21stcenturywire--2019-08-21--Geopolitical Collusion Turkey and US Work to Control Northern Syria

Geopolitical Collusion: Turkey and US Work to Control Northern Syria

Based on its own actions and irrational moves over the last 8 years, it has become more obvious that Turkey may be harboring secret territorial and energy extraction ambitions in Syria. Will they succeed?  Turkey’s fascist despot/wannabe sultan Recep Tayip Erdogan aims to annex northern Syrian territory, especially its oil-rich area. He has similar aims for northern Iraq, an area far more oil-rich than Syria.  He’s part of the problem in the Syrian Arab Republic, not the solution, supporting ISIS, al-Nusra and other jihadists, supplying them with heavy weapons and other material support, along with letting them pass freely back and forth across Turkey’s border with Syria.  His involvement in years of war makes resolution much harder. Syria’s Bashar al-Assad earlier called him a “butcher,” his regime “fascist,” his hostility toward Syria prolonging endless war.  On Tuesday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) accused jihadists, supported by Turkey’s occupation of Syrian territory, of “continu(ing) their terrorist and repressive practices which are represented in the acts of killing and kidnapping against the locals in the areas which have been occupied by the forces of the Turkish regime…”  Ankara is imposing its will over Syrians in territory it controls the way Israel represses Palestinians and operates illegally in Golan, SANA explained, adding:  “The regime of Erdogan has also worked on obliterating the cultural and historical identity of the area through destroying all the archeological monuments in it which are icons that refer to the Arabism of the area.”  “The Turkish forces and warplanes have destroyed many archeological sites in Afrin city such as Ain Zara temple and the archeological sites of  al-Nabi Houri and Tal Jandares, in addition to destroying the archeological site of Barad to the south of Afrin City which is registered on the UNESCO World Heritage List.”  On Monday, Fars News reported that “(t)he Turkish army dispatched huge military convoys to Southern Idlib to stop the Syrian Army advances in the region” — in its own territory, Turkey a hostile invader.  On the same day, Fars News said US aircraft supplied aid to ISIS terrorists at their “most important base in Iraq’s Salahuddin province,” citing unnamed Iraqi sources.  The US, NATO, Turkey, Israel, the Saudis, UAE, and Jordan support jihadists in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — pretending to be combating the scourge the Pentagon and CIA use as proxy foot soldiers in US war theaters.  On Monday, Ankara’s Anadolu news agency accused Syria of bombing an area in the country’s north close to where Turkish forces illegally occupy Syrian territory.  The report failed to mention that Russian warplanes were involved, nor explain that the illegally occupied area is infested with US/Ankara supported terrorists.  In September 2018, Putin and Erdogan agreed on establishing an Idlib province deescalation zone bordering Turkey.  The country’s military breached it straightaway, failing to disarm terrorists as promised.  The Turkish news agency falsely accused Syrian forces of breaching what was agreed on — Ankara and jihadists it supports the guilty parties, not Damascus.  On Monday, Syria’s Foreign Ministry reported that Turkish forces invaded the country’s territory, heading for Khan Sheikhoun — to rescue jihadists the Syrian Arab army is combatting.  US aggression in Syria is in its 9th year with no prospect for resolution — because bipartisan hardliners in Washington want pro-Western puppet rule replacing overwhelmingly popular Assad.  VISIT HIS NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. Also, see his newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


21stcenturywire--2019-09-13--Israel Directing Policy Through US Treasury Sanctioning Hezbollahs Political Allies in Lebanon

Israel Directing Policy Through US Treasury: Sanctioning Hezbollah’s Political Allies in Lebanon

SANCTIONS MILL: President Trump with his pro-Israel Secretary of Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, allowing the US Treasury Department to be virtually commandeered by Israeli interests.  Nearly three years into the Trump administration, one thing is clear: as it struggles to wage any direct military or proxy wars, Washington has instead relied on economic warfare against its perceived enemies, and largely on behalf of the state of Israel. Rather than hamper its supposed enemies, this policy is actually driving sanctioned parties into closer alliances, and hastening the inevitable geopolitical realignment of the region and the world.    Through the U.S. Treasury Department and its own openly pro-Israel agents of influence, namely Secretary Steve Mnuchin and his Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker, Israel has been able to attack and undermine all of its own geopolitical enemies and region rivals. The chief mechanism for achieving this is by informally directing the US government through the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), to label any person, politician or state agency – as a “terrorist,” or as a terrorist entity, which is used to apply sanctions against any person or entity which Israel designates as its enemy, or even potential enemy. It’s also no secret that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly boasted convincing Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA Iran Nuclear Agreement of 2015, a policy move which triggered a seemingly endless raft of sanctions.  As a result of this new runaway policy, the list of sanctioned persons and organisations by the Trump administration is the most in US history.  Firmly in its crosshairs are Lebanon’s well-established political and military wings of the Hezbollah organisation. However, there is a fundamental flaw in the western framing of Hezbollah.  Firstly, it’s a historical fact that Hezbollah was born out of Israel’s illegal occupation of southern Lebanon. Had Israel not invaded and occupied this region and prosecuted its long and violent military campaign during and after the Lebanese Civil War, then it’s possible that the Hezbollah movement would never had formed in the way that it did. It was born out of Israel’s occupation. Indeed, Iran has been a traditional supporter of the group, which has naturally drawn the ire of Washington and Tel Aviv, both of whom view both Iran and Hezbollah as a joint obstacle to US-Israeli strategic security objectives in the Middle East. In order to elevate Hezbollah to ‘most targeted status,’ US officials have had to repeatedly recycle fabricated claims that Hezbollah is acting as a major global terrorist organisation. In the same breath, US officials, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, will enthusiastically drift out the well-worn fable that ‘Iran is the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror’.  Earlier this year, the US also announced that henceforth, Iran’s leading military divisions, the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Quds Force, are now designated as a “terrorist organisation.” The cold irony here is that Hezbollah militias are presently fighting (and defeating) actual terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda and ISIS (terrorists created, as well as armed and financed by numerous western and gulf states, including the United States) in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. This poses a serious problem for western powers with neocolonial designs because militarily speaking, Hezbollah has upgraded itself from a largely national defense force, to a bona fide region player. Since 2013, Hezbollah has played a pivotal role in ejecting al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists from their enclaves in Syria, thus thwarting the regime change objectives of US, UK, France, NATO member states, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and also Israel, too. Likewise IRGC and Quds special forces and military advisors have been deployed in Iraq and Syria – invited by those governments – in order to help subdue the invading terrorist brigades. The same is true for Iranian-backed militias in Iraq like the Hash’d Shaabi (People’s Mobilization Units), predominantly Shia, and who were pivotal in Iraq’s ultimate victory over ISIS in 2017. This did not stop US officials from repeatedly threatening the Hash’d and demanding the Iraqi government disband the new 120,000 strong defense force. Veteran journalist Patrick Cockburn summed it up when he concluded that the greatest threat to building peace in Iraq was not ISIS, but rather, Trump’s determination to ‘pick a fight’ with Iran. Documentation on the number of casualties is still difficult to determine, but on the aggregate, between Hezbollah, Hash’d, Iranian forces, the losses sustained in the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda number in the tens of thousands – and likely far more than the combined US soldier death toll over the course of its 18 year-long War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. Regardless of general western ignorance of what has actually transpired in Syria since 2011, and in Iraq since 2014, the people who actually live in the Middle East know the severity of this largely foreign-backed terrorist usurpation.  Regardless of the facts on the ground, neoconservatives and war hawks in the Beltway are still happily pressing ahead with their policies. With Tel Aviv carefully leading from behind, Washington has successfully pressured many of its allies to obey its geopolitical dictates, with the UK, Argentina and Paraguay all falling into line this year by designating Hezbollah – both its political and military wings – as a terrorist organisation, as well as pressuring Brazil to follow suit.  Of deeper concern for Washington though, is that Hezbollah is defending Lebanon’s borders from what is undoubtedly the region’s most prolific aggressor – Israel. In just the last few weeks, Israel has attacked no less than 4 of its neighbours, including unprovoked military strikes against Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestinians living under illegal Israeli occupation in Gaza. Hezbollah also poses another threat to Israeli hegemony in the region because of its unflagging support for resistance against Israel’s violent occupation and ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian people. Similarly, the Islamic Republic of Iran also supports the Palestinian resistance cause.  This is also a predicate for Israel’s various and sundry fabricated claims about a ‘secret Iranian nuclear arsenal,’ and imagined conspiracy that ‘Iran is occupying Syria’ – all of which are designed to garner leverage in Washington whereby US officials can view Hezbollah an accomplice to “Iran’s threat world peace.” This is the sort of geopolitical gymnastics which Israel is attempting to perform on a daily basis in order to justify the longest-running, most brutal and inhumane apartheid regimes in modern history – being waged against Palestinians and Arabs in the Middle East.  This week, the US announced it will increase its sanctions against Hamas (placing them in the same frame as ISIS), one of Palestine’s largest political bodies, and which was elected by Palestinians to govern Gaza. How Hamas (or Hezbollah) threatens US security is anyone’s guess. This move, announced by Mnuchin himself, is clearly designed for the benefit of Israel, as it further isolates and cuts-off any significant international support for Palestine. Like with Hezbollah, Hamas is an elected political party in government – now reduced to a “terrorist” organisation. Along with its militia wing, it is resisting an illegal occupation by Israeli forces according to numerous UN Resolutions. These are all inconvenient facts which are casually brushed aside by most American political and mainstream media pundits, because they do not suit the object of the exercise – to deplatform and ultimately dehumanise any local resistance to what is now widely regarded as a post-WWII neocolonial debacle.  Still, Washington insists on basing its international relations on numerous fabricated claims about Iran and Hezbollah, much of which has been drafted by Israel’s J Street lobbyists and the Prime Minister’s office in Tel Aviv. Now the Trump administration is taking this method a step further by threatening to sanction any political allies of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  After his visit last April to Lebanon, Secretary Pompeo told delegations that the US would sanction political “individuals” linked to Hezbollah in order to counter their ‘military and political growth,’ with the idea that this will somehow deter Iran as well. Al Jazeera also reported on that visit:  “Hanin Ghaddar, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told Al Jazeera that, according to her sources, Pompeo warned President Michel Aoun of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and Speaker Nabih Berri of the Amal movement, with personal sanctions.”  With military options practically off the table, sanctions are one of the only remaining options for Washington and Tel Aviv to undermine Hezbollah. But will it work?  Washington often claims it is only levying sanctions in order to extract concessions, or to “encourage good behaviour,” only its record in extracting any concessions from its enemies as a result of punitive sanctions ranges from poor to nonexistent.  Unfortunately, this lagging counter-move by Washington may be a day late and dollar short – because like it or not, Hezbollah is now a political force in Lebanese politics who along with its allies, have a working majority in the Lebanese Parliament, as well as holding key ministerial and cabinet positions.  Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker says that the US is “reviewing” its list of sanctions targets in Lebanon, based on a desire to expand sanctions in the country against individuals who are “aiding and assisting Hezbollah.”  While this has often been proposed in the past, in keeping with US hostility toward Hezbollah, it is wildly problematic, given Hezbollah exists within Lebanon as a perfectly legitimate political party operating within a major coalition.  Hezbollah is, after all, part of the March 8 Alliance, which controls the majority of the seats in parliament. If this allies-of-Hezbollah position is applied politically, it would necessarily mean US sanctions on the entire elected coalition government.  That wouldn’t necessarily be out of keeping with US stated positions, as they’ve threatened Lebanon ahead of virtually every election in recent memory not to vote for the Hezbollah bloc. It would, however, derail recent US interest in trying to build up its influence with the Lebanese government, and alienate the country’s Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Christians in equal measures.  The reality is that his policy of unrestrained, headlong US sanctions have only driven Washington’s perceived enemies closer together, by providing targeted individuals, organisations and states with the impetus to form even tighter cooperative alliances. This is no more evident than the US-led collective punishment and economic embargo of Syria, Iran, and also Iraq too (something which will not disappear from the Iraqi collective memory for the foreseeable future). As a result, the arch of resistance to the last 50 years of US-Israeli dominance over the region has grown significantly, stretching from the Mediterranean to Persia, and buttressed by committed support from world powers like Russia and China. There can be little debate as to the provenance of such a historic realignment. It is a direct result of ham-fisted and perennially deficient US and Israeli policy in the region and globally, and it’s only pushed the world towards instability and war, and never towards stability and peace. One might expect the self-described realists in Washington to understand this fait accompli – that targeted parties will simply act in their own self-interest in the face of such an arbitrary and blunt policy instrument.  In short, by allowing Israel to commandeer its US Treasury Department, Washington continues to look like it is held hostage by the demands of Israel. This will only exasperate their desperation as the US struggles to marshal any meaningful support for what many are increasingly regarding as an incoherent foreign policy. What this US administration has yet to realise is that America’s only actual power in the wider world was its ability to be perceived as an honest broker of international affairs. That, unfortunately, died with Iraq.  Trump’s sanctions tirade is only accelerating the inevitable. The longer they carry on the charade, the closer the rest of the world will move towards a new multi-polar order. Whether the world can then find any stability in a multi-polar framework will depend largely on the behaviour of America and its allies, more than anyone else’s.  ***   Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq.


