#of anti government publications / things that could “endanger public order and state security” which just means pro democratic stuff

[halchron]

the mini history lesson I just learned after looking up stuff for tetchou's backstory is crazy

#✧ ━ ooc. #learned all about the rise of democracy and civil rights in japan and the feminist movement just now #very neat learning about the stages leading up to all this #especially pre and post ww2 #anyways the real tetchou was a part of advocating for democracy and he was actually born in a samurai family and all that #and I guess he was incarcerated for challenging the free press laws at the time which from what I gathered is just cenorship #of anti government publications / things that could “endanger public order and state security” which just means pro democratic stuff #I'll prob have to research it a bit more but trust this will be a part of bsd tetchou's backstory too

[patriotsnet]

Why Is The Media Against Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-is-the-media-against-republicans/

Why Is The Media Against Republicans

Mcconnell And Co Are Playing As Dirty A Game As Possible In Their Quest To Fill Ginsburgs Seat Before The Election But You Wont Find That Story In Most News Coverage

Bookmark

US Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell at a press conference at the US Capitol on September 22, 2020. McConnell said in a statement that the Senate would take up President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Subscribe to The Nation

Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter

Fridays

The Nation

Join the Books & the Arts Newsletter

MondaysThe Nation

The Nationlatest issue

Subscribe to The Nation

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

The Nation

The argument against confirming Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court before the inauguration is a Republican argument. They invented it, they enacted it, and they own it. That’s because it was Republicans, not Democrats, who changed the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to eight for 10 months in 2016, when a Democratic president was in the White House. It was Republicans who argued that no Supreme Court nominee should even be considered by the Senate in an election year. And it was Republicans who promised to block the confirmation of Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees in the event that she became president while Republicans retained control of the Senate.

Current Issue

View our current issue

More from Mystal

Elie Mystal

And that argument is simply untenable. We do not have a legitimate third branch of government if only one party gets to choose its members.

For Reprints and Permissions, click

Vaccine Advocacy From Hannity And Mcconnell Gets The Media Off Republicans’ Backs But Won’t Shift Public Sentiment

Sean Hannity, Mitch McConnell and Tucker Carlson

Amid a rising media furor over the steady stream of vaccine disparagement from GOP politicians and Fox News talking heads, a number of prominent Republicans spoke up in favor of vaccines early this week.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “shots need to get in everybody’s arm as rapidly as possible” and asked that people “ignore all of these other voices that are giving demonstrably bad advice.” House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, got the vaccine after months of delay and then publicly said, “there shouldn’t be any hesitancy over whether or not it’s safe and effective.” And Fox News host Sean Hannity, in a widely shared video, declared, it “absolutely makes sense for many Americans to get vaccinated.” This was treated in the press as an unequivocal endorsement, even though the use of the word “many” was clearly meant to let the Fox News viewers feel like he’s talking about other people getting vaccinated. 

Is this an exciting pivot among the GOP elites?  Are they abandoning the sociopathic strategy of sabotaging President Joe Biden’s anti-pandemic plan by encouraging their own followers to get sick? Are the millions of Republicans who keep telling pollsters they will never get that Democrat shot going to change their minds now? 

Ha ha ha, no.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

— Matthew Gertz July 20, 2021

The Technology 202: New Report Calls Conservative Claims Of Social Media Censorship ‘a Form Of Disinformation’

with Aaron Schaffer

A new report concludes that social networks aren’t systematically biased against conservatives, directly contradicting Republican claims that social media companies are censoring them. 

arrow-right

Recent moves by Twitter and Facebook to suspend former president Donald Trump’s accounts in the wake of the violence at the Capitol are inflaming conservatives’ attacks on Silicon Valley. But New York University researchers today released a report stating claims of anti-conservative bias are “a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.” 

The report found there is no trustworthy large-scale data to support these claims, and even anecdotal examples that tech companies are biased against conservatives “crumble under close examination.” The report’s authors said, for instance, the companies’ suspensions of Trump were “reasonable” given his repeated violation of their terms of service — and if anything, the companies took a hands-off approach for a long time given Trump’s position.

The report also noted several data sets underscore the prominent place conservative influencers enjoy on social media. For instance, CrowdTangle data shows that right-leaning pages dominate the list of sources providing the most engaged-with posts containing links on Facebook. Conservative commentator Dan Bongino, for instance, far out-performed most major news organizations in the run-up to the 2020 election. 

In The Past The Gop Would Be Rallying Their Voters Against This Bill Their Failure To Do So Now Is Ominous

Mitch ?McConnell, Ted Cruz, Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro

With surprising haste for the U.S. Senate, in the early hours of Wednesday morning, just after passing a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. And Democrats could not be more excited, as the blueprint covers a whole host of long-standing priorities, from fighting climate change to creating universal prekindergarten. The blueprint was largely written by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who released a statement calling it “the most consequential piece of legislation for working people, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor since FDR and the New Deal of the 1930s.”

Sanders isn’t putting that much spin on the ball.

While the bill fallls short of what is really needed to deal with climate change, it is still tremendously consequential legislation that will do a great deal not just to ameliorate economic inequalities, but, in doing so, likely reduce significant gender and racial inequality. It’s also a big political win for President Joe Biden. In other words, it is everything that Republicans hate. Worse for them, it’s packed full of benefits that boost the middle class, not just the working poor. Traditionally, such programs are much harder to claw back once Republicans gain power — as they’ve discovered in previous failed attempts to dismantle Social Security and Obamacare. 

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

But that’s not really happening here. 

The Actual Reason Why Republicans And Their Media Are Discouraging People From Getting Vaccinated

Independent Media Institute

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a CNN Medical Analyst, said last week, “A surprising amount of death will occur soon…” But why, when the deadly Delta variant is sweeping the world, are Republicans and their media warning people not to get vaccinated?

there’s always a reason

Dr. Anthony Fauci told Jake Tapper on CNN last Sunday, “I don’t have a really good reason why this is happening.”

But even if he can’t think of a reason why Republicans would trash talk vaccination and people would believe them, it’s definitely there.

Which is why it’s important to ask a couple of simple questions that all point to the actual reason why Republicans and their media are discouraging people from getting vaccinated:

1. Why did Trump get vaccinated in secret after Joe Biden won the election and his January 6th coup attempt failed?

2. Why are Fox “News” personalities discouraging people from getting vaccinated while refusing to say if they and the people they work with have been protected by vaccination?

3. Why was one of the biggest applause lines at CPAC: “They were hoping — the government was hoping — that they could sort of sucker 90% of the population into getting vaccinated and it isn’t happening!”

4. Why are Republican legislators in states around the country pushing laws that would “ban” private businesses from asking to see proof of vaccination status ?

Death is their electoral strategy.

Is there any other possible explanation?

So, what’s left?

Destroying Trust In The Media Science And Government Has Left America Vulnerable To Disaster

For America to minimize the damage from the current pandemic, the media must inform, science must innovate, and our government must administer like never before. Yet decades of politically-motivated attacks discrediting all three institutions, taken to a new level by President Trump, leave the American public in a vulnerable position.

jonmladd

Trump has consistently vilified the national media. When campaigning, he the media “absolute scum” and “totally dishonest people.” As president, he has news organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the people” over and over. The examples are endless. Predictably, he has blamed the coronavirus crisis on the media, saying “We were very prepared. The only thing we weren’t prepared for was the media.”

Science has been another Trump target. He has gutted scientific expertise and administrative capacity in the executive branch, most notably failing to fill hundreds of vacancies in the Centers for Disease Control itself and disbanding the National Security Council’s taskforce on pandemics. During the coronavirus crisis, he has routinely disagreed with scientific experts, including, in the AP’s words, his “musing about injecting disinfectants into people .” This follows his earlier public advocacy for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment, also against leading scientists’ advice. Coupled with his flip-flopping on when to lift stay-at-home orders, the president has created confusion and endangered people.

Media Bias Against Conservatives Is Real And Part Of The Reason No One Trusts The News Now

Members of the media were shocked as he was supposedly revealed as incredibly anti-woman presidential candidate, perhaps even the most ever nominated by a major political party in the modern era. He had admitted that he reduced women to objects and the Democrats pounced, seeking to make him lose him the support of women and, in turn, the presidency.

I’m not talking about the media coverage of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and the “Access Hollywood” tape, but his predecessor, Mitt Romney.

His sin? Saying that he had “binders full of women” that he was looking at appointing to key positions were he elected president. Sure, it was an awkward way of stating a fairly innocuous fact about how elected executives begin their transition efforts — with resumes of candidates for every position under the sun —- well before an election is held. Yet, the media and commentators came for Mitt Romney and they did so with guns blazing, as he was portrayed as an anti-woman extremist… for making a concerted effort to hire women to serve in his administration as governor of Massachusetts.

There Is No Liberal Media Bias In Which News Stories Political Journalists Choose To Cover

1Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

2University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA.

3Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, ID 83460, USA.

?*Corresponding author. Email: hans.hassellfsu.edu ; jh5akvirginia.edu

?† These authors contributed equally to this work.

See allHide authors and affiliations

PDF

‘it’s Time To End This Forever War’ Biden Says Forces To Leave Afghanistan By 9/11

The enormous national anger generated by those attacks was also channeled by the administration toward the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was conceived to prevent any recurrence of attacks on such a massive scale. Arguments over that legislation consumed Congress through much of 2002 and became the fodder for campaign ads in that year’s midterms.

The same anger was also directed toward a resolution to use force, if needed, in dealing with security threats from the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That authorization passed Congress with bipartisan majorities in the fall of 2002, driven by administration claims that Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction.” It became law weeks before the midterm elections.

Once those elections were over, the Republicans in control of both chambers finally agreed to create an independent commission to seek answers about 9/11. Bush signed the legislation on Nov. 27, 2002.

The beginning was hobbled when the first chairman, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and vice chairman, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, decided not to continue. But a new chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, and vice chairman, former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, filled the breach and performed to generally laudatory reviews.

Long memories

Top House Republican Opposes Bipartisan Commission To Investigate Capitol Riot

But McCarthy replied by opposing Katko’s product, and more than 80% of the other House Republicans did too. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially said he was keeping an open mind but then announced that he too was opposed. This makes it highly unlikely that 10 of McConnell’s GOP colleagues will be willing to add their votes to the Democrats’ and defeat a filibuster of the bill.

Republicans have argued that two Senate committees are already looking at the events of Jan. 6, as House panels have done as well. The Justice Department is pursuing cases against hundreds of individuals who were involved. Former President Donald Trump and others have said any commission ought to also be tasked to look at street protests and violence that took place in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd.

But with all that on the table, several Republicans have alluded to their concern about a new commission “dragging on” into 2022, the year of the next midterm elections. “A lot of our members … want to be moving forward,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the No. 2 Senate Republican toMcConnell. “Anything that gets us rehashing to 2020 elections is, I think, a day lost.”

Resistance even after 9/11

The Taliban were toppled but bin Laden escaped, and U.S. forces have been engaged there ever since. The troop numbers have declined in recent years, and President Biden has indicated that all combat troops will be out by this year’s anniversary of the 2001 attacks.

Opiniontrump And His Voters Are Drawn Together By A Shared Sense Of Defiance

Americans in general have begun to catch on: 66 percent of Americans believe that the media has a hard time separating fact from opinion and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 62 percent of the country believes that the press is biased one way or the other in their reporting.

So when CNN, NBC News, Fox News, or another outlet break a hard news story, there is a good chance that a large swathe of the public won’t view it as legitimate news.

And politicians, right and left, are taking advantage of this.

The entire ordeal is part of an ever-growing list of examples in which the media seemed to be biased, whether consciously or not, against Republicans.

Before Donald Trump, there was New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who in 2014 accused the media of “dividing us” because they asked him about some protesters who had chanted “NYPD is the KKK” and . He also accused the media of McCarthyism when they dug into the personal life of an aide of his, who reportedly had a relationship with a convicted murderer. The mayor also publicly and privately accused Bloomberg News of being biased against him, since it is owned by his predecessor. However, de Blasio is not terribly popular within his own party, so Democrats in New York did not buy what he was selling.

The Media Has Entered The Republicans Pounce Stage Of Critical Race Theory

Now that polls show a majority of Americans oppose Critical Race Theory, the Democratic Party and their scribes in the legacy media have launched a rearguard action against parents — by casting them as the aggressors. As is true every time the Left misfires or overreaches, the media ignore the offense and focus on the popular backlash in a tactic popularly known as “Republicans pounce.”

Media coverage proves that CRT has entered the “Republicans pounce” stage. Witness the words of one Politico writer, who said on Thursday, “he right is hoping to capitalize on the grassroots angst over critical race theory and excite its base voters in next year’s midterms.” Chris Hayes, who has the unenviable position of competing directly with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, agreed Thursday night that all the Republican Party’s “rhetorical fire has moved away from the deficit and on to some random, school superintendent in Maine after his district dared to denounce white supremacy after the murder of George Floyd.”

But why are grassroots Americans so filled with “angst”? Because they are intellectually deficient and, of course, racist, according to Vox.com.

“Conservatives have launched a growing disinformation campaign around the academic concept” of CRT. “It’s an attempt to push back against progress,” wrote Vox.com reporter Fabiola Cineas. The problem is that “Republicans … want to ban anti-racist teachings and trainings in classrooms and workplaces across the country.”

Trump Continues To Push Election Falsehoods Here’s Why That Matters

Republican opposition to the commission

Rice was featured in one of the very few congressional commissions ever to receive this level of attention. Most are created and live out their mission with little notice. Indeed, Congress has created nearly 150 commissions of various kinds in just the last 30 years, roughly five a year.

Some have a highly specific purpose, such as a commemoration. Others are more administrative, such as the five-member commission overseeing the disbursement of business loans during the early months of pandemic lockdown in 2020. Others have been wide-ranging and controversial, such as the one created to investigate synthetic opioid trafficking.

In the initial weeks after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, the idea of an independent commission to probe the origins of the attack and the failures that let it happen seemed a no-brainer. It had broad support both in Congress and in public opinion polls. It still enjoys the latter, as about two-thirds of Americans indicate that they think an independent commission is needed. The idea has fared well — particularly when described as being “9/11 Commission style.”

Opiniona Guide For Frustrated Conservatives In The Age Of Trump

Conscious bias or not, such practices do not engender trust in the media amongst conservatives. They only reinforce the belief that the media seeks to defend their ideological allies on the left and persecute those on the right while claiming to be objective.

This idea that the media is made up of unselfconsciously liberal elites who don’t even recognize the biases they have against conservative policies and conservatives in general goes back decades, to when newsrooms were more or less homogenous in nearly every way. At first, conservatives fought back by founding their own magazines; after Watergate and in the midst of the Reagan administration and liberals’ contempt for him, organizations like the Media Research Center began cataloguing the myriad examples of biased coverage, both large and small.

And there was a lot to catalogue, from opinion pages heavily weighted in favor of liberals to reportage and analysis that looks a lot more like the opinion of the writers than unbiased coverage.

Despite Cries Of Censorship Conservatives Dominate Social Media

GOP-friendly voices far outweigh liberals in driving conversations on hot topics leading up to the election, a POLITICO analysis shows.

The Twitter app on a mobile phone | Matt Rourke/AP Photo

10/27/2020 01:38 PM EDT

Link Copied

Republicans have turned alleged liberal bias in Silicon Valley into a major closing theme of the election cycle, hauling tech CEOs in for virtual grillings on Capitol Hill while President Donald Trump threatens legal punishment for companies that censor his supporters.

But a POLITICO analysis of millions of social media posts shows that conservatives still rule online.

Right-wing social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions around two of the election’s hottest issues, the Black Lives Matter movement and voter fraud, according to the review of Facebook posts, Instagram feeds, Twitter messages and conversations on two popular message boards. And their lead isn’t close.

As racial protests engulfed the nation after George Floyd’s death, users shared the most-viral right-wing social media content more than 10 times as often as the most popular liberal posts, frequently associating the Black Lives Matter movement with violence and accusing Democrats like Joe Biden of supporting riots.

Politifact Va: No Republicans Didn’t Vote To Defund The Police

Rep. Bobby Scott speaks at a 2015 criminal justice forum.

Speaker: Bobby ScottStatement: “Every Republican in Congress voted to defund the police when they voted against the American Rescue Plan.”Date: July 12Setting: Twitter

In last fall’s campaigns, Republicans thundered often inaccurate charges that Democrats wanted to defund police departments.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., is flipping the script and saying that all congressional Republicans voted to defund police this year when they opposed a $1.9 trillion stimulus plan.

“Every Republican in Congress voted to defund police when they voted against the American Rescue Plan,” Scott tweeted on July 12.

Scott represents Virginia’s 3rd congressional district, stretching from Norfolk and parts of Chesapeake north through Newport News and west through Franklin.

His claim, echoing a Democratic talking point, melts under scrutiny. Here’s why.

The Facts

The term “defunding police” arose after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Many advocates say it does not mean abolishing police, but rather reallocating some of the money and the duties that have traditionally been handled by police departments.

Scott’s explanation

Barbera sent an NBC article noting that communities in at least 10 congressional districts represented by Republicans who opposed the bill are using some of its relief funds to help their police departments.

Our ruling

We rate Scott’s statement False.

Opinion:no The Media Isnt Fair It Gives Republicans A Pass

The right-wing media, willfully ignoring the press investigations into Tara Reade’s accusations, insist that former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not been treated similarly to accused conservative men . They have a point, but not the one they were trying to make.

arrow-right

Let’s start with the big picture: Right-wing groups persistently engage in conduct for which Republicans are not held to account. The latter are allowed to remain silent after instances of conduct with a strong stench of white nationalism, but pay no penalty for their quietude. Right-wing demonstrators at Michigan’s statehouse this week — angrily shouting, not social distancing, misogynistic in their message, some carrying Confederate garb — were not engaged in peaceful protest. This was a mob endangering the health of police officers and others seeking to intimidate democratic government. Some protesters compared Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to Adolf Hitler and displayed Nazi symbols. Newsweek reported:

The media has adopted the approach that a pattern of sexual harassment claims over decades is not relevant because Trump has denied them, yet they want investigated the single assault claim against Biden. Biden responded in an interview and in a lengthy ; the media insists these things have to be investigated further. They do not ask Trump’s campaign why the president does not respond to questions. They do not ask Republicans about Carroll, Zervos or others.

