What the Facebook Wars are Really About - Daniel Greenfield

​
by Daniel Greenfield

Soros and the media’s censorship plot.

Facebook got its start as FaceMash: a site comparing the attractiveness of female Harvard students. It was then reborn as a social network for Harvard students, Ivy League schools and then everyone.

More recent surveys showed that the average Facebook user in the United States is 40 years old. That makes Facebook users less likely to start stupid viral trends, those tend to come from younger social media apps, some owned by Facebook, and more likely to be deeply engaged in politics.

Mark Zuckerberg had created a company to appeal to college students who wanted to rate the cutest girls on campus, but is instead stuck with a monster worth hundreds of billions (that number will continue fluctuating with media hit pieces) used by people with actual jobs to share family photos and talk politics. And it’s the politics part, not the baby photos, that’s turning the heat up on Zuckerberg.

Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars, the marriage, the language lessons, the awkward tour of America, Zuckerberg is still on some level the drunken college kid who got in trouble setting up a site to rate his classmates. He doesn’t understand the stakes of the game. As Facebook aged, it became an unwanted gatekeeper for global politics, instead of for teens doing viral challenges.

And though Zuckerberg has given the media some of what it wants, allowing its “fact checkers” to censor certain trending conservative stories, he hasn’t allowed Twitter’s wholesale censorship.

Zuckerberg was told he had to clean up Facebook after Trump’s victory. He failed to do it. Now the Left and its media apparatus is coming for the heads of Facebook leadership. The endgame is to inflict punishing harm on Facebook’s valuation, forcing the company to replace its leadership with media types who will lock down Facebook and make it a safe space for the media and for its political agenda.

Facebook’s problem, the media insisted after Trump’s victory, was ‘fake news’. And ‘fake news’ was anything that didn’t come from the media. Or whose content the media didn’t like.

Michelle Goldberg in a New York Times call for regulating Facebook was more direct, “Without Facebook, Donald Trump probably wouldn’t be president, which is reason enough to curse its existence.”

Facebook has been blamed for nearly every populist movement that the Left hates, from Brexit to the victories of Duterte in the Philippines and Bolsonaro in Brazil, Buddhist protests against Muslim violence in Myanmar and the Yellow Jacket riots in France. None of these media hit pieces address the fact that Facebook is just as responsible for successful populist movements that favor the Left, and that social media is an agnostic political tool anyone can use because that is the whole point of the Facebook wars.

The Left doesn’t want anyone to be able to harness the social media tools of populism.
Censoring Facebook is about suppressing political dissent while promoting lefty political speech. And the best way to do that is to turn the media into the gatekeepers of what can appear on the internet.

Many of these hit pieces targeting Facebook came out of BuzzFeed, a viral site that had gotten big by barraging Facebook with listicles and memes, but that had transitioned with Facebook’s aging demographics into the realm of serious politics.

BuzzFeed was uniquely vulnerable and obsessed with Facebook’s algorithms. Jonah Peretti, BuzzFeed's boss, has proposed battling Facebook by merging lefty viral trash sites like BuzzFeed, Vice and Vox together. BuzzFeed’s obsession with Facebook revenues captures the corrupt intersection between politics and profits that is at the heart of the media’s war against Facebook.

George Soros and his ilk want to regulate Facebook because they fear the power of populism. They see the media as a politically reliable entity pushing the public leftward while restraining blowback. The media wants to regulate Facebook because it offers too much scope for uncensored political dissent, but also because regulating its key distributor will lock in a business model that can assure its future.

Facebook became the dog and the media the tail. The media dog wants Facebook to be its tail.

The situation grew direr as digital lefty media’s revenues turned shaky. It’s why BuzzFeed is talking about a merger with Vice and Vox. Lefty media is already heavily subsidized by the huge companies that are making a fortune from the internet. The Washington Post is owned by Amazon’s boss. AT&T owns CNN and helps subsidize Vice. Verizon owns the Huffington Post.  Netflix helps subsidize Vox. Facebook’s co-founder Chris Hughes took over New Republic and turned the former liberal magazine into a trashy leftist clickbait blog that runs stories like, “Facebook Betrayed America”.

The media wants to transform Facebook’s political and business models. Its campaign is backed by lefty billionaires like George Soros, who likely see both political and financial angles in taking over Facebook.

Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and other Facebook leaders are on the Left. They haven’t been resisting the media’s censorship and George Soros’ coup because they believe in free speech, but because their business model depends on free speech. If Facebook is reduced to just recirculating Vox and BuzzFeed lefty clickbait, their failing business model will become Facebook’s failing business model.

Facebook has made concessions to the media mob, but it hasn’t given away everything. If its user base was still in college, it could censor more freely, but an older user demographic is also a more conservative one. As Facebook’s base aged, it also became more conservative. And the brand of comprehensive censorship that the media mob demands would destroy Facebook’s viability.

The new wave of media attacks is forcing Facebook to consider whether it would lose more value from the hit pieces or from defenestrating its user base. As tech stocks decline, the companies have become perfect targets for pressure campaigns. Facebook became the first company to lose over $100 billion in one day. That’s the atmosphere that explains why the pressure campaign was suddenly turned up.

If Facebook is ever going to be rolled, now’s the time.

History is rich and rotten with examples of radicals devouring their own clueless enablers. Silicon Valley is filled with companies that have enabled political radicals. The drivers of Porches, BMWs and Teslas with Bernie 2016 stickers on the back don’t really think that their money will be affected. 

The digital darlings of the Left that specialized in social media clickbait bet everything on video and lost their shirts.  They plan to survive by devouring Facebook. The dead tree media can’t wait for the cannibalistic orgy. And George Soros is happy to fund the astroturf protests to make it all happen.

