npr--2019-03-13--Saudi Kingdom Tries To Prevent More Women From Fleeing

Saudi Kingdom Tries To Prevent More Women From Fleeing  After an 18-year-old Saudi woman, who said she feared death if deported to Saudi Arabia, arrived in Canada, she directed some of her first public comments back home. Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun encouraged other women to flee family abuse and the oppressive controls imposed on them by the conservative kingdom.  She has just showed them how to do it.  Alqunun was offered asylum in Canada in January after she barricaded herself in a Bangkok hotel room, from where she mounted a sophisticated social media campaign that sparked international headlines and sympathy.  But in Saudi Arabia, Alqunun's successful escape from a prominent family spurred harsh media attacks and a social media narrative accusing Western nations of using Saudi women to undermine the kingdom. Still, the domestic campaign is unlikely to deter other young women from fleeing the kingdom, say activists who are in touch with women planning to run.  The high-profile story is "going to set off copycat scenarios," says Bessma Momani, a Middle East specialist at Canada's University of Waterloo. "I think women will feel more emboldened."  She explains that Alqunun's story has provided a virtual road map for others and revealed a network of groups willing to work out logistics and offer escape strategies. "Rahaf's story showed there is a quasi-organized group that is willing to help," Momani says.  Alqunun's asylum in Canada comes as Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, often referred to as MBS, portrays himself as the leader who is steering the country toward a more secular modernity.  Movie theaters have reopened. Saudi women can now drive cars and attend sports events. The kingdom says it has made it easier for women to enter the workplace.  "Any way you slice it, MBS has done more change than anyone in the last 50 years," says Ali Shihabi, who heads the Arabia Foundation, a pro-Saudi think tank in Washington, D.C. Reform is "an art rather than a science," he says, "and being an art, there are going to be mistakes. He can't let the snowball get too big."  The crown prince is also behind a harsh crackdown on political dissent. That includes jailing more than a dozen women's rights activists who were vocally pushing for an end to Saudi Arabia's guardianship system, which allows male relatives to control most aspects of a woman's life.  "When MBS came, he made it clear: 'You either listen to me, or you go to jail,' " says Yasmine Farouk, a visiting scholar in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.  "He is that much of a dictator that he is able to impose measures that other kings were too scared to impose on society. We are talking about a regime that wants to do everything under its control."  But the growing number of Saudis seeking refuge abroad undermines Prince Mohammed's international image as a leader bringing new personal freedoms to the kingdom, says 30-year-old Samah Damanhoori. She was granted asylum in the United States last year after she accused her family of abuse and declared she was no longer a Muslim.  "OK, we are going to let you drive — happy now? Stop running away," she says, to explain her views on reforms introduced by Prince Mohammed. "But more women are running away. We have to do that to get them full rights."  In Saudi Arabia, men wield vast powers over women. The guardianship system gives male relatives control over women's travel, education, medical treatment and marriage. An app called Absher allows Saudi men to specify when and where a woman can travel. The service includes a message alert when a woman uses her passport at an airport or a border crossing.  Fleeing even an abusive home is a crime. If caught, a woman can be jailed or housed in a government-run shelter until her guardian permits her release.  Alqunun's success was a "huge shake," Damanhoori says, because she comes from a prominent family, the daughter of a powerful governor.  "The more powerful the family, the harder for a woman to escape, because of family connections. But she made it."  Alqunun's family status may explain why the Saudi government has ramped up a campaign to stem the flow. In recent weeks, the General Department for Counter Extremism released an online video as a warning. The animated message compares women who flee the country to young men who join terrorist groups — and blames a vast international conspiracy that it says is aiming to damage the kingdom's image through its youth.  "Everyone who tried to escape, they compare her with ISIS — it's horrible," complains Damanhoori.  "This is not going to end," says Hala Aldosari, a Saudi activist and writer based in New York. "It will get worse."  Aldosari says the government blames "agents of the West" and "women activists" as the culprits of the alleged global plot to destabilize Saudi Arabia, "rather than the grievance of the women." She says the common denominator among those trying to flee is that they are "women who come from controlling or abusive families" and who believe that running is the only way to survive.  The rise of social media has opened a window for people to compare Saudi women's rights with women's rights in other Gulf nations. "Saudi women are now more aware of the restriction they live with, and they take higher risks to escape," Aldosari says.  Reliable statistics in Saudi Arabia on these escapes are hard to find. Some families don't report a missing daughter for fear of social stigma in a society where a family's honor is tied to the behavior of women.  Figures on Saudi asylum-seekers abroad, however, are known to have increased. Saudis made 815 asylum claims worldwide in 2017, compared with 195 in 2012, according to the latest tallies published in the United Nations Refugee Agency's database. Their destinations include the U.S., Canada, Germany, Sweden, the U.K. and Australia.  In 2011, Manal al-Sharif was jailed for nine days in Saudi Arabia for protesting driving restrictions. Her activism cost her the custody of her son, she says. Now she is living in self-imposed exile in Sydney.  "These proclaimed reforms are just refurbishing a huge cage," al-Sharif says of the changes in Saudi Arabia. "We can't run a country when half of it is depending on the other half."  But inside the kingdom, the crown prince is largely viewed as trying to change that equation, says Farouk at Carnegie. "It really is a paradox. It's the strong man who is able to impose reforms without being afraid of the consequences."  But Saudi officials know the consequences of the continued flight of women. That undermines the international message that Saudi Arabia is modernizing and that Prince Mohammed has opened a new era of freedoms.  Alqunun's father, who is a governor, released a statement in January saying that the family had disowned the runaway and calling her "the mentally unstable daughter who has displayed insulting and disgraceful behavior." That prompted the 18-year-old to drop her family name, she told reporters.  Her father reportedly denied physically abusing her or trying to force her into marriage, according to The Associated Press.  So far, Farouk says, the domestic response, even among women, is to condemn Alqunun's escape as reckless.  "They don't care," Farouk says. "Things have changed in their daily life: They can drive to work, they can go to concerts, play sports. As long as their daily life has been made easier, why care about politics?"  But there is still a limit to personal freedoms. "They will care when they try to contest a policy at work," she says. "They will be jailed or interrogated, or their fathers will have to get them out of the police station. They will care, but it will take time."


npr--2019-06-30--Trump And Kim Meeting The Start Of A Deal Or Just Some Nice Pics And Pageantry

