Category Archives: Government Oppression

NEW YORK, Oct. 7, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights is proud to announce poet Amanda Gorman as its latest Ripple of Hope Award laureate for 2021. She joins a remarkable line-up of honorees: political leader, entrepreneur, and author, Stacey Abrams; co-founder and managing partner of Clearlake Capital, Jos E. Feliciano; managing director of Insight Partners, Deven Parekh; and chairman and CEO of Verizon, Hans Vestberg.

This year's Ripple of Hope Award winners, united by their uncompromising integrity and resilience in striving for an inclusive America, have each championed the causes and concerns of the underrepresented and marginalized. Their tireless efforts in service of the public goodfrom within global companies to the national political stagereflect Robert Kennedy's passion for equality, justice, and the power of individual action to establish meaningful reform.

All five laureates will be honored at a hybrid ceremony on Thursday, December 9, featuring keynote speaker Vice President Kamala Harris. As the first woman and first woman of color to serve as vice president, Harris has broken barriers and served as a leading voice on the impact of race on health care, access to voting, and the criminal legal system.

"We're honored that Vice President Harris and Amanda Gorman will join Stacey, Hans, Jos, and Deven in our Ripple of Hope Award ceremony for 2021," said Kerry Kennedy, president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. "Their leadership and poise have inspired countless people, especially young women of color, to rise up and make their voices heard and we are thrilled to recognize such extraordinary changemakers. We look forward to celebrating our five honorees and hearing the Vice President's remarks."

Since 1968, the Ripple of Hope Award has celebrated exemplary leaders across business, government, advocacy, and entertainment who have demonstrated a commitment to social progress and advancing human rights.

Previous winnersof the Ripple of Hope Award include Barack Obama, Tim Cook, Dolores Huerta, Desmond Tutu, Colin Kaepernick, Hillary Clinton, John Lewis, Bono, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Nancy Pelosi, Robert F. Smith, Wyclef Jean, and Joe Biden.

Learn more about RFK Human Rights and its annual Ripple of Hope Award at RFKHumanRights.org/awards.

2021 RFK Ripple of Hope Award Laureates

Stacey Abrams (@staceyabrams)Political Leader, Entrepreneur, and AuthorStacey Abrams is a political leader, voting rights activist, entrepreneur, and New York Times bestselling author. After serving for 11 years in the Georgia House of Representatives, seven as minority leader, Abrams became the 2018 Democratic nominee for governor of Georgia, winning more votes than any other Democrat in the state's history. Dedicated to civic engagement, Abrams has founded multiple organizations devoted to voting rights, training and hiring young people of color, and tackling social issues at both the state and national levels. She founded Fair Fight Action to ensure every American has a voice in our election system, Fair Count to ensure accuracy in the 2020 Census, and the Southern Economic Advancement Project, a public policy initiative to broaden economic power and build equity in the South. Abrams is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations and sits on the boards of the LBJ Foundation, the Women's National Basketball Players Association, the Center for American Progress, and the Marguerite Casey Foundation.

Amanda Gorman (@TheAmandaGorman)PoetAmanda Gorman is an award-winning writer and activist. She is the youngest inaugural poet in U.S. history and, in 2017, was named the first-ever National Youth Poet Laureate by Urban Word. Her work, including "The Hill We Climb," recited at the inauguration of President Joe Biden, focuses largely on themes of hope, unity, and healing in the face of oppression. Gorman is the founder of One Pen One Page, an organization that provides platforms for student storytellers to change the world. She is also the youngest board member of 826 National, the largest youth writing network in the United States. Gorman is a recipient of an OZY Genius Award and has previously served as a youth delegate to the United Nations.

Jos E. Feliciano (#JoseEFeliciano)Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Clearlake Capital GroupJos E. Feliciano is co-founder and managing partner of Clearlake Capital Group, L.P., a leading private investment firm he co-founded in 2006. In addition to his investing responsibilities, Feliciano is responsible for the day-to-day management of the firm. In 2014, he and his wife, Kwanza Jones, co-founded the SUPERCHARGED Initiative, a philanthropic grantmaking and impact investment organization that invests in both nonprofits and for-profit ventures that are compatible with its goal to make a lasting impact across four key priorities: education, entrepreneurship, equal opportunity, and empowerment. In addition, Feliciano serves on the boards of directors of the Robert Toigo Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering the career advancement and increased leadership of underrepresented talent, and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.

Deven Parekh (@djparekh)Managing Director, Insight PartnersDeven Parekh is a managing director at Insight Partners. Since joining the firm in 2000, he has been a vocal advocate for opportunity and inclusion, initiating efforts to promote women and minority leaders across Insight's internal team, portfolio, and the wider software and investment ecosystems as a whole. Parekh is a member of the board of directors for several institutions, including the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and NYU Langone. He is also chairman emeritus of the board of Publicolor, a nonprofit organization focused on New York City public schools. In 2006, Parekh was named a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute, which seeks to develop the next generation of community-spirited leaders.

Hans Vestberg (@hansvestberg)Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, VerizonHans Vestberg is chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications. During his tenure, Verizon has prioritized its diversity and inclusion initiatives, including a $10 million pledge to support organizations dedicated to racial equity and social justice. Before joining Verizon in April 2017, Vestberg served for six years as president and CEO of Ericsson, a multinational telecommunications company that provides 35 percent of the world's 2G, 3G, and 4G mobile network infrastructures. Vestberg is a founding member of the International Telecommunications Union Broadband Commission for Digital Development, where he led climate change and digital health initiatives. He is also a member of the Leadership Council of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Solutions Network and serves on the board of the UN Foundation and the Whitaker Peace & Development Initiative. He is a founding chairman of the World Economic Forum's EDISON Alliance, a global movement to prioritize digital inclusion as foundational to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals; a member of the Leadership Council of the UN's Sustainable Development Solutions Network; and a member of the boards of the UN Foundation, the Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative, and BlackRock.

Robert F. Kennedy Human RightsWe are a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that has worked to realize Robert F. Kennedy's dream of a more just and peaceful world since 1968. In partnership with local activists, we advocate for key human rights issueschampioning changemakers and pursuing strategic litigation at home and around the world. And to ensure change that lasts, we foster a social-good approach to business and investment and educate millions of students about human rights and social justice.

View original content to download multimedia:

SOURCE Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights

View post:

Vice President Kamala Harris to Give Keynote Address at 2021 Ripple of Hope Award Ceremony - KOLO

The hiring of a critical race theorist to teach music is yet another offering from academics at the temple of the woke. Little good it will do students or individuals and communities interested in rejecting racial prejudice.

In July,Arizona State University officials hireda music professor to train K-12 music teachers, emphasizing that the new professor is a specialist in critical race theory. Music instruction is secondarythe universitys press release announcing the new hire stresses that the instructor wants to give future music teachers reliable tools beyond teaching the music, and she is committed to progressive work on how the issues of race, class and culture impact educational equity in music education.

Using critical race theory to teach music will not help efforts to fight racial bias, however, because so-called antiracists goalisracial discrimination.