The media began its war on Facebook by accusing it of hosting fake news. Now it’s fighting Facebook with false accusations of rigging elections, causing genocide and aiding right-wing populism.

The truth behind the fake news is that it’s about power and profits. The real enemy isn’t Facebook, it’s what it represents, a more open internet in which people aren’t passive consumers of CNN broadcasts and New York Times editorials, but get to choose what they watch, read and listen to. It’s a world of cable cord-cutters and social sharer activists who distrust the media and make up their own minds.

And it’s not an environment that can be controlled except by banning the political opposition.

The Great Facebook Wars are not just about one company; they’re about the structure and nature of the internet. They’re a bid by the media to reclaim a totalitarian top-down business model that has no place in the modern digital age and that cannot be maintained except through a totalitarian regime.

This isn’t about Facebook. It’s about freedom.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272157/what-facebook-wars-are-really-about-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The French People Feel Screwed - David Brown

​
by David Brown

For the first time in his presidency, Macron is in trouble and Europe and America are looking on.

• Macron makes no secret of his wish to be seen as a global leader for environmental reform. He forgets that back at home, among the people who elected him, fuel prices really matter.
• There are images online of police removing their helmets and firefighters turning their backs on political authority to show their support for the protestors.
• For the first time in his presidency, Macron is in trouble and Europe and America are looking on.

"Yellow Vests" protesters chant slogans on the Champs-Elysées near the Arc de Triomphe on December 8, 2018 in Paris, France. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

On December 4, French Prime Minister Édouard Phillipe told deputies of the ruling party, "La République en Marche", that a proposed fuel tax rise, which had led to the largest protests France has seen in decades, would be suspended.

The protesters, called Gilets-Jaunes -- "Yellow Vests," because of the vests drivers are obliged by the government to carry in their vehicles in the event of a roadside breakdown -- say that the fuel tax was the last straw from a president who took office with a promise to help the economically left-behind but instead has favoured the rich.

Even by French standards, the protests of the "Yellow Vests" during the weekend of December 1 were startling. Burning cars and vast plumes of grey smoke seemed to engulf the Arc De Triomphe as if Paris were at war. Comparisons were drawn with the Bread Wars of the 17th Century and the spirit of the Revolution of the 18th Century.

For more than two weeks, the "Yellow Vests" disrupted France. They paralyzed highways and forced roads to close -- causing shortages across the country – and blocked fuel stations from Lille in the North to Marseilles in the South.

During protests in France's capital, Paris, the "Yellow Vests" were soon joined by a more violent element, who began torching cars, smashing windows and looting stores. 133 were injured, 412 were arrested and more than 10,000 tear gas and stun grenades were fired.

One elderly lady was killed when she was struck by a stray grenade as she tried to shutter her windows against the melee.

There was talk of imposing a State of Emergency.

The "Yellow Vests" present the most significant opposition French President Emmanuel Macron has faced since coming to office in May 2017. Unlike previous protests in France, which have divided public opinion, these have widespread support – 72% according to a Harris Interactive Poll published December 1st.

Fuel tax rises -- announced in November before being retracted on December -- were intended to help bring down France's carbon emissions by curbing the use of cars. Macron makes no secret of his wish to be seen as a global leader for environmental reform.

He forgets that back at home, among the people who elected him, fuel prices really matter to those outside big cities, where four-fifths of commuters drive to work and a third of them cover more than 30km each week.

The increases have incensed people in smaller communities, where they have already seen speed limits reduced to please the Greens and cuts to the local transport services.

These additional costs-of-living increases come at an extremely bad time for ordinary French people working outside of Paris. Lower-middle class families are not poor enough to receive welfare benefits but have seen their income flat-line whilst cost-of-living and taxes have risen.

An analysis by the Institut des Politiques Publiques think-tank shows that benefits cuts and tax changes in 2018 and 2019 will leave pensioners and the bottom fifth of households worse off, while the abolition of the wealth tax means that by far the biggest gains will go to the top 1%

This is tough to swallow. Macron is seen as being out of touch with ordinary people and is unlikely to escape his new title, "the President of the Rich."

"People have this feeling that the Paris technocrats are doing complicated things to screw them," said Charles Wyplosz, an economics professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.

It is probably not as complex as that. The French people feel screwed.

As employment and growth are slowing, Macron, for the first time in his presidency, is under serious pressure. Unemployment is at 9%; his efforts to reform Europe are stalling, and his approval rating has plummeted to just 23% according to a recent opinion poll by IFOP.

Images of Macron at the Arc De Triomphe daubed in graffiti calling for him to step down, or worse, have done little to bolster his image abroad.

So far, Macron had said he would not bow to street protests. To underline his point, in September 2017, he called protestors against French labour-market reform "slackers".

The political U-Turn on the fuel tax is a turning point for the Macron presidency. The question is : What next, both for Macron and the "Yellow Vests"?

Macron most likely needs to plough ahead with his reform agenda, and doubtless knows he has the support of a solid majority in the National Assembly to do so. France is crippled by debt (nearly 100% of GDP) and its grossly bloated public sector. There are 5.2 million civil servants in France, and their number has increased by 36% since 1983. These represent 22% of the workforce compared to an OCDE average of 15%.

Tax-expert Jean-Philippe Delsol says France has 1.5 million too many "fonctionnaires [officials]. When you consider that public spending in France now accounts for 57 per cent of gross domestic product. Soon the system will no longer function as there will be less and less people working to support more and more people working less".

Macron's mistake, in addition to a seeming inclination for arrogance, is not to have made national economic reform his absolute priority right from his initial grace period after his election. Lower public expenses would have made it possible to lower taxes, hence creating what economists call a virtuous circle. Instead, he waited.

