Only 2 percent of respondents believe the economy is excellent but 18 percent rate it poor.
The combined net is 35 percent think the economy is good to excellent but 65 percent think the economy is not-so-good to poor.
Is the Economy Better, the Same, or Worse than 50 Years Ago?
Only 30 percent think life in America is better than 50 years ago.
My first thought was the question is silly. Many respondents have no idea what life was like 50 years ago. For some, even 15 or 20 years ago would be a struggle.
Nonetheless, perhaps the answer is telling. Apparently, things are so bad now that people presume they were better 50 years ago.
Economic and Political Systems
This above question surprised me the most in light of the other answers.
People have given up on the American Dream and think like was better 50 years ago.
Yet, only 50 percent think things are stacked against them. I wonder if age has something to do with the above question.
Demographics in WSJ Poll
18-34: 15%
35-49: 26%
50-64: 23%
65+: 36%
The WSJ pool had a massive 36% percentage of respondents in the 65+ age group.
In 2022, about 17.3 percent of the American population was 65 years old or over, according to Statistica.
That’s a pretty bad skew.
Let’s look at this another way. Who is more likely to think the system is stacked against them, someone older or someone younger?
Home Ownership Rates
74.6 Percent of those 55-64 years own their home. 79.5 percent of those 65 and older do.
But only 39.3 percent of those age 35 and under do with home prices soaring out of sight and mortgage rates well above 7 percent.
However, the Journal failed to detect biased questions or note explain huge demographic sampling issues.
Note the question: Is the system “stacked against people like me?”
Perhaps a better question would have been “Is the system stacked?” A follow-up would ask “against whom?“
In practice, the younger you are, and the fewer assets you have, the more the system is stacked against you. It is very difficult to buy a house now, and a house is a big part of the American Dream.
In contrast, the key question was nicely phrased: “Do you think the American Dream–that if you work hard you’ll get ahead–still holds true, never held true, or once held true but does not anymore?“
Age sampling and the poor wording of questions likely explains the discrepancy between the answers to the “American Dream” question and the “stacked” question.
Those older and wiser can see the system is unfairly stacked, just not against them personally.
This leads back to the same place and other polls.
In one sentence: People are in a rotten mood because they are struggling with rent and putting food on the table. Those not struggling can easily see others who are.
Meanwhile, despite huge problems at home, Biden wants hundreds of billions more for Israel, Ukraine, and Inane Money-Losing Offshore Wind Projects that now need a bailout.
Disney’s ‘Wish’ Is A Theatrical Bomb And The Latest In A String Of Woke Failures
Is it time to declare the Disney brand dead? Only a couple weeks ago the entertainment giant suffered one of its worst box office showings ever with the failure of The Marvels, a feminist driven girl-boss movie which was widely applauded by social justice advocates but ignored by the vast majority of the public. The film is expected to lose $200 million to $300 million once receipts are totaled and marketing costs are accounted for.
In a bizarre attempt at maximum cope, the media is hailing The Marvels as the largest ever theatrical opening by a black female director. When, in fact, the movie is actually the largest box office bomb made by a black female director.
Now, Disney’s animated ‘The Wish’ is set to top that failure, falling well below box office predictions and bringing in only $32 million over a five day period including the once lucrative Thanksgiving weekend.
Numerous reports suggest that Wish is opening to empty theaters across the country. Media spin doctors have attempted to jump ahead of “get woke, go broke” accusations with articles claiming that the movie is not woke, but more “Libertarian” in its messaging. This is, for the most part, a dishonest deflection. The film’s producers openly admitted their woke methodology in a number of interviews including their desire to inject Diversity and Inclusion messaging.
While the woke intent is more obscure than previous films, Wish features yet another precocious ethnic teen female (named Asha) banding together with her diverse cast of friends to fight a revolution against the white male patriarchy. The main villain is, of course, a white guy named “King Magnifico” who rules over the kingdom of Rosas using the magical power to grant wishes. However, the King doesn’t grant everyone’s wish, only some, and those who don’t get their wish granted forget their wishes forever.
Asha believes this is unfair and that all people should have have their wishes returned or fulfilled (perhaps a vague nod to the concept of equity in which every person is taught to expect equality of outcome, not just equality of opportunity). When Asha finds a magical power that threatens the King’s monopoly, he loses his mind with envy and goes full-bore dark side to keep control.
While this story arc could be interpreted as a criticism of centralized governance, the greater plot is far more socialist in its agenda. The evil King is overthrown by the power of “collective love”, the Queen sides with the revolutionaries and rules in his place and everyone gets access to equal wish fulfillment. It’s a woke carnival side show.
Critics also argue that the film is mostly unoriginal, with an endless list of nostalgia references and character ideas stolen from better movies made decades ago. The most common reaction to Wish from theater goers? It’s boring. This has been the M.O. of modern Disney for some time now – They dig up the bones of their previous successes and try to reanimate them instead of making something new and imaginative. This is what happens when a company hires creators based on diversity stats rather than talent.
