by Kyle Morris

Hannah-Jones later said her tweet was 'poorly worded. What a phony!

New York Times Magazine reporter and 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones falsely claimed this week that the Civil War – which began in April 1861 and resulted in an end to slavery in America – began in 1865, the year the war actually concluded.

Nikole Hannah-Jones poses for a portrait before taking the stage to discuss her new book, The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story, on Nov. 30, 2021 in Los Angeles, CA.

Nikole Hannah-Jones poses for a portrait before taking the stage to discuss her new book, The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story, on Nov. 30, 2021 in Los Angeles, CA. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

"We did not stop the expansion of slavery, and enslavers dominated the presidency, Senate and Supreme Court until 1865, when the North was reluctantly drawn into a war that ultimately ended slavery," Hannah-Jones wrote in a series of comments shared to Twitter discussing the end of slavery in America.

1619 PROJECT'S NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES CLAIMS AMERICANS ARE TAUGHT 'THE HISTORY OF A COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT EXIST'

After being called out for the mistake, Hannah-Jones, who was named to TIME's list of the "100 most influential people" in 2021, claimed her message was "poorly worded" and placed doubt on whether anyone would believe she did not know "when the Civil War started."

"It was poorly worded, I meant until 1865 ended the war, which the North had been reluctantly drawn into," Hannah-Jones stated in a tweet. "I realized people want to catch me up. I doubt anyone believes I do not know when the Civil War started. But, it is what it is."

CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST BOB WOODWARD SLAMS ‘DIABOLICAL’ 1619 PROJECT

Last week, Hannah-Jones stated the American people will not "willfully" work to confront the "anti-Blackness" in society, said that they have been "taught the history of a country that does not exist," and suggested there must be a "serious examination" after mainstream journalists "got caught up in the Republican propaganda campaign" to discredit the 1619 Project.

Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones signs books for her supporters on Nov. 30, 2021 in Los Angeles, CA.

Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones signs books for her supporters on Nov. 30, 2021 in Los Angeles, CA. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

"We’ve been taught the history of a country that does not exist," Hannah-Jones claimed during an interview with the Associated Press. "We’ve been taught the history of a country that renders us incapable of understanding how we get an insurrection in the greatest democracy on Jan. 6."


Nicole Hannah-Jones attends 2019 ROOT 100 Gala at The Angel Orensanz Foundation on November 21, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Arturo Holmes)

Nicole Hannah-Jones attends 2019 ROOT 100 Gala at The Angel Orensanz Foundation on November 21, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Arturo Holmes) (Getty Images)

The New York Times' 1619 Project is a long-form collaboration that seeks to "reframe the country's history" by bringing slavery and racism to the forefront of the national narrative. It was led by Hannah-Jones, who won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary last year for the project.

Among other recent criticisms, Hannah-Jones faced scrutiny last month after she said she "doesn't understand" why parents should have a say in their kids' education. Hannah-Jones also recently claimed not to be a professional educator, despite holding a tenured post at Howard University.

 

Kyle Morris covers politics for Fox News and is a graduate of the University of Alabama. Follow him on Twitter: @RealKyleMorris

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/1619-project-author-nikole-hannah-jones-falsely-claimed-civil-war-began-in-1865

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Manhattan Soros DA Legalizes Armed Robbery - Daniel Greenfield

 

​ by Daniel Greenfield

Another instance of a Soros-backed AG who believes that he can determine which laws are actually prosecutable.

 


California Democrats flirted with something similar at a legislative level, but Manhattan's newest Soros DA is going forward with it.

A bill proposed by an East Bay Senator with the intent to revise the penal code is getting a lot of attention, as critics say it would essentially re-classify violent robberies to misdemeanor petty thefts. This has sparked outrage from members of the Asian American community, who are now speaking out, saying this is not their idea of justice.

The concern now is over bill SB82 which, if passes, would reclassify certain robberies which do not involve a deadly weapon or great bodily harm as misdemeanors, not felonies. Misdemeanors carry a maximum $1,000 fine and one year behind bars.

Over in Manhattan, Alvin Bragg is fine with deadly weapons. His Day 1 letter specifically states that armed robberies are fine.

An act that could be charged under PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3,  or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05 that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL § 155.25 if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a  dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine  risk of physical harm. 

What does that mean in English?

Armed robbers who use guns or other deadly weapons to stick up stores and other businesses will be prosecuted only for petty larceny, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there’s no “genuine risk of physical harm” to anyone. Armed robbery, a class B felony, would typically be punishable by a maximum of 25 years in prison, while petty larceny subjects offenders to up to 364 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

In the real world, they'll be out on the street in 5 minutes.

In his first memo to staff on Monday, Alvin Bragg said his office “will not seek a carceral sentence” except with homicides and a handful of other cases, including domestic violence felonies, some sex crimes and public corruption.

Manhattan will shortly outperform San Francisco. More from Bragg's letter includes treating drug dealers as misdemeanors, a slap on the wrist for breaking into garages, and releasing criminals as soon as they're arrested.

There is a presumption of pre-trial non-incarceration for every case except those with charges of homicide or the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument causes serious  physical injury, sex offenses  in Article 130 of the Penal Law, domestic violence felonies or charges of PL § 215.50, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law. For any charge of attempt to cause serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument, ADAs  must obtain the approval of an ECAB supervisor to seek pretrial detention...

An ADA may request pretrial detention in such extraordinary circumstances after submitting the Application for Pretrial Detention  form  to their ECAB supervisor. 