Social Media: Is It Really Biased Against Us Republicans

Wednesday promises to be another stressful day for Facebook, Google and Twitter.

Their chief executives will be grilled by senators about whether social media companies abuse their power.

For Republicans, this is the opportunity they’ve been waiting for.

Two weeks ago, Twitter prevented people posting links to a critical New York Post investigation into Joe Biden.

It then apologised for failing to explain its reasoning before ditching a rule it had used to justify the action.

For many Republicans, this was the final straw – incontrovertible evidence that social media is biased against conservatives.

The accusation is that Silicon Valley is at its core liberal and a bad arbiter of what’s acceptable on its platforms.

In this case, Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz believed Twitter would have acted differently if the story had been about President Donald Trump.

Sobering Report Shows Hardening Attitudes Against Media

NEW YORK — The distrust many Americans feel toward the news media, caught up like much of the nation’s problems in the partisan divide, only seems to be getting worse.

That was the conclusion of a “sobering” study of attitudes toward the press conducted by Knight Foundation and Gallup and released Tuesday.

Nearly half of all Americans describe the news media as “very biased,” the survey found.

“That’s a bad thing for democracy,” said John Sands, director of learning and impact at the Knight Foundation. “Our concern is that when half of Americans have some sort of doubt about the veracity of the news they consume, it’s going to be impossible for our democracy to function.”

The study was conducted before the coronavirus lockdown and nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd.

Eight percent of respondents — the preponderance of them politically conservative — think that news media that they distrust are trying to ruin the country.

– Deal gives Atlanta company control of Anchorage TV news

The study found that 71% of Republicans have a “very” or “somewhat” unfavorable opinion of the news media, while 22% of Democrats feel the same way. Switch it around, and 54% of Democrats have a very favorable view of the media, and only 13% of Republicans feel the same way.

That divide has been documented before but only seems to be deepening, particularly among conservatives, Sands said.

In The Age Of Trump Media Bias Comes Into The Spotlight

Almost 20 years ago, after my first book, “,” came out, I made a lot of speeches, some of them to conservative organizations. The book was about liberal bias in the mainstream media. I had been a journalist at CBS News for 28 years and, so, it was a behind-the-scenes exposé about how the sausage was made, about how bias made its way into the news. 

I said that despite what many conservatives think, there was no conspiracy to slant the news in a liberal direction. I said that there were no secret meetings, no secret handshakes and salutes, that anchors such as CBS’s Dan Rather never went into a room with top lieutenants, locked the door, lowered the blinds, dimmed the lights and said, “OK, how are we going to screw those Republicans today?” 

It didn’t work that way, I said. Instead, bias was the result of groupthink. Put too many like-minded liberals in a newsroom and you’re going to get a liberal slant on the news.    

Liberal journalists, I said, live in a comfortable liberal bubble and don’t even necessarily believe their views are liberal. Instead, they believe they are moderate, mainstream and mainly reasonable views — unlike, of course, conservative views which, to them, are none of those things.

But what I wrote and spoke about then — mainly about how there was no conspiracy to inject bias into news stories — seems no longer to be true today. 

Pandering, it seems, is good for business.

Bias shows itself not only in what’s reported, but also in what’s ignored. 

Florida Republicans Move Against Social Media Companies

TALLAHASSEE — Concerned that social media companies were conspiring against conservatives, Florida Republicans sent a measure Thursday to Gov. Ron DeSantis that would punish online platforms that lawmakers assert discriminate against conservative thought.

The governor had urged lawmakers to deliver the legislation to his desk as part of a broader effort to regulate Big Tech companies — in how they collect and use information they harvest from consumers and in how social media platforms treat their users.

Republicans in Florida and elsewhere have accused the companies of censoring conservative thought on social media platforms by removing posts they consider inflammatory or using algorithms to reduce the visibility of posts that go against the grain of mainstream ideas.

With the ubiquity of social media, the sites have become modern-day public squares — where people share in the most trivial of matters but also in ideas and information that often are unvetted.

In recent years, social media companies have acted more aggressively in controlling the information posted on their platforms. In some cases, the companies have moved to delete posts over what they see as questionable veracity or their potential to stoke violence.

DeSantis is a strong ally of the former president, and the Republican governor is supporting hefty financial penalties against social media platforms that suspend the accounts of political candidates.

America Hates The Republicans And They Dont Know Why

@jonathanchait

Americans harbor certain deep-rooted impressions of the two parties, which have held for generations. Democrats are compassionate and generous, but spendthrift, dovish, and indulgent of crime and prone to subsidize poor people who don’t want to work. Republicans are strong on defense and crime, but too friendly to business and the rich. What is striking about the Republican government is how little effort it has made to push against, or even steer around, the unflattering elements of its brand. President Trump and his legislative partners have leaned into every ingrained prejudice the voters hold against them. They have acted as if none of their liabilities even exist.

That is not the approach Democrats have taken in office. Bill Clinton famously fashioned himself as a “New Democrat,” angering his base on crime and welfare and declaring the era of big government over. Barack Obama did not position himself quite so overtly against his party’s brand — which had recovered in part because of Clinton’s success — but he did take care to avoid confirming political stereotypes. Obama frequently invoked the importance of parenting and personal responsibility. He did not slash the defense budget, and took pains to woo Republican support for criminal-justice reform. Obama tried repeatedly to get Republicans to compromise on a deal to reduce the budget deficit. Whatever the merits of these policies, they reflect a grasp of the party’s innate liabilities.

Placing Some News Sources On The Political Spectrum

Here are a few examples of major news sources and their so-called “bias” based on ratings from AllSides  and the reported level of trust from partisan audiences from the Pew Research Center survey.

Note that much of these ratings are based on surveys of personal perceptions. Consider that these may be impacted by the hostile media effect, wherein “partisans perceive media coverage as unfairly biased against their side” . A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 18, 701-729. ).

The Capitol Siege: The Arrested And Their Stories

It would only be logical for that memory to inform the imagination of any Republican contemplating a similar independent commission to probe what happened on Jan. 6. The commission would likely look at various right-wing groups that were involved, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, some members of which have already been charged. The commission might also delve into the social media presence and influence of various white supremacists.

Moreover, just as the 9/11 Commission was expected to interview the current and preceding presidents, so might a new commission pursue testimony from Trump and some of his advisers, both official and otherwise, regarding their roles in the protest that wound up chasing members of Congress from both chambers into safe holding rooms underground.

House Minority Leader McCarthy was asked last week whether he would testify if a commission were created and called on him to discuss his conversations with Trump on Jan. 6.

“Sure,” McCarthy replied. “Next question.”

All this may soon be moot. If Senate Democrats are unable to secure 60 votes to overcome an expected filibuster of the House-passed bill, the measure will die and the questions to be asked will fall to existing congressional committees, federal prosecutors and the media. To some degree, all can at least claim to have the same goals and intentions as an independent commission might have.

The difference is the level of acceptance their findings are likely to have with the public.

[writersthatinspireexcellence]

𝙍𝙚𝙙-𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜: 𝘼𝙣 𝙀𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙚 𝙒𝙖𝙮 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝘾𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙢

𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘖. 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘻𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘛. 𝘊𝘳𝘶𝘻

On 3 July 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, which replaces the Human Security Act of 2007. Under the law, persons who propose, incite, conspire, and participate in the planning, training, and facilitation is an offence under the act, as well as those who provide support to ‘terrorists’ as defined under the act, or recruit members of a ‘terrorist organization’, could face life imprisonment without parole. The law allows suspects to be detained without a judicial warrant of arrest for 14 days and can be extended by 10 more days, and placed under surveillance for 60 days, that can also be extended by up to 30 days, by the police or military.

This bill sparked many human rights advocates, as well as law experts to petition against the bill and why it should be junked for constitutional violations. 13 representatives were given a chance to challenge at least 23 sections of the bill in an oral argument according to a cover story by CNN Philippines (2021). The petitioners claim that the bill is vague to define what terrorism is and with phrases that are ambiguous that would enable malicious criminal prosecution of innocent rights-holders. They also challenged section 29 of the bill that allows warrantless arrest without charges of suspected terrorist for up to 24 days, emphasizing the dangers of leaving detained persons in the custody of arresting officers for extended periods of time. The petitioners would also argue on the sections on surveillance that it violates the people's rights to due process, privacy of communication, right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and especially their right to freedom of speech.

“The only way to break a protracted deadlock between the Philppine government and New People’s Army and end incidents of red-tagging through the peace process.”

But the thing is the military that is working within an organization namely the National Task Force that was said to end the Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC). However, it was said that these are just hidden fronts by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) to tear down the open structures with a massive budget of P19 billion which openly shows the objective of the said organization.

The result is that the military are planting weapons and explosives in each case just to justify their arrest. A mother is in jail with her month old baby, elderly couple with health issues are shot to death just because they are resisting arrest. Seven union organizers and journalists are arrested. Resulting in the increasing cost of red-tagging.

According to human rights groups, government supporters and state authorities in the Philippines are increasingly using "red-tagging," a method in which individuals are labeled as communists or terrorists based on a lack of evidence.

It’s like they are making use of these people with the red-tagging method as a replacement to their unsolved or uncaptured members of NPA's, which is a huge problem in our country. It’s like an escape to say that there's progress regarding the problem.

And this red-tagging should be eliminated to stop the involvement of people. Being victims of crime and injustice treatment. In fact, according to an article by Rappler (2020), last October 21, 2020 it was stated that Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade Jr. who happened to be the commander of the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ Southern Luzon Command and spokesperson of the government-created (NTF-ELCAC) warned Filipino celebrity Liza Soberano in a Facebook post that she would “suffer the same fate” as Josephine Anne Lapira, who was killed in a clash in 2017 between government forces and alleged members of the communist New People’s Army.

“Liza Soberano, there's still a chance to abdicate that group. If you don't, you will suffer the same fate as Josephine Anne Lapira” says Lieutenant General Antonio Parlade Jr.

And this is all because the actress is supporting women rights organizations including the political party Gabriella. Parlade even said publicly that former and current Congressional representatives of progressive party-list groups, including Gabriela, are under surveillance for being “card-bearing members of the Communist Party of the Philippines” (CPP), adding that the anti-terror law is now “in effect”.

This kind of incitement and threat by Parlade shows how people of power can be quick to red-tag anyone who is affiliated with political groups even if the actress was only giving a talk about women empowerment at a seminar by Gabriela, a political party. This blatant action of red-tagging should be stopped as it endangers lives of innocent people who are only voicing out their concern against a certain problem that they encounter. If Liza, a known actress here in our country, is being red-tagged by the spokesperson of NTF-ELCAC, we can only imagine how many innocent activists are also being red-tagged just by joining rallies that voices out their concerns.

Furthermore, red-tagging has been going on for decades and intensified since the Duterte Administration. After the government and the CPP failed to reach an agreement in 2017, The NTF-ELCAC was established as a result of Duterte's following Executive Order (EO) 70, which calls for a "whole-of-nation approach in combating the Local Communist Terrorist Groups."

However, in the eyes of the observers or the people together with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights along with human rights organizations this led to renewed campaigns against red-tagging, the threats and harassment against human rights defenders, political activists, lawyers, and trade unionists. Expressing concerns to immediately end this kind of approach because of the increasing number of human rights violations caused by the government's dangerously broad counter-insurgency strategy.

Government authorities should cease from ‘red-tagging’ legitimate organizations, or branding them as “communist fronts” which, according to these organizations, have led to increased harassment and attacks by unknown individuals against them. Peaceful activists should not be targeted based on their political views. The authorities must also carry out a prompt, thorough, impartial and effective investigation into the killings, and bring to justice those suspected to be responsible for the killings. They must take proactive steps to ensure, protect, and promote the human rights of defenders and activists in the country, and guarantee the right to an effective remedy and access to justice to victims and their families.

Accusations without a clear and strong basis are wrong and unjust. Activism is not terrorism. One does not need to be a communist to criticize and hold officials in the government accountable for their acts. One does not need to be a communist to assert the rights, and uphold the dignity, of the people. If the reckless red-tagging against activists, and private institutions continues, it becomes a threat to the rights of the people and even to our democracy. Red-tagging must not be used by our leaders against critics of the government. Public officials should instead face and accept criticism from the public. This is how they can address the real issues of our society.

#red-tagging #reading and writing skills #article #claim of policy

[ziyadnazem]

America’s dependence on China for pharmaceuticals: 97% of all antibiotics in the United States came from China

In the midst of an ongoing quarantine across China due to the 2019 Coronavirus outbreak, it is rather troubling to be reminded about the dependence of America on China for products, particularly essential medicine.

Back in July of 2019, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held a hearing on the growing reliance of China's biotech and pharmaceutical products in America. The topic reminded me of a spirited discussion described in Bob Woodward’s book, Fear: Trump in the White House. In the discussion, Gary Cohn, then chief economic advisor to President Trump, argued against a trade war with China by invoking a Department of Commerce study that found that 97% of all antibiotics in the United States came from China. “If you’re the Chinese and you want to really just destroy us, just stop sending us antibiotics,” he said.

Cohn’s words highlight a security concern associated with pharmaceuticals from China. As Rosemary Gibson noted in her testimony, centralization of the global supply chain of medicines in a single country makes it vulnerable to interruption, “whether by mistake or design.” If we are dependent on China for thousands of ingredients and raw materials to make our medicine, China could use this dependence as a weapon against us. While the Department of Defense only purchases a small number of finished pharmaceuticals from China, about 80 percent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used to make drugs in the United States are said to come from China and other countries like India. For example, the chemical starting material used to make doxycycline, the recommended treatment for anthrax exposure, comes from China. When an influential Chinese economist earlier this year suggested that Beijing curb its exports of raw materials for vitamins and antibiotics as a countermeasure in the trade war with the United States, the worries surrounding our API dependence to China seemed to be vindicated. Concern about a disruption in the supply chain could explain why the tariffs on Chinese products proposed by the United States Trade Representative in May 2019, worth approximately $300 billion, excludes “pharmaceuticals, certain pharmaceutical inputs, and select medical goods.”

While the potential exposure to raw material supply disruptions drives part of our fear, concern about the safety and efficacy of Chinese-made pharmaceuticals is another component. In the summer of 2018, one of China’s largest domestic vaccine makers sold at least 250,000 substandard doses of vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough. It was the latest in a slew of scandals caused by poor quality drug products made in China over the last decade. In 2008, the contamination of a raw ingredient imported from China and used to make heparin, a blood-thinning drug, was associated with at least eighty-one deaths in the United States. According to an investigative journalist, fraud and manipulation of quality data are still endemic in Chinese pharmaceutical firms.

In order to address the growing security and safety concerns about Chinese-made pharmaceuticals, some suggest that the United States switch to India as an alternative API supplier. However, doing so would be no different from rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is true that many Indian pharmaceutical firms are leading API manufacturers but India depends on China for sourcing nearly three-quarters of APIs in generic drug formulations. The disruption in the supply chain notwithstanding, switching to India for the supply of APIs would only make the drugs sold in the United States more expensive: APIs and chemical intermediates from China are 35 to 40 percent cheaper than Indian ones. Moreover, India has its own drug safety problems as well. In 2013, a generic drug maker in India pled guilty to drug safety charges, which included shipping batches of adulterated drugs, having incomplete testing records, and inadequate programs to assess drug quality. According to a former executive of the company, this was only a fraction of the safety issues the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could identify in overseas plants.

Moreover, we could have overestimated our dependence on Chinese-made pharmaceutical products. As of 2018, China claimed 13.4% of all import lines; defined as distinct regulated products within a shipment through customs–among countries that export drugs and biologics to the United States. Of these import lines for drugs and biologics, about 83% were finished drugs, and only 7.5% were APIs. We certainly underestimate the share of APIs from China given that Chinese-made APIs can come to the United States as part of the finished drug products from other countries like India. However, the lack of a reliable API registry makes it difficult to estimate the true market share of Chinese-made APIs.

In addition, when highlighting our dependence on Chinese-made pharmaceuticals, we could overlook the other side of the coin: China needs finished drugs made in the United States. China is facing a crisis of non-communicable diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes. It is estimated that between 2002 and 2016, new cancer cases in China increased by more than 55%, from 2.19 million to 3.8 million. A majority of Chinese cancer patients, however, lack access to the most effective drugs. Partly because of this, cancer survival rate in China is less than half of the United States. Under the performance-based legitimacy in contemporary China, the government must justify its rule by continuously delivering public goods and services, like better healthcare, to meet people’s wants. In an increasingly state-dominated political system, the link between performance and legitimacy becomes so tight that failure to deliver such goods could endanger the system itself. In the meantime, with the rapid improvement of material living standards, Chinese people are increasingly valuing things beyond basic earnings, such as good health. As President Xi Jinping stated in the 19th Party Congress, the “principal contradiction” in the society is “the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life.” In fact, in 2018, the government cut the import value-added tax on cancer drugs from 17 percent to 3 percent and reduced import tariffs on all common drugs and cancer drugs to zero. Essentially, regime legitimacy requires the state to deliver the most effective drugs, which are often patented and provided exclusively by multinational pharmaceutical companies. In May 2019, China unveiled a list of imported U.S. medical products to impose punitive tariffs upon. The list includes commonly used drugs such as insulin, ibuprofen, as well as medical devices such as ultrasonic diagnostic apparatuses and endoscopes, which Chinese firms can manufacture themselves. Nevertheless, the list did not include anti-cancer drugs and other patented ones.