Massive losses have been plaguing Disney month after month. Lightyear and Strange World featured LGBT messaging for children, which did not go over well with audiences. Indiana Jones: Dial of Destiny was another feminist replacement fantasy that bombed horribly. Almost every major Marvel and Star Wars release in theaters and on Disney+ has hit a brick wall in the past couple years, largely due to woke messaging. It’s a failstorm of epic proportions.
The spin machine is working overtime to defend Disney’s brand. Woke films like Elemental were flops at American theaters but made more money overseas (the movie still failed to break even once marketing costs and the theater cut is added). Wish will probably be handled the same way – A disaster in the US but a “moneymaker” in South Korea or Brazil. And at this stage in the game this is the best that Disney can hope for: Breaking even.
In the meantime, Disney’s name is mud in America and for good reason. Rumors are swirling that the company is seeking to “de-wokify” future content, but it may be too little too late for an organization that only two years ago was so aggressive and prideful in their efforts to indoctrinate American youth.
4-Year Old American Freed Among 14 Hostages Released By Hamas
Update(1412ET): For first time since the temporary truce took effect, an American is among hostages released by Hamas. Sunday saw the third round of freed captives. 17 total people are now safely back in Israel — 14 Israelis and three Thai citizens.
Among them is 4-year old American-Israeli citizen from Kibbutz Kfar Aza, Avigail Idan, whose parents were murdered by Hamas during the Oct.7 terror raids. The girl had turned four while in captivity. President Biden said in a briefing, “She’s free and she’s in Israel.” He said he expects more Americans to be freed.
“I’m going to continue working with the Emir of Qatar, President Sisi of Egypt and Prime Minster Netanyahu of Israel to do everything possible to see [that] all the hostages are freed,” he said.
Israeli media reports that “Although the Red Cross said an initial medical examination indicated they were all in good condition, one of the elderly Israeli hostages was taken straight via helicopter to Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba.” In exchange, a third batch of 39 Palestinians were released from Israeli prisons.
Below via TOI, Top L-R: Hagar Brodutch and children Ofri, Yuval and Oriya, Roni Krivoi; middle: Chen Almog Goldstein and her children Agam, Gal and Tal Almog; bottom: Avigail Idan, Elma Avraham, Aviva Siegel, and siblings Ela and Dafna Elyakim.
* * *
Saturday saw the successful release of a second round of Israelis and some foreign hostages, after hours of nerve-racking delay. 13 Israeli hostages were set free and 39 Palestinian women and children were freed from Israeli prisons. An additional four Thai nationals were also freed by Hamas as part of a separate deal negotiated by Egypt, and mediated with Iran and Qatar’s help. Among them was a 9-year-old Israeli-Irish girl who had previously been reported to be dead.
A third round exchange is set for Sunday, with the same number: 13 Israeli hostages for 39 Palestinians released from Israeli detention. So far no US nationals have been part of the swaps. But for the first time on Sunday White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said he expects at least one American hostage to be among the 13 to be let go Sunday.
“At least one American will be released today. I cannot confirm who it will be, or that it will absolutely happen because until we see that American out of Gaza, in safety and ultimately in the hands of their loved ones, we won’t have full confirmation,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
He emphasized this is still subject to verification, with the Israeli military also previously having said, “nothing is final until it actually happens.”
Sullivan continued, “And we do have reason to believe that there will be an American release today but let’s wait and see what actually happens. Because of course, we are dealing with a terrorist group here and we can’t immediately trust we have to verify.”
He held out hope that the hostage deal could be extended past the initially slated four-day window wherein a total of 50 hostages are to be freed, but he said this is up to Hamas. Israel has vowed that its military will still pursue to total eradication of Hamas as they set out to do.
“I have every confidence that ultimately, all of the Americans and all of the individuals being held hostage will come home we are determined not to rest until that happens,” Sullivan said.
“But whether or not this particular deal gets extended, that’s really up to Hamas, because Israel has been very clear as part of the deal, it is prepared to continue the pause in fighting for every day that Hamas produces an additional 10 hostages,” he concluded.
Emily Hand, a 9-year-old girl from Kibbutz Be’eri who was reported killed in the Hamas assault on October 7, was then found to be alive and among those held hostage in Gaza. —Times of Israel
The Biden administration has been under increasing pressure to act on behalf of the captured Americans, after what has appeared to be inaction.
This girl was falsely reported to have been killed last month; her father told CNN “death was a blessing” because it was better than if she had been taken hostage in Gaza
Now she’s just been released by Hamas, and is reportedly in good physical condition pic.twitter.com/uvGNGagCRm
The Pentagon has special forces operators in Israel in an advisory capacity, while US officials have been in Doha and Tel Aviv as well. But the White House has largely appeared to be on the sidelines, other than its pumping large amounts of military hardware to the Israelis.
