Tuesday, January 23, 2018

How Trump is accelerating Israel’s loss of support

Mike Pence is greeted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a visit in which the US vice president addressed Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, Monday. (via Facebook)

Ali Abunimah- 23 January 2018

Lobby leaders are once again bemoaning the fact that support for Israel is eroding rapidly among key constituencies in the United States, this time young American Jews.

In fact, the Trump presidency may be accelerating the trend as support for Israel becomes increasingly associated with the kind of right-wing and Christian Zionist fanaticism Vice President Mike Pence brought to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, on Monday.

Alan Hoffman, CEO of the Israeli-government backed settler-colonization organization the Jewish Agency, bemoaned the “extremely worrisome” finding that support for Israel among American Jewish college students has plunged 32 percent between 2010 and 2016.

This is according to a new survey by the Brand Israel Group, and it confirms trends that the consortium of pro-Israel lobbyists has found in earlier polls.

“In the year since Trump was elected, the situation has only been exacerbated,” Hoffman told a gathering of Israel lobby leaders in New York on Monday, according to the Israeli
newspaper Haaretz. “Jewish college students in the United States, not including those who are Orthodox, see Israel, justifiably or not, as something opposed to their basic liberal and progressive values.”

The numbers, Hoffman said, are “like nothing we have ever seen before.”

Israel loves Trump

Hoffman is right to be worried. Trump’s tight embrace of Israeli leaders is undoubtedly further alienating young, predominantly progressive American Jews from Israel.

But it’s important to understand that Israel is also galloping away from them.

In another new survey measuring the impact of Donald Trump’s presidency on global perceptions of the US, Gallup finds that “US leadership approval ratings declined substantially.”

One year into the new administration, the report finds that “the median global approval rating of the job performance of US leadership across 134 countries stands at a new low of 30 percent.”

This is down nearly 20 points from the last year of the Obama administration and four points lower than the last year of the George W. Bush administration.

There were only four countries where US leadership approval increased by 10 points or more: Belarus, Macedonia, Liberia and Israel.

Moreover, according to Gallup, “Israel was the only country in Asia in which US approval increased substantially” – with Israeli approval of US global “leadership” surging to 67 percent – a 14 point jump from 2016.

Gallup points out that interviews with Israeli respondents were done before Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, suggesting that approval of the Trump-led US might be even higher if the poll were taken today.

The poll does not give a breakdown of the opinions of Israeli Jews versus Palestinian citizens of Israel, but it’s a safe bet that support for Trump among the former is considerably higher.

For comparison, in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, Gallup found just 12 percent of Palestinians approving, and 72 percent disapproving, of US leadership – scarcely changed from 2016 undoubtedly because Palestinian opinions of Israel’s biggest backer were already near rock bottom.

American Jews strongly oppose Trump

The Israeli love affair with Trump contrasts sharply with the opinions of an overwhelming 77 percent of American Jews who disapproved of his performance, according to an American Jewish Committee survey in September.

“Those are considerably worse numbers for the president than in the general population,” the JTA news agency observed.

Undoubtedly many have been turned off by the Trump administration’s open embrace of white supremacists, anti-Semites and even neo-Nazis.

Mainstream Jewish communal groups have acquiesced to this alliance with traditional anti-Jewish forces because the latter are often also virulently pro-Israel.

And internationally, Israeli politicians are in a mutual embrace with Europe’s rising far-right, including ascendant neo-Nazi parties in Germany and Austria.

And while many American Jews have been on the frontlines of the struggle against the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant and anti-refugee policies, they can certainly see that Israel, the self-declared “Jewish state,” is intensifying its war on refugees from African states.

Protest of Pence

Pence’s visit provided dramatic visuals highlighting the growing gulf.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu smiled broadly and applauded as lawmakers from the Joint List, parties largely representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, were hustled out of the Knesset chamber by security guards for having the temerity to protest the American vice president.

WATCH: Israeli security kicked out Palestinian members of Israel’s legislature and tore up their protest posters after they interrupted Vice President Pence. pic.twitter.com/UZuAzxezWW
— The IMEU (@theIMEU) 22 January 2018

The IMEU@theIMEU

WATCH: Israeli security kicked out Palestinian members of Israel’s legislature and tore up their protest posters after they interrupted Vice President Pence.

1:48 PM - Jan 22, 2018

Even a big-name mainstream journalist, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, had difficulty suppressing a comparison that would trouble many American viewers.

“The 13 Israeli-Arab members of Israel’s parliament held up signs saying ‘Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine’ and were forcibly removed by security as Pence started to speak,” she tweeted. “Can you imagine Capitol Police dragging members of the Congressional Black Caucus off the House floor?”

Andrea Mitchell

✔@mitchellreports

The 13 Israeli-Arab members of Israel's Parliament held up signs saying "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine" and were forcibly removed by security as Pence started to speak. Can you imagine Capitol Police dragging members of the congressional black caucus off the House floor?

7:54 AM - Jan 22, 2018

Andrea Mitchell

✔@mitchellreports

.@VP is 1st sitting VP to address Israel's Knesset gets standing ovation from most members but pledge to accelerate move of U.S. embassy and recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital sparks protest by Arab members and a melee when they are forcibly ejected

11:16 AM - Jan 22, 2018

Pence, meanwhile, took the opportunity to announce that the Trump administration is bringing forward plans to open the US embassy in Jerusalem by the end of 2019.

Widening gap

The widening gap between American Jews and Israel reflects broader social trends; support for Israel in the US is increasingly an older, whiter, more religious and more right-wing phenomenon.

Support for Israel in remains strong overall, but a 2016 Pew Research Center survey found a surge of sympathy for Palestinians among liberals.

Sympathy with Palestinians tripled among millennials from nine percent in 2006 to 27 percent a decade later.

Surveys in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have also revealed greater sympathy for Palestinians in younger age groups.

There are even indications in the US that young evangelical Christians are cooling toward Israel.
Israel is also increasingly a partisan issue, with strong support concentrated among Republicans, while more than half of Democrats say they are ready to back sanctions or tougher measures against Israel because of its settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

It’s the product, not the marketing

In response to the latest survey results among young American Jews, Jewish Agency CEO Alan Hoffman reportedly recommended new strategies to engage the alienated youth.

This is typical of Israel lobby leaders, who tend to view Israel’s toxic “brand” as a PR problem, not as an inherent flaw in the product.

Despite the massive sums spent on trying to rebrand Israel as a progressive and environmentally friendly haven of LGBTQ rights, feminism and hi-tech innovation, Israel and its lobby leaders keep rediscovering to their dismay that you can’t hide occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid with slick marketing.

And Trumpism is simply helping bring the ugly truth about Israel to the surface.

Shutdown ends after Democrats agree to trust that McConnell will allow ‘dreamer’ vote

The Senate and the House on Jan. 22 voted to end the government shutdown. (Jenny Starrs/TWP)

By Sean Sullivan, Ed O'Keefe and Elise Viebeck January 22 at 9:35 PM

After three days of contentious negotiations and name-calling, Congress voted to end a government shutdown Monday when Democrats agreed to trust the word of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
President Trump signed the spending bill Monday evening.

The impact of the shutdown, which began at midnight Friday, was minimal, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers unsure of what the week would bring — but stretching into just one workday.

Lawmakers agreed to fund the government through Feb. 8 after McConnell (R-Ky.) said he would address the status of young undocumented immigrants called “dreamers” who were brought to this country as children.

The pact came at a time when trust has been in short supply on Capitol Hill — and it unnerved liberal activists who weren’t sure whether to believe McConnell.

Dozens rallied in Washington in disappointment over the reopening of the government without protections for “dreamers.” (Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post)

McConnell delivered a carefully worded speech on the Senate floor, saying it was his “intention” to address the dreamer issue, whether in the next spending bill or thereafter. He did not offer a specific promise to protect dreamers, and he suggested that he would offer nothing if the government shut down again, but he said he would follow an evenhanded process.

Even if such a bill passed the Senate, it remained entirely unclear Monday how it would fare in the more conservative House.

But the deal was enough for 33 Senate Democrats, who joined 48 Republicans to break an impasse that cleared the way for federal agencies to reopen late Monday.

“ ‘Trust but verify’ is my motto,” said Sen. Angus King (Maine), an independent who caucuses with Democrats. “He’s made this commitment publicly, he made it on the floor of the Senate. He was much more specific this morning than he was last night, and frankly this is an important opportunity for him to demonstrate that he will carry through.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) endorsed the plan, which also reauthorizes the Children’s Health Insurance Program for six years and rolls back several health-care taxes.

On Monday evening, the House quickly passed it, sending it to Trump for his signature.

[Short-term spending agreement provides longer-term relief for CHIP]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised "a level playing field" for future immigration legislation if the Senate passes a spending deal on Jan. 22. (U.S. Senate)

“I am pleased that Democrats in Congress have come to their senses,” Trump said in a statement. He vowed to “work toward solving the problem of very unfair illegal immigration.”

But for some Democrats, including senators, the day brought an unsatisfying conclusion to a risky gambit to force Republicans to help protect dreamers, whose futures were cast into doubt when Trump canceled an Obama-era program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Some Democrats argued that McConnell had offered no new concessions on immigration. Others regretted giving up the leverage they believed they had in the government spending talks. Others said they simply didn’t trust him — or his party — to follow through.

“He did not make a commitment,” said Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), one of 16 Democrats who voted to block the bill.

Republicans didn’t make those Democrats feel much better. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), an immigration hard-liner, said he didn’t think McConnell was making any more of a promise Monday than he had last week.

“He has not changed since Friday,” Cotton said. “He has not changed since September.”

Even Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a proponent of a DACA deal who helped negotiate Monday’s vote, called into question whether anyone can trust anyone on Capitol Hill.

“Nobody trusts anybody around here,” Graham said just before the vote. “And most Americans don’t trust any of us.”

Nonetheless, many Democrats and Republicans, including Graham, agreed that McConnell had given some ground in agreeing to pursue an immigration bill to address DACA that both sides could amend.

Some Democrats said they voted for the plan because they were growing antsy about continuing a shutdown with little optimism about resolving the immigration deadlock in the coming days.

“I just think our job is to make sure government works for people and their lives get better, and that’s what I tried to do,” said Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), who had voted against the shutdown to begin with. “Our efforts helped bring the two leaders together, helped make sure that they talked and helped make sure that a deal got done.”

[ ‘A huge pain’: Government shutdown briefly idles federal workers before reprieve]

Others did so because about a dozen Republicans had agreed to work with them on immigration policy. They said that since Democrats deeply mistrust McConnell, perhaps they could now gang up on him with the help of those skeptical Republicans.

“I’m not trusting in Mitch McConnell, I’m trusting in [Sen.] Susan Collins and these folks who’ve really gone out on a limb. We’ve got to start from somewhere,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who voted for the spending bill Monday

The deal, in the end, was to trade Democratic support for reopening the government for a commitment by Republicans to address the status of young undocumented immigrants in February, if not sooner.

Sens. Collins (R-Maine), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Graham helped broker the agreement, with Flake and Graham shuttling between huddles with McConnell and Schumer for much of the weekend.

During bipartisan meetings in Collins’s office, senators used a device most commonly found in elementary school classrooms — a talking stick — to avoid unproductive crosstalk. They eventually switched to a basketball, according to Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), because it was easier to toss back and forth.

After the vote, some liberal activists and lawmakers fired off news releases slamming the arrangement. One called it a “vague promise.” Another labeled it a “fingers-crossed bargain.”

Angel Padilla, policy director of Indivisible, a group that promotes liberal grass-roots advocacy, wondered why Democrats were taking McConnell at his word.

“For months, Democratic leadership has reassured Dreamers that Democrats would use all their leverage to get the Dream Act done,” Padilla lamented in a statement Monday. “Indivisible groups will be paying attention and will remember who follows through on their commitments to Dreamers today.”

Trust between Republicans and Democrats has been eroding rapidly in recent weeks and months.

After Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) confirmed that Trump had referred to Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries” in a recent Oval Office meeting with lawmakers, Cotton and Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), who were also in the meeting, disputed his account.

Intraparty tensions have also been on the rise. Graham has grown frustrated with Cotton and White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, who hold harder-line views on immigration and border security. Cotton and the White House have hit back against Graham.

Further complicating matters, lawmakers are still unclear about what kind of immigration bill Trump wants to sign. He has offered mixed signals about whether he would back a measure akin to what centrist Republicans and Democrats favor, leaving some lawmakers not to trust his word, either.

Even McConnell suggested uncertainty, during last week’s negotiations, about what the president would do.

“What I want to see is an outcome, and an outcome involves the signature of the president of the United States,” McConnell said. “So what I’m waiting for in terms of making a decision about floor time is, are we dealing with an issue that has a chance to become law?”

The agreement reached Monday merely set the parameters of a debate and did not specify the substance of any potential legislation, leaving the fate of the immigration issue just as unclear as before.

Multiple proposals to address the legal status of dreamers have been introduced by Democrats and Republicans over the past year, including the Dream Act, which would create ways for more than 1 million eligible dreamers to apply for citizenship. Other versions of the bill would shrink the pool of eligibility.

With the negotiations focused on the Senate, Trump remained on the sidelines for much of the past few days, intermittently interjecting on Twitter to criticize Democrats and press Republicans to change the rules of the Senate to make it easier to pass their bill if the standoff was not quickly resolved.

The three-day stalemate exposed a growing rift between two groups of Democratic senators: those facing tough reelection campaigns in states Trump won and those courting liberal voters ahead of possible 2020 presidential bids.

In addition to Harris, other potential White House contenders who voted against the bill included Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

The vote on final passage in the Senate vote was 81 to 18. Two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah), voted no. In the House, the measure passed 266 to 150.

Lawmakers in both chambers and the White House still have to hash out a longer-term deal on military and domestic spending over the next few weeks, as they face yet another cliff on Feb. 8.
Ahead of the vote to end the debate, Schumer warned McConnell to keep his word.

“I expect the majority leader to fulfill his commitment to the Senate, to me and to the bipartisan group, and abide by this agreement. If he does not . . . he will have breached the trust of not only the Democratic senators but members of his own party as well,” Schumer said.

Robert Costa, Erica Werner and Paul Kane contributed to this report.

Financier Is Top Choice to Advise President on Intelligence Matters

Trump has finally picked members for a key intelligence advisory board, and billionaire Stephen Feinberg is slated to head it.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seal is displayed in the lobby of CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, on August 14, 2008. (Getty/AFP/Saul Loeb)

BY JENNA MCLAUGHLIN-

JANUARY 22, 2018, 12:42 PM
The man who once reportedly dreamt of being the most powerful American in Afghanistan has now set his sights on a new intelligence job that would give him direct access to U.S. President Donald Trump and the White House.

After a year in office, Trump has zeroed in on a group of personal advisors on intelligence matters, and Stephen Feinberg, a billionaire financier who has angled for a position in the White House for nearly a year, is top on the list to lead it.

Feinberg will lead the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, six sources with knowledge of the matter told Foreign Policy. The sources requested anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters and internal policy.

A spokeswoman for Feinberg declined to comment.

Feinberg is the CEO of private investment firm Cerberus Capital Management, which owns the private security firm DynCorp International. Over the past summer, Feinberg and Blackwater founder Erik Prince both pitched plans for a private military force in Afghanistan to the White House.
Prince had also suggested creating a “viceroy” to oversee U.S. operations in Afghanistan — a position that Feinberg was reportedly angling to fill. Trump instead went with a more traditional military plan.

Prince said he has no knowledge of Feinberg’s potential role on the intelligence advisory board.
The board, created in 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, has typically been composed of independent experts in business and academia, or retired military and intelligence professionals. The members serve in an unpaid capacity as a personal resource for the president on intelligence matters — reviewing everything from bioweapons to intelligence failures, like the Bay of Pigs scandal.

Over the years, the board has had varying degrees of impact; it helped create the Central Intelligence Agency’s science and technology division and the Defense Intelligence Agency. However, the board’s effectiveness has often depended upon its leadership and how close the chair is to the president.

Trump, who has been openly skeptical of and sometimes hostile toward the intelligence community, may be eager for an outsider’s perspective. Some of his supporters have alleged that a “deep state” is working to destroy Trump through intelligence leaks and pursuing an investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Feinberg does not have experience in government, but he donated nearly $1 million to a pro-Trump PAC five days before the election, and his name has repeatedly surfaced as a candidate for various national security and military roles during Trump’s first year in office.

Reuters reported last February that Trump was considering hiring Feinberg to conduct an expansive review of the intelligence community to find ways to restructure it. By March, Feinberg was joining Trump on an official military visit to an aircraft carrier in Virginia.

But Congress and Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, expressed reservations about Feinberg conducting such a review. Instead, Coats suggested at the time that Feinberg should work on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, one senior intelligence official told FP.

Feinberg, at one point over the past year, was also in talks to possibly take a role in defense or homeland security, but he was blocked by senior officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Now, Feinberg will finally get his chance to consult on intelligence directly for the president.
One source familiar with Feinberg’s thinking told FP the financier said he wants to conduct onsite reviews of the intelligence agencies, a role that typically falls to groups with more oversight power, like inspectors general, rather than a presidential advisory committee.

Yet Feinberg’s financial ties have complicated his road to power in the Trump administration. Cerberus wrote a letter to investors in February last year suggesting that if Feinberg accepted a position in government, he would need to turn over “voluminous information” to the Office of Government Ethics to be scrutinized. Feinberg faces the same hurdle in joining the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

Previous candidates who turned down the leadership role include tech magnate Peter Thiel and Oracle executive Safra Catz; the latter may still be considering membership on the board. A spokesperson for her company, Oracle, declined to comment on whether Catz will be participating as a member.

Yet the White House finally appears to be moving full speed ahead to appoint its board, which has been empty longer than under almost any other president (Jimmy Carter chose to disband the group entirely). Trump’s choices are currently undergoing security clearance review.

Samantha Ravich, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is the top choice to be Feinberg’s deputy, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter. Between 2011 and 2013, Ravich led a review of the intelligence community’s research and development programs.
Ravich did not immediately respond to request for comment.

It’s unclear how many members Trump will ultimately appoint to the board. Former President Barack Obama maintained a 16-person board made up mostly of members he personally selected.

Pakistan arrests serial killer suspect over rape, murder of girl, 7

Mubasher Bukhari-JANUARY 23, 2018

LAHORE, Pakistan (Reuters) - Police in Pakistan said on Tuesday they had arrested a man suspected to be a serial killer responsible for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl, a case that ignited nationwide protests over allegations of government inaction.

Police found Zainab Ansari’s body in a garbage dumpster in Kasur district near the eastern city of Lahore last week, four days after she was reported missing. Residents of the area have said the murder was the 12th such incident in a year, setting off fears of a serial rapist killer on the loose.

Shahbaz Sharif, chief minister of Punjab province, where Kasur is located, said the arrested man had confessed to Zainab’s murder and his DNA matched samples found on her body.

Sharif, addressing the media, identified Imran Ali, 24, of Kasur, as the killer of Zainab.

Regional police officer Zulfiqar Hameed told Reuters the suspect was one of Zainab’s neighbours.

CCTV footage of the day she was abducted showed her walking off calmly with a man identified as her kidnapper.

A police official who asked not to be named said the accused had confessed to multiple murders and that he was suspected of raping and killing at least seven girls.

He added that Ali was arrested on Wednesday but police waited to match DNA evidence before making an announcement.

A slide showing a picture of Imran Ali suspected of being a serial killer responsible for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old Zainab Ansari is shown at a press conference in Lahore, Pakistan January 23, 2018. REUTERS/Mohsin Raza

Sharif said in his statement that 1,150 DNA samples were collected and matched with samples taken from Zainab’s body.

Two people were killed in Kasur the day after Zainab’s body was recovered when police fired at hundreds of angry protesters, who said negligence on the part of the authorities was behind the repeated killings.

A number of police officials have been transferred out of Punjab for failing to investigate complaints of missing children since 2015, when authorities uncovered what they said was a paedophile ring linked to a prominent local family.

FILE PHOTO: Members of Civil Society light candles and earthen lamps to condemn the rape and murder of 7-year-old girl Zainab Ansari in Kasur, during a candlelight vigil in Islamabad, Pakistan January 11, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood/File Photo

At least two people have been convicted in connection with that case, in which authorities say hundreds of children in the district were abused.

A total of 1,764 cases of child abuse were reported across Pakistan in the first six months of 2017, according to Sahil, an organisation that works on child protection.
In 2016, the total number of reported child abuse cases was 4,139, or around 11 new cases reported per day.

Zainab’s case has emotions running high in Pakistan and the normally taboo subject of child abuse being discussed widely on local television.

“I want Imran Ali to be hanged publicly ... I will request the political parties to support my wish,” Sharif said.

Paul Krugman: Donald Trump Has No Interest in Being President

The government shutdown proves Republicans are willing to prop up an aspiring despot.

By Ilana Novick / AlterNet-January 23, 2018, 8:55 AM GMT

Much ink has been spilled over whether or not Donald Trump actually wanted to be president. But that question hides a more sinister reality: he really wanted to be a dictator, or a king. Like Louis XIV, whose downfall coincided with the French Revolution, Trump "sees no distinction between loyalty to the nation and loyalty to himself," as Paul Krugman writes in his Tuesday column.

It remains to be seen whether Americans will welcome the guillotine, but our president continues to act as if his actions have no consequences. Krugman argues that the recent government shutdown reveals that, "when it comes to Trump, a deal isn’t a deal — it’s just words he feels free to ignore a few days later."

First, Trump said he'd sign a bill ensuring protections for DACA recipients, as long as the bill included funding for border security. That was immediately scrapped after he conferred with immigration hardliners Tom Cotton and Bob Goodlatte, as well as John Kelly and Stephen Miller.

Then, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer met the president for cheeseburgers, believing he too had a deal, until the president welched yet again. Schumer later compared the experience to "negotiating with Jell-O," and the government was shut down for two days.

While the government has since reopened on Sen. Mitch McConnell's pinky swear to bring a vote on the Dream Act to the floor, this is no cause for celebration. Instead, "the government of the world’s greatest nation is lurching from crisis to crisis because its leader can’t be trusted to honor a deal."
Krugman admonishes those surprised that a government conducted on the whims of a capricious racist is an outright disaster:

What did you expect? Trump’s whole business career has been a series of betrayals — failed business ventures from which he personally profited while others, whether they were Trump University students, vendors or creditors, ended up holding the bag. And he hasn’t grown a bit in office, unless you count that mysterious extra inch.

This brings Krugman to two main points about Trump's "utter unreliability." First, "it has ramifications that go far beyond the recent shutdown. Second, it’s made possible, or at least much worse, by his enablers in Congress."

This is hell for our international standing. Krugman asks, "Who can we count on to be a reliable ally, when no country knows whether America will stand by it if it needs help?"

So far, at least, the financial markets are not punishing Trump for his autocratic tendencies, but Krugman wonders "does this government have any reserve of financial credibility if something should go wrong? Probably not."

Maddeningly, Republicans can stop the president whenever they want. They simply choose not to. Krugman continues:

Any two of the Republican senators currently wringing their hands over the betrayal of the Dreamers could have forced action by withholding their votes on the Trump tax cut. They didn’t. Similar inaction explains why Trump has been able to violate all previous norms against exploiting his office for personal gain, and much more.

This willingness to prop up a wannabe king doesn't just hurt Dreamers. "The result," he concludes, "is that promises from the U.S. government are now as worthless as those from a tinpot dictator. We don’t yet know how high a price we’ll pay for that loss of credibility, but it probably won’t be small."
Read the entire column here.

Bill Gates is paying off this country's $76 million debt

Frederic Stevens | Getty Images-Bill and Melinda Gates in Paris last April.

Sarah Berger | @sarahelizberger

2:42 PM ET Thu, 18 Jan 2018
Billionaire philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates will pay off $76 million of Nigeria's debt through their namesake foundation. The payments, which will be made over the course of 20 years, are due to begin this year.

Nigeria had no new cases of polio last year

In 2014, Nigeria borrowed the money from Japan to fund its fight against the preventable disease, Quartz reports. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has "agreed to repay the loan after Nigeria met the condition of achieving more than 80% vaccination coverage in at least one round each year in very high risk areas across 80% of the country's local government areas," according to Quartz.

No new cases of polio were reported in the country in 2017. That's a drastic change from 2012, when Nigeria had over half of all polio cases worldwide, according to the publication.

In a recent blog post, Gates acknowledges the significant strides made towards wiping out the disease globally — 30 years ago, there were 350,000 cases of polio per year worldwide, while last year, that number dropped to just 21.

"The heroes who have made this progress possible are the millions of vaccinators who have gone door to door to immunize more than 2.5 billion children. Thanks to their work, 16 million people who would have been paralyzed are walking today," Gates writes.

Polio is "a crippling and potentially deadly infectious disease," which, after invading the nervous system, can cause paralysis. Among those paralyzed, two to 10 percent die.

The Gates Foundation spent $3 billion in 2017 to help stop the spread of the disease, and names polio eradication one of its "top priorities." The foundation says it has supported the Global Polio Eradication Initiative's efforts to wipe out the disease by contributing technical and financial resources to accelerate targeted vaccination campaigns, community mobilization and routine immunizations.

"Progress in fighting polio might be one of the world's best-kept secrets in global health," Gates previously acknowledged in the foundation's 2017 annual letter. "If things stay stable in the conflicted areas, humanity could see its last case of polio this year."

In 1988, the virus was present in over 125 countries, paralyzing about 1,000 children per day. Since then, cases of polio have decreased by over 99 percent.

The couple's charitable efforts

The Gates' donation is not out of character; in 2017, they gave $4.6 billion to their namesake organization. In addition to its work with polio, the foundation has also spent $1 billion in an effort to send over 20,000 kids to college and has committed millions more toward fighting Alzheimer's and providing resources to women in developing countries.

Thanks in part to his massive philanthropic efforts, Gates is no longer the richest person in the world, a title that he had held for much of the last decade. Jeff Bezos is currently the richest person, with a net worth of more than $108 billion, according to Forbes. Gates is currently worth $92 billion.

However, Bloomberg notes that Gates would have a net worth of $150 billion if he had not been so generous. While Bezos is not known for being particularly philanthropic as billionaires go, in January he announced a $33 million donation toward TheDream.Us, an organization that provides scholarships to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, known as "dreamers."

Gates also founded The Giving Pledge with Warren Buffett. Its billionaire signers have promised to give away at least half of their wealth.

"We have been blessed with good fortune beyond our wildest expectations, and we are profoundly grateful," Bill and Melinda wrote in their Giving Pledge letter, CNBC Make It previously reported. "But just as these gifts are great, so we feel a great responsibility to use them well."

Monday, January 22, 2018

TO ENSURE THAT ELECTION IS FREE AND FAIR HRC-SL TO MONITOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

22/01/2018

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
Secretary to HE President,
Secretary to Hon. Prime Minister,
All Secretaries to Ministries, All Chief Secretaries to Provincial Councils,

Directives pertaining to activities of public officers and officers of the Provincial Public Service in connection with the Local Authority Election 2018:

According to Article 17O of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, a “public officer” has been defined to
mean a person who holds any paid office under the Republic. lt has been further clarified in
section 19 of the Penal Code” According to Article 4 of the Sri Lankan Constitution all public
officers are bound to respect and protect fundamental rights declared and recognized by the
Constitution” Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution all public officers have sworn to
uphold the Constitution. According to Article 12 of the Constitution all persons are equal before
the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law.

The right to vote has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. As
such, when an election takes place all public officers in particular are bound to ensure that the
election takes place in conformity with the Constitution and prevailing laws. Public officers vested
with responsibility should conduct their official duties in compliance with such laws and act fairly
and impartially.

lf public officers vested with legal responsibility misuse such powers and act beyond legal boundaries, or fail to perform duties which they are duty bound to perform or delay the performance of their duties without justifiable reason, such action results in violation of fundamental rights.

Accordingly, when public officers violate fundamental rights, in that manner, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is vested with powers in terms of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No.21- of 1996 to take action against such officers.

Therefore, the Commission will take steps to monitor the conduct of public officers in order to
ensure that the forthcoming election is conducted freely and fairly.

Accordingly, please be good enough to take steps to inform the staff in institutions under your
authority to act bearing in mind the following:

To see that the law is implemented impartially and fairly.

Non-implementation of the law, abuse of authority including use of powers in a politically partial manner (e.9., permitting some political parties and groups to use public property and resources in violation of the law) result in violation of fundamental rights. ln addition to state responsibility,
officers responsible for such action/inaction would be held personally responsible for violations.
This notice is made in terms of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No.21of 1996.
Chrairpcrson llur:ran Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, 16.01.2018

Coping with the primacy of power politics

By Jehan Perera-January 22, 2018, 8:29 pm

President Maithripala Sirisena’s application to the Supreme Court to obtain its opinion on the length of his term came as a surprise to the general public, and evidently to most in the government. The bid for an extended term was generally viewed as a violation of his commitments, due to the 19th Amendment, which reduced the presidential term from six to five years, being passed with his approval. However, the presidency is the main source of the SLFP’s power within the government. Therefore preserving the presidency is a political necessity to the SLFP and needs to be seen as such. The Supreme Court opinion that the president’s term will be five years against six years was a blow to the President and to the SLFP. It has highlighted the fact that the president can only give his strength to the SLFP membership for less than two years as presidential elections will now fall due in 2019.

A Supreme Court opinion that the President had a six-year term rather than a five year term would have given a bigger incentive to voters to vote for the SLFP rather than for another party. A six-year term for Maithripala Sirisena would have meant that SLFP MPs would face elections before him. This would make his support for individual MPs critical, including for the process of securing nominations from within the party. A six-year term would also place the UNP at a disadvantage, competing against an SLFP that enjoyed the support of a sitting president. The President’s adherence to constitutional norms in soliciting the Supreme Court advisory opinion, and accepting it without protest, is a positive signal to the country at large about the prevalence of the Rule of Law under the present government.

However, the downside of these political maneuverings is that power politics is at the centre stage. This is not what the majority of people hoped for when they voted for a change at the presidential and general elections of 2015. President Sirisena, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and other government leaders all pledged to ensure good governance and non-corruption as their primary goals, which would facilitate both economic development and national reconciliation. However, the evidence from the Bond Commission report is that within a few weeks of coming to power, some of the government leaders were involved in the bond scam which was not an expression of the anticipated new political culture. Likewise President Sirisena looking to extend his term of office was not an expression of the promised new political culture, but a reflection of power politics.

PRAGMATIC POLITICS

One of the unintended outcomes of the open tension between President Maitripala Sirisena and members of the UNP is to divert public attention away from the opposition and to internal conflict within the government in the run up to the local government elections. The submission of the report of the presidential commission appointed to investigate the Central Bank bond scam has given the President an opportunity to strengthen his hand. It has also given rise to the perception within the UNP that their members are being targeted by the President and the SLFP. This was followed by President Sirisena asking the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on whether his term of office was five years or six. The tussle between the UNP and SLFP members on these issues has taken the centre stage of public interest, thereby reducing the publicity for the SLPP which is out of the main frame.

In keeping with the adage that to politicians, bad publicity is better than no publicity, the UNP-SLFP tussle on this issue has enabled the SLFP to demonstrate to the general public that it is a power to reckon with in the government. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court opinion, leading members of the SLFP are claiming that President Sirisena will contest presidential elections a second time. This is in order to impress the voters that the president will continue to remain in power for the foreseeable future. The suggestion is made that therefore voting for the SLFP at the local government elections will ensure access to governmental patronage for the foreseeable future. In addition, the president has stated that after the elections he will take control over the economy through the device of the National Economic Commission.

So far the Prime Minister has been making an appearance of going along with the President. The UNP did not challenge his decision to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on the length of his term of office. It is reported that this inquiry of the President was made without the knowledge of the UNP or the Prime Minister. The UNP probably sees the President’s statement that he will take control of the economy after the elections as part of his election campaign to persuade the SLFP’s traditional voters to vote SLFP rather than for the SLPP. In response to the President taking offence at the various statements made against him on public platforms by members of the UNP, the Prime Minister is reported to have admonished his party members to desist from public criticism of the President.

PROBLEM SOLVING

In this complex context the positive feature is that Sri Lanka continues to have a government of national unity comprising the two largest political parties, the UNP and SLFP. As can be expected the forthcoming local government elections have aggravated the tensions between them. It is customary that those who seek to win an election engage in boosting their own images and running down their rivals. At the same time it is necessary to value the check and balance function that having two parties in power brings to the government in tackling national issues. The exposure of the Central Bank bond scam is a relevant example. If it has been left to one party in governance, then neither the scam nor its magnitude would have seen the light of day.

It is also necessary for the two parties to work together to bring resolution to the country’s protracted ethnic conflict rather than to continue to drift without engaging in serious problem solving of difficult and controversial issues. The political stresses of the present must not stand in the way of future cooperation. Previous efforts to find a solution floundered on the rocks of narrow political partisanship. The resumption of both the constitutional reform and transitional justice processes after the conclusion of the local government elections will be a bipartisan national task.

The forthcoming election will give an indication of the level of support for the ruling parties on the one hand and for the opposition on the other hand. It will be important for the parties in the government coalition to obtain majority popular support in order to have the confidence to forge ahead with the plans they have already laid out for national level problem solving. A situation where the local government election yields an outcome in which the UNP and SLFP have to cooperate in order to secure the majority in each of the local government authorities would take the policy of bipartisanship down to the community level, which will be the best formula for building grassroots support for national problem solving on controversial issues.