The same legitimacy concern also led the Chinese government to introduce incentives to improve the quality of its pharmaceutical products. In 2016, China’s FDA introduced the Generic Consistency Evaluation (GCE), which required generic drugs approved for production prior to 2008 to pass the GCE in order to gain “equivalence” to branded drugs in terms of safety and efficacy. Failure to pass the GCE in a timely manner will lead to the revocation of registration licenses or ineligibility for government tenders. Since generic drugs approved before 2008 are prone to low-quality problems, a significant number of drugs that have failed to pass GCE are expected to exit the public market. The measure will help weed out over half of the nation’s 2,900 or so small, and often low-quality, domestic drug makers. Since early this year, nearly 20 pharmaceutical firms have either exited the industry or been reorganized.

So what does all this mean for a response from the United States? Before making any major decisions on this issue, it is important to collect as much information as possible for a full assessment of the risks we face. We should also nurture the development of alternative sources and capabilities to make critically essential drugs in the United States.

#china #usa #america #coronavirus #drugs #pharmaceutials #manufacturing #apis

[orbemnews]

Ryanair accuses Belarus of 'state-sponsored piracy' as fears grow for dissident arrested on diverted plane Ryanair’s CEO Michael O’Leary accused Belarus of “state-sponsored piracy” after its flight 4978 from Athens to Vilnius was diverted by Belarusian air traffic control to Minsk over a supposed security alert. O’Leary said Belarusian KGB agents were also on the flight that was carrying 26-year-old opposition activist Raman Pratasevich, who is wanted in Belarus on a variety of charges and was detained once the plane landed. The interception of a commercial flight from one European Union nation to another sparked global condemnation. EU leaders were due to discuss further action against the government of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko later Monday. “It appears the intent of the authorities was to remove a journalist and his traveling companion, and we believe there were also some KGB agents offloaded off the aircraft,” O’Leary told Newstalk Breakfast radio on Monday. Similarly, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said that secret service agents may have been on the plane, telling RTE’s Morning Ireland program Monday that the agents were “clearly linked to the Belarusian regime.” “When the plane landed, either five or six people didn’t reboard the plane before it took off again, but only one or two people were actually arrested, so that certainly would suggest that a number of the other people who left the plane were secret service,” he said, adding that he couldn’t be sure the members were KGB agents. Eyewitness accounts Soon after the plane landed, Pratasevich was arrested along with Sofia Sapega, a Russian student he was traveling with. Pratasevich is one of dozens of Belarusian journalists and activists campaigning in exile against strongman Lukashenko’s 26-year rule. Pratasevich is the founder of the Telegram channel Nexta, which helped mobilize anti-Lukashenko protests, and was charged last year with “organizing mass riots and group actions that grossly violate public order.” He is on a government wanted list for terrorism. The pair had been flying from Athens, in Greece, to Vilnius, in Lithuania, when the pilot announced shortly before arriving at their destination that the plane would be diverting to nearby Minsk. Pratasevich reacted immediately, standing up from his seat, reaching into the overhead locker, pulling a laptop computer from his hand luggage and passing it to a female companion along with his mobile phone, witnesses told Reuters. “When it was announced they were going to land in Minsk, Roman stood up, opened the luggage compartment, took luggage and was trying to split things,” said a Lithuanian passenger, who gave his name only as Mantas, Reuters reported. “I think he made a mistake. There were plenty of people so he could give the things to me or other passengers and not the girlfriend, who was also I think arrested.” Other passengers said Pratasevich looked scared and said he feared would face the death penalty. Marius Rutkauskas was sitting behind Pratasevich, and told Lithuania’s state-owned LRT TV that passengers were initially told the plane would be landing in Minsk due to a technical fault. “A man sat with his girlfriend and you could see that he started to panic. As I understood, this was the journalist. He panicked because we would be landing in Minsk. He said that the death penalty awaits him in Belarus,” Rutkauskas said. Similarly, passenger Monika Simkiene told AFP that Pratasevich “just turned to people and said he was facing the death penalty.” There are conflicting accounts on why the plane changed course last minute. Ryanair says that its crew was “notified by Belarus ATC [air traffic control] of a potential security threat on board and were instructed to divert to the nearest airport, Minsk” — even though the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk when it changed course. airport Meanwhile the Deputy Commander of Belarus’ Air Defense Forces, Major-General Andrey Gurtsevich, claimed that after the Ryanair crew were told of a “possible bomb on board,” it was the captain who “made a decision to land at the reserve airfield (Minsk-2).” Gurtsevich said a Belarus Air Force MiG29 jet was dispatched to monitor the flight and “assist” if necessary. The Belarusian government’s version of events has been met with widespread disbelief, despite an elaborate show of fire trucks when the plane landed, as well as extensive baggage checks. Nothing untoward was found, according to Ryanair. Pratasevich and Sapega were arrested and detained on arrival in Minsk. Student Sapega was preparing to defend her International Law and European Law master’s thesis in Vilinus, according to the European Humanities University (EHU). “The student was detained by the Administration of the Investigative Committee for the city of Minsk on groundless and made-up conditions,” the EHU said in a statement. On arrival, Pratasevich’s luggage was checked and sniffer dogs were deployed, but turned up nothing, Reuters reported. “We saw that Roman was stopped due to some things in the luggage,” passenger Mantas told Reuters, adding that the other passengers also had their luggage checked and were taken by bus to the terminal where they spent several hours waiting to reboard the plane. “We saw from the window that Roman is standing alone, and one policeman with dog was trying to find something (in his luggage).” Another passenger, who also did not give his name, told Lithuanian media that Protasevich had identified himself to Belarusian security officials on arrival. “I saw how his passport was taken away. He took off his mask and said: ‘I’m so-and-so and I’m the reason why all this is going on.'” ‘Utterly unacceptable’ On Monday the flag carrier of Latvia, airBaltic, said it had “decided to avoid entering Belarus airspace until the situation becomes clearer or a decision is issued by the authorities.” “The safety and health of our passengers and employees is the main priority for the airline. Currently airBaltic is continuing to closely monitor the situation,” it said. The incident has been condemned by world leaders, with the Lithuanian government on Monday calling it an “act of state terrorism directed against the security of citizens of the European Union.” The government will ask for Belarus’ airspace be closed to international flights, it said in a statement. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said it was “utterly unacceptable to force @Ryanair flight from Athens to Vilnius to land in Minsk.” “The outrageous and illegal behaviour of the regime in Belarus will have consequences. Those responsible for the #Ryanair hijacking must be sanctioned. Journalist Roman Protasevich must be released immediately,” von der Leyen said in a later tweet. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned the incident Sunday and demanded the release of Pratasevich. “This shocking act perpetrated by the Lukashenka regime endangered the lives of more than 120 passengers, including U.S. citizens,” Blinken said in a statement. “Initial reports suggesting the involvement of the Belarusian security services and the use of Belarusian military aircraft to escort the plane are deeply concerning and require full investigation.” But Belarus has said western countries are acting “hastily” by making “belligerent” statements about Sunday’s incident. Foreign ministry press secretary Anatoliy Glaz told Russian state media RIA Novosti that a “number of countries” and the EU were making “deliberately politicized, unsupported accusations,” and said those nations have “no apparent desire to understand it objectively.” Glaz defended Belarus’ actions on Sunday as “fully justified,” in order to ensure the safety and security of the passengers and crew. “There is no doubt that the actions of our competent authorities were also in full compliance with the established international rules,” he said Russia, a key ally of Belarus, said it would not be commenting on the diverted fight. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a conference call with journalists Monday that it was for international aviation authorities to determine whether Belarus was compliant with regulations. CNN’s Tim Lister, Zahra Ullah and Chris Liakos contributed to this report. With additional reporting from Reuters. Source link Orbem News #accuses #Arrested #Belarus #dissident #diverted #Fears #grow #piracy #plane #Ryanair #statesponsored

[ladystylestores]

What will Hong Kong’s national security law mean for travelers?

Hong Kong (CNN) — When it comes to desirable post-pandemic travel destinations, Hong Kong would be an obvious choice thanks to its capable handling of Covid-19 outbreaks, which has so far limited infections to just 1,300 cases in the city of 7.5 million.

But now, some travelers may be worried about visiting for a totally different reason.

On June 30, the Chinese government introduced a national security law in Hong Kong that outlaws “acts of secession, subversion of state power, terrorist activities and collusion with foreign or external forces to endanger national security.”

Hong Kong authorities insist the law will “only target an extremely small minority of people,” yet its broad language and global scope raise questions about what it means for foreign travelers — and the city’s tourism recovery — once Covid-19 travel restrictions ease.

The new law’s Article 34 states that foreigners in Hong Kong could be “subject to deportation” if they contravene the law, even if they are not prosecuted. Meanwhile, Article 38 asserts that the law applies to offenses committed “outside the region” by foreigners who are not residents of Hong Kong or China.

This language has spurred discussions in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and the UK, prompting them to revise their respective travel advisories, warning citizens of increased risks and “surveillance,” “detention” and “deportation” under the new law, which details a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

“Combined with Covid-19 and the protests, the national security law has created lots of uncertainty about the upcoming recovery,” Herbert Yum, a Hong Kong research manager at market research provider Euromonitor International, tells CNN Travel.

“We can expect that visitors from the US and UK will decrease significantly (after Covid-19 restrictions relax) because both governments have expressed lots of concern about the safety and stability of Hong Kong. However, tourists from mainland China, which make up approximately 70% of Hong Kong’s total (overnight) tourism arrivals, could feel safer and more willing to come to Hong Kong.”

Will the law impact travelers?

Hong Kong welcomed 65.1 million visitors in 2018, according to data from the Hong Kong Tourism Board.

@ Didier Marti/Moment RF/Getty Images

According to a Hong Kong government spokesperson, the national security law should not affect the “vast majority of Hong Kong people including tourists and investors… who abide by the law and do not participate in acts or activities that undermine national security.”

When asked for specific examples of what types of “acts or activities” would impact foreigners visiting Hong Kong, the spokesperson did not elaborate.

However, a Hong Kong Tourism Board spokesperson offered reassurances: “It’s difficult to ascertain the impact of the national security law on Hong Kong tourism at the moment, but it is highly unlikely that bona fide tourists will be affected at all.”

Even so, many foreign governments have expressed concerns about the law. Following its implementation last week, the US State Department revised its travel advisory for Hong Kong.

Designated a Level 2 (out of 4) risk level, meaning US citizens should “exercise increased caution,” the advisory warns: “US citizens traveling or residing in Hong Kong may be subject to increased levels of surveillance, as well as arbitrary enforcement of laws and detention for purposes other than maintaining law and order (as a result of the national security law).”

Australia made a similar move, updating its travel advisory to read: “(The national security law) could be interpreted broadly. You can break the law without intending to. The maximum penalty under this law in Hong Kong is life imprisonment.”

In Canada, authorities warn travelers that they “may be at increased risk of arbitrary detention on national security grounds and possible extradition to mainland China.”

And in the UK, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office states: “Mainland authorities could under certain circumstances detain individuals under the terms of this law, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is therefore an increased risk of detention, and deportation for a non-permanent resident, who commits an offense under the law.”

Professor Xin He, a Chinese law expert at the University of Hong Kong’s Department of Law, calls these travel warnings “overblown.”

“Tourists are extremely unlikely to offend those serious crimes specified by the law,” he tells CNN Travel, noting that neighboring Macao, which is also a special administrative region of China, has similar laws.

“The law is trying to stabilize Hong Kong’s situation and attract more tourists.”

Sharing this sentiment, Hong Kong Tourism Board chairman Pang Yiu-kai told the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based, English-language publication, that he didn’t think the law would scare away travelers since foreigners still visit mainland China, which also has a national security law.

However, Benjamin Iaquinto, an assistant professor and tourism geographer at the University of Hong Kong, questions such comparisons.

“Yes, tourists still go to China (despite the local laws), they still go see the Great Wall and the Forbidden City and all that,” Iaquinto tells CNN Travel.

“But those places are so remarkable that you’re always going to get tourists to visit them no matter what. Hong Kong doesn’t have places like the Great Wall or the Forbidden City, which might be a problem for the tourism industry.”

‘Tourists don’t like risk’

Senior tourism lecturer Denis Tolkach, who recently transitioned from the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University to James Cook University in Australia, says experts are still wrapping their heads around the law.

“There was no draft available until it had passed through the legislature, so we only saw the text on July 1,” says Tolkach.

“Most legal scholars are still trying to understand what the language means and what repercussions it will have — that creates uncertainty. Tourists don’t like risk and they don’t like uncertainty.”

A silver lining, he says, is that no one is heading to Hong Kong right now.

“You could say it’s a good thing that currently there is no travel due to the coronavirus anyway. People have the time to decide whether they want to travel to Hong Kong or not, as they watch the situation unfold.”

If no incidents involving tourists occur under the national security law after the borders reopen, he says the perceived risk will likely diminish.

“If you see that other people are traveling without any problems, people will be more relaxed,” adds Tolkach.

“But you need to be informed about the place you are traveling to and respect the local customs, whether those are cultural or legal. So be informed.”

Running afoul of the law

The enactment of Hong Kong national security law has sparked wide concerns and fears in Hong Kong. In a latest move, the city’s Education Bureau ordered schools to remove books that could violate the law. Speaking to CNN’s Ivan Watson, pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong reacts to the controversial bill.

As experts grapple with what’s illegal under the new legislation, Professor He says that common concerns such as “criticizing the leaders of China” on social media would not “fall into any of the crimes specified in the law.”

He also says it would be “extremely unlikely or almost impossible” for tourists to be detained or extradited to mainland China.

However, providing “donations and other support to those criminals specified in the NSL (national security law) may be problematic.”

Antony Dapiran, a Hong Kong-based lawyer, photographer and writer who is the author of “City on Fire: The Fight for Hong Kong,” agrees that “ordinary people who have no political involvement or exposure and no public profile” would not be impacted.

Foreigners or members of the Hong Kong diaspora could be at risk if they “engaged in anti-government activism abroad,” particularly if that activism was “directed towards either secession — Hong Kong independence or, for that matter, other independence causes such as Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang — or subversion of the Chinese government.”

If business or leisure travelers have “engaged with foreign governments or organizations in furtherance of those causes,” he says they could be considered criminals.

“Those who have an elevated risk profile — such as people involved in anti-China activism abroad, or business travelers in industries and sectors which have an elevated risk exposure — would no doubt consider their travel plans in light of the new law,” says Dapiran.

Entering recovery mode

While the law may concern travelers from Western countries, experts agree that it could have the opposite effect on visitors from mainland China — by far the city’s largest and most important tourism market.

“In mainland China, people are not very used to seeing protests — and this kind of social unrest makes people feel at risk,” explains Tolkach.

“So if we look at the mainland Chinese visitors, the national security law is supposed to ensure the safety and security of Hong Kong — (it’s) something to be viewed positively by Chinese tourists, to reassure them.”

The city welcomed roughly 51 million tourists from mainland China in 2018 — or roughly 78% of the 65.1 million total arrivals in 2018, according to data from the Hong Kong Tourism Board, which includes both overnight and same-day visits.

“The major protests started in June (of 2019), but travel was not really affected until about August when the protests and the police response became more intense,” says Tolkach.

“In November, because of the occupation of the universities — including Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong — arrivals dropped by about 50% … it was most significant for the mainland Chinese market.”

He says a lot of the fear stems from media coverage in mainland China.

“Media outlets in mainland China were portraying the protests very negatively, so it created a lot of uncertainty and Hong Kong felt like a risky destination.”

By the end of last year, total arrivals had decreased 14.2% from 65.1 million in 2018 to 55.9 million in 2019.

This year, the industry has been hit even harder. Due to Covid-19 travel restrictions, the city saw just 3.5 million arrivals between January and May 2020, compared with 29.7 million in the same period last year.

Currently, only Hong Kong residents and some visitors from mainland China, Macao and Taiwan can enter the city. All arrivals must take a compulsory Covid-19 test and quarantine for 14 days.

In the coming months, Euromonitor researcher Yum predicts that Hong Kong tourism will see a sharp recovery once the government finalizes “travel bubble” agreements, which may allow quarantine-exempt travel between destinations like Thailand, Japan and mainland China.

“When Hong Kong reopens its borders, visitors from the Asia-Pacific region may rebound quickly,” adds Yum.

However, the long-term impacts remain unclear.

Hong Kong’s evolving image

World’s greatest city? Hong Kong is definitely a contender. Here’s a quick look at some of its top sights and sounds. Video by Black Buddha.

Tourists rarely make decisions based on politics when it comes to choosing travel destinations, says Iaquinto, pointing to examples like Thailand and Sri Lanka — two nearby destinations that have maintained successful tourism industries despite long-term political unrest.

However, Hong Kong’s image is rooted in its reputation as an open, free and transparent city — unique selling points that set it apart from some of its neighbors.

“One of the things that makes Hong Kong thrive as a tourism destination is its openness,” says Iaquinto.

“You have very favorable visa entry requirements for a lot of different passport holders. It has a major airport, which is a massive hub for global air travel.

“If you look at Shenzhen, right across the border, it is like night and day. It is very different.”

Depending on how the law is implemented, Tolkach believes it could also make it challenging for Hong Kong to separate its image from China.

“Hong Kong has a strong brand legacy, and leisure tourists generally are not that political. But if things continue as they are, maybe even Hong Kong, a world-renowned tourist destination, won’t be as attractive to international markets,” explains Tolkach.

“Increasingly, people will be thinking about Hong Kong as part of China, rather than an autonomous entity. So the destination’s image and the other related issues, like trusting the authorities, will be similar.

“If you trust mainland Chinese authorities, then you will travel to Hong Kong without any major concerns. If you don’t, you might be worried.”