Now, at a time when he is deeply unpopular and social unrest is in full sway he is looking to make further reforms in unemployment benefits, scaling them back by reducing the payments and the length of time beneficiaries can receive the money. The "President of the Rich" strikes again.

There is talk that he may also re-introduce the wealth tax to try to placate the protestors.

Macron's presidential term lasts until May 13, 2022. Understandably, Macron will be focused on the elections to the European Parliament expected to be held May 23-26, 2019. Headlines have signalled that Marine Le Pen and the National Rally (formally National Front) are ahead in the polls at 20%, compared to Macron's En Marche at 19%.

The shift is understandable, given the divide between the countryside, where Le Pen has solid support, and the cities, where Macron's centre-left prevail.

In contrast, the "Yellow Vests" have galvanised support after standing up for the "impotent ordinary", and seem much buoyed by the solidarity they have been shown by both fire fighters and the police. There are images online of police removing their helmets and firefighters turning their backs on political authority to show their support for the protestors.

Whilst Macron's political opposition may be fragmented, this new breed of coherent public opposition is something new. Leaderless, unstructured and organised online, the "Yellow Vests" have gained support from the left and right, yet resisted subjugation by either.

Being leaderless makes them difficult to negotiate with, or to reason with in private. The "Yellow Vests" seem acutely aware of this strength, given their firm rebuttal of overtures for peace talks from the Macron government.

Enjoying huge support from the public and with reforms to the social welfare system on the horizon, the "Yellow Vests" are not going away.

For the first time in his Presidency, Macron is in trouble and Europe and America are looking on.

After Macron rebuked nationalism during his speech at the armistice ceremony, Trump was quick to remind the French President of his low approval rating and unemployment rate near 10%. A stinging broadside from Trump on twitter suggests that Macron may well be relegated to Trump's list of global "Losers":

"Emmanuel Macron suggests building its own army to protect Europe against the U.S., China and Russia. But it was Germany in World Wars One & Two - How did that work out for France? They were starting to learn German in Paris before the U.S. came along. Pay for NATO or not!"

The "impotent ordinary" in the United Kingdom, who might feel betrayed over Brexit, and the nationalists in Germany, who have suffered under Merkel , are no doubt staring in wonder at the "Yellow Vests", wishing for the same moxie.

The historian Thomas Carlyle, chronicler of the French Revolution, said the French were unrivaled practitioners in the "art of insurrection", and characterised the French mob as the "liveliest phenomena of our world".

Mobs in other countries, by comparison, he argued were "dull masses" lacking audacity and inventiveness. The blazing yellow vests of the French protest movement , however, have made Macron appear increasingly dull and weak too.

David Brown is based in the United Kingdom.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13399/french-people-screwed

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Refugee Women and Children Water-Cannoned to Death Near US Border - Humberto Fontova

​
by Humberto Fontova

But the Democrat/media complex glorifies the perpetrator.

Maria Meza is the Honduran migrant who was catapulted to media stardom last week for being in the right place at the right time for an intrepid Reuters photographer. “Click!”—and he caught the U.S. Border Patrol red-handed in the act of performing their sworn duty (i.e. defending the U.S. border).

Best we can tell—despite her claims of “I thought we were all going to die!”—Maria Meza was not hurt, even slightly, and neither were any of her five children.

Nonetheless the Media/Democrat/Celebrity complex got all over Trump like a cheap suit for his “brutality.”

On the other hand, Maria Garcia is a Cuban refugee (a genuine one, that is) whose son, husband, brother, sister, two uncles and three cousins were wantonly massacred in cold blood while they were all seeking (legal) asylum in the U.S. In all, 43 (genuine) Cuban refugees were wantonly massacred, 11 of them children. Carlos Anaya was 3 when he drowned, Yisel Alvarez 4. Helen Martinez was 6 months old.

But you’ve never heard of Maria Garcia, have you amigos? Or of the horrific massacre from which she barely escaped with her life, have you amigos?

Didn't think so. Here, I’ll help with a few details:

“This was a very heroic and patriotic act!” Fidel Castro gushed on August 5, 1994 while decorating one of his subjects named Jesus Gonzalez as a “Hero of the Revolution.”

This “heroism” consisted of ramming his steel-prowed Russian cutter against a flimsy boat full of desperate Cuban escapees—then blasting his water cannon against dozens of women and children clinging desperately to the sinking boat and drowning 43 of them including 11 children, some of them infants.

"MI HIJO! MI HIJO!" Maria Garcia screamed as the water jet slammed into her, ripping half the clothes off her body and ripping Juan's arm from her grasp. "JUANITO! JUANITO!" She fumbled frantically around her, still blinded by the water blast. Little Juan had gone spinning across the deck and now clung desperately to the tug's railing 10 feet behind Maria as huge waves lapped his legs.

WHACK! The steel patrol boat turned sharply and rammed the escape craft from the other side. Then - CRACK! another one crashed it from the front! WHACK! In Cuba you don't do something like this without strict orders from WAY above.

"We have women and children aboard!" The escapee men yelled. "We'll turn around! OK?!"
WHACK! The Castroites answered the plea by ramming them again. In seconds the escapee craft started coming apart and sinking. Muffled yells and cries came from below. Turns out the women and children who had scrambled into the hold for safety after the first whack had in fact scrambled into a watery tomb.

With the boat coming apart and the water rushing in around them, some got death grips on their children and managed to scramble or swim out. But not all. The roar from the water cannons and the din from the boat engines muffled most of the screams, but all around people were screaming, coughing, gagging and sinking.

