Spring Stirrings and Misgivings: Of Autocrats and Uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31568"><span class="small">Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch</span></a>
Monday, 06 May 2019 14:02
Gordon writes: "If we don't want to end up like so many other countries, replacing one autocrat with another, we have to find a way to hold the one we now have accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors."
The Arab Spring was a series of protests, uprisings, and rebellions that spread across the Middle East in late 2010 and early 2011. (photo: Hani Mohammed/AP)
Spring Stirrings and Misgivings: Of Autocrats and Uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa
By Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch
06 May 19
It started with “Fort Trump.” Last September, while visiting the White House, Polish president Andrzej Duda only half-jokingly suggested that very name for the new U.S. base he was proposing the Pentagon set up in his country (and was offering more than $2 billion to support). In other words, he grokked this American president perfectly. If it works for golf courses, why not forts? And perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the administration of the man who had long promoted friendlier relations with Russia now seems to be forging ahead with Fort Trump, ensuring that thousands more U.S. military personnel will be stationed near the Russian border.
And Duda wasn’t the only foreign leader to note a presidential proclivity for spreading that name far and wide. What about, for instance, giving it to an Israeli community to be built in the once-Syrian Golan Heights that Donald Trump only recently cededto his old friend Bibi Netanyahu? The Israeli prime minister, as the New York Times reported, recently suggested that “he would ask his government to approve naming a new Jewish settlement in the Golan Heights for President Trump, in appreciation of the American leader’s proclamation recognizing Israel’s authority over the long-disputed territory.”
There might, in fact, be quite a future in such gestures. For instance, as TomDispatch regular Rebecca Gordon points out today while taking us on a whirlwind tour of the latest upheavals in the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, the president only recently countermanded his secretary of state by making a personal call to Libyan warlord Khalifa Hifter and offering his support for the general’s push to take his country’s capital, Tripoli. Obviously, the least Hifter could do in return, should that city fall to him (still a question mark), would be to rename it Trumpoli. It not only makes sense, but fits perfectly with the famed U.S. Marine Corps hymn (“From the gates of Mar-a-Lago to the shores of Trumpoli...”)
Ah, the glories of a president who likes to see his name writ in vast golden letters across the planet! Think about that as you embark on Gordon’s tour of parts of that same globe where other autocrats have already found themselves imperiled for their “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Tom
-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch
Spring Stirrings and Misgivings Of Autocrats and Uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa
l-Shebab,” said my student Jerry early in the fall 2010 semester. “We’re calling our small group al-Shebab. It means ‘The Youth.’” From his name alone, I wouldn’t have guessed his background, but he was proud of his family’s Egyptian roots and had convinced his classmates to give their group an Arabic name.
As usually happens when the semester ends and my dozens of students scatter, Jerry and I lost touch. The following April, however, we ran into each other at a rally organized by students at my university to support the Arab Spring. Like many others around the world, I’d watched transfixed as brave unarmed civilians faced down riot police on the bridges leading to Cairo’s Tahrir Square. I’d celebrated on February 11, 2011, when the corrupt and authoritarian Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak resigned as the military took control of that country.
Jerry’s eyes sparkled when he saw me. “Isn’t it amazing?” he shouted. Yes, it was amazing... until it wasn’t.
This spring, eight years later, there has been a new set of popular uprisings in northern Africa, from Algeria to Morocco, to Sudan. Let’s hope they have more lasting success than Egypt’s Arab Spring.
It’s All About the Military
The victory over Hosni Mubarak was indeed amazing, perhaps too amazing to last, since the real arbiter of events in Egypt was then, and continues to be, its military. In the parliamentary elections of November 2011, the long-suppressed Muslim Brotherhood took almost half that body’sseats. In June 2012, the Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohammed Morsi, became the country’s first elected president, winning a runoff race with just under 52% of the vote.
That August, Morsi made the move that would eventually doom him, replacing his defense minister with Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He also quickly turned in an increasingly autocratic direction, issuing decrees granting himself more power and proposing a new constitution that would do the same (which was approved by more than 60% of the voters in a low-turnout referendum).
By June 2013, many Egyptians were frustrated both with Morsi’s increasingly authoritarian rule and the stagnation of the economy. Once again, millions of people gathered in Cairo, this time to call for his removal, at which point the military pushed him out, installing the head of the constitutional court, Adly Mansour, as interim president. Muslim Brotherhood supporters responded with violent attacks, burning police stations and government buildings. The government repression that followed was fierce enough that, in October 2013, the Obama administration suspended the further transfer of U.S. military equipment to Egypt. Eventually, new elections were held and, in May 2014, Morsi’s Defense Minister, el-Sisi, won the presidency with a suspicious 96.9% of the vote. By then, the Muslim Brotherhood had been outlawed and would soon be declared a terrorist organization.
In April of this year, el-Sisi, running essentially unopposed, was reelected. Never one to slight an authoritarian ruler, President Trump immediately called to congratulate him and then invited him to the White House to discuss “robust military, economic, and counterterrorism cooperation” between the two countries. A few weeks later, in a “snap referendum,” the Egyptian constitution was altered to allow el-Sisi to retain the presidency until at least 2030 -- essentially, that is, for life. That move also cemented the country’s military, long its dominant economic power, as its sole political power, too.
Trump Goes A-Wooing in the Middle East and North Africa
From Russia’s Vladimir Putin to Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, the American president who “fell in love” with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has rarely met an autocrat he didn’t take to (though his bromance with Kim may finally be souring). So, it's no surprise that el-Sisi’s trip to Washington was a success and his country is now on course to remain the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel. Ninety-four percent of that aid goes to “peace and security” -- in other words, to Egypt’s military and police.
Trump is, however, distinctly polyamorous when it comes to Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) autocratic types, as his long-standing love affair with Israel’s recently reelected prime minister, Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, indicates. Given Trump’s own history of racism, Bibi’s embrace of Israel’s 2018 “Nation-State” law undoubtedly only turned up the heat on their relationship. This infamous legislation moves Israel further in the direction of apartheid. It legalizes Jewish-only communities, demotes Arabic from its status as an official language, and states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”
While the world waits less than breathlessly for Jared Kushner’s long-promised Israel-Palestine peace plan, President Trump keeps gift-wrapping pieces of disputed territory and handing them directly to Bibi in his own spontaneous version of an Israel First peace plan. In December 2017 came the announcement of his administration’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump claimed that “recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would advance the peace process and make a permanent status agreement between the two sides easier.” Maybe he saw this as a move towards peace because it unilaterally took the ultimate status of Jerusalem, one of the pieces in any such plan, off the Israeli-Palestinian playing board.
Next up came the Golan Heights, a slice of territory on Syria’s western border, captured by Israel in 1967 during the Six Day War between Israel and Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. In 1981, Israel passed a law annexing the area, an act rejected by the U.N. Security Council, whose resolution stated that “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction, and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect.” As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States joined that unanimous vote. Nonetheless, this spring, just before a very close Israeli election, President Trump reversed longstanding policy and announced his recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Heights. Happy Birthday, Bibi.
In the days before the election, Netanyahu then doubled down on annexation, proclaiming his intention to make Jewish settlements on the West Bank a permanent part of Israel along with the Golan Heights. In so doing, he’ll be fulfilling Ariel Sharon’s decades-old boast about Israel’s intentions for the Palestinians:
“We’ll make a pastrami sandwich out of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”
Meanwhile, Trump seems to have developed a new crush, this time on a Libyan military figure the New York Timescalls a “would-be strongman”: 75-year-old self-styled “Field Marshal” Khalifa Hifter. Based in the eastern part of Libya, where he has been aligned with one of that divided land’s several rival governments, Hifter, a former CIA asset, launched an attack on the capital, Tripoli, on April 5th. Though not successful so far, his assault has already caused hundreds of deaths, with more likely to follow.
A Mediterranean port in the northwestern corner of the country, Tripoli houses Libya’s internationally recognized government headed by Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj, which doesn’t actually do much governing. Ever since the Obama administration and NATO intervened to topple autocrat Muammar al-Gaddafi, power in Libya has been divided among multiple militias, including Hifter’s military, and Islamist groups like ISIS.
When the field marshal attacked Tripoli, the initial Trump administration response was swift and negative. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement indicating the opposition of “the administration at the highest levels,” announcing that“we oppose the military offensive.” He urged Hifter to immediately “halt... these military operations.” His reaction accorded with that of “most Western governments and the United Nations,” which, according to the New York Times, “have also condemned the attack and demanded a retreat.”
Hours later, however, President Trump personally called Hifter (as National Security Advisor John Bolton had done earlier) and essentially encouraged him to keep up his assault on Tripoli. According to a White House statement:
“The President recognized Field Marshal Hifter’s significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources, and the two discussed a shared vision for Libya’s transition to a stable, democratic political system.”
Why is Donald J. Trump supporting a Libyan warlord, even as his move to take Tripoli seems to be failing? Perhaps because Hifter also has the support of Trump’s other MENA buddies, Egypt’s el-Sisi, the Saudi Arabian government of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman --which only recently executed 37 people (36 beheaded and one crucified), including several who confessed under torture and were minors at the time of their alleged crimes -- and the leaders of the United Arab Emirates. Those Arab powers are betting that Hifter can suppress any Libyan version of the Muslim Brotherhood. And there’s one more autocrat backing Hifter, Trump’s old flame Vladimir Putin. Indeed, for once Russia and the United States find themselves on the same side in the U.N. Security Council, where they joined to block a resolution demanding a ceasefire and condemning Hifter’s military moves. Meanwhile, in a gesture of love for the Saudis, Trump vetoed a resolution passed with rare bipartisan congressional support that would have ended U.S. backing for the Kingdom's brutal war in Yemen.
For all his love of authoritarians, there is, however, one Middle Eastern nation that hasn’t won Trump’s affections: Iran. In May 2018, he pulled the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), an international accord under which Iran had agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. In return, economic sanctions on that country were eased, while it was allowed to resume selling oil on the international market, and regained access to billions of dollars in frozen assets overseas.
The JCPA’s other signatories included Russia, France, Great Britain, and China, along with Germany and the European Union. None of them followed Trump’s lead. Only recently, his administration has threatened sanctions against any country buying oil from Iran after May 1st, a move mainly affecting China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey. This attempt to economically starve Iran into submission comes even as his administration declared that country’s Revolutionary Guards a “ foreign terrorist organization.” As the hardliners in both lands face off, further escalation becomes increasingly, and dangerously, likely.
Spring Stirrings
As we brace for a possible future conflict with Iran (what could possibly go wrong?), it’s sometimes easy for those of us who have spent our lives opposing U.S. military actions to forget that Washington isn’t, in fact, behind every world event. Other peoples have their own struggles and their own agency -- on display this spring in two MENA countries that have long suffered under corrupt and authoritarian governments: Algeria and Sudan. (And there appear to be stirrings in Morocco, as well.)
Algeria: Every semester I show the students in my Ethics: War, Torture, and Terrorism class The Battle of Algiers. Director Gillo Pontecorvo’s classic film depicts the first urban uprising against French colonial power by Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN), brutally suppressed by France’s paratroopers between1954 and 1957. It contains enough war, torture, and terrorism to fuel a semester’s worth of conversation. Inevitably, students want to know what happened in Algeria after the French were finally driven out in 1962. “That,” I tell them, “is a sad story.”
Indeed it is. After leading Algerians to victory over France, the FLN ruled the country for almost two decades, mostly under military control after a 1965 coup. Following popular uprisings in 1988, a new constitution opened political space for other parties, while reducing the army’s role in government. The most popular of those parties turned out to be the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which was devoted to a fundamentalist version of political Islam. When it appeared clear that the FIS would win both local and national elections, the FLN and the military stepped in to prevent it, resulting in a series of coups and an ongoing civil war.
Eventually, a new FLN leader, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, came to power in 1999 and never left. Earlier this year, he announced through intermediaries -- he has not been seen in public since 2014 -- that he would seek a fifth term. Evidently suffering from stomach cancer, he had a stroke in 2013 and has been out of the country much of the time since for medical treatment, most recently in Switzerland.
The latest announcement finally provoked a full-scale popular uprising, led by -- and this should sound familiar to readers of this piece -- al-shebab, the youth, many of whom had known no other president. ("Youth" is attractive, which is probably why a terror group in Somalia has also taken that name.) In an oil-rich country where a quarter of those under 30 are out of work, the younger generation is fed up with behind-the-scenes military rule, a sick autocrat, and the pervasive corruption that goes with it all. For weeks this spring, Algerians in their millions poured into the streets, demanding that Bouteflika leave office. On April 2nd, facing this massive, determined, non-violent resistance -- and with a push from the military -- he resigned. Seventy-seven-year-old Abdelkader Bensalah, like Bouteflika a veteran of the war of independence, has replaced him until new elections in July.
The protesters haven’t, however, let up, arguing that Bouteflika may be gone but the power structure that kept him in office -- “le pouvoir” -- is still running the government. Perhaps as a sop to the movement, on April 22nd, the police detained five of the country’s most powerful businessmen on accusations of corruption. It remains to be seen whether the strength of this new resistance can be converted into a political version of people’s power for the long term.
Sudan: Meanwhile in Sudan, weeks of similarly massive popular uprisings have dislodged another autocrat, forcing that country’s military to remove President Omar al-Bashir. He is now reportedly in prison, while a search of his home turned up bags containing more than $100 million in cash.
As in Algeria, many of the demonstrators are young and in Sudan a majority of them appear to be women. The most organized among them is a group of doctors, other health workers, and lawyers known as the Sudanese Professionals Association. As in Algeria, the key question is whether this movement will be able to hold out against the power of the military until a genuinely civilian government can be installed.
The original Arab Spring -- Tunisia possibly excluded -- ended in bloodshed and autocratic or military rule. Still, the youth in parts of the region clearly remain both dissatisfied and hopeful enough to take to the streets to try to bring democracy and clean government to their countries.
An American Spring?
Speaking of aging autocrats, we’ve got one of our own in Washington, D.C. So where are the American millions in the streets? Where is our American Spring? Admittedly, we were there when he first took office, but two years of constant outrage seem to have worn us down or out. As a whirlwind tour of the MENA region suggests, the death and destruction Donald Trump has had a hand in producing extends far beyond our own borders. And we can add to the list of horrors perhaps the greatest one of all: his apparent determination to hasten the collapse of civilization by pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords and doubling down on fossil fuels.
And then there’s the question of our own quaint constitution with its attachment to the rule of law. Now that we have the (redacted) Mueller report, isn’t it time for Americans to stand up for democracy and clean government here at home? I can understand Nancy Pelosi’s reluctance to begin impeachment proceedings, given the unlikelihood of a conviction by a Republican Senate. But if we don’t want to end up like so many other countries, replacing one autocrat with another, we have to find a way to hold the one we now have accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.
RSN: An Email From a Whistleblower in Solitary Confinement
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>
Monday, 06 May 2019 11:56
Kiriakou writes: "Ten years in prison for an essentially victimless crime is harsh. It's also typical of what is happening to whistleblowers across the country."
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
An Email From a Whistleblower in Solitary Confinement
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
06 May 19
ver the past several months, I’ve told you about a whistleblower named Marty Gottesfeld. Marty was sentenced to 10 years in a federal prison for initiating a denial of service attack against the computer system at Boston’s Children’s Hospital. This was in protest of Children’s having taken a young girl, Justina Pelletier, from her parents and accusing the parents of abusing her. The parents had not abused her, and they were later reunited with Justina. Children’s complained that Marty had targeted them during their annual fundraising drive, costing them millions of dollars in lost donations. That was the whole point. Marty’s action served to raise awareness about the case and to get the family back together. He succeeded.
Ten years in prison for an essentially victimless crime is harsh. It’s also typical of what is happening to whistleblowers across the country. Just look at FBI whistleblower Terry Albury, who “leaked” information on systemic racism in the FBI. Look at Reality Winner, who “leaked” an analysis of Russian interference in the 2016 election. But Marty’s sentence was even harsher than just 10 years in prison. First, he was transferred from a jail in New England to solitary confinement in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn in the midst of a winter blackout that saw temperatures in the prison fall to below 30 degrees. He was then placed in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) transportation system and eventually ended up at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) at Terre Haute, Indiana. Terre Haute is notorious for holding some of the most dangerous prisoners in America, including terrorists and Somali pirates who attempted to storm and take American ships in the Indian Ocean.
It took Marty a couple of weeks to find his footing at Terre Haute. To make his life as miserable as possible, which the BOP actively does with any prisoner who has access to the media, Marty was placed in a Communications Management Unit (CMU). The CMU is unusually restrictive, even by prison standards. I was in a modified CMU because, according to a memo from the warden to the staff that I received under the Freedom of Information Act, “CAUTION: INMATE HAS ACCESS TO THE MEDIA.” In a modified CMU, the guards could go through both my incoming and outgoing mail, they could listen to my phone calls in real time, and they could seat me next to the guard station in the visitors’ room to listen to the content of my conversations.
In a full CMU, Marty is simply forbidden to have contact with the media. He is being denied his constitutional rights. This isn’t because he’s done anything to anybody. It’s because prison officials fear that he is going to report on incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality that he witnesses during his incarceration.
And that’s exactly what has happened. Marty emailed me last week. Here’s what he said:
There is no set of written canonical communications rules here and the guidance which I’ve received has at times been ambiguous. However, I have come to understand the following:
Do not use the names of other inmates in the CMU.
Do not use anything which could be misconstrued as code. I prefer not to even use abbreviations or acronyms without spelling them out first, i.e. “My dad worked on missions for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).”
No third-party communications: Neither you nor I may pass messages through each other to others.
Do not quote to me from social media or other news outlets. You may, however, ask me for my opinion(s) about things in the news.
I may be being overly cautious about some of the above, but I would rather err to the side of caution. Again, there is no actual canonical set of written rules.
In a follow-up call to his wife, Dana, Marty said that he hoped the BOP’s Inspector General would go to the prison to investigate allegations that the guards in the mail room were reading prisoners’ legal mail (which is strictly forbidden) and reports that the floor in the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, prison parlance for solitary confinement, was so hot because of a steam pipe underneath it that prisoners were actually cooking burritos by placing them on the floor. The United Nations already has declared the US practice of solitary confinement a form of torture. Extreme heat, the Supreme Court has ruled, is cruel and unusual punishment and is illegal.
None of this is any big deal, right? Well, the BOP thought that this communication – and this is all of it – was so dangerous that they took Marty directly to solitary. He’s been there since April 26.
I called and emailed the BOP to ask for an official statement of why Marty was taken to solitary. I was ignored both times. I don’t think Marty cares, though. He knows that this issue is bigger than just Marty Gottesfeld. This is about human rights, constitutional protections, and civil liberties. Marty couldn’t contact the Inspector General to report waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality. He couldn’t tell them about the illegal accessing of prisoners’ private communications and the illegally hot temperatures. But I could. And I did. Let’s see if it gets us anywhere. In the meantime, let’s keep up the pressure on the BOP. Solitary confinement is the last place Marty Gottesfeld should be.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Krugman writes: "Do you remember the great inflation scare of 2010-2011? The U.S. economy remained deeply depressed from the aftereffects of the burst housing bubble and the 2008 financial crisis."
Economist Paul Krugman. (photo: Getty Images)
The Sabotage Years
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
06 May 19
What we now know about G.O.P. economics.
o you remember the great inflation scare of 2010-2011? The U.S. economy remained deeply depressed from the aftereffects of the burst housing bubble and the 2008 financial crisis. Unemployment was still above 9 percent; wage growth had slowed to a crawl, and measures of underlying inflation were well below the Federal Reserve’s targets. So the Fed was doing what it could to boost the economy — keeping short-term interest rates as low as possible, and buying long-term bonds in the hope of getting some extra traction.
But Republicans were up in arms, warning that the Fed’s policies would lead to runaway inflation. A Congressman named Mike Pence introduced a bill that would
prohibit the Fed from even considering the state of the labor market in its actions. A who’s who of Republicans signed an open letter
to Ben Bernanke demanding that he stop his monetary efforts, which they claimed would “risk currency debasement and inflation.”
And supposedly respectable Republicans engaged in conspiracy theorizing, suggesting that the Fed was secretly in league with the Obama administration. Paul Ryan and the economist John Taylor
declared that the Fed’s policy “looks an awful lot like an attempt to bail out fiscal policy, and such attempts call the Fed’s independence into question.”
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49550"><span class="small">Tim Dickinson and Andy Kroll, Rolling Stone</span></a>
Sunday, 05 May 2019 13:18
Excerpt: "Chaos broke out at the NRA's annual convention in Indianapolis last week. The gun group's figurehead president, Oliver North, backed by its longtime PR firm Ackerman McQueen, allegedly tried to oust the NRA's powerful CEO, Wayne LaPierre. But LaPierre hit back - forcing North to step down, while winning unanimous reelection by the NRA board."
Retired U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North speaks before giving the invocation at the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action Leadership Forum in Dallas last year. (photo: Sue Ogrocki/AP)
WTF Is Happening at the NRA, Explained
By Tim Dickinson and Andy Kroll, Rolling Stone
05 May 19
haos broke out at the NRA’s annual convention in Indianapolis last week. The gun group’s figurehead president, Oliver North, backed by its longtime PR firm Ackerman McQueen, allegedly tried to oust the NRA’s powerful CEO, Wayne LaPierre. But LaPierre hit back — forcing North to step down, while winning unanimous reelection by the NRA board.
As this Game of Thrones-worthy infighting played out, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced she has opened an investigation into the NRA’s financial practices — amid public accusations that NRA executives and contractors have been feathering their nests with donor dollars — raising the possibility that the association’s non-profit status could be revoked.
Things have gotten so bad that even “chaos president” Donald Trumptweeted at the gun lobby to “get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting, & get back to GREATNESS – FAST!”
Below, we tease out this hot mess at the NRA:
THE COMBATANTS
The NRA
The gun lobby spent $30 million in the 2016 election to boost Trump — more than twice what it spent on Mitt Romney in 2012. The go-for-broke investment paid off in a president who praises gun rights at every turn and appointed two arch-conservative justices to the Supreme Court.
But these victories have come at a deep cost for the NRA. It has lost the boogeyman of a Democratic president,and the cashflow that’s boosted by convincing gun owners that their rights are under siege. The NRA remains under Senate scrutiny for its associations with Russia in the runup to 2016. And the gun group is finally paying a price for evangelizing assault weapons, as the moral authority of the Parkland teens, and a nation repulsed by active-shooter drills at their kids’ schools, has elevated the anti-gun-violence movement into a political counterweight.
Ackerman McQueen is the NRA’s top PR firm and has crafted the gun group’s public image for nearly four decades, famously casting Planet of the Apes actor Charlton Heston as NRA president. Heston declared in 2000 that gun control opponents would have to rip a rifle “from my cold, dead hands.”
In recent years, Ackerman’s NRA campaigns have centered on the apocalyptic — stoking the fear that gooses gun sales, by warning of race war and social collapse and a government that either can’t defend its citizens or is itself a tyrannical threat. As part of this effort, Ackerman launched NRATV — turning spokeswoman Dana Loesch into a national force — but with video content that often veers into outré culture war fights, including depicting Thomas the Tank Engine characters in KKK hoods.
Ackerman has long held a reputation as the tail that wags the dog at the NRA. But as its media operations have grown, Ackerman has begun to resemble a snake that’s trying to swallow the NRA whole. By 2017, the NRA was paying the firm and its affiliates “nearly $40 million annually,” according to LaPierre — more than it spent to elect Trump.
Wayne LaPierre
LaPierre is the NRA’s longtime, highly paid executive vice president and CEO. LaPierre earns $1.4 million a year, according to the NRA’s latest tax filing. Ackerman gets credit for transforming LaPierre’s public persona from a meek manager into a fire-breathing zealot. But LaPierre comes by his survival instincts honestly, riding out dozens of controversies since taking the reins at the NRA in 1991.
Oliver North
North, infamous for his role in the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal, took over the NRA’s presidency just last year. (His predecessor, the gun executive Pete Brownell, chose not to stand for reelection, after the NRA junket he’d led to Russia in 2015 came under scrutiny by Congress.) As North took on the ceremonial mantle at the NRA, he also scored a huge deal with Ackerman to produce content for NRATV that paid him “millions of dollars annually,” according to LaPierre.
William Brewer, III
Brewer is the NRA’s top-dollar outside counsel. Adding family drama to the turf battles between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen, Brewer’s father-in-law is Angus McQueen, co-CEO of the publicity firm.
Giffords
The anti-gun-violence group founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
Everytown for Gun Safety
The anti-gun-violence group funded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Letitia James
The attorney general of New York, where the NRA is chartered, who campaigned on investigating the NRA’s non-profit status.
Andrew Cuomo
The governor of New York, whom the NRA sued after he officially encouraged financial institutions not to do business with the NRA.
Donald Trump
Elected in 2016 with the help of an unprecedented $30 million in NRA spending.
Ron Wyden
The ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, who has been investigating the NRA’s ties to Russia.
THE FIGHTS
NRA vs. Ackerman McQueen
A bitter feud between the NRA and its PR firm burst into public view in mid-April, when the NRA sued Ackerman McQueen (AMc) in state court in Virginia for having “flagrantly disregarded its contractual obligations.”
The lawsuit came after years of growing tension inside the NRA about its dependence on AMc, a conflict that came to a head after AMc refused to cooperate in the audit the NRA launched to get ahead of a potential Letitia James investigation.
The suit alleges that AMc’s opaque billing practices bled millions from the NRA without proper documentation. The NRA hits AMc for a “lack of transparency” in annual budgets and raises “concerns that AMc was invoicing the NRA for the entire salaries” of personnel who worked for “non-NRA clients.”
Much of the conflict centers on NRATV. The NRA writes that the “trust and confidence it placed in AMc led the NRA to invest in an expanding suite of services which were — according to AMc’s assurances — fairly priced. For example, the NRA agreed to experiment with an ‘owned media company,’ NRATV, a concept fervently pitched by AMc.” But it claims the firm has refused to provide basic metrics (“such as unique visitors, viewership numbers, clickthrough rates”) needed for the NRA to “analyze the return on its investment in NRATV.” The lawsuit also complains that NRATV strayed into “topics far afield of the Second Amendment,” claiming AMc had “deviated from the NRA’s core mission and values.”
The NRA insists its own go-to PR firm has been withholding information that is “material to the NRA’s not-for-profit governance and its stewardship of members’ donations.” The legal complaint concludes with striking language that the NRA’s “compliance with not-for-profit law cannot be permitted to be held hostage by a recalcitrant advertising agency.”
Reached by Rolling Stone and asked to respond to the lawsuit and other allegations of malfeasance, an Ackerman McQueen spokesperson said: “No comment. No comment. No comment.” The agency has released a statement calling the NRA suit “frivolous, inaccurate and intended to cause harm to the reputation of our company,” adding: “We will defend our position and performance aggressively and look forward to continuing to serve the NRA’s membership.”
Wayne LaPierre vs. Oliver North
The fight between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen has spilled over into a proxy battle between LaPierre and North.
Chief among the NRA’s complaints is that North has been paid millions by Ackerman McQueen for an NRATV documentary series American Heroes that North has largely failed to deliver on. North, who was previously paid by Fox News, was pulled away from that gig with the promise of a rich payday at Ackerman McQueen. But AMc — in an odd fit of opacity — refused to reveal to the NRA exactly what North’s financial relationship was with the firm, according the the NRA’s lawsuit, despite the NRA ultimately footing the bill.
Long story short: The NRA didn’t know how much it was paying its own president.
This dispute over North’s pay presaged the power struggle last week at the NRA convention. On April 25th, LaPierre wrote a letter to the NRA’s board warning that North and Ackerman McQueen were trying to oust him. LaPierre wrote that Ackerman was threatening to reveal “a devastating account of our financial status” as well as a litany of misbehavior by NRA officials. According to LaPierre, North used “extortionist” tactics, offering to keep those explosive claims under wraps if LaPierre stepped down and accepted a plush retirement package. (Messages left for North seeking his side of the story have not been returned.)
LaPierre framed the North/Ackerman McQueen threats as payback for the NRA’s lawsuit, and suggested North, himself, was compromised:
I will not judge Col. North, but must report what many of you already know: he has contractual and financial loyalties to AM. Last year, he entered into an employment agreement with the agency that pays him millions of dollars annually, supposedly in exchange for hosting an NRATV documentary series, ‘American Heroes.’ AM bargained to deliver twelve feature-length episodes of American Heroes within the series’ first year. That period expires next month, and AM has delivered only three episodes (the latest is a mere 11 minutes in length). The NRA wrote a recent letter demanding to know what, exactly it is paying for—and what it is getting—in light of these production shortfalls. AM did not respond directly, but appears to have responded indirectly by trying to oust me.
In short order, LaPierre won the faceoff against North. In a statement, read to the NRA convention on North’s behalf, North wrote: “I hoped to be with you today as NRA president, endorsed for reelection. I am now informed that that will not happen.” But North got in some last licks: “There is a clear crisis that needs to be dealt with immediately.” Citing reports of financial mismanagement by senior NRA officers, he warned: ”If true, the NRA’s non-profit status is threatened.”
NRA brass vs. NRA members
The roiling battle between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen has breathed life into concerns that top executives and contractors for the gun lobby are living high on the hog — misusing the dues of members for personal gain.
The Wall Street Journal reports that North had previously blown the whistle to the NRA board, alleging that LaPierre purchased more than $200,000 in clothing he’d billed to “a vendor.” (“Many of the issues raised by Col. North have been the subject of review and investigation by the NRA since early last year,” NRA lawyer Brewer said in a statement. “In our view, the items involving Mr. LaPierre may reflect a misinformed view of his and the NRA’s commitment to good governance.”) In addition, the Journal has reported allegations that LaPierre billed more than $240,000 in travel, to places like Italy and the Bahamas, to an Ackerman McQueen credit card.
But LaPierre’s natty suits and luxury travel habits may be just the tip of a much larger iceberg. A recent joint investigation published by the New Yorker and The Trace, drawing on internal documents, tax records and interviews, reported that “a small group of NRA executives, contractors and vendors has extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the nonprofit’s budget, through gratuitous payments, sweetheart deals, and opaque financial arrangements.” The exposé quotes former IRS director Marc Owens saying, “The litany of red flags is just extraordinary.”
Even as executives have gotten rich, the NRA’s finances have descended into a precarious state. An analysis of the group’s financial records for the last 11 years by Ohio State professor Brian Mittendorf found that the NRA owed more money than it had available to spend in seven of those years. The Trace reported that the group had nearly exhausted a $25-million credit line, according to a 2017 audit. Last year, NRA leadership froze its employees’ pensions.
NRA vs. Andrew Cuomo
The NRA’s money troubles are exacerbated by regulatory actions in New York. The state’s insurance regulator blocked the gun lobby from selling an NRA-branded insurance policy called Carry Guard that would pay for the legal consequences of shooting another person. Critics called it “murder insurance.” (In another case of potential misfeasance, an NRA executive was allegedly paid handsomely by both the NRA and by Lockton Affinity, the issuer of the insurance product.)
Last year the NRA sued Governor Cuomo, alleging that his bias against the gun lobby sparked the crackdown on its lucrative insurance business. It further argued that Cuomo had improperly used his authority in asking financial firms to reconsider doing business with the NRA, citing the risk of reputational harm. The NRA warned that the effective blacklisting by the governor could leave the NRA “unable to exist.” In a recent filing in the case, the NRA writes: “The crux of this case involves allegations that the [state] selectively wielded its powers to advance a political vendetta against the NRA.”
For his part, Cuomo makes no apologies, saying recently: “I’ve been at loggerheads with the NRA for about 20 years, for very good reasons…. They have been a destructive force in this country.”
Ackerman McQueen vs. William Brewer, III
While the NRA is fighting this pitched battle against the state of New York, others in the gun lobby’s orbit are concerned that the NRA’s law firm is just another outside group taking dues payers for a ride. In his exit letter, Oliver North said many NRA board members were concerned “about the amount of money the NRA was paying to the Brewer law firm” but that when they’d tried to surface those concerns: “We were rebuffed repeatedly.”
Brewer, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, defended his billings: “We’re a premium law firm, we make no bones about that.” The firm did not respond to a Rolling Stone question on the matter.
The dispute over Brewer’s billing is also complicated by bad blood between the lawyer and Ackerman McQueen. Brewer is the son-in-law of the co-CEO Angus McQueen and brother-in-law to another executive. In a statement, Ackerman McQueen writes that Brewer has an “irreconcilable” conflict of interest: “Mr. Brewer is the son-in-law of Angus McQueen and brother-in-law of Ackerman McQueen’s CEO, Revan McQueen. Mr. Brewer has demonstrated, in words and deeds, his animus for Ackerman McQueen and these family members and that animus pervades the Brewer firm’s dealings with Ackerman McQueen…”
Everytown For Gun Safety vs. NRA
Everytown For Gun Safety has filed a complaint to the IRS asking federal tax authorities to investigate whether the NRA’s nonprofit tax status — 501(c)(4) under the tax code — should be revoked: “We call on the IRS to commence an investigation into whether (i) the NRA has violated the federal laws governing 501(c)(4) charitable organizations, and (ii) if so, consider what remedies are warranted, including potential revocation of the NRA’s 501(c)(4) status.”
Giffords vs. NRA
Giffords and the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan election watchdog, recently sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to act on allegations the NRA had violated campaign laws. The FEC — a famously gridlocked regulator that is currently missing two of its six commissioners — has yet to act multiple complaints alleging the NRA used shell companies to illegally coordinate its ad spending with congressional candidates as well as Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The problem, according to the Giffords suit? The NRA made “millions of dollars of illegal, unreported, and excessive in-kind contributions, including up to $25 million in illegal contributions to now President Donald J. Trump.”
Letitia James vs. NRA
In her bid to become New York’s attorney general, James campaigned last year on a vow to review the NRA’s non-profit charter: “I will use the constitutional power as an attorney general to regulate charities, that includes the NRA, to investigate their legitimacy.”
A recent statement provided by a spokesperson for the AG reveals that an investigation into the NRA has now begun: “The Office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James has launched an investigation related to the National Rifle Association (NRA). As part of this investigation, the Attorney General has issued subpoenas.”
The NRA is attempting to project calm in the face of a potentially existential threat. “The NRA will fully cooperate with any inquiry into its finances,” Brewer said in a statement. “The NRA is prepared for this, and has full confidence in its accounting practices and commitment to good governance.”
Ron Wyden vs. NRA
Maria Butina was recently sentenced to 18 months for her plot to infiltrate the NRA and open a conduit between the Kremlin and Trump World. Butina infamously invited a cohort from the NRA to Moscow in late 2015, treating the gun lobby guests to extravagant meals and introducing NRA brass to top figures in Vladimir Putin’s government.
In a recent interview, Rolling Stone asked Sen. Wyden about his investigation into the NRA’s Russian ties, including the possibility that Russian funds had helped boost NRA spending on Trump’s behalf. Wyden would not speak to the specifics of his investigation. But the senator volunteered that he thought the NRA’s attempts to distance itself from that Moscow junket — suggesting it was not an official trip — were risible. “What the NRA had to say, in their changing story about how they weren’t involved in this official trip, I don’t think that passes the smell test,” Wyden said. “It’s not credible.”
As to his broader inquiry, Wyden would say only: “We’ll have some more to say before too long.”
THE FALLOUT
As the shit hit the fan at the NRA convention, our extremely online president attempted to run interference on Twitter, painting the gun lobby as the victim of a liberal New York government run amok.
The NRA is under siege by Cuomo and the New York State A.G., who are illegally using the State’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization, & others. It must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting, & get back to GREATNESS - FAST!
Trump even suggested the NRA uproot itself from the state where it was first chartered in 1871:
....People are fleeing New York State because of high taxes and yes, even oppression of sorts. They didn’t even put up a fight against SALT - could have won. So much litigation. The NRA should leave and fight from the outside of this very difficult to deal with (unfair) State!
James’ office has released a statement in response to Trump’s tirade: “Attorney General Letitia James is focused on enforcing the rule of law. In any case we pursue, we will follow the facts wherever they may lead. We wish the President would share our respect for the law.” Governor Cuomo weighed in too, insisting that: “The President’s accusation that it is politically motivated is all garbage.”
Meanwhile, the shoes keep dropping. The senator from Oregon has expanded the scope of his investigation:
America doesn’t give nonprofits a break to let board members and officials get rich at the taxpayers’ expense. I’ll be asking the NRA to provide documents reported in the press that allegedly demonstrate NRA officials abused the group’s resources. https://t.co/MnD1Eh4ZQ6
On May 3rd, Wyden sent letters to LaPierre, North and Ackerman McQueen telling the parties to turn over internal documents “related to alleged financial misconduct or the NRA’s nonprofit status.”
Amid the myriad scandals rocking the NRA this much is clear. The association stands at one of the gravest moments of peril in its nearly 150 year history — presenting a rare opportunity for the gun lobby’s opponents to kick it while it’s down.
Americans Might Love Cinco de Mayo, but Few Know What They're Celebrating
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50727"><span class="small">Kirby Farah, The Conversation</span></a>
Sunday, 05 May 2019 13:08
Farah writes: "Many Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, but how many actually know the story of the holiday?"
Mexicans representing indigenous soldiers and the French army, re-enact the battle of Puebla during Cinco de Mayo celebrations in Mexico City. (photo: Eduardo Verdugo/AP)
Americans Might Love Cinco de Mayo, but Few Know What They're Celebrating
By Kirby Farah, The Conversation
05 May 19
any Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, but how many actually know the story of the holiday?
Contrary to popular belief, Cinco de Mayo doesn’t mark Mexican Independence, which is celebrated on Sept. 16. Instead, it’s meant to commemorate the Battle of Puebla, which was fought between the Mexican and French armies in 1862.
In Mexico’s long and storied history, the Battle of Puebla is generally considered a fairly minor event. But its legacy lives on a century and a half later, particularly in the United States.
Beating back an empire
After Mexico won independence from Spain in 1821, other nations were reluctant to recognize the autonomy of the fledgling country. In the ensuing decades, Mexico lost a large portion of its land to the U.S. and entered into a period of economic and political instability.
This was punctuated by a civil war in the late 1850s that resulted in Benito Juárez, Mexico’s first indigenous president, taking power in 1861.
One of Juarez’s first acts was canceling repayments on foreign loans in an attempt to protect Mexico’s struggling economy. This angered Britain, Spain and France, and prompted them to send a joint expeditionary force to Mexico. However, Britain and Spain quickly withdrew as it became clear that French ruler Napoleon III was more interested in overthrowing the new Mexican government.
The Battle of Puebla took place on May 5, 1862, when the Mexican Army, led by Commander General Ignacio Zaragoza, repelled attacks by the French army on the city of Puebla, located about 70 miles southeast of Mexico City.
It was a small but inspirational victory for Mexico, and four days later, on May 9, 1862, Juárez declared Cinco de Mayo a national holiday.
Even though the French would eventually defeat the Mexican Army and take control of the country under the short-lived Second Mexican Empire, which lasted from 1864 to 1867, the victory in the Battle of Puebla sent a powerful message to the rest of the world.
The Mexican Army was outnumbered two to one by seasoned French troops, so Mexico proved itself to be a formidable opponent worthy of international respect. And the fact that the country was led by an indigenous president held a special symbolic significance.
An inadvertent impact on US history?
The Battle of Puebla may have also had an inadvertent impact on the United States, which, at the time, was embroiled in its Civil War.
Sociologist David Hayes, author of “El Cinco de Mayo: An American Tradition,” has argued that by defeating the French at the Battle of Puebla, Mexicans prevented the French army from continuing northward toward the U.S. border, where they would have likely aided the Confederacy. So it’s possible that Mexico’s victory at the Battle of Puebla changed the course of American history.
The Battle of Puebla was reportedly celebrated in the state of California, which still had strong ties to Mexico; aligned with the Union, the state’s citizens viewed the victory as a defense of freedom.
For almost a century, few in the United States celebrated Cinco de Mayo. But it reemerged as an important holiday in California in the mid-20th century, sparked by the growing Chicano movement. The David versus Goliath story fittingly mirrored the struggle for civil rights.
Companies cash in
The widespread commercialization of Cinco de Mayo occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. Beer companies, in particular, targeted Mexican Americans, exhorting them to celebrate their heritage with Coronas, Bud Lights and Dos Equis.
Commodification of Mexican and Mexican American heritage soon followed, and today’s revelers purchase piñatas, Mexican flag paraphernalia, sombreros and costumes that can veer towards the offensive.
While more and more Americans – regardless of their ethnic heritage – take part in the festivities, few know what Cinco de Mayo commemorates. One survey found that only 10% of Americans could describe the holiday’s origins.
The complicated legacy of Cinco de Mayo serves as a reminder that the past is made meaningful in different ways by different people.
For Mexicans – especially those living outside of the modern city of Puebla – the holiday is of minor significance, dwarfed in comparison to much more important national and religious holidays, like Mexican Independence Day and Day of the Dead. However, reenactments of the Battle of Puebla still take place in modern Puebla as well as in Mexico City’s Peñon de los Baños neighborhood.
For many Mexican Americans, the day holds a special significance as an opportunity to celebrate their shared heritage. But given the creeping commercialization of the holiday, some Mexican Americans have expressed ambivalence about celebrating it.
And for Americans without Mexican ancestry, the holiday seems to simply serve as an excuse to drink margaritas.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.
l-Shebab,” said my student Jerry early in the fall 2010 semester. “We’re calling our small group al-Shebab. It means ‘The Youth.’” From his name alone, I wouldn’t have guessed his background, but he was proud of his family’s Egyptian roots and had convinced his classmates to give their group an Arabic name.
ver the past several months, I’ve 
o you remember the great inflation scare of 2010-2011? The U.S. economy remained deeply depressed from the aftereffects of the burst housing bubble and the 2008 financial crisis. Unemployment was still above 9 percent; wage growth had slowed to a crawl, and measures of underlying inflation were well below the Federal Reserve’s targets. So the Fed was doing what it could to boost the economy — keeping short-term interest rates as low as possible, and buying long-term bonds in the hope of getting some extra traction.
haos 
any Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, but how many actually know the story of the holiday? 