activistpost--2019-01-21--Study Reveals Three Quarters Of People Are Dissatisfied With Undemocratic Self-Interested And

Study Reveals Three Quarters Of People Are Dissatisfied With “Undemocratic”, “Self-Interested” And “Divided” Political Parties

Research by the University of Sheffield has revealed more than three quarters of people are dissatisfied with political parties and has identified the seven main qualities people want to see in parties today.  Gathering data through a survey administered by YouGov and three public workshops, research led by Dr Kate Dommett and Dr Luke Temple asked people about their attitudes towards parties, including how people believe parties are behaving now and how they would like to see parties work.  The top words used to describe political parties by workshop participants included ‘unrepresentative’, ‘undemocratic’, ‘self-interested’ and ‘divided’. Seventy-seven per cent of those surveyed said they were fairly or very dissatisfied with parties.  Forty-six per cent of people said parties need major reform, 26 per cent said that reforming parties is pointless and they can’t be made to work, while 25 per cent said parties need minor reform and three per cent said they work well and do not need reform at all.  The report – What People Want to See in Parties Today – can be used by political parties to make changes to bring their party more in line with public desires, promote the ways they already do these things, or challenge people’s ideas and offer an alternative set of benchmarks against which they feel they should be being judged.  The study found that people want:  Dr Kate Dommett, from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Politics, said: “As widely disliked organisations seen to be essential to contemporary democracy, parties are often under pressure to reform.  “But whilst some parties have been quick to roll out new initiatives or try new ideas, there has been less attention devoted to what it is that people actually want from parties, and where they would like to see reform.  “This report has shown that there isn’t a single or simple solution, but that parties can usefully think about seven principles that the public wish parties display when they consider how to respond.  “By thinking about these principles we argue that parties can review their current processes to decide whether there is a case for reform, a need for improved communication, or a shift in the focus of existing debate.”  The report considered what people think about how parties provide opportunities to participate, with 59 per cent of people saying there should be more opportunities for people to get involved in political parties.  However, in both the survey and workshops, researchers found considerable evidence that people did not see engagement to be worth the time and effort as they felt they had little impact on what parties did.  Survey data showed that while 80 per cent thought that when people like themselves get involved in political parties they should be able to make a difference, only 20 per cent thought they actually can have an impact.  The study also explored what people thought about parties’ governing performance – asking them how they felt parties delivered their promises, delivered good policy outcomes, managed the day-to-day running of government and managed crises.  Dissatisfaction was high across all areas, but parties were seen to perform worst when it comes to delivering promises, with 87 per cent saying parties don’t do this well. In contrast, they were seen to perform best when managing crises – with 47 per cent saying parties did this well.  Dr Luke Temple, from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Geography, said: “There was a perception that parties mislead the electorate and, once in office, could not be trusted to deliver their promises.  “They were also seen to suffer minimal consequences because, by the time of the next election most people have forgotten and therefore didn’t vote them out. “From this perspective, people desired parties that were trustworthy, reliable and stick to their promises; feeling that these were essential characteristics given people’s inability to hold parties to account between elections.” He added: “When parties did change position, people also wanted them to explain why they had changed, offering accounts of why a promise could not be delivered and what would be done instead. “Greater transparency and accountability therefore featured prominently in participants’ ideas.” A series of blog posts by politicians and think tanks responding to the report, produced in collaboration with Involve, will be published this week. They include contributions from Lord Blunkett, Dr Tim Bale, Alex Runswick, Simon Woolley, Dr Mark Pack and others.


activistpost--2019-02-22--Revolutionary Bill Will Force Politicians to Wear Body Cameras to Stop Corruption

