No Aid for Censors: The Case for Quitting Twitter By Boris Zelkin

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/28/no-aid-for-censors-

Last night I suspended Twitter indefinitely.

This had been building for some time for two primary reasons. First, Twitter, like Facebook (which I had given up a few months ago), is a hate machine. Second, Twitter’s ever-changing terms of service and curiously selective enforcement of said terms via shadow and outright bans made it increasingly obvious that Twitter is less interested in real conversation than it is in kabuki theater conversation—censored one-sided shadow-boxing—replacing freedom of speech with speech at the pleasure of one’s betters.

As such, Twitter has became a platform I can no longer support with my participation.

From my perspective, participation on a platform that actively censors political speech, even when that participation consists of criticism the platform, is a tacit approval. Remember how you felt when you saw those “Occupy Wall Street” folks using iPhones to bemoan capitalism? That’s how I began seeing giving Twitter my voice, a voice that they could choose to either allow or silence if it became pesky or popular enough.

Having your letter critical of state policies published in Pravda is not the same as speaking freely. You are still at the mercy of the state. Worse still, you are being used by the state to feign even handedness.

When you “join the conversation” on Twitter, you’re speaking at the discretion of Twitter’s censors, be they human or algorithms. Like Jonathan Edwards’ spider, you exist on Twitter at their pleasure. And per Jonathan Edwards, the Twitter gods “Abhor you and are dreadfully provoked.” With each new term of service added (the newest being the prohibition on “misgendering” and “deadnaming”) everyone is a potential violator. They’ve covered the floor with eggshells and then tell you that you’re free to jump around. A Twitter executive in 2012 quoted CEO Jack Dorsey proclaiming Twitter as “the Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party”. Hardly. Not Even Jack believes that bullshit anymore.

Being a conservative, free speech supporter, libertarian, or even the wrong kind of liberal on Twitter is engaging in speech that one hopes will pass muster with the company. It is speech reliant on approval from a system whose purposely opaque and broad rules shift with the winds. It is the acquiescing and providing power, reach and currency to the system one is criticising.

Any time I used Twitter to inveigh against Twitter unfairness, I felt as though I became another propaganda statistic that Twitter’s defenders can point to as demonstrable proof of how truly magnanimous Twitter is. “But we allow @FreeSpeechGuy557 to speak.” So there—shut up or we’ll ban you. The Soviets did, after all, hold public trials to show the world and convince themselves just how fair they could be.

What Is Saudi Arabia to Us? By Angelo Codevilla

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/27/what-is

It seems that Saudi Arabia’s rulers murdered an opponent. The U.S. media and political class is shocked, shocked, to find that murder is going on in such precincts. Who did they imagine the Muslim world’s leaders are?

Moreover, our chattering class demands that President Trump do whatever it takes to make sure that they do nothing like that again. Do what? Does anyone really think that swapping sheik A for sheik B would improve their kind’s moral standards? Do they have any idea of what keeps A on top of B, what it would take to switch them, or what the repercussions would be in foreign policy? Are they naifs, idiots, or are they just playing with foreign policy to make life a little harder for Trump?

What follows is politically incorrect information on what Saudi Arabia is, what role it plays in American politics, and what it means for our foreign policy. Then, I will suggest how American foreign policy from the Founding to around 1910 would deal with today’s Middle East.

Saudi Arabia’s rulers are a subspecies of the desert rats endemic in the region. The ones on the cheese now are of the clan of seven sons out of old king Saud’s favorite wife, Suda, and hence are known as Sudaris. The previous ruler, Abdullah was the only son of another wife. When Abdullah’s birth-order turn came, in 2005, he took the throne thanks only to having mobilized the national guard of bedouins for war against the national army (and everything else) controlled by the Sudaris. Today, when you read about Mohammed bin Salman’s “anti-corruption reforms,” you should know that they target primarily Abdullah’s son and other relatives. In other words, what is going on, including murder, is a purely dynastic power play. But that is Saudi Arabia’s nice side.