The handwriting was on the wall. An Op-Ed in the New York Times entitled “I’m a Ukrainian, and I Refuse to Compete for Your Attention” summed things up nicely: a media junket the author’s friend had been organizing to Ukraine was canceled. The TV crew instead left for the Middle East.
The United States controls how the war in the Ukraine proceeds and always has. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said it was the American side which scuttled any chance of peace in Ukraine as early as March 2022, soon after the war began. “The only people who could resolve the war over Ukraine are the Americans. During the peace talks in March 2022 in Istanbul, Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They had to coordinate everything they talked about with the Americans first. However, nothing eventually happened. My impression is that nothing could happen because everything was decided in Washington.”
Fast-forward to 2023 and the story is different. Earlier this month NBC News quietly released a report which said U.S. and European officials broached the topic of peace negotiations with Ukraine, including “very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal with Russia.” NBC said “the discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the U.S. and Europe.” They began amid concerns the war has reached a stalemate and about the ability to continue providing open-ended aid to Ukraine.
Biden administration officials are also worried Ukraine is running out of men in this war of attrition, while Russia has a seemingly endless supply. Ukraine is also struggling with recruiting and recently saw public protests (not shown on American TV) about President Volodymyr Zelensky’s open-ended conscription requirements. Kiev is today sending 40 and 50-year-olds to the front.
This comes as Timereported Zelensky’s top advisers admitted the war is currently unwinnable for Ukraine. Things look a bit better from the point of view of Ukraine commander-in-chief General Valery Zaluzhny, who believes the war is only at a stalemate. “It’s now a battle of inches,” say American sources quietly.
Americans will be forgiven if they never hear this bad news, never mind be surprised by it if they did. The narrative which drove sports teams to wear blue and yellow patches and E Street Band member Steve Van Zandt to paint his guitar the Ukrainian colors was simple. Amid a flood of propaganda, the story was always the same: Ukraine was pushing back the Russians with weapons provided by a broad range of agreeable NATO benefactors. Between Ukrainian jet fighter aces with improbable kill ratios to patriotic female sniper teams with improbable hair and makeup, Russia was losing. It would be a difficult but noble slog for “as long as it takes” to drive the Russians out. Any talk about peace was insulting to Kiev, fighting for its survival and all.
Meanwhile mediagenic President Zelensky at first flew around the world like Bono, procuring weapons while showing off his man-to-man relationships with celebrities. Now desperate, Zelensky is inflight claiming Russia, Iran, and North Korea sponsored Hamas’ attack on Israel, trying to rattle up some support.
It was as compelling as it was untrue. Any thoughtful analysis of the war showed it to be, from early days, a war of attrition at best for the Ukrainian side and while the U.S. could supply nearly bottomless cargo planes full of weapons and munitions, right up to the promised F-16 fighter-bombers and M1A tanks due on line soon, it could not fill the manpower gap. Any appetite for American troop involvement was hushed up early in the fight. Russia could do what she had always done at war, hunker down in the field and reach deep into its vast territory to find ever more conscripts to wait out the enemy. It didn’t hurt that Russia’s capability versus NATO equipment was surprisingly good, or perhaps the Ukrainians’ handling of sophisticated Western arms was surprisingly bad.
But the most predictable factor leading to quiet U.S. moves toward some sort of “solution” in Ukraine is as predictable as the battlefield results. There is unease in the U.S. government over how much less public attention (despite the propaganda) the war in Ukraine has garnered since the Israeli-Hamas conflict began more than a month ago. Combined with what looks like a feisty new Speaker of the House seeking to decouple aid to Israel from aid to Ukraine, officials fear that shift could make securing additional funds for Kiev difficult.
Confirmation of two previous “Kremlin Talking Points”; that NATO expansion into Ukraine was a main reason for the Russian invasion, and that the West scuppered the spring 2022 peace talks. Also confirmation that Russia had no intention of invading the whole of Ukraine. https://t.co/GcX0Kd1FWK
Americans, the people and their government, assisted by their media wielding the greatest propaganda tools ever imagined, seem capable of focusing on only one bright shiny object at a time. Over 41 percent of Americans now say the U.S. is doing too much to help Kiev. That’s a significant change from just three months ago when only 24 percent of Americans said they felt that way. In the case of wars, a new bright shiny object must include two clear sides, one good and one pure evil, with one preferably an underdog, daily combat footage which can be obtained without too much danger, and a football game-like progression across a map that is easy to follow. It should not be boring. Ukraine was such a conflict and enjoyed almost a full two-year run. But the fickle attention of America shifted to the Middle East just as things started to look more and more like static WWI trench warfare in Ukraine. It was a hard act to follow but something always follows nonetheless (the same calculus works for natural disasters and mass shootings, which are only as mediagenic-good as the next one coming.)