Trump And Kim Meeting: The Start Of A Deal Or 'Just Some Nice Pics And Pageantry?'  It is too soon to tell whether the much-hyped meeting between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un on Sunday will be remembered as a televised spectacle or the start of a breakthrough in talks with the nuclear-armed country.  But Trump did become the first sitting American president to venture into North Korea.  "I was proud to step over the line," Trump told Kim about crossing the demarcation line at the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas. "It is a great day for the world."  The celebratory mood seemed a long way from the insults and bellicose rhetoric the two leaders have previously engaged in, a hostile dynamic that has cooled down over the course of what Trump has described as a burgeoning friendship between Trump and Kim.  Whether the symbolism of stepping into North Korea carries with it the promise of change, or little more than dramatic optics, remains the subject of debate among Korea experts and other observers.  "This is about looking good," said Wendy Sherman, who was the policy coordinator for North Korea during the Clinton administration, in an interview with NPR.  Sherman said the real question is what happened during the 50 minutes Trump and Kim had a closed-door chat.  "Is there a real negotiating track that has begun?" she asked. "Did the president give anything up in those 50 minutes? Is there any there there?"  To Sue Mi Terry, senior fellow for Korea at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one detail of the meeting jumped out: Trump hinted that U.S. economic sanctions on North Korea could perhaps be lifted during negotiations, rather than at the conclusion of a deal to denuclearize, which was the administration's previous position. It signaled a possible a departure from the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against the country.  "President Trump is looking for a deal, and potentially, now that working-level negotiations are to resume, there is a deal to be had," Terry said.  In announcing that the U.S. will resume talks with the North, President Trump told reporters, "We're not looking for speed. We're looking to get it right."  Trump said economic sanctions on the country would remain in place, but he hinted that the administration could ease the pressure, saying that "during the negotiation things can happen."  Other experts said Trump is misguided in believing that a supposedly impromptu face-to-face with Kim would result in an arms control agreement, something decades of careful and calculated negotiations with senior U.S. policy leaders has not been able to achieve.  "It's only 'historic' if it leads to denuke negotiations, a verifiable agreement and a peace treaty," said Victor Cha, Georgetown University professor and senior adviser of the National Committee on North Korea. "Otherwise it's just some nice pics and pageantry."  Cha said he worried the meet-and-greet at the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone, the president's third face-to-face meeting with Kim, legitimizes a regime that has been criticized for human rights violations against women, political dissenters and other at-risk groups.  Surrendering all their weapons is not a likely scenario, said Cha, who was the top Korea adviser in the George W. Bush administration.  "The North Koreans have demonstrated over the past 25 to 30 years that they're not willing to part with all of their nuclear weapons," Cha said in an interview with NPR. "They're willing to freeze some of their capability, but they're not willing to give up all of their weapons because it's the only thing they have that makes them secure in the world today."  Cha noted that when he helped reach a deal with the North, in 2005, when the country initially agreed to freeze some of its weapons programs, the plan collapsed when American officials attempted to verify its nuclear capacity.  "We can't really do full denuclearization until they admit to having certain things," he said. "Until that happens, a deal is not going to look credible."  While Trump's first two meetings with Kim failed to produce an agreement to eliminate North Korea's nuclear arsenal, Pyongyang has paused nuclear testing and returned the remains of American soldiers killed in the Korean War. That said, just last month North Korea had been testing short-range ballistic missiles.  Trump has viewed a truce with North Korea resulting in the surrendering of nuclear weapons as a key foreign policy goal, and his insistence on in-person gatherings with the authoritarian leader has been unorthodox. The president's Singapore meeting with Kim in June 2018 marked the first time a sitting American president met with the country's head of state since a cease-fire was signed in 1953 ending the Korean War.  Critics of Trump say his past career as a television star is fueling his prioritizing of high-profile meetings with world leaders, but with North Korea, they say, the tactic has not yielded much more than handshakes and wide grins.  Former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes said a meeting was never sought with Kim during the eight years of the Obama administration. "Foreign policy isn't reality television," he said. "It's reality."  Rhodes went on: "Photo ops don't get rid of nuclear weapons, carefully negotiated agreements do."  Sherman said she supports the summits with Kim, seeing them as an unconventional path that could prove fruitful, though she said there appears to be some important missing pieces.  "You try something novel and different when you have a plan, a strategy, a team to follow through, you know what your next five moves are going to be," Sherman said.  For North Korea, Trump's meetings are providing a public relations boost to a country that has traditionally been isolated from the global stage, she said.  "They are a country that is a true dictatorship, cut off from most of the rest of the world," Sherman said. "They don't have enough arable land to feed their own people, so they go through times of real famine and malnutrition of their people. There are no human rights."  Terry said one beneficiary of the Sunday get-together between Trump and Kim is President Moon Jae-in of South Korea.  "The economy is not doing well in South Korea, and President Moon has staked his entire legitimacy, his legacy, on a deal with North Korea," Terry said. "South Koreans in general want engagement with North Korea."  Terry cautioned, however, that a victory should not be claimed just yet.  "Of course, we are still a very, very long way from a complete verifiable, irreversible denuclearization," she said.  In Washington on Sunday, praise and skepticism from lawmakers fell along partisan lines.  "President Trump just made history," wrote House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who said even those who dislike Trump "are going to have to give him credit for resetting the stage and bringing North Korea to the table."  Meanwhile, several Democratic presidential candidates condemned the Trump-Kim gathering, including former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.  Biden's campaign put out a statement accusing Trump of "coddling" dictators "at the expense of American national security." Warren tweeted that Trump "shouldn't be squandering American influence on photo ops and exchanging love letters with a ruthless dictator," saying the president should instead be dealing with North Korea through "principled diplomacy."  Speaking on ABC News, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was more muted, saying he has "no problem" with Trump's meeting with Kim, but said "we need to move forward diplomatically and not just have photo opportunities."


palmerreport--2019-06-21--Donald Trump goes to hell

Donald Trump goes to hell

On January 20, 2017, Christian televangelist and pastor Paula White delivered an invocation at Donald Trump’s inauguration. White focused her remarks on praising God and country, only mentioning Trump in a customary call for prayer. She then appealed to God to “bestow upon our President the wisdom necessary to lead this great nation, the grace to unify us, and the strength to stand for what is honorable and right in your sight.”  Nearly two and a half years later, Trump has hit a trifecta of failure in the wisdom, grace, and strength departments. So, what does White say now? Having informally served as Trump’s spiritual advisor while leading a White House evangelical advisory council, White returned to the stage Monday night to help kick off Trump’s reelection campaign in Orlando, Florida. Although this was a political event, White’s speech was over-the-top in tone and substance.  As a religious leader, White could have used her platform to spread a positive message, encouraging Trump supporters to keep believing yet be tolerant of others who disagree. She could have praised Trump for what she believes are accomplishments and say there is more to achieve in a second term. She could have then closed with an inspiring message such as, “With God by your side, we can achieve anything. Together, we will work hard, keep the faith, and get Trump reelected in 2020!”  White did none of these things. After quickly praising God and country, her speech went off the rails. Quoting from Psalm 2, White asked, “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain, the kings of the Earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed,” referring to Trump. White then belligerently framed Trump’s unnamed opponents as essentially being the enemies of God while calling for an end to free speech and political dissent in this country: “So, right now let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.”  When a spiritual advisor to the President of the United States weaponizes religion for partisan purposes, it speaks volumes as to the dark and desperate path the candidate believes he must take to win reelection. White’s performance is also a sign of how much things have changed in the Republican Party since its first President took office. Just before the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln spoke to the South about secession in his first inaugural address: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Lincoln went on to become one of our nation’s most respected Presidents. Trump seems to be living on a prayer.


pamelagellerreport--2019-12-03--Geller Report on #GivingTuesday

Geller Report on #GivingTuesday

After 16 years of daily solid, groundbreaking reporting at The Geller Report and endless harassment by the left/islamic axis, the stakes could not be higher.  The enemedia is at WAR with us. They lie, cheat, steal.  It’s a coup against America and our freedoms.  On Giving Tuesday, please remember us in your year-end giving.  We never stop no matter what the personal cost.  Get the news the media censors  Everyone must be informed to be prepared for what’s coming.  We hope that, if you are not yet a contributor, you will join the ranks of those who make a financial contribution to The Geller Report. so that it can expand its coverage in this critical election year.  Your support of the Geller Report is the difference between winning and losing this fight. There are only a handful of us left standing up to the left-wing army of disinformationalists in the war of ideas.  Without fighters, patriots, and brave Americans like you, who understand what is at stake, the war would all be lost. Make no mistake, this is a war. The war is in the information battle space and all the bullets, bombs, and the bloodshed comes as a result of what happens in this war. It is the Geller Report and a handful of other courageous websites who are bringing the fight to the enemy. On every front, whether it is legal, political, etc., we are there. Because of our devotion to our convictions and principles, we are the target for the worst campaign of personal destruction, libel, and defamation. And you know what? We say, bring it on.  We need your support.  We are in the fight for our very lives – our freedoms.  It is crucial that you remain informed in this war. Websites like Geller Report are being scrubbed and silenced from social media to keep YOU from knowing what’s actually happening. The only response to their fake news is real news.  As the leftist machine, in collusion with social media giants, works furiously to shut down political dissent, our reportage and exclusive news coverage on Geller Report is the last line of defense to left wing authoritarianism.  We cannot do it without your support.  Major social media platforms such as Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube have created the new town square, having become the primary portals through which Americans receive news today. On these platform, the Left has a monopoly. The social media giants are moving actively to erase and hide any viewpoint or person that does not conform to the “progressive” values for which they stand.  This has resulted in massive losses of readership and revenue for conservative sites, and endangers the very freedom of our Republic by allowing only one point of view to be aired. The social media corporations today hold more power over the public discourse than any totalitarian regime ever held. They do not just target voices with whom they disagree, but they make sure that those voices are unable to sustain themselves.  Uninformed is unarmed in the war of ideas.  with everyone in your sphere of influence.  Your name, email or info is never sold. Ever.  The Truth Must be Told Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more. Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible. Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too. Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.    Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.