Rockford, IL — Transparency among US politicians is all but non-existent in modern day America. It seems that every piece of information the citizens wish to obtain from the state must come through begging the government in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request. Many times, these requests are denied and the citizens remain in the dark despite political crimes. However, a new bill out of Illinois is seeking to shift that paradigm of unaccountable lawmakers by forcing them to wear body cameras while conducting public business.  Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, has proposed a revolutionary bill that would require all elected officials in Illinois to wear a body camera if they are working. Cabello’s intent behind the bill is to mitigate the rampant corruption currently plaguing Illinois politics.  “We see the dealings going on in Chicago with some of the wiretaps and some of the corruption that’s been going on for decades,” Cabello said. “We hear of the state lawmakers that get themselves into trouble with bribes and so on and so forth. So, I just thought that since the state was looking at making all police officers wear body cameras, I figured this might be a good way to have records of what lawmakers are doing.”  The bill, HB3447 will treat the body camera videos in the same way police use them. The legislation allows the recordings to be used as evidence in any administrative, judicial, legislative, or disciplinary proceeding.  The bill also notes that if anyone finds “by a preponderance of the evidence that a recording was intentionally not captured, destroyed, altered, or intermittently captured in violation of the Act, then the court or other finder of fact shall consider or be instructed to consider that violation in weighing the evidence, unless the State provides a reasonable justification.”  The measure is extensive and would cover all elected officials in the state, including county officials as well as those in state office.  “If they want to be an elected official, they should be following the law,” Cabello said. “If they don’t want to, I think they ultimately shouldn’t be an elected official. We would find ways of being able to remove them.”  Naturally, Cabello has critics who are calling the bill a charade and claim that it would cost the state too much money. But if it stopped the rampant looting of the people by their elected officials, this could end up saving tons of money in the future. Also, it’s what already happens with cops.  Cabello, who was a former Rockford police officer, explained that it’s really no different than police officers.  “It’s going to be the same as what law enforcement will have to do,” he said. “There’s not going to be one person going through all of the recordings. It’s more of if someone makes an allegation or a complaint, you’ll at least have some footage to go through.”  Unfortunately, because the corruption is so rife within the state—and all other states, for that matter—Cabello expects that most lawmakers will vote it down. After all, why on Earth would criminals vote to hold themselves accountable?  “I think there will be some elected officials that will support it but I doubt it’s even going to get a committee hearing in Springfield,” Cabello said. “The majority party, they won’t want to hear this. I can’t see (House Speaker Mike) Madigan letting this see the light of day.”  Still, the idea has merit, Cabello said, according to Rockford Register Star.  “It’s time we start getting public trust back for the elected officials and the only way that’s going to happen is we have to root out the corruption,” he said. We agree, and it should go much further. This measure should be implemented nationwide, starting with the federal government. And, all the footage should be available for the public to see. After all the politicians have on body cameras, we then need them to be required to wear the logo of any entity which has given them money. Just like NASCAR drivers do, the more money they get, the bigger the logo they’d have to wear. One can dream. Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.


activistpost--2019-04-19--Chase Bank CLOSES ACCOUNTS of Political Activists Without Explanation

Chase Bank CLOSES ACCOUNTS of Political Activists Without Explanation!

It’s official…we have entered a technocratic tyrannical dictatorship where at the flip of a switch enemies of the state can be “shut down” at any given moment. Case in point Chase Bank decided it no longer wants to do business with certain conservative leaning customers so without notice or explanation they pulled the plug on their accounts! Laura Loomer, Joe Biggs, Martina Markota and Enrique Tarrio have all been falsely lumped into the category of “alt right” and they are now suffering financially as a result by literally being cut off by the bank!  In this video Dan Dicks and Leigh Stuart of Press For Truth explain how the term “alt right” has become a useful tool for the left and how shadow banning and censorship just took a major leap to a whole new level with Chase Bank financially cutting off individuals from society.  Visit Dan Dicks at Pressfortruth.ca, subscribe to his YouTube channel, follow him on Twitter, support Dan via PayPal or Bitbacker.  Provide, protect and profit from what is coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-08-26--Poll 70 of Americans Angry at Political System for Only Serving Insiders With Money and Power

Poll: 70% of Americans “Angry” at Political System for Only Serving Insiders With Money and Power

“A deep and boiling anger” is the sentiment behind a recent poll conducted this month, showing just how utterly pissed off Americans are with their government. Despite Americans being pitted against each other with divisive partisan tactics rammed down their throats on a daily basis by the political establishment and the media, this recent poll shows they agree on one thing—the government serves the connected elite and no one else.  This latest poll, conducted by NBC News/Wall Street Journal paints a picture of an angry America. But these Americans aren’t angry at one another, they are angry at the political and financial establishment that continues to fleece them in the name of “Freedom.”  This anger doesn’t stem from Trump either as it’s been there since before him.  “Four years ago, we uncovered a deep and boiling anger across the country engulfing our political system,” said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey in partnership with the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. “Four years later, with a very different political leader in place, that anger remains at the same level.”  As NBC points out, the poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they feel angry “because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington.” Forty-three percent say that statement describes them “very well.”  This brings us to the question of why so many Americans feel that they are being spied on, controlled, and stolen from by shadow government officials who operate in secret?  The answer is quite simple: because it’s true!  As the torrent of Podesta emails from WikiLeaks exposed the crimes of the Clinton dynasty in 2016, the FBI followed up by releasing their own documents that were just as damning. Buried inside 100 pages of heavily redacted interview summaries from the FBI’s investigation into Clinton, Americans were exposed to a series of allegations that were nothing short of bombshell — documenting an ultra-secret, high-level group within the government, who were actually referred to as “The Shadow Government.”  This Shadow Government has long been kept in the dark realms of conspiracy theory. However, thanks to the efforts of WikiLeaks and the push by Americans for more transparency, the truth has now become stranger and even more corrupt than fiction. Make no mistake, it is for this reason that Julian Assange is currently rotting in a cage.  With every action recorded, phone tapped, innocent family surveilled, right stripped, and citizen killed by their government, the term “Freedom” has become a mere symbolic representation of the brittle shell of America left behind after being gutted by unelected operatives in the deep state hell bent on total control and perpetual war.  Those who thought electing Donald Trump could somehow change this paradigm are beginning to figuring out that no matter what puppet resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, those who lurk behind the scenes are the ones shaping US policy.  No matter how much you may disagree or even like Donald Trump, the idea of a secret and unelected government forcing change without the public’s consent behind the scenes should shock the conscience.  And now, after flip-flopping on promises not to start wars, not to attack state’s rights, not to go after the second amendment, and to expose Saudi Arabia’s crimes, it appears that Trump has simply become part of that very same apparatus.  The US political system is set up in such a manner that it allows for anyone with enough money to steer policy that benefits them personally. Politicians are hardly particular when it comes to who’s throwing money at them, so ownership is constantly in a state of flux.  The controlled politicians, the rigged system, and the elite are not some vast conspiracy as much as they are a tendency of the state in general. As long as a system exists that allows government force to be bought and sold for the benefit and privilege of a few, these atrocities will continue.  The money shoved into the pockets of politicians on behalf of special interest groups, aka bribery, has become so mainstream and widely accepted that no one even bats an eye at the billions doled out to their elected officials on behalf of lobbyists.  Republicans and Democrats alike sit back in their plush, taxpayer funded offices in white marble buildings, rubbing elbows with elite businesspersons who pay them to write laws that create unfair advantages for their industries. In the extremely rare case that a politician resists this corruption and refuses to conform, they are ridiculed by fellow lawmakers, painted as kooks by the MSM, and their supporters labeled as radical nutjobs, i.e. Ron Paul.  Meanwhile, We The People argue over the various privileges granted, and how much of our paychecks can be stolen by the almighty rulers on high.  The reason it’s so hard for people to break out of their two-party shells and see that there are no differences between politicians with a ‘D’ and politicians with an ‘R,’ is a complex one. However, much of the reason we refuse to see things as they are is that humans have a naturally tribalistic tendency. Democrats and Republicans know and employ multiple techniques to keep you on their team, aka tribe.  The main technique used is ‘Us vs. Them’ manipulation, as seen by this current poll. In spite of the heavy desire to elect someone else, Americans are force fed only two options.  Constantly pointing out the flaws of the perceived ‘them’ group makes the ‘us’ group easily dismiss logical information without applying any critical thought. This is how both Democrats and Republicans can pass freedom shattering police state laws, bipartisanly, and the masses continue to support their party. All the blame from such horrid policy is easily written off and passed on to the “other guy.”  This method of ridicule invokes the “Black and White” constraint of thinking; there are only two choices, and one is detrimental while the other is our savior. MSM and politicians love this constraint on your mind because they can simply convince you that you must go their way, and not with this utterly ridiculous choice.  In the meantime, however, Republicans are for big government, if with war, and the democrats are for war, if with big government. And, the only “change” people see is their dwindling bank accounts.  Seeing outside of the two-party paradigm is a difficult task. It can take years for people to break their conditioning and see the political system for the rigged game that it is.  The good news is that this poll shows it is continuing to happen and once you see the system for what it is, you cannot unsee it. No one goes back to sleep, despite the fact that waking up to the system can be particularly stressful. And, if this poll shows us anything, it’s that people are beginning to see the two-party paradigm for the sham that it is.  The number of people waking up to the controlled two-party system is ever-increasing and those people, in turn, wake up others.  If you are one of those people who sees Washington DC as the Don King boxing match that it is, then you are doing something right. You are likely a reader of the alternative media, you probably don’t watch massive amounts of television, and you likely have a thirst for a lesser ignorance. If you are accused of being a liberal and a conservative in the same conversation, it’s probably because you have broken free from the cult-like constraints placed on you by the system. However, only waking up is not enough. If you want to effect positive change in this world, then you have to become that change. This doesn’t mean that you have to go out, buy a bullhorn and begin screaming in the streets. Simply changing your purchasing habits can force a change far greater than any bullhorn. Voting with your dollars is far more effective at inciting change than a voting booth. The radical and peaceful change that society needs will most assuredly not originate from the center of the very system that is designed to prevent it. You can quite literally ‘be the change that you want to see in this world,’ and you can start this now. Do not be discouraged by the establishment who attempts to silence your radical and peaceful views and keep them on the fringe. They do it out of fear, it’s merely an act of self-preservation, and it shows that open-mindedness and peace are overcoming cruelty and ignorance. Always remember, no army can stop an idea whose time has come. Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds. Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