Ukraine, like Israel, owes most of its continued existence to American weaponry. However, despite the blue and yellow splattered on social media at present, Ukraine does not have anywhere near the base of support Israel does among the American public and especially within the American Congress. The terms for resolving the war will be dictated to Kiev as much by Washington as they will be by Moscow, as with Crimea a few years ago. The end will be quite sad; Russia will very likely solidify its hold on Donbas and the Crimea, and achieve new territory to the west approaching Kiev, roughly 20 percent of Ukraine. Ukraine will be forced to set aside its goal of joining NATO even as the U.S. takes a new stand on its western border with Poland.
It is all something of a set piece. America’s habit of wandering into a conflict and then losing interest is long (Iraq) enough to count as an addition to history (Afghanistan.) “We have your back” and “we will not abandon you” join “the check’s in the mail” and “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” among joking faux reassurances. Our proxies seem to end up abandoned and hung out to die. As in Iraq and Afghanistan, never mind Vietnam before that, what was realized at the end could have most likely been achievable at pretty much anytime after the initial hurrahs passed away. It is sad that so many had to die to likely see it happen in 2023.
Joe Biden came to sniff kids and watch his poll numbers crater, and he’s all out of kids (at least until Christmas).
Recent polls, including those from The New York Times/Siena College, have started to show Trump ahead in key swing states. These polls are significant indicators of Biden’s electoral challenges. “Among the latest surveys this month from 13 separate pollsters, Biden’s position is worse than their previous polls in all but two of them,” highlighting the growing concern for the Biden campaign, Politico reports.
Trump Ahead in Swing States
The New York Times/Siena College polls at the start of November showed Trump leading in four of the six key swing states. This trend is reinforced by other surveys, which consistently place Biden in a weaker position than before in head-to-head matchups against Trump. Notably, Trump’s national polling average is currently higher than any point in the past year.
Biden’s approval rating dipped down to 38 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s average earlier this month, the lowest since July 2022. Similarly, when Biden hit 40 percent in RealClearPolitics’ average this month, it was his lowest reading since August 2022.
Meanwhile, Trump’s numbers are rising. Dating back a little more than a year, RealClearPolitics’ average has had Trump hovering between 42 percent and 46 percent in a head-to-head matchup with Biden. Not only did Trump break 46 percent for the first time earlier this month, this week he inched above 47 percent, about equal to his vote share in the 2020 election. -Politico
Despite a significant advertising campaign to bolster his numbers, polls from states like Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania show Trump leading. Moreover, Trump is ahead in six of seven swing states surveyed by Morning Consult and Bloomberg News, including a notable 8-point lead in Arizona and a 5-point lead in Michigan.
Trump leads Biden in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — with or without independent names in the mix.
Since mid-August, Biden and the Democratic National Committee have spent about $12 million on swing state TV ads, according to the tracking firm AdImpact. For most of the fall, Biden spent about $1 million a week, though that’s been roughly cut in half for the past few weeks. -Politico
The Shift in Young Voter Demographics
A particularly startling result comes from last week’s NBC News poll, indicating Trump’s lead over Biden among voters younger than 35, with a 46 percent to 42 percent split. This is a significant shift, considering young voters have historically leaned towards Democratic candidates. Other polls, like those from Morning Consult, Fox News, and Quinnipiac University, also show Biden holding only a narrow lead among this demographic.
Jury is still out on the impact of 3rd party candidates
The role of third-party candidates in the upcoming election remains uncertain. Pollsters have not yet consistently included independent candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or Green Party candidate Jill Stein in their surveys. However, the inclusion of these candidates in polling shows mixed signals regarding their impact on the electoral race between Biden and Trump. Biden’s current deficit does not seem to stem from third-party candidacies, but their presence in the race could further complicate his path to recovery, especially if they draw support from key voter groups like the youth.
That said, Politico is clear that Biden’s deficit is not the result of third-party candidates, including any who are potential looming such as retiring Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).
As part of the fallout from the war in Gaza, U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq have come under attack more than fifty times from Iranian-backed militias since early October. At least fifty-six military personnel have been injured. In response, the U.S. launched retaliatory air strikes and has sent about 900 more troops to the region.
This bolstering of forces is the wrong move. In fact, the U.S. is overdue to drawdown its forces from Syria.
Why drawdown completely? The answer is simple. The small contingent of U.S. forces in Syria, especially, are sitting ducks for further attacks in support of missions where the costs of continuing those missions now far outstrip their strategic benefits. Recent attacks bring this mismatch between costs and benefits into sharp relief. These incidents should also serve as a warning for potential dangers if U.S. policy fails to change course.
U.S. forces were deployed to Syria in 2015 to fight the ISIS caliphate. Today, fighting ISIS remains the official mission even though the territorial caliphate has long been eliminated. Two additional unofficial missions for these troops include deterring Iranian mischief/influence and preventing Assad from ending the war on his own terms.
None of these missions are worth the potential risks they carry today. In fact, the outsized burden of their real and potential costs helps explain why forces should be drawn down.