pbs--2019-05-11--US-China relations near new low amid trade battle

U.S.-China relations near new low amid trade battle

WASHINGTON — The U.S. and China have gone through rough patches before.  The American public recoiled — and the U.S. government imposed sanctions — after the People’s Liberation Army slaughtered hundreds of civilians in the streets of Beijing in June 1989, crushing the Tiananmen Square protests.  Ordinary Chinese were outraged 10 years later when the Americans bombed China’s embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, rejecting the U.S. insistence that it was an accident.  And tensions crackled when China detained an American Navy flight crew following the midair collision of a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter in 2001.  “With the large number of issues we have with China, I wouldn’t rank the trade issues so high… And I’m an economist.” – David Dollar, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution  But U.S.-Chinese relations may be testing a new low.  “The United States and China are on a collision course,” the Asia Society concluded in an assessment of the two countries’ relations in February. “The foundations of goodwill that took decades to build are rapidly breaking down.”  Likewise, Michael Swaine of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace declared in January that “the U.S.-China relationship is confronting its most daunting challenge in the 40 years since the normalization of relations. Current trends portend steadily worsening relations over the long haul.”  The world’s two biggest economies are engaged in the bitterest trade war since the 1930s. President Donald Trump more than doubled import taxes on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods Friday — the same day that U.S. and Chinese negotiators ended their 11th round of trade talks without reaching an agreement. After the Chinese left town, the U.S. announced plans to target the $300 billion in Chinese goods that don’t already face tariffs.  But the widening divide between Washington and Beijing goes beyond trade.  China is engaging in a massive military buildup. It is flexing its maritime muscle, claiming ownership of the South China Sea and disregarding the territorial claims of its neighbors and a 2016 ruling by the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. It is cracking down on political dissent in its ostensibly autonomous region of Hong Kong. And it is turning up pressure on Taiwan, an island that enjoys de facto political independence but which Beijing views as a renegade province that must one day reunite with the motherland.  Under President Xi Jinping, who took office in 2012, the Communist Party has grown increasingly repressive. In the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in western China, it has detained up to 2 million minority Muslims and forced them to undergo reeducation. Xi himself has overturned a four-decade tradition of collective leadership in Beijing and essentially established himself as president for life.  VIDEO  “With the large number of issues we have with China, I wouldn’t rank the trade issues so high,” said David Dollar, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former official at the World Bank and U.S. Treasury. “And I’m an economist.”  The developments are a bracing rebuke to the optimists in America who assumed that China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization would lead Beijing to embrace economic and perhaps political openness, that China would become more like world’s industrialized democracies.  “Many countries, the U.S. being one of the prime players, gave China pretty much a bye for a number of years during the honeymoon period right after its entrance in the WTO,” said Michael Wessel, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressionally appointed watchdog.  The financial crisis and ensuing 2007-2009 Great Recession helped change the way the countries viewed themselves and each other. Suddenly, the United States looked less like the world’s invincible lone superpower and more like a deeply divided nation that had to struggle to meet the challenge of the deepest economic downturn in seven decades. China’s response was sharp contrast: It quickly enacted a massive stimulus campaign that super-charged economic growth and helped pull the entire world economy out of the ditch.  Newly confident, China began to expand its ambitions. After Xi took office, Beijing announced an initiative called Made in China 2025 designed to make Chinese companies world leaders in advanced fields like robotics and artificial intelligence.  But the U.S. says China is trying to meet its aspirations by cheating — stealing trade secrets, forcing foreign companies to hand over technology, subsidizing its own firms and burying in red tape foreign competitors that want to compete in the Chinese market. Those allegations are at the heart of the yearlong trade dispute that has rattled financial markets and cast a cloud over the prospects for world economic growth.  In the ongoing trade talks, the U.S. is insisting that China change its ways and agree to let the United States check and enforce compliance.  **[READ NEXT: Chaotic scenes at Hong Kong legislature over extradition law](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/chaotic-scenes-at-hong-kong- legislature-over-extradition-law)**  Andrew Nathan, a China specialist at Columbia University, said the Chinese would be perfectly willing to buy more American products and put a dent in America’s trade deficit with China, a record $379 billion last year.  But abandoning their grander economic vision is another matter.  China’s chief envoy to this week’s talks, Vice Premier Liu He, told reporters before leaving Washington that “we will make no concessions on matters of principle.”  Chinese state TV quoted Liu as saying there was consensus in many areas and the differences were “crucial ones.” But he also said he believed the two countries would manage to cooperate for the sake of all.  “For the Chinese, the bottom line is, they can accept no effective limitation on their race to the technological summit,” Nathan said. “If you want them to bury the Made in China 2025 program, they will never stop that program, but they can stop talking about it. If you want them to stop the PLA from industrial espionage, they can make the PLA do it more secretly. … If you want them to stop ‘coerced technology transfer,’ they can change the language of the relevant rules so that the same thing happens in a less blatant manner.”  The two countries have very different views of the sources of their troubles.  “Many American opinion makers are starting to see China as a rising power seeking to unfairly undercut America’s economic prosperity, threaten its security, and challenge its values,” the Asia Society declared, “while their Chinese counterparts are starting to see the United States as a declining power seeking to prolong its dominance by unfairly containing China’s rise.”


rawstory--2019-01-15--This is the real importance of Trumps rambling historically ignorant Afghanistan remarks

This is the real importance of Trump’s rambling, historically ignorant Afghanistan remarks

Once again, the President put his factually-challenged relationship with the past on public display. In a January 3rd Cabinet meeting, Trump offered a tour de force with a fanciful alternative history of Afghanistan. According to him, the Soviets invaded in late 1979 because of cross-border terror attacks. The subsequent decade-long war, the President insisted, bankrupted the USSR and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump clearly had no idea what he was talking about. If the past is a foreign country, then in Trump’s parlance, he is an illegal immigrant trespassing upon it.  To briefly correct the President’s (mis)understanding of Afghan history: The Soviet Union invaded the country on December 26, 1979, ostensibly to support a friendly communist government under threat from a domestic insurgency provoked by unpopular reforms and the violent suppression of political dissent. Fearing the collapse of an allied regime on its southern border, the Soviets replaced the Afghan communist leadership with a more moderate and pliable cadre. Though initially planning for a swift withdrawal, Soviet forces soon found themselves sucked into a quagmire which proved impossible to escape. Over the next decade, they deployed roughly 100,000 troops, losing 15,000 of them, in a bloody counter-insurgency against the so-called mujahideen– American supported ‘freedom fighters’. The war forced over 7 million to flee as refugees, created an unknown number of internally displaced persons, and killed, maimed and wounded an untold number of Afghans. The Soviet war ended with the Geneva Accords in 1988, allowing the USSR to feign ‘peace with honor’ which covered an ignominious retreat.  The United States and its allies immediately denounced the Soviet invasion, which made Afghanistan a battleground in the increasingly hot Cold War. American policy-makers saw the potential of turning Afghanistan into the Soviet Vietnam. Beginning with the Carter administration, and significantly ramped up under Reagan, the US secretly funneled $3 billion to the Afghan mujahideen. By bleeding the soft underbelly of the beast, American Cold Warriors hoped to strike a mortal wound to the evil empire. Following the end of the Cold War, some conservative commentators characterized the Soviet defeat as a consequence of Reagan’s tough stance which forced them to spend an incessant, and unsustainable amount on defense. These analysts contend that the Afghan war, along with the cost of Soviet military aid to Central America and the US deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, bankrupted the Soviet Union and led to its collapse.  It was this interpretation of history which Trump’s stream of consciousness soliloquy rather clumsily tipped his hat to. Nevertheless, the President’s alternative history almost immediately earned him a scathing rebuke from a no-less august stalwart of the right than the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The Journal’s willingness to take him to task for a position loosely held by many on the American right over the years is notable. Doubly so for a publication which has repeatedly proven reticent to fact-check the man.  Yet the Journal’s response is a non-sequitur. What has been lost in the consternation provoked by the President’s remarks is the fundamental question which remains unanswered – namely, what the hell is the US doing in Afghanistan? Though he got his facts wrong – Trump does not seem to care about them anyway, and is thus the bullshitter-in-chief in the Harry Frankfurt sense – the essence of his question is correct. The US has lacked a clear policy on and purpose in Afghanistan since the early 2000s, making the President’s rambling, historically uninformed remarks something of a bullshit-savant moment.  Now entering its eighteenth year and one of the costliest wars in American history, the President has reportedly grown frustrated with a continuing conflict which he seemingly does not understand. While his ignorance provides fodder for detractors and evokes the concern of the national security establishment, it also allows him to ask basic questions regarding the purpose of that war which have long been considered settled within Washington circles of power. The President’s ignorance of Afghanistan, though extreme, is far from unique amongst the American policy establishment. Such ignorance is the consequence of a larger failing of American policy in the country – the lack of a clear publicly pronounced purpose and end-goal for the continued American presence in Afghanistan.  Despite nearly two decades of war in the country, American policy is largely driven by a noxious combination of inertia and sunk costs. A large part of the problem is that America’s civilian political leadership long ago abdicated its war-fighting responsibilities regarding Afghanistan. It is the role of civilian elected officials to formulate, articulate and communicate the fundamental purpose of an armed conflict and to direct the military and security apparatus of the government to execute that vision. But this has not been the case with Afghanistan. Since the quick victory over the Taliban in 2001, America’s political attentions quickly wandered elsewhere, most importantly Iraq. This meant that the Afghan war has largely been farmed out to the generals to fight a war whose aims and purpose they have not been instructed in. The military has thus continued to do what the military knows best – fight a war. It is no wonder then this conflict goes on, with no end in sight.  What the hell is the US doing in Afghanistan? The President clearly does not know. But this is the central question. The one the President himself, along with the other elected officials of the US Government, needs to answer. It is neither the responsibility nor the place of the US military leadership to do so. In his bullshit-savant moment, Trump has set himself a challenge. Sadly, it is one he has demonstrated little interest in or ability to rise to.  Benjamin Hopkins is the Director of the Sigur Center for Asian Studies and an Associate Professor of History and International Affairs at the George Washington University. Dr. Hopkins is a specialist in modern South Asian history, in particular that of Afghanistan, as well as British imperialism. His first book, The Making of Modern Afghanistan, examined the efforts of the British East India Company to construct an Afghan state in the early part of the nineteenth century and provides a corrective to the history of the so-called ‘Great Game.’ His second book, Fragments of the Afghan Frontier, co-authored with anthropologist Magnus Marsden, pairs a complex historical narrative with rich ethnographic detail to conceptualize the Afghan frontier as a collection of discrete fragments which create continually evolving collage of meaning. He has additionally co-edited Beyond Swat: History, Society and Economy along the Afghanistan-Pakistan Frontier with Magnus Marsden.


rferl--2019-04-10--Trump Discusses Iran Human Rights In Phone Call With Saudi Crown Prince