bbc--2019-01-04--German politicians targeted in mass data attack

Hundreds of German politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, have had personal details stolen and published online.  Contacts, private chats and financial details were put out on Twitter that belong to figures from every political party except the far-right AfD.  Data from celebrities and journalists were also leaked.  It is unclear who was behind the attack, which emerged on Twitter in the style of an advent calendar last month.  German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said the authorities were working hard to find the perpetrator. There was, he said in a statement, as yet no evidence that German parliamentary or government systems had been compromised.  The leak appears to have originated on a Twitter account operated from Hamburg and the authorities in the north German city say they are now working with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to stop the spread of German politicians' data.  As Twitter's European headquarters are located in Dublin, the leak falls under the remit of the Irish data protection authority, national broadcaster RTE reports.  The true extent of damage caused by the leak is not yet known although Justice Minister Katarina Barley said it was a "serious attack".  "The people behind this want to damage confidence in our democracy and institutions," she said.  A government spokeswoman said no sensitive data from the chancellor's office had been published. MPs, Euro MPs and MPs from state parliaments were affected, said Martina Fietz.  She said the government was not yet certain that the data had been stolen by cyber-hackers. Some reports suggested a lone leaker might have had access to sensitive data through their work.  Although nothing politically explosive is known to have been leaked, the sheer volume of personal data involved suggests the consequences could be considerable, says Michael Götschenberg, a reporter for German broadcaster RBB, who researched the attack.  The now-suspended Twitter account, identified by German media as @_0rbit, was followed by more than 17,000 people.  Although documents had been posted on the account from 1 December to 28 December, it was not until Thursday evening that officials became aware of the theft.  Bild newspaper said all the data stolen in the attack dated back to before October 2018 but it was not clear when it began.  Interior Minister Seehofer said preliminary analysis showed the data had been obtained through "wrongful use of log-in information for cloud services, email accounts or social networks".  A cyber analyst told the BBC there was speculation that hackers might have exploited weaknesses in email software to get hold of passwords that those targeted had also used on social media accounts.  Data was published in Advent calendar-style daily releases on Twitter. The first "doors" at the start of December featured TV presenters, then rappers, and from 20 December it focused on politicians.  National and local political figures as well as some TV personalities had their details stolen:  Immediate suspicion fell on right-wing groups in Germany as well as Russia.  German cyber-security analyst Sven Herpig said Russia was a suspect, first because of the method used but also because Germany was facing four state elections in 2019 as well as elections to the European Parliament.  However, the fact that no right-wing politicians were targeted while prominent figures who had criticised them had been, suggested domestic right-wingers may also have been responsible, he told the BBC.  Russia has been accused of cyber-attacks in Germany before.  In 2015, data was stolen from computers in the Bundestag. And last year the government's IT network came under attack amid reports that Russian hackers were also to blame.  UK-based expert Graham Cluley said the breadth of the latest attack suggested it was a co-ordinated effort involving a determined group over many months.  "This hack clearly isn't about extortion or financially motivated. This is about attempting to destabilise Germany society," he told the BBC.


bbc--2019-01-10--US shutdown Border politicians oppose Trumps wall

US shutdown: Border politicians oppose Trump's wall

Politicians in Washington have had a lot to say about the merits or otherwise of a border wall thousands of miles away. But why are so many lawmakers based there against it?  There are nine members of the House of Representatives whose districts lie along the US-Mexico border.  It is perhaps not surprising that the eight Democrats oppose President Donald Trump's signature campaign pledge.  But the one Republican congressman - whose district stretches for 820 miles (1,320km) along the border - is also hostile.  Most of his party, including some senators and governors of states at the border, back the president.  These nine House representatives have intimate knowledge of the border and the issues arising from the movement of people - legal or otherwise - across it.  So what have they said?  "I think building a concrete structure sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security," said Will Hurd, a Republican congressman whose district has the longest border with Mexico.  Congressman Hurd's 23rd Congressional District, which stretches from El Paso to San Antonio, shares the largest border with Mexico of any member of Congress.  Mr Hurd, a former CIA agent who happens to be the only black Republican in the House of Representatives, has argued for a "smart border wall" which would be composed of sensors and other technology.  "A Smart Wall would use sensor, radar and surveillance technologies to detect and track incursions across our border so we can deploy efficiently our most important resource, the men and women of Border Patrol, to perform the most difficult task - interdiction," he wrote in an op-ed in 2017.  Mr Hurd, who broke rank with Republicans to vote on a Democratic-led bill to reopen government, said after Mr Trump's speech on Tuesday: "If this is a crisis, the people that are dealing with this crisis should get paid."  Federal workers who are deemed "essential" such as border patrol agents, have been forced to work without pay as the shutdown continues.  "It's a 4th Century solution to a 21st Century problem," said Congressman Vicente Gonzalez, whose district includes the border town of McAllen, which Trump plans to visit during the funding impasse.  "Nobody wants stronger border control than me," he told CBS.  But he opposes adding to the existing border wall because he does not "think it brings real border security and it comes at a major cost to taxpayers".  Congressman Henry Cuellar, who represents Texas' 8th congressional district, believes $4bn is needed to modernise ports of entry, not for a wall which he says would only delay migrants by "a few minutes or a few seconds".  He adds that modern telecommunications for border agents, and funding to help Mexico secure its own southern border, would also be helpful.  The new Arizona congresswoman took office in early January as the representative for Arizona's 2nd District and has pledged not to vote for border wall funding.  "We don't want a wall in southern Arizona. A third of our economy comes from Mexico. We want to build bridges not walls," she told Arizona Public Media as she was sworn in.  Mr Grijalva has been a vocal critic of Mr Trump's proposal.  "Not a single cent should go to funding Trump's monument to hate," he tweeted after Mr Trump addressed the nation on primetime TV to argue that there is a "crisis" at the border.  "This is a terrible, terrible mistake that Trump is making," he told CBS, calling it "a fantasy" and "not a solution".  "It would be devastating to my district," said Mr Grijalva, whose own father came emigrated from Mexico in the 1940s.  In her first act as a newly elected member of Congress, Veronica Escobar of Texas' 16th District chose to cast her vote for "Nancy 'no wall' Pelosi" - the Democratic House leader who has opposed budgeting for Mr Trump's wall.  "Donald Trump is trying to portray border communities as these open, lawless areas where a wall will solve problems," she said in a Twitter video for MoveOn.org, a Democratic advocacy group.  Mrs Escobar, who represents the border city of El Paso, blamed Republicans for wrongly and "needless fear mongering about communities like mine".  Congressman Juan Vargas, who has represented California's 51st District for the last five years, said there is no crisis where he lives along the border.  "I live along the border, about a little over 10 miles from the border. It's San Diego. I mean, it's basically paradise," he told CNN. "The notion that we have a crisis there, security crisis, is absolute nonsense."  "The reality is, yes, there are people sneaking into our country," Mr Vargas said. "We can stop that if we have smart solutions, and that's only going to be reliant on technology."  New Mexico's newly elected Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small visited the border earlier this week with other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  While visiting a Border Patrol station where a Guatemalan migrant child died on Christmas Eve, she called for first responders along remote and rural areas of the border to carry emergency medical equipment.  "The border is my home, and I am committed to fighting for and implementing policies which will help to make it #strong #smart and #fair," she tweeted after the visit.  Texas Congressman Filemon Vela Jr has said in the past that he agrees with President Trump on trying to tackle the Mexican drug cartels and deporting criminals.  But he is deeply opposed to the wall.  In a scathing open letter to candidate Trump in 2016, he said: "Why any modern-thinking person would ever believe that building a wall along the border of a neighbouring country, which is both our ally and one of our largest trading partners, is frankly astounding and asinine."  been an outspoken critic of Mr Trump's immigration policies, and criticised his decision before the mid-term elections in November to deploy troops to the border, which he said "inspired white national vigilantes" to flood the region.  After US troops arrived in Brownsville, a city he represents, he condemned their defensive manoeuvres as "direct attacks on our border economy [which] provide no security value whatsoever".


bbc--2019-01-23--Priyanka Gandhi launches political career ahead of key India polls