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/3eaccbp

#World Wide News

[antigovernmentextremist]

This executive order, however, might look different to the court. As far as we know—and a well-litigated case would put all of these things on the record—the travel ban sidestepped everything that ordinarily injects expertise into a presidential decision. There was no inter-agency process to include the expertise of informed analysts from the worlds of immigration, national security, diplomacy, and counterterrorism. Indeed, no serious experts at the intelligence agencies seem to have participated at all. The order was instead rushed out from the White House itself, haphazardly. Moreover, the administration has clearly signaled how little regard it has for professional expertise in these areas. First there were Trump's repeated comments, both as candidate and president-elect, deriding both the intelligence agencies and the senior military leadership. And simultaneously with the issuance of the executive order on refugees and immigrants, the president installed Steve Bannon, a political advisor with no particular expertise in national security, to the National Security Council. Indeed, a significant and bipartisan group of experts in national security and foreign affairs have told the courts that the order excluding travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries is damaging to national security. Maybe that’s right, and maybe it isn’t: a court might not be well-positioned to know. But it wouldn’t be hard for courts to recognize it as a more sophisticated form of analysis than anything the executive branch is offering. If the court concludes that the Trump Administration isn’t actually making decisions on the basis of superior information and professional expertise, one of the key reasons for judicial deference will have vanished. Judicial deference to presidential decisionmaking has never been absolute, even where national security is at issue. Think of the landmark Pentagon Papers case, for example, in which the Justices refused to dismiss The New York Times’ First Amendment claim merely because President Nixon asserted that the newspaper would endanger national security by publishing the study they’d been leaked. Even in the case justly remembered as the worst instance of judicial overdeference to executive authority in national security matters—Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the detention of persons of Japanese descent during World War II—the Court insisted that it could countermand a Presidential action when warranted, even in the national-security domain. And in recent years, the Court has shown itself perfectly willing to second-guess presidential claims about national security, immigration, or foreign affairs. Recall Boumedienne v. Bush, in which Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion rejected the George W. Bush Administration’s contention that noncitizen prisoners at Guantanamo weren’t entitled to contest the legality of their detention. Or Zivotofsky v. Clinton, in which Chief Justice Roberts for an eight-justice majority rejected the Secretary of State’s contention that the court had no role in adjudicating a dispute between Congress and the President about whether the U.S. Embassy in Israel should be moved to Jerusalem. And those courts were dealing with administrations considerably less contemptuous of expertise than the current one. Without a big dose of deference, the Administration’s case for the validity of its order has many significant weaknesses. The Ninth Circuit’s decision on Thursday night highlighted three. First is a Fifth Amendment issue: by suspending already-issued nonimmigrant visas without giving the holders of those visas notice and opportunities to be heard in individualized proceedings, the order might violate due process rights that the Constitution affords even to noncitizens. Second is an Establishment Clause argument: First Amendment doctrine requires government action to be neutral among religions, and it’s easy to see this order as motivated by anti-Muslim animus. (Indeed, it might be hard for a dispassionate observer not to see it that way. As the Ninth Circuit panel noted, the order was issued after President Trump had repeatedly said in public that he intended to ban Muslims from entering the United States.) Third, anti-Muslim animus could also make the order void as a violation of equal protection doctrine. There are also other potential obstacles, including a federal statute that generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. And given the likelihood that the order is at heart just a matter of lashing out, rather than a reasoned response to any particular national security threat, a court might even conclude that the order is void because it lacks a rational basis—and even in the national security and immigration contexts, government action must have a rational basis to be constitutional.

Will the Supreme Court Back Trump?

The Trump administration’s incompetence and poor governing style may be the one thing that protects us from its more nefarious aspects.

#immigration ban #muslim ban #refugees #politics #donald trump #supreme court #ninth circuit court of appeals #judicial deference #SCOTUS

[shirlleycoyle]

The Trump Administration Is Attacking Critical Internet Privacy Tools

A few weeks ago, I was shocked to learn that the US government had begun dismantling the Open Technology Fund (OTF), a major funder of open source tools like Signal, Tor, and Tails that allow internet users to circumvent censorship and protect themselves from online spying.

The organization’s entire leadership team had been summarily fired by Michael Pack, an ally of Steve Bannon and the new Trump-approved CEO of the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM). The firings were just a small piece of a bigger reconfiguring of the organizations administered by USAGM, which include government-run media networks Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. But as someone who has watched OTF thrive for the past eight years as a member of its Advisory Council, this stood out as an attack against the organization that gave birth to some of our most important anti-censorship and privacy tools.

When I began studying online censorship in 2008, it was not a particularly well-known phenomenon in the United States. Elsewhere in the world, however, was a different story: In places like China, Tunisia, Syria, Vietnam, Iran, and Thailand, a heavily restricted Internet was the norm. Individuals in a number of countries were commonly prohibited from accessing information about human rights, foreign news publications, social media websites, religious content, and information about sexuality and sexual health.

In those days, it wasn’t easy to circumvent web blocks. While organizations like Tor had long provided anonymous and uncensored access to the Internet, they did so on shoestring budgets. Basic web proxies were often free but worked poorly, while paid VPNs required a credit card—something out of reach for many web users worldwide. Back then it seemed like a divided, Balkanized web was our global shared future.

Then, in January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech at The Newseum introducing Internet freedom as a core component of “21st century statecraft.” Acknowledging information networks as “a new nervous system for our planet,” Clinton spoke to the need to “synchronize our technological progress with our principles,” and laid out a plan to fight online censorship, connect more people to global information networks, and find diplomatic solutions to strengthen cyber security.

That plan came with funding, first through the State Department’s Department of Democracy, Rights, and Labor (DRL), and later joined by OTF, launched under Radio Free Asia and funded through USAGM (then called the Broadcasting Board of Governors).

That funding, as anyone in the Internet freedom community can attest, has altered the landscape of the Internet for millions upon millions of users around the world by providing support for technology that enables users to leap over firewalls and protect themselves from pervasive government surveillance. It has provided organizations in numerous countries where local funding is impossible and major foundations fail to reach with the necessary support to keep Internet users in their countries safe from harm and able to access important information.

I’ll readily admit that I was, and remain, skeptical of the Internet freedom agenda. The State Department agenda seemed heavily focused on countries where the US sought regime change—like Iran, Syria, and China. And I wasn’t the only one: Prominent Tunisian activist Sami Ben Gharbia criticized the agenda for its propensity to disincline the US from engaging in action that would “endanger the ‘stability’ of the dictatorial Arab order,” while writer Evgeny Morozov challenged the very idea that the Internet could bring about freedom or change.

In those heady, early days it was not uncommon for untested and unvetted tools—at least one of which turned out to be utter snake oil—to receive funding, invitations to State Department events, or even awards. In my circles, rumors of Beltway Bandits competing for lucrative Internet freedom contracts abounded.

But OTF, launched in 2012, sought to change all that by putting into place measures that ensured that any technology it funded was open source. Recognizing the mistrust that existed amongst much of the global internet freedom community, OTF put together an expert advisory council (of which I was a founding member) to review applications for funding, and began to create a sense of community amongst OTF-funded projects through the creation of an annual summit that has, over time, grown to be a diverse, inclusive, and community-led event.

This is what sets OTF apart and, regrettably, what is most at stake if Michael Pack gets his way. Neither Pack—nor James Miles, his recent appointee to the position of the position of OTF CEO—is an expert on Internet freedom, but some powerful players have his ear, among them the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice and the lobbyist Michael Horowitz, another Steve Bannon ally. Both have long worked to get the majority of funding for a particular set of tools backed by the anti-gay religious group Falun Gong that includes China-focused VPNs Ultrasurf and Freegate.

The Lantos Foundation would have you believe that it is that affiliation that has prevented their favored tools—which include Ultrasurf and Freegate—from receiving funding from OTF, claiming prejudice against this oppressed religious group. But the fact of the matter is that the people behind the tools have for many years refused to open up their code, and thereby verify the accuracy of their security claims. The battle is, therefore, between closed and open source technology.

Open source technology is critical in the internet freedom space, because it allows —anyone to inspect the code and understand how a given program works, or whether its code contains any bugs or backdoors. If bugs are found, they can be reported to the developers, helping them to improve upon the technology.

OTF requires that the tools it funds make their code open and publicly available, allowing it to be used by other developers, who can learn from it or reuse parts of it to build new programs or create applications that run on top of existing ones. Closed source technology, on the other hand, withdraws that knowledge from the public—it is inherently proprietary, unavailable for audit by anyone but hired experts under a non-disclosure agreement.

For OTF’s global community, this is a matter of trust and safety. I have attended most of OTF’s annual summits and spoken to a number of the developers, researchers, and activists from all over the world. Many of them speak of persecution by the state, of targeted surveillance, and pervasive censorship. They trust open source technology because they understand that using it does not present yet another vulnerability in their lives, the way that an unvetted closed source tool could.

Open source can also be a matter of thrift: OTF’s estimated annual budget is $15 million—hardly a dent in what myriad state actors spend each year to go after activists and dissidents. By using open source code, technologists can stretch that budget even farther, creating news tools that run alongside existing ones, or “forking” existing code for new purposes. It also ensures sustainability: If a project’s founders move on, they leave their code behind, allowing another group to pick up the slack and continue the work.

OTF’s opponents have failed time and time again to engage with any of these arguments, instead hammering on how their favored tools will ensure that more people can leap over China’s Great Firewall. That is certainly a noble goal, but what concerns me is that it seems to be their only goal.

While China’s censorship model is one of the most sophisticated, there is no publicly available instruction or guidance from the developers of tools such as Ultrasurf or Freegate on how users can continue to use this tool despite some enforcement of VPN restrictions in China, as well as VPNs repeatedly being removed from China’s Apple store. Because these tools are closed source, no one can say whether they’re even safe for Chinese users. Yet, these problems are regularly discussed and new approaches piloted among other open source anti-censorship projects, so that they can learn from each other’s hard work.

As the space for online free speech continues to shrink, the developers of these tools have apparently done little to nothing to make their technology available to, say, activists in Uganda impacted by the country’s new social media tax. Using these tools, protesters in Hong Kong will be unable to access censored content or safely hide their online identity amid growing surveillance capabilities used to find protesters. There’s also no evidence that Lebanese human rights defenders could make use of these tools to organize safely.

The digital threats that face anyone whose right to existence is under attack are not isolated to one country. Civil society worldwide must work together to overcome well-coordinated, well-resourced digital adversaries, and must trust in the technology that holds their sensitive conversations and identities. This trust can only be earned through open source code.

It is for these reasons that nearly five hundred organizations—and more than a thousand individuals, many of whom are experts in the field—have signed a letter calling on Congress to require Internet freedom funds to be awarded through an open, fair, competitive, and evidence-based decision process; to remain fully open-source in perpetuity; to ensure that all technologies supported by government funds receive regular security audits; and to pass the Open Technology Fund Authorization Act.

It is difficult to say what exactly will be lost if Michael Pack is allowed to continue his tyrannical reign, but one thing is for certain: The Internet freedom agenda is going to look a lot more like the Trump agenda—dangerous and ineffective.

The Trump Administration Is Attacking Critical Internet Privacy Tools syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[phgq]

Reds raise 'red-tagging, 'state terrorism' cards when beaten

#PHnews: Reds raise 'red-tagging, 'state terrorism' cards when beaten

MANILA -- Why do allies and supporters of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army (CPP-NPA) always play up the "red-tagging and state terrorism" cards every time the government gains a significant victory against the terror organization?

This was the reaction of Major General Antonio Parlade, Jr., of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF ELCAC) in reaction to a recent statement of CPP founding chairperson Jose Maria "Joma" Sison claiming that “under the tyrannical rule of Duterte, state terrorism is running high with red-tagging, abductions, arrests with planted firearms and murders of social activists, critics, and political opponents.”

Sison made the comment after military and police operations in Bacolod City that resulted in the arrest of at least 60 suspected militants, including 15 minors.

Same tune

"I heard this familiar statement yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon during the Defense Committee hearing in Congress. It is almost what Rep. Arlene Brosas of Gabriela party-list and Rep. France De Castro of ACT PL were saying about their perceived 'state sponsored crackdown on critics of the government'. It was the same line (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) Renato Reyes, (Bayan Muna Party-list) Teddy Casiño, (Kabataan Party-list) Rep. Sara Elago, and (Bayan Muna Party-list) Rep. Carlos Zarate said of the series of successful arrests the government, through the NTF ELCAC, has done in a week," Parlade said in a statement to the Philippine News Agency Wednesday.

The most disconcerting thing, he said, is that the party-list representatives aired all their gripes during the hearing of the Defense and Security Committee to determine what legislative agenda they may have to adapt or prioritize to enhance the protection of the people and the state.

"Instead, the Kamatayan (Makabayan) bloc members present took turns questioning (Department of National Defense) Secretary (Delfin) Lorenzana if the DND's modernization plan was to enable it 'to kill more people' or to use its funds to harass, red-tag, and arrest more activists," said Parlade, who is also Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Deputy Chief-of-Staff for Civil-Military Operations.

While readily dismissing such baseless and groundless allegations, he he role of the DND and the AFP is to protect all Filipino citizens in times of conflicts or calamities. 

"Of course not. It is to perform our constitutional mandate to protect its citizens, in times of war or calamities, like the procurement of more helicopters which you see are now being used in the rescue operations in Makilala, North Cotabato. Don't these "critics" of government see how delicate these air evacuations are like this one perching dangerously in a slope to save people?" he added.

He said while the DND and AFP has surveillance capabilities, these are being used against terrorist groups especially those known to exploit vulnerable minors and put into harm's way

Parlade added that only in self-defense or when their own lives are endangered will government troops use force to neutralize these terrorists.

"We will kill these terrorists if necessary or if they fight back. But some remain alive for not resisting a lawful arrest. This was the case with the series of successful raids in Bacolod City, Escalante, Manila, and Quezon City. Apparently, these Kamatayan (Makabayan) bloc members are not happy that nobody from their members fought back. It could have been perfect cases of EJK (extra-judicial killing), most fitting for their narrative," he added.

He said the "motherly-looking" Gabriela or "teacher-actor" members of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) is only a facade willingly to gain them sympathy from the public.

Howl like wolves

"But the communist terrorists in them are actually wolves, as they hide as members of the underground MAKIBAKA (Malayang Kilusan ng Bagong Kababaihan) for Gabriela and KAGUMA (Katipunan ng mga Gurong Makabayan) for ACT," he added.

The leanings of these individuals or groups, he said, are quickly exposed whenever Sison decides to attack the government whenever the latter gets the upperhand on the campaign against local communist insurgency.

"Look how they talk in unison with Joma Sison, and this is exactly what we said last week. They all walk like a wolf, howl like a wolf, so they must all be wolves. They have been red-tagged by 'Joma' again, after the latter came to their rescue. Yet they continue to deny they are Joma's stooges in the communist party. They continue to belie reports that those arrested are terrorists," Parlade said.

He said he can’t help but wonder why Brosas did not protest the many minors arrested in the last week's operations in Bacolod City.

This is a bit disconcerting as Gabriela party-list, which Brosas is representing, is supposed to advocate rights and issue affecting all women in the country.

"As representative of many mothers, have we ever heard Rep. Brosas complain why there were even kids in the group? Six of them were aged 12-14 and five were aged 15. Many by the way did not give their true names because they were given aliases. What for? So, tell me Rep. Brosas? As a mother, why did not you raise this alarming issue about CPP-NPA's child exploitation?, he said.

The arrest of these CPP NPA personalities with 15 children, he said, were consistent with the Senate inquiry findings that many children could still be missing after being recruited by the CPP-NPA.

“It is consistent with the files of CPP's Vic Ladlad, which said that they have recruited 8,635 children, aged 13-17, up to September 2015 alone," he said.

Parlade scored Gabriela for doing nothing to rescue these minors and yet have the time to protest of being "red-tagged" despite evidence.

"Instead of rescuing these children from their CPP-NPA handlers, you complain of Gabriela being 'red-tagged', even as your group consistently appear in recovered documents and computer files of captured CPP-NPA top personalities. By the way, the houses raided will not pass as an office because the government only knew about them as underground (UG) houses, until you claimed them to be a Gabriela or Bayan Muna office," Parlade said.

He also finds it ironic that these party-list representatives, while having time to complain of the killings of their members by alleged government troops, seem to be indifferent to atrocities committed by the communist rebels.

"Rep. Castro for her part, complained of the killing of many of their members? Would she care to hear the video interview and testimony of surrendered Special Partisan Unit (SPARU hitman) James Durimon alias 'Juros'? He was 14 when recruited by NPAs in Negros and confessed to the killing of many farmers and activists in Panay, on orders of Charity Amacan, Secretary of 'Komiteng Rehiyon' (KR)-Cebu Bohol Negros Siquijor (CBNS) CPP-NPA. Listen to alias 'Juros' and ask Secretary Lorenzana again who is killing your own people so that you can blame the AFP and PNP. Why don't you listen to the tape interview of NPA rebel priest Conrado Balweg who admitted to attacking civilians, while clad in constabulary uniform, in order to create more hatred against the government," he added.

In rebels’ company

Parlade also scored Castro, who is a teacher herself, for not asking why these minors are not in schools and in the company of NPA rebels, when arrested.

"And at age 12-14 (years old) what are they doing in Bacolod, when they are from La Carlota City? Is it not trafficking of minors? Are they not recruits for your 'Teatro Obrero'? Yes, theater so what's wrong with that? Well, take a look at these pictures of the kids under arms. Better yet, why attend the Defense Committee hearing when you can instead follow up on the case of an NPA-failed attack on teacher Zhydee Cabanelez and husband Ramil of Valencia, Bukidnon, the former of whom you insist to claim as ACT member when she is not?" he added.