Trump Discusses Iran, Human Rights In Phone Call With Saudi Crown Prince

U.S. President Donald Trump has spoken with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a telephone call that the White House says focused on Riyadh's role in Middle East stability, maintaining pressure on Iran, and the importance of human rights issues.  The White House said Trump and the crown prince discussed ways of "maintaining maximum pressure against Iran." Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition battling Iranian-backed Huthi fighters in Yemen.  But Saudi Arabia is facing rising pressure over its handling of the war in Yemen and moves to quell political dissent, including the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the prosecution of women's rights activists.  Both Republican and Democratic U.S. lawmakers have called on the White House to harden its stance toward Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.  U.S. intelligence officials have said they think the crown prince ordered Khashoggi's killing -- a claim that Saudi officials deny.  Trump has said the U.S. partnership with Saudi Arabia is important for the U.S. economy and maintaining stability in the Middle East.  The U.S. State Department on April 9 publicly designated 16 people for their role in Khashoggi's death and said they and their families would be barred from entering the United States.  The list includes Saud al-Qahtani, a former aide to the crown prince, and Maher Mutreb, who was part of the crown prince's entourage on trips outside of Saudi Arabia.  Washington on April 8 also designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a "foreign terrorist organization" in a move that drew an angry reaction from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the following day.


rferl--2019-08-12--Georgian Opposition Television To Be Sold By New Owner

TBILISI -- The new owner of Georgia's main opposition television company, Rustavi-2, has announced his intention to sell it.  Kabir Khalvashi's decision to sell the channel was posted on Rustavi's website on August 12.  In a separate statement, Khalvashi said Rustavi-2 was in a "catastrophic" financial situation because of its debts and he couldn't "pull the company out of a deep crisis."  Khalvashi blamed former director Nika Gvaramia for the financial crisis faced by the station.  Khalvashi's announcement comes less than a month after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld a March 2017 verdict by Georgia's Supreme Court on restoring the ownership of Rustavi-2 to previous owner Khalvashi, who is seen as close to the current government.  Following the ECHR ruling, Georgia's Public Registry transferred the ownership of Rustavi-2 to Khalvashi, who immediately fired Gvaramia.  Critics say Khalvashi's move is an attempt by the government to stifle political dissent in the media ahead of parliamentary polls scheduled for next year.  Also on August 12, Ia Kitsmarishvili, the widow of Rustavi-2 co-founder Erosi Kitsmarishvili, filed a case in court requesting 30 percent of the company's shares.  Rustavi-2's other co-founders, Davit Dvali and Jarji Akimidze, said on August 12 that Khalvashi's announcement is meant to complicate the legal battle over the ownership of the media outlet.  Dvali and Akimidze also said Khalvashi wants to make sure the channel will come under the control of someone close to the leader of the ruling Georgian Dream party, tycoon Bidzina Ivanishvili.


rferl--2019-11-26--Number Of Young Russians Who Want To Emigrate Hits Highest Level In Decade

A majority of young Russians want to leave the country, according to a new opinion poll, the highest number in a decade.  The survey by the independent Russian pollster Levada Center, released on November 26, found that more than half of Russians between the ages of 18 and 24 want to leave for other countries, while 21 percent of respondents from all age groups said they would like to emigrate.  The next age group that was most interested in emigrating was 25 to 39 at 30 percent, the poll showed.  Russia's sluggish economic growth, which has prompted President Vladimir Putin to order his government to find ways to jump-start the economy, and a summer of pro-democracy protests have posed some of the biggest challenges the president has faced during his two decades in power.  The poll reflected those issues, with respondents citing anxiety for their children's future and the economic situation as the main two reasons for considering emigration.  The country's political situation and the search for better medical service were also cited as reasons to leave.  The results for the 18 to 24 age group were up markedly from a similar poll in 2014, when 20 percent said they would like to leave.  Since then, the number has been gradually rising, especially during the May-September period this year, when political dissent reached a crescendo with a series of protests that saw hundreds arrested amid heavy-handed tactics by police.  The protests were sparked by the refusal of election officials to allow a large number of opposition figures from running in September municipal elections in Moscow and elsewhere.  Fifty-six percent of those who indicated that they want to leave the country say Russia is moving in the "wrong direction" and that they are "ashamed over what is happening in the country."  Of those who consider emigration as a path, 73 percent said they didn't approve of Putin's policies, while 39 percent said they were ready to participate in political events in Russia.


rferl--2019-12-02--One In Five Russians 'Willing To Participate In Political Protests'

One in five Russians are willing to take part in mass political demonstrations, a new poll shows, in a sign of continued discontent with the country’s leaders after a summer marked by demonstrations.  The poll by the Levada Center, released on December 2, showed 19 percent of respondents were ready to personally participate in political protests, while 29 percent said they considered it a possibility.  Almost one-third of the 1,610 people surveyed said they would protest against economic conditions.      The results were in line with previous surveys by Levada.      Russia's sluggish economic growth, which has prompted President Vladimir Putin to order his government to find ways to jump-start the economy, and a summer of pro-democracy protests have posed some of the biggest challenges the president has faced during his two decades in power.      Political dissent reached a crescendo in July and August with a series of protests that saw hundreds arrested amid heavy-handed tactics by police.      The protests were sparked by the refusal of election officials to allow a large number of opposition figures from running in September municipal elections in Moscow and elsewhere.


rferl--2019-12-30--Top U.S. Diplomat Pompeo To Make Swing Through Ex-Soviet States, Cyprus

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will meet with the leaders of four former Soviet republics and Cyprus during an upcoming five-day tour aimed in part at demonstrating Washington's support for the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of states bordering Russia.  A State Department spokesman announced details of the January 3-7 trip in a statement on December 30.  All five stops on the tour -- which will include Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan -- are countries where Moscow has wielded considerable historical or economic leverage.  Nearly all are also key energy exporters or integral to current or planned energy supply routes.  Pompeo's first planned stop is Kyiv on January 3, where he is expected to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other senior Ukrainian officials, as well as to discuss human rights, reforms, and investment with community leaders and to honor victims of Ukraine's five-year war with Russia-backed separatists.  The top U.S. diplomat will "reaffirm U.S. support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," the State Department said.  U.S. and other Western sanctions and recent contracts to supply military equipment, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, are key to Kyiv's efforts to repel the Russia-backed separatists who control swaths of eastern Ukraine.  But Washington's relations with Kyiv have also been at the center of a whiste-blower complaint and congressional impeachment targeting U.S. President Donald Trump over a White House withholding of aid and his telephone request in July that Zelenskiy do "a favor" and investigate a debunked election-meddline lead and a Trump political rival, Joe Biden.  Trump mentioned Pompeo as a possible go-between during that conversation, according to White House notes that were released to the public.  Trump mentioned Pompeo as a possible go-between during that conversation, according to White House notes that were released to the public.  Critics have accused the Trump administration of holding critical support for an ally at war with Russia for personal political gain.  Pompeo will then travel to Minsk, the Belarusan capital, to meet on January 4 with a president who's openly mocked critics' characterization of him as "Europe's last dictator," longtime leader Alyaksandr Lukashenka.  The stop will be the most senior by a U.S. official to Belarus this century, and the first high-level U.S. trip there since then-national-security adviser John Bolton in August.  Pompeo should "underscore the U.S. commitment to a sovereign, independent, stable, and prosperous Belarus, and affirm our desire to normalize relations to move our bilateral relationship forward," the State Department said.  The visit comes amid weeks of smallish protests in the restrictive country of 9.5 million over ongoing talks on closer political and economic relations with Russia.  Belarus's reliance on Russia for fuel and subsidies to its heavily state-controlled economy is already high, and a 1999 treaty was supposed to create a unified state.  Moscow has eyed Lukashenka's sporadic overtures toward the West warily, and Russian officials have recently pressed Minsk to deepen military and economic ties.  Putin's critics have speculated that the Russian president could try to use the implementation the 20-year-old treaty with Belarus to expand his authority and to duck a Russian constitutional term limit that would force his exit in 2024.  After Minsk, Pompeo will head to Central Asia, where he will visit Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, two predominantly Muslim former Soviet republics that Moscow regards as close partners in the areas of energy and security.  In the Kazakh capital, Nur-Sultan, Pompeo will meet with the shortest-tenured of the region's presidents, Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev, and influential ex-President Nursultan Nazarbaev, along with other officials, on January 5.  A country of 19 million with vast gas and oil reserves, Kazakhstan is Central Asia's largest economy.  It has been heavily criticized for its rights record and strictures on political dissent and the media, but Nazarbaev's abrupt resignation and handover to a protege this year was seen as a mild break with more authoritarian patterns in the region.  However, a crackdown on recent anti-government protests demanding political reform and curbs on Nazarbaev's continuing hold on power and security structures has increased pressure on Toqaev.  In Nur-Sultan, Pompeo will promote a "shared commitment for peace, prosperity, and security in Central Asia" and talk about investment, reforms, and human rights, according to the State Department.  Next, in Tashkent on January 5-6, Pompeo will meet with Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoev, whose cautious reforms since he took over after a longtime authoritarian administration in 2016 have provided some hope of further democratization and freedom for his country of around 30 million people.  National elections in Uzbekistan this month were a slight improvement on past votes but still fell far short of free and fair democratic standards and left the same groups in power, OSCE observers said.  Pompeo will also attend a so-called C5+1 meeting of Central Asian foreign ministers while in Tashkent.  Pompeo is scheduled to finish his tour with a stop in Nicosia to meet with the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, Nikos Anastasiades and Mustafa Akinci, on January 7.