First, ISIS has been largely wiped out. The caliphate was defeated in March 2019, nearly five years ago. While preventing a resurgence of the group is important, U.S. forces do not need to be on the ground to achieve this objective. A combination of local actors (among them, Kurds and Turks) and U.S. forces operating from over the horizon should be sufficient to get the job done.
Some may counter that U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria today are coming under attack from other Islamist terrorists beside ISIS, thus giving a reason for U.S. forces to stay. True, these attacks come from Islamist groups, but those groups lack the capability of global reach and lack the intent of attacking the U.S. homeland or our European allies. If there is anything 9/11 taught us, it is that we need to avoid overreach when we go after groups that can only harm us if we station troops and bases within their range. If our troops weren’t in Syria and Iraq, in short, they wouldn’t be coming under attack there right now. Given the lack of vital U.S. interests in a permanent on-the-ground presence in Syria, that’s a reason to drawdown, not stay.
Second, the Syrian civil war is all but over. Assad won. A U.S.-backed peace deal is not going to happen without a massive invasion of Damascus to overturn the regime, which isn’t going to happen either.
Third, any apparent deterrent impact of U.S. forces in Syria is questionable at best. That means U.S. forces are in harm’s way for no good or obvious reason. For starters, it’s not clear why the Assad regime reclaiming northeast Syria where U.S. forces are based (mainly at al-Tanf) will be some kind of boon to Iran. The Assad regime is pro-Iranian. But Assad controlled this territory before the 2011 start of the Syrian civil war. The loss of control hurt Assad, somewhat, but did it hurt Iran? Not really – at least not to a degree that justifies the risk to U.S. lives today. Assad’s regaining control over this region won’t impact the regional power balance.
Even more worrisome, the recent attacks on U.S. forces indicate that any deterrent effect of those forces is likely waning. This is no surprise. Deterrence on the cheap using small contingents of forces (the United States has about 900 troops in Syria) to produce big outcomes often doesn’t work over the long haul. Eventually foes come to see the forces as paper tigers making them juicy targets for foes to hit as a way to expand their political ambitions. This can have tragic consequences like the deaths of 241 Marines in Lebanon resulting from the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing.
The same could happen in Syria today. Because of their small size, the security of U.S. troops depends almost entirely on Turkey, Iraq, and local Kurdish forces, who protect the supply lines to U.S. forces. That dependence along with U.S. reticence (which is judicious by the way) to forcefully impose a political solution in Syria sends a signal of weakness – not deterrent strength – to Iran and its proxies. Like Lebanon in 1983, that puts U.S. troops today in an especially dangerous position.
Considering the limited benefits they bring to U.S. security, a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Syria now, before calamity strikes, makes the most sense. When U.S. forces were struck in Lebanon, Reagan made the wise decision to not go to war, but withdraw troops instead. Biden should take this lesson to heart and withdraw forces from Syria. At the very least, pull the troops back to U.S. bases in Iraq. Doing so isn’t a retreat. Instead, like Reagan’s decision, it’s a strategically smart repositioning of forces that protects both U.S. national interests and our troops at the same time.
C. William Walldorf, Jr. is Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest and a Visting Fellow at Defense Priorities. He is currently writing a book, “America’s Forever Wars: Why So Long, Why End Now, What Comes Next,” focused on Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
A powerful United Nations agency has unveiled a plan to regulate social media and online communication while cracking down on what it describes as “false information” and “conspiracy theories,” sparking alarm among free-speech advocates and top U.S. lawmakers.
In its 59-page report released this month, the U.N. Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) outlined a series of “concrete measures which must be implemented by all stakeholders: governments, regulatory authorities, civil society, and the platforms themselves.”
This approach includes the imposition of global policies, through institutions such as governments and businesses, designed to stop the spread of various forms of speech while promoting objectives such as “cultural diversity” and “gender equality.”
In particular, the U.N. agency aims to create an “Internet of Trust” by targeting what it calls “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and “conspiracy theories.”
Examples of expression flagged to be stopped or restricted include concerns about elections, public health measures, and advocacy that could constitute “incitement to discrimination.”
Critics are warning that allegations of “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” have increasingly been used by powerful forces in government and Big Tech to silence true information and even core political speech.
Just this month, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released a report blasting the “pseudoscience of disinformation.”
Among other concerns, the committee found this “pseudoscience” has been “weaponized” by what lawmakers refer to as the “Censorship Industrial Complex.”
The goal: silence constitutionally-protected political speech, mostly by conservatives.
“The pseudoscience of disinformation is now—and has always been—nothing more than a political ruse most frequently targeted at communities and individuals holding views contrary to the prevailing narratives,” states the congressional report, “The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats.”
Indeed, many of the policies called for by UNESCO have already been implemented by U.S.-based digital platforms, often at the behest of the Biden administration, the latest congressional report makes clear.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers nevertheless expressed alarm about the new UNESCO plan.
“I have repeatedly and publicly criticized the Biden administration’s misguided decision to rejoin UNESCO, putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times regarding the social-media plan.