Members of militant groups claims of being attacked by government security forces are in sync and very much calibrated with Sison's earlier statements, he added.

"Maybe you are all too naive to claim that Jose Maria Sison, your idol who personally tagged Gabriela and ACT as the CPP's progressive allies, is just another political activist and critic of government policies. But how do you explain his order to the NPA to attack all government security forces in light of these arrests? A social or political activist, progressive or regressive moron, does not do that. The CPP-NPA was declared a terrorist organization by US, UK (United Kingdom), Australia, NZ (New Zealand) and the EU (European Union) for nothing," he said.

No sense

He added that he sees no sense in the continued harassment claims of these militant groups except to get more foreign funding for their "fake human rights advocacies".

"How do we make sense of all these allegation of a tyrant government and its propensity to abuse its power? The explanation could be as simple as this: the CPP and the Kamatayan (Makabayan) bloc merely want to sustain that narrative of a 'consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violation of human rights', by projecting a fascist and anti-people PRRD government," he said.

Parlade said such narrative is needed to ensure that Sison can invoke the so-called "non-refoulement clause" and allow him to stay in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

"This is in order for Jose Ma Sison to continue to invoke 'non-refoulement' (Article 8, Section 2, UN Gen Assembly Resolution 47/133). That affords him to stay in Utrecht, and escape state persecution as the EU court ruled. This propaganda of a tyrant state is now more significant for him, especially that a Philippine court had issued a warrant for his arrest due to his crime of genocide," he said. (PNA)

***

References:

* Philippine News Agency. "Reds raise 'red-tagging, 'state terrorism' cards when beaten." Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1085260 (accessed November 07, 2019 at 01:46AM UTC+14).

* Philippine News Agency. "Reds raise 'red-tagging, 'state terrorism' cards when beaten." Archive Today. https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1085260 (archived).

#Philippines #News #Filipino #Pinoy #Tourism #Politics #Culture #Editorial #Environment #Society #History

[patriotsnet]

Why Is The Media Against Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-is-the-media-against-republicans/

Why Is The Media Against Republicans

Mcconnell And Co Are Playing As Dirty A Game As Possible In Their Quest To Fill Ginsburgs Seat Before The Election But You Wont Find That Story In Most News Coverage

Bookmark

US Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell at a press conference at the US Capitol on September 22, 2020. McConnell said in a statement that the Senate would take up President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Subscribe to The Nation

Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter

Fridays

The Nation

Join the Books & the Arts Newsletter

MondaysThe Nation

The Nationlatest issue

Subscribe to The Nation

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

The Nation

The argument against confirming Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court before the inauguration is a Republican argument. They invented it, they enacted it, and they own it. That’s because it was Republicans, not Democrats, who changed the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to eight for 10 months in 2016, when a Democratic president was in the White House. It was Republicans who argued that no Supreme Court nominee should even be considered by the Senate in an election year. And it was Republicans who promised to block the confirmation of Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees in the event that she became president while Republicans retained control of the Senate.

Current Issue

View our current issue

More from Mystal

Elie Mystal

And that argument is simply untenable. We do not have a legitimate third branch of government if only one party gets to choose its members.

For Reprints and Permissions, click

Vaccine Advocacy From Hannity And Mcconnell Gets The Media Off Republicans’ Backs But Won’t Shift Public Sentiment

Sean Hannity, Mitch McConnell and Tucker Carlson

Amid a rising media furor over the steady stream of vaccine disparagement from GOP politicians and Fox News talking heads, a number of prominent Republicans spoke up in favor of vaccines early this week.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “shots need to get in everybody’s arm as rapidly as possible” and asked that people “ignore all of these other voices that are giving demonstrably bad advice.” House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, got the vaccine after months of delay and then publicly said, “there shouldn’t be any hesitancy over whether or not it’s safe and effective.” And Fox News host Sean Hannity, in a widely shared video, declared, it “absolutely makes sense for many Americans to get vaccinated.” This was treated in the press as an unequivocal endorsement, even though the use of the word “many” was clearly meant to let the Fox News viewers feel like he’s talking about other people getting vaccinated. 

Is this an exciting pivot among the GOP elites?  Are they abandoning the sociopathic strategy of sabotaging President Joe Biden’s anti-pandemic plan by encouraging their own followers to get sick? Are the millions of Republicans who keep telling pollsters they will never get that Democrat shot going to change their minds now? 

Ha ha ha, no.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

— Matthew Gertz July 20, 2021

The Technology 202: New Report Calls Conservative Claims Of Social Media Censorship ‘a Form Of Disinformation’

with Aaron Schaffer

A new report concludes that social networks aren’t systematically biased against conservatives, directly contradicting Republican claims that social media companies are censoring them. 

arrow-right

Recent moves by Twitter and Facebook to suspend former president Donald Trump’s accounts in the wake of the violence at the Capitol are inflaming conservatives’ attacks on Silicon Valley. But New York University researchers today released a report stating claims of anti-conservative bias are “a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.” 

The report found there is no trustworthy large-scale data to support these claims, and even anecdotal examples that tech companies are biased against conservatives “crumble under close examination.” The report’s authors said, for instance, the companies’ suspensions of Trump were “reasonable” given his repeated violation of their terms of service — and if anything, the companies took a hands-off approach for a long time given Trump’s position.

The report also noted several data sets underscore the prominent place conservative influencers enjoy on social media. For instance, CrowdTangle data shows that right-leaning pages dominate the list of sources providing the most engaged-with posts containing links on Facebook. Conservative commentator Dan Bongino, for instance, far out-performed most major news organizations in the run-up to the 2020 election. 

In The Past The Gop Would Be Rallying Their Voters Against This Bill Their Failure To Do So Now Is Ominous

Mitch ?McConnell, Ted Cruz, Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro

With surprising haste for the U.S. Senate, in the early hours of Wednesday morning, just after passing a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. And Democrats could not be more excited, as the blueprint covers a whole host of long-standing priorities, from fighting climate change to creating universal prekindergarten. The blueprint was largely written by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who released a statement calling it “the most consequential piece of legislation for working people, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor since FDR and the New Deal of the 1930s.”

Sanders isn’t putting that much spin on the ball.

While the bill fallls short of what is really needed to deal with climate change, it is still tremendously consequential legislation that will do a great deal not just to ameliorate economic inequalities, but, in doing so, likely reduce significant gender and racial inequality. It’s also a big political win for President Joe Biden. In other words, it is everything that Republicans hate. Worse for them, it’s packed full of benefits that boost the middle class, not just the working poor. Traditionally, such programs are much harder to claw back once Republicans gain power — as they’ve discovered in previous failed attempts to dismantle Social Security and Obamacare. 

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

But that’s not really happening here. 

The Actual Reason Why Republicans And Their Media Are Discouraging People From Getting Vaccinated

Independent Media Institute

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a CNN Medical Analyst, said last week, “A surprising amount of death will occur soon…” But why, when the deadly Delta variant is sweeping the world, are Republicans and their media warning people not to get vaccinated?

there’s always a reason

Dr. Anthony Fauci told Jake Tapper on CNN last Sunday, “I don’t have a really good reason why this is happening.”

But even if he can’t think of a reason why Republicans would trash talk vaccination and people would believe them, it’s definitely there.

Which is why it’s important to ask a couple of simple questions that all point to the actual reason why Republicans and their media are discouraging people from getting vaccinated:

1. Why did Trump get vaccinated in secret after Joe Biden won the election and his January 6th coup attempt failed?

2. Why are Fox “News” personalities discouraging people from getting vaccinated while refusing to say if they and the people they work with have been protected by vaccination?

3. Why was one of the biggest applause lines at CPAC: “They were hoping — the government was hoping — that they could sort of sucker 90% of the population into getting vaccinated and it isn’t happening!”

4. Why are Republican legislators in states around the country pushing laws that would “ban” private businesses from asking to see proof of vaccination status ?

Death is their electoral strategy.

Is there any other possible explanation?

So, what’s left?

Destroying Trust In The Media Science And Government Has Left America Vulnerable To Disaster

For America to minimize the damage from the current pandemic, the media must inform, science must innovate, and our government must administer like never before. Yet decades of politically-motivated attacks discrediting all three institutions, taken to a new level by President Trump, leave the American public in a vulnerable position.

jonmladd

Trump has consistently vilified the national media. When campaigning, he the media “absolute scum” and “totally dishonest people.” As president, he has news organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the people” over and over. The examples are endless. Predictably, he has blamed the coronavirus crisis on the media, saying “We were very prepared. The only thing we weren’t prepared for was the media.”

Science has been another Trump target. He has gutted scientific expertise and administrative capacity in the executive branch, most notably failing to fill hundreds of vacancies in the Centers for Disease Control itself and disbanding the National Security Council’s taskforce on pandemics. During the coronavirus crisis, he has routinely disagreed with scientific experts, including, in the AP’s words, his “musing about injecting disinfectants into people .” This follows his earlier public advocacy for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment, also against leading scientists’ advice. Coupled with his flip-flopping on when to lift stay-at-home orders, the president has created confusion and endangered people.

Media Bias Against Conservatives Is Real And Part Of The Reason No One Trusts The News Now

Members of the media were shocked as he was supposedly revealed as incredibly anti-woman presidential candidate, perhaps even the most ever nominated by a major political party in the modern era. He had admitted that he reduced women to objects and the Democrats pounced, seeking to make him lose him the support of women and, in turn, the presidency.

I’m not talking about the media coverage of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and the “Access Hollywood” tape, but his predecessor, Mitt Romney.

His sin? Saying that he had “binders full of women” that he was looking at appointing to key positions were he elected president. Sure, it was an awkward way of stating a fairly innocuous fact about how elected executives begin their transition efforts — with resumes of candidates for every position under the sun —- well before an election is held. Yet, the media and commentators came for Mitt Romney and they did so with guns blazing, as he was portrayed as an anti-woman extremist… for making a concerted effort to hire women to serve in his administration as governor of Massachusetts.

There Is No Liberal Media Bias In Which News Stories Political Journalists Choose To Cover

1Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

2University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA.

3Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, ID 83460, USA.

?*Corresponding author. Email: hans.hassellfsu.edu ; jh5akvirginia.edu

?† These authors contributed equally to this work.

See allHide authors and affiliations

PDF

‘it’s Time To End This Forever War’ Biden Says Forces To Leave Afghanistan By 9/11

The enormous national anger generated by those attacks was also channeled by the administration toward the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was conceived to prevent any recurrence of attacks on such a massive scale. Arguments over that legislation consumed Congress through much of 2002 and became the fodder for campaign ads in that year’s midterms.

The same anger was also directed toward a resolution to use force, if needed, in dealing with security threats from the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That authorization passed Congress with bipartisan majorities in the fall of 2002, driven by administration claims that Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction.” It became law weeks before the midterm elections.

Once those elections were over, the Republicans in control of both chambers finally agreed to create an independent commission to seek answers about 9/11. Bush signed the legislation on Nov. 27, 2002.

The beginning was hobbled when the first chairman, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and vice chairman, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, decided not to continue. But a new chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, and vice chairman, former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, filled the breach and performed to generally laudatory reviews.

Long memories

Top House Republican Opposes Bipartisan Commission To Investigate Capitol Riot

But McCarthy replied by opposing Katko’s product, and more than 80% of the other House Republicans did too. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially said he was keeping an open mind but then announced that he too was opposed. This makes it highly unlikely that 10 of McConnell’s GOP colleagues will be willing to add their votes to the Democrats’ and defeat a filibuster of the bill.

Republicans have argued that two Senate committees are already looking at the events of Jan. 6, as House panels have done as well. The Justice Department is pursuing cases against hundreds of individuals who were involved. Former President Donald Trump and others have said any commission ought to also be tasked to look at street protests and violence that took place in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd.

But with all that on the table, several Republicans have alluded to their concern about a new commission “dragging on” into 2022, the year of the next midterm elections. “A lot of our members … want to be moving forward,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the No. 2 Senate Republican toMcConnell. “Anything that gets us rehashing to 2020 elections is, I think, a day lost.”

Resistance even after 9/11

The Taliban were toppled but bin Laden escaped, and U.S. forces have been engaged there ever since. The troop numbers have declined in recent years, and President Biden has indicated that all combat troops will be out by this year’s anniversary of the 2001 attacks.

Opiniontrump And His Voters Are Drawn Together By A Shared Sense Of Defiance

Americans in general have begun to catch on: 66 percent of Americans believe that the media has a hard time separating fact from opinion and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 62 percent of the country believes that the press is biased one way or the other in their reporting.

So when CNN, NBC News, Fox News, or another outlet break a hard news story, there is a good chance that a large swathe of the public won’t view it as legitimate news.

And politicians, right and left, are taking advantage of this.

The entire ordeal is part of an ever-growing list of examples in which the media seemed to be biased, whether consciously or not, against Republicans.

Before Donald Trump, there was New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who in 2014 accused the media of “dividing us” because they asked him about some protesters who had chanted “NYPD is the KKK” and . He also accused the media of McCarthyism when they dug into the personal life of an aide of his, who reportedly had a relationship with a convicted murderer. The mayor also publicly and privately accused Bloomberg News of being biased against him, since it is owned by his predecessor. However, de Blasio is not terribly popular within his own party, so Democrats in New York did not buy what he was selling.

The Media Has Entered The Republicans Pounce Stage Of Critical Race Theory

Now that polls show a majority of Americans oppose Critical Race Theory, the Democratic Party and their scribes in the legacy media have launched a rearguard action against parents — by casting them as the aggressors. As is true every time the Left misfires or overreaches, the media ignore the offense and focus on the popular backlash in a tactic popularly known as “Republicans pounce.”

Media coverage proves that CRT has entered the “Republicans pounce” stage. Witness the words of one Politico writer, who said on Thursday, “he right is hoping to capitalize on the grassroots angst over critical race theory and excite its base voters in next year’s midterms.” Chris Hayes, who has the unenviable position of competing directly with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, agreed Thursday night that all the Republican Party’s “rhetorical fire has moved away from the deficit and on to some random, school superintendent in Maine after his district dared to denounce white supremacy after the murder of George Floyd.”

But why are grassroots Americans so filled with “angst”? Because they are intellectually deficient and, of course, racist, according to Vox.com.

“Conservatives have launched a growing disinformation campaign around the academic concept” of CRT. “It’s an attempt to push back against progress,” wrote Vox.com reporter Fabiola Cineas. The problem is that “Republicans … want to ban anti-racist teachings and trainings in classrooms and workplaces across the country.”

Trump Continues To Push Election Falsehoods Here’s Why That Matters

Republican opposition to the commission

Rice was featured in one of the very few congressional commissions ever to receive this level of attention. Most are created and live out their mission with little notice. Indeed, Congress has created nearly 150 commissions of various kinds in just the last 30 years, roughly five a year.

Some have a highly specific purpose, such as a commemoration. Others are more administrative, such as the five-member commission overseeing the disbursement of business loans during the early months of pandemic lockdown in 2020. Others have been wide-ranging and controversial, such as the one created to investigate synthetic opioid trafficking.

In the initial weeks after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, the idea of an independent commission to probe the origins of the attack and the failures that let it happen seemed a no-brainer. It had broad support both in Congress and in public opinion polls. It still enjoys the latter, as about two-thirds of Americans indicate that they think an independent commission is needed. The idea has fared well — particularly when described as being “9/11 Commission style.”

Opiniona Guide For Frustrated Conservatives In The Age Of Trump

Conscious bias or not, such practices do not engender trust in the media amongst conservatives. They only reinforce the belief that the media seeks to defend their ideological allies on the left and persecute those on the right while claiming to be objective.

This idea that the media is made up of unselfconsciously liberal elites who don’t even recognize the biases they have against conservative policies and conservatives in general goes back decades, to when newsrooms were more or less homogenous in nearly every way. At first, conservatives fought back by founding their own magazines; after Watergate and in the midst of the Reagan administration and liberals’ contempt for him, organizations like the Media Research Center began cataloguing the myriad examples of biased coverage, both large and small.

And there was a lot to catalogue, from opinion pages heavily weighted in favor of liberals to reportage and analysis that looks a lot more like the opinion of the writers than unbiased coverage.

Despite Cries Of Censorship Conservatives Dominate Social Media

GOP-friendly voices far outweigh liberals in driving conversations on hot topics leading up to the election, a POLITICO analysis shows.

The Twitter app on a mobile phone | Matt Rourke/AP Photo

10/27/2020 01:38 PM EDT

Link Copied

Republicans have turned alleged liberal bias in Silicon Valley into a major closing theme of the election cycle, hauling tech CEOs in for virtual grillings on Capitol Hill while President Donald Trump threatens legal punishment for companies that censor his supporters.

But a POLITICO analysis of millions of social media posts shows that conservatives still rule online.

Right-wing social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions around two of the election’s hottest issues, the Black Lives Matter movement and voter fraud, according to the review of Facebook posts, Instagram feeds, Twitter messages and conversations on two popular message boards. And their lead isn’t close.

As racial protests engulfed the nation after George Floyd’s death, users shared the most-viral right-wing social media content more than 10 times as often as the most popular liberal posts, frequently associating the Black Lives Matter movement with violence and accusing Democrats like Joe Biden of supporting riots.

Politifact Va: No Republicans Didn’t Vote To Defund The Police

Rep. Bobby Scott speaks at a 2015 criminal justice forum.

Speaker: Bobby ScottStatement: “Every Republican in Congress voted to defund the police when they voted against the American Rescue Plan.”Date: July 12Setting: Twitter

In last fall’s campaigns, Republicans thundered often inaccurate charges that Democrats wanted to defund police departments.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., is flipping the script and saying that all congressional Republicans voted to defund police this year when they opposed a $1.9 trillion stimulus plan.

“Every Republican in Congress voted to defund police when they voted against the American Rescue Plan,” Scott tweeted on July 12.