As mentioned, Maria Garcia lost her son, Juanito, her husband, brother, sister, two uncles and three cousins in the maritime massacre. Please click here for more details and thorough documentation on this massacre.

And all this death and horror to flee from a nation that experienced net immigration throughout the 20th Century, where boats and planes brought in many more people than they took out - except on vacation. (Despite what you saw in The Godfather, actually, in 1950, more Cubans vacationed in the U.S. than Americans in Cuba, as befits a nation with a bigger middle class than Switzerland).

This was obviously a rogue operation by crazed deviants, you say. No government could possibly condone, much less directly order such a thing! Right?

Wrong. Nothing is random in Stalinist Cuba. As mentioned, one of the gallant water-cannon gunners was even decorated (personally) by Fidel Castro. Perhaps for expert marksmanship. A three-year old child presents a pretty small target. A six-month old baby an even smaller one. "Magnificent job defending the glorious revolution, companero!"

But perhaps my claim of that the “Democrat /Media complex glorifies the perpetrator” strikes some of my amigos as unnecessarily hyperbolic? Or as a blatant exaggeration? Or perhaps even as “fake news?”

Fair enough. Let’s have a look:

“Fidel Castro could have been Cuba’s Elvis!” (Dan Rather)

“Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a thoroughly fascinating figure!” (NBC’s Andrea Mitchell)

"Castro's personal magnetism is still powerful, his presence is still commanding. Cuba has very high literacy, and Castro has brought great health care to his country." (Barbara Walters, pictured with Castro above)

“Fidel Castro is one hell of a guy! You people would like him! Most people in Cuba like him." (CNN founder Ted Turner at Harvard Law School during a speech in 1997. Within weeks CNN was granted its coveted Havana Bureau, the first ever granted by Castro to a foreign network.)  

“Fidel Castro…educated (Cuban) kids, gave them healthcare, totally transformed the society.” (Democrat Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders)

“Viva Fidel! Viva Che!” (Two-time candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination Jesse Jackson, bellowing while arm-in-arm with Fidel Castro himself in 1984)

"Fidel Castro is very shy and sensitive. I frankly like him and regard him as a friend." 

(Democrat presidential candidate, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and “Conscience of the Democrat party,” George McGovern)

“Fidel Castro first and foremost is and always has been a committed egalitarian. He wanted a system that provided the basic needs to all Cuba has superb systems of health care and universal education…We greeted each other as old friends.” (Former President of the United States and official "Elder Statesman” of the Democrat Party, Jimmy Carter)


Humberto Fontova

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272145/refugee-women-and-children-water-cannoned-death-humberto-fontova

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran’s Rouhani threatens US: “You will not be safe from a deluge of drugs, asylum seekers, bombs and terrorism” - Robert Spencer

​
by Robert Spencer

So he is fighting drugs and terrorism, but won’t hesitate to use drugs and terrorism as weapons against the U.S.

“I warn those who impose sanctions that if Iran’s ability to fight drugs and terrorism are affected … you will not be safe from a deluge of drugs, asylum seekers, bombs and terrorism.”

So he is fighting drugs and terrorism, but won’t hesitate to use drugs and terrorism as weapons against the U.S. 


“Iran’s Rouhani says sanctions may lead to drugs, refugee, bomb ‘deluge,'” Reuters, December 8, 2018:

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iranian President Hassan Rouhani predicted a “deluge” of drugs, refugees and attacks on the West if U.S. sanctions weaken Iran’s ability to contain them.
“I warn those who impose sanctions that if Iran’s ability to fight drugs and terrorism are affected … you will not be safe from a deluge of drugs, asylum seekers, bombs and terrorism,” Rouhani said in a speech carried live on state television.
Separately, Foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying that the United States is selling more arms into the Middle East than the region needs, making it a “tinderbox”….
“We spend $800 million a year to fight drugs which ensures the health of nations stretching from of Eastern Europe to the American West and North Africa to West Asia. Imagine what a disaster there would be if there is a breach in the dam,” Rouhani said….
“We have been just as determined in the fight against terrorism … sacrificing hundreds of valuable troops and spending millions of dollars annually,” Rouhani said.
“We don’t expect the West to pay their share, but they should know that sanctions hurt Iran’s capacity to fight drugs and terrorism,” Rouhani added….
“Economic terrorism means creating horror in a country and create fear in other countries that intend to invest (there). America’s withdrawal from the (nuclear accord) is undoubtedly a clear example of economic terrorism,” Rouhani told a meeting of heads of parliaments of China, Russia, and four other countries….

Robert Spencer

Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/irans-rouhani-threatens-us-you-will-not-be-safe-from-a-deluge-of-drugs-asylum-seekers-bombs-and-terrorism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Left supports PM's push for law to reveal anonymous donors - Yehuda Shlezinger

​
by Yehuda Shlezinger

Meretz head Tamar Zandberg plans to sponsor a bill requiring all ‎nonprofit organizations to make their donor lists ‎public

Meretz Chairwoman Tamar Zandberg ‎
Photo: Oren Ben Hakoon 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent initiative to ‎promote a bill that would compel nonprofit ‎‎‎organizations involved in political election campaigns to make donor lists public gained traction Sunday, as left-wing party Meretz said it would promote similar legislation as well.

Coalition insiders said that the prime minister was ‎concerned that foreign ‎donors, who reportedly plan ‎to spend millions on campaigns aimed at ‎convincing ‎the public to vote him out of office, would partner ‎with various nonprofit ‎organizations to conceal their meddling.