russiainsider--2019-04-11--Clown Show Congress Pushes for Censorship With Farcical Hearing on White Nationalism

Clown Show: Congress Pushes for Censorship With Farcical Hearing on White Nationalism

Democrats and the professional “hate” watchers insisted white nationalism is the greatest threat to America. Most Republicans tried to switch the topic to that other great domestic danger: left-wing anti-Semitism. Big Tech’s representatives bent over backwards to say they are doing as much as they can do to suppress white nationalism. And to illustrate the absurdity of the whole thing, YouTube closed the comments to the committee hearing livestream because there was too much “hate speech” i.e. the dogs didn’t like the dog food. [Racist and anti-Semitic comments flooded YouTube livestream of congressional hearing on white nationalism, by Donnie O’Sullivan, CNN Business, April 9, 2019]  Except for a few brief moments of sanity, the whole hearing was a farce—but it revealed our political Establishment’s mounting and ominous obsession with censorship.  Here were the important highlights.  Republican California Rep. Tom McClintock questioned the tech representatives about the dangers of censorship and how their platforms violate their commitment to neutrality."What we're seeing across the world today is that it is a very slippery slope between banning hate speech and banning speech we just hate," McClintock said. "We've seen many examples even in our own country recently of legitimate speech being suppressed on college campuses, on social-media platforms, and even in public discourse." [Republicans tried to turn a hearing about white nationalism into a venue to complain about attacks on conservatives, by Joe Perticone, Business Insider, April 9, 2019]  He also took a swipe at the prohibition of “hate speech”: “Free societies don’t punish words—they punish deeds.”  The California Republican pressed Google and Facebook’s representatives to explain how they satisfy the spirit of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 requires social media platforms to serve as neutral forums with true political diversity in order to be protected from publisher liabilities. McClintock astutely noted how Big Tech platforms routinely censor certain views and demonstrate political bias.  "Are you a neutral forum or an editorial publication responsible for your content?" he asked the tech representatives.  Both tech representatives skirted the question. Facebook rep Neil Potts claimed his company errs on the side of more speech and only censors speech that calls for violence. That’s an outright lie. Potts had spent most of the hearing insisting Facebook was committed to the suppression of white nationalist views, regardless of whether they encourage violence. Faith Goldy, American Identity Movement, and countless others have never advocated for violence. Yet they are banned from Facebook.  Google rep Alexandria Walden insisted her company only censors speech that threatens safety, even though there is ample evidence Google suppresses mainstream conservatives like PragerU.  McClintock’s speech was the high point of the hearings and put Big Tech in the hot seat for their contradictory policies and statements. Unfortunately, the tech reps chose to be dishonest.  Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert questioned the tech reps why they censor conservatives like Diamond & Silk. Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs said Congress shouldn’t just focus on white nationalist “hate speech.” [Conservatives Derail Congress’ White Nationalism Hearing, Declare ‘All Hate Speech’ Matters, by Andy Campbell, HuffPost, April 9, 2019]  Owens said the push to suppress white nationalism as a strategy to suppress political dissent and reaffirm left-wing power. [Candace Owens to Congress: Left Uses Terms Like White Nationalism For Power, To Scare Brown People, by Ian Schwartz, RealClearPolitics, April 9, 2019]  "Let me be clear the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control," Owens said. "It is a preview of a Democrat 2020 election strategy—the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy."  She said, rightly, that Democrats and liberals deliberately inflate hate crime statistics to fearmonger and divide Americans. "The goal here is to scare Blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions ultimately to helping them regain control of our country's narrative which they feel that they lost."  Owens added that Democrats should focus on Antifa, instead: “If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa—a far left violent white gang.”  Democrats were outraged Owens was invited to speak at the panel and multiple lawmakers took the time to criticize her appearance before the committee. California Rep. Ted Lieuplayed a (deceptively edited) clip of her talking about Adolf Hitler, which he claimed was a defense of the Nazi dictator. Another Democrat, Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, said she was hurt Owens was invited because the conservative inspired the Christchurch massacre. The Christchurch shooterjokingly cited Owens as an influence, but few believe he was serious.  The consensus was clear from Democratic lawmakers: Big Tech must censor more.  The Big Tech reps were grilled over how their companies had not censored more white nationalists or taken so long to do so. Some Democrats wanted to know if Facebook and Google had developed AI algorithms that can detect “dogwhistles” and other silly things. Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond argued that hate speech is illegal and you can’t shout hate in a crowded theater. (You actually can!)  Nearly all Democrats, including Richmond, blamed President Trump for the “rise in hate” and virtue signaled against the administration. Democrats also made sure to say “white supremacists” were the real terror threat, not Islamic extremists.  A particular concern for Democrats was VDARE.com contributor Faith Goldy. They were incensed that Goldy was able to publish on Facebook a (completely factual) video on the demographic transformation and not be immediately censored. Goldy was banned from Facebook and Instagramon Monday in response to the outrage against her video.  Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline accused Facebook of complicity in the spread of white nationalism and wanted to know how they will combat it in the future. Cicilline’s recommendation: tech platforms treat white nationalism as terrorism and ban everybody like Goldy. "What specific proactive steps is Facebook taking to identify other leaders like Faith Goldy and preemptively remove them from the platform?" he asked Potts.  Potts said Facebook is doing everything possible to eliminate white nationalism from its platform. Both tech reps spent the entire hearing placating Democrat complaints and vowing to do more censorship. It was pathetic and disturbing.  If Democrats had their way, anybody that shared VDARE.com content would receive an instant ban. You don’t have to be a white nationalist to earn the ban, just be called a “white nationalist” by the Left.  The Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee invited representatives from the Anti-Defamation League, the Equal Justice Society, and the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. All of these witnesses—along with Mohammad Abu-Salha, a father of a Muslim girl killed in an alleged hate crime—wanted state power to be used against white nationalism.  Equal Justice Society President Eva Paterson (right) urged the government to give “muscle” to the efforts of these “anti-hate” groups. All of the alleged hate experts wanted federal authorities to create a task force to combat white nationalism and wanted the Department of Justice to make “hate” a top priority.  Abu-Salha wanted hate crime laws to be instituted nationwide and hate crimes to require less proof to be used against criminal offenders.  Anti-Defamation League Senior Vice President Eileen Hershenov defined “white nationalism” as a euphemism for “white supremacy.” Hershenov also implied Gab and 8chan should be taken down because they are “24/7 white nationalist rallies.” [Congressional hearing on white nationalism goes off the rails, by Luke Barnes, Think Progress, April 9, 2019]  National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law president Kristen Clarke (right) complained Facebook wasn’t doing enough to censor white nationalists because it still had pages that said “It’s Okay to Be White.” Clarke also lamented that Facebook originally differentiated white supremacy from white nationalism and didn’t ban the latter category until a few days ago.  Democrats treated all of these witnesses with kid gloves and nodded along with their suggestions.  Instead of defending free speech and skewering the notion alleged white nationalists are the biggest threat to America, most Republicans stuck to attacking Ilhan Omar and critics of Israel.  The leader in this tactic: Zionist Organization of America President Mort Klein, one of the hearing’s GOP witnesses. Klein focused on the alleged anti-Semitism of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and the Muslim community.  The focus on Muslim anti-Semitism was an interesting tactic but it didn’t prove effective.  Klein’s strategy did draw a bizarre statement from Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Mary Scanlon. Scanlon argued Muslims were not responsible for anti-Semitic attacks in America and insisted white supremacists try to pit Muslims and Jews against each other.  The whole hearing would have been comical if the people involved didn’t have the power to shut down dissent. The hearing predicts more tech censorship, more state suppression, and impotent Republican resistance.  We need Trump and the GOP to wake up.