Scott represents Virginia’s 3rd congressional district, stretching from Norfolk and parts of Chesapeake north through Newport News and west through Franklin.

His claim, echoing a Democratic talking point, melts under scrutiny. Here’s why.

The Facts

The term “defunding police” arose after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Many advocates say it does not mean abolishing police, but rather reallocating some of the money and the duties that have traditionally been handled by police departments.

Scott’s explanation

Barbera sent an NBC article noting that communities in at least 10 congressional districts represented by Republicans who opposed the bill are using some of its relief funds to help their police departments.

Our ruling

We rate Scott’s statement False.

Opinion:no The Media Isnt Fair It Gives Republicans A Pass

The right-wing media, willfully ignoring the press investigations into Tara Reade’s accusations, insist that former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not been treated similarly to accused conservative men . They have a point, but not the one they were trying to make.

arrow-right

Let’s start with the big picture: Right-wing groups persistently engage in conduct for which Republicans are not held to account. The latter are allowed to remain silent after instances of conduct with a strong stench of white nationalism, but pay no penalty for their quietude. Right-wing demonstrators at Michigan’s statehouse this week — angrily shouting, not social distancing, misogynistic in their message, some carrying Confederate garb — were not engaged in peaceful protest. This was a mob endangering the health of police officers and others seeking to intimidate democratic government. Some protesters compared Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to Adolf Hitler and displayed Nazi symbols. Newsweek reported:

The media has adopted the approach that a pattern of sexual harassment claims over decades is not relevant because Trump has denied them, yet they want investigated the single assault claim against Biden. Biden responded in an interview and in a lengthy ; the media insists these things have to be investigated further. They do not ask Trump’s campaign why the president does not respond to questions. They do not ask Republicans about Carroll, Zervos or others.

Social Media: Is It Really Biased Against Us Republicans

Wednesday promises to be another stressful day for Facebook, Google and Twitter.

Their chief executives will be grilled by senators about whether social media companies abuse their power.

For Republicans, this is the opportunity they’ve been waiting for.

Two weeks ago, Twitter prevented people posting links to a critical New York Post investigation into Joe Biden.

It then apologised for failing to explain its reasoning before ditching a rule it had used to justify the action.

For many Republicans, this was the final straw – incontrovertible evidence that social media is biased against conservatives.

The accusation is that Silicon Valley is at its core liberal and a bad arbiter of what’s acceptable on its platforms.

In this case, Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz believed Twitter would have acted differently if the story had been about President Donald Trump.

Sobering Report Shows Hardening Attitudes Against Media

NEW YORK — The distrust many Americans feel toward the news media, caught up like much of the nation’s problems in the partisan divide, only seems to be getting worse.

That was the conclusion of a “sobering” study of attitudes toward the press conducted by Knight Foundation and Gallup and released Tuesday.

Nearly half of all Americans describe the news media as “very biased,” the survey found.

“That’s a bad thing for democracy,” said John Sands, director of learning and impact at the Knight Foundation. “Our concern is that when half of Americans have some sort of doubt about the veracity of the news they consume, it’s going to be impossible for our democracy to function.”

The study was conducted before the coronavirus lockdown and nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd.

Eight percent of respondents — the preponderance of them politically conservative — think that news media that they distrust are trying to ruin the country.

– Deal gives Atlanta company control of Anchorage TV news

The study found that 71% of Republicans have a “very” or “somewhat” unfavorable opinion of the news media, while 22% of Democrats feel the same way. Switch it around, and 54% of Democrats have a very favorable view of the media, and only 13% of Republicans feel the same way.

That divide has been documented before but only seems to be deepening, particularly among conservatives, Sands said.

In The Age Of Trump Media Bias Comes Into The Spotlight

Almost 20 years ago, after my first book, “,” came out, I made a lot of speeches, some of them to conservative organizations. The book was about liberal bias in the mainstream media. I had been a journalist at CBS News for 28 years and, so, it was a behind-the-scenes exposé about how the sausage was made, about how bias made its way into the news. 

I said that despite what many conservatives think, there was no conspiracy to slant the news in a liberal direction. I said that there were no secret meetings, no secret handshakes and salutes, that anchors such as CBS’s Dan Rather never went into a room with top lieutenants, locked the door, lowered the blinds, dimmed the lights and said, “OK, how are we going to screw those Republicans today?” 

It didn’t work that way, I said. Instead, bias was the result of groupthink. Put too many like-minded liberals in a newsroom and you’re going to get a liberal slant on the news.    

Liberal journalists, I said, live in a comfortable liberal bubble and don’t even necessarily believe their views are liberal. Instead, they believe they are moderate, mainstream and mainly reasonable views — unlike, of course, conservative views which, to them, are none of those things.

But what I wrote and spoke about then — mainly about how there was no conspiracy to inject bias into news stories — seems no longer to be true today. 

Pandering, it seems, is good for business.

Bias shows itself not only in what’s reported, but also in what’s ignored. 

Florida Republicans Move Against Social Media Companies

TALLAHASSEE — Concerned that social media companies were conspiring against conservatives, Florida Republicans sent a measure Thursday to Gov. Ron DeSantis that would punish online platforms that lawmakers assert discriminate against conservative thought.

The governor had urged lawmakers to deliver the legislation to his desk as part of a broader effort to regulate Big Tech companies — in how they collect and use information they harvest from consumers and in how social media platforms treat their users.

Republicans in Florida and elsewhere have accused the companies of censoring conservative thought on social media platforms by removing posts they consider inflammatory or using algorithms to reduce the visibility of posts that go against the grain of mainstream ideas.

With the ubiquity of social media, the sites have become modern-day public squares — where people share in the most trivial of matters but also in ideas and information that often are unvetted.

In recent years, social media companies have acted more aggressively in controlling the information posted on their platforms. In some cases, the companies have moved to delete posts over what they see as questionable veracity or their potential to stoke violence.

DeSantis is a strong ally of the former president, and the Republican governor is supporting hefty financial penalties against social media platforms that suspend the accounts of political candidates.

America Hates The Republicans And They Dont Know Why

@jonathanchait

Americans harbor certain deep-rooted impressions of the two parties, which have held for generations. Democrats are compassionate and generous, but spendthrift, dovish, and indulgent of crime and prone to subsidize poor people who don’t want to work. Republicans are strong on defense and crime, but too friendly to business and the rich. What is striking about the Republican government is how little effort it has made to push against, or even steer around, the unflattering elements of its brand. President Trump and his legislative partners have leaned into every ingrained prejudice the voters hold against them. They have acted as if none of their liabilities even exist.

That is not the approach Democrats have taken in office. Bill Clinton famously fashioned himself as a “New Democrat,” angering his base on crime and welfare and declaring the era of big government over. Barack Obama did not position himself quite so overtly against his party’s brand — which had recovered in part because of Clinton’s success — but he did take care to avoid confirming political stereotypes. Obama frequently invoked the importance of parenting and personal responsibility. He did not slash the defense budget, and took pains to woo Republican support for criminal-justice reform. Obama tried repeatedly to get Republicans to compromise on a deal to reduce the budget deficit. Whatever the merits of these policies, they reflect a grasp of the party’s innate liabilities.

Placing Some News Sources On The Political Spectrum

Here are a few examples of major news sources and their so-called “bias” based on ratings from AllSides  and the reported level of trust from partisan audiences from the Pew Research Center survey.

Note that much of these ratings are based on surveys of personal perceptions. Consider that these may be impacted by the hostile media effect, wherein “partisans perceive media coverage as unfairly biased against their side” . A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 18, 701-729. ).

The Capitol Siege: The Arrested And Their Stories

It would only be logical for that memory to inform the imagination of any Republican contemplating a similar independent commission to probe what happened on Jan. 6. The commission would likely look at various right-wing groups that were involved, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, some members of which have already been charged. The commission might also delve into the social media presence and influence of various white supremacists.

Moreover, just as the 9/11 Commission was expected to interview the current and preceding presidents, so might a new commission pursue testimony from Trump and some of his advisers, both official and otherwise, regarding their roles in the protest that wound up chasing members of Congress from both chambers into safe holding rooms underground.

House Minority Leader McCarthy was asked last week whether he would testify if a commission were created and called on him to discuss his conversations with Trump on Jan. 6.

“Sure,” McCarthy replied. “Next question.”

All this may soon be moot. If Senate Democrats are unable to secure 60 votes to overcome an expected filibuster of the House-passed bill, the measure will die and the questions to be asked will fall to existing congressional committees, federal prosecutors and the media. To some degree, all can at least claim to have the same goals and intentions as an independent commission might have.

The difference is the level of acceptance their findings are likely to have with the public.

[cryptswahili]

China Expands Oversight Over Blockchain with New Anti-Anonymity Regulations

China’s primary internet regulatory agency, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), recently adopted a new policy, announced on its Website earlier this month, that would require all blockchain technology companies to collect certain identifying information from its users before offering any blockchain-related service.

The new policy will be effective starting on February 15, 2019.

Picture’s source

Blockchain information service providers, defined as “entities or nodes” that offer information services and technical support to the public using blockchain technology via desktop sites or mobile applications, will be subject to the new regulations. After February 15, these companies will be obliged to register their names, domains and server addresses at the CAC within 20 days of offering any of the services covered by the regulations.

The new regulations will require blockchain companies to provide authorities access to stored data upon request and to introduce registry procedures that would require national identification card and mobile numbers shared by its users for identity verification. In addition, blockchain companies will be required to supervise content and censor information that is prohibited under current Chinese law, such as content and information that may endanger national security, disrupt social order, or infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of others. Blockchain companies would be prevented from copying, publishing, or disseminating such prohibited content through its services.

Failure to comply with the new regulations may subject the companies to fines ranging from 20,000 (USD $2,900) to 30,000 yuan (USD $4,400). Repeat offenders may risk a criminal investigation.

While there is some concern that increased regulation will dissuade Chinese blockchain startups and entrepreneurs, proponents argue that improved guidance and clarity from regulators will embolden startups and entrepreneurs by demonstrating China’s commitment to a carefully managed, safe and secure domestic blockchain industry.

A Delicate Blockchain Balancing Act

For several years, China has maintained a cautious and deliberative approach toward the blockchain. China Central Television (CCTV), the powerful state-controlled broadcast company announced in an hour-long broadcast last year, that “the value of blockchain is ten times that of the Internet”, and that blockchain is the next significant global technological revolution, exceeding the importance of the Internet, according to Quartz.

President Xi Jinping spoke in May 2018 about the enormous potential of the blockchain, stating “a new generation of technology represented by artificial intelligence, quantum information, mobile communications, internet of things, and blockchain is accelerating breakthrough applications,” Xi said, via a translator.

These are not just idle words; there is coordinated action underlying many recent Chinese blockchain ventures that have the support of the government, educational and research institutes and private enterprise. Chinese firms occupy 57 spots in a newly compiled “Top-100 Blockchain Enterprise Patent Rankings” list, according to a prominent intellectual property information source. China filed the most blockchain patents globally with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 2017, according to Thomson Reuters, accounting for a total of 49% filed patents, while the U.S. came in second place with 33% of all filed patents.

Nanjing, the capital of China’s Jiangsu province, launched a 10 billion yuan ($1.48 billion) investment fund for blockchain. During the grand opening of the Hangzhou Blockchain Industrial Park in China, the Xiong’An Global Blockchain Innovation Fund launched with $1.6 billion (10 billion yuan) to fund promising Chinese blockchain ventures.

However, regarding cryptocurrency, China has steadfastly resisted liberalizing its approach to any digital currency that could rival the yuan. China does not recognize cryptocurrencies as legal tender, and the banking system does not cryptocurrencies or providing related services.

In 2017, the Chinese government took several high-profile regulatory measures to protect investors and reduce financial risk, including announcing that initial coin offerings are illegal, restricting the primary business of cryptocurrency trading platforms, and discouraging cryptocurrency mining. China’s actions halted cryptocurrency speculation and prevented widespread fraud and manipulation, sparing most Chinese investors from the extreme volatility and tremendous losses sustained in 2018.

Future of Blockchain in China

Overall, the general outlook among China’s emerging blockchain technology leaders is overwhelmingly optimistic. “The future of blockchain has to be bright,” says Dr. Steve Deng, Chief AI Scientist for MATRIX AI Network (MAN), a global open-source, public, intelligent blockchain-based distributed computing platform and operating system based in China that combines artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain.

Dr. Steve Deng explains:

My belief is that the blockchain technology delivers four key advantages. First, blockchain is a trusted network by offering a secured digital infrastructure for verifying identity. Second, it is a watchdog network to make sure people do no harm. Third, it is a delivery network, which enables faster and cheaper international payments, and also makes the disbursement more natural and transparent. Fourth, it is a collaboration network by providing incentives for mass collaboration.

Like MATRIX AI Network, there are a number of other promising blockchain technology companies emerging from China, such as NEO, GXChain, Tron, and VeChain, that are attracting investors, drawing interest from strategic partners in the private sector and bolstering China’s claim as a force to be reckoned with in the new digital economy.

China Expands Oversight Over Blockchain with New Anti-Anonymity Regulations was originally published in Hacker Noon on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

[Telegram Channel | Original Article ]

#cryptocurrency

[republicstandard]

Internet Poker Royal Flush: Gab.com Frog In Hot Water When TPTB Play Next Card

There’s an old saying when you play Poker: “If you look about the table and you can't spot the sucker, it's you.” We’re all guilty of such naiveté.

We’ve been playing poker with the internet since its inception, casually placing all our chips into the pot, unaware the game has been rigged by TPTB (the powers that s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ be). These large corporate cheaters appear to have become a correctness mafia, holding themselves up as an unofficial ‘moral’ authority, collectively seeking to silence minority opinion from their ivory towers. From this paramount they rule over an empire of NPC’s who delight in holding safe, majority opinions. This mafia appears to be above the law, while also being poised to engineer these same majority opinions out of which moral mandates can be derived. It’s one big left-wing circle jerk.

Over the last two years the cheater has revealed his hand, and it’s a royal flush on the right-wing. Free speech is now an exclusively right-wing crusade unless you’re a super brave advocate for late-term abortion, legalizing pedophilia, sexualized indoctrination of other peoples’ children at school, or fighting for the right to decapitate the POTUS in effigy.

Gab.com frog in hot water

The social network and Twitter alternative known as Gab.com, previously known as Gab.ai, is in hot water again. First launched in late 2016 with a cheeky frog logo inspired by Pepe – which they’ve unfortunately abandoned – Gab has recently become the target of an internet correctness mafia hit. Ostensibly the reason for this successful hit is that the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter, Robert Bower, happened to have a Gab user account. The real reason is more sinister. Seemingly Gab’s crime is that it does not provide free mandatory psychological services to every u̶s̶e̶r̶ potential murderer; which is half the population of the western world now that every right-winger is literally Hitler. Literally! Now Gab’s web hosting service, PayPal, and Stripe, have terminated services, existentially threatening Gabs survival.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

As of the date of this article Gab remains offline; first going dark on October 29th when their web host refused to provide hosting services. Additionally, one day after the attack Gab’s CTO, Ekrem Büyükkaya, quit citing personal stress caused by the blistering media onslaught. These recent de-platforming actions come after a string of similar Gab de-platforming events by mobile phone operating systems provided by Apple and Microsoft, including a domain hosting termination which occurred hot on the heels of the 2017 Charlottesville rally in which a left-wing protester was killed. Business Insider summarized Gab’s contentious history in a recent article.

Twitter and Facebook have also been confronted by situations where users have become violent. Much like Gab they’ve also immediately cooperated with law enforcement once aware of a situation, yet to date both remain unscathed. Why is Gab different? Simply put: Twitter and Facebook have the correct politics as well as being large enough to ensure their critical business infrastructure is beyond attack. They have become immune by becoming members of the correctness mafia.

Gab is once again confronted by the cold hard truth: You’ve all been suckered at Internet Poker (ideological cartel edition), which has rigged the casino against free speech by equating speech with violence. An Orwellian terminology, ‘hate speech,’ has become a powerful and subjective label that has the First Amendment pinned down and choked out on the wrestling mat, about to tap-out of the American experiment.

Pre-crime is on the way, though soft at first

Currently this correctness mafia is in the final stages of a campaign to equate uncomfortable speech with inevitable violent radicalization; a concept known as pre-crime which was coined by sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick – author of the short story from which the movie Minority Report was derived. The correctness mafia will pro-actively police any speech they deem violent, and it’s for your own protection, they promise. The old Google corporate code of conduct motto “Don’t be evil” has now been replaced by “Do the right thing,” no doubt shortly to be modified again to read “Do the right-think” (or left-think, as the case may be).

The right to speak freely has obviously been expelled from this mafia owned casino and sent to the gulag. But things are much worse; now that they’ve taken over the whole online town and crowded out all ideological competition, they’re coming after the gulag. Gab is this gulag. Being exiled is not enough. This mafia now seek to deny gulag operators access to basic utility: land to live on (web domain); shelter (web hosting); a water supply (payments services); and phone directory listing (fair search engine representation).

Only companies like Gab and FreeBird stand in the way of this hegemon building process. We’ve just strolled casually through the front door of their casino, expecting a fair shake, and they’ve locked us all in. If you desire online social media services you’re basically being compelled to choose from a pre-approved selection of rigged games where the rules can change whenever the mafia desires; known by the innocuous sounding terms of service, where you basically waive legal recourse to First Amendment protections or you’re denied access.

Simple terms of service are necessary for any business, but for internet hegemons they become tools to engineer their own marketplaces – especially if they tacitly work or comply with other hegemons pursuing similar ideological goals. This is Kafkaesque. Imagine being told you could volunteer as an enslaved fruit picker working for mere sustenance as long as you waived your rights to Thirteenth Amendment protections. Maybe you were poor and saw it as a good option to feed yourself. Now there’s cheaper fruit on the market and all of their competitors will need to adopt the same strategy or fail. National Constitutions, among other things, exist to protect collectives from radical individual liberties which may endanger collective social protections; though you’ll never hear this argument on the right-wing, which is infuriating.