Calling UNESCO a “deeply flawed entity,” Mr. McCaul said he is especially concerned that the organization “promotes the interests of authoritarian regimes—including the Chinese Communist Party.”
Indeed, UNESCO, like many other U.N. agencies, includes multiple members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its leadership ranks, such as Deputy Director-General Xing Qu, The Epoch Times has reported.
The CCP has repeatedly made clear that even while working in international organizations, CCP members are expected to follow communist party orders.
Lawmakers on the House Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with international organizations are currently working to cut or reduce funding to various U.N. agencies that lawmakers say are using U.S. taxpayer money improperly.
Already, the U.S. government has twice exited UNESCO—under the Reagan and the Trump administrations—due to concerns about what the administrations described as extremism, hostility to American values, and other problems.
The Biden administration rejoined earlier this year over the objections of lawmakers, The Epoch Times reported.
While being marketed as a plan to uphold free expression, the new UNESCO regulatory regime calls for international censorship by “independent” regulators who are “shielded from political and economic interests.”
“National, regional, and global governance systems should be able to cooperate and share practices … in addressing content that could be permissibly restricted under international human rights law and standards,” the report explains.
Unlike the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting any governmental infringement on the right to free speech or free press, UNESCO points to various international “human rights” instruments that it says should determine what speech to infringe on.
These agreements include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that restricting freedom of expression must be provided for by law and must also serve a “legitimate aim.”
In a recent review of the United States, a U.N. human-rights committee called for changes to the U.S. Constitution and demanded that the U.S. government do more to stop and punish “hate speech” in order to comply with the ICCPR.
Another key U.N. instrument is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states explicitly in Article 29 that “rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
In short, the U.N. view of “freedom of expression” is radically different from that enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
The UNESCO report says that once content that should be restricted is found, social-media platforms must take measures, ranging from using algorithm suppression (shadow banning) and warning users about the content, to de-monetizing and even removing it.
Any digital platforms found to not be “dealing with content that could be permissibly restricted under international human rights law” should “be held accountable” with “enforcement measures,” the report states.
UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, a former French culture minister with the Socialist Party, cited risks to society to justify the global plan.
“Digital technology has enabled immense progress on freedom of speech,” she said in a statement. “But social media platforms have also accelerated and amplified the spread of false information and hate speech, posing major risks to societal cohesion, peace, and stability.
“To protect access to information, we must regulate these platforms without delay, while at the same time protecting freedom of expression and human rights,” said Azoulay, who took over the U.N. agency from longtime Bulgarian Communist Party leader Irina Bokova.
In the forward to the new report, headlined “Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms,” Azoulay says that stopping certain forms of speech and at the same time preserving “freedom of expression” is “not a contradiction.”
Citing a survey commissioned by UNESCO itself, the U.N. agency also said most people around the world support its agenda.
According to UNESCO, the report and the guidelines were developed through a process of consultation including more than 1,500 submissions and over 10,000 comments from “stakeholders” such as governments, businesses, and non-profit organizations.
UNESCO said it will work with governments and companies to implement the regulatory regime around the world.
“UNESCO is by not (sic) proposing to regulate digital platforms,” a spokesman for UNESCO, who asked not to be named, told The Epoch Times in a statement.
“We are, however, conscious that dozens of governments around the world are already drafting legislation to do so, some of which is not in line with international human rights standards, and may even jeopardize freedom of expression.
“Similarly, the platforms themselves are already making millions of human and automated decisions a day with respect to the moderation and curation of content, based upon their own policies,” the spokesman said.
The European Union, which already places severe limitations on free expression online, has already provided funding for implementation worldwide, UNESCO added.
The Biden administration told The Epoch Times that it wasn’t involved in creating the plan.
“We will reserve comment until we finish carefully studying the plan,” the State Department said in an email.
Free Speech Concern Grows
Concerns over the implications for freedom of speech and free expression online are mounting as awareness of the UNESCO plan spreads.
Sarah McLaughlin, a senior scholar at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), expressed alarm.
“FIRE appreciates that UNESCO’s new action plan for social media recognizes the value of transparency and the need for protecting freedom of expression, but remains deeply concerned about efforts to regulate online ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech,’” Ms. McLaughlin told The Epoch Times.
US Navy Responding After Militants Seize Israel-Linked Oil Tanker Off Yemen
Another suspected piracy incident is unfolding — this time in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Yemen on Sunday, as multiple news agencies are reporting that an Israel-linked oil tanker has been boarded by unknown militants. The emerging headlines have surprisingly thus far had little observable impact on oil prices, at a moment of growing security concerns and fears for international shipping in Mideast and Gulf regional waters.
At least 22 crew of the Liberian-flagged Central Park, managed by Zodiac Maritime, are now believed to be held hostage. The Associated Press reports, “Attackers seized a tanker linked to Israel off the coast of Yemen on Sunday, authorities said. While no group immediately claimed responsibility, it comes as at least two other maritime attacks in recent days have been linked to the Israel-Hamas war.” If done by the Houthis, this marks the first such piracy attack from Yemen during the Gaza truce which has successfully held, which went into effect Friday.
The AP report further cites “An American defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, also confirmed to The Associated Press that the attack took place.” Ship manager Zodiac Maritime described the seizure as “a suspected piracy incident.”
US naval forces appear to be en route, given the US defense official was further quoted as saying “US and coalition forces are in the vicinity and we are closely monitoring the situation” after “an unknown number of unidentified armed individuals” seized the ship.
Maritime and private intelligence firm Ambrey said that “U.S. naval forces are engaged in the situation and have asked vessels to stay clear of the area.”
Zodiac described the vessel as being owned by Clumvez Shipping Inc., though other records directly linked Zodiac as the owner. London-based Zodiac Maritime is part of Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer’s Zodiac Group. British corporate records listed two men with the last name Ofer as a current and former director of Clumvez Shipping, including Daniel Guy Ofer, who is also a director at Zodiac Maritime.
It wasn’t immediately clear who was behind the attack. Nearby Aden is held by forces allied to Yemen’s internationally recognized government and a Saudi-led coalition that has battled Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels for years. That part of the Gulf of Aden in theory is under the control of those forces and is fairly distant from Houthi-controlled territory in the country. Somali pirates also are not known to operate in that area.
Given the location, and recent hostile incidents, the Iran-linked Houthis out of Yemen are the prime suspects for this newest ship hijacking….
This marks the second commercial ship hijacking since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. The Houthis on Nov. 21 seized an Israeli-linked shipping vessel, the Galaxy Leader, and are still holding the 25 international crew members hostage. The Houthis’ military leadership previously issued a ‘declaration of war’ and have since launched several missiles and drones toward Israel. While Hezbollah in southern Lebanon has observed the Hamas-Israel truce, this seems a clear sign that the Houthis do not intend to.
On Friday another Israeli-linked shipping vessel came under attack shortly after leaving port at the United Arab Emirates. In that prior weekend incident an Iranian-made Shahed-136 drone struck the ship, but reportedly without casualties, and the vessel has continued on its course. If US warships intervene against the Houthis, the potential for a broader regional war becomes more likely.
Almost 10 years ago, I sat in a secure conference room at the Pentagon and explained to a group of U.S. national security officials from the military, CIA, Treasury and other agencies that the overuse of the U.S. dollar in financial warfare would eventually drive countries away from using dollars in international transactions for fear that they could become the next target of U.S. displeasure.
I said to the military and intelligence community, “I don’t think other countries can destroy the dollar, but we can do it ourselves. We are our own worst enemy.”
We, of course, meaning the United States. We’re destroying the dollar with the sanctions (and through other misguided policies). The U.S. is doing more to destroy the dollar than our enemies.
Some took note, some ignored the warning and one Treasury official slammed the table and said, “The dollar has been the global reserve currency, it is the global reserve currency now and it always will be the global reserve currency!”
Well, a lot has changed over the past 10 years — and especially over the past (roughly) two years.
The More Things Change…
But still many government officials and senior intelligence community members are stuck in this type of thinking.
Earlier this year, I taught a seminar at the U.S. Army War College on financial warfare.
I explained that U.S. financial sanctions would not have a material impact on Russia, that Russia would not change its behavior in Ukraine based on the sanctions and that the U.S. would suffer more from its own sanctions than Russia because adversaries and neutral countries would create alternative payment platforms that did not use dollars.
I naturally encountered skepticism from the class (that’s OK; the purpose of a seminar is to engender competing views).
But events of the past year have proved my forecast in every respect.
I Told You So
The Russian economy is predicted to grow this year, despite all the sanctions. Russian oil exports, for example, are higher than ever.
Russia’s also buying high-tech goods from China, including some military hardware and other manufactured goods. China’s buying Russian oil and natural gas, in addition to agricultural output and weapons.
That’s a big two-way trade, and the dollar isn’t being used. Russia’s paying yuan, and China’s paying rubles.
Meanwhile, nations around the world are trying to eliminate or reduce their dependence on the dollar out of fear that the U.S. could use Russia-style sanctions against them if the U.S. disapproves of their conduct.
None of the sanctions would be effective or even possible without the use of the dollar and the dollar payments system.
Not Even Janet Yellen Can Deny It
The failure of U.S. dollar-based sanctions has become too obvious to ignore. The failure is so obvious that even Janet Yellen has admitted that sanctions are not working.
She said, “There is a risk when we use financial sanctions that are linked to the role of the dollar that over time it could undermine the hegemony of the dollar. Of course, it does create a desire on the part of China, of Russia, of Iran to find an alternative.”
One could say that realizing the dangers 10 years too late is still better late than never.
The issue is whether it’s already too late to undo the damage. Once new trading currencies and new payment channels are put in place (which is happening quickly), there’s little incentive to go back to a dollar system where the U.S. can threaten your economy.