russiainsider--2019-04-24--Charlottesville The Last Stand of American Freedom

Charlottesville: The Last Stand of American Freedom

The extreme left and politicized elements of the government are using Charlottesville to crush your rights and solidify their power  A remarkable thing is happening in Charlottesville. Although the Unite the Right rally happened over a year and a half ago, Charlottesville is where the organized, militant left and its establishment backers intend to crush popular resistance to their near total control of American political discourse. If they succeed, public free speech--speech that challenges prevailing attitudes at any rate--will be nearly impossible. The American citizen will have been reduced to the status of a serf. Fight now, or that will be your destiny.  The hard left has been attacking its political enemies on two fronts: in the media and in the courts. In the media, they have spun a false narrative about the rally with the intent of stirring up moral outrage against the political dissenters, that is, the Alt-Right. The extreme left has succeeded in bringing about broad censorship of dissident opinions. Their narrative also justifies their second method: a campaign of lawsuits and frivolous criminal prosecutions, the purpose of which is to intimidate the Alt-Right and to drain what little resources they possess. Once the hard left has wrapped up the dissident right, they will move on to other targets.  The left’s narrative must be comprehensively refuted. Those who attended the August 12, 2017 Charlottesville protest must launch a legal counter-offensive to stop the unfounded and harassing attacks, liberate the falsely imprisoned and send a message to all who would attack us in the future: We will fight back.  The media have been spinning their narrative since the beginning. Sometimes they lie outright, but their primary means has been twisting the truth. They omit and obfuscate. One of the staples of the narrative is that “violence broke out” or that “both sides engaged in violence,” phrases that are meant to confuse the reader about who exactly was responsible for the violence. This allows the media to pin the blame on those who wished to attend Unite the Right rally, and to gloss over the crimes of the truly responsible: the leftist “counter-demonstrators” (“Antifa”), the police, and the civil authorities.  Let’s start with Antifa. Evidence of their guilt is overwhelming. Despite having been granted permits to protest at two separate parks in downtown Charlottesville, Antifa rallied on the street right outside Lee Park, where Unite the Right was permitted to demonstrate. They positioned themselves to block anyone else from entering and leaving the park, knowing that police would not remove or disperse them, and daring anyone to pass through their ranks. When attendees tried to pass, Antifa locked arms, screamed, attacked with fists, poles and other weapons. No brawls would have happened if they had stayed in their designated protest-zones, or if they had simply made way and limited themselves to shouting abuse from the sidelines. That would have been an appropriate way to exercise free speech.  Blocking people from attending a legally permitted rally is, it should go without saying, illegal. There is a substantial body of law regarding the “heckler’s veto." Antifa has regularly used this tactic. One might confuse this behavior for “civil disobedience,” but to do so would ignore the fact that civil disobedience is directed against the authorities. When you block other citizens from a public space, you are not engaged in civil disobedience, but mob-rule.  Map 1: Unite the Right (UTR) at c. 10:50 AM  It should be noted that without Antifa, no violence occurs at Alt-Right demonstrations. The Alt-Right gathered in Charlottesville two times, once before and once after Unite the Right. Neither time did “violence break out.” The same cannot be said of Antifa, who notoriously rioted in Washington, DC during Trump’s inauguration, blocking check-points, burning cars, smashing windows. These patterns of behavior have been apparent in countless other incidents around the country, especially in the last two years.  After the police declared that everyone gathered in and around Lee Park was engaged in an “unlawful assembly,” the vast majority of the Alt-Right dispersed. Antifa did not. Instead, they hounded rally-goers who were trying to get back to their cars and hotel rooms. Even after a state of emergency was declared, Antifa and their auxiliaries continued parading through the streets attacking police and intimidating citizens for hours. Yet not a single one has been prosecuted.  These critical facts have been absent from virtually all mainstream media reports. The media has, as usual, presented footage of spectacular brawls, making no effort to determine how those fights began or to present anything about their context.  The media narrative has also ignored the responsibility of the police and civil authorities. However, a comprehensive, independent report found that the authorities failed spectacularly. This is nothing short of an epochal scandal. Why have so few reported on this?  The report, compiled by former US attorney Timothy Heaphy, criticized many, including the City Council, the Mayor, the Virginia State Police (VSP) and other state-level agencies. Charlottesville Police Department (CPD) came in for particular scrutiny because 1) their training, planning and rehearsals were totally lacking or inadequate, 2) they did not seek advice from other police departments (like those in DC, Berkeley or Portland) who had dealt with similar situations with Antifa, 3) they did not learn any lessons from a riot in Charlottesville one month before August 12, 2017, where Antifa blocked traffic, assaulted cops and refused to obey a dispersal order. Perhaps the most damning finding was that two witnesses claimed that a “stand-down order” was given. According to the report, as Antifa was attacking people trying to assemble at Lee Park, CPD Chief Thomas said, “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”  But CPD is an easy target. A lot is known about their conduct because they were relatively cooperative with Heaphy’s inquiry. Other, higher organizations have refused to talk, notably the Virginia State Police, who released only one document. The Governor’s office too was reticent to respond to Heaphy. These state officials are senior to CPD and had every reason to know what was likely to happen if Antifa was given free reign. Yet they did not coordinate effectively with CPD, and in fact, it was VSP who formed the riot line that pushed dozens of protestors (including me) out of Lee Park and into Antifa, despite the fact that they had total control of other, safer means of exit.  Map 2: Unite the Right (UTR) Ambushed by Antifa and Police  Again, the media has shown a stunning lack of interest in investigating the authorities.  But the media’s campaign of lies was only preparatory. The real assault on American rights has happened in the courts, where the Alt-Right has been viciously and unfairly attacked by the organized left and, worse, the authorities.  Contrast that with how Antifa has been treated. No one in Antifa or any one of their supporters has been criminally prosecuted for any of the dozens of crimes they committed, despite the profusion of evidence. Only one leftist was charged with a misdemeanor. Found guilty of assaulting Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler in front of dozens of journalists and police officers, a Charlottesville jury fined him $1. No official of the city or state government or the police has been investigated or tried.  The Alt-Right, on the other hand, has been subjected to a series of criminal and civil cases. James Fields, Jacob Scott Goodwin, among others have been railroaded in the courtroom and thrown into prison. It is outside the scope of this article to fully recount the cascade of outrages, but suffice it to say the cases have been gross miscarriages of justice. Another four young men were arrested by the FBI for “serial rioting.” They have been in prison for over six months, awaiting trial in June. You can imagine how that will go.  What’s more, two sprawling civil suits have been launched against dozens of dissident organizations and individuals. One, Sines v Kessler, claims that the rally was a cover for a secret plot to riot and attack minorities wantonly. It’s an interesting theory, because it reflects what actually happened in Charlottesville, albeit with the aggressors and victims reversed. And, the reader might be shocked to learn, Sines v Kessler is being argued by two New York-based Jewish law firms with lots of money and political connections, Boies Schiller Flexner and the practice of the lesbian Roberta Kagan, infamous for her advocacy of “gay marriage.” Also involved is a third firm, Cooley LLP, famous for representing top Silicon Valley companies like Google and Facebook, companies that have spent the last year and a half censoring the opinions of the Alt-Right, or anyone who supports their eminently reasonable positions.  Charlottesville has given Americans one thing of inestimable value: a demonstration of how moneyed thugs can dictate what is allowed to be said in public. The police and the authorities simply do not have the political will to enforce the law. Antifa has discovered how to avoid any consequences for their intimidation: by obscuring their identities they can riot, by pooling money and aggressive lawyering they can avoid punishment. They have turned our constitution’s legal protections into a “get out of jail free” card for themselves. Would that private citizens were so privileged.  For justice to be re-established, the rules have to be applied fairly, not selectively. Police and prosecutors need to enforce the law, especially against those, like Antifa, who intentionally flout it. Charlottesville is just one instance. As mentioned above, over 230 Antifa were arrested during Trump’s inauguration (the “J20 Riots”) eight months before Charlottesville. The vast majority of them had their charges dropped and only one did any prison time. Anarchy reigned in the capital during a major civic event, attendees were terrorized, over $100,000 in property was destroyed, millions were spent on emergency services and police (3,000 officers), millions more on prosecutions, all for one guy to do a measly 4 months in prison. It will happen again.  To fix this problem, the following measures need to be taken  Many will balk at such measures, because they are “impractical” and “will never be implemented.” They are of course right--under current conditions. The only way forward is for Americans of good conscience to show that they are willing to assert their rights. To do so, they must prove that they are willing to suffer slander and doxxing (publication of their private information, name, address, revelation of real name behind a pseudonym which can lead to being fired, etc.), and in many cases, physical attacks, frivolous lawsuits and even prison time.  But if Americans will not stand up to Antifa and their enablers in the media, the police, and the courts; if they will not fight, then they are contemptible weaklings.  Let tyranny reign, for slaves do not deserve to be free.