Is your consent all that matters? Of course not, because this would trash the principles on which National Constitutions enshrining free speech rights are founded. This is truly why Nationalism is a dirty word for this mafia. When you patronize such anti-Nationalist platforms, you are merely nullifying your own Constitutional rights and those of others who find themselves having to confront the abominable beasts you choose to feed. Why not simply choose to feed their competitors like Gab or FreeBird while they still have a chance to provide competition? Maybe it’s because the Mafia Casino is so much bigger, looks dazzling from the outside, and has more patrons. Regardless, it’s a dangerous trap.

Act on your inner urge to escape the matrix today. Diversify your choice of social media platforms. While Gab is down, why not try FreeBird and secure a foothold in the ongoing internet resistance?

Go to https://freebird.is

Click “Log In” on the upper right of your screen

When the box pops up, click “Create a New Account”

What is truth?

Though nobody can find the source of this quote, George Orwell purportedly once stated: “In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” (maybe it was memory-holed). Likewise, Antonio Gramsci the Italian Marxist once wrote: “To tell the truth, to arrive together at the truth, is a communist and revolutionary act.”

Would Gramsci have approved of the private corporations which makeup the current correctness mafia championing left-wing ideological supremacy? If so, that would be ironic. Whether you believe a revolutionary truth is more likely to first emerge within a majority consensus, or within a minority seeking the right to freely network and dissent, freedom of speech is first necessary in order that new truths be allowed to confront old falsehoods in the public space – Galileo, I’m sure, would nod approvingly to this statement.

Sooner or later we’re going to be trapped within an Orwellian ideological plantation which fully employs both negative and positive reinforcement at levels akin to psychological warfare. I believe we’re already there, but it could get much worse. In our current technological era we’re simply awaiting a Chinese style social credit score which will either be foisted upon us by this corporate correctness mafia using the cultural zeitgeist – which they are now at the helm of – or by the government, or by both working in tandem. Either way, you’re on a plantation and you’ll be compelled to patronize the company stores. If you would like to know how bad this can get, watch this video on Sesame Credit.

The next card to be played

When the next card is played (the King of Spades above), you’ll know for sure the depths of the crisis we’re in, because it’s the corporate bullying and ostracism card designed to use the combined power of the big boy mafia to threaten investors (current and potential), and critical online service providers who choose to service and/or defend companies like Gab. Ominously, not even the First Amendment can prevent this fourth card from being played – it is a form of warfare protected by the First Amendment (though the Israel lobby seems to be exceptional in this respect).

Boycott and divestment pressures emboldened by moral arguments (such as the anti-Israel BDS movement) are very effective when enough market pressure can be rallied. The MSM, activist groups (many heavily funded by characters like George Soros), and NGO’s, are all conduits through which such pressure can be exerted. The aim is to ostracize some other player in the free market economically, by utilizing threatening behavior towards those who might consider servicing or supporting such an organization or individual.

I’m not saying boycott and divestment actions are inherently evil, because I would support such action under certain circumstances, but I’d never support this where existential services are concerned. If the entire activist and corporate world were to bear down on every health care company and threaten their businesses unless they refused to give health care to George Soros, I’d be worried for the moral precedent this would create more than the direct consequences on the individual concerned. It’s not about whether we agree with someone or not, it’s about whether we agree they have a right to exist and to at least be heard, regardless of whether this individual did not believe the same.

If Gab finally manages to find a solid combination of stable web hosting and domain hosting providers, the correctness mafia will play this next card and there’s not much Gab will be able to do about it. Small internet startups don’t have the power of the Israel lobby in Congress to fight back using influence, but at least when this next card is played, denials that the enemies of free speech have become organized will become increasingly untenable.

The free market canard

On the political right-wing, especially, it might shock some people to discover that the cheater sitting across the poker table from ‘We The Losers,’ is actually the ‘free market.’ If reading this statement made your ideological blood boil, good, because it’s about time we spared a little empathy for the Gab.com frog which has been on the proverbial slow-boil since launching in 2016. Gab is proof that free markets can become anti-competitive.

Question: When does a free market become no free market at all?

Answer: When it’s an unpoliced free market.

Yep, it sounds like an oxymoron, but it’s true. If nobody were to police and challenge cartels or cartel-like phenomena, the free market – especially of ideas – would become a snake that merely consumed its own tail. In this regard the early 20th century monopoly action against Standard Oil, is of note, but also the 2001 antitrust decision against Microsoft.

Arguments which revolve around the benefits of a free market economy, specifically where corporations get to choose their clientele, are useless for true human progress unless a free market of ideas is allowed to prevail. One without the other is like having a mouth but no voice box; albeit in a society where you can use that same mouth to eat your ideologically endorsed gay wedding cake if you so wish, perhaps to the chagrin of the baker compelled to bake it.

Is the First Amendment in the US Constitution championing free speech tagged with a monopoly/cartel caveat allowing ideological hegemony to reign over minority opinion? How ironic that the biggest cheerleaders for this cartel of big business interests consider themselves to be ‘liberal.’ The overall spirit of the First Amendment was enshrined within a document which incorporated a collective entity known as a Federal Government, whose mandate it was to protect the rights of the people to hold and express minority opinions, yet it is now being primarily interpreted by both the left-wing (when it suits their purposes) and the right-wing, as a carte blanche mandate to silence your opponents once your gang has bought up the majority of the online space.

The Federal Government, however, is a two-edged sword. It can make good laws, or oppressive laws, which is why I’ve included government regulation as card number five in the royal flush of Internet Poker. For all those people who disagree with government regulation of essential internet services, you need to realize that a free market, once captured by entrenched special interests, is no free market at all. You might think you have all the choice in the world but the truth is that herd mentality in the marketplace actually dictates what choices you get to make in the first place, because herd mentality builds hegemons. There are solutions to this problem, but they’re not simple. True freedom is seldom simple. Such solutions will need to be the subject of future articles.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

JE SUIS TORBA: Public space in cyberspace

Hegemonic search engines and social networks create internet real-estate by capturing a large section of web traffic, transforming them into pseudo-public space. This real-estate is akin to where people live, network privately or professionally, and where they communicate within large groups – especially among people they may disagree with, just like physical public space. Distinguishing between public and private space online is a subjective affair, but at the moment it’s as if public space online is nonexistent, which is dangerous and insane. In short, mobile phone OS hegemons, internet infrastructure, and payments infrastructure, are domains where corporations control public access and ability to do business in these spaces once they’ve captured a large enough flow of their respective markets.

If such essential services hegemons, as a group, in effect, are observed to enforce ideological hegemony by banishing a minority opinion from the internet, they’ve become an existential threat to free speech. Within this frame only Gab and smaller networks such as FreeBird among their larger peers have been abiding by the spirit of the First Amendment; they accept people of any political persuasion or ideology, except those who actively call for violence. Speech in itself cannot be directly equated to violence according to SCOTUS rulings such as Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), regardless of whether the majority of people find it offensive. The point at which the SCOTUS gives up on such a precedent, it too would have given up on the spirit of the First Amendment.

Whatever your opinion of Gab or its founder, Andrew Torba, and regardless of whether you patronize Gab or not, you might not know it yet, but you, dear reader, are Andrew ‘Je suis’ Torba! Gab is now the first major free speech platform to be targeted by ideological cartel terrorism. Gab is the Charlie Hebdo of the internet being terrorized by market hegemons from a correctness mafia that is out of control, concentrated in Silicon Valley. Due to the size of Gab.com (currently with an Alexa ranking near 3k in the USA and approaching 7k globally) with its user base of around 800k (which could easily be around six million users very shortly), we’ve reached the hot gates, Leonidas.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2qtwmah via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

[katiezstorey93]

A Violently Inefficient Culture

After killing two people and also wounding at least 5 others, a 24-year-old suspected serial bomb killer in Texas is currently dead, having actually eliminated himself yesterday while being sought by authorities. Also yesterday, police shot and also killed a 17-year-old Maryland student that had actually evidently shot and also wounded two students.The intentions are still unidentified. But one thing is for certain: These dysfunctional acts of violence are accompanying raising consistency here in the United States.Of program, that’s not all.According to an article in the Huffington Blog post, “The suicide prices for

teenage children and also girls have actually been gradually rising since 2007, according to a new record from the United States Centers of Condition Control and also Avoidance. The suicide rate for ladies 15 to 19 increased from 2007 to 2015, when it reached its highest point in 40 years, inning accordance with the CDC. The self-destruction rate for kids ages 15 to 19 enhanced by 30 percent over the exact same time period.”A web site entitled The Recuperation Village states that “68 percent of 12th have actually tried alcohol; 37.4 %of 12th consumed in the last month; 23.5 %of 10th consumed alcohol in the last month; 35.1% of 12th graders have actually smoked pot in the previous year; 16.6 %of 10th have actually smoked pot in the last One Month; which nearly a quarter of American high schoolers make use of a minimum of one sort of illicit medication. “Just what provides? Why is there so much ingestion of mind-altering compounds therefore much fierce dysfunctionality occurring in what claims to be a cost-free culture? Wouldn’t you think that individuals would certainly relish living in a complimentary society, offered the wide variety of alternative ways to pursue happiness?Here’s my diagnosis for the health issues that infuses the American body politic: America isn’t totally free in all, and also the factor that there is so much terrible dysfunctionality and mind-altering substance abuse going on is because individuals are living an incorrect reality, a fact that has been inculcated into their minds that this truly is” freedom.”I’m no psychologist but I understand enough about psychology to recognize that living an incorrect reality or a life of the lie is not mosting likely to bring about positive results. Rather, it is most likely to cause

deep psychoses.I can conveniently envision a young adult stating to himself,”So, this is freedom? This is the most effective there can be? No, thank you. I’m looking into.”Currently, picture rather that a young person recognizes the reality as well as has a grasp on fact– that he is not staying in a totally free society. Then, his way of thinking can transform. He could say, “Okay, I recognize why there is so much drug abuse and also violence in The U.S.A.. It’s since our nation isn’t really free and also since individuals have actually been indoctrinated because the initial quality right into wrongly believing they are totally free. Now that I have a grip on truth and also truth, I assume I’ll function to bring flexibility to our culture, which then might trigger substance abuse and violence to lessen. “That’s why libertarians are much healthier, psychologically talking, compared to statists. We have a grasp on fact. We understand the truth. We understand that the welfare-warfare state way of life under which we live is the reverse of freedom. Hence,

all the strange, corrupt results of this lifestyle do not shock us. For us, they merely materialize cause and effect. Considering that a welfare-warfare state is the reverse of flexibility, we libertarians aim to bring flexibility to our culture by advocating a taking down of the welfare-warfare state means of life.Libertarians shock and scare people. That’s because when people are convinced that they are complimentary, they can’t comprehend just how libertarians can be committing their lives to bringing flexibility to America. For an individual that has been indoctrinated into believing he is cost-free, the suggestion of bringing freedom to our culture is unusual as well as frightening. Libertarianism, with its aim of establishing freedom in The U.S.A., is a straight challenge to the incorrect attitude of” flexibility”that is instilled into everyone from the time he hits the first grade in the government-approved institutions to which his moms and dads were compelled to send him.Consider, as an example, America’s forever battles. They are a wonderful example of the life of the lie as well as the life of incorrect truth. Consider all individuals that a lot say thanks to the soldiers for their service. When you inquire what “service “they are revealing gratefulness for, they don’t skip a beat:”The troops are protecting our rights as well as freedoms.”

That’s the mindset that is inculcated into everyone from the initial grade on up. It’s a way of thinking that undoubtedly sticks with lots of people when they maturate. It’s a mantra that is also pronounced in church pulpits throughout Sunday services. It’s an actual testimony to the power of main indoctrination.The trouble is that it’s a lie. It’s an incorrect fact. The troops are not safeguarding our flexibility in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Africa, or anywhere else. That’s since no one over there is trying to remove our legal rights and liberty. Just how could the soldiers be securing our civil liberties as well as freedoms if nobody they are eliminating is aiming to remove our civil liberties and also freedom?But individuals with indoctrinated minds don’t intend to hear that.

It is frightening to them due to the fact that it endangers their way of thinking, their incorrect sight of the globe. They don’t want to hear us libertarians. They would rather maintain living the life of the lie, the life of a false truth, regardless of the unfavorable psychological consequences of doing so.Consider the terrorist blowback from UNITED STATE interventionism abroad. Just what is the very first thing that people with indoctrinated minds state in feedback to terrorist blowback? They say, “The terrorists( or Muslims)just despise us for our flexibility and worths. “When you mention to them that the terrorists(or Muslims )are merely retaliating versus Americans for UNITED STATE interventionism abroad, they snap, in some cases also terribly angry. They rail against us libertarians for being unpatriotic, also treasonous. They implicate us of” criticizing America “for anti-American terrorism. The last thing the indoctrinated minds wish to hear is that it’s not The U.S.A. that is the driving pressure of anti-American terrorism yet rather foreign interventionism at the hands of the federal government.In fact, that’s the core of the problem. Despite the fact that they will certainly never confess to themselves, individuals with indoctrinated minds have pertained to see the federal government as their god, one that can do no wrong. For them, their god is a triune god, one made up of three co-equal entities– the Pentagon, the CIA, and also the NSA.Thus, when their god does things abroad that generate the rage and also rage that materializes itself in terrorist blowback, they right away pertain to the protection of their god by saying that it’s not his fault. It’s all due to the fact that those foreigners dislike us for our liberty as well as values.Consider CIA main Gina Haspel. She managed a torture program and took part in the willful damage of videotaped proof of such torture. She’s currently been nominated to be the supervisor of the CIA. Does not that virtually claim it all? Here is an individual who ought to be in prison for going against the regulation.

Rather, she is being honored and also glorified. No question that throughout her confirmation hearings, she will be said thanks to for safeguarding our legal rights and also freedoms.And also among most of those that are opposing her election, the last thing you speak with them is any kind of recommendation that the CIA itself ought to be abolished. Instead, they limit them to simply requiring a new supervisor. Don’t bother that the CIA has participated in horribly bad activities since it was called right into existence in 1947, consisting of assassination, kidnapping, murder, MKULTRA, blockage of justice, secret hiring of Nazis, perjury, bribery, intrusions, coups, illegal security, deceptiveness, and also torment. The idea is that the CIA is important to our complimentary culture because it secures our civil liberties and liberties when it participates in its wicked activities. We simply require”better individuals”in public office.But God hasn’t developed an inconsistent cosmos. Excellent is never advanced with wickedness. When a federal government agency is taking part in wickedness, the government itself is taking part in evil. And a government that is engaged in wickedness is not progressing benefits. It is progressing evil.Consider all the anti-gun buzz after every mass capturing in America. Notification something exposing: Not one bachelor taking part in the buzz concerns also a peep of protest over the U.S. federal government’s being the biggest weapons supplier worldwide. Every year, the U.S. federal government and also its army of military-industrial-complex tools providers floods pro-U.S. tyrannical programs with weapons that the authoritarians then use versus their citizens in order to keep their grasp on power. Egypt comes to mind

. Yet, not a peep of protest from the anti-gun group. That’s due to the fact that the federal government, consisting of the Government, is their god.Moreover, barely anyone offers any type of thought to the possibility that the U.S. government’s 15-year, ongoing program of killing individuals abroad might simply be creating frame of minds of physical violence among Americans, both young as well as old, here in the house. That would clearly be aiming a finger of responsibility at their god, which suggests that many individuals are not about to entertain that possibility.Consider all the secret monitoring of Americans for “maintaining us safe” (from the opponents that the federal government produces with its international interventionism). We are all familiar with the NSA. However it goes a lot additionally compared to that. Bankers have actually been become snitches, required to report any type of “uncommon “deal of their clients. The reaction among statists? They are thankful that the government is maintaining them risk-free and”cost-free.