Legislation requiring nonprofit organizations to be fully transparent aims to prevent that, the ‎sources said. ‎

Meretz Chairwoman Tamar Zandberg said Sunday that ‎her party would similarly sponsor a bill requiring all ‎nonprofit organizations to make their donor lists ‎public.‎

She said that the party seeks to fight the anonymous ‎funding granted to right-wing associations such as ‎Im Tirtzu, which participate in election campaigns ‎without disclosing the nature of their financial ‎resources. ‎

‎"We expect Im Tirtzu‎ to be the first to release its ‎‎donor list," Zandberg ‎said‎. ‎ The New Israel Fund, which has been consistently vilified by the prime minister and his colleagues for intervening in political matters, said it would gladly cooperate ‎with such a demand.‎

‎"The time has come for all nonprofit organizations ‎in Israel to expose their donor lists. A reality in ‎which the nature of the vast majority of donations ‎to right-wing organizations remains a secret ‎is scandalous and must be rectified by law," the NIF ‎said in a statement.‎

Yehuda Shlezinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/12/10/left-supports-pms-push-for-legislation-exposing-anonymous-donors/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

More UN Chicanery - Bruce Bawer

​
by Bruce Bawer

Almost nobody in the Western world has been clamoring for this. It is, quite simply, a project of the globalist elites. It is a UN power-grab.

• The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration -- which seeks to criminalize criticism of migration -- is nothing more or less than a dangerous effort to weaken national borders, to normalize mass migration, to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration, and to bolster the idea that people claiming to be refugees enjoy a panoply of rights in countries where they have never before set foot.
• One thing about the agreement, in any event, is irrefutable: almost nobody in the Western world has been clamoring for this. It is, quite simply, a project of the globalist elites. It is a UN power-grab.
• It is something else, too: it is an effort to enhance the clout of the UN's largest and most influential power bloc -- namely, the Arab and Muslim states. Briefly put, whatever this deal is or is not, it is definitely not good news for the West, for freedom, or for national identity and security.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration -- which seeks to criminalize criticism of migration -- is nothing more or less than a dangerous effort to weaken national borders, normalize mass migration, blur the line between legal and illegal immigration, and bolster the idea that people claiming to be refugees enjoy a panoply of rights in countries where they have never before set foot. Pictured: Migrants walk towards a holding camp in Dobova, Slovenia on October 26, 2015. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

In Britain, the rage over Muslim rape gangs and Theresa May's Brexit foul-up is spreading. In Germany, anger about Merkel's recklessly transformative refugee policies is mounting. In France, the growing cost of immigrant freeloaders to taxpayers has sparked the most sensational public demonstrations since 1968. In Italy and Austria, opponents of the Islamization of Europe now hold the reins of power. Elsewhere in Western Europe, more and more citizens are standing up to their masters' open-borders dhimmitude.

Yet much of this principled and patriotic resistance may turn out to be for naught, thanks to the so-called Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which is scheduled to be signed by representatives of the UN member states at a December 10-11 conference. Supporters of the compact are quick to reassure its critics that it is not a binding treaty and that it reaffirms the concept of national sovereignty. Nevertheless, when you come right down to it, it is nothing more or less than a dangerous effort to weaken national borders, to normalize mass migration, to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration, and to bolster the idea that people claiming to be refugees enjoy a panoply of rights in countries where they have never before set foot.

As for the 34-page-long document itself, it is written in the kind of numbing, abstraction-heavy prose that will be familiar to anyone who has ever read anything issued by the UN. It declares that "migration is a defining feature of our globalized world, connecting societies within and across all regions, making us all countries of origin, transit and destination." It states that the goal of the Global Compact is "to create conducive conditions that enable all [!] migrants to enrich our societies through their human, economic and social capacities, and thus facilitate their contributions to sustainable development at the local, national, regional and global levels." It also affirms that:

"[w]e must save lives and keep migrants out of harm's way. We must empower migrants to become full members of our societies, highlight their positive contributions, and promote inclusion and social cohesion. We must generate greater predictability and certainty for States, communities and migrants alike. To achieve this, we commit to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration for the benefit of all."

There is a lot more where this came from, and it is not entirely clear what most of it means. Is it just a load of empty, feel-good rhetoric, or is it meant to commit signatories to specific action? What does it mean to say that the Global Compact "mainstreams a gender perspective" or that "a whole-of-government approach is needed to ensure horizontal and vertical policy coherence across all sectors and levels of government"? On the other hand, the document certainly does appear to encourage illegal migration. It unambiguously urges governments to feed their citizens propaganda about the delights of migrants and migration and to "sensitiz[e] and educat[e] media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology" and, in effect, to strong-arm journalists who refuse to play ball. Some readers of the document say that it calls for the criminalization of any criticism of migration, although its backers deny this.

One thing about the agreement, in any event, is irrefutable: almost nobody in the Western world has been clamoring for this. It is, quite simply, a project of the globalist elites. It is a UN power-grab. As the Guardian reported last year, Louise Arbour, the hack put in charge of this project, "regards the global compact as a chance to shift world opinion on the need to address future migration, in the same way that the UN had managed to persuade the world it needed to address climate change." In short, this is yet another reminder that the UN is run by power-hungry busybodies who see it as their job not to respond to and act upon world opinion but to shape it and, if necessary, punish it.

It is something else, too: it is an effort to enhance the clout of the UN's largest and most influential power bloc – namely, the Arab and Muslim states. Just check out the UN website devoted to this Global Compact -- it's illustrated by a picture of a young man and woman holding their index fingers and thumbs together to form a heart. She is in hijab. Repeat: she is in hijab. Briefly put, whatever this deal is or is not, it is definitely not good news for the West, for freedom, or for national identity and security. It seems fitting that the December 10-11 signing ceremony will take place in Marrakesh, Morocco.