Priyanka Gandhi, the charismatic sister of Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi, has formally joined politics months ahead of general elections in India.  Ms Gandhi has been appointed the party general secretary for the eastern part of the crucial state of Uttar Pradesh.  She has campaigned extensively for her brother and mother Sonia Gandhi in earlier elections, but had refused a formal political role for herself.  Analysts say she will infuse fresh energy into the Congress campaign.  The main opposition Congress party was routed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the last general election in 2014 and has found it hard to recover.  Ms Gandhi has always been considered more popular of the Gandhi siblings with many blaming the "lacklustre leadership" of her brother for a string of Congress defeats between 2014 and 2018.  The party has gained some ground in recent state elections and Mr Gandhi's stock has risen, but Congress still faces a tough challenge to beat the BJP and regain power.  Social media had been awash with rumours of Priyanka Gandhi's impending political launch in recent days and on Wednesday, the Congress officially confirmed the news with this tweet:  Through the day, all but one of the top trends on Twitter in India were about Ms Gandhi's plunge into formal politics with thousands of people tweeting about her.  Mr Gandhi told reporters on Wednesday that he was "very happy" that his sister would be assisting him in the general elections and that she was "very capable".  Many in the party had clamoured for a larger role for her for years, but the 47-year-old mother-of-two has been reluctant until now to take centre stage.  In previous elections, she had restricted her campaigning to Amethi and Rae Bareli - the parliamentary constituencies of her brother and mother - and is held in high esteem by the voters there.  The Gandhi family has enjoyed cult status in these underdeveloped areas where her father Rajiv and grandmother Indira Gandhi - both former prime ministers - also won several elections.  Her appointment has been greeted enthusiastically by Congress party leaders, workers and supporters, who have often compared her to her charismatic grandmother.  A BJP spokesman, Sambit Patra, said Ms Gandhi's appointment was an admission by the Congress that Rahul Gandhi had failed as the party leader.  But analysts say the move has the potential of improving the party's showing in Uttar Pradesh, which sends the largest number of MPs to parliament.  Ms Gandhi is married to businessman Robert Vadra who has been accused of wrongdoing in his real estate business in the states of Haryana and Rajasthan and is under investigation.  Mr Vadra and the Gandhis have denied the allegations and accuse the BJP of a "political witch hunt".


bbc--2019-01-28--Dog whistles The secret language politicians are using

Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using

Politicians are using coded language to "manipulate people" into making decisions they wouldn't normally be "morally comfortable with," a political language expert has told the BBC.  This kind of political message – which only a particular target audience is meant to understand – is known as a "dog whistle," Professor Jennifer says.  Some have claimed these tactics were used to make people think Barack Obama was a foreigner. Others said UKIP's "Breaking Point" poster was a racist dog whistle.  So how does it work?


bbc--2019-02-04--Nigeria election 2019 How godfathers influence politics

Nigeria election 2019: How ‘godfathers’ influence politics

"Godfathers" in Nigerian politics don't usually run for office themselves, but many believe they are the ones who decide the election winners and losers.  With campaigning well under way for general elections on 16 February, these are the men - and they invariably are men - who pull the strings behind the scenes.  They are political sponsors, who use money and influence to win support for their preferred candidates.  Their "godsons", it is believed, are not always selected for their political acumen, but rather on their ability to repay and enrich their godfather.  These arrangements have spawned the term "godfatherism", says Dr Dele Ashiru, a senior lecturer at the department of political science at the University of Lagos.  "It refers to a situation where there's a big man who wields enormous political power and then anoints a godson, who he adopts as a candidate for the election.  "And the godfather will do all that is reasonably possible to get the godson appointed into political office.  "The godfather must be influential, most often they are, or were, a political office holder."  In the southern state of Akwa Ibom, the country's largest oil-producer, many people believe the main godfather is Godswill Akpabio, who holds a senate seat.  A former governor of the state, he still wields significant power in local politics.  So powerful in fact that his defection just a few months ago to the governing All Progressives Congress (APC) is seen as pivotal to the party's hope of winning its first victory in the state since Nigeria's return to democracy in 1999.  A hope reiterated by President Muhammadu Buhari when he chose Akwa Ibom to launch his campaign for re-election in December.  And Mr Akpabio certainly seems to deliver in numbers. During a recent rally I spoke to followers who said he would bring more than 300,000 voters over to the APC.  But Senator Akpabio denies he is a kingmaker: "If anyone wants to say that I am a godfather I want to disagree with them.  "The only time you could say I played a godfather-like role was in 2015. I nominated the current governor [of Akwa Ibom] and when I presented him to the people they supported him," he told the BBC.  Yet a member of his own party says that 2015 victory was marred by violence and irregularities, orchestrated by Mr Akpabio.  Umana Okon Umana, who was aspiring to be governor at the time, has accused Mr Akpabio of using state resources, including security forces, to install his candidate.  He describes it as a situation where a godfather sits down with his wife "and writes down all who will contest the governorship elections… all the way down to the house of assembly positions.  "He writes these names before the primaries take place. And then if you're not one of those candidates they make sure that you have no access to the venue [of the primaries]."  A Supreme Court ruling from 2015, however, declared the election in the state to be free and fair.  But "godfatherism" can get messy.  Onofiok Luke, now the speaker of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly, was one of Mr Akpabio's former godsons.  A deeply religious man, he attributes his success in politics to God, but many would say he owes far more to his former godfather.  Previously a personal assistant to Mr Akpabio, he admits to having received financial support for his wedding and 40th birthday, and that Mr Akpabio "mentored' him through his rise in politics.  However the relationship has soured and the Akwa Ibom parliamentary speaker, who says he was offered $5.5m (£4.2m) last year and the deputy governorship to switch parties, does not hold back about what he thinks his former boss is capable of.  "I have worked with him, and I know that he knows how to use state power."  In a written response from his media team, Mr Akpabio denied all allegations against him, stating: "We understand that this is a season for campaigns and these wild and unsubstantiated allegations will be thrown about by opponents to gain political mileage."  In a very different part of the country, the political future of the majority Muslim state of Kano in the north may also be defined by a larger-than-life godfather.  Kano has the second-biggest number of registered voters in the country, making it a key state for either of the two main parties to secure victory.  Rabiu Kwankwaso, a former governor, has built a loyal and dedicated following there, partly built through a free education programme implemented during his tenure. Whichever candidate gets his blessing is guaranteed a lot of voters.  He even has his own political fan club, known as the Kwankwasiyya movement, whose members are easily recognisable in their uniform of red caps and white gowns.  He is backing Abba Kabiru Yusuf, a candidate from the People's Democratic Party (PDP), after falling out with a former ally.  On many campaign posters, Mr Kwankwaso's image is larger than that of the PDP contender.  "In all the states you go today, especially in northern Nigeria, you'll hardly get a house without a member of Kwankwasiyya, either the father or the mother or one of the children, or the worker in the house," Mr Kwankwaso told the BBC.  In the last elections he successfully endorsed Abdullahi Ganduje, his former deputy for governor.  But since Mr Ganduje became governor, he has been locked in a bitter dispute with Mr Kwankwaso.  The feud is so fierce that for some time Mr Kwankwaso avoided the city of Kano where there has been an attempt to counter his popularity with the so-called Gandujiyya movement, whose members wear blue hats.  As godsons become political players in their own right, it is inevitable that they fall out with their godfathers.  Mr Ashiru says this is because in developing societies like Nigeria, the state is the most important source of revenue and wealth accumulation, which both will want to access to.  But it is also a question of ego, according to Emmanuel Onwubiko, from Human Rights Writers Association Of Nigeria.  "Some of the godfathers are not really out to get money, they just want respect, they want to be venerated if they come into the state; they want to be recognised as the most important person in that society," he says.  For Mr Ashiru this is a key problem with godfatherism: "Godfather culture is more about the individual than the collective.  "Democracy is about the people, but here you have a few individuals across the country who take critical political decisions, particularly that have to do with the recruitment of public officers.  "So it goes without saying that such a system cannot make democracy thrive."  All the politicians I spoke to shied away from the term "godfather" as it has become loaded - associated with bullish tactics and undemocratic practices.  And as godsons gain their confidence, it is not clear how much longer godfathers will be able to keep their hold on power.  For Mr Akpabio and Mr Kwankwaso, it will not be long before they find out if their influence is waning.


bbc--2019-02-08--Blackface scandal How should politicians apologise

Blackface scandal: How should politicians apologise?

Two of the most senior politicians in the US state of Virginia are engulfed in a "blacking up" scandal. How should public figures confront transgressions that are decades old, asks writer James Jeffrey.  Skeletons seem to be making a mass exodus from public figures' closets of late.  One of the most high-profile cases is Virginia Governor Ralph Northam being implicated by a racist photo suddenly unearthed from 35 years ago.  Days after that story emerged, another Democrat, Attorney General Mark Herring, released a statement describing, and apologising for, attending a college party as a 19-year-old undergraduate in 1980 dressed up as a black rapper.  The ensuing ruckus, and conflagration of polarised politics and the public court of social media increasing the spread and intensity of news, has generated more questions than answers.  They involve what the governor knew and didn't know about the photo, but also about where the line is drawn between what requires an apology and how to deliver one.  "We all believe in the tradition of personal growth, for ourselves and for other people; there is an acknowledgment that people change, and that storyline is built into our culture and belief systems," says Arthur Markman, a professor in the department of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.  "But that is overlaid with how politics is always competitive, and part of it is to exploit the weaknesses of opponents - so knowing that, there is a fine line to tread for politicians about how much to admit and address specific allegations."  Northam initially apologised last Friday for the photo from his 1984 medical school yearbook before holding a press conference the next day when he announced that, upon reflection, he didn't believe he was in the photo.  In an almost surreal turn of events, he also volunteered that in the same year he blackened his face to impersonate Michael Jackson for a dance contest.  And days later a Republican, Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment, faced questions over a 1968 publication he edited that contained blackface photos.  Suddenly voters in Virginia - a state with a pronounced racial history; it housed the capital of the Confederacy - were left judging whether the governor should remain in office.  "A key issue has become how we assess and calculate these sorts of things for public figures," says Jeremi Suri, a historian and author of The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America's Highest Office, which analyses how successful presidents of the past created unrealistic expectations for subsequent presidents, with enormously problematic implications for American politics.  "Now there is less and less tolerance, both in the US and UK, of evidence of character deficiencies, which formerly might have been brushed over, but are now unacceptable because of concerns those attributes could be carried into one's older years."  To apologise or not to apologise, that is the question.  "Given [the] simultaneous politicisation and devaluing of apologies, it is little wonder that public figures apologise so reluctantly and so poorly, with vague conditional regrets, wordy passive language, and out-and-out excuses," says Edwin Battistella, a linguistic and writing professor and author of Sorry About That: The Language of Public Apology.  Battistella notes how throughout the history of apologies in American politics it has gradually become both a stigma and expectation for those in public life, resulting in contrasting apologising strategies: the apology tour, a series of speeches and interviews pursued as an expedient opportunity to express regret, versus the non-apology, such as when Oregon Senator Bob Parkwood apologised in 1992 for "the conduct that it was alleged that I did".  At the same time, Battistella says, a more dignified middle ground was struck by the likes of Ronald Reagan, who in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra scandal accepted responsibility.  "You take your knocks, you learn your lessons and then you move on," Reagan said at the time. "That's the healthiest way to deal with a problem."  And by George W Bush who faced rumours of a wild, dissolute youth by stating he was a changed man who had rediscovered God.  Nowadays, politicians - and society at large - appear to find themselves at another stage in the development of the politics of forgiveness.  "There's always been skeletons in everyone's closet, but it used to be that if something became an issue, often a public figure did and said something, and then it faded away - but the intensity of social media keeps it in front of us more," Battistella says. "Also, when it comes to taking responsibility, now public figures seem less willing to accept it, while the public are less willing to let the issue go."  The furore over Northam's photo and his conflicting explanations of it, coming so soon after the Supreme Court nomination hearings for Brett Kavanaugh that included criticisms of comments from his high school yearbook, indicates old yearbooks are now firmly in the cross hairs, especially in relation to certain issues.  "This is how attitudes advance - once there were concerns over anti-Semitic attitudes, because that was one problem in the 1960s," Suri says. "Now it is about race and sex: this reflects the spread of democracy, because those issues are now better represented by powerful voices."  But it's also been noted by some that, the photo notwithstanding, Northam has been a progressive governor, across all communities, and appears to have not put a foot wrong during the 35 years since the photo. For now, none of that appears to make much difference to the deluge of criticism over the photo.  "The public have a right to know about someone's background," says Walter Robinson, editor at large for the Boston Globe, and who led the team that revealed the local Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal (dramatised in the Oscar-winning film "Spotlight").  "Not a right to know everything, but a right about issues relating to character."  But does that include the public having a right to an apology?  "If you don't apologise, it's hard to indicate you've changed," Markman says. "Part of any apology is acknowledging what you did wrong and explaining how you know why, and what you will do differently in the future."  That said, politicians face a particular conundrum in relation to this, Markman notes, especially in America.  "What fascinates me about US politics in the last 25 years is the degree to which politicians are held accountable for consistency as opposed to growth," Markman says. "You can't change your thinking, otherwise you are flip-flopping."  There is some logic behind this, Markman grants - when you vote for politicians, you want to be able to rely that they won't suddenly pivot on issues you care about and voted over. But it also misses an essential human reality.  "I look at all my students who live online and wonder what are going to be the new standards for them when they are older," says James Vaughn, a professor in the British Studies department at the University of Texas at Austin. "They may be debating issues such as transgender now, but which in the future will be totally settled, and thus any concerns they aired earlier could appear like racism."  For now, Northam insists he won't resign, and so the spectacle rumbles on - quite likely watched by other politicians ruing the existence of photos from their pasts and considering their options.  "My advice would be time travel, but in the absence of that, I would say cop to everything upfront and make it part of a narrative, such as I am the sum total of all the things I have done, this one thing doesn't represent me, and I will strive to be better," Markman says.  This approach appears to have been adopted by Mr Herring, who came forward before any journalist had gone public with his admission of impersonating Kurtis Blow.  "It sounds ridiculous even now writing it," Herring said in his statement. "But because of our ignorance and glib attitudes - and because we did not have an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of others - we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup.  That conduct clearly shows that, as a young man, I had a callous and inexcusable lack of awareness and insensitivity to the pain my behaviour could inflict on others," Herring said. "It was really a minimisation of both people of colour, and a minimisation of a horrific history I knew well even then."  But this sort of pre-emptive owning up carries its own risk too.  Actor Liam Neeson is having to do his own emergency apology tour - clarification tour might be more accurate - to explain that he is "not racist" after volunteering information in a recent interview that nearly 40 years ago he once wanted to "kill" a black man for revenge.  America is in a unique position currently when it comes to admitting fault or distancing oneself from it, Vaughn notes, due to its history and issues such as race informing the current polarised political climate.  In countries like the UK, the demand for so-called "virtue signalling" as a form of compensation isn't as great, Vaughn notes, though he says he doesn't know whether this is because it is a condition particular to the US or because other countries are yet to follow suit.  "I would much prefer there was more recognition that people can change," Markman says. "After all, that's what government is all about: enabling ordinary people to have the opportunities to be better versions of themselves."


bbc--2019-03-19--US politician Devin Nunes sues Twitter over insults

A US politician has accused Twitter and three of its users of running an "orchestrated defamation campaign" against him.  Republican congressman Devin Nunes of California has said that tweets from the parody accounts @DevinNunesMom and @DevinCow violate the platform's Terms of Service.  Their tweets accuse him of federal crimes and describe him engaging in sexual activities with US president Donald Trump.  He is suing for $250m (£188m).  "Twitter knew the defamation was (and is) happening. Twitter let it happen because Twitter had (and has) a political agenda", he wrote in a 40-page complaint.  He says he has suffered "substantial insult, humiliation, embarrassment, pain, mental suffering and damage to his reputation" from the Twitter insults.  Mr Nunes served as the chair of the US House Intelligence Committee until 2019. He became a controversial figure for his vocal support of President Trump during the investigation into Russian interference in the US presidential election.  He was also the centre of an investigation of the House Ethics Committee in 2017, after he released a memo claiming that the intelligence community monitored communications between members of Trump's transition team (of which he was a part). He was cleared of any wrongdoing.  He is now claiming that Twitter "selectively amplified" tweets that attempted to distract him from that investigation.  Mr Nunes says that the the accounts @LizMair, @DevinNunesMom and @DevinCow led a coordinated smear campaign against him - although fringe accounts such as @fireDevinNunes and @DevinGrapes also dished up insults.  Tweets from the accounts have accused him of crimes such as obstructing justice and perjury. Some posts have referred to him as "Dirty Devin" and described him engaging in sexual activities with President Trump. Mr Nunes has said that these allegations are false.  It isn't uncommon for public figures - particularly politicians - to have to contend with parody accounts. PM Theresa May has inspired @Theresa_May_Not, @TheresaGoogling, @DowningStVogue and @emayji (a play on "emoji"). President Trump has also prompted sarcastic spin-offs mocking his policies, such as @donaltrumparody and @realDonaldTrFan.  According to Mr Nunes, Twitter suspended the @DevinNunesMom account in 2019, before he filed the complaint. The @DevinCow account is still active, and has reached more than 48,000 followers since Mr Nunes filed his complaint on Monday.  Although Mr Nunes claims that the @DevinNunesMom account "hijacked Nunes' name" and "falsely impersonated Nunes' mother", Twitter's policies do not ban parody and fan accounts - so long as the biography and account name clearly indicate that the user is not affiliated to the subject.  In his complaint, Mr Nunes suggests that they are part of a larger conspiracy, and that an investigation will help determine whether members of the Democratic Party were involved.  Mr Nunes says that Twitter "shadow-banned" his account, using algorithms to make certain posts invisible to other users.  Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey has come under fire from politicians in recent years, including US president Donald Trump, for censoring conservative voices.  In a hearing before US senators in 2018, Mr Dorsey admitted that the company's algorithms inadvertently reduced the visibility of 600,000 accounts - but that the company "does not use political ideology to make decisions". Although some accounts weren't appearing in search results on the platform, this was due to follower behaviour on the platform, not political affiliation.  Mr Nunes does not describe how Twitter shadow-banned his account in the complaint he filed. Most of the complaint instead focuses on the three accounts that he claims posted defamatory content, and Twitter's failure to enforce its Twitter Rules and Terms of Service.  "Twitter, by its actions, intended to generate and proliferate the false and defamatory statements," he said.


bbc--2019-04-24--Can Indias political prince unseat the PM

Can India’s political prince unseat the PM?

India's main opposition leader Rahul Gandhi was all but written off after his crushing defeat in the last elections. But he has energised a struggling Congress party and increasingly set the agenda with a combative campaign. The BBC's Geeta Pandey visits his constituency to assess whether he can unseat the prime minister this time.  The main roads in the small town of Amethi were choked with supporters when Rahul Gandhi turned up to file his nomination papers last week.  Mr Gandhi - smiling and waving on an open truck, accompanied by his sister Priyanka - was greeted all along the 3km route to the district collector's office by party workers. Many waved flags, others carried their photographs and town residents showered them with rose petals.  A man in a horse costume danced to drum beats, a brass band played welcoming tunes and groups of supporters ran alongside the convoy shouting slogans in his support.  "Mr Modi's days are numbered," says Mustaqim Ahmed, who has travelled 125km (78 miles) from his village with his 12-year-old son to see the Congress chief.  Anokhelal Tiwari, a resident of Amethi, adds: "Wait and see, once the votes are counted on 23 May, Mr Modi will known as the ex-prime minister of India. The Congress will form the next government and 'Rahul bhaiya [brother]' will become the prime minister."  It's a dream Mr Gandhi's supporters in Amethi have had for a long time. In fact, ever since he made his political debut 15 years ago.  The 48-year-old is a three-term MP from this town in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. He is now seeking a fourth term. This time though, he's also standing in Wayanad in the southern state of Kerala - leading to the BJP alleging he's scared of losing Amethi to their candidate Smriti Irani, who put up a tough fight in 2014. Congress leaders have defended the move, saying it will help widen their base in the south.  I followed Mr Gandhi's campaigns closely in 2004, 2009 and 2014 - and each time I was told by supporters they were electing the PM, not an MP. That sentiment is now being echoed in Wayanad too, says my BBC Hindi colleague Imran Qureshi, who's covering the election there.  That's because Rahul Gandhi has the right pedigree: he is the scion of India's political royalty.  His great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, was the first prime minister of independent India, his grandmother and father also served as prime ministers, while his mother, Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, was the Congress chief until poor health forced her to hand over the reins to her son 16 months ago.  Even before that, there never was any doubt that he was being groomed for the top job. In 2013, he was elevated to the second most senior position in the party and campaigned extensively in the 2014 general election.  So when Congress suffered its most humiliating defeat that year, winning just 44 seats in the 545-member parliament, his political career hit rock bottom.  For a while after that, nothing seemed to be going right for him or the Congress.  The party faced electoral setbacks in several state elections; he was seen as "remote and inaccessible" and critics and rivals ridiculed him on social media as a bumbling, clueless leader prone to gaffes. Narendra Modi, who comes from a humble background, repeatedly criticised him for rising to the top not on merit, but because of belonging to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.  But then things began to change: Mr Gandhi started to emerge from the shadows, his social media campaigns became smarter and he began arguing convincingly about the government's controversial currency ban, a lack of employment opportunities, growing intolerance in the country and the slowdown in the economy.  The proverbial cherry on the cake came in December when he led the Congress to victory in important state elections in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.  And now, as he traverses the length and breadth of the country, addressing up to five rallies daily, his campaign is beginning to get some traction.  Senior journalist Aarthi Ramachandran, author of a 2012 book on Mr Gandhi, says he's displayed leadership potential on the campaign trail by consistently taking a stand against Mr Modi, demanding answers from the government on alleged corruption in the Rafale fighter jet deal and arguing forcefully that the currency ban hit people's lives hard.  "The political acumen he's displaying now was largely absent from his politics earlier," she says, adding that his ability to speak too is "vastly improved".  "He does these meetings in colleges and universities with young people, he tells them, 'ask me whatever you want'. He connects very well with them. In the parliament too, rather than reading out prepared speeches, he speaks extempore, with confidence.  "He's come into his own, worked hard over a period of time on acquiring skills."  In recent weeks, there's also been a lot of chatter about the party's minimum income guarantee scheme that promises to give cash handouts to 50 million poor families if the Congress is elected to power. One analyst described it as a "perfect disrupter" which could help the party improve their election tally.  It was certainly well-timed - the scheme was announced just as pollsters began suggesting that India's air strikes in Pakistan may help the BJP to victory. The announcement brought the conversation back to poverty and lack of jobs and made the BJP fairly uncomfortable.  But it's not going to be a game-changer in 2019, says Prof Sanjay Kumar of research organisation CSDS (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies).  "It's come a bit too late. Also, the party doesn't have the communication skills or the resources to take it to the people."  "Their leaders don't have the language skills, they are carrying huge baggage because many in the majority community believe that Congress follows the policy of minority appeasement and when they question the government's honesty and accuse it of corruption, not many are ready to buy that because the Congress have had so many corruption allegations against them in the past."  The biggest disadvantage though, he says, is that it's not just their support base that's eroded - they also lack the party workers required during an election.  "So I won't put my money on the Congress now," he says. "But that doesn't mean that there is no future for the Congress. Losing one or two elections doesn't mean a party has no future. Remember the 1984 elections when the BJP was reduced to two seats? And it bounced back to 282 in the last election."  Several Congress leaders, too, have hinted that 2019 is really not a "do-or-die" battle for the party and that 2024 is perhaps a much more realistic goal.  In 2004, just as Mr Gandhi had embarked on his political career, I caught up with him during his campaign in Amethi and asked him to assess his chances.  "You win some, you lose some. Maybe I'll win this, maybe I won't," he'd said.  I then asked him what he would do if he lost.  "Just because you lose one battle doesn't mean you turn around and close shop and say, 'I can't do anything.' If I lose the election, would I say let's pack our bags and go home? No, no, no."  So in his own words, he's in it for the long haul. Don't write him off yet.


bbc--2019-06-19--Mohammed Morsi Egypt accuses UN of politicising death

Mohammed Morsi: Egypt accuses UN of 'politicising' death

Egypt has lashed out at the United Nations for "politicising" the death of the country's first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi.  The UN called for an investigation on Tuesday after Morsi collapsed and died during a court appearance this week.  In a statement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ahmed Hafez "condemned" the suggestion, insisting it was "a case of natural death".  Morsi had been in custody since his removal in a 2013 military coup.  His family have long raised concerns over his treatment in prison, and say that the authorities refused a request for him to be buried in his home town.  The former leader was instead laid to rest in eastern Cairo early on Tuesday morning, reportedly under tight security.  Mr Hafez accused the UN of trying to "[obscure] the institutions of the Egyptian state and the integrity of the Egyptian judiciary."  He added that any suggestion of foul play was "not based on any evidence."  A statement earlier this week from the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed to Egypt's obligations to treat its prisoners humanely.  "Concerns have been raised regarding the conditions of Mr Morsi's detention, including access to adequate medical care, as well as sufficient access to his lawyers and family, during his nearly six years in custody," a spokesman for the office said.  "He also appears to have been held in prolonged solitary confinement."  Morsi died while appearing in court on spying charges. He was already facing decades in jail after being convicted in previous trials on separate charges.  A forensic report has been ordered into his death.  His former party, the now-banned Muslim Brotherhood, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – a close ally of Morsi – are among those who have blamed the Egyptian leadership for his death.  Human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also called for an independent investigation into Morsi's death.


bbc--2019-06-25--West Bengal protests Politicians hounded to return bribe money

West Bengal protests: Politicians hounded to return bribe money

People in India's West Bengal state are up in arms against politicians for an unusual reason - they are demanding their representatives repay bribes.  The state's chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, has told ministers to return bribe money they were paid by citizens seeking access to government schemes.  The home of a local leader of her party was "raided" by residents on Monday who wanted their money back, police said.  Now similar incidents are being reported across the state.  "The money they have taken... they will have to return it to the victims. We will teach these leaders a lesson," a protester told the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).  Bribery is fairly common in Indian politics, but this scenario is unexpected, says BBC Bengali's Amitabha Bhattasali.  Reports of protests organised across the state are coming in every day, our correspondent adds.  Ms Banerjee, a hugely popular and fiery leader, first came to power in 2011.  But there is some indication that her popularity has been waning in recent months, which correspondents say has left her rattled.  It could be that this latest statement is an attempt to regain some of the ground she lost to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the recently concluded general election.  Her party won only 22 of West Bengal's 42 seats - a big drop from the 32 she won in 2014 - in an election marred by violence which saw a number of political activists in the state killed.


bbc--2019-06-27--Twitter will hide rule-breaking politicians tweets

Twitter will hide rule-breaking politicians' tweets

Twitter says it will hide tweets by world leaders and politicians that break its rules but have been left online "in the public interest".  Tweets from prominent government officials that break the platform's rules but have been left online will be hidden behind a notice.  The company accepted it had not clearly communicated many of the decisions it had made in the past.  But the new notice will only be applied to tweets sent after 27 June.  Twitter's critics say the platform does not enforce its rules evenly, allowing politicians to break its rules on abuse, harassment and incitement.  In the past, Twitter has defended some of its decisions by saying the tweets in question were "newsworthy".  For example, in September 2017 the company said it had decided to leave a controversial tweet by US President Donald Trump online.  In the tweet, Mr Trump said: "Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at UN. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won't be around much longer!"  Many people interpreted the message as a threat to North Korea.  Although Twitter decided the post was newsworthy, there was no indication of this on the Twitter app or website.  Twitter did not say whether any particular politician had inspired the change to its rules.  Tweets placed behind the new notice will no longer appear in search results and will not be promoted by the platform's algorithms.  The new policy will only apply to people who:  However, Twitter said in some cases - such as direct and immediate threats of violence - the tweets would still be removed.  The company said most users were "unlikely to encounter" the new notice often.  "This is a step, although a small step, in the right direction," said Dr Zoetanya Sujon from the London College of Communication.  "Of course, it doesn't stop soft racism or active political disinformation. And it will not have any visible impact on Twitter's harassment problem.  "Let's hope it can spark much better practice around the regulation of disinformation, hate speech, and incitement in political and public discussion on Twitter."  However, the platform is likely to face accusations of censorship when it places the first politician's tweet behind its new notice.  The company said old tweets would not be hidden behind the notice, and it could not predict when the new tool would first be used.


bbc--2019-07-06--Former MI6 head UK in political nervous breakdown

Former MI6 head: UK in 'political nervous breakdown'

The UK is going through a "political nervous breakdown", a former intelligence chief has told the BBC.  Sir John Sawers said the UK could have a prime minister who does "not have the standing that we have become used to in our top leadership" - a criticism of the two Tory leadership contenders.  The former MI6 boss was also critical of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.  Boris Johnson ally Iain Duncan Smith countered Sir John's remarks, saying "democracy may well frighten him".  Sir John's intervention comes as Jeremy Hunt and Mr Johnson battle it out to be the next leader of the Conservative Party.  It also follows an article in the Times newspaper, quoting unnamed senior civil servants, which suggested Mr Corbyn was "too frail" to become prime minister, "physically or mentally".  Speaking on the Today programme, he said: "We are going through a political nervous breakdown here in the UK.  "We have potential prime ministers being elected by the Conservative Party now, [and] in the shape of the leader of the opposition, who do not have the standing that we have become used to in our top leadership.  "Whether people can develop that when they become prime minister, we will have to wait and see, in terms of the candidates for the Conservative leadership."  Sir John's comments come after reports Downing Street tried to withhold sensitive intelligence from Boris Johnson when he was foreign secretary.  It is understood there were concerns about Mr Johnson's ability to keep information confidential.  The Tory leadership frontrunner said the reports were "not true".  In the surprisingly frank exchange, Sir John said there were concerns in Whitehall about the direction the country is heading.  "I think there is a lot of anxiety as we leave the European Union, we take a huge risk to our international standing, to the strength of the British economy."  He said former prime minister David Cameron had been "unwise" to call the EU referendum in 2016, adding that it had left the country "badly divided" and the UK's standing in the world "severely diminished".  Sir John Sawers' views on Brexit are well-known. He's warned in the past that leaving the EU would make the UK less safe.  His intervention will have little impact on the outcome of the Conservative leadership race. Most Tory members are pro-Brexit and many will likely dismiss his opinions as more 'project fear'.  Both leadership contenders say they'd be prepared to take the UK out of the EU, deal or no deal, on Halloween.  However if the views of the former head of MI6 are reflected in the upper echelons of the current civil service, it suggests the new prime minister won't just face resistance in Parliament, but in Whitehall too.  As well as the two would-be Tory leaders, Sir John questioned whether Jeremy Corbyn is of sufficient standing to become PM.  The Labour leader's had his own recent run-in with the civil service, after officials reportedly questioned his health and fitness to lead the country.  No matter who's in power, it seems relations between politicians and civil servants are becoming increasingly strained.  "It is not surprising that the people who have devoted themselves to serving the interests of this country are concerned about the direction in which the country is going."  Before the 2016 referendum Sir John said leaving the EU would make the UK "less safe" because it would be shut out of decisions on the "crucial" issue of data sharing.  "Actually I think he might be going through a political nervous breakdown," he told the Today programme.  "The reality is that the expression of democracy may well frighten him slightly."  Mr Corbyn's office said it would not be commenting on Sir John's remarks.


bbc--2019-08-07--Australian bureaucrat loses landmark case over political tweets

Australia's highest court has made a landmark ruling that a public servant was lawfully sacked for writing tweets which criticised government policies.  Michaela Banerji was fired in 2013 for her criticisms - expressed under a pseudonym - of the nation's controversial immigration programmes.  The court rejected her claim that she had been denied a right to free speech.  The ruling could have far-reaching implications for employees who express political views, lawyers say.  Ms Banerji had been working for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, now part of the Department of Home Affairs.  Using the Twitter name LaLegale, she wrote posts which often criticised Australia's immigration policies and its overseas detention of asylum seekers. The posts were sent from a personal device and almost exclusively in her own time.  After learning Ms Banerji operated the account, her employers sacked her for breaching the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct - which states bureaucrats cannot express political views.  Ms Banerji later took her case to an appeals tribunal, which found her sacking had violated her right to freedom of political communication.  The government then challenged that decision in the High Court of Australia.  It found Ms Banerji's dismissal had not breached the constitution, citing rules that public servants "must take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent)" with their employment.  Those rules require bureaucrats to be "apolitical", the court determined.  In doing so, it rejected Ms Banerji's argument that she had been unreasonably sacked because her Twitter profile had never disclosed "that it was operated or endorsed by a member of the public service".  Ms Banerji left the court in tears after the decision, telling reporters: "It's not just a loss for me, it's a loss for all of us, and I'm very, very, very sorry."  The decision has implications for Australia's approximately two million public servants and what they can post on social media, says the Community and Public Sector Union.  The union's spokeswoman, Nadine Flood, said public servants "should be allowed normal rights as citizens rather than facing Orwellian censorship because of where they work".  But outside court Ms Banerji's lawyer, Allan Anforth, asserted the implications could go further.  "The implication is that for any employee-employer relationship, if the employee is critical of the employer's position on some politically relevant social issue, they can be sacked," he said, reported the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  "This is a really naive decision in terms of the political realities of what exist in the community."


bbc--2019-08-28--What just happened in UK politics

What just happened in UK politics?

In a dramatic move on Wednesday morning, Britain's new Prime Minister Boris Johnson set in motion the suspension of the UK Parliament - which means MPs have much less time to debate Brexit, the process of the UK leaving the European Union.  Parliament is to be suspended for five weeks ahead of 31 October, the day the UK is due to leave the EU.  That's just nine weeks away.  People who want the UK to remain in the EU are calling it a coup - and even some in favour of Brexit have criticised the move.  Mr Johnson wants to start a new parliamentary session, with a fresh programme, from 14 October. Instead of a normal three-week autumn recess, parliament will now wrap up some time around 10 September.  With so little time, MPs would find it difficult to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal.  Parliament always stops work for a few weeks in the autumn. But this isn't a normal recess: Mr Johnson is cutting short the current parliamentary session at a critical time.  The UK was originally scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March. After Parliament rejected the deal negotiated with the EU three times, that deadline was extended. Departure day is now 31 October.  Mr Johnson, who was one of the key figures in the Leave campaign, has promised to complete Brexit "do or die" - with or without a deal.  However, most opposition members of Parliament (MPs) and many from the governing Conservative Party don't want to leave the EU without a deal. They fear it would damage the British economy, putting up prices and limiting access to the UK's biggest market.  They've threatened to bring legislation ruling out a no-deal Brexit. Failing that, they could also call a vote of no-confidence in the government.  Yes. It's what normally happens between the end of one session and the beginning of the next. However, the circumstances are unusual.  A legal challenge would be difficult, since the government isn't breaking any law. It's just using parliamentary procedure, as Mr Johnson tries to fulfil his campaign promise to get the UK out of the EU.  MPs could either go along with the suspension, with the risk of a no-deal Brexit, or they could trigger an election with a vote of no confidence in the government.  The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has called the suspension a "constitutional outrage" designed to prevent MPs from debating Brexit.  She does have a say, but it's limited. Technically, the government had to ask her for permission to suspend Parliament.  This is normally a formality: the Queen keeps out of politics. If she had refused, that would have been unprecedented.  She did not refuse.  Parliament will go back to work next Tuesday 3 September, but will then go into recess.  If Mr Johnson gets his way, Parliament returns on 14 October, two-and-a-half weeks before the UK leaves the EU.  However, if MPs pass a vote of no-confidence before 10 September, there could be a general election in October.  That depends. If the Conservatives win, then yes. They're ahead in the opinion polls, at about 31% last week, after Mr Johnson took over from the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, in July.  The main opposition Labour Party is trailing by 10 to 12 points, on about 21%. Labour is divided between traditional working-class areas, which tend to support Brexit, and voters in cities like London who are more in favour of remaining in the EU.  But a Conservative win is not necessarily in the bag. Other parties, including the centre-left Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists, are all staunchly opposed to Brexit on any terms.  And then there's the Brexit Party under Nigel Farage, whose central policy is to get the UK out of the EU.  The fluid political situation and tight opinion polls make it difficult to say who might get a majority, if anyone.  This makes any election difficult to predict. Just ask Mrs May: she called an early election in 2017 but returned with a reduced majority, dependent on 10 MPs from Northern Ireland.  As a result, she had to agree to a deal which would keep the UK aligned with EU rules for longer than Brexit supporters would accept.  And so here we are.