The fundamental reality is that this is a slave society, (the Arabic word for black man is the word for slave) which considers work something that inferiors do for superiors, prizes idleness, and practices cruelty as a means of asserting superiority. Everyone knows that women, treated as property, end up disproportionately in the harems of the wealthy. But few stop to think that this custom dooms the majority of Saudi men to lives without legitimate sex, never mind families.

As for who gets what, that comes strictly either from birth or from connections with the powerful. Nor are the young clamoring for the kind of useful work that would lift them up. They compete, all right, but for favor. Saudi students in U.S colleges—and even in military training programs—just don’t do their work. A degree is a passport to a job which somebody else performs.

Sweden: Women Raped, Authorities Too Busy by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13332/sweden-rapes-police

According to Mikaela Blixt, after a man attacked her in the street and tried to rape her, the police did nothing, even though she knew where her attacker lived and could easily have identified him.

The Swedish mainstream media outlet, Expressen, wanted to interview Blixt, but, according to her, only on condition that she not mention that her attacker was an Afghan migrant.

Not only women, but almost one out of three Swedes, do not feel safe in Sweden, according to a new poll that asked 6,300 Swedes how safe they feel in their homes and communities.

It is curious that the Swedish police not only have sufficient resources to charge people who attend peaceful demonstrations, but also people who allegedly commit thought crimes.

“Sweden,” stated its government in November 2015, “has a feminist government. We place gender equality at the heart of both national and international work… The overall objective of the Government’s gender equality policy is equal power for women and men to shape society and their own lives. This is ultimately a question of democracy and social justice.”

Wait a minute. Shouldn’t women living under a “feminist government” be able — at a bare minimum — to leave their homes without the fear of becoming victims of sexual assault?

22,000 sexual crimes were reported in 2017 to the Swedish police, 7370 of them rapes, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet, or Brå). That number corresponds to an average of 20 reported rapes per day — twice as many as in 2005. Those are just the reported rapes. In 2012, for instance, only 20% of all rapes were reported to the police, according to Brå.

Unlike what the Swedish media has been preaching for years — that most rapes occur in private settings and are committed against victims who know already their attacker — the large majority of rapes are, in fact, committed in the public sphere by men who have never previously met their victim, according to Brå. Out of the 842 men sentenced for rape or attempted rape in the past five years, noted a report by Svt Nyheter (Swedish Television) 58% were foreign-born — from the Middle East and North Africa, southern parts of Africa and other places outside of Europe. When it came to men sentenced for attempted rape, as well as violent rape, where victim and perpetrator did not know each other beforehand, 80% of the men were foreign born and 40% had only been in Sweden for a year or less.

Russia-Ukraine Confrontation at Sea Raises the Stakes Will Trump confront Putin at the G-20 Summit meeting? Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272076/russia-ukraine-confrontation-sea-raises-stakes-joseph-klein

A military confrontation erupted directly between Ukrainian and Russian military forces last Sunday off the coast of the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula when two Ukrainian cutters and a tugboat heading from one Ukrainian port to another attempted to pass through a narrow sea passage known as the Kerch Strait. The strait is close to the Crimean Peninsula that separates the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Russia would not let the ships pass, blocking them with a grounded tanker under a bridge Russia had constructed linking the Crimea Peninsula it had illegally annexed in 2014 with the Russian mainland. Not able to proceed to their destination because of Russia’s blockage, the Ukrainian cutters reportedly turned around. According to Ukraine’s account, Ukraine’s vessels were heading back to where they came from when Russia fired on the ships, injuring several sailors. Russia then seized the vessels, with what has been reported to be either 23 or 24 sailors on board. A Russian court on Tuesday ordered 12 of the captured sailors to remain in Russian custody for at least two months. The other captured sailors could meet the same fate when they are expected to appear in Russian court on Wednesday. If convicted on charges of colluding to cross Russia’s border illegally, the sailors could be jailed for as long as six years.

Although all-out war has not broken out yet, the region is on edge as Russia tries to leverage its control over Crimea on the ground to establish its claims of territorial dominion over the surrounding waters. Russia is also demonstrating its power over Ukraine’s economy. Russian President Vladimir Putin is ratcheting up pressure on Ukraine’s economy by limiting its freedom to send ships to ports on the Sea of Azov. Freedom of passage is necessary for Ukraine to support heavy industry on which thousands of Ukrainians depend for their livelihood. By land and sea, Russia is tightening the noose around Ukraine’s neck.

On Monday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko declared martial law in the troubled areas of his country bordering Russia for 30 days after receiving approval from Ukraine’s parliament, a move that Russia condemned as a provocation. “The imposition of martial law in various regions potentially could lead to the threat of an escalation of tension in the conflict region, in the southeast” of Ukraine, President Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters.

Airbnb’s Corporate Act of Anti-Semitism What will the cost be for a vile act of bigotry? Ari Lieberman

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272063/airbnbs-corporate-act-anti-semitism-ari-lieberman

Airbnb’s November 19th decision to delist some 200 accounts of Jewish citizens who reside in the districts of Judea & Samaria, alternatively known as the West Bank, will have little economic impact on those account holders. Most of their business is generated by other advertising and hosting platforms so nothing will change. The tourists will still come. Moreover, Airbnb specifically excluded rentals from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights from its delisting efforts. Nevertheless, despite its miniscule economic impact, it is crucial that supporters of Israel and opponents of antisemitism muster all efforts to reverse Airbnb’s illogical and discriminatory policy. This includes legal action, petitions, political and economic pressures.

The decision to ban West Bank accounts of Jewish residents exclusively is discriminatory on two levels. First, despite numerous conflict zones throughout the world – Tibet, Kashmir, Crimea, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Falkland Islands, Nagorno-Karabakh, to name just a few – Airbnb decided to focus its efforts on Judea and Samaria. Second, Airbnb distinguishes between Jewish and Arab homes within Judea and Samaria. Thus an Arab resident of Jericho can freely rent his apartment, while his Jewish neighbor who resides in the community of Mitzpeh Jericho, cannot.

Judging from its disparate treatment of Israel, it is patently clear that Airbnb’s decision was motivated by pressure from nefarious anti-Israel elements. The United Nations Human Rights Council, a body hosted by the world’s worst purveyors of Antisemitism and human rights violations, placed Airbnb on its black list of companies doing business in Judea and Samaria. Human Rights Watch and other anti-Israel non-governmental organizations also chimed it. As a result, Airbnb chose the morally reprehensible path and succumbed. It is time for Airbnb to recognize that its deleterious action comes with adverse legal and economic consequences.

Within days of Airbnb’s action, a class action lawsuit was filed in Israel seeking an unspecified sum on behalf of those aggrieved by the company’s delisting campaign. A newly enacted Israeli law empowers courts to award compensation to plaintiffs who can prove that they were denied goods or services on the basis of their domicile.

The Russians and the Kerch Bridge: What Would Reagan Do? By Shoshana Bryen

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/the_russians_and_the_kerch_bridge_what_would_reagan_do.html

Every story has a starting point. Don’t start with the Russian capture this week of two (or three) Ukrainian ships and the injury to three (or six) Ukrainian sailors. The Russian habit is to do as it likes with smaller countries and then announce that the other guy did it (or it never happened at all). That is the story of the Russian war in Ukraine and the 2014 illegal annexation of Crimea, and that is the Russian story of the Ukrainian ships – two ships, not three, three injured not six; anyhow, Ukraine was sailing out of its lane.

Start instead with the bridge over the narrow Kerch Strait that opened earlier in 2018. It is the only entrance to the Azov Sea from the Black Sea, spanning the Taman Peninsula in Russia and the Kerch Peninsula in Crimea. Earlier plans for the bridge were completed between Russia and Ukraine, but that was before the Russians occupied Crimea. There is an agreement for Ukrainian passage to its two ports along the Azov Sea, but Ukraine has complained that the bridge is the beginning of a blockade that would ultimately control or end Ukrainian shipping. There have been delays for Ukrainian ships passing through, sometimes days, and oh, by the way, the bridge is very low – nearly flat – over the water, meaning that Ukrainian ships over 115 feet can’t pass at all. And now there is a Russian ship parked under the bridge, blocking traffic.