It was only a matter of time before ASU, the nations7th-largest university, experimented with the anti-racist crusade in music. The Manhattan Institutes Heather Mac DonaldexplainsinCity Journalthat the League of American Orchestras released aStatement on Racial Discriminationafter George Floyds tragic death in 2020 saying that it acknowledges, accepts responsibility for, and apologizes for the role it has played in perpetuating, excusing, and participating in systemic discrimination based on race within the orchestral field. At Julliard, school officials created a blacks-only Zoom space for healing, Mac Donald says.

>>>Biden and Critical Race TheoryHow To Fight Back Amid Admins Confusing Mixed Signals

Music joins a long list of academic subjects, professions, government agencies, and private enterprises from which critical race theorists demand penance; otherwise participants are labeled racist. ASU had already injected the theory into its other areas of study (ASU added acritical race theory courseback to its law schoollast year).

Critical race theory is not simply a historical perspective on race and law in America. The theory is a worldview rooted in Marxism whose advocateswantto [provoke] anger, disquiet, anxiety, and even fear in those with a settled understanding of who they are and where they belong, writes critical race theorist Angela Harris.

Ironicallyand sadlytheorists themselves are racially discriminatory. Critical race theorist Richard Delgado, for example, along with the late Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell argued that the only reason Americans made progress with civil rights in the 1960s was because itcoincidedwith whites self-interest. Among the theorys many inconsistencies is that while they believe racism is the primary source of oppression in society, the only way to resolve this oppression is with more discrimination.

The goal for these postsecondary pursuits is no longer the pursuit of truth but the critical goal of activism.

The theory has become a hot-button political issue of late as Americans have tried to make sense of the new antiracist ideasbased on critical theory, which, and it cannot be stressed enough, are racially prejudiced. According to the purveyors of antiracism like Boston University professor Ibram X. Kendi, the language of color blindnesslike the language of not racistis a mask to hide racism, Kendi says inHow to Be an Antiracist.

Critical race theory and antiracism created the perfect trap: If you admit to being racist, you are racist; if you deny you are racist, that means you are racist.

ASU professors have already shown their commitment to critical race theorys racial discrimination in other areas of campus life, not just music.

In January 2021, ASUs biannualRaceB4Race Symposiumfocused on critical race theory and literature and foreign language studies. One of the presenters said, We have to be taught to pursue radical equity, which in critical parlance means that some institution or system would force equal outcomes for individuals, regardless of individual choices. Even in classical language courses and premodern studies, educators are to push students to achieve systemic change.

The goal for these postsecondary pursuits is no longer the pursuit of truth but the critical goal of activism. Critical race theorists obsession with equity and activism demonstrates how the theory combines the Marxist ideas of oppression based on class and a perspective on the world based on race.

Just weeks later, in February 2021, ASUs Student Government paid Angela Davis, former student of one of the original critical theorists, Herbert Marcuse, $15,000to give a virtual lecture. Davis is a longtime radical activist whose involvement with a group that took over theMarin County Courthousein California and killed a Superior Court judge in 1970 made her a legend in the underground community, explains writer Bryan Burrough, author ofDays of Rage. She ran twice for vice president on the Communist Party ticket and in 1979 was given the Lenin Peace Prize by the East German regime, one of the most ruthless of the Soviet satellites.

Though the Davis event was hosted by student groups, ASUs graduate collegesannouncementcalled her a renowned scholar who has been deeply involved in our nations quest for social justice. Curiously, the statement does not mention her presidential campaigns, nor her award.

ASU officials have yet to require students to participate in so-called diversity trainings, but such a requirementmay not be far off. ASU offers a To Be Welcoming online diversity program taught by ASU professors, most of whom have critical race theory somewhere in their biographical descriptions. For now, students opt-in to this course. But from the new music course to RaceB4Race to Angela Davis and beyond, there are abundant signs that Critical Race Theory has taken root on campus.

>>> Critical Race Theory

In describing the current opt-in diversity programs, a professor in ASUs Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College says, We should make a more concerted effort to embed social justice and equity concepts throughout [student orientation] so its not just like a 20-minute thing that somebody has to just check off the list.

We are right to ask what is happening on campus when professors and students are taking barbaric ideas such as perpetuating racial discrimination seriously. That college officials are ambiguous to, oblivious of, orhopefully notallied with, critical race theory is a sign of cultural regression: School officials and professors are leading us back to an era marked by prejudice. Generations of Americans had been living with the understanding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the civil rights movement led Americans away from racially discriminatory policies, attitudes, and behaviors.

If ASU wantsto be welcoming,the university should encourage the pursuit of truth, not skew every course with a perspective based on skin color.

For now, university officials have found scholars from many disciplines, including music, to lead the march back to prejudice.

This piece originally appeared in the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

Read more:

Arizona State University and Offerings at the Temple of the Woke - Heritage.org

There is only one way to describe the fiscal mindset of those in the White House and in Congress who are proposing new federal budgetary expenditure and taxing increases in the trillions of dollars: a fantasy land of financial irrationality.

The Biden Administration insists on additions to the already bloated American welfare state that will see an expansion in entitlement programs and increased societal dependency on government largess not implemented since Lyndon Johnsons Great Society programs of the 1960s. But to show just how much Joe Bidens mind seems to operate in some alternate universe, he has recently informed us that the $3.5 trillion of additional government spending over the next several years will cost nothing.

Why, nothing? Because over $2.1 trillion will be covered by taxing the rich and large corporations. The remaining difference between $3.5 trillion of greater spending and $2.1 trillion of increased taxes will materialize through some magic formula of government investing in infrastructure, alternative energy sources, and people.

Notice the rhetorical hucksterism. All of that additional spending wont cost anything, because you are not being taxed to pay for it, and it will not result in any net increase in the national debt. Its those others, you know, the millionaires and billionaires, who neither need all that money nor deserve it. You do, in the form of increased government redistribution.

You see, if you are not taxed to pay for it, and if it does not increase the debt, it is all, well, free goodies with other peoples money, other people who really dont count or matter. How else do we interpret Joe Bidenswordsat a recent White House event? It is zero price tag, he said, on the debt were paying. Were going to pay for everything we spend. He went on tosay, Every time I hear this is going to cost A, B, C, D the truth is, based on a commitment that I made, its going to cost nothing . . . because we are going to raise the revenue.

This was clarified by White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates, The bills price tag is $0 because it will be paid for by ending failed, special tax giveaways for the richest taxpayers and big corporations, he said, adding nothing to the debt. Listening to the president and those around him, you would assume that the rich pay little or nothing, while the poor and the middle-class working population bear the brunt of all the good things that government paternalism does for all of us.

In fact, in2018, the top 1 percent of income earners (those earning $540,000 or more) paid more than 40 percent of all income taxes collected; the top 5 percent of income earners (those making $218,000 or more) paid 60.3 percent of all collected income taxes; the top 10 percent (those earning $152,000 or more) paid 71.4 percent of all income taxes; and the top 25 percent (those making $87,000 or more) paid 87 percent of all income taxes paid. The bottom 50 percent of all income earners (those earning $43,600 or less) paid less than 3 percent of all income taxes collected.

As forcorporate taxes, the United States, currently, ranks as 13th in heavily taxing corporations, but if Bidens tax plan were to be implemented, the corporate tax rate would rise from 21 percent to 26.5 percent at the federal level. But considering that state governments also tax corporations, these business enterprises would (depending on the state) have taxes anywhere between 30 percent and 35 percent. If this happens, the U.S, would rank third in the world in terms of corporate taxes, just behind Portugal and Columbia.

In anew study, economists Daniel Mitchell and Robert P. OQuinn estimated that the business tax effects of Bidens plan would shift about 2 percent of the economys output into the hands of the government over several years, with an appreciable negative impact on private sector economic growth looking to the years ahead. They estimate a $3 trillion shortfall in national income from what it otherwise might have been over the next decade if Bidens policies were not implemented.

What is as disturbing as the possible economic impacts of these spending and taxing policies is the philosophy behind them. From Bidens own mouth, the largess coming from government can be viewed as costless for those said to be the interest group beneficiaries, only as long as someone else can be made to pay the fiscal tab for it. This is an out-and-out politics of plunder, under which people may be promised practically anything, because the rich Peter will be taxed for the benefit of the deserving Paul.

The political paternalists always insist that those they designate as the rich do not really deserve or have a right to their higher incomes and wealth. First, this is because of the clear envy hidden behind the smoke screen of convoluted conceptions of equality. The mere having of more than others becomes a mark of social injustice.

Second, underlying this are forms of the Marxian and socialist presumptions that accumulated wealth and high income can have no origin other than by the exploitation and the oppression of others. If some have significantly more than others, there can be no rational reason for it other than it represents ill-gotten gains taken from others to whom it legitimately belongs. As a consequence, taking more of it away from the rich is merely through the intermediation of the redistributing political authority getting back what is rightfully due to those from whom it should never have been stolen in the first place under the capitalist system.

The only modern variation on this theme is that social classes in conflict with one another have been widened to incorporate a white, male, capitalist exploitation and oppression of all people of color, and female and related genders, along with the workers of all ethnicities and races. (See my article,Identity Politics and Systemic Racism Theory as the New Marxo-Nazism.)

It is noteworthy that when democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are asked how much would be enough for the capitalist rich to pay their fair share, there is never a truly straight answer, other than implicitly a number approaching 100 percent. Biden, of course, has gone out of his way to insist that he is not a socialist.

But when your starting premise is that all good things come only through government planning, directing, and dictating, and that the resources and wealth of the entire country are at the discretionary disposal of those in political power who think like him, it is difficult not to view Biden as a central planner. And when central planning takes the form of government directly or indirectly commanding how those who own private businesses may go about their business in terms of what, how, where, and when to produce, employ, sell, and price what is being offered for sale, we end up with fascism.

When a president of the United States declares that he will use every political power at his disposal to compel as many people as possible to be vaccinated against a virus; when he insists that good citizenship requires every American to wear a facial mask, and pressures businesses to impose vaccine and masking rules on virtually every working American; when he commands that within a handful of years the majority of vehicles on the roads and highways of America must be powered and fueled a certain way, and threatens penalties if auto manufacturers do not comply with this demand; when he imposes retroactive regulatory rules and prohibitions on various forms of enterprise structures and market conduct through active antitrust enforcement; when he does these, and dozens more in a matter of a few months that he has been in office, one is reminded of Benito Mussolinis description of the fascist, totalitarian system: All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Biden always seems impatient whenever he is challenged about any of his decisions. He angrily turns away from any more questions about the American withdrawal from Afghanistan debacle. He has no intention of rethinking the pilotless drone warfare that enables the United States to arrogantly target anyone, anywhere in the world. He seems to believe that just about everything is in Americas national interest.

He knows the world is threatened by global warming, so he will try to remake how all Americans live and work, and he is closed to any suggestion that the supposed science is challengeable. He talks like an irritated, impatient parent who is tired with the foolishness of the immature child-like citizens who wont do as they are told. He hides away and wont even talk about a border crisis of his own making.

Why, then, should it be surprising that Joe Biden just announced that $3.5 trillion of additional paternalist government spending has no cost? If he says so, well, then it is true. It is costless because it will not increase the national debt, since it will be paid for by imposing $2.1 trillion of higher taxes on those designated as rich, and taxing them, remember, has no cost attached to it.

Notice that in Joe Bidens fiscal world, there are no trade-offs between the use of scarce resources in the private sector versus and by government. Indeed, magically, resources in the governments hands are somehow automatically more productive. How else can it be asserted that taxing the rich an additional $2.1 trillion will somehow equal $3.5 trillion of redistributive spending?

The mindset behind such policies are, tragically, nothing new. More than 90 years ago, in 1930, the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), wrote about a similar mentality in his native Austria in the years between the two World Wars. Mises was at that time employed as a senior economic policy analyst for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce, Crafts, and Industry. In that capacity he had a wide and detailed knowledge of the fiscal and regulatory policies of the Austrian government.

Mises delivered a talk before the Industrial Club of Vienna in December 1930 onAdjusting Public Expenditures to the Economys Financial Capacity,(Chapter 26) in which he discussed the mentality seen in the open in Washington, D.C. today. It is, perhaps, worthwhile, therefore, to quote Mises at some length:

The errors in our fiscal policy stem from the theoretical misconceptions that dominate public opinion about financial matters. The worst of these misconceptions is the famous, and unfortunately undefeated, idea that the main difference between the states and the private sectors budget is that in the private sectors budget expenditures have to be based on revenues, while in the public sectors budget it is the reverse, i.e., the revenue raised must be based on the level of expenditures desired.

The illogic of this sentence is evident as soon as it is thought through. There is always a rigid limit of expenditures, namely the scarcity of means. If the means were unlimited, then it would be difficult to understand why expenses should ever have to be curbed. If in the case of the public budget it is assumed that its revenues are based on its expenditures and not the other way around, i.e., that is expenses have to be based on its revenues, the result is the tremendous squandering that characterizes our fiscal policy.

The supporters of this principle are so shortsighted that they do not see that it is necessary, when comparing the level of public expenditures with the budgetary expenditures of the private sector, not to ignore the fact that enterprises cannot undertake investments when the required funds are used up instead for public purposes. They only see the benefits resulting from the public expenditures and not the harm the taxing inflicts on the other parts of the national economy . . .

When the taxation of enterprises goes too far, it results in the consumption of capital. To a large extent, this has been the case here in Austria for the last eighteen years. Capital consumption is detrimental not only for the owners of property but for the worker as well. The more unfavorable becomes the quantitative ratio of capital to labor, the lower is the marginal productivity of the work force, and, consequently, the lower are the wages that can be paid.

The view that levying taxes on property in any amount does not affect the interests of the masses is just one of the steps leading to the demagogic and false doctrine that it is safe to burden the state with any amount of costs.

The following year Mises co-authored a report for the Austrian government that demonstrated that between 1925 and 1929, tax increases and compulsory union wage demands on the Austrian private sector had actually resulted in capital consumption. Private enterprises were unable to maintain the value and physical capacity of their capital. General corporate business taxes were increased by 32 percent, mandatory social insurance payments rose by 50 percent, industrial wages in general had been pushed up by 24 percent, and wages in agriculture by 13 percent, along with higher transportation costs by 15 percent due to various regulatory interventions.

At the same time, an index of the prices of manufactured goods bearing these fiscal and labor union burdens had increased only by 4.74 percent. For many segments of the Austrian economy, revenues were not enough to cover the costs of maintaining capital. Austrian society became economically poorer, as a result.

The difficulty of fully appreciating how fiscal and related policies can lead to such an extreme situation was also something that Ludwig von Mises drew attention to. Near the end of his famous treatise onSocialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, he explained:

Capital consumption can be detected statistically and can be conceived intellectually, but it is not obvious to everyone. To see the weakness of a policy which raises the consumption of the masses at the cost of existing capital wealth, and thus sacrifices the future to the present, and to recognize the nature of this policy, requires deeper insight than that vouchsafed to statesmen and politicians or to the masses who have put them into power.

As long as the walls of the factory buildings stand, and the trains continue to run, it is supposed that all is well with the world. The increasing difficulties of maintaining the higher standard of living are ascribed to various causes, but never to the fact that a policy of capital consumption is being followed.

America may still be far from a situation in which its capital is consumed in the manner that Mises analyzed. But it nevertheless remains that the political and ideological forces at work are not that much different from his time in interwar Austria. Taxing the rich is presumed to have no detrimental effect on the continuing maintenance and increase in the capital that enables more, better, and newer products from coming to the market. We know this because Joe Biden has told us so. The same presumption is made in our time as in Misess. More government spending in any and all directions need not be limited to available resources.

Government borrowing and Federal Reserve money-printing are presumed to have no cost or constraint. All you need is a central bank which is willing to keep interest rates near zero, so the cost of borrowing trillions to cover budget deficits can seem to be almost nothing at all. There is always enough fiat money in the banking system to make it seem like there is plenty for anyone and everyone, for almost anything.

Joe Bidens demagoguery, arrogant impatience, and dictatorial manner do not and cannot change reality. At the end of the day, his policies can only lead to a financial and economic disaster. But why should he care? He gets to sit in the Oval Office, play master of the world, have his staff and supporters bow and grovel at his feet, and dream of his legacy as president of the United States.

Besides, at 78 years of age, most of the disastrous consequences of his own policies will only fully come home to roost after he is long gone. Those will be some other presidents problem. For now, he gets to play the most powerful political paternalist on the planet. As for later, well,Aprs nous le deluge.

[First Published At: AIER]

PHOTO: 1280px-Joe_Biden_(49405107506). PHOTO BY: jlhervas, Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

Originally posted here:

News - Biden's Demagoguery that Government Spending is Costless - The Heartland Institute

One of the most remarkable twists in the pandemic is that a handful of NBA players have emerged as the most cogent and principled defenders of liberty, common sense, and basic civic decency in America.

Its a bit unexpected. In recent years, the NBA has most often landed in the political news cycle thanks to LeBron James disgusting habit of bowing and scraping before the Chinese Communist Party, or Steve Kerrs refusal to breathe a word about the suppression of protests in Hong Kong or the oppression of Uighur Muslims while lecturing everyone on the evils of systemic racism and gun ownership in America.

If you had said a year ago that 24-year-old Jonathan Isaac of the Orlando Magic, or the Golden State Warriors Draymond Green, or Brooklyn Nets star guard Kyrie Irving would somehow be voices of calm, reason, and tolerance amid a moral panic about COVID-19 vaccines pushed relentlessly by corporate media and the Democratic Party, no one would have believed you. Yet here we are.

Green spoke for millions of Americans during a press conference last week when he said the vaccine debate has turned into a political war, and that with medical decisions like getting the Covid shot, You have to honor peoples feelings and their own personal beliefs. Forcing people to get the vaccine, he said, goes against everything America stands for.

Green, it should be noted. isnt an anti-vaxxer. Like most NBA players, he chose to get a COVID vaccine. But Green understands what the reporters covering the NBA seemingly do not: that getting the vaccine or not getting it should be a private matter, just like any other medical decision, and no one should be coerced into it.

The issue has come to a head because of municipal public health orders in New York and San Francisco that would bar any unvaccinated NBA player from playing in home games in New York City and San Francisco. That includes Greens teammate Andrew Wiggins, who said back in March he would not get a vaccine unless he was forced to. Wiggins, who applied to the NBA for a religious exemption and was rejected last month, confirmed this week he got the shot but that, Its not something I wanted to do, but was kind of forced to.

Isaac and Irving, however, have not gotten the shot, at least not yet. Its unclear what that will mean for Irving specifically, given that all of New York City is under a public health order issued by Mayor Bill de Blasio that requires proof of vaccination for entry into professional sports arenas, including Madison Square Garden and Barclays Center, the Brooklyn Nets home court.

Irving has been quiet about his vaccination status, but last month Isaac gave one of the clearest and most succinct explanations of why he hasnt gotten the vaccine. Asked about it at a press conference last month, he explained that he has already had COVID and now has natural antibodies to the virus.

Combined with his age and fitness level, getting COVID again is not necessarily a fear of mine, he said, while taking the vaccine opens him up to the albeit rare chance but the possibility of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

As Glenn Greenwald has noted, this is an entirely reasonable position for someone in Isaacs position to take: hes in his early 20s, has natural immunity, and is about as physically fit as a person can get. In fact, during the entire course of the pandemic, the total number of people aged 15-24 (Isaacs age group) who have died of COVID in a country of 330 million people is 1,372: fewer than the number in that age group who have died of non-COVID pneumonia.

That Isaac would emerge as a voice of reason against a media and corporate establishment that looks down on the unvaccinated as anti-science underscores just how anti-science their COVID discourse has become.

And not just anti-science, but anti-conscience. Isaac told Shannon Bream of Fox News this week that the issue is much bigger than whether someone is vaccinated, or has had COVID , because the whole thing is a matter of conscience.

Everyone should be free to make the decision for themselves, he said, adding that he believes the government is setting a precedent that, in light of any emergency, your personal autonomy, your religious freedom, and honestly your freedom as a whole becomes negotiable.

Washington Wizards star guard Bradley Beal also seems to have a firmer grasp of freedom of conscience and speech than the entire corporate press, which has repeatedly attacked him for his vaccine hesitancy and for comments he made the first day of Wizards training camp, including that he is not vaccinated for personal reasons.

Following that press conference, some reporters distorted his comments to suggest he was calling into question the efficacy of the vaccines, which in turn forced Beal to address the matter again. The next day, he said this:

One thing I want to get clear is Im not sitting up here advocating or campaigning that No, you should not get that vaccine. I want to get that straight, Im not sitting up here saying vaccines are bad. Im not sitting up here saying this vaccine is bad. Im not sitting up here saying that you shouldnt get it. It is a personal decision between every individual, thats it. Right? And I have that personal right to keep it to myself or keep it with my family and I would like everybody to respect that.

At this point, its basically the entire corporate media, along with most of corporate America, Big Tech, Hollywood, and the entire Democratic Party versus a few NBA players who are willing to speak clearly and unapologetically about an issue that every American should understand innately.

Thats a credit to players like Isaac and Beal, but a searing indictment of our elites, whose last resort, it seems, is to smear anyone who doesnt accept their crumbling pandemic narratives.

More:

A Few NBA Players Are The Voice Of Reason In The COVID Vax Debate - The Federalist

In the context of the police violence during the eviction drive last week in Darrang, Assam,ATREYO BANERJEEandSHARDHA RAJAManalyse the continued systemic discrimination and violence meted out to marginalized communities in Assam leading to forced evictions done extra-judicially without following the procedure established under law.

-

IN his book The Wages of Impunity, human rights activist K.G. Kannabiran wrote on the interconnectedness of power, law and brutality, focusing on the post-colonial States key role in legitimizing and enforcing brutality against its own people. As Kannabiran points out, such brutality is routinized through collective State action, encompassing the tacit approval of the legislature and the judiciary, whilst being enforced by the executive. State-sponsored carnage is justified on the grounds of public order and national security: ambiguous terms which allow ample discretion.

Theviolence which has engulfed Assams Darrang districtis a stark example of the state acting with impunity and aggression against its own people on spurious grounds. Yet, it is not surprising, given that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in itsmanifestoleading up to the assembly elections in Assam earlier this year had promised to combat illegal encroachments.

Using the term land jihad, ostensibly modified from the more popular love jihad, the BJP furthered the narrative against Muslims of Bengali speaking origin that these people are illegal squatters upon the land which is therightful property of the indigenous Assamese communities.

Also read: The Growth Strategy of BJP in Assam

Videos and photos of photographer Bijoy Shankar Bania pummeling the near lifeless body of Moinul Haque, who ultimately succumbed to injuries sustained due to police firing, highlight the impunity of the State in facilitating a regime of violence and displacement in Assam. The murders of Moinul Haque and the twelve-year-old child,Sheikh Farid, are a result of the state governments attempts to commence a community farming project known as the Garukhuti Project to provide livelihood to indigenous youth.

The morality of the Garukhuti project, similar to all development projects which induce displacement, rests on the argument of public good. Such displacement is advertised asnecessaryfor the good ofall, and relies on a perverted idea of legality which neglects the fundamental principle of rule of law by contravening legal procedures.

In fact, abrief study of landused for development projects shows the disproportionate impact of governments land acquisitions, on the most marginalized communities. This is supported by evidence from civil society organisations in2018and2019.

The enormity of the States power to disenfranchise communities is perhaps best witnessed through the slum eviction drives in post-independence India. From the evictions inTurkman GateandOkhla Industrial Area, to the more recenteviction of millions from Khori Gaon, it is clear that such evictions which rest on reclaiming public land, are prejudiced, unjust and inequitable.

Also read: Eviction or resettlement: permanent dilemma in Assam

In the context of Assam, such disenfranchisement is worsened by the question of belonging, which is an open sore on its body politic. Being one of the territories which was ceded to the colonial government after theFirst Anglo-Burmese War, Assam has been home to a multicultural and multi-ethnic group of people.

Due to the lucrative tea plantations, large numbers of British Indias subjects were transported to Assam and indentured to work under grossly exploitative conditions. Eventually, these people settled around the Brahmaputra River, making the riverine islands (also known as chars)their temporary homes.

These homes weretemporary because each year during the torrential monsoons, these islands get submerged leaving their erstwhile occupants homeless.

Since the residents of thecharsare religious and ethnic minorities in Assam, they face multiple oppressions first, the legacy of otherization by the State through its imagination of them as foreigners,which leads to their illegal and arbitrary detention within detention centres in Assam. This oppression is further exacerbated by the National Register of Citizens, the National Population Register and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

Also read:NRC busts the myth around massive illegal migration into Assam

Second, they also face displacementon account of the frequent floodingand submerging of their homes. Therecent eviction driveat the Dhalpur village in Darrang by the state government of Assam,which resulted in the murder of Haque and Farid, is a hybrid oppression inflicted on this community for belonging to the Bengali-speaking Muslim community, and for residing in areas susceptible to natural disasters.

It is in this context that the alleged illegality of Dhalpurs residents must be measured. At its crux, it is a property dispute. However, seemingly neutral laws regularly impact marginalised communities disproportionately, and/or are implemented with greater vigour against certain groups, as is evident from the instances of development-induced displacement discussed earlier. Further, even for questioning illegal occupation/residence of Dhalpurs people, the State is obligated to follow a procedure established by law.

Dhalpur was categorized as professional grazing land belonging to the government. Official reports suggest around800 peoplehave been evicted in the current eviction drive, whereas the real numbers could be around 20,000,if not more. Multiple news reportssuggestthat the people being evicted were served with noticesmerely a few hourspriorto the eviction.

Even if one assumes that the persons being evicted were indeed illegal squatters on government land, the ensuing eviction must be done following the procedure established by law. This would entail a fact-finding exercise to gauge whether a person is illegally encroaching upon the said land, or has abona fideclaim upon that land. Although the Chief Minister of Assamhas stated that the eviction was not done overnight, and discussions were on for four months, such statements belie reality as it would imply that at least 800 of the evicted persons were duly served with notices, and found to have nobona fideclaim on the land.

In doing so, the state government is following a summary eviction procedure, under Rule 18 of theSettlement Rulesmade under theAssam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

Initially, there were two routes available to the government to evict persons in accordance with the Land Revenue Regulation. The first route was under Rule 18, as per which the deputy commissioner is empowered to summarily evict a person who has encroached upon land that has previously been reserved for the grazing of village cattle or for any other public purpose. However, a person cannot be evicted or directed to vacate the land if they have abona fideclaim over the land. Rule 18 also mandates a publication of notice to provide the illegal encroacher with 15 days time to vacate the land.

The second route available to the government was to file a suit in a court of law against the person sought to be evicted, as the Land Revenue Regulation does not bar the government from initiating a civil suit. This means that a person sought to be evicted would have a larger bouquet of rights in the form of presenting evidence, filing written submissions, the right of revision and appeal, etc.

On the other hand, a person being evicted summarily under Rule 18 would have to establish the amorphousbona fideclaim over the land in a much shorter span of time in an arbitrary and ad-hoc procedure.

Due to there being two routes for eviction without any guidance on under which circumstance the draconian summary process would be chosen over instituting a civil suit, the Gauhati High Court, in its judgment in theBandhana Goalacase in 1971, found Rule 18 be in violation ofArticle 14of the Constitution.

Since summary evictions could not take place anymore, the Land Revenue Regulation was amended in 1971 and Regulation 154-A was inserted. This provided that any actions done under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules would be deemed to have been validly done.

Therefore, government authorities could now evict with impunity as the person being evicted could not challenge that his eviction be tried in a civil court. Regulation 154-A would operate as a protective barrier to state actions of summary eviction in Assam since previously inBandhana Goala, Rule 18 was found to violate Article 14.

It is worthwhile to consider what could have been instead of protecting actions of summary eviction, the incumbent government could have amended the Land Revenue Regulation to do away with summary evictions completely, and a framework which would comprehensively determine a persons rights over a portion of land could have been formulated. However, the same would be anathema to a State intent on diluting the procedural safeguards available to an impoverished ethnic and religious minority in Assam.

Despite the prevalence of summary ad-hoc evictions, courts have read in certain safeguards which are aimed to protect persons being evicted under the Land Revenue Regulation.

InBharati Das vs. Jorhat Municipal Board(2020), the Gauhati High Court observed that whether or not a person has abona fideclaim over the land can only be decided after the person being sought to be evicted has been given a right of hearing. InBimal Das vs. State of Assam(2017),the High Court held that persons cannot be evicted under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules without a notice being served upon them; once such notice is served, the persons sought to be evicted would have the liberty to take a stand that they have a legal right over the disputed land. This had been upheld by the High Courtearlier as well.

In other instances (such asDhunseri Petrochem vs. State of Assam(2017)) cases have been remanded to the deputy commissioner for not following the proper process of issuing a notice and providing a right of hearing. Pertinently, inShri Ngurohiezao Angami vs. Sub-Divisional Officer(1970), the High Court dealt with the question of whether the Government can evict persons by using force without them having any recourse to any law.

In unequivocal terms the court held that persons cannot be evicted by force, and usedArticle 21of the Constitution to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, in this case there was only a partial eviction the church, some houses and other common property of the community, despite being constructed on land which has been encroached upon, was not demolished.

The Supreme Court, inGovernment of Andhra Pradesh vs Thummala Krishna Rao(1982), has observed that prior to undertaking a summary eviction, the duration of occupation must be determined. In other words, a person who is openly in occupation of a property for an appreciable length of time,prima facieacquires abona fideclaim to the property.

Although decided in the context of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, this judgment offers valuable insights in the context of Assam.

Previously,multiple governments at Assamhave set up schools, primary health centres, aadhar centres and other common infrastructure in Dhalpur. Toilets have been built under the Swachh Bharat Mission. These facilities were provided over a period of time to better the lives of persons residing in Dhalpur, and such period of time could constitute an appreciable length of time. Moreover, a large number of these government-built and provided facilities are on lands demarcated for eviction, but have not been demolished.

Scholars have studiedthe effects of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, in particular focusing on the way it makes Indian Muslims second class citizens in India.

Also read:The many texts and subtexts of the CAA, NPR and the NRC

In the context of Assam, the subordination of ethnic and religious minorities is routinised by state actions and legislations which metes out violence, and diminishes their social standing. How else does one explain the Garukhuti project, which seeks to empower a class of citizens while brutally inflicting violence upon another? The subordination of the ethnic and religious minorities in Assam is multidimensional persons are evicted by state actors, giving a complete go by to procedural safeguards with the blessing of the incumbent state government. As the law lends the force of State power, the state government marches towards fulfilling its election promises. In evicting without properly serving notices, a right of hearing and without any fact-finding exercise to determinebona fideclaims, the rule of law has been thrown aside, to usher in tyranny.

(Atreyo Banerjee is a B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) graduate from the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, and is currently an advocate practising across courts in New Delhi and West Bengal.Shardha Rajam isa B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) graduate from the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences and is currently a Research Associate working for the Laws of Social Reproduction project, Kings College, London/IWWAGE, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal.)

The rest is here:

Form - The Leaflet

By Waleed Majid, Staff Writer

The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle, German historians, economists and revolutionary theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles said. But it seems that there is a clear winner of this struggle.

Between the two contending classes, its obvious that the bourgeois are the victors of the class war. We see it from the fact that only six companies have control of 90% of the media, to the American workers inability to negotiate with their employers.

It is idealistic to deny it further; change is close to impossible due to the substandard conditions of modern American workers, as well as the ruling classs ever-growing control over state, property and education. We must realize that the advent of a Communist revolution in the 21st century is far beyond the scope of reason.

A common thought in Communist circles is that the proletariat will be fully capable of forcefully destroying anything that implicitly and explicitly oppresses and stupefies them. Enamored with hope, the modern Maoist and Marxist-Leninist organizations in the U.S. are eager to replicate the social, political and economic reformations made by earlier groups, such as the Black Panther Party of the U.S., the Bolsheviks of Russia or the Chilean Socialist Party.

However, the reality is that the necessary conditions for a violent overthrow are nonexistent and will continue to be nonexistent. The American empires suppression of anti-state action over the last 40 years has completely castrated the peoples will for any form of revolution.

In the previous century, the state did not crush the necks of dissenters as hard. Rather, they allowed them to at least gasp for hope. It was because of this strict yet improperly maintained repression that revolution was possible in Russia, Burkina Faso, Chile, Cuba and so on. However, since the latter half of the 20th century, the ruling classes have learned from their errors and have now crafted their methods of oppression with near surgical precision.

In our time, they have nipped the peoples hope from the root, rather than the bud. They have trampled on any questioning and rejection of their authority.

This includes the humiliation of investigators such as Garry Web, who worked to uncover relations between the CIAs attempts to overthrow Nicaraguas Marxist government and the CIAs trafficking of cocaine into the U.S. Another example is the FBIs crackdown on liberation groups such as the Black Panther Coalition in their attempts to radicalize and organize major American cities. The American elite has become more steadfast in its prevention of any revolutionary action that harms the countrys status as a power to be reckoned with.

In the 20th century, there existed a feasible possibility of some form of labor reformation and cultural upheaval by many American Communist organizations. The U.S., in their error, had been lenient enough with anti-state action that Eugene Debs, an openly Communist presidential candidate, won 6% of the popular vote in the 1912 election.

The progress achieved by the Industiral Workers of the World and early 20th-century anarchists in regards to labor reforms, most notably the The Black Panther Party and the Rainbow Coalition. They successfully implemented Chinas former chairman Mao Zedongs theories and established the Breakfast Program, the Peoples Army and free education and medical support programs in all their chapters. That is, until their dismemberment in the early 80s.

However, these advancements are nearly unimaginable in our current political and cultural climate.

The American population has missed its chance at a feasible revolt against the institutions that suppress them, and the bourgeois has better perfected their art of oppression. The Black and Indigenous, the homeless and the disabled, the woman and the ill they have no real representation in our government nor in our deteriorating workers unions.

At the moment, all social organization attempts that do not coincide with the status quo are shut down with unyielding force and are killed by Uncle Sam.

One would ask, So what is to be done, then? To that, I say that its not a matter of what should be done, but rather of what we have left to choose. We can continue to live as slaves and die without any meaning. We can fight pointlessly in a war already won by the enemy. Or we can resort to self destruction.

Give up and writhe in defeat. Stop worshiping hope as one worships God. Retreat from your idealism. The Marxists of this country must come to terms with reality; the Red Scare has finally frightened the Red Specter. We will never be free.

Like Loading...

See the original post here:

The window for revolution has closed - Xavier Newswire

Advertisement

A meeting of foreign ministers of member-states of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which was scheduled to be held on September 26 on the sidelines of the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, was called off over the question of the participation of the Taliban regime in the meeting. With most SAARC member states opposed to the Talibans participation and Pakistan unwilling to go ahead with the event sans the Taliban, the meeting was called off.

The question of extending recognition to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is one that many countries across the world are grappling with.

In an interview with BBC Bangla, Bangladeshs Foreign Minister Dr. A.K. Abdul Momen laid out the principles that would determine Bangladeshs decision. A peoples government that comes through a political and democratic process where the peoples will and desires are reflected will have Dhakas full support, Momen said.

Bangladesh always decides its foreign policy independently and according to its interests, he added.

Historically, Bangladesh has sided with countries where political groups galvanized mass support for independence and freedom from oppression. For instance, Bangladeshi leaders have often reiterated support for Vietnams struggle for emancipation from the clutches of imperialist powers.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Academic literature suggests that democratic states feel some kind of solidarity toward other democratic states. For instance, democratic countries might find themselves drawn to support and ally with Taiwan. Even though the Peoples Republic of China was recognized and secured U.N. membership in 1971, Taiwans allies see it as a flag-bearer of democracy in the region, as a counter to Chinese hegemony. Another study finds post-colonial solidarity to be a significant factor in diplomatic recognition.

Often states fear that recognizing a regime that came out of an armed struggle or an independence movement, even if in in another part of the world, might leave them vulnerable to similar demands at home. Following Kosovos call for independence in 2008, for instance, Spain, Armenia, and Indonesia were among several countries that refused to recognize the new state. Spains decision stemmed from concerns regarding its problem with domestic independence movements in Galicia, Basque, and Catalonia. Indonesia was one of 51 countries that voted against Kosovos bid to join Interpol. The archipelago has long struggled with problems of secession, the most notable case being the independence of Timor-Leste in 2002.

Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.

On the contrary, countries whose independence was preceded by protracted struggles for freedom have usually received recognition from Bangladesh. Dhaka was among the first to recognize South Sudan. Although it had good relations with Sudan Bangladesh was part of U.N. peacekeeping missions there it did not hesitate to support South Sudans emergence as an independent state. Bangladesh saw South Sudans arduous and protracted struggle for freedom as an important commonality between the two countries.

In the Middle East, the Palestinian struggle for an independent state is the main driver behind Bangladeshs longstanding relationship with the Palestinians and its international lobbying for Palestinian statehood. Their strong bond is based on their shared struggle against oppression, so much so that Dhaka is yet to extend recognition to the state of Israel.

In 1991, Bangladesh became the 13th country in the world to recognize Azerbaijan after it declared independence in October that year. Since then, Bangladesh has staunchly supported Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war against the Armenians. When then-Foreign Minister of Bangladesh Dipu Moni visited Nabiyev in 2013, Bangladesh went so far as to stand by Azerbaijans position on the Khojaly massacre.

In all these instances, Bangladeshs support for independence movements fighting against tyranny and for inclusive freedom is strikingly clear. According diplomatic recognition to a country then boils down to whether or not a peoples government followed that protracted struggle whether the upheaval galvanized an inclusive government popularly backed by the nation.

What does this mean for the Taliban regime?

Wars of liberation and struggles for freedom open up space for the setting up new democratic governments, granting hard-fought rights, and consolidating support and recognition for a liberal democratic order. However, the Taliban, given their undemocratic outlook and ideology, are increasingly moving in the opposite direction.

The Taliban regime has not met the criteria laid out by the international community for diplomatic recognition. In fact, it has pushed back against global demands for the setting up of an inclusive government.

On September 17, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution calling on the Taliban to establish an inclusive government that has the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women and upholds human rights. Taliban spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Information Zabiullah Mujahid categorically rejected the calls. No other country has the right to ask the Islamic Emirate to form an inclusive government, Mujahid said.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

In the context of the Talibans non-inclusive interim set-up and its continued use of violence to shut down expression, protest, and a free press, statements like the one issued by Mujahid will only make it more difficult for the Taliban regime to get international recognition.

Divisions between the political-moderates and military-hardliners in the Taliban have erupted to the fore. Apparently the political elements led by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar are in favor of establishing an inclusive government. It is apparent that the Taliban are still a long way from forming an inclusive, encompassing peoples government in Afghanistan.

Does this mean Bangladesh has closed the gates of diplomatic recognition on the Taliban? It is still too early to tell.

On August 17, the top European Union (EU) diplomat, Josep Borrell, called for dialogue with the Taliban to prevent crises. While clarifying that the EU isnt going to recognize the Taliban as yet, Borrell pointed out to a news conference after a meeting of EU foreign ministers that engaging the Taliban was inevitable. We have to talk with them for everything, even to try to protect women and girls. Even for that, you have to get in touch with them.

Talks with the Taliban have been initiated by the U.N. and the EU, and Bangladesh is joining in. The UN and EU have asked us if we want to be a part to the dialogue. We have agreed to it, Shahriar Alam, deputy minister for foreign affairs told reporters recently.

It does seem that Dhakas criteria for according diplomatic recognition are poised to expand. It can be expected to mirror the EUs definition of inclusivity.

Go here to read the rest:

Will Bangladesh Recognize the Taliban Regime? The Diplomat - The Diplomat

PML-N President Shahbaz Sharif (File Photo)

Islamabad [Pakistan], September 26 (ANI): Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) President Shahbaz Sharif on Saturday lashed out at Prime Minister Imran Khan-led PTI government over hike in gas prices and said the country has the "highest inflation rate and lowest income in the world."

Demanding to withdraw a proposed hike in gas prices, the Opposition leader said that rising gas prices are "unjustified" and "another foolish act" by the government, Geo News reported.

Terming the last financial budget as "the International Monetary Fund (IMF) budget", Sharif wrote on Twitter: "The government is only fulfiling the conditions set by the IMF." He said that the government lied to the nation about a "tax-free budget".

"People cannot bear more inflation; this oppression after oppression must be stopped," Geo News quoted Sharif as saying.

He said that gas and electricity prices have witnessed "historic" surges and censured PM Imran Khan for giving rise to "civil war-like conditions" with "one foolish decision after another".

"Rising electricity and gas prices will make people's lives more miserable while an increase in gas prices will make bread more expensive and consumer's monthly bills will go up further," the PML-N leader said.

Sharif stated that Imran Khan "should resign instead of pressuring the people with soaring inflation," Geo News reported.

"How long will Pakistanis suffer the consequences of Imran Khan's incompetence?" he questioned.

The government has already increased the price of gas by 141 per cent, he said, adding that gas companies have been destroyed "due to Imran Khan's incompetence".

The opposition leader said that Pakistan is buying the most expensive LNG in the world, while electricity and gas prices in Pakistan are also the most expensive in South Asia, Geo News reported.

"Pakistan has the highest inflation rate and lowest income in the world," Sharif added. (ANI)

See original here:

Pakistan has highest inflation rate in the world, says Shehbaz Sharif - Yahoo Singapore News

Aged 59 and serving a life sentence, Al-Singace has been on hunger strike since 8 July and has lost more than 20 kilos. His health in now in great danger.

RSF has learned that he is currently consuming only water and milk powder dissolved in water. As a result, his blood sugar level is dangerously low, and his blood pressure and white blood cell count have also dropped drastically. He was transferred to the Kanoo medical centre on 30 July.

Al-Singace is protesting against constant harassment by his prison guards, who eavesdrop on his phone calls with his family, often disconnect his phone line without any warning, keep him under constant surveillance in his cell, and prevent him from sleeping.

The research work he had been doing in prison was also confiscated from him without any justification. In 2015, he went on hunger strike for more than 300 days in protest against the way he was being mistreated.

In March, on the tenth anniversary of his arrest, RSF called on the authorities to release him because his health has worsened steadily in prison. He is not getting appropriate medical care for muscular problems that are the result of a polio attack in his youth, and he has difficulty walking because the rubber cushions on his crutches have worn down.

In a written response to RSF, the Bahraini government claimed that Al-Singace was receiving all necessary healthcare and treatment, and that it was proud of its human rights record.

We call on the Bahraini authorities to urgently release Abduljalil Al-Singace for the sake of the human rights that the kingdom claims to protect, said Sabrina Bennoui, the head of RSFs Middle East desk. It is deplorable and unacceptable that, to denounce his prison conditions. this blogger is being forced to resort to this extreme method that is putting his health in great danger.

ADHRB executive director Husain Abdulla urged the international community, especially allies of Bahrain such as France and the United Kingdom, to to apply serious pressure on the Bahraini regime to unconditionally release Dr. Al-Singace. He added that being detained for over 10 years shows the depth of oppression in Bahrain.

Five British MPs wrote to their government in July calling on it to intervene urgently.

Bahrain is ranked 169th out of 180 countries in RSF's 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

Here is the original post:

What are the Bahraini authorities waiting for to release Abduljalil Al-Singace? | Reporters without borders - Reporters sans frontires

Though hes the fifth post-Reconstruction Republican to lead Mississippi, Gov. Tate Reeves is the first governor of either party to have been born (as I was) in the newness of the states post-civil rights era.

But despite his status as one of the Souths (and one of the countrys) youngest governors, Reeves is tearing the very first page out of the playbook drafted by old Southern Democrats and today's Southern Republicans: When your people are suffering unnecessarily, rile them with a sermon about the federal governments evil.

When your people are suffering unnecessarily, rile them with a sermon about the federal governments evil.

Mississippi has proved to be as fertile ground for the novel coronavirus as its black Delta soil has been for cotton. But the same state that mounted an aggressive response when the boll weevil threatened to chew through its cash crop is now standing idly by as Covid-19 tears through its population. Meanwhile, its governor calls it tyrannical that President Joe Biden is aggressively push for lifesaving vaccines.

If you look back through history, every single time tyrants have tried to place an emphasis on their individuals in their country, theyve always said, Oh, Im doing it because its in the best interest of our citizens, Reeves told a Jackson television station. If you look back in history, this is nothing but a tyrannical-type move by the president.

An NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll from 2019 found that a full quarter of Mississippians almost never trust the federal government to do whats right. Thats not surprising given that so many white Mississippians largely because of the federal governments enforcement of civil rights laws have been raised to see the federal government as a threat. The pervasive anti-Washington animus in Mississippi means Reeves decision to dial up the demagoguery will likely extend his political life even as it cuts short the actual lives of Mississippians. The state leads the nation in Covid-19 deaths per capita; if it were its own country, it would have one of the worlds worst death rates.

Biden, who leads a country where Covid-19 has killed 1 in every 500 residents, has responded with a muscular policy that requires businesses of a certain size to mandate vaccines or regular Covid-19 tests for their employees. Reeves, who leads a state where the same disease has killed about 1 of every 320 Mississippians, is responding with empty expressions about how tore up he is that so many have died on his watch.

Over 9,000 Mississippians have passed away with Covid, and every single one of them breaks my heart, Reeves told CNNs Jake Tapper during a Sept. 19 segment. The August death of 13-year-old MKayla Robinson, whose school started the year without a mask mandate after Reeves left the decision to individual school district, broke his heart so much that even as he claimed he was praying for her family and all Mississippians who're suffering, he referred to her only as the young kid in Smith County.

You can pray until you faint, Mississippis Fannie Lou Hamer famously said, but unless you get up and try to do something, God is not going to put it in your lap.

A full quarter of Mississippians almost never trust the federal government to do whats right.

Yet there Reeves sits: not only not doing anything but also refusing to consider doing anything.

Tapper appeared to have only one goal during his interview with Reeves: to get him to say Mississippis disproportionate death toll requires some action from the state.

But Reeves said that the question here is not about what we do in Mississippi. It's what this president is trying to impose upon the American worker. He called Bidens policy an attack by the president on hardworking Americans and hardworking Mississippians.

As Tapper kept asking if he or Mississippis lawmakers would do anything, Reeves said, In Mississippi, our Legislature is a part-time Legislature. Sometimes I wonder if in America, if our Congress was part-time, we wouldn't be in a better position.

Better position than what? Tapper asked.

Reeves: Mississippi and where we are with the virus.

Tapper: Your state is second worst, second worst in the world.

People unfamiliar with Mississippi or the South may have watched that exchange and believed Reeves made a poor showing. They may have laughed at his assertion that the U.S. should be looking to Mississippi for guidance and that counting the dead is the wrong way to judge the states response to the pandemic.

But I watched with the disgust of someone who knows that Reeves appearance wont hurt his standing with the states conservatives and that it is more likely to bolster it. I watched with anger and with a sick feeling in my stomach that Reeves policy of standing back and impugning the feds imperils the lives of people I love.

Is this what youthful leadership is going to bring to the South?

Is this what youthful leadership is going to bring to the South? The same state-vs.-feds nonsense that has never paid dividends for anybody but those politicians? Is it just going to be more of the same cynical orations that praise backward thinking and vilify progress as oppression?

Apparently. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is leading the South in anti-government antipathy, and hes four years younger than Reeves.

Attacking the feds may be good politics, but what counts as good politics in Mississippi also counts as good business for the undertakers. Residents are falling down dead around Reeves, and all he will promise is to feel sad.

See more here:

Covid deaths are highest in Mississippi but Gov. Tate Reeves does nothing - MSNBC