slate--2019-02-09--The Least Pro-Life President Ever

The Least Pro-Life President Ever

On Tuesday night, in his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump called for legislation to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. “Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life,” said Trump. On Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast, the president renewed his plea. “Every life is sacred,” he declared. “We must build a culture that cherishes the dignity and sanctity of innocent human life.”  Abortion is a serious matter. People may disagree on when life begins, but everyone agrees, at least in principle, on the sanctity of human life. Everyone, that is, except Trump. He treats human life as expendable, not just in the womb or in infancy, but in childhood and adulthood. He condones killing people in every context: capital punishment, counterterrorism, assassination, and crushing political dissent. He’s the least pro-life president in American history.  Other presidents have started or fought bloodier wars. What sets Trump apart is his malicious intent. For him, violence against civilians isn’t just a tragic consequence. It’s often the objective. As a presidential candidate, he encouraged crowds to “punch,” “rough up,” and “knock the crap out of” protesters. At a campaign rally four months ago, he congratulated a congressman for body-slamming a reporter. Speaking in North Carolina in 2016, Trump warned his supporters that if Hillary Clinton were to win the election, there would be nothing they could do to stop her from appointing judges—“although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”  Trump says the United States should deliberately target family members of suspected terrorists. Sometimes he says he’d stop short of killing them; sometimes he says he’ll “leave that to your imagination.” In a drone strike, the distinction is moot. It doesn’t matter to Trump whether these people have done anything wrong. What matters is that by hurting them, we might deter terrorists. “With the terrorists, you have to take out their families,” Trump argued three years ago. The idea, he explained, was that terrorists “may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”  In comments about other governments, Trump explicitly condones murder. During the 2016 campaign, interviewers pointed out that Russian President Vladimir Putin had arranged the assassinations of dissidents and journalists. Trump said he didn’t care. “Our country does plenty of killing also,” he retorted. “At least he’s a leader, you know, unlike we have in this country.” Two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, during a Fox News interview, when Bill O’Reilly reminded Trump that “Putin’s a killer,” the president batted the question away. “We got a lot of killers,” he argued. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”  For Trump, violence against civilians isn’t just a tragic consequence. It’s often the objective.  Last summer, Trump praised North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un as a man who “loves his people.” Again, a Fox News interviewer challenged Trump, citing Kim’s atrocious record on human rights. “He is a killer. He’s clearly executing people,” Bret Baier told the president. Trump responded by defending Kim: “Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, with tough people. … If you can do that at 27 years old, I mean that’s 1 in 10,000 that could do that.” Baier persisted: “But he’s still done some really bad things.” Trump shrugged, “Yeah, but so have a lot of other people.”  Trump doesn’t just excuse Kim’s butchery. He glorifies him. In September, Trump bragged at a campaign rally that Kim “wrote me beautiful letters” and “we fell in love.” In October, CBS News correspondent Lesley Stahl pressed Trump about that boast. She reminded Trump that Kim “had his half-brother assassinated” and “presides over a cruel kingdom of repression, gulags, starvation … slave labor, public executions. This is a guy you love?” Trump stood by his man. “I get along with him really well,” he told Stahl. “I have a good chemistry with him.”  Over the years, Trump has defended other mass killers: Saddam Hussein of Iraq (“Saddam Hussein throws a little gas. Everyone goes crazy. ‘Oh, he’s using gas!’ ”), Muammar Qaddafi of Libya (“We would be so much better off if Qaddafi were in charge”), and Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines (who said he’d be “happy to slaughter” that country’s “3 million drug addicts”). Lately, Trump has extolled Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who’s implicated in the October murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. On Thursday, the New York Times reported additional evidence against the crown prince: A year before the murder, he told an aide that if he couldn’t drag Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia, he’d go after him “with a bullet.”  Trump has worked hard to excuse or minimize the Khashoggi assassination. In November, as evidence of the crown prince’s guilt piled up, Trump personally dictated a White House statement that downplayed U.S. intelligence in the case, smeared Khashoggi as “a member of the Muslim Brotherhood” (he wasn’t), and defended Saudi Arabia as an esteemed client of American defense contractors. Two days later, Trump was asked who should be held accountable for the murder. He shrugged, “Maybe the world should be held accountable.”  At home, Trump promotes broader use of the death penalty. Among pro-lifers, there’s sincere disagreement on that question: Some believe capital punishment is always wrong, while others believe it’s a proper punishment for taking a life. But Trump wants to go further. He advocates executing people even for nonlethal offenses. Last year, he told an audience that America should follow the lead of countries that “have the death penalty for drug dealers.” A week ago, he thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping for promising, at Trump’s request, to execute pushers. “They’ve agreed to do the death penalty for selling fentanyl,” said Trump. “We really appreciate it.”  Some pro-lifers, despite their revulsion at the president’s advocacy of violence, support him because he appoints judges who are sympathetic to legislation against abortion. But everyone knows Trump is a fake pro-lifer. He has extramarital affairs, doesn’t use condoms, and expects his partners not to give birth. Twenty years ago, when he was asked about “partial-birth abortion,” he defended it. “I am pro-choice in every respect,” he said.  Trump is an opportunist. He was pro-choice when he thought it would help him as a Democrat. Now that he’s a Republican, he calls himself pro-life. To him, it’s all marketing. He doesn’t stand for a culture of life. He stands for depraved indifference.


slate--2019-02-26--Trumps National Emergency Is a Ploy Straight Out of Venezuela

Trump’s “National Emergency” Is a Ploy Straight Out of Venezuela

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to support President Trump’s assertion of unchecked executive power. Trump has invoked a law passed 43 years ago—which was designed to facilitate presidential action in times of desperate haste, such as war or disaster—to seize power from Congress and override its explicit instructions. And Trump’s party is standing behind this assault on the Constitution, ensuring that Congress won’t be able to block him.  The GOP’s complicity is bitterly ironic because at the same time, Republicans are decrying a presidential coup against the national legislature of Venezuela. Unlike the United States, Venezuela is awash in economic chaos and political repression. But the behavior of Trump and his party since the November midterms bears an uncanny resemblance to the behavior of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his party after they lost that country’s 2015 legislative elections. Trump says Venezuela illustrates the perils of socialism. But it also illustrates the perils of authoritarianism, which the Republican Party of the United States now supports.  In December 2015, Venezuelans expressed their disgust with Maduro by electing the opposition to take over the National Assembly. Maduro ignored their rebuke. He declared a national emergency that gave him, according to the New York Times, “the power to bypass the National Assembly on spending matters.” In May 2016, Maduro renewed the emergency declaration, falsely claiming that the country faced a threat of invasion. He accused the opposition of petition fraud, obstructionism, and trying to impeach him.  The assembly voted to reject the emergency declaration. Lawmakers warned that no Venezuelan president had ever undertaken such emergency measures in defiance of a vote of the legislature. But Maduro’s allies on the supreme court upheld his declaration, and he plowed ahead. In the United States, Republicans mocked Maduro’s talk of an invasion and condemned him for overriding the assembly. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida called it a coup. “Democracy has been canceled,” said Rubio. “You have an elected national assembly being ignored.”  The assembly passed laws restricting Maduro’s authority. He ignored them, and the court upheld his right to act without legislative approval. In 2017, when he created an alternative legislative body, the Trump administration denounced his “power grab” and demanded that he “respect Venezuela’s constitution.” Vice President Mike Pence protested that Maduro had “ignored and undermined the National Assembly.” Trump imposed sanctions, claiming that Maduro had “usurped the power of the democratically elected National Assembly.”  In February 2018, Maduro seized more financial power by creating a digital currency. The assembly declared this move unconstitutional and void, but Maduro dismissed its verdict. Trump responded by imposing sanctions on anyone who used the new currency to evade sanctions. In its explanation of the sanctions, the Trump administration protested that Maduro had issued the currency “in a process that Venezuela’s democratically elected National Assembly has denounced as unlawful.”  Last month, Trump went further. He announced that the United States would recognize the assembly’s president, Juan Guaidó, as Venezuela’s true president. The assembly was “duly elected by the Venezuelan people,” said Trump. On this basis, the United States would honor Guaidó’s declaration that he, not Maduro, was the country’s legitimate leader. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed out that Guaidó “made this declaration with the full support of the National Assembly.”  Like Maduro, Trump ignored precedents that had previously limited the assertion of emergency powers.  House Republicans agreed that Maduro trampled the assembly and had to be stopped. Republican Whip Steve Scalise thanked Trump for “standing with the Venezuelan people” against Maduro. Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said America had to ensure that “democracy [is] restored for the people of Venezuela.” Rep. Liz Cheney, chair of the House Republican Conference, praised “US efforts to support freedom for the people of Venezuela.” Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a leading GOP voice on foreign policy, called on Americans to stand with Venezuelans against “the tyranny of Maduro.”  That’s the Republican position on authoritarianism in Venezuela. But at home, the Republican position is just the opposite. In November, Americans expressed their disgust with Trump—a president who never even won the popular vote—by electing the opposition to take over the House of Representatives. The new Congress voted to reject Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to build a border wall. Trump, like Maduro, responded by dismissing the will of the legislature. He declared a national emergency and asserted, through his control of the military, the power to spend money that Congress, in its exercise of constitutionally assigned power, had refused to appropriate.  Like Maduro, Trump accused the opposition of voter fraud, obstructionism, and trying to impeach him. Like Maduro, Trump claimed that he had to assume unilateral authority because his country faced a fictional “invasion.” Like Maduro, Trump ignored precedents that had previously limited the assertion of emergency powers. Like Maduro, he hopes his allies on the Supreme Court will stand by him.  On Tuesday, House Republicans voted 182 to 13 against a resolution to terminate Trump’s power grab. They couldn’t stop the resolution, because Democrats hold the majority. But the GOP’s votes are enough to ensure that when Trump vetoes the resolution, as he has pledged to do, the House can’t override his veto. The Republican Party has decided to stand not for the rule of law, but for the rule of Trump. It is no longer a republican party.  At a press conference on Tuesday morning, House Republicans defended Trump’s declaration and endorsed his deployment of the U.S. military to the southern border. “The president has the authority to do it,” said McCarthy. “There is an emergency at the border,” said Cheney. “This is a national emergency,” agreed Kinzinger. Scalise claimed that “there’s no physical barrier to control our border”—which is false—and vowed that Republicans would “stand with the president.” He insisted, “The president is on strong legal ground to declare this emergency.”  We are not Venezuela. We don’t have runaway inflation and crime, corrupt state control of the economy, or routine incarceration for political dissent. But we do have the first two ingredients: a president willing to seize power, and a party willing to block the legislature from stopping him. It’s not the left that is threatening to turn the United States into Venezuela. It’s the right.