It is estimated that Ukrainian shipping through the strait is down nearly 25% since the bridge opened – as the Ukrainians feared and as the Russians planned.

Now what?

Neither the U.S. nor NATO has an obligation here – Ukraine is not a member – but freedom of navigation is one of the defining principles of international law. The U.S. faces countries chipping at the edges of it elsewhere – China in the South China Sea and Iran in the Persian Gulf, with plans for Yemen on the Red Sea. Giving Russia a pass will make the other cases more difficult.

WWRRD? What would Ronald Reagan do?

During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iran attacked Kuwaiti, then other Gulf State, then other non-combatant tankers and merchant ships. Shortly thereafter, Iraq took the same steps. In 1986, Kuwait asked to have the U.S. Navy escort its tankers as protection, but U.S. law forbids escorting civilian vessels under a foreign flag. So the ships were reregistered and reflagged, and both Iran and Iraq decided that the cost of attacking American-flagged ships outweighed the benefits. The operation lasted until late in 1987.

President Donald Trump has proven, as Ronald Reagan did, that he is willing to take measures commensurate with the scope of an international problem.

Europe’s Migrant Disaster Should Teach America a Lesson Even Hillary Clinton now admits the Continent erred in allowing entry of too many unvetted ‘refugees.’ By Jason L. Riley

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-migrant-disaster-should-teach-america-a-lesson-1543362209

Political up-and-comers like New York’s Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might feel comfortable comparing Central American migrants to Jewish families fleeing Nazi Germany, as she did in a tweet the other day. But some elder statesmen in her party seem to know better.

Take Hillary Clinton, who surprised a lot of people last week when she told a British newspaper that “Europe needs to get a handle on migration.” She said the Continent’s leaders should make clear that they are “not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support” to any and all who want to come. Border chaos fuels anti-immigrant populism, be it in the U.S. or Europe—and she should know. During the 2016 campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s focus was making the Mexico border more open rather than more secure, and she believes that’s one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected president.

Delivering the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in South Africa in July, Barack Obama went further. “It’s not wrong to insist that national borders matter, [that] whether you’re a citizen or not is going to matter to a government, that laws need to be followed,” he said. Newcomers, Mr. Obama added, “should make an effort to adapt to the language and customs of their new home. Those are legitimate things, and we have to be able to engage people who do feel as if things are not orderly.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Endangered Species Habitat Check The Supreme Court rules 8-0 against a federal land grab for the dusky gopher frog.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/endangered-species-habitat-check-1543365316

Amid all the hand-wringing about a polarized Supreme Court, note Tuesday’s unanimous decision for regulatory sanity. The case concerned whether a frog’s “critical habitat” can include land where the frog doesn’t live and can’t survive.

Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife involves more than 1,500 acres in Louisiana that the government declared “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act. Two problems: The critter hasn’t been seen in those parts for about five decades, and it can’t survive on the land without clearing forest canopy.

The timber company that operates on the land sued on the sensible grounds that the place can’t be critical habitat if the creature would die on arrival. The law allows Fish and Wildlife to designate certain unoccupied areas as critical habit but only if they’re essential to the conservation of the species. The designation threatens development on the land and could cost the owners $34 million by the government’s estimates.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the government in a decision with no limiting principle—by the circuit’s logic, a desert could be critical habitat for a fish, as more than a dozen state attorneys general pointed out in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump is right: we can choose either Europe or the US, but not both Jeremy Warner

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/27/donald-trump-right-can-choose-either-europe-us-not/

Ever since Theresa May’s ill-fated decision to call an election and the consequent loss of her majority, very little has gone right for Britain’s beleaguered prime minister. Having finally got Brussels to agree some sort of a withdrawal deal, it now seems overwhelmingly likely that her own parliament will brutally vote it down.