“The life of the lie. The life of a false reality.Consider public education, the state establishment where the brainwashing starts. Presence is mandated by law. If parents do not submit their children to state-approved indoctrination when they get to the age of 6, moms and dads are sent out to jail. When a pupil rebels against the coercion, indoctrination, regimentation, and consistency, he is identified with a mental disorder and also given drugs to make sure that he could obtain his mind”directly.”It’s all “liberty.” The kids just require the medications to understand and also value that. I can’t aid yet question the amount of those mass awesomes were provided those state-approved medicines when they were young.Every time I check out a young adult committing self-destruction, I state to myself: “I ask yourself if he would have devoted self-destruction if he had known the truth: that this isn’t really a complimentary culture yet rather a dysfunctional socialist, interventionist, imperialist welfare-warfare state culture that people

have been wrongly taught is’flexibility.'”

from network 8 http://www.nsorchidsociety.com/a-violently-inefficient-culture/

[vistapostng-blog]

Africa Is Leaving Nigeria Behind

Africa Is Leaving Nigeria Behind You should have seen me shaking my head in self-pity, as if somebody had just mercilessly slapped me. I had just landed at the “little” Kotoka International Airport, Accra, Ghana, and needed to use the rest room. What I saw startled me. There were about a dozen toilet cubicles. All the doors were standing tall — none was hanging loose. I also saw a row of urinals in sparkling conditions. The rest room was so clean, so odour-free you could comfortably have your lunch in there without endangering your health. Water flowed freely. There was tissue paper in abundance. The lights were bright. Not a single bulb was bad. I used the toilet and walked away impressed — and depressed. I returned to Lagos the day after and visited the toilets at the “massive” Murtala Muhammed International Airport (MMIA). The first cubicle I opened nearly made me throw up. I covered my nose and retreated. I finally found one that was manageable; the door latch was gone, but since it was the minor business I wanted to do, I soldiered on. To my pleasant surprise, the toilet flushed, and I was grateful. Meanwhile, just in front of the toilets were five cleaners talking on top of their voices about the Belgium-Japan match at the World Cup in Russia. After using the toilet, I walked away depressed. We spend billions maintaining this airport every year. This experience set me thinking again. I started my opinion-writing career by comparing Nigeria with Europe. I then began consoling myself by saying since the Europeans started their development trajectory centuries ahead of us, comparison was improper. It is like comparing the speed of a five-year-old with that of a teenager. I enjoyed the consolation while it lasted. I decided to benchmark us against Asia, with focus on Dubai, Singapore and South Korea. At least, we had similar stories as at 1960 when we began life as an independent country. Comparison with Asia also left me distressed. Their pace of development is such that many Asian countries can now compete with Europe. I decided to lower the bar further by saying that “after all, we are better than most sub-Saharan African countries”. It got that pathetic. But I have finally decided to stop living in denial. The rest of Africa is fast leaving Nigeria behind. Let me complete my airport stories before I delve into the evidence. It is only in Nigeria that you have two officials checking your passport — first by the DSS and then immigration. I have travelled to quite a number of countries. Nigeria is just incredible. Only one official checks your passport in Accra, or any other country for that matter. What exactly is the reason for this sickening anomaly in Nigeria? Is this a cherished relic from the military regimes? I acknowledge that some things changed after Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, as acting president, paid an unscheduled visit to the MMIA. We no longer unzip our bags for searches by officials of DSS, NDLEA and Customs at check-in counters. This primitive practice has stopped. Praise the Lord. However, I still see leaking roofs at the airport, with buckets placed at strategic points to harvest rain water. I will avoid talking about the air conditioning system which works only when it pleases. This is the airport for which passengers pay $60 as service charge to FAAN, the landlords, anytime they buy tickets. This sorry story is similar at other “international” airports. And Nigeria is the Giant of Africa. I have written only about the Accra airport in comparison to our MMIA so as to contain my frustration. I will intentionally ignore the newly opened Blaise Diagne International Airport, Senegal, the adorable Addis Ababa Bole International Airport, Ethiopia, and the elegant Félix-Houphouët-Boigny International Airport, Côte d’Ivoire. I do not want to inflict myself with hypertension. But the point has to be made that although we like to talk big and act big and claim to have a massive population and humongous petrodollars, we are a disgrace to Africa. We cannot even build modern cubicles for immigration and customs checks! The efficiency with which airports are run in these other African countries is not even the main reason for this article. While the airports are important as they are central to travel, tourism and trade — in addition to marketing the image of Nigeria — I am more worried about critical things that are happening in other African countries for which Nigeria is shamelessly lagging behind. Ethiopia has launched a metro rail line in Addis Ababa. The project was delivered within six years (despite delays) for less than $500 million. It is the first light rail project in sub-Saharan Africa. It handles 15,000 passengers per hour across 39 stations in the capital city. And Nigeria is the Giant of Africa. God only knows the billions of dollars we have pumped into railways in the last 20 years with haphazard results, mostly buying toothpick for the price of toothpaste — to quote the immortal Dr Chuba Okadigbo. Only last year, Kenya inaugurated its standard gauge railway project covering about 470 kilometres. It took just three-and-a-half years to build. A presidential term is four years. The terminals look like international airports. Travel time between Nairobi and Mombasa has now been reduced from 15 hours by bus to only four hours and 30 minutes by rail. Imagine being able to travel from Abuja to Lagos by rail within five hours. And Nigeria is the Giant of Africa. The amazing thing about such audacious and well-executed infrastructural projects is not just that they ease life and business — they also create jobs during and after construction. The direct and indirect benefits are limitless. And, ironically, we do not even have to spend one kobo of our money if we get the framework right. Many African countries are beginning to understand how it works. Asky Airlines has made Lomé-Tokoin International Airport, Togo, its West Africa hub. More than 90% of the passengers are just passing through the airport for onward connection not just to West African countries but also to places such as India, US and Brazil. And Nigeria is the Giant of Africa. In 2005, Nigeria launched the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) with a promise of “universal coverage” by 2015. That means all Nigerians, with emphasis on the poor, will be enrolled on the scheme so that they do not have to pay cash for medical treatment. Rwanda came to study our NHIS some years later. Today, Rwanda has achieved nearly 100% coverage and statistics on maternal and infant health are among the best in the world. Nigeria? We are stuck at 3% — and we got that far because of the compulsory enrolment of civil servants. NHIS is now more about billions of naira to be manipulated by government officials and HMOs. And Nigeria is the Giant of Africa. Maybe I should stop talking infrastructure and focus on governance. The prime minister of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed, during the week sacked five senior prisons bosses accused of human rights violations and other misconduct. The government said the needs of prisoners had not been adequately met and their human rights had not been respected. In Nigeria, thousands of people are languishing in police cells all over the country, routinely subjected to torture. We either deny or ignore it. Tens of thousands are in prison awaiting trial for years under the most inhuman conditions. They are transforming to living skeletons. No one ever gets punished. And Nigeria is the Giant of Africa. Lest I forget, President Peter Mutharika of Malawi is currently being investigated by the country’s anti-graft body over allegations that he received kickback from a $3.9 million contract. The entire cost of the contract is not even up to the pocket money (also known as “security vote”) of many Nigerian governors. In Nigeria, we can’t probe a former president much less a sitting one. In Kenya, Busia county governor Sospeter Ojaamong has been charged to court for awarding a contract that was not included in the budget. Can you imagine that? Who cares about what is in the budget in Nigeria? Just take the money and spend like crazy. We are the Giant of Africa. Still in Kenya, the public prosecutor last week ordered the arrest of two farm managers and government officials over a dam that collapsed and killed more than 47 persons two months ago. The nine government officials would be prosecuted for manslaughter and neglect of duty. Who holds anybody responsible for anything in Nigeria? In 2014, 16 young Nigerians died during a badly organised recruitment by the Nigeria Immigration Service. The minister of interior, Abba Moro, described them as “unruly”. Why not? He knew he would not have to resign, neither would anybody hold him responsible for the deaths. And Nigeria is the Giant of Africa. In the year 2002, poorly stored bombs went off at the Ikeja Cantonment, spreading panic all over Lagos. Over 1,000 lay dead at the end of the unprecedented mishap. President Olusegun Obasanjo visited the scene a few days later and famously asked an agitated protester to “shut up”, boasting that he was not even supposed to be in Lagos in any case. The world leader that he was, he was scheduled to be outside the country looking for the legendary foreign investors. Ain’t we lucky he came down to earth to visit Lagos over the tragedy? In the end, nobody resigned and nobody was punished over the catastrophe. That is the way we roll. President Muhammadu Buhari recently said he ordered the inspector-general of police, Mr. Ibrahim Idris, to relocate to Benue state following the internecine killings in January. The president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and commander-in-chief of the armed forces later said he did not know that the IG was not in Benue as ordered by him. In other news, Idris was photographed cutting a giant birthday cake and having fun elsewhere while Benue was burning. He would not resign and nobody would sack him. That is our culture. That is the way we do it here. We are the Giant of Africa. We have moved from being a role model in 1960 to becoming a laughing stock. What hit us? AND FOUR OTHER THINGS… ‘REFORMED’ APC Since last year, we have been hearing that some politicians will defect from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to form a formidable opposition to President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-election bid in 2019. It has taken forever but it seems it will still happen with the launch of “reformed APC” on Wednesday. I don’t know how far the R-APC can go in the game, but suddenly there is a growing belief that Buhari will have to sweat for re-election. I won’t be surprised if Buhari’s camp dismisses R-APC with a wave of the hand, but that would be a mistake. I must at this stage confess that things are getting more intriguing than I expected. Interesting. TEACHERS AND THIEVES Think you have seen it all? Let me give you one more. The federal government launched the school feeding programme to improve enrolment across the country. From several accounts, the programme is not doing badly. But according to Connecting Gender for Development (COGEN), a non-governmental organisation, some teachers in Kaduna state are eating part of the ration meant for pupils. As a result, the ration does not usually go round. What a country. We steal from public treasury, we steal from the living, we steal from the dead, we steal from the elderly and now we are stealing from the children. Is there any country like Nigeria on Planet Earth? Mindboggling. UNITY IN DIVERSITY I was a guest of the Unity Schools Old Students Association (USOSA) in Port Harcourt, Rivers state, last weekend where Senator Ahmed Makarfi gave a keynote on “Peace and Unity: The Role of Unity Schools”. I was in the panel of discussants. One thing that I walked away with is the value of promoting national integration through the diversity that these schools offer. My wife attended a Unity School up north and has kept most of her diverse relationships till today. It is a sad commentary that Unity Schools are increasingly limiting admissions to locals, thereby defeating the original objective of promoting national integration. Counterproductive. AND FINALLY… This is serious. A native doctor has been shot dead — accidentally, you would add — after his customer tested “bullet-proof” charm on him. Mr. Chinaka Adoezuwe, 26, had asked his customer to test the efficacy of the charm by using himself as the guinea pig. He must have been so sure of his supernatural powers. Unfortunately, his charms failed him. I know he is dead, but if he could reverse the hand of time, he should test the bullet-proof on a goat next time. Fela once did it. When the native doctor asked to test the charms, Fela suggested using a goat. You guessed right: the goat died. You win either way: you can, after all, make goat meat pepper soup if it fails. Wisdom.       Read the full article

[mindthump]

How Texas killed welfare: 'We spend our dollars on anything but poor families' http://ift.tt/2AnrAPx

Vakesa Townson didn’t plan to fall into poverty.

Married and the mother of two kids, she had lived a comfortable life in north Texas. But after her 17-year marriage ended and she became her family’s main provider, she struggled to make ends meet.

“I needed support,” Townson said. “I felt like I was starting over with nothing.”

A support group and the folks at Catholic Charities of Fort Worth encouraged her to apply for government assistance, including food stamps for groceries and Medicaid for her kids. But she didn’t check the box in her application that would have allowed her to apply for cash assistance. Working a part-time job that brought home $200 to $230 a month, she might not have qualified anyway.

Townson’s predicament is not unusual for Texans in need. Poor Texans will often find jobs and work to advance out of poverty, but then be disqualified from receiving public benefits well before leaving poverty behind, said Heather Reynolds, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of Fort Worth.

“I don’t think that’s what anybody intends to do,” said Reynolds, whose clients are mostly classified as working poor. “It’s just the reality of what we face sometimes.”

Though Texas’s poverty rates have remained mostly consistent, it has significantly curtailed the amount of traditional welfare it provides to poor Texans through cash assistance over the last two decades, instead putting more of its federal anti-poverty dollars toward funding core state services, plugging budget holes or funding other programs that provide services to residents with higher incomes than those who qualify for cash welfare.

Federal law allows such disbursements, and state officials say those spending choices are spurred in part by a drop in the number of Texans qualifying for cash assistance. But social workers and service providers who help poor Texas families say those decisions result in a porous safety net that complicates the struggles of residents like Townson, who are too poor to make ends meet but make too much to qualify for temporary cash aid from the government.

“There’s this myth that welfare exists,” said Rachel Cooper, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a left-leaning thinktank. “In Texas, it doesn’t.”

To qualify for $290 a month, you can’t make more than $188

Texas’s reduction in traditional welfare rolls dates to 1996, when Congress reformed welfare and created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Tanf) program, which gives Texas hundreds of millions of dollars a year to combat poverty.

At the program’s inception, hundreds of thousands of poor single-parent families and children – a monthly average of 479,000 in 1998 – received cash aid through federal Tanf dollars. But the number of poor residents who receive help has plummeted. As of July 2017, the latest available count, fewer than 60,000 Texans – most of them children – remained on the welfare rolls, usually receiving at most a few hundred dollars a month.

tx

Welfare reform was designed to reduce the number of people on welfare by emphasizing temporary assistance and getting people into work. But the drop in the state’s welfare rolls isn’t necessarily the result of a concerted effort to pull Texans out of poverty. The state’s poverty rate has hovered between 16% and 18% for the last decade. It wasn’t until recent years that Texas saw a larger drop in its poverty rate – currently at 15.6% – mostly due to rising incomes and not because of more welfare recipients moving out of poverty.

Instead, the number of low-income Texans who can get help has been reduced by caps on how long a family can obtain benefits, which are based on a person’s education or recent work experience, and strict income eligibility rules that make qualifying for cash aid a tall order for even the poorest families, advocates say.

To qualify for a maximum of $290 in monthly cash aid today, a family of three – with one parent and two children – cannot make more than $188 a month, barring a few exceptions. That income eligibility – several hundred dollars less than what a family of three can make and still be considered to be living in poverty – has hardly been adjusted since welfare reform.

“It’s been frozen, and 20 years of inflation has meant fewer and fewer people can qualify because it’s so low you really have to be destitute,” Cooper said.

By 2015, only four out of every 100 poor families with children in Texas received cash assistance – down from 47 in 1996, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research institute.

Texas has a long history of regarding welfare as a last resort for needy Texans. Even before federal welfare reform, state lawmakers were working to tighten limits for assistance in Texas. And modest increases to benefits enacted soon after welfare reform were passed because they were approved with little fanfare, appropriations officials said at the time.

Food stamps: a lifeline for America's poor that Trump wants to cut

Texas’s approach to welfare benefits has pushed it toward the bottom of state rankings for the percentage of households receiving public cash assistance, according to US Census Bureau data dating back a decade. In 2016, Texas ranked last.

That’s despite Texas being home to almost one out of every 10 poor Americans.

‘We spend our dollars on anything but poor families’

A food bank coordinator, Eddie Sanchez, meets with a client in Austin, Texas. Photograph: Marjorie Kamys Cotera

While the drop in cash assistance has left Texans in need with a less secure safety net, it has freed up hundreds of millions of federal dollars for legislative budget writers.

Welfare reform set Texas up to receive federal anti-poverty funds in the form of block grants meant to give state governments more flexibility in how they spent those dollars. That spending had to fit within four broad categories: to assist needy families so children can be cared for in their homes or homes of relatives; to reduce dependency on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent or reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage two-parent families.

With declining welfare rolls, lawmakers have used federal Tanf dollars to cover a range of expenses, including core state functions like Child Protective Services (CPS).

Of the more than $520m in federal Tanf funds that state legislators appropriated for each of the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, more than $358m was earmarked for the department of family and protective services, which includes CPS. Tanf dollars will make up approximately 17.5% of the agency’s entire budget for the 2018-19 budget years.

The current state budget also uses Tanf funding to prop up the budgets for early childhood intervention services and mental health state hospitals. Another $3m a year will go toward the Alternatives to Abortion program. The Texas Education Agency will also receive almost $4m a year in Tanf dollars for “school improvement and support programs”.

“We spend our Tanf dollars on anything but poor families,” said Will Francis, government relations director for the Texas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

Those spending decisions will probably perpetuate a negative trend in the share of total Tanf dollars Texas spends on basic assistance to poor families, which dropped from 59% in 1997 to about 7% in 2014, according to spending data collected by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

State budget writers push back against the notion that the legislature chose to spend less on cash assistance for poor Texans.

Texas’s spending on cash aid depends completely on the number of people who qualify and sign up for benefits, they argued. And that drop has freed up more money to spend on other state needs, said the state senator Jane Nelson, a Republican of the town of Flower Mound and the senate’s chief budget writer.

“The good thing about block grants is that we are able to provide benefits to everyone who qualifies and allocate the remaining funds to address important needs such as Child Protective Services,” Nelson said in a statement. “These are appropriate uses of Tanf funds, and they are an essential part of our effort to better protect endangered children.”

Advocates for low-income Texans don’t argue that these aren’t worthy causes. But they say they’re just not the best use for dollars meant to combat poverty in the state.

“It’s this $500m-a-year piggy bank,” said Celia Cole, CEO of Feeding Texas, a not-for-profit organization that oversees a statewide network of food banks. “It’s totally taken away from meaningful services … It leaves very little to cash assistance or employment and training that could help people get out of poverty.”

Where should the money go?

Once Tanf dollars are used to fund critical services like CPS, it’s tough to advocate for a change that will create a hole in the budget and put the delivery of other human services in a bind, Cole added.

In 2016, Tanf ranked as the state’s ninth-biggest federal funding source.

Others have gone farther in their characterizations of the state’s Tanf spending priorities. During a 2013 US House ways and means subcommittee hearing, representative Lloyd Doggett, an Austin Democrat, referred to Tanf as a “slush fund” that states use to fund services they were or should have been funding themselves and questioned whether states had been given “too much flexibility” under welfare reform.

Not all those who are helping low-income Texans make ends meet oppose the state’s Tanf spending priorities. Some not-for-profit providers underlined the importance of flexibility and allowing states to be nimble with federal resources in ways that can best serve local communities. Others pointed out that some of the services funded through Tanf dollars back up a “holistic approach” to addressing the needs of poor Texans.

“I do think that there are some great strategies that are funded with Tanf dollars that impact vulnerable populations,” said Eric Cooper, president and CEO of the San Antonio Food Bank, which helps low-income Texans sign up for public benefits.

But Cooper added he sees the “temptation” the state’s spending flexibility presents at a time when poor Texans “could use more dollars to gap-fill” their needs. He echoed other providers who expressed reservations about the state’s wide discretion with disbursements.

“What we need to make sure is that that money actually gets to nonprofit and government providers who will actually use it to improve outcomes for those living in poverty,” said Reynolds of Catholic Charities of Fort Worth. “And I do think there has been the temptation to use it to help with other budget crunches and we need to make sure to stay away from that.”

Jim Malewitz contributed to this report

Disclosure: The Center for Public Policy Priorities and Feeding Texas have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune. A complete list of Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here

This piece was co-produced with the Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs and engages Texans about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues

#IFTTT #Feedly