slate--2019-11-27--What’s Fact and What’s Fiction in The Two Popes

In The Two Popes, director Fernando Meirelles and screenwriter Anthony McCarten—who wrote the screenplays for The Theory of Everything, Darkest Hour, and Bohemian Rhapsody—dramatize the recent history of the Roman Catholic Church. Despite its title, the movie is in many ways a biopic about one pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, later known as Pope Francis, though Benedict XVI also appears as an important supporting character.  But how accurate is this depiction of the man who would eventually become the first pope from Latin America? What role did Francis really play during Argentina’s Dirty War? And did he and Benedict really spar about church doctrine over pizza and Fanta? Below, we break down what’s canonical and what’s apocryphal in Netflix’s new movie.  The process of selecting a new pope is kept a secret from the public—at least, it’s supposed to be. After a pope dies or resigns (more on that later), cardinals from around the world gather in Vatican City to vote for the new pope, with a two-thirds majority required for election. As seen in the movie, the results of each round of voting are communicated to the outside world using smoke. White means a decision has been reached; black means the cardinals remain undecided.  Since 1971, cardinals over the age of 80 have been ineligible to vote.  A papal conclave was held in 2005 after Pope John Paul II died, with 115 cardinals participating. Among them were Cardinals Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina and Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger of Germany. The Two Popes goes behind the scenes, depicting the political machinations that took place during four rounds of voting. The ballot results are those leaked by an anonymous cardinal to the press: According to the leak, Ratzinger got 84 votes and Bergoglio got 26 in the final tally.  In the movie, Bergoglio is not interested in becoming pope despite the urging of Italian Cardinal Carlo Martini, who, like Ratzinger and Bergoglio, also got several votes on the first ballot. Like Bergoglio, Martini is a reformist member of the Society of Jesus. But Martini thinks it’d be better if the pope came from outside Europe, so he supports Bergoglio over himself. Bergoglio has since said that he went even further than the mere disinterest in being pope shown in the film, actually urging other cardinals to back the more conservative Ratzinger, who won and took the name Benedict XVI.  The movie’s central conceit involves a secret meeting in 2012 between Ratzinger (then the pope) and Bergoglio (still a cardinal). It begins at the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the pope’s Italian vacation home and summer residence. A disillusioned Bergoglio asks Ratzinger to grant him an early retirement, which Ratzinger considers an act of insubordination, and the two debate Catholic dogma. Ratzinger is old-school, standing for doctrine and tradition. The more progressive Bergoglio wants to modernize the church.  This 2012 meeting appears to be completely fictional. The two men did have at least one confirmed meeting at Gandolfo, but it took place in March 2013, after Ratzinger resigned and Bergoglio had already become pope. McCarten told Awards Daily that he saw a picture of Francis and Benedict watching TV together and imagined, given the timing, that the two might be watching the World Cup match between Argentina and Germany. (Pope Francis really does love the Argentine San Lorenzo team as much as the movie suggests.) That’s the scene that plays during The Two Popes’ end credits.  The popes’ fictional meeting takes place under the shadow of the real 2012 Vatican leaks scandal, in which internal church documents were disseminated to the Italian press. Paolo Gabriele, who had been Pope Benedict’s personal butler since 2007, was identified as the leaker, arrested, and convicted of the theft. In the movie, this is conveyed with a montage of news reports without digging much into the details, though Ratzinger makes a comment that his past assistant would not have allowed Bergoglio to have been kept waiting for him in the garden. “He was perfect,” says Ratzinger. “Now he’s in jail,” replies Bergoglio.  Ratzinger tells Bergoglio during their conversation at Gandolfo, “The way you live is a criticism. Your shoes are a criticism,” to which a surprised Bergoglio asks, “You don’t like my shoes?” We later see Bergoglio, after he’s been elected pope, rejecting a pair of red loafers, preferring to keep the shoes he already has on. It’s a major symbolic difference between the two men, and one that’s true to life: Benedict took plenty of heat for his fashion choices while pope, including his red shoes, which were falsely rumored to be Prada. Esquire named him the Accessorizer of the Year on its 2007 best-dressed list alongside the likes of Scooter Libby, which is not a very dignified place for a pope to be.  Popes wore red until the mid-16th century, when Pope Pius, a Dominican, changed the vestments to white, with the exception of the red cape, hat, and shoes, which have been worn by most popes since then. Francis, meanwhile, was spotted wearing black shoes even in the very first days of his papacy, and the shoes he wore to the conclave where he’d be elected were reportedly so scrappy that his friends bought him new ones. His rejection of the red shoes is not only part of his humble lifestyle: It shows a disregard for church tradition.  Given the level of scrutiny toward his own shoes, it’s no wonder Ratzinger would’ve taken Bergoglio’s footwear choices personally.  In a flashback, we see that as a young man, Bergoglio, on the fence about entering the priesthood and waiting for a sign, becomes engaged to a woman, Amalia. A chance encounter with a priest then makes up his mind, and he apparently breaks the engagement, devastating her. Amalia Damonte is a real person, but she and Bergoglio were actually childhood sweethearts. After his election, she told reporters that he wrote her a love letter when they were 12, writing that if she wouldn’t marry him, he’d become a priest instead. Her disapproving parents were the ones who broke it off.  Francis was the head of the Jesuit order in Argentina when a military junta took power in 1976, and he has been accused of cooperating with or not standing against the regime as it punished political dissenters, including Catholic priests. This is dramatized in The Two Popes by two incidents from the war based on real events: Bergoglio burning left-leaning books and ordering two priests, the Revs. Franz Jalics and Orlando Yorio—his former teachers—to stop working in the impoverished community of Rivadavia.  It’s unclear, both in the movie and in real life, whether Jalics and Yorio left the Society of Jesus so they could continue their work in the slums in defiance of Bergoglio’s instructions or because the future pope forced them out for disobedience. But without belonging to a particular religious order, the men were vulnerable. Accounts in Paul Vallely’s Pope Francis: Untying the Knots also differ about what happened next. Bergoglio apparently gave the men references so they could be brought under the protection of a local bishop, but some, including Yorio, have said the references actually  cast them in a negative light. Jalics and Yorio also lost their licenses to publicly celebrate Mass at this time, which was perceived as enough of a rejection by the church for the military to kidnap them. They were stripped and tortured for five days, then imprisoned for five months before being drugged and dumped in a field.  Though this development complicates the otherwise rosy portrait of Bergoglio in The Two Popes, the movie is largely sympathetic as it shows him later pleading, unsuccessfully, for Jalics and Yorio’s release with a military leader, insisting that the stay on their ability to celebrate Mass was only temporary. Bergoglio tells Ratzinger in the movie that though Yorio never forgave him, Jalics did, and we see the two embrace during a Mass. That tracks with a report from another Jesuit quoted in Vallely’s book, who said the two men “fell into each other’s arms crying” when they met in Germany years later. Jalics issued a statement after Francis was elected pope denying that Bergoglio had reported him and Yorio to the authorities, though it stops short of absolving him of any blame in the situation.  For a movie called The Two Popes, it spends a lot more time on Bergoglio’s life and career than it does on Ratzinger’s. His background is conveyed in brief snippets of dialogue, as when critics derisively call him a Nazi. That’s because of his time in the Hitler Youth as a teenager, though defenders have pointed out that enrollment was mandatory and that Ratzinger worked with John Paul II to atone for Catholic involvement in the Holocaust.  Benedict is as musical as he seems in The Two Popes, and the album mentioned in the film, Alma Mater: Music from the Vatican, is real. It has not gotten good reviews. (To be fair, Pope Francis’ own album hasn’t gotten great reviews, either.)  At the end of the movie, we get our most intimate look at Ratzinger as he confesses his sins before Bergoglio, admitting that he hid away in books in his youth and didn’t experience the world fully. Then, things turn serious. Ratzinger begins to talk about allegations made against a priest 12 years earlier. The movie’s audio becomes muffled, so we can’t hear the details, but the name of priest at least is audible: Father Maciel, as in the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, an influential Mexican priest who preyed on young boys over the course of decades.  In the late 1990s, nine men publicly accused Maciel of sexual abuse and filed formal charges with the Vatican. But the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then under Ratzinger’s leadership, failed to prosecute Maciel. It wasn’t until years later, after Ratzinger was elected pope, that Maciel was forced to step away from public ministry—though the church did not denounce him until 2010, two years after his death. In the movie, Bergoglio is horrified that Ratzinger didn’t act sooner despite knowing about the abuse.  One of the movie’s most poignant scenes involves Ratzinger and Bergoglio eating a simple meal of pizza in the Room of Tears, which is located off the Sistine Chapel—in this case, not the real chapel, which does not allow fictional movies to be filmed there, but a painstaking re-creation. The Room of Tears is where a new pope gets dressed for the first time and is so named for the emotions of the men facing the responsibility of spiritually leading 1.3 billion people. While Bergoglio is the one who suggests the two get pizza in the room, it’s Ratzinger who is famously a Fanta fiend.