US President Donald J. Trump, to his credit, saw through this mischievous piece of work last December, when he announced that the U.S. wanted nothing to do with it. He got flak for that move. In a UN vote this past July, the Global Compact was approved by every member nation except for the U.S. But then at least some media starting paying attention and a resistance formed. In recent weeks, more and more governments have said that they are not going to sign the deal after all. So far, the list includes Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

In several other Western European countries, the issue is still being debated. I suspect the situation in Norway, where I live, is not unique. Most of the political parties here ardently support the Global Compact and, in the run-up to the signing ceremony, have striven -- with the collaboration of the country's mainstream media -- to keep this potentially controversial agreement out of the public eye in the run-up to the signing ceremony. After a handful of alternative news and opinion websites sounded the alarm about the deal, however, it was reported on December 5 that the Progress Party had forced the government to allow a parliamentary discussion of the proposed accord.

Alas, the Big Three countries of Western Europe are all in. Theresa May has committed her government to the deal. Ditto Angela Merkel. Emmanuel Macron has stuck to his line that the Global Compact is "admirable." What's more, thanks to Justin Trudeau, whose mantra continues to be "diversity is a source of strength," Canada is on board as well.

So while there is no need to worry that the Global Compact will supersede the U.S. Constitution any time soon, there is legitimate reason for concern that this devious deal will constitute yet another obstacle to citizens of the free world who care about protecting and preserving their countries -- but whose elites are dead set on thwarting their will.

Bruce Bawer is the author of the new novel The Alhambra (Swamp Fox Editions). His book While Europe Slept (2006) was a New York Times bestseller and National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. His other books include A Place at the Table (1993), Stealing Jesus (1997), Surrender (2009), and The Victims' Revolution (2012). A native New Yorker, he has lived in Europe since 1998.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13397/united-nations-chicanery

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Democratic Countries Should Back out of the UN Global Compact - Judith Bergman

​
by Judith Bergman

The UN shuts down alternative media coverage of the Conference on the Adoption of the UN Global Compact

• The EU has been paying particularly North African governments for years to keep migrants away from the European continent. The effort seems to have yielded few results in terms of stopping migration to Europe.
• The UN Global Compact stipulates that, "media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants" should not receive "public funding or material support."
• Already, it is clear what this stipulation means in practice. The UN recently banned the Canadian outlet Rebel Media from attending the Conference for the Adoption of the UN Global Migration Compact. When Rebel Media asked for an explanation, they were told that the UN, "reserves the right to deny or withdraw accreditation of journalists from media organizations whose activities run counter to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or who abuse the privileges so extended or put the accreditation to improper use or act in a way not consistent with the principles of the Organization. The decisions are final".
• This form of totalitarian behavior on the part of the UN should encourage more states that still value democracy, immediately to back out of the Compact.

Götz Schmidt-Bremme, head of the UN's Global Forum on Migration and Development, has admitted that the UN's Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is a "controversial text," adding: "Maybe the benefits of legal migration were over-emphasised and we forgot about the challenges... we underestimated the need of communities that above all want to see migrants integrate." (Image source: United Nations)

The ongoing and bitter dispute between the EU and its Eastern European member states -- countries such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic -- that have refused to take in migrants as part of the EU's quota system, might be approaching some sort of compromise. In an internal document circulated to EU interior ministers in Brussels in early December, Reuters reported, EU member states that refuse to host migrants in their countries could be exempted from doing so, if instead they show "alternative measures of solidarity." According to diplomats, these "alternative measures" are apparently EU code for "paying into the EU budget or paying toward development projects in Africa".

"The document," Reuters noted, "said the European Union would need a proper mechanism to avoid a situation in which all EU governments opted to pay their way out of any hosting responsibilities and would set an eight-year period for any arrangements".

Already in October, European Parliament President Antonio Tajani had said that EU countries who refused to host refugees could instead pay more for EU migration and development projects in Africa. "No relocation - (then) more money for Africa," Tajani said.

"We cannot force (others to take in refugees)," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also said in October, "but those that do not do so must possibly contribute in another way such as... in Africa. Everyone needs to take on some of the responsibility that we all have" .

The idea of paying for development projects in Africa to keep African migrants from coming to Europe is not new. It was aired by Tajani himself in July 2017. At the time, he warned that Europe is "underestimating" the scale and severity of the migration crisis and that unless urgent action is taken, "millions of Africans" will flood the continent in the next five years. He added that there would be an exodus [from Africa] "of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don't confront the problem now".

The only solution, according to Tajani, is massive investment in Africa to dissuade people from leaving in the first place:

"Population growth, climate change, desertification, wars, famine in Somalia and Sudan. These are the factors that are forcing people to leave... If we don't confront this soon, we will find ourselves with millions of people on our doorstep within five years... Today we are trying to solve a problem of a few thousand people, but we need to have a strategy for millions of people."

The EU has, in fact, been paying particularly North African governments for years to keep migrants away from the European continent, especially through the Union of the Mediterranean. The effort seems to have yielded few results in terms of stopping migration to the European continent. As recently as September 2018, the EU agreed to pay Morocco $275 million in aid "to stem illegal migration to the continent". Indicating how large an enterprise illegal migration is from Morocco alone, its government announced in September that in 2018, security authorities had thwarted more than 54,000 illegal immigration attempts, dismantled 74 criminal networks active in human trafficking and smuggling, and seized more than 1,900 human trafficking vehicles.

The prospect of encouraging millions of migrants to come to the West has persuaded increasing numbers of predominantly Western UN member states to back out of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The Compact, which frames migration as something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected, is set to be formally adopted at the Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in Marrakech, Morocco on December 10-11.