Extraordinary circumstances. That's the sort of attitude that put guys like this right back on the street.

The man charged in two violent, seemingly random attacks against two women near 79th and Broadway Thursday morning was issued pre-trial release on Friday, according to online court records.

According to the D.A., in August 2020, Johnson allegedly punched a man, knocking him to the ground; he then allegedly kicked and stomped on the victim’s head and body. The assault-in-the-third-degree charges for this incident are misdemeanors and not eligible for monetary bail; Johnson was released on his own recognizance.

For the December 2, 2021, assaults allegedly committed by Johnson, the Assistant District Attorney asked for and received supervised release

So it's only going to get worse. Along with a push for diversion programs and "restorative justice".

Manhattan felt broken and dangerous when I was recently there. It's only going to get worse.

 

Daniel Greenfield

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/01/manhattan-soros-da-legalizes-armed-robbery-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tyranny in the Name of Climate Change - Anthony Watts

 

​ by Anthony Watts

The green socialist left is increasingly embracing tyranny in the form of authoritarian power to act on their viewpoint on climate change.

A recent paper published by Cambridge University Press titled “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change” is raising serious and worrisome questions about the role of academia in our national political debate on climate change.

The paper was written by Ross Mittiga, who self-describes as an “assistant professor of political theory at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, specializing in climate ethics.” He also labels himself an “environmentalist, vegan, and occasional gadfly.”

Mittiga’s paper explicitly argues society must prioritize climate action over democratic principles and adopt an authoritarian government if society fails to politically act on climate change. Or, in the words of the political left: “my way or the highway.”

This is disturbing because it completely ignores the will of the people to self-govern, favoring a totalitarian approach in order to tackle what Mittiag deems a “climate crisis.”

Key points of the paper in the abstract:

Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature -- which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights -- would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.

The problem with Mittiga’s paper is that he doesn’t offer up a single reference or shred of evidence that a “climate crisis” actually exists. It appears he simply assumes it to be fact-based on the frequency of political discussions that have embraced the term for several years.

If a “climate crisis” actually existed, there would be human impact data to support the claim. Yet, Mittiga cites no such evidence.

However, this lack of evidence did not stop him from making this bold claim: "A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety." We should be able to test the “graver threat to public safety” that the “climate crisis” supposedly creates.

If the global “climate crisis” was causing public safety to suffer, we’d surely see an increase in global deaths related to supposed climate-driven events. To determine if this is true, we turn to data collected by the most trusted global database on events that create mortality, the International Disaster Database.

This database covers all types of natural disasters, including meteorological, hydrological, geologic, and volcanic.

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg has been tracking climate-related disasters from the database since 1920. This includes floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures. His conclusion from the data is clear and simple: fewer and fewer people are dying today from supposedly climate-related natural disasters. As seen in the figure in this peer-reviewed article, the trend is clear.

Lomborg writes:

Over the past hundred years, annual climate-related deaths have declined by more than 96%. In the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, 2010-2019, the average was 18,362 dead per year, or 96.2% lower.

This is even true of 2021 -- despite breathless climate reporting, almost 99% fewer people died that year than a hundred years ago.

Why is this consistently not reported?

In the first year of the new decade, 2020, the number of dead was even lower at 14,885 -- 97% lower than the 1920s average.

For 2021, which is now complete, we see an even lower total of 6,134 dead or a reduction since the 1920s of 98.7%.

The media reported on many deadly weather and climate-related catastrophes in 2021 -- the deadly U.S./Canadian heat dome and heat wavehuge wildfires in the Western United States, the December 2021 tornado outbreak in the United Stateslarge-scale flooding in Europe, and the Valentine’s Day winter storm. All of these events and related deaths are included in the disaster database and the graph.

And there are other disasters. Many people in the West never saw media reports of the disastrous floods in India during the monsoon, which killed more than a thousand people, or the flash floods in Afghanistan, which killed dozens, or the typhoons that hit ChinaVietnamIndonesia and India, killing a total of 776 people. The database also has more than 200 other catastrophes in 2021.

There is a known bias in the database where there is much more reporting on heat deaths, but recent science from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet reports that globally, cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 9:1, suggesting that “global warming” isn’t as big a problem for human mortality as we’ve been told.

The number of reported weather disaster events is increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, and better accessibility, i.e., the 24/7/365 CNN effect. Just because such events are reported more today doesn’t translate directly to more events resulting in more deaths. In fact, the opposite is observed in the data.

Illustrated by the mortality data portrayed in the figure, it is simply incontrovertible that disaster-related deaths have declined, and have done so dramatically. This is because our wealthier, technologically advanced, and more resilient societies are much better able to warn for such events, protect their citizens, and mitigate damage and deaths. In fact, recent peer-reviewed science demonstrates a “decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident.”

So, I ask, where is the so-called “climate crisis” that is portrayed as a certainty by Mittiga in the Cambridge University Press?

According to the disaster database, there isn’t any “climate crisis” at all. In fact, during the 40-plus years of modest warming during which we have been told that global warming aka “climate change” will worsen the human condition, mortality has improved dramatically.

Sadly, and frighteningly, as illustrated by Mittiga in the Cambridge University Press, the green socialist left is increasingly embracing tyranny in the form of authoritarian power to act on their viewpoint on climate change. But clearly, real-world data don’t support their viewpoint let alone their call to action.

Image: Pixabay

 

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/tyranny_in_the_name_of_climate_change.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter