theindependent--2019-06-26--Women forced to consider abortions due to government policy that apostraps children in povertyapo

Women forced to consider abortions due to government policy that 'traps children in poverty', says report

Mothers have been forced to consider having abortions so they can feed their families because of a government policy which cuts some child benefits for households with more than two children, a new report has claimed.  The two-child limit, which prohibits families from receiving tax credit and universal credit for a third or subsequent child, is “trapping children in poverty” to the point where they cannot eat healthy food or attend sports clubs, according to the research from the Child Poverty Action group (CPAG) and the Church of England.  Based on a survey of more than 430 families affected by this policy, as well as additional evidence from charities, the report found that in some cases, women who had had unplanned pregnancies – often because contraception had failed – had felt obliged to consider a termination.  Campaigners described the policy as "cruel", saying it "sent a message that one child matters more than another simply because of the order in which they are born".  The two-child limit was part of a package of changes to benefits announced in 2015, aimed at reducing spending on working-age families. From April 2017, low-income families having a third or subsequent child lost their entitlement to additional support through child tax credit and universal credit, worth £2,780 per child per year.  An estimated 160,000 families have been affected by the policy to date, while 300,000 children will be pushed into poverty by 2023/24, according to the findings, which also suggested that  1 million children will be pushed even deeper into poverty in the next five years.  The report states that by 2024, more than half of children in families with three or more children are expected to be in poverty.  Alison Garnham, chief executive of CPAG, called on the government to lift the two-child limit, saying: “We wouldn’t turn away a sick child from our hospitals or stop them going to school and yet the two-child limit denies families the support they need from our social security system when they experience tough times, trapping kids in poverty.”  The Rt Revd Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham, said the policy was “going against this fundamental principle and pushing many families and children into poverty”.  He added: “It is simply not right that some children get support and others don’t. The two-child limit must be lifted as part of a concerted effort to reverse the rise in child poverty."  Almost all parents who took part in the survey said they had had to cut back on essentials (95 per cent). One said they hadn’t been able to afford inhalers that week because they were more concerned about their children having food, and that they were "praying" they could make the inhalers last before they ran out.  One mother, named only as Lisa, whose husband works full time, said she couldn't buy the healthy food that she would like to buy for her children, adding: "I would have liked to get them fruit. I can’t remember the last time I made a fresh dinner, it’s all stuff I’ve got in my freezer.”  Another mother, whose partner had become ill and unable to work due to disability, meaning she stayed at home caring for him and their four children, said she and her husband were "not eating at all during the day to feed the children".  Margaret Greenwood, Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "The government must listen to the damning evidence in this report. It brings home the impact of this cruel policy on families forced to cut back on essentials and pushed into poverty as a result.  "The two-child limit means children missing out not just on toys or school trips, but meals and new clothes when they need them. It sends a message that one child matters more than another simply because of the order in which they are born."  Interviews conducted as part of the research also suggested the two-child limit risked making it harder for women experiencing domestic abuse to leave their abuser and increase the hardship they and their children face if they do manage to leave.  Under the policy, if a woman conceived a child due to rape there is a requirement for disclosure of non-consensual conception to get an exception, which the report said could make it more difficult to leave an abusive relationship and put mothers at increased risk of violence.  The research also states that refugees affected by the two-child limit are likely to have arrived in the UK with next to nothing, and that the two-child limit hinders their ability to rebuild their lives after traumatic experiences.  The financial effects of the two-child limit not only undermine refugee parents’ ability to provide material  basics for their children but also reduce refugee children’s access to school activities that could help them to integrate and build social connections with their peers, it said.  One refugee couple have had to stop swimming lessons for their eldest child, though she loves them, in order to cover essentials for the baby. Another refugee couple said: “We just try to pay the bills and buy food because that’s all we can afford, that’s what we have to prioritise.”  A government spokesperson said: “This policy helps to ensure fairness by asking parents receiving benefits to face the same financial choices as those in work. Safeguards are in place and we’ve made changes this year to make the policy fairer.  "Tackling poverty remains a priority - we’re spending £95bn a year on welfare and providing free school meals to more than a million children. We’re supporting families to improve their lives through employment and latest figures show there are 667,000 fewer children living in workless households since 2010.”


theindependent--2019-07-29--Brexit MPs aposalarmedapos at governmentaposs failure to set out aposbasic policyapos ove

Brexit: MPs 'alarmed' at government's failure to set out 'basic policy' over future investment agreements

A committee of MPs has voiced “alarm” at the government’s failure to develop a policy on post-Brexit international investment agreements, with the UK fewer than 100 days away from a possible no-deal departure from the European Union.  A critical report condemned the Department for International Trade’s “inability to set out even basic lines of policy” on the agreements, which will be vital to the UK economy after EU withdrawal.  And the cross-party House of Commons International Trade Committee questioned government claims that foreign direct investment (FDI) in the UK had remained strong following the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU, warning there was a danger that ministers were painting an excessively positive picture by “cherry-picking” figures.  Their 70-page report cited experts who said the Department for International Trade relied on “very suspect” private sector estimates of jobs created by FDI.  And even the former investment minister Edward Garnier told the committee he initially thought it was “mad” to follow an international norm which measures FDI in terms of the number of projects attracting investment, regardless of their value.  Appearing before the committee in March, the then international trade secretary, Liam Fox, replaced by Liz Truss in Boris Johnson’s reshuffle last week, said the UK’s FDI performance had been “very strong because we have strong economic fundamentals”.  But the report pointed to figures from the Office for National Statistics suggesting that the number of jobs created and safeguarded by FDI has fallen in each year since 2015-16.  And the report quoted FDI experts who said there had been a “sudden and very notable decline” in foreign investment in new “greenfield” projects in the UK following the Brexit vote, with one putting the fall in the number of such projects at 25 per cent between 2015 and 2018, with a 50 per cent decline in associated manufacturing jobs. Meanwhile, greenfield investment in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Switzerland and Ireland had “boomed” as companies moved operations due to Brexit.  Much of the FDI activity which contributed to the UK’s apparently strong performance involved mergers and acquisitions of existing companies by foreign buyers – such as the Kraft takeover of Cadbury – found the report.  “The government regularly cites statistics on FDI from various sources,” said the committee. “In doing so, it needs to be careful not to risk giving the impression of cherry-picking figures so as to convey the most favourable impression possible.”  The cross-party committee said it was “disappointed” by the information provided to its inquiry on international investment agreements, with neither ministers nor officials “able to set out even basic lines of policy”.  Ministers’ claims that the UK is barred from developing a policy until after Brexit did not appear to have “any credible legal basis”, the committee found.  The report warned: “The government needs to have a policy in place for the eventuality of a Brexit scenario in which there is no transition period, which could occur on 31 October.  “We are alarmed that no such policy seems yet to have been formulated.”  Committee chair Angus MacNeil said: “Despite describing the value of investment to the UK as ‘phenomenal’, the minister for investment could tell us surprisingly little about the government’s approach to international investment agreements after Brexit.  “This is urgent, given that we could leave the EU without a deal in a matter of months, and if that happens the UK will take back responsibility for negotiating such agreements.”  A Department for International Trade spokesperson said: “The UK is an incredibly attractive destination for foreign direct investment, as shown by a range of analysis by independent experts.  “As the prime minister has said, we are ready for no deal. We are building on the 90 bilateral investment agreements we have already secured with countries across the world.”


theindependent--2019-08-01--Justice secretaryaposs call for rape suspect anonymity aposnot government policyapos Downing

Justice secretary's call for rape suspect anonymity 'not government policy', Downing Street says amid outrage

The new justice secretary has been heavily criticised after suggesting that suspected criminals of “good character” should be granted anonymity before charge.  Robert Buckland QC said there was “merit” in extending a controversial campaign launched by Sir Cliff Richard to ban naming people arrested over alleged sex offences and other serious crimes.  “Let’s say you are a reputable local businessperson who is accused of fraud – your good name is going to be really undermined by this mere accusation,” he told The Times. “You are a person of good character. That might be a meritorious case for anonymity.  “Let’s say you are a person with a list of previous convictions. You’ve committed offences. There is intelligence out there that suggests that other victims might come forward. Is that a case where anonymity should be automatic?”  Downing Street said the suggestions were “not government policy” and The Independent understands no steps are being taken towards a change in police guidance governing how suspects are named.  Some MPs and victims’ groups reacted to Mr Buckland’s comments with outrage, following statistics showing that the proportion of reported rapes prosecuted in England and Wales has fallen to just 1.5 per cent.  Labour MP Stella Creasy said anonymising suspected sex abusers would amount to “basing actual law-making on the belief women lie”.  Writing on Twitter, Mr Buckland replied that he agreed “that particular crimes should not be singled out, particularly sexual allegations” and had opposed a 2010 government proposal to grant legal anonymity to alleged rapists who are not convicted.  The victims commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Vera Baird, said there can be a public interest in naming arrested suspects for information appeals or to encourage other complainants to come forward.  “The current guidance, which I think is right, says that nobody should have their name made public until they are charged with an offence, whatever the crime,” she told The Independent.  “It is when the police depart from this that problems arise.”  Dame Vera said research suggested that four out of five victims of sexual assault do not report their crime and the number of prosecutions had “dropped off a cliff”, adding: “We must not lose sight of this in the debate about defendant anonymity.”  The Society of Editors expressed “deep concerns”, adding: “We cannot have a state of affairs in this country where the rich and powerful are given more protection than the rest of society.  “What would exist is a state of affairs where the actions of the police when investigating and arresting citizens cannot be reported on by the media.”  The controversy came just two days after Mr Buckland, a former criminal barrister and solicitor general, was sworn in as the new justice secretary and Lord Chancellor.  A Private Member’s Bill aiming to ban naming of suspects accused of any crime before charge passed its second reading in the House of Lords in March. But it does not have government support.  The proposals would make publishing the identity of an arrested person a criminal offence punishable by up to six months in prison in England and Wales, unless a crown court judge allowed restrictions to be lifted.  Liberal Democrat peer Brian Paddick, who moved the bill, said on Thursday: “It’s within the power of government to get this through.”  Last month, Sir Cliff and Paul Gambaccini launched a campaign to ban naming suspected offenders unless they are prosecuted to “protect the reputations of all innocent suspects”.  Sir Cliff won a privacy case against the BBC over its coverage of a 2014 police raid on his home, following a child sex assault allegation that he denied and was never arrested.  Mr Gambaccini, a radio DJ, was arrested in October 2013 as part of an operation set up in the wake of the revelations about paedophile Jimmy Savile but not charged.  Their petition, backed by a group called Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (Fair), has garnered almost 27,500 signatures but a government response said false accusations were not widespread and can be prosecuted.  “The government believes that there should, in general, be a right to anonymity before charge in respect of all offences, but that there will be exceptional circumstances where there are legitimate policing reasons for naming a suspect,” said a Home Office statement.  “The naming of an arrested person before they are charged must be authorised by a chief officer who must also ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service is consulted.  “This approach recognises that there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputation of those persons, particularly if they are never charged. It strikes a balance between the rights of suspects to privacy and the need to prevent and investigate crime.”  Police guidance states that people investigated for a crime must not be named until charge, unless there is a “legitimate policing purpose to do so”.  But the College of Policing said it cannot “prevent the media relying on information from sources outside the police in order to confirm identities”.  The Home Office said that anyone who feels they have been wrongly named “can either make a complaint to the publishers’ self-regulator or take action through the courts”.


theindependent--2019-10-07--Home Office adviser quits drugs panel over 'political vetting' of applicants critical of g

Home Office adviser quits drugs panel over 'political vetting' of applicants critical of government policy

A drug policy expert on the government’s advisory panel has resigned, warning the Home Office’s “political vetting” of applicants is undermining the body’s independence.  Professor Alex Stevens cited recent instances where a minister blocked suitable applicants from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), after they criticised government drug policy on social media.  It followed the revelation in June, that Niamh Eastwood, executive director of drug charity Release, had her ACMD application denied by a minister because of her social media activity.  An interview panel had earlier found that she “impressive experience”.  Ms Eastwood, a leading legal expert on drug policy, had previously accused the Home Office of “just making s*** up”.  She tweeted that a letter from crime minister Victoria Atkins rejecting the ACMD’s call for safer drug consumption rooms despite a climate of rising drug-related deaths was “utter BS”  When her application to the ACMD was denied, Ms Eastwood submitted a subject access request, which revealed the government had vetted not only these and other comments on drug policy, but on Brexit, the Windrush scandal and “race-related” issues.  Mr Stevens said two other people, who wished two remain anonymous, had been similarly vetted and blocked from sitting on the panel.  After questioning the government about this process to no avail, Mr Stevens said in a statement over the weekend that ministers had not provided any assurance this would not happen again.  “The statutory duty of the ACMD is to provide the best possible advice to ministers on how to reduce drug-related harms,” Mr Stevens told The Independent. “If suitably qualified experts are excluded from membership on the basis of stated disagreements with government policy, this will erode the quality of advice that the ACMD can give.  “It also fundamentally undermines the independence of the ACMD. The longer this approach to vetting is left in place, the less independent the ACMD will be.”  Mr Stevens also criticised the government’s failure to act upon the panel’s recommendations.  In 2016, the ACMD advised the government on how to reduce opioid-related deaths in the UK.  “The most important recommendation was to maintain investment in opioid substitution therapy (OST), like methadone, which has been proven to save lives,” Mr Stevens said.  Despite ministers claiming to accept the recommendations in 2017, save for the advice to introduce drug consumption rooms, funding for drug treatment services, including OST, has since been cut across the UK, Mr Stevens said.  A lack of local government funding for drug treatment, combined with a policy-driven emphasis on abstinence rather than harm reduction, has frequently been cited as a likely reason for the increasing number of drug-related deaths.  Ms Eastwood is among those calling for the government to prioritise evidence-led policies.  Responding to Mr Stevens’ decision to resign from the ACMD, she told The Independent : “Whilst I disagree on the government’s current approach to drug policy – especially in light of the record level of drug related deaths – that should not bar me from appointment.  “Rather a range of views makes for better, and more informed, advice and decision making. Professor Stevens’ resignation in light of the minister’s decision to block my appointment to the ACMD and general concerns around the politicised nature of the appointment process is well founded.  “The fact that the government are undertaking checks on a person’s social media account in relation to Brexit and Windrush, which have nothing to do with the work of the ACMD, is frankly Orwellian.”  Ms Eastwood said she stands by her description of Ms Atkins’ letter as “utter BS”.  “We’ve seen over the years the government ignore the evidence of the ACMD, which frankly is frustrating to all of us, not least because of drug related deaths and the continued decision to block drug consumption rooms, which could really save lives," she said.  “If you think about the rates of drug-related deaths in this country, the highest since records began for the seventh year in a row. At some point you get frustrated at the lack of leadership from the Home Office on this issue.”  In 2009, the government’s chief drugs adviser Professor David Nutt was sacked by home secretary Alan Johnson after he criticised policy, saying ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.  Five other members of the panel resigned in the wake of the row.  The sacking forced ministers to reaffirm publicly their commitment to the independence of advisers and a working protocol was put in place to protect the body from governmental interference.  Mr Stevens' statement said the renewed commitment to the ACMD's independence following the debacle was a key factor in his decision to apply to the panel in 2014.  Responding to Mr Stevens' departure, Prof Nutt said: "The news that a leading expert on drug policy has resigned because the Home Office rejected another well-qualified expert for political reasons shows they have learnt nothing in the decade since my sacking. Surely it's now time to put the responsibility for drug policy in the Department of Health who at least understand the meaning of evidence."  A government spokesperson: “Ministers are responsible for appointing members to the boards of public bodies and do so in line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments. The names of candidates are submitted to Ministers following assessment by an independent Advisory Assessment Panel. It is then for Ministers to determine merit and make the final appointment.  “It is important that candidates who are considered for these roles undergo appropriate checks to ensure they are suitable to hold these vital public positions”.


theindependent--2019-12-13--What a Boris Johnson government means for foreign policy and defence

Jeremy Corbyn was closer than Boris Johnson to Donald Trump on some foreign and defence issues. Both the US president and the Labour leader were opposed to wars of intervention by the west, both dislike Nato and the EU, and both find it difficult to criticise Russia.  There were, of course, many other fields in which the two men differed – from Palestinian rights, to trade deals between the two countries, to relations with states like Venezuela and Iran.  All that is now immaterial and the question is how Boris Johnson’s premiership will handle diplomatic and defence issues: whether it will follow Trump poodle-like or have an independent stance on important international matters.  The post-Brexit trade deal is an imperative for a Johnson government and Trump has repeatedly said that an agreement would be done swiftly. Congratulating Mr Johnson after the election results he declared that the UK and US would now be free to strike a “massive” new deal soon.  But it will not be simple. There is the emotive and contentious issue of whether US firms will have access to the NHS. Trump maintained on his visit to the UK for the Nato leaders conference this month that the US would not want this “even if it was handed on a silver platter”.  But this was to help out Mr Johnson in the campaign. The US president has made contradictory statements on this. The administration’s own negotiating objectives, a public document, demands that “state-owned enterprises” should “accord non-discriminatory treatment with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services.” It also calls for “full market access for US products” and for “government regulatory reimbursement regimes” for pharmaceuticals and medical devices.  The assertion in the summer by the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, a friend of Trump, that every aspect of the economy would be open to negotiations should not be discounted. The US bargains as hard as any country which has carried out trade negotiations with it knows.  In any event, offering favourable terms for Mr Johnson may not be a gift for Trump to give. No one realistically expects an agreement this side of the US elections and Democrat controlled Congressional Committees will have a major say on any deal.  There have been repeated warnings from senior Democrats, including House speaker Nancy Pelosi, that Congress will block any deal which threatens the Northern Ireland peace process. We have yet to see whether Brexit leads to a resurgence of violence in the province.  Such is the worry in the US about Trump and Nato that the Senate foreign relations committee has voted unanimously on a bipartisan bill for a vote which would stop him from withdrawing from the Alliance. Last week John Bolton, the president’s recently departed national security advisor, warned in a speech at a private corporate event that Trump could go “ full isolationist” if re-elected next year.  Both the Theresa May and Mr Johnson’s governments have stressed the UK’s commitment to Nato, and there is no indication that there is any doubt about this from other member states.  Emmanuel Macron caused controversy last month by describing the Alliance as “brain dead”, partly because of the failure to address the repeated threats by Trump. One of the solutions the French president envisaged was for three member states to take the lead in trying to solve the problem: France, Germany and the UK – a stance which has peeved other members like Italy and Spain.  Mr Johnson, when it comes to the EU, is reported to have wanted to change the defence and security pledges in the Brexit deal.  The political declaration between the UK and EU contains a commitment to “close cooperation in union-led crisis management missions and operations, both civilian and military.” London, it is believed, later demanded that it must have sovereign control over how its defence assets are used.  The Tory right has long complained about EU defence initiatives, claiming it weakens Nato, and is part of a conspiracy to create an European super state. Downing Street’s aim, however, is seen as using defence and security as leverage in the negotiations on various deals which will have to be hammered out in the future.  Theresa May had tried something similar. After triggering Article 50 a letter sent on behest of her two chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, warned that the UK leaving without a deal would mean “in security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism and would be weakened.”  Britain’s security and intelligence agencies have been, and remain, gravely concerned at the idea of using the issue of security as a bargaining chip. Mrs May had to retreat, reassuring that the UK’s role in common defence remained unconditional.  Domestically, both Labour and the Conservatives had promised a new Strategic Defence and Security Review. There is a broad consensus for the need a for more joined up, comprehensive policy with rising new threats such as cyber-warfare, international terrorism and use of propaganda and fake news in targeting national institutions being faced.  There would also be the need to work out how the government tallies the vision of ‘Global Britain’ with limited defence spending and the economy likely to shrink after Brexit in varying degrees, depending on terms of parting with ‘no-deal’ having the most damaging effect.  One of the arguments made for leaving the EU was that it would restore Britain’s influence in the world. The Johnson government’s policy, however, will be subject to commercial constraints. Criticism of human rights abuses by regimes would be tempered with the pressing need for trade.  Mr Johnson himself would only be too aware of this. Three years ago, as foreign secretary, he accused Saudi Arabia of abusing Islam and acting as puppeteer in proxy wars. No 10 were quick to slap him down saying these “were not the government’s views” which considers the Kingdom to be a “vital partner for the UK”. Mr Johnson, said Mrs May’s spokesperson, would be sticking to the government line at a scheduled meeting with Saudi ministers.  Economic need has made the British government resist American pressure. The most high-profile example of this is Washington’s demand that the Chinese multinational, Huawei, is kept out of the UK’s 5G network.  The British government has postponed making a decision on this, but there is a stated policy of enlarging trade with China and a desire not to antagonise Beijing.  The so-called ‘golden era’ in relations was initiated by David Cameron’s government; it continued under Theresa May and then Mr Johnson. The UK is one of the very few Western countries involved in China’s highly controversial ‘belt and road’ scheme which has been widely accused of being a vehicle for expanding Chinese hegemony.  There are none such obvious financial factors in differences between the US and UK in dealing with another state, Iran.  The Trump administration has been demanding that the UK joins it in pulling out of the deal between international powers and Iran over its nuclear programme, and join in imposing punitive sanctions on Tehran.  Britain has, so far, resisted this and is indeed, along with France and Germany, engaged in establishing the Instex scheme, which enables companies to trade with Iran avoiding American sanctions.  The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have defied the US to join Instex. Whether Britain sticks to its policies or caves in to Washington will be a barometer of the Johnson government’s relationship with the Trump administration.  The need for trade has also had an effect on an issue which helped the Tories at the election, immigration. While Mr Johnson and his ministers talked tough about keeping people out, visa regimes are being relaxed for countries, the government is keen to do business with like South Korea and India. One example of this is that there has been a 63 per cent increase in the number of visas issued in India for study in the UK in just one year.


theintercept--2019-02-07--House Republicans Warn That Bill Combating Big Money in Politics Resembles Russian Government Polic

House Republicans Warn That Bill Combating Big Money in Politics “Resembles Russian Government Policy”

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform denounced a major new initiative by Democrats to clean up elections and expand voter participation as a power grab that will corrupt the political process and infringe on the rights of free speech and association.  In nearly apocalyptic terms on Wednesday, Republican committee members took turns laying out the dire consequences of H.R. 1, decrying the consequences of a federal holiday on Election Day, matching public funds for congressional candidates, increasing transparency in campaign finance, and making it easier to register to vote. More stringent disclosure requirements for political spending would encourage partisan monitoring and even doxxing, Republicans argued, citing the Obama-era scandal where the Internal Revenue Service was accused by conservatives of targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.  During the Wednesday hearing, several minority members described the bill — an attempt to implement sweeping reforms to the way we finance elections and oversee the executive branch — as “chilling.” Ranking Member Jim Jordan said the bill was designed to benefit the majority by “tilting the playing field in their favor.”  Jordan denounced the bill for requiring states to offer early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, same day voter registration, automatic voter registration, paid leave for federal workers to be poll workers, to allow released felons to vote, to make Election Day a federal holiday, and to have taxpayer contributions finance campaigns.  “So lets take a whack at a little summary here, professor,” Jordan said during his questioning of Bradley Smith, chair of the Institute for Free Speech and former chair of the Federal Election Commission, who testified at the invitation of the minority.  “H.R. 1 requires taxpayers to pay for a holiday on Election Day for government workers. H.R. 1 requires taxpayers to pay for six days of paid leave for government workers who want to be poll workers. H.R. 1 requires taxpayers to pay for politicians’ campaigns. And if those same taxpayers give to some organization, some (c)(4), they can be outed under H.R. 1 so that the left can — or anyone — could harass them or their family.”  “Yes,” Smith said. “Such a deal for the taxpayer, right?”  The bill, sponsored by Maryland Rep. John Sarbanes, is the first serious attempt in decades to revamp the model for public financing of presidential campaigns and establish a national program to publicly finance congressional campaigns. It also expands rights and protections for voters; bans senior federal officials from getting private sector perks after they leave office; prohibits senior federal employees from working on issues in which they have financial interests; and strengthens the call for Trump to divest his business holdings and place them in an independent, blind trust. Trump is the only president who hasn’t done so.  Georgia Rep. Jody Hice said in opening remarks that he was “extremely alarmed” by the bill and that while its provision for automatic voter registration “may sound good on the surface,” it would “open the floodgates for fraudulent voting by illegal individuals in this country.”  “It’s virtually 600 pages. Almost every page has issues of great concern,” he said. In just under three minutes, the congressperson referenced “illegals” or being in the country “illegally” nine times.  equips the Office of Government Ethics with subpoena power and the authority to impose disciplinary action on agencies and employees within the executive branch — “needed teeth,” as the office’s former director Walter Shaub said in written testimony to the committee.  But Jordan and his Republican colleague Rep. Mark Meadows argued that taxpayers shouldn’t have to finance elections, let alone contribute to the campaigns of candidates whom they oppose. Meadows pointed to the fact that his own campaign was largely funded by small individual donors, and that under the measure, he’d get $3.8 million for re-election.  Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins conceded that the bill might have some worthwhile measures, but said he wanted to see it broken down into smaller components that would suit individual state needs. He also said the bill “resembles Russian government policy.”  Bipartisan legislation to strengthen democratic institutions in ways similar to those outlined in H.R. 1 have already passed at the local and state levels, Karen Hobert Flynn testified. She’s the president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization focused on reducing the role of big money in politics. In written testimony to the committee, Flynn cited “more than 20 red, blue and purple states and localities [that have] passed pro-voter democracy reforms, with strong support from Republican, Independent, and Democratic voters.”  Smith said his primary concern with the bill was its infringement on first amendment protections of free speech — wherein political spending is a form of speech. He said the bill would expand the universe of what Congress could regulate as political spending or speech, including ads. And he argued that in public financing there “tend to be avenues for corruption in many ways.”  But in all the concerns raised about voter fraud and abridging freedom of speech by reining in the influence of large donors, the minority never addressed the specter of partisan gerrymandering that’s historically benefited their party, Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley pointed out. The ACLU filed suit last year to challenge gerrymandering in Ohio, citing Jordan’s 4th District as one of seven that were drawn with “borders that defy explanation by any political boundary or geographical feature.” H.R. 1 would put an independent commission in charge of redistricting duties, taking that responsibility away from state legislatures.  “That is really convenient, and rich, and hypocritical,” Pressley said.  “H.R. 1 has been described as a wishlist by the Democrats,” she continued. “Well, you got us there. A wishlist for an inclusive, expanded democracy and electorate.  “Characterizations of H.R. 1 as a power grab — you got us again,” Pressley said, referencing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comments on the push to make Election Day a federal holiday.  “Guilty,” she said. “We wouldn’t have to grab back the power for the people if through policy you weren’t complicit in, or perpetuating, the disenfranchisement and marginalization of the people. And disproportionately, people of color. And disproportionately, black people.”  Meadows had a heated exchange with Shaub, the former head of the OGE, in which he suggested the latter’s support for an investigative mandate for OGE was politically motivated against President Donald Trump. Meadows cited Shaub’s testimony to an oversight subcommittee in December 2015 in which he said he thought the OGE didn’t need an investigative mandate, expressing shock at Shaub’s change of heart “all of a sudden.”  “No, it’s not all of a sudden at all,” Shaub said. “It’s after watching, for two years, somebody prove to me that the executive branch ethics program is much weaker and much more fragile than I ever thought it was. Frankly, I was naive.”  “I never imagined,” Shaub went on, “a president would come in and refuse to eliminate his conflicts of interest, have appointees who are completely disinterested in government ethics, and have — with all respect — a Congress refuse to exercise oversight over them in that respect.”


themanchestereveningnews--2019-09-07--Work and Pensions secretary Amber Rudd resigns from Boris Johnsons government in protest at Brexit

Work and Pensions secretary Amber Rudd resigns from Boris Johnson's government in protest at Brexit policy and expulsion of rebel Conservative MPs

Senior cabinet minister Amber Rudd has sensationally quit Boris Johnson's government and the Conservative Party in protest at his handling of Brexit.  The Hastings and Rye MP has walked away from her post as work and pensions secretary and said she was relinquishing the Tory whip after the Prime Minister sacked 21 rebels this week.  Mr Johnson removed the whip from two former chancellors and Winston Churchill's grandson after they voted to give Opposition MPs control of the order paper and start the process of blocking a no-deal Brexit.  Ms Rudd declared in a letter to the Prime Minister: "I cannot stand by as good, loyal moderate Conservatives are expelled.  "I have spoken to the PM and my Association Chairman to explain. I remain committed to the One Nation values that drew me into politics."  She added: "I have resigned from Cabinet and surrendered the Conservative Whip."  David Gauke, the former secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor tweeted: "I'm sure this has not been an easy decision. But it is brave and principled and is all about putting the national interest first."  Former minister Damian Green tweeted: "This is desperately sad."  Keir Starmer, Labour MP and Shadow Secretary of State for Brexit, added: "Johnson government falling apart. He’s being totally found out..."  Rudd's resignation will ramp up pressure on Mr Johnson to allow Tory rebels back into the party.  It comes after a former Director of Public Prosecutions suggested today the Prime Minister could be jailed if he refuses to delay Brexit.  Boris Johnson indicated he would rather "die in a ditch" than go to Europe and ask for the extension, despite MPs having voted through a law forcing him to delay a no-deal Brexit.  The bill is expected to receive royal assent on Monday, thereby completing all stages required to become law.  According to Sky News, the former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord McDonald has said it is 'likely' Johnson will face court action if he refuses to comply with the newly-passed law.  "I've been talking to former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord MacDonald, now a cross-bench peer and he said it is likely that this court action could lead to some sort of order from a judge, from a court, forcing Boris Johnson to comply with the law and, if Boris Johnson continues to refuse to comply with that, he could be held in contempt of court," Rob Powell, reporter for Sky News, told the channel.  "Contempt of court by convention carries a prison sentence, which could mean that the prime minister could go to jail. Now I asked him if this was an extreme outcome and he said 'No, it's not an extreme outcome, it is by convention that if you are found guilty of contempt of court, of defying a court order, then you are jailed.'"  Leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn said Mr Johnson believes he is "above the law".


thepoke--2019-01-31--This MPs powerful speech nailed this problem with the governments immigration policy

This MP’s powerful speech nailed this problem with the government’s immigration policy

As part of the UK immigration strategy after Brexit, the government proposes to control the intake of unskilled workers by setting a minimum earnings requirement of £30k. During Monday’s debate on the immigration bill in the House of Commons, Labour MP Jess Phillips made a powerful speech about why that policy would be a mistake.  “I thought I had met posh people before I came here, but I had actually just met people who eat olives.”  “I have met many people who earn way more than £30,000 and have literally no discernible skills, not even one.”  To prove her point, a nurse spoke up.


thetelegraph--2019-03-12--Italian children without vaccination certificates turned away from schools after government changes

Italian children without vaccination certificates turned away from schools after government changes policy

Italian children lacking proof that they have been vaccinated were turned away from nurseries on Tuesday after the country’s populist coalition reversed its previously sceptical stance on the need for compulsory jabs.  The two parties that make up Italy’s government – The League and the Five Star Movement – had criticised the policy of compulsory vaccinations, both before and after they came to power last summer.  But in a reversal of policy, the coalition fell into line with mainstream medical opinion and insisted that as of this week, children attending school must receive immunisations for a range of infectious diseases, including measles, mumps, rubella and polio.  Under the law, children over six cannot be banned from school but their parents will be fined up to €500 (£425).  Children under six can be barred from attending nursery schools and kindergartens if their parents fail to present written evidence that they have had the required vaccinations.  "No vaccine, no school", said Giulia Grillo, the health minister.  Some children were denied entry to schools on Tuesday but the numbers appeared to be modest.  Different cities and regions applied the law with varying degrees of vigour.  In Bologna, 300 children were suspended from school, according to Italian media reports, while 37 were turned away in the northern Veneto region.


abcnews--2019-01-10--Pompeo defends US withdrawal from Syria during foreign policy address in Egypt

Pompeo defends US withdrawal from Syria, during foreign policy address in Egypt

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the U.S. withdrawal from Syria and issued a strong rebuke of the Obama administration's Middle East strategy, during a major foreign policy address in Egypt on Thursday.  While the secretary challenged Middle Eastern countries to take on new responsibilities in the fight against extremism, he failed to call out human rights abuses in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and did not mention the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.  During his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo declared that "American will not retreat until the terror fight is over," but acknowledged that President Donald Trump "has made the decision to bring our troops home from Syria."  "We always do and now is the time. But this isn’t a change of mission," he said. "We remain committed to the complete dismantling of the ISIS threat and the ongoing fight against radical Islamism in all of its forms."  Pompeo's address came one day after his surprise visit to Iraq and in the midst of a whirlwind tour of the Middle East in which he is reassuring partners of America's presence in the region following Trump's decision three weeks ago to withdrawal 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria.  What was originally a 30-day timeline for withdrawal gradually grew to several months, but now Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton are stating that any withdrawal is "conditions-based," including the enduring defeat of ISIS, protection for America's Kurdish partners, and the assurance that Iran will not increase its influence in the region.  Speaking to reporters before his speech on Thursday, Pompeo said that any contradiction in the administration’s Syria policy has been “made up” by the media.  The secretary began his address in Cairo by blasting the Obama administration for "falsely seeing ourselves as a force for what ails the Middle East."  "So today what did we learn from all of this? We learned that when America retreats, chaos follows. When we neglect our friends, resentment builds. And when we partner with our enemies, they advance," he said. "The good news is this: The age of self-inflicted American shame is over, and so are the policies that produced so much needless suffering. Now comes the real 'new beginning.'"  In a statement, the National Security Action Group – an advocacy organization made up of former Obama administration officials – responded to Pompeo's criticism, writing: “That this administration feels the need, nearly a decade later, to take potshots at an effort to identify common ground between the Arab world and the West speaks not only to the Trump administration’s pettiness but also to its lack of a strategic vision for America’s role in the region and its abdication of America’s values."  Pompeo also praised the Trump administration's decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal, saying "we will not ease our campaign to stop Iran's malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world."  That includes Syria, where Iran has had a growing role in supporting the Syrian regime.  Pompeo downplayed the idea that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria would give Iran the upper hand there, saying that, "In Syria, the United States will use diplomacy and work with our partners to expel every last Iranian boot, and work through the [United Nations]-led process to bring peace and stability to the long-suffering Syrian people."  Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif responded on Twitter, saying, "Whenever/wherever US interferes, chaos, repression and resentment follow. The day Iran mimics US clients and Secretary Pompeo's 'human rights models' — be it the Shah or current butchers — to become a 'normal' country is the day hell freezes over. Best for the US to just get over loss of Iran."  Pompeo declined to call out human rights abuses happening Egypt, including the reported detention and torture of American-Egyptian Khaled Hassan who has been missing since last January -- allegations Cairo denies.  During his address, the secretary applauded Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's efforts to promote religious freedom and encouraged him "to unleash the creative energies of Egypt’s people, unfetter the economy, and promote a free and open exchange of ideas."  The State Department did say that the issue of human rights was brought up in Pompeo's private meeting with Sisi earlier in the day.  Also noticeably absent from Thursday's address was the mention of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, brutally murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October.  The killing led the U.S. Senate to vote to suspend U.S. support to the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen, as well as condemn Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the act. While the Trump administration has sanctioned Saudi officials for their alleged role in the murder, Trump has continued to defend Saudi leadership.  With stops already in Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt, Pompeo will continue his tour of the Middle East on Friday with planned visits to Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait.


abcnews--2019-01-21--Boltons test Massaging Trump tweets into foreign policy

Bolton's test: Massaging Trump tweets into foreign policy

In President Donald Trump's Washington, matters of war and peace are decided in 280-character bursts. It's up to John Bolton to massage them into a foreign policy.  The mustachioed national security adviser developed a reputation as a bureaucratic bulldozer through more than three decades in and out of government. But the wrangling over Trump's decision to pull troops out of Syria demanded a new skill — the ability to dramatically redraft the president's policy without provoking a hint of protest from the commander in chief.  When Trump announced on Dec. 19 that he saw no need for U.S. troops to remain in Syria, senior U.S. officials expected the Trump-ordered withdrawal to be completed within a month. Aides, lawmakers and overseas allies were beside themselves with concern that the U.S. was betraying its Kurdish allies in the fight against the Islamic State and ceding influence in the region to Iran and Russia. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis quit in protest.  But one month after Trump declared that U.S. forces were "coming back now" and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the administration had "started returning United States troops home," the drawdown of U.S. troops has only just begun. The explanation, senior White House officials said, is the behind-the-scenes effort by Bolton.  Bolton was always an unlikely pick to be Trump's third national security adviser, with a world view seemingly ill-fit to the president's isolationist "America First" pronouncements. He's espoused hawkish foreign policy views dating back to the Reagan administration and became a household name over his vociferous support for the Iraq War as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under George W. Bush. Bolton even briefly considered running for president in 2016, in part to make the case against the isolationism that Trump would come to embody.  Yet he earned Trump's ear in part through his frequent appearances on Fox News, the president's favored network. And despite the president's aversion to his bushy mustache, the two have formed a close relationship since Bolton took over at the National Security Council in April.  "Frankly, what I have said in private now is behind me," Bolton told Fox News last year just after joining the White House. "The important thing is what the president says and the advice I give him."  Longtime associates credit Bolton with a keen ability to manage-up to the president — a key differentiator between Bolton and his predecessor, H.R. McMaster, an Army general whose professorial tones grated on Trump.  That doesn't mean that Bolton was on board with Trump's impulsive policy announcement on Syria, officials said. Rather than go public with the same concerns aired by Mattis and others, though, Bolton quietly set out on a monthlong revision of Trump's order, leading to critical adjustments that the administration, at least publicly, is loathe to acknowledge.  "A lot of the press coverage about the decision on Syria missed what the president had in mind," Bolton insisted in Jerusalem this month, overlooking the fact that many of Trump's own aides were also in the dark. His role, Bolton said, "is to help elaborate what the president's conditions are and what he expects."  He and Trump have harshly pushed back on any notion of a policy reversal. White House aides cast Bolton's role as merely "elucidating" or "clarifying" the president's initial order.  "No different from my original statements," Trump tweeted on Jan. 7.  In reality, there were key changes. One month in, materiel has been removed from northeastern Syria, but troops remain. In the war-torn country's south, 200 U.S. service members serving in al-Tanf are now remaining in place indefinitely as a check against Iran — a step sought by Israel. And in a trip to the Middle East this month, Bolton announced new "conditions" on the withdrawal, including demanding assurances from Turkey it won't attack Kurdish fighters in Syria.  The pace of the planned withdrawal was dramatically slowed, first, after Trump's three-hour December visit to Iraq to meet with U.S. commanders in which they argued that they, not allies, were best positioned to destroy the last vestiges of the Islamic State's territorial caliphate in Syria. Then came concerns about the fate of the Kurds, who face assault from Turkey, which considers them a terrorist group, and Iranian regional influence.  According to seven administration officials, Bolton's influence was central to the "reinterpretation" of Trump's initial order and convincing the stubborn commander in chief to go along with it. White House aides maintained that the two have a strong relationship in part because Bolton has tried not to draw attention to the changes. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe Bolton's role and the administration's policy thinking.  It was a sign of Bolton's outsized role in foreign policy that when he traveled to Israel and Turkey earlier this month to clarify the policy, he brought along a contingent of press aboard a modified Boeing 757 of the type typically used by the vice president and secretary of state. It was the first trip by a national security adviser to include reporters in recent memory.  Bolton, who was briefly considered by Trump for the role of U.N. ambassador, was clearly in his element, taking in cultural sites with allies and soberly delivering dire warnings to foes. Unafraid to stir the pot, he didn't seem to mind a bit when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan very publicly accused him of making "a very serious mistake" in saying the U.S. would insist that Turkey refrain from attacking its Kurdish partners.  The episode led Erdogan to scrub plans to meet with Bolton and sent relations between the NATO allies to a fresh low.  Bolton's approach has drawn some charges of heavy-handedness from other corners of the administration, as some Trump loyalists argue he's using the NSC to implement his own priorities over the president's. Some in the White House were shocked that the NSC took hours to explain Trump's Syria decision, chalking it up to Bolton's objection to the policy. But Bolton allies contend he's fulfilling the president's wishes in fleshing-out the president's top-line decisions, and White House officials insist reports of bad blood between the two are misguided.  Bolton "works every day to advance President Trump's national security strategy to keep our country safe and secure," Vice President Mike Pence said in a statement. "Ambassador Bolton is a strong leader who is respected by our allies around the world. He understands that America First means strong U.S. leadership is critical on the world stage and it is my great honor to serve with him."  Associated Press writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.


abcnews--2019-01-25--US to begin enforcement of new policy to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico

The Trump administration is expected Friday to begin enforcing its new policy that would force asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border to wait in Mexico for their claim to be heard. It's a move that officials said they expect will severely curb the number of people approaching the border in the first place.  Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced Dec. 20 that the U.S. had reached a deal with the Mexican government to require asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their case winds its way through U.S. immigration courts, a process that can take months or years. The approach would be a change to a longstanding U.S. policy that asylum seekers are allowed to wait inside the U.S.  Asylum seekers crossing “illegally or without proper documentation” will be turned away at the San Ysidro port of entry in San Diego starting Friday, Katie Waldman, a DHS spokeswoman, told ABC News Thursday night. Homeland Security eventually plans to implement the policy across the entire southern border, but she did not offer a time frame for that roll out.  The policy is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to curb what it insists are loopholes in the immigration system. Like many of its immigration policies, the plan is expected to face pushback in court.  The decision by the Homeland Security Department to move ahead with enforcement of the new policy comes as President Donald Trump remains locked in a bitter dispute with lawmakers over the $5 billion he wants for construction of a border wall.  "We have a huge problem with asylum fraud," Nielsen told the House panel last month. "We need to work together to combat that."  At issue is how the United States decides who should be granted asylum, a right granted to migrants by U.S. and international law. According to the Homeland Security Department, border officials have seen a surge in migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and that the vast majority are granted entrance into the United States after passing a "credible fear" interview.  John Cohen, a former acting under secretary at the Homeland Security Department and an ABC News contributor, said in order for this policy to be legal, the U.S. needs a safe country agreement with Mexico.  The law requires that the person's "life or freedom" not be threatened and that the person claiming asylum still have "full and fair" access to the U.S. immigration system. That means it's likely the U.S. will have to devote resources to either bring people into the United States to see an immigration judge, or set up American courts in Mexico -- a highly unusual situation that presents legal complications, Cohen said.  “Even if a safe country agreement exists, having these people in Mexico while their application processes will be a logistical nightmare," he said.  That agreement exists with Canada, a designated safe country where refugees are required to reside while going through the asylum process for the U.S. if they first arrive in Canada.  Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the plan "historic" and said that the Mexican government had promised to give the migrants humanitarian visas to stay on Mexican soil and apply for work.  "We think that they [migrants seeking asylum] will now see that they can’t disappear inside the United States, and so they will remain in their home countries," Pompeo told Fox News host Laura Ingraham.  Mexico had previously refused to accept the return of migrants who aren't Mexican citizens. However, in December, the U.S. signed a joint declaration with Mexico promising to invest $5.8 billion in southern Mexico and the three countries where most of the migrants were coming from: El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The administration also promised a U.S.-Mexico business summit next year and a cabinet-level meeting in January.  Mexico has called the latest agreement to allow U.S. asylum seekers to remain in Mexico a temporary, humanitarian measure.


abcnews--2019-03-13--Pentagon issues new transgender policy limiting service members to birth gender

With all legal hurdles cleared, the Pentagon has instituted a new transgender policy that largely limits the military service of transgender persons currently in uniform to their birth gender. If they are unwilling to do so, they could be discharged.  The new policy, signed late Tuesday by David Norquist, who is currently serving as the deputy Defense secretary, will be implemented on April 12. A copy of the policy memo was obtained by ABC News.  Transgender service members currently serving in the military will only be allowed to continue to serve if they adhere to the dress and grooming standards of their biological gender. Waivers will be allowed on a case-by-case basis but only from the secretaries in charge of the military services.  As was the case with a memo issued last February, service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria will no longer be allowed medical surgeries for gender transition unless they are currently in the process of receiving medical treatment.  However, transgender recruits will no longer be allowed to join the military, even if they have transitioned to a new gender, as had been the case under the earlier memo. Only individuals who have never had hormone treatment or surgery will be allowed to enter the military as recruits.  Waivers are still available for those currently in uniform, but they have to be approved by the service chiefs.  The new policy comes a week after a federal judge lifted the only remaining injunction of the ban on transgender military service that President Donald Trump had called for in the summer of 2017.  Multiple lawsuits filed shortly after the Pentagon followed through with the president’s desire for a ban had limited the implementation of the ban.  "It would be prudent for acting Secretary Shanahan to delay implementing the Mattis policy until the courts have made their final determinations," said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.  "Any other course of action not only undermines military readiness, but is also an insult to transgender individuals who have served and are still serving with distinction," he continued. "Anyone who is qualified and willing should be allowed to serve their country openly. Make no mistake, this is a discriminatory ban on transgender people, not a ban on a medical condition and we will continue to fight against this bigoted policy.”  "Today the Trump administration has chosen prejudice and politics over the truth of open service as revealed by the testimonies of dozens of medical and military leaders and the service and sacrifice of 14,700 transgender service members," Aaron Belkin, the head of the Palm Center, said in a statement.  "In almost three years of open service these troops built a strong record of achievement and earned the support of every service chief. The Trump administration is determined to bring back 'don’t ask, don’t tell,' a policy that forced service members to choose between serving their country and telling the truth about who they were."


activistpost--2019-02-26--Fed Must Face Reality No Return to Normalcy for Monetary Policy

Fed Must Face Reality: No Return to Normalcy for Monetary Policy

More than a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, U.S. monetary policy continues to operate in crisis management mode.  Despite a long, drawn out rate-hiking campaign – now paused – the Federal Reserve has yet to bring its benchmark interest rate up to normal levels historically.  It has yet to unwind the vast majority of the nearly $4 trillion in emergency asset purchases added to its balance sheet.  The Fed outlined its “normalization” policies back in September 2014.  The two main components of normalization are gradual increases in the federal funds rate toward neutral and gradual reductions in securities held on the central bank’s balance sheet.  Even with the benefit of an unusually prolonged period of favorable economic conditions, progress toward normalization has been slow and fleeting.  Full normalization – a return to pre-2008 monetary conditions as is the Fed’s stated goal, may never come.  It may not be possible to withdraw much more stimulus from mortgage and equity markets without collapsing them. It may not be possible to unload U.S. Treasury securities without causing a funding crisis for the government.  The governmental, corporate, and consumer sectors of the economy are addicted to debt growth fostered by artificially low interest rates.  The Fed wants to wean everyone off easy money. The problem is, everyone is behaving as if easy money will never end.  Central bankers can’t act normally when private and public debt levels are abnormally high and projected to go much higher. The Fed wants to keep hiking rates to discourage, in former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan’s words, “irrational exuberance.”  But going one hike too far or too fast risks triggering a deleveraging event that brings about another financial crisis.  At its most recent policy meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) vowed to be “patient.” Minutes released last Wednesday show the Fed citing “a variety of considerations that supported a patient approach to monetary policy at this juncture as an appropriate step in managing various risks and uncertainties in the outlook.”  Cutting through the dense Fedspeak, policymakers essentially said they put their rate hiking campaign on hold due to risks in the economy.  Left unstated were possible policy concessions made to Wall Street and Washington.  Perhaps Fed officials got spooked by the sharp stock market correction in late December. Perhaps they succumbed to political pressure from the Trump administration’s “Plunge Protection Team.”  The Trump administration and both parties in Congress all (save for a few, rare voices of fiscally responsible dissent) agree on pushing forward with trillion-dollar budget deficits.  They all are on board with expanding the national debt (which recently crossed the $22 trillion mark) well beyond the total size of the economy… well beyond the previous debt-to-GDP ratio high incurred temporarily during World War II.  Wars and other crises in American history were always followed by efforts to “return to normalcy” (as President Warren G. Harding famously called for after World War I). There has been no return to normalcy since the 2008 financial crisis, no sincere effort on the part of policymakers to stop financial bubbles from forming or reduce the national debt.  Our elected leaders in Washington are planning for a long fiscal emergency. They are counting on the Fed to accommodate their abnormal spending behavior with easy money, with Quantitative Easing, with debt monetization on a grandiose scale… with whatever it takes to avert a default on government bonds and entitlement program promises to voters. And the “patient” Fed may already be preparing its next stimulus campaign. Former Fed chair Janet Yellen told CNBC recently, “If global growth really weakens and that spills over to the United States, while financial conditions tighten more and we do see a weakening in the U.S. economy, it’s certainly possible that the next move is a cut.” When the Fed starts cutting again, you can bet another asset bubble will follow. Stocks have already had a huge multi-year run. At present, the most depressed asset class – the one that seems most due for a new bull market cycle – is commodities. A bull market in hard assets would coincide with a rise in inflationary pressures and renewed investor interest in time-tested inflation proxies such as gold and silver. Stefan Gleason is President of Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals dealer recently named “Best in the USA” by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of the University of Florida, Gleason is a seasoned business leader, investor, political strategist, and grassroots activist. Gleason has frequently appeared on national television networks such as CNN, FoxNews, and CNBC and in hundreds of publications such as the Wall Street Journal, TheStreet.com, and Seeking Alpha.


activistpost--2019-07-07--US Foreign Policy Is A War On Disobedience

In an excellent new essay titled “We’re Not the Good Guys — Why Is American Aggression Missing in Action?“, Tom Engelhardt criticizes the way western media outlets consistently describe the behavior of disobedient nations like Iran as “aggressions”, but never use that label for the (generally antecedent and far more egregious) aggressions of the United States.  “When it comes to Washington’s never-ending war on terror, I think I can say with reasonable confidence that, in the past, the present, and the future, the one phrase you’re not likely to find in such media coverage will be ‘American aggression,’” Engelhardt writes. He then asks a very fair question:  So here’s the strange thing, on a planet on which, in 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces deployed to 149 countries, or approximately 75% of all nations; on which the U.S. has perhaps 800 military garrisons outside its own territory; on which the U.S. Navy patrols most of its oceans and seas; on which U.S. unmanned aerial drones conduct assassination strikes across a surprising range of countries; and on which the U.S. has been fighting wars, as well as more minor conflicts, for years on end from Afghanistan to Libya, Syria to Yemen, Iraq to Niger in a century in which it chose to launch full-scale invasions of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), is it truly reasonable never to identify the U.S. as an ‘aggressor’ anywhere?  In other words, does it really make sense for any nation to be able to take over the world and then look up with Bambi-eyed innocence saying “I was attacked! Completely out of the blue!” whenever any government pushes back on this? If you ask the empire’s narrative makers, the answer is a resounding yes.  This important discrepancy is as close as we’ll ever get to an honest admission from the political/media class that they consider empire-building and endless war to be normal, and any opposition to it freakish. All nations are meant to submit to America’s use of military and economic force upon them, and if they don’t, that’s “aggression”. The official position of the political/media class is that the US is a normal nation with the same rights and status as any other, but the unofficial position is that this is an empire, and nations will either obey or be destroyed.  It’s a machine with the same values as Napoleon or Hitler or Genghis Khan or any other imperialist conqueror from ages past; the only difference is that it pretends not to be the thing that it is. The US markets itself as an upholder of rules-based liberal democratic values, even though it consistently flouts international law, wages imperialist wars of aggression, imprisons journalists, crushes dissent and uses propaganda just as much as any totalitarian regime. The only difference is that it does so in a way that enables its supporters to pretend that that’s not what’s actually happening.  Forget the “war on terror”. If US foreign policy were honest it would unite all its war propaganda sloganeering under a single banner: the War on Disobedience.  After the end of the first cold war there was much celebration. At long last! The USSR was no longer a threat, so America could finally stop pouring its resources into the nuclear arms race and finally just relax and start acting like a normal country in the world. But it didn’t take long after the Berlin Wall fell for the neoconservatives to find their way into key points of influence and steer US foreign policy into the agenda of ensuring that America never again risks losing its status as the world’s only superpower. Which necessarily meant expanding the use of military and economic force to a level never previously seen.  So now you’ve got this weird dynamic where the US is constantly working to make sure that no other countries surpass it and gain the ability to treat America the way America treats other countries. That’s all US military and economic agendas in a nutshell right now.  The nation that poses the greatest threat to US hegemony is of course China. Most of the US war machine’s aggressions right now are ultimately built around securing resource control and geostrategic dominance to prevent China from surpassing it without attacking China itself. Any time you see the US ramping up hostilities toward a given nation, just do a search for that nation’s name plus China (or plus “Belt and Road Initiative“), and you’ll usually find a strong connection.  So the USSR was simply replaced with China, and the nuclear arms race was simply replaced with greatly increased global military expansionism. The plutocrat-owned media and the plutocrat-owned political class have fallen right in line with this and normalized the idea of US imperialism around the world. The cold war never ended, it just shifted its narrative and focus. Neoconservatism never went away, it just went mainstream.


activistpost--2019-11-16--Bolivia’s New Puppet Regime Wastes No Time Aligning With US Foreign Policy

The Washington-recognized interim government which just ascended to power via US-backed military coup in Bolivia is already shifting the nation’s foreign policy into alignment with the US-centralized empire, severing important ties with two governments which have resisted absorption into the imperial blob.  “Bolivia’s caretaker government isn’t wasting any time overhauling its foreign policy, announcing Friday that it will expel hundreds of Cuban officials and break ties with longtime ally Venezuela,” The Miami Herald reports. “In a series of statements, Bolivia’s new foreign minister, Karen Longaric, told local media that about 725 Cubans — including doctors and medical staff — would begin leaving Bolivia on Friday.”  “In that same interview she also said she’d be recalling Bolivia’s diplomatic staff from Venezuela,” Miami Herald adds. “Later, asked if she would maintain ties with Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, she said, ‘Of course we’ll break diplomatic relations with the Maduro government.’”  Of course they will.  This news comes as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. US foreign policy is essentially an endless war on disobedience, in which governments that refuse to bow to US interests are toppled by any means necessary and replaced by governments who will.  International affairs are much easier to understand once you stop thinking in terms of separate, sovereign nations and start thinking in terms of alliances and empire. What we are witnessing can best be described as a slow-motion third world war between what amounts to an unofficial globe-spanning empire centralized around the United States and its military on one side, and all the nations which have refused to be absorbed into this empire on the other. Nations which allow themselves to be absorbed are rewarded with the carrot of military and economic alliance with the empire, and nations which refuse are punished with the stick of invasions, sanctions, trade wars, and coups, with the ultimate goal being total unipolar global domination. The bigger the imperial blob grows, the stronger and more effective it becomes in undermining the interests of unabsorbed nations like Venezuela and Cuba.  Nothing takes precedence over this agenda of unipolar hegemony. As long as a nation remains loyal to the empire, it can fund terrorists, butcher Washington Post columnists, and create the worst humanitarian crisis in the world without fear of any retribution of any kind from the US-centralized empire. As a leaked State Department memo explained in 2017, so far as the empire is concerned human rights violations are nothing more than a strategic narrative control weapon with which to attack unabsorbed nations, and to be ignored when they are perpetrated by absorbed nations.  It should therefore also surprise no one that this same Washington-recognized government installed via US-backed military coup is now murdering demonstrators who object to it.  As of this writing there have been five protesters confirmed to have been killed by gunfire in Cochabamba, where security forces are cracking down on demonstrations with extreme aggression against majority-Indigenous demonstrations in support of the ousted president Evo Morales.  The narrative managers at The New York Times are reporting on the events in Cochabamba with the obnoxious insinuation that it may actually be Morales and Bolivia’s Indigenous population who are to blame for current tensions. Here are a couple of excerpts from NYT’s latest contribution to the narrative matrix titled “Ethnic Rifts in Bolivia Burst Into View With Fall of Evo Morales” (emphases mine):  Mr. Morales’s nearly 14 years in power represented a breakthrough for the three-quarters of Bolivians who are either of Indigenous descent or identify as members of Indigenous groups. But he also reinforced his base of support with explicit appeals to racial identity that many Bolivians found threatening and polarizing. “Racism exists in Bolivia; it existed before Evo, and it will never disappear,” said Michelle Kieffer, an insurance broker, as she sipped a cappuccino in an upper-middle-class neighborhood of the country’s administrative capital, La Paz. “While Evo started an important discussion,” she added, “he also manipulated the race issue, and that has caused disunity. And now people of different races look at each other with suspicion.”  Right. Gotcha. Maybe it’s the impoverished brown-skinned people who are in fact the real fascists, and not the literal Christian fascist coupmongers whose US-backed government takeover they are protesting. Thanks, NYT.  Morales won re-election by over ten percentage points last month, and his previously-elected term wasn’t scheduled to end until January. He was commanded to resign during a current term by the military despite fully acquiescing to demands for a new internationally supervised election. Now it’s being reported that the popular leftist party to which he belonged, MAS, may be banned by the Jeanine Añez-led interim government from participating in the next elections.  Despite all this the Western mass media are continuing their cartoonishly ridiculous pattern of resisting the use of the word ‘coup’ when reporting on Bolivia, except to admonish people for using that word as in the case of recent narrative management pieces by The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, and The Economist.  “Supporters of the coup in Bolivia can’t call it a coup,” US politician Lee Carter recently noted. “The US has a law preventing us from sending foreign aid to a new government if it was installed by a coup. So they come up with absurd claims that the military forcing Evo out somehow isn’t a coup.”  And the Western mass media are falling right in line with the government forces in refusing to use this word, despite the ousting of a government by the military being exactly the thing that a coup is. This is because in a plutocracy, plutocrat-owned media is functionally the same as state media. Reporters for plutocratic media know what they are and are not permitted to say without being told, so they advance narratives which favor the status quo upon which their plutocrat employers have built their respective kingdoms. This is the status quo of the US-centralized empire, which just absorbed Bolivia and pivoted its foreign policy against the unabsorbed governments of Venezuela and Cuba.  Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


ageofautism--2019-02-23--National Vaccine Policy Hinted at by FDAs Gottlieb Oversteps States and Personal Rights

National Vaccine Policy Hinted at by FDA's Gottlieb Oversteps States and Personal Rights

Note: Thank you to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his team at Children's Health Defense for this important action alert.  We are on on the defense as regards vaccination mandates and personal choice because the heavy hand of pharma in government is on the offensive. Measles equals mandates.  It is incongruous to claim to be pro choice, feminist, MeToo or part of any progressive group that demands equality and personal rights and back mandates.     ###    Maintaining Medical Freedom: Urgent Action Required!    Threats to end religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions have just been ratcheted up to an unprecedented federal level. If parents and caregivers are stripped of the ability to make healthcare decisions for their children, reinstating that ability may be nearly impossible. We need to take action now to prevent the government from dictating what is injected into our children.  On Wednesday, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb hinted in a CNN interview that if non-medical vaccine exemptions were not abolished at the state level, federal health agencies may intercede. This is especially ominous considering two critical upcoming vaccine-related hearings recently announced on Capitol Hill:  We absolutely must have representation at these hearings. It’s crucial that we have as many parents and advocates as possible in attendance at both. And if your Senator or Congressional representative is on one of these committees, it is critical that they hear from you! Click here for the Energy & Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee members and here for the HELP Committee members.


bbc--2019-02-10--Spain Catalonia Madrid mass protest over talks policy

Spain Catalonia: Madrid mass protest over talks policy

Supporters of Spanish conservative and centrist parties have held a protest in Madrid against government plans to hold talks with Catalan separatists.  The centre-right Popular Party (PP) and Ciudadanos (Citizens) say Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's plan to appoint an intermediary for the talks amounts to treason.  The separatists have rejected the offer - they want a new independence vote.  Like the right, the ruling Socialists also oppose Catalan independence.  Far-right groups including the Vox party are also present at the protest, held under the slogan "For a united Spain. Elections now!"  Protesters filled the Spanish capital's Colon Square and nearby streets, many of them chanting "long live Spain". Police put the total number of demonstrators at 45,000.  They say the government's offer to separatists to hold round table talks and appoint a special rapporteur amounts to a capitulation and they want elections scheduled for 2020 brought forward.  One protester, Mabel Campuzano, told Reuters news agency that Mr Sánchez was "betraying Spain and we think that Spaniards don't deserve him as the president of the government".  In a speech, PP leader Pablo Casado denounced Mr Sánchez's policies as "Socialist surrender" and "deals under the table", Efe news agency reports.  "Sánchez's time is over," Mr Casado said, adding that the protests were a turning point and the beginning of a return to "harmony and legality" in Spain.  Speaking shortly afterwards at a local election campaign meeting, Mr Sánchez said his Socialist party had always been on the side of dialogue, and was now attempting to resolve a crisis made worse by the PP while it was in power.  On Friday the government said the separatists had rejected its framework for talks.  Deputy Prime Minister Carmen Calvo said the situation had "stalled", as separatist calls for an independence referendum were "not acceptable".  Meanwhile the separatists accused the government itself of abandoning dialogue.  Mr Sánchez heads a minority government that relies on the support of other parties including Catalan nationalists.  His government faces a key vote on Wednesday on its proposed 2019 budget - failure to approve it could lead to a snap election.  Catalan nationalist parties have said that their support for the budget depends on whether Mr Sanchez's proposed talks with separatists include the issue of independence.  Mr Sánchez has, however, ruled out the possibility of a Catalan independence referendum.  Polls show that the PP, Ciudadanos and Vox would together win a majority in a general election. In December the three parties together won power in the southern region of Andalusia, ousting the Socialists, who had been in power there for 36 years.  Catalan nationalists regained power in Barcelona in May, after a seven-month period of direct rule by Madrid.  Mr Sánchez became prime minister the following month, making negotiations with the pro-independence movement his priority.  Tensions remain high, as many Catalans resent Madrid's show of force last year, when it charged pro-independence leaders with sedition.  Some of them are due to go on trial on Tuesday and face up to 25 years in prison.  In December Catalan premier Quim Torra irritated the Spanish government by praising Slovenia's successful path to independence. It broke away from Yugoslavia in 1991, after a 10-day war.


bbc--2019-02-26--Mohammad Javad Zarif Irans foreign policy poisoned by infighting

Mohammad Javad Zarif: Iran's foreign policy 'poisoned by infighting'

Mohammad Javad Zarif has said Iran's diplomacy is being "poisoned" by party and factional fighting, a day after he offered to resign as foreign minister.  He made the comments in a newspaper interview that took place before he announced he was stepping down, apologising for all his "shortcomings".  Hardliners in Iran have long criticised Mr Zarif over his role in negotiating a nuclear deal with world powers in 2015.  President Hassan Rouhani has yet to formally accept his resignation.  Mr Rouhani made no mention of Mr Zarif's announcement in a televised speech on Tuesday morning, but he did praise him for his "resistance" and "capabilities".  "If our foreign ministry is doing something, it is because it is from the people and it represents the people," the president added. "The government, in general, is elected by the people."  Mr Rouhani also noted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had "explicitly thanked" the Iranian foreign ministry for its help during the country's civil war.  Earlier, a majority of MPs signed a letter to the president on Tuesday asking for Mr Zarif to remain in post, a spokesman for parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy told the official Irna news agency.  Mr Zarif announced his resignation on Monday night in an Instagram post that gave no explanation for the decision.  "I apologise for not being able to continue in the post and for all the shortcomings and flaws in the period," he wrote.


bbc--2019-04-09--Trump Court defeat on asylum policy unfair to US

Trump: Court defeat on asylum policy 'unfair to US'

US President Donald Trump has lashed out at a judge for blocking his policy of sending asylum seekers to Mexico to await court hearings in their cases.  "A 9th Circuit judge just ruled that Mexico is too dangerous for migrants," he tweeted. "So unfair to the US."  His policy would have returned migrants back over the border while they sought a legal right to stay in the US.  The legal defeat comes as migrant numbers at the US-Mexico border surged to their highest since 2008.  Mr Trump was said to be livid after US immigration officials estimated border apprehensions in March had topped 100,000.  The San Francisco ninth district judge's order on Monday against the migrant policy is not due to go into effect until this Friday, giving US officials a chance to appeal.  Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which implements Mr Trump's immigration directives, is in turmoil following a major shake-up.  DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen quit on Sunday after being summoned to the White House by the president.  Republican Senator Chuck Grassley called on Mr Trump on Monday to halt the leadership purge at the agency.  The senior senator told the Washington Post he was "very, very concerned" about reports of possible further DHS dismissals.  "The president has to have some stability and particularly with the number one issue that he's made for his campaign," Mr Grassley said.  "He's pulling the rug out from the very people that are trying to help him accomplish his goal."  Last week Mr Trump rescinded his own nomination of Ronald Vitiello as director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Speaking to Fox News on Monday, White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said: "It's time to do things a little differently.  "The president's looking around to reshape his team so he can have the people in place to carry out his agenda."  There are also reports that the president is preparing to toughen his stance on immigration.  According to the New York Times, Mr Trump is considering implementing further limits on asylum seekers, ending birthright citizenship, and closing ports of entry at the Mexican border.  But Mr Trump denied on Tuesday reports that his administration was planning once again to separate families caught crossing the border.  "We are not looking to do it," he said.  He added: "Once you don't have it [child separation], that's why you see many more people coming. They're coming like it's a picnic because let's go to Disneyland."  More than 2,700 immigrant children were separated from their parents last year under a so-called zero tolerance US policy to prosecute anyone caught crossing the border illegally.  According to US media, the White House has recently been considering a "binary choice" policy.  This would give migrant parents awaiting immigration hearings two options: agree for their child to be held separately, or be detained together, possibly indefinitely, until their court date.  A 1997 court decision known as the Flores agreement states that immigrant children are only allowed to be held for 20 days.  The Trump administration has reportedly drafted a regulation to change these rules, an official told the Axios news website, so that the government could detain children for longer periods of time.  Senior White House adviser Stephen Miller is said to be encouraging the president to adopt an increasingly hardline stance on immigration.  Mr Trump fired back at Ms Omar on Twitter, calling her criticism of Mr Miller, who is Jewish, anti-Semitic.  "'What's completely unacceptable is for Congresswoman Omar to target Jews, in this case Stephen Miller'", Mr Trump wrote, citing a segment on Fox Business Network.  Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin also condemned Ms Omar for her comments.  "During my time in Congress before @IlhanOmar got here, I didn't once witness another Member target Jewish people like this with the name calling & other personal attacks", Mr Lee wrote. "For @IlhanOmar, this is just called Monday."  The comments follow widespread condemnation of Ms Omar last month for her criticism of pro-Israel lobbyists in Washington DC.  Meanwhile, amid an ongoing debate about immigration on both sides of the Atlantic, former President Barack Obama told young people at a town hall meeting in Berlin, Germany: "We can't label everybody disturbed by immigration as racist."  He also said immigrants should be encouraged to learn the language of their adopted country.


bbc--2019-07-04--Venezuelas rulers accused by UN of death squads and policy of fear

Venezuela's rulers accused by UN of death squads and policy of fear

The UN has accused Venezuela of a strategy of instilling fear in its population to retain power, removing opponents with a "shocking" number of alleged extrajudicial killings.  Victims are arrested and shot, with crime scenes manipulated to suggest they resisted police, a report says.  The UN urges Venezuela to end the "grave violations of economic, social, civil, political and cultural rights".  Nicolás Maduro's administration has not yet officially responded to the report.  Venezuela has in the past dismissed human rights allegations as "lies".  Mr Maduro is locked in a political battle with opposition leader Juan Guaidó.  Mr Guaidó, head of the country's National Assembly, declared himself interim president in January and has the backing of more than 50 countries, including the US and most of Latin America. Mr Maduro retains the loyalty of most of the military and important allies such as China and Russia.  Some four million people have fled Venezuela since 2015, according to the UN, amid a severe economic crisis that has resulted in high unemployment and chronic shortages of food and medicine.  The report is scheduled to be presented to the UN Human Rights Council on Friday.  It is based on "558 interviews with victims and witnesses of human rights violations and the deteriorating economic situation" from January 2018 to May 2019.  Its most damning findings relate to the number of deaths the Venezuelan government has ascribed to resisting arrest.  That figure for last year was 5,287, with another 1,569 up to 19 May this year.  Referring to these figures as "unusually" and "shockingly" high, the report says: "Information analysed by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights suggests many of these killings may constitute extrajudicial executions."  The UN says witnesses reported how the Special Action Forces (FAES) "manipulated the crime scene and evidence. They would plant arms and drugs and fire their weapons against the walls or in the air to suggest a confrontation and to show the victim had 'resisted authority'".  It adds that the UN "is concerned the authorities may be using FAES and other security forces as an instrument to instil fear in the population and to maintain social control".  The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the report paints a dark picture of Venezuela, in which unmarked black vans arrive in poor neighbourhoods, masked officers get out, round up young men and shoot them.  The lengthy report also covers areas such as economic and social rights, and social programmes and policies.  Problems of access to justice - which the report says the government has asked for help with - are also tackled.  A separate section covers the rights of indigenous people, and migrants and refugees.  The UN concludes it believes "there are reasonable grounds to believe that grave violations of economic and social rights, including the rights to food and health, have been committed in Venezuela".  On accusations of torture it says detainees have been subjected to "one or more forms of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including electric shocks, suffocation with plastic bags, water boarding, beatings, sexual violence, water and food deprivation, stress positions and exposure to extreme temperatures".  Yes. A navy captain arrested over an alleged plot to assassinate President Maduro died in custody with his lawyer alleging it was as a result of torture.  The death sparked outrage, coming just days after the visit to Venezuela by UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet.  Local media say the official autopsy reported that the body of Rafael Acosta, 49, had showed signs of having been subjected to extreme force, had been starved of oxygen and had suffered severe beatings and electrocution.  Two men, Lt Ascanio Tarascio and Sgt Estiben Zarate have been charged with murder.  President Maduro has intensified a crackdown on the opposition since a failed military uprising against him in April led by Mr Guaidó.  Since the failed rebellion, described by Mr Maduro as part of a US-orchestrated coup, many opposition MPs have lost their parliamentary immunity and some have been arrested.  While Mr Guaidó's parliamentary immunity has been lifted, he has so far not been jailed, even though he recently said he did not rule out the use of military force to oust Mr Maduro from power.