As is often the way with middle course strategies, her deal has ended up offending almost everyone. The country, and parliament, are too divided, too entrenched and immovable in their views, to allow for compromise. Remorselessly, apparently irredeemably, we are drifting towards the mother of all political crises, perhaps the biggest of many of our lifetimes. May’s only hope is that Brussels comes to her rescue, and offers sufficient in the way of concessions – say allowing the UK unilaterally to withdraw from the customs backstop – to get her over the line. But it is an increasingly forlorn prospect.

As if things were not bad enough, along comes Donald Trump to deliver, as is his way, the final coup de grâce, insisting in effect that Mrs May’s deal would be incompatible with a meaningful US free trade agreement. Since free trade deals with other parts of the world were meant to be the big economic dividend from Brexit, this is something of a blow.

But it was also only a statement of the bleedin’ obvious; the closer you are to one trading bloc, the less easy it is to strike a deal with another, and that’s precisely the dilemma that Mrs May’s deal has highlighted. By trying to stay close to Europe, she makes it very hard to be close to America at the same time.

Trade was always as much about geopolitical power and heft as the Ricardo-esque textbook ideal of mutually beneficial commercial interaction and progress. We’d like it to be the latter; but the way of the world is the former. Mr Trump has laid this harsh reality bare, demolishing some of the wilder fantasies about “Global Britain”, free to trade as it likes with the rest of the world once released from its European shackles. What Trump is saying is that you can have a deep and meaningful trading relationship with either the US or Europe, but not both; it’s us or them.

What California’s Fire Follies Can Teach Us Roger Underwood

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/what-californias-fire-follies-can-teach-us/

As is normal these days, the blame game is already being waged in the wake of the most recent 2018 Californian bushfires. On the one hand are the doomsayers who claim the fires are a result of climate change. At the other end of the spectrum are those blaming “environmental terrorists” for preventing effective pre-fire management, such as forest thinning and fuel-reduction burning.

Depressingly, the climate changers include influential Australians such as Stuart Ellis, CEO of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authority, and Richard Thornton, director of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre. Both are quoted in The Guardian newspaper attributing the Californian fires to climate change, with no qualification. Fascinatingly, the second group includes Ryan Zinke, the US Secretary of the Interior, and Sonny Perdue, US Secretary of Agriculture, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service. Zinke makes no bones about his view that responsible preparation of potential fire grounds was prevented by environmental zealots, whom he brands “terrorists”.

As in most matters where science, politics and human affairs intermix, the reality is more complex than either of these contrasting opinions. As happens so often in the media these days, the single-issue commentators are not addressing the fire problem but are using alarm over the fires to promote another agenda. For example, Australian bushfire research and emergency response agencies promote climate change anxiety to generate increased funding; the Trump administration wants to revive logging for economic and social reasons, and cites overstocked, dying forests (locked away by ‘green’ administrations) as the fundamental cause of the fires.

I am not an expert on the Californian situation, but I have been there many times and have many colleagues in the American fire community who have helped to educate me and shape my views. What follows is my perspective on what is going on, and what is likely to transpire. I am trying to look at the bigger picture, rather than focus on one issue or another.

For a start, California is a big place with a wide range of climates, vegetation and topographical situations and therefore a range of different bushfire challenges. Irrespective of any recent “climate change”, most of California has always experienced hot, dry summers and cool wet winters, and droughts have always periodically occurred. There is also (usually in late summer) the scourge of the infamous Santa Ana winds. These are hot, dry, strong winds originating in the desert country to the east that sweep down the Sierra Mountains into coastal southern California. This air mass is so dry, it acts on a bushfire like opening the door of a blast furnace. Furthermore, wind velocity often peaks between midnight and dawn, ensuring people in the path of a newly-started fire receive little warning and awake to be confronted by wind-driven flames.