Many others have pointed out the same weaknesses in the weaponization of the dollar. It seems the only parties who don’t see the danger to the dollar are the Wall Street cheerleaders and top U.S. government officials.
Which brings me to the recently elected speaker of the House, Mike Johnson…
The Good
After several weeks of seeming chaos in October, the House of Representatives finally elected a new speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.
Johnson is a mild-mannered conservative and relatively new member from Louisiana. Johnson is a brilliant constitutional scholar.
He got off to a good start by separating financial support for Israel from support for Ukraine. Both bills will probably pass, but by separating them, Johnson avoided the trap of having to vote for Ukraine in order to support Israel. Many members support the latter but oppose the former and now they can make their voices heard with separate votes.
So far, so good.
The Bad
Now Johnson has committed a blunder so egregious that it could rock the global financial system and cause a financial panic.
Unfortunately, Johnson’s lack of experience in international monetary affairs has left him blind to the dangers.
Right now, the U.S. holds about $300 billion of Russian assets that were frozen after the Ukraine war broke out in February 2022. Most of those assets came from the Central Bank of Russia and consist of U.S. Treasury securities.
Technically, those assets have not been converted to U.S. ownership; they have merely been frozen and still belong to Russia even though Russia cannot use them. Now Johnson wants to convert those assets to U.S. ownership and use the proceeds to pay for the war in Ukraine.
Johnson said, “It would be pure poetry to fund the Ukrainian war effort with Russian assets.” It would be pure stupidity is more like it.
Default!
Such an action would amount to a default on U.S. government debt since the securities were legally owned by Russia.
Nations around the world would take note and accelerate their dumping of Treasury securities and their flight from the U.S. dollar. This would increase interest rates in the U.S. and hurt everyone from homebuyers to everyday consumers.
It would make U.S. debt permanently more difficult to sell and less desirable to hold. It would introduce a new risk premium on U.S. debt over and above the existing inflation premium.
At its worst, it could trigger a dollar panic and full-scale flight from the dollar. Johnson is playing with fire and has no idea what he is doing.
Let’s hope he receives some sound advice before he goes too far.
Israeli ‘Iron Beam’ Lasers Are ‘Future Of Warfare’
Last year we reported on Israel’s development of a ground-based laser defense system dubbed ‘Iron Beam,’ which then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called “a game-changer” that could “bankrupt” the enemy.
— Naftali Bennett בנט (@naftalibennett) June 1, 2022
Now, it’s being reported that the system – which has been in development by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems for 15 years, and was originally set for a 2025 rollout, will be deployed more quickly than that due to the Israel-Hamas war, and it may be placed in service as early as 2024.
More than a hundred Rafael engineers have reportedly been working on this project, considered one of the most significant technological challenges ever faced by the Israeli defense industries, in order to create a fast and effective interception system, with inexhaustible and near cost-free ammunition.
Recent tests of Iron Beam in the Negev have shown promising results, with the system successfully intercepting various airborne threats. The heart of the system is an electric laser pointer, capable of targeting and sending out a powerful laser beam, invisible to the naked eye.
Since the war erupted on October 7, more than 10,000 projectiles have been fired at Israel, including 3,000 in the first hours of the conflict. Rafael and the Israeli Defense Ministry have considered the current operations as an opportunity to test the Iron Beam under real combat conditions. –i24news
Speaking with Calcalist, one of Rafael’s iron beam program managers expressed high hopes for the system, saying “Our aim is to reach a state where the enemy feels totally powerless. He has to understand that our laser pointers, deployed where needed, intercept and destroy all his attacks, almost instantly after they are launched, long before they reach Israeli territory or threaten anyone else. In such a scenario, the activation of warning sirens might even become unnecessary.”
The system will be seen as a compliment to the existing Iron Dome system, which costs around $50,000 per interceptor missile
“Any modern military wants to develop systems to intercept incoming fire as a defensive measure,” Security expert Dr Rod Thornton of the Defence Studies Department at King’s College London told the Mirror. “Investments has been down the line of lasers. It is very complicated to get a laser to work, you need a lot of energy and a good power source to fire the laser, but it is the way forward.”
The Biden administration sent a funding request to Congress to support the development of the technology. The request is part of a proposed package by the White House for $14.3 billion from Congress to fund Israeli security. If approved, around $10.6 billion of the budget would be used to fund air and missile defense.
As reported by Defenses Scoop, $1.2 billion will be used for the development of Iron Beam, according to a letter to Congress from the Office of Management and Budget “It is what the American military wants as well,” Thornton said. “They want to benefit from the Israeli development of Iron Beam.” –The Mirror
“Going forward, things like high-tech defense systems like laser interceptors are going to be a thing,” said Thornton.
“You can expect it to be rolled out more, but it is very expensive. If the Americans are backing it through the Israeli Defense Force, through Raphael, then it is going to go forward… It is going to become more effective and cheaper in the coming years.”