Currently, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland have declared that they will not be adopting the UN Migration Compact. The US had already withdrawn from negotiations on the Compact in December 2017.

"Maybe the benefits of legal migration were over-emphasised and we forgot about the challenges... we underestimated the need of communities that above all want to see migrants integrate," said Götz Schmidt-Bremme, currently ambassador for the 2017-18 co-chairmanship of the Global Forum on Migration and Development, a parallel UN initiative, in which governments discuss migration and development issues.

Louise Arbour, the UN's special representative for international migration commented, said in response to the mass withdrawal of countries from the Compact: "I think it reflects very poorly on those who participated in negotiations... it's very disappointing to see that kind of reversal so shortly after a text was agreed upon."

Arbour stressed that the states backing out will not be "harvesting the benefits" of migration:

"There are many, many countries in the world today that will need to import a part of their workforce... The demographics are suggesting that if they want to maintain their current economic standards or even grow their economy, they're going to have to receive well-trained foreigners to meet the labour market demands in their countries."

She added that, "To foster a culture of exclusion" is "entirely counterproductive". She did not state what guarantees, if any, were being planned to assure that these "foreigners" would be "well-trained".

The UN Global Compact objective 17 (paragraph 33 c) also stipulates that, "media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants" should not receive "public funding or material support." Meanwhile, the Compact tries to claim that it is "in full respect for the freedom of the media".

Already, it is clear what this stipulation means in practice -- even before the UN member states have formally adopted the Compact. The UN recently banned the Canadian outlet Rebel Media from attending the Conference for the Adoption of the UN Global Migration Compact. When Rebel Media asked for an explanation, they were told that the UN, "reserves the right to deny or withdraw accreditation of journalists from media organizations whose activities run counter to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or who abuse the privileges so extended or put the accreditation to improper use or act in a way not consistent with the principles of the Organization. The decisions are final".

This form of totalitarian behavior on the part of the UN should encourage more states that still value democracy, immediately to back out of the Compact.

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13398/un-global-compact-withdrawal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Europe beats Iran’s war drums - Caroline Glick

​
by Caroline Glick

As Mogherini and her colleagues were sitting with the Iranians, the Wall Street Journal reported that the French and German governments have agreed to set up a back channel-- to arrange for payments for Iranian exports in a manner that bypasses and so undermines US financial and trade sanctions on Iran.

Last Saturday, Iran’s “moderate” President Hassan Rouhani called Israel “a cancerous tumor” in a speech at the regime’s annual Islamic Unity Conference.

Rouhani’s fellow speakers included deputy Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem and Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh. Both terror bosses called for the destruction of the “cancerous tumor.”

With the predictability of a Swiss clock, the Europeans rushed to condemn Rouhani. The EU in Brussels condemned Rouhani. The German Foreign Ministry condemned Rouhani. And so on and so forth.

We could have done without their statements.

Just two days after Rouhani’s Jewish cancer speech, his representatives sat down with senior EU officials in Brussels to discuss Iranian-EU nuclear cooperation in the framework of the 2015 nuclear deal. Following the talks, EU Foreign Affairs Chief Federica Mogherini’s office put out a statement claiming that the sides “expressed their determination to preserve the nuclear agreement as… a key pillar for European and regional security.”

As Mogherini and her colleagues were sitting with the Iranians, the Wall Street Journal reported that the French and German governments have agreed to set up a back channel, in the form of a joint corporation, owned by European governments, whose job will be to arrange for payments for Iranian exports in a manner that bypasses and so undermines US financial and trade sanctions on Iran.

How are we to understand Europe’s behavior? What is possessing Germany and France and Brussels and even Britain, (which is reportedly considering joining the Germans and French in their sanctions-busting operations) to stand with Iran against the US?

It isn’t because Iran has proved its good intentions to them. To the contrary, over the past six months, Iran has plotted three terror attacks in Europe. In June, Iranian operatives murdered a regime opponent in Holland. In July, Belgian authorities prevented an Iranian plot to attack a regime opposition rally in Paris. And in October, Danish authorities intercepted an Iranian terror squad en route to assassinate the head of an organization of Ahwaz Arabs, Iran’s Arab minority that suffers from harsh repression at the hands of the regime.

These terror plots are not the only way that Iran is working to threaten European security even as European leaders endanger their ties with the US to enrich Tehran. Ahead of his meeting with the Europeans in Brussels on Monday, Ali Akhbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s nuclear agency, warned that if Europeans choose to comply with US sanctions and stop purchasing Iranian oil, Iran will ditch the nuclear deal and restore its activities to enrich uranium to 20% purity, something Iran purportedly suspended in the framework of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Salehi told Reuters, “It is very easy for us to go back to what we were before – even to a better position. We can start the 20% enrichment activity. We can increase the amount of enriched uranium.”

Maybe the Europeans are working to undermine US sanctions and save the Iranian economy because they are afraid of the Iranians. But since Europe’s intense efforts to appease Iran have been met with continued Iranian terrorism, it is irrational to think that repeating this failed policy will protect them in the future.

As Brian Hook, the US State Department’s Iran policy chief put it to reporters when the Denmark terror plot was revealed, “It is very strange to us to see this Iranian regime would spend so much time trying to keep the Europeans on its side, while at the same time conducting bomb plots and assassination attempts in Europe.”

It’s possible that the Europeans are motivated to work on behalf of Iran against the US by an uncontrollable hatred of US President Donald Trump. Speaking to Britain’s Independent, a senior European diplomat said that the Europeans are empowering Iran so that Trump won’t be able to get the satisfaction of seeing them agree with him that Iran is a threat.

In his words, “We want to play it smartly so that Trump doesn’t say, ‘See, I told you these weak Europeans will eventually understand the real nature of Iran.’”

