American Allies on an Execution Spree

Once again we see America turning a blind eye to horrific human rights abuses under the guise of "fighting terrorism" by putative allies who have less than clean hands themselves when in comes to sponsoring the very terrorism that they claim to oppose.  Among the worse offenders?  Saudi Arabia, of course, where there is no religious freedom and a new jihad has been launched against LGBT individuals.  As noted in prior posts, Saudi Arabia is the number one funder of Islamic extremism worldwide.  Along side of Saudi Arabia is another false ally, Pakistan.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the foul regimes that America is propping up and squandering money on.  Here are excerpts:

Phony terrorism strategies employed by some of America’s key counter-terror partners are at the heart of a shocking surge in death penalty usage, which has reached its highest level in a quarter of a century.

Amnesty International recorded 1,634 state-sanctioned executions in 2015—more than 50 percent higher than in the previous year.

The regimes in both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—where the increase has been starkest—have used false claims about fighting terrorism to justify a dramatic increase in the execution of prisoners convicted of conventional crimes. The U.S. has given Pakistan more than $13 billion in military aid since the invasion of Afghanistan but seems to exert little influence over the nation’s counter-terrorism strategy. 

“They [the U.S.] should speak out about a country like Pakistan using a counter-terrorism justification for the horrific scale of executions,” Audrey Gaughran, a director at Amnesty International, told The Daily Beast. “Very few of the executions in 2015 were for people who’d been convicted of terrorism-related offenses. The reality of who is being executed doesn’t match up with the rhetoric.”

By the end of the year, 326 people had been put to death—the highest number of executions Amnesty International has ever recorded for Pakistan, putting it third in the world behind Iran and China.

Joining them in the 2015 top five—with the U.S.—was Saudi Arabia, where there has been another huge surge in executions under the guise of a crackdown against terrorism.

Saudi Arabia executed 158 people last year almost twice the 2014 figure, and more than any other year since 1995.

“The on-going surge of executions is deeply uncomfortable for Saudi Arabia’s Western allies who collaborate so closely on intelligence and security issues,” said James Lynch, Amnesty’s deputy director for the Middle East. “The Saudi Arabian authorities suggest that these executions are carried out to fight terror and safeguard security but it’s clear that they are also using the death penalty in the name of counter terror to settle scores and crush dissidents.”

The vast majority of those executed in Pakistan were not convicted of terrorist offenses, or had terror charges added to their cases with little or no justification. Many of those on death row had no resources to fund an adequate defense, and those executed included people with mental and physical impairments and juveniles. Under international law, executing minors is not permissible.

One of those put to death in Pakistan last year was Muhammad Afzal, who was 16 when he robbed and killed someone. In his final words before he was hanged, he said the police told his family to pay a 60,000 rupee bribe or they would add a bogus terrorism charge to his rap sheet. That is equivalent to only $600, but his family had no means to pay.

“We’re very concerned that this is happening,” said Gaughran. “The death penalty is being portrayed as a way that the government looks like it’s doing something about terrorism.”

Sadly, as it has done so often in the past, America is supporting despotic governments and making a mockery of its alleged concerns about human rights.  When these regimes fall, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the new regimes will be anti-American.

Sanders Stumbles in New York Daily News Interview

Bernie Sanders edged out Hillary Clinton in the Wisconsin primary yesterday, but in an interview with the New York Daily News editorial board he stumbled and revealed that in some ways his approach to reform is akin to that of Donald Trump - vague generalities and few details.  Indeed, when Sanders strays from a few of his standard talking points, he has difficulty explaining how he would implement the list of benefits that are attractive to his followers.  This phenomenon is one of the reasons I have not been able to get on board the Sanders bandwagon.  Talking Points Memo looks at the near disastrous interview.  Here are highlights:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) struggled to detail how he would break-up the big banks and move toward a "moral economy" during an interview with the New York Daily News editorial board published Monday.

A member of the editorial board asked Sanders what authority he would have as President to break-up banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.
Sanders answered:

Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to. You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.

Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one. Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power. And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.

"OK," an editorial board member responded, according to a Daily News transcript, before pressing Sanders for more specifics about the policy plan.

"How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail," Sanders said.

If the banks were to be broken up, the editorial board asked, what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of employees who would be affected?

"What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses," Sanders responded.

The senator also suggested the Justice Department was not forceful enough in prosecuting Wall Street executives.

"I'm saying, a Sanders administration would have a much more aggressive attorney general looking at all of the legal implications," he said.

When pressed for specific statutes that could be invoked to bring charges, Sanders couldn't answer.

"Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't," he said. "When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives."

Read the full conversation here.

Don't get me wrong.  I like some of Sanders' concepts, but without a semblance of a plan of how he would get legislation passed, his promises end up akin to Donald Trump's slogan that he'd "make America great again"   while offering no details  or policy positions.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Dedicated to all the bigots and haters in North Carolina and Mississippi

Mississippi Enacts Extreme Special Rights Law for Christofacsist

Seemingly having learned nothing from the experience of Indiana last year and the current tumult surrounding Georgia and North Carolina, Mississippi Republicans just enacted a pro-Christofascist law that makes the abortion passed in North Carolina pale in comparison.  The Bill, House Bill 1523, prevents state and local government agencies from taking action against state employees, individuals, organizations and private associations that deny service based on religious beliefs.   The bill is so broad that businesses can discriminate against heterosexuals as well if they believe the straigh customers are "living in sin."  A piece in the New York Times looks at the shocking special rights granted to right wing Christians in Mississippi.  Here are highlights:

The divide between social conservatives and diversity-minded corporations widened Tuesday with developments in Mississippi and North Carolina related to the rights of gay, lesbian bisexual and transgender people in both states.

Mississippi’s governor signed far-reaching legislation allowing individuals and institutions with religious objections to deny services to gay couples, and the online-payment company PayPal announced it was canceling a $3.6 million investment in North Carolina.

The measure signed by Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi allows churches, religious charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people if doing so would violate their religious beliefs on marriage and gender. Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia, under pressure from business interests, two weeks ago vetoed a similar bill passed by the state Legislature.

The developments in Republican-controlled states reflected growing fissures between business interests and social conservatives, whose alliance has played a central role in the Republican coalition. Similar disputes have erupted in Indiana, Arkansas and other Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2014.

Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina and Mr. Bryant join a list of Republican governors who are being squeezed between the business groups that have formed the core of their support and conservative state lawmakers pushing back against recent gains made by advocates of gay rights and same-sex marriage.

In Mississippi, objections have been raised by companies such as Tyson Foods, MGM Resorts International, Nissan and Toyota, all of whom are major employers in the state.

North Carolina Reaps the Economic Whirlwind for Anti-LGBT Bigotry

The anger being unleashed by corporate America in the wake of that state's passage of a bill that repeals all LGBT non-discrimination protections statewide is truly epic.  What is almost laughable is how unprepared the Republican nitwits who rammed this bill through have been to deal with the fury that they have unleashed.  A small amount of research and consideration of the Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans would have suggested to remotely sentient individuals that HB 2 was a very, very bad idea - at least outside of spittle flecked, knuckle dragging Christofascist circles.  One can only hope that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is burning up the telephone lines contacting the businesses that are announcing plans to cancel expansion in North Carolina and soliciting them to move to Virginia.  The opportunities would seem to be numerous between the corporate announcements and conventions being cancelled and/or relocated.   Fist, here are highlights from Paypal's announcement that it is cancelling plans for a global operation in Charlotte:

Two weeks ago, PayPal announced plans to open a new global operations center in Charlotte and employ over 400 people in skilled jobs.  In the short time since then, legislation has been abruptly enacted by the State of North Carolina that invalidates protections of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens and denies these members of our community equal rights under the law.
 The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.  As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte.
 This decision reflects PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect. These principles of fairness, inclusion and equality are at the heart of everything we seek to achieve and stand for as a company. And they compel us to take action to oppose discrimination.    

But Paypal is not alone in rethinking expansion in North Carolina.   Marketing concern Red Ventures is rethinking a 500 person expansion as well.  Here are highlights from Fox 46 News: 

Red Ventures is also considering pulling out of their 500 person expansion in 2016 after HB2 was passed.

"HB2 does not reflect the values of our people, our state or our democratic process. The speed with which it was passed and lack of constituent input enabled a select group of North Carolina representatives to ignore their responsibility to represent the whole state and, instead, eviscerate the civil rights of North Carolinians," The CEO of Red Ventures, Ric Elias said.

Elias said as a CEO who is committed to expanding our Charlotte presence by 500 people in 2016 and thousands after that, I am forced to seriously reconsider adding more jobs in a state that tolerates discrimination. 

The largest threat to North Carolina's economy, however, comes from the specter of lost federal funding.  Here are excerpts from the Washington Post:

At least five federal agencies are weighing whether to withhold funds from North Carolina in response to a recently enacted state law that blocks protections for gay, lesbians and bisexuals, and prohibits transgender individuals from using bathrooms that are not the same as the gender they were assigned at birth.

The ongoing reviews at the Education, Transportation, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services departments are not yet complete, and it is unclear how much federal money might be involved. But the Obama administration’s decision to scrutinize what White House press secretary Josh Earnest described as “both policy and legal questions that are raised by the passage of this law” suggests that the measure signed by Gov. Pat McCrory (R) last month could have major implications for his state.

Earnest said that “individual agencies are undertaking” the review, and the White House had not issued specific guidance on how to proceed. But he emphasized that President Obama said that “ensuring that individual Americans are not discriminated against because of who they love is something that the president feels strongly about,” and he was not surprised that North Carolina officials “are feeling some pressure” on the issue.

David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, noted that a host of federal laws — from Title IX in the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Affordable Care Act and Violence Against Women Act — have anti-discrimination language that suggests North Carolina could stand to lose funding on a range of fronts.

Personally, I want to see North Carolina crucified.  Ditto for Mississippi which just enacted an even more heinous and expansive law granting special rights to Christofascists.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

Can The GOP Save Itself By Looking to the British Tories?

As the Republican Party continues to spin in a seeming death spiral, some say that the party should take lessons from how the British Tories breathed new life into their at the time moribund political party.  A piece in Politico, in fact makes this argument.  The problem, as I see it is that the Tories did not have the now systemic problem that confronts the GOP: a solid core base of Christofascists and white supremacists who have no desire to adopt more humane and logical policies.  With this element of the GOP base, hate, fear and an embrace of backward ignorance are the guiding lights and nothing is likely to change that.  Until these elements are driven from the GOP, expect little change, in my view.  Here are article highlights:

Scorched earth tactics. Pandering to people’s worst fears. Ugly and alienating rhetoric. Extreme positions that offend vast swaths of the electorate. Yes folks, this has been the apparent political strategy of the GOP over the past eight years. Donald Trump? If the Republicans are in crisis, he’s not the cause. He’s the symptom.

The dawning of that reality is perhaps why so many obituaries are now being written for the Republican Party—some with relish, others with sorrow—and why the GOP establishment is desperately looking for a white knight such as House Speaker Paul Ryan to save the day at the convention in Cleveland in July.

I say this based on my own experience as former senior adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron, where I helped turn around a “missing, presumed dead” right-of-center party and implement a reforming conservative agenda in government.

I’m more than aware that there is no automatic read-across from British to American politics. But having moved to California, taught at Stanford, and co-founded Crowdpac (a tech startup focusing on U.S. politics), I can now view with a bit more detachment how the British experience might help the GOP in 2016.

Here is the most basic lesson: The Republican Party’s problems cannot be fixed by better “messaging” or organization. It goes much deeper than that. This was the mistake the British Conservatives made for many years, believing that things like better “outreach” or a stronger online presence would turn things around. No, it’s all about what you fundamentally think, your ideology, and whether it meets the needs of real people. The gap between Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, for example, is nothing compared with the much larger gap between the GOP and modern, mainstream America. The Republican Party cannot close that gap unless it makes itself more human, more in touch. And to do that it needs to change its policy prescriptions in a profound way.

In 2005, after Tony Blair of the Labor Party won his third general election in a row, a postmortem for the Conservatives revealed that the top reasons for not voting Tory were a perception that the party was “for the rich,” and that it was “old-fashioned.” By old-fashioned, the British voters meant that Conservative politicians were out of touch with—and indeed seemed to disapprove of—modern life as it is lived: hostile toward working women, ethnic minorities, gay people and young people.

On top of all that, political commentators described the Conservatives as “the stupid party” for relying on simplistic, shop-worn ideological bromides, and “the economics party” for prioritizing tax cuts, deregulation and fiscal calculation over all else.

Ring any bells?

For many years, Republican leaders have allowed—no, encouraged—conservatism to be seen as an inhuman, cruel ideology, dogmatically obsessed with a small number of issues, driven by a destructive mania to oppose at all costs, lacking any interest in understanding (let alone responding constructively to) the real life problems of most people in America.

The postmortem was doomed to failure even when it was published four years ago, and the explanation lies in this short but devastating quote from the document: “We need to do a better job connecting people to our policies.”

Well yes. But have you ever considered the possibility that it’s the policies that might be the problem, and not the presentation of them? Now before anyone starts screaming “Judas” at me, I just want to make clear that I’m talking about policy, not philosophy. For a great political party, philosophy should be unchanging. But for a great political party to survive, its philosophy should be applied anew, with fresh policy, to changing circumstances. This the GOP has signally failed to do.

A more human conservatism would simply not tolerate the oligarchic economy that America has become. It would mount an all-out assault on the centralization of power that is allowing giant special interests to fleece taxpayers, rip off consumers, exploit workers and damage society. It would force real, market-based competition into every sector: not just the banks but the airlines, the insurance companies, the telecom providers, the agriculture and food industry, the education system, yes even the political system by moving from corrupt funding to crowdfunding.

We made some important shifts on key social and cultural issues: In 2006, Cameron brought the annual party conference to a standing ovation with his backing for marriage (and the society-strengthening commitment it represents), “whether it’s between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man.”

And there were symbolic changes too: a young, informal leader who rode his bike to the House of Commons; a visible demonstration of community commitment through public volunteerism by Conservative candidates and activists around the country—and yes, the inevitable new party logo, a tree in place of the previous torch. But this was no greenwashing—the party dropped its climate change skepticism and urged the electorate to “Vote Blue, Go Green.” (Blue is the color of the Conservative Party in the UK).

How might some of the British Conservative experience work on this side of the Atlantic with the GOP? Plainly, the party would need to surrender some of its more unreasonable dogmas, like blanket resistance to any action on climate change. And it would need to experiment. Among Silicon Valley folks, there is an idea that infuses everything we do: prototyping. The idea is to take a concept—a hypothesis—and throw it out there quickly in its roughest manifestation to see how people react. Even if it’s completely wrong, it’s only through testing it with real people that you can validate not just your solution but whether your conception of the problem is even right to begin with.

A modern Republican Party would therefore not just rail against Trump, but develop an agenda that takes the anger and the energy and the desire for a shake-up that his candidacy represents, and turns it into a program for change.

A more human conservatism would go beyond the stunted, limited debates on education and health care in this country, beyond “scrap Common Core” and “repeal Obamacare” and understand that the very systems we have set up to run these personal, intimate things—teaching our children and looking after us when we’re sick—have become too big and are out of date. Factory schools churn out children equipped for the previous century not this one . . .

Here, we need to learn both from what we instinctively know and what modern science now teaches us through advances in fields like neuroscience, social psychology and behavioral economics. If we want to address the causes of poverty, and not just its symptoms, the single most important factor is the family, because children’s life chances are determined before they even get to school.

To be fair, Hillary Clinton seems to understand this priority and it’s reflected in her policy program. Don’t worry, this is not the start of a “Republicans for Clinton” argument. I’m just saying that a grown-up, attractive, electable party ought to be able to acknowledge when opponents get things right.

In the end, the successful modernization of the GOP will not be accomplished by committees or reports or another postmortem—or premortem—from the RNC. The lesson from Britain is that you can have all the ideas in the world, all the policy documents and think-tank studies and articles like this one. But lasting change happens only when a bold leader sets out a big vision.

More Monday Male Beauty

Gossip Site: Ted Cruz Named in Late DC Madam's "Black Book"

Over the weekend I wrote about the efforts of Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former lawyer for so-called DC Madam, Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, to have the names of her clients in her "black book" released and the promise that it would cause turmoil in the 2016 presidential race.  While Sibley - with whom I corresponded back in 2009 - has not yet released to names of Palfrey's clients, Radaronline is reporting that it is believed that Ted Cruz's name is among those in the list of clients who sought $300/hour call girls.  Here are article highlights:

Embattled White House candidate Ted Cruz‘s cheating scandal is set to explode wide-open, with fresh — and blockbuster — allegations that the married conservative senator was named in the black book of a notorious Washington D.C. madam who mysteriously died, RadarOnline.com has learned.

Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former lawyer for madam Deborah Palfrey, has filed a dramatic appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to publish her unconventional “black book,” which consists of some 15,000 pages of phone records and calls to clients, as well as their calls requesting the $300-an-hour services from her gaggle of beautiful hookers!

Sibley told The National ENQUIRER that “time is of the essence” to release the list because one or more of the phone numbers would provide bombshell information that is “relevant to voters before they cast their ballot.”He currently is barred by a lower court order from releasing the records or naming names.

But Radar has learned The National ENQUIRER will this week report its findings of yet another exhaustive and investigative probe that will quote journalist detectives who claim the mystery candidate almost certainly “has to be Cruz.”

Investigator Wayne Madsen, who was on a team of reporters hired by Hustler Magazine’s boisterous owner Larry Flynt to investigate the madam, told The ENQUIRER that Cruz should be concerned!

“If Montgomery Sibley has what he says he has, it has to be Cruz,” he said in an interview — an advance copy of which was provided to Radar.

“Going on what I know about the other male candidates still in the race, it isn’t any of them, and Palfrey didn’t provide call boys, so it wasn’t Hillary.”

Before a restraining order was slapped on the records, Sibley said he supplied copies of the papers from three of the four boxes to Dan Moldea, another Washington investigative reporter who interviewed the madam for a possible book after she was busted for prostitution in 2006.

Sibley previously represented Palfrey when she was busted in 2006 for prostitution. During the investigation, U.S. Senator David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, was outed as one her clients.

On May 2, 2008, 52-year-old Palfrey was found dead with braided twine around her neck in her mother’s shed in Tarpon Springs, Florida, according to the Medical Examiner’s report obtained by The ENQUIRER.

The report indicates that she had bruises on her lower legs, right knee, right forearm and upper arm — but her death was ruled a suicide. Sibley said he suspects foul play, however.  The ENQUIRER is due to hit newsstands nationwide on Wednesday, its publisher told Radar.

Personally, regardless of whether or not this story proves true, I can think of few thinks more repulsive than having Ted Cruz touch me, much less in a sexual context - $300/hour would not begin to be nearly enough money!   But I digress.  The bottom line is this: from all my years involved in politics, it is almost always the ones who talk the most about their Christian faith - typically "family values" Republicans - who turn out to be the ones having affairs or seeking gay sex on the down low. Does anyone remember former Virginia 2nd District Congressman Ed Schrock?

Conservatives Suffer Huge Loss at the U. S. Supreme Court

One of the consistent themes and agenda items of the Republican Party and those who euphemistically call themselves "conservatives" rather than racists or white supremacists has been to disenfranchise minority voters wherever possible and, as was attempted by plaintiffs in Texas, to skew voting district apportionment to favor Republicans.  With the white percentage of the overall population falling and the GOP make no effort to be more welcoming to those who are not angry, greed driven, racist whites, about all the GOP has to grasp onto is limiting and/or diluting the minority vote of all stripes.  Today, in Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court by a unanimous ruling killed for now an attempt to dilute the vote in urban and heavy minority districts.  A column in the Washington Post explains why the ruling is important.  Here are highlight:

The Supreme Court issued a decision Monday on the widely anticipated “one person, one vote” case, unanimously ruling that states can draw their voting districts based on total population as opposed to just the number of people who can vote.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, featured arguments on a pair of state Senate districts in the Dallas area. Because Texas draws its districts based on total population — including non-citizens who are not eligible to vote — some voters in the suburban districts argue that their votes are “diluted” compared with those of neighboring urban districts that are home to many immigrants.

The case essentially revolved around who should be represented by our lawmakers, and there was a lot at stake. If the Supreme Court ruled that drawing districts according to total population was unconstitutional — thereby mandating that virtually all states redraw their districts —experts projected that Republicans would have gained a signification advantage in state elections throughout the country.

The New Civil Rights Movement adds this:

Conservatives in Texas argued that only eligible voters should be relied upon when redistricting, claiming the U.S. Constitution forbids counting immigrants, children, and prisoners, who are not legally eligible to vote.

"The plaintiffs alleged the Texas legislative map effectively diluted the representation of citizens in rural, Republican-leaning areas in favor of Democratic-trending cities like Houston, where the population includes immigrants and children who are ineligible to vote," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who authored the decision, wrote.

“As history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, it is plainly permissible” to use total population for state redistricting, Justice Ginsburg added, as Buzzfeed notes.