In other words, according to the quoted diplomat, the Europeans would rather shut their eyes to the reality of Iran’s aggression and empower the terror sponsoring ayatollahs than acknowledge that Trump is right and that Iran poses to danger to Europe that mustn’t be countenanced. And indeed, while the Danes initially recalled their ambassador from Tehran and called on the EU to impose sanctions against Iran in retaliation for the terror plot in Copenhagen, within weeks, the Danish ambassador was back in Tehran and the EU had opted not to impose any sanctions in response to Iran’s terrorist operations in Europe.

Jew hatred is another possible explanation for Europe’s embrace of a regime that calls daily for Israel’s destruction and works directly and through its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies to achieve its murderous goal. CNN’s survey of European Jew hatred, released this week showed yet again that hatred of Jews remains a powerful force for political and social mobilization in Europe today.

As for antisemitism, according to a senior administration official, although Mogherini is the mouthpiece for the EU’s Iran policy, she is not its author, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is.

Mogherini, like the Germans and French, insist that their continued commitment to the 2015 nuclear deal stems from their conviction that the deal is working to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Ahead of the meeting with Salehi on Monday, EU Energy Commissioner Arias Canete said the deal is “crucial for the security of Europe, of the region and the entire world.”

He said the agreement is working to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and that “we do not see any credible peaceful alternative.”

The mendacity of Canete’s statement, and similar ones by Mogherini, is stunning. At least since April 30, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exposed Iran’s nuclear archive, which Mossad officers seized from a Tehran warehouse in late January, nothing Iran says about its nuclear program or activities can be taken seriously. The very existence of the nuclear archive, and the great efforts the regime took to preserve it made clear that the Iranian regime has never had the slightest interest in curbing, let alone abandoning its ambition to develop a nuclear arsenal. The archive preserved all of the knowledge that Iran amassed since the early 1990s towards the development, testing and deployment of nuclear warheads.

Salehi himself made clear that the nuclear sword of Damocles is still dangling over the world’s throat. Salehi warned the Europeans that if they fail to protect Iran from US sanctions, the consequences will be “ominous.”

“The situation is very unpredictable,” he warned.

The Iranian nuclear archive, Europe’s willingness to provoke an open breach with the Americans to continue transferring money to Iran, and Iran’s own brinksmanship in the face of US sanctions tell us that much of the discourse about the nuclear deal has been misplaced and the purpose of the deal has been misconstrued.

Unlike what we have been told – and what we have been telling ourselves, the deal isn’t a non-proliferation effort. It isn’t geared toward blocking Iran’s nuclear operations.

The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is nothing more than a payoff. Salehi admitted as much this week when he said, “If we cannot sell our oil and we don’t enjoy financial transactions, then I don’t think keeping the deal will benefit us anymore.”

The Obama administration, in conjunction with the EU, concluded a deal which no one ever signed. It involved the US and Europe, (along with Russia and China) transferring billions of dollars to Iran in cash, providing Iran with billions of dollars of sanctions relief and agreeing to business deals worth additional billions to the Iranian economy.

In exchange, Iran offered them nothing.

It is impossible to credit any of Iran’s purported actions to contain or curtail its nuclear activities because the agreement contains no effective inspections mechanism. Under the JCPOA, Iran can avoid UN inspections of its nuclear installations by simply calling them military installations.

The purpose of the deal then wasn’t to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons at all. This is why then-president Barack Obama, then-secretary of state John Kerry, their underlings and their EU colleagues couldn’t care less when, during the negotiations, Israel provided proof that Iran couldn’t be trusted and that the agreement as concluded wouldn’t prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. This is also why the Europeans responded to Israel’s seizure of Iran’s nuclear archive with a shrug of their shoulders. They aren’t arms controllers. They are appeasers.

The purpose of the nuclear deal was to enrich and empower the Iranian regime. And in this context, Iran’s determination to leave the deal if the dollars and euros stop flowing is entirely reasonable. So, too, the Europeans are right that to preserve the deal, they must do everything in their power to continue enriching Iran.

Once we understand the actual nature of the deal, we can recognize the true danger of Europe’s pro-Iranian, anti-American actions.

Israel and many Arab states have made clear that they will go to war against Iran if that is the only way that Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The purpose of the US economic sanctions is to achieve the goal of blocking Iran’s nuclear efforts without war. If the Iranian economy collapses, or if the regime is overthrown, or both, Iran will likely abandon its nuclear weapons program without war. If Europe is successful in scuttling US sanctions, the likelihood of a major war will rise tremendously.

In response to the Wall Street Journal report, US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell told the Jerusalem Post’s Benjamin Weinthal that the US will contemplate sanctions against French and German entities that seek to evade sanctions against Iran.

In his words, “The US will consider sanctions on those entities participating in these tactics.”
Maybe the Europeans are motivated to stand with Rouhani and his fellow genocidal antisemites in the Iranian regime out of hatred for Trump or for America as a whole. Maybe they’re motivated by Jew hatred.

Maybe they simply want to keep paying off the Iranians in the hopes that Iranian regime terrorists will continue to focus their terror efforts in Europe on Iranian dissidents and Jews and leave them alone.

Maybe they are motivated by old-fashioned greed.

Whatever is motivating them, the time has come to make them pay a price for their hostile behavior. Because if they aren’t forced to back down, by US sanctions and other means, then the world will pay a devastating price later, in the form of a war that might have been prevented were it not for European perfidy, prejudice and cowardice.

Originally published in the Jerusalem Post. 


Caroline Glick

Source: http://carolineglick.com/europe-beats-irans-war-drums/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter