UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, addressing the UN Conference on The Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, said it was “660 days since the Israeli hostages were first cruelly taken by Hamas terrorists. There is no possible justification for this suffering.” Lammy had spent most of that time deliberately misinterpreting the Genocide Convention and insisting that no genocide was being committed.

“Our support for Israel, its right to exist and the security of its people is steadfast,” he said. Considering Israel’s massacres and other crimes against humanity since the first day of its statehood in 1948 this frequently repeated statement has never convinced anyone.

“However, the Balfour declaration came with the solemn promise ‘that nothing shall be done, nothing which may prejudice the civil and religious rights’ of the Palestinian people’…. This has not been upheld and it is a historical injustice which continues to unfold.” True, but he misquotes Balfour even here. That part of the declaration actually reads: “… it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….”

The Balfour declaration also came with dire warnings. Lord Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the Cabinet at the time, called Zionism “a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom”. Lord Sydenham remarked: “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

Well, we know now. And it will stain Britain’s reputation forever.

Lammy continued: “Hamas must never be rewarded for its monstrous attack on October 7.” Of course, he said nothing about Israel having been continuously rewarded for its monstrous attacks on Palestinians over the last 77 years and will likely be rewarded again for its genocide.

“It [Hamas] must immediately release the hostages, agree to an immediate ceasefire, accept it will have no role in governing Gaza and commit to disarmament.” Coincidentally Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have also called on Hamas to disband. Along with a number of other countries they’ve just signed a statement saying, “Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State.” Quite how this squares with international law isn’t clear, and no-one explains. It is for the Palestinian people to decide who governs their sovereign state.

Lammy: “His Majesty’s Government therefore intends to recognise the State of Palestine when the UN General Assembly gathers in September…. unless the Israeli government acts to end the appalling situation in Gaza, ends its military campaign and commits to a long-term sustainable peace based on a two-state solution. Our demands on Hamas also remain absolute and unwavering.” So what happens if Israel actually complies, or appears to comply? Does HMG then see no reason to recognise statehood? That would suit Israel very well. Note that there’s no requirement in all this for Israel to immediately end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, which is central to the whole problem. So the Starmer-Lammy proposal purposely misses the point.

Lammy maintains “there is no better vision for the future of the region than two states. Israelis living within secure borders, recognised and at peace with their neighbours, free from the threat of terrorism. And Palestinians living in their own state, in dignity and security, free of occupation.” Just a minute: how about Palestinians, whose land this is, “living within secure borders, free from the threat of Israeli terrorism and occupation”, the terrorists being (as if he didn’t know) the Israelis and their backers the US? Furthermore, UK leaders have banged the drum about a two-state solution for decades without ever describing what it would look like – especially now that Israel has been allowed to establish irreversible ‘facts on the ground’ that make a proper, workable Palestinian state almost impossible.

“The decades-long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians cannot be managed or contained,” he says. True, and that’s been obvious for decades.

“It must now be resolved.” True, and that too has been obvious for decades.

That same day, 29 July, Prime Minister Starmer was delivering “words on Gaza” from Downing Street.

“On the 7th of October 2023 Hamas perpetrated the worst massacre in Israel’s history. Every day since then, the horror has continued.” He makes it sound like the 660 days of horror have been Hamas’s doing.

“Ceasefire must be sustainable and it must lead to a wider peace plan, which we are developing with our international partners. This plan will deliver security and proper governance in Gaza and pave the way for negotiations on a Two State Solution”. Yes, but under international law Palestinians should not have to ‘negotiate’ their freedom and independence, it’s theirs by right regardless of what other nations think or say.

“Our goal remains a safe and secure Israel, alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.” Oh dear, the same old lopsided spiel. Parity isn’t on the West’s agenda.

“Now, in Gaza because of a catastrophic failure of aid, we see starving babies, children too weak to stand: Images that will stay with us for a lifetime.” The horror is not due to “a catastrophic failure of aid” but failure over the years to end Israel’s illegal occupation and, in particular, its cruel 18-year siege and blockade of Gaza and the sickening practice of ‘mowing the grass’. The UK especially has been complicit in enabling Israel to maintain its stranglehold.

Starmer: “I’ve always said we will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process, at the moment of maximum impact for the Two State Solution.” UK governments have been saying that for years. Britain was supposed to grant Palestinians provisional statehood under its Mandate responsibilities back in 1923 and failed to do so. We’ve been ducking the issue ever since while eagerly recognising Israeli statehood with their terrorist militia and Ben-Gurion’s plan to take over the entire Holy Land by force.

“This is the moment to act,” Starmer continued. “So today – as part of this process towards peace I can confirm the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two State Solution. And this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank.” This is unbelievable vague and gives Israel endless wriggle-room. Much of the West Bank, of course, is already annexed. To give peace any kind of chance conditions must include Israel withdrawing its squatters, quitting all annexed lands and ending its illegal military occupation forthwith.

Starmer ends with the familiar mantra: “Our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal. They must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza.” No mention of the Israeli terrorists disarming and no ban on Likud (Netanyahu’s demented party) from any future government of Israel.

Starmer and Lammy never use the terms ‘international law’ or ‘justice’. Don’t they understand that there can be no peace without justice? Perhaps they do but won’t admit it because their friends and allies Israel and the US, for selfish strategic reasons, don’t want peace and never have.

Starmer and Lammy compromised and untrustworthy

Starmer told The Times of Israel, “I support Zionism without qualification”. Lammy has made similar declarations. The Ministerial Code and Principles of Public Life state very clearly (seer ‘Integrity’): “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.” How do they get away with it?

So it’s hardly surprising that Lammy and Starmer show no concern for the 7,200 Palestinian hostages, including 88 women and 250 children, held in Israeli jails on 7 October under appalling conditions. Over 1,200 were under ‘administrative detention’ without charge or trial and denied ‘due process’. Or the fact that in the 23 years up to October 7 Israel had been slaughtering Palestinians at the rate of 8:1 and children at the rate of 16:1. Actual figures: Palestinians killed by Israelis 10,651 including 2,270 children and 6,656 women. Israelis killed by Palestinians 1,330 including 145 children and 261 women (source: Israel’s B’Tselem). Were they and their friends in Israel expecting Palestinians to take all that lying down?

Our dynamic duo were not so appalled by the sight of “starving babies and children too weak to stand” that they provided protection for the British-flagged aid vessel Madleen and the Handala bringing much-needed supplies to Gaza. They allowed these vessels to be hijacked in international waters, their cargo stolen and crews abducted by Israel’s thugs, just as the Mavi Marmara, the Al-Awda and other mercy ships had been similarly assaulted. Israeli piracy is the new normal in the eastern Mediterranean and Western nations don’t give a damn. The British government are more than happy, though, to instruct the RAF to fly surveillance missions over Gaza in support of Israel’s genocide programme and to continue sharing intelligence with the apartheid regime.

And if their concerns about the suffering and devastation were ever genuine, why didn’t they proposed forming a UN multi-nation intervention force to take over the Gaza crossings to ensure aid gets through as it should? They have now been shamed and their ‘no genocide’ stance utterly discredited by two of Israel’s own human rights organisations – B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights – who declare that Israel is indeed committing genocide in Gaza and its Western allies have a legal and moral duty to put a stop to it. B’Tselem’s summing-up of the situation is worth sharing:

Since October 2023, Israel has shifted its policy toward the Palestinians. Its military onslaught on Gaza, underway for more than 21 months, has included mass killing, both directly and through creating unlivable conditions, serious bodily or mental harm to an entire population, decimation of basic infrastructure throughout the Strip, and forcible displacement on a huge scale, with ethnic cleansing added to the list of official war objectives.

This is compounded by mass arrests and abuse of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, which have effectively become torture camps, and tearing apart the social fabric of Gaza, including the destruction of Palestinian educational and cultural institutions. The campaign is also an assault on Palestinian identity itself, through the deliberate destruction of refugee camps and attempts to undermine the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

An examination of Israel’s policy in the Gaza Strip and its horrific outcomes, together with statements by senior Israeli politicians and military commanders about the goals of the attack, leads to the unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. In other words: Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The term genocide refers to a socio-historical and political phenomenon involving acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Both morally and legally, genocide cannot be justified under any circumstance, including as an act of self-defense.

Genocide always occurs within a context: there are conditions that enable it, triggering events, and a guiding ideology. The current onslaught on the Palestinian people, including in the Gaza Strip, must be understood in the context of more than seventy years in which Israel has imposed a violent and discriminatory regime on the Palestinians, taking its most extreme form against those living in the Gaza Strip. Since the State of Israel was established, the apartheid and occupation regime has institutionalized and systematically employed mechanisms of violent control, demographic engineering, discrimination, and fragmentation of the Palestinian collective. These foundations laid by the regime are what made it possible to launch a genocidal attack on the Palestinians immediately after the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023.

The assault on Palestinians in Gaza cannot be separated from the escalating violence being inflicted, at varying levels and in different forms, on Palestinians living under Israeli rule in the West Bank and within Israel. The violence and destruction in these areas is intensifying over time, with no effective domestic or international mechanism acting to halt them. We warn of the clear and present danger that the genocide will not remain confined to the Gaza Strip, and that the actions and underlying mindset driving it may be extended to other areas as well.

The recognition that the Israeli regime is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, and the deep concern that it may expand to other areas where Palestinians live under Israeli rule, demand urgent and unequivocal action from both Israeli society and the international community, and use of every means available under international law to stop Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Stuart Littlewood.

In April, the White House revealed a plan to ask Congress to claw back nearly $1.1 billion in already-approved federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the entity that provides federal support for NPR and PBS affiliates. Thursday night’s executive order instructs the CPB to cease funding the two entities by June 30.

Free Press Co-CEO Craig Aaron said:

“Trump’s attack on public media shows why our democracy is on life support. Healthy democracies have independent, well-funded and robust public-media systems. At their best, noncommercial media put the public interest before profits and hold power to account. Trump’s outrageous order to end federal support for NPR and PBS takes U.S. media in the opposite direction. It’s riddled with falsehoods and disinformation about public media, much of it seemingly cribbed from right-wing blogs and newsletters. Despite the president’s twisted claims, public broadcasting remains an incredibly popular use of taxpayer dollars, and local stations provide trustworthy news and cultural programming, as well as lifesaving coverage during emergencies.

“The order’s legality is dubious at best — Congress appropriates funds for public broadcasting, and the president doesn’t get a magic eraser for programs he doesn’t like. The government’s unhinged attempt to defund news outlets they deem biased is blatant censorship. This represents a dangerous assault on independent journalism and public accountability — and it’s not happening in isolation. The Trump administration is also pushing Congress to rescind public media’s already-approved budget and is trying to remove board members at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for no legally justifiable reason. Brendan Carr, Trump’s top censor at the Federal Communications Commission, has also launched an investigation into the underwriting practices of NPR and PBS, using it as a pretext to call for an end to funding.

“After years of attacking journalists and lying about their work, it’s no surprise that Trump and his minions are trying to silence and shutter any newsroom that dares to ask him questions or show the devastating impact of his policies on local communities. Yet in many of those communities, the local public-media station is the only source of independent reporting. Trump, of course, prefers fawning propaganda — which too many commercial TV and radio broadcasters are willing to provide in exchange for regulatory favors, or to stay off the president’s target list. Since Trump can’t shake down NPR and PBS the same way he’s doing to CBS and ABC, he’s trying to starve them of the resources they need to survive.

“Attacking journalists and the media is on page one of the authoritarian playbook. This is why everyone who cares about accountability and democracy should be deeply concerned about public media’s future. The current system is far from perfect, and for too long public broadcasting’s leaders have cowered and conceded when they should have been pushing back. But all of us who care about an independent press, an informed populace, a responsive government and a thriving democracy have a stake in the outcome of this fight. If we unite to defend public media — and I believe we can and will prevail — then we might just save our democracy, too.”

Background: In February, Craig Aaron testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the Trump administration’s campaign of censorship against media viewpoints the president doesn’t like, calling it a “free-speech emergency.” In May 2024, he testified about false claims of bias at NPR and PBS. Free Press Action is leading grassroots efforts to craft public policy that supports local noncommercial news and information.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Former U.S. Rep. Billy Long of Missouri, whom President-elect Donald Trump has named his nominee to head the IRS, touts his expertise in tax matters.

He advertises his credential as a certified tax and business advisor, and he adds CTBA to his name on his X profile. That profile encourages people to message him to “save 40% on your taxes.”

But tax experts told ProPublica that they have never heard of CTBA as a credential in the tax profession. The designation is offered by a small Florida firm, Excel Empire, which was established just two years ago and only requires attendance at a three-day seminar. That is in stark contrast to the 150 credit hours and the rigorous exams required to become a certified public accountant, a standard certification for tax accountants.

In most tax cases, only lawyers, CPAs and enrolled agents — federally authorized tax practitioners — can represent taxpayers at the IRS.

“The cost of relying on tax advice from somebody that is solely focused on minimizing the tax liabilities that you have — as opposed to somebody that’s focused on both minimizing the tax liabilities and complying with the tax law — can be extraordinarily high if you are found to be in violation of the standards,” said Nathan Goldman, an associate professor of accounting at North Carolina State University.

Excel Empire’s three-day certification course has been advertised for as much as $30,000; its upcoming session is advertised at $4,997. Matthew Pearson, one of its founders, said this summer in a podcast that about 135 people have earned the CTBA designation, which the firm designed to help people without tax backgrounds to become advisors.

Nina Olson, a prominent taxpayer advocate, said that the modern tax industry has seen “a proliferation of different groups and entities that are providing tax advice” and that consumers have no way of knowing who is competent.

“It could just be that you’ve taken a very short course, and paid a large fee for that course, and that gives you the ability to put some initials after your name,” said Olson, who served as the IRS’ national taxpayer advocate from 2001 to 2019. She is now executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, a Washington-based nonprofit that promotes fairness and access to justice in tax systems.

Tax experts said that Long’s years of experience as a real estate agent and as an auctioneer — before spending a dozen years in Congress — pales next to the deep experience in tax policy or management of the people who have held the job. For instance, the current IRS commissioner, Danny Werfel, previously served as acting IRS commissioner and held leadership roles at the Office of Management and Budget. He also worked in the private sector as a managing director at Boston Consulting Group.

Long’s experience in the tax world has been more narrowly focused. In the two years since he left Congress, he worked to bring in customers for at least two firms that marketed the employee retention credit — a pandemic-era benefit designed to support businesses that kept workers despite revenue losses or disruptions caused by COVID-19.

The credit also attracted fraud, eventually landing on the IRS’ “worst of the worst” list for tax scams. Two Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday announced an investigation into the firms, noting Long had neither a “background in tax preparation nor any credential as a licensed accountant, attorney or enrolled agent.”

Worth up to $28,000 per employee, the credit was available for the 2020 and 2021 tax years and has been widely used by both for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations across the country. However, the IRS raised significant concerns about aggressive promoters pushing ineligible businesses to file questionable claims. Red flags included inflated payroll numbers, claims for all quarters without proper eligibility or citing minor government orders that did not directly impact business operations.

The IRS says it has recovered over $1 billion from businesses that voluntarily reported improper claims. And it has launched hundreds of criminal investigations to try to recoup what it says could be billions of dollars more.

In a prepared statement in November, Werfel said businesses should review their claims and see if they were misled by firms marketing the tax credit.

“They should listen to trusted tax professionals, not promoters,” he said.

In a 2023 podcast discussing his work for the two firms, Long joked that he had a hat bearing the name of the credit glued to his head. He said his work marketing the tax credit had caused some clients to question their CPAs’ advice.

“Hey, this auctioneer, real estate broker, former congressman told me I’m going to get $1.2 million back,” he said. “Uh, you’re my CPA. Why didn’t you tell me that?” And he said the response of CPAs would be: “That’s a joke. That’s a fake deal. That’s not true. You’re going to have to pay all that money back. You’ll get audited.”

But he said the firms he worked for had never seen the IRS turn down one of their claims.

There is no evidence that either Excel Empire, Long or the firms that he worked for — Lifetime Advisors of Hudson, Wisconsin, and Commerce Terrace Consulting of Springfield, Missouri — engaged in wrongdoing. In the same 2023 podcast, Long emphasized he and his colleagues had helped only taxpayers who were entitled to the benefit.

Neither Long, Lifetime Advisors nor Commerce Terrace Consulting responded to requests for comment.

If Long is confirmed and succeeds Werfel, he’ll have the power to influence how Americans pay their taxes and how the federal government collects revenue. Trump has promised to end IRS “overstepping,” while Republicans have said that they would slash billions of dollars in funding passed under the Biden administration to modernize the IRS and enhance tax enforcement.

The IRS and the Trump transition team did not respond to requests for comment.

During his time representing Southwest Missouri in Congress, Long pursued legislation to abolish the IRS and establish a national sales tax. Billionaire Elon Musk, a Trump advisor, recently asked on X if the agency’s budget should be “deleted.”

Like Long, members of Excel Empire suggest that accountants don’t feel it is their role to save their clients money because they prioritize compliance over planning and are too busy during tax season to discuss strategies. The company’s website claims the firm has saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Edward Lyon, who is listed on Excel Empire’s website as chief tax planner and tax attorney, writes on his personal website that the seven most expensive words in the English language are “My CPA takes care of my taxes.”

Lyon elaborated on a podcast last year, noting that accountants “generally are rule followers,” but when it comes to lawyers, “we are trained to understand the rules but we’re trained to stretch the rules and bend the rules and poke at the rules and do an end run around the rules. It's a much more proactive focus.” Still, he has consistently emphasized that his company acts “legally, ethically and morally.”

The company’s co-founder, Pearson, once described Lyon on a podcast as the “preeminent proactive tax attorney in the country.” Lyon and Pearson declined to comment.

The Ohio Supreme Court suspended Lyon’s law license in 2005 for failing to meet registration and fee requirements on time, and he hasn’t regained it. He also does not appear to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment advisor.

Despite this, Lyon says he has trained tens of thousands of tax and finance professionals. As the author of several books and a column, he claims to be one of the country’s most widely read tax strategists and commands speaking fees of $15,000 and first-class travel arrangements.

Lyon has also developed several tax certification programs. On the Excel Empire website, some officers, including Pearson, use a title created by Lyon: tax master.

Appearing on another podcast, Lyon discussed how small businesses can be used as tax shelters. As an example, he asked the host, Heather Wagenhals — who also carries the CTBA title — if she had a swimming pool at her home, where she records her show.

“I do,” Wagenhals said. “That’s why I picked this one.”

Lyon responded: “All right, so I’m gonna rock your world in five words, ready? On-premises employee athletic facility.”

“Oh my God!” Wagenhals said.

Lyon added: “It’s really there in the tax code, and nobody’s told you that.”

In another podcast, Pearson brags about firing an accountant who balked at his request for advice about how to use a new Corvette “to keep from paying taxes.”

Olson said that attitude was disturbing and that simplistic answers can create problems for taxpayers in IRS audits and in the courts. “A swimming pool in someone’s home, even if employees are working in the home and using it, still would require the court to look at the percentage of employee use versus personal use — and they would look really closely at that,” she said.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Jeremy Kohler and Alex Mierjeski.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

The sprawling business empire created by tribal leaders in northern Wisconsin was born of desperate times, as the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians faced financial ruin. Its subsequent success would be built on the desperate needs of others far from the reservation.

The tribe had made some poor choices as it sought to expand its fortunes beyond a modest casino in its home state of Wisconsin two decades ago. Grand plans for a floating casino off Cancun, Mexico, collapsed, and a riverboat gambling venture in Mississippi required more cash than the tribe had on hand.

The resulting loans — $50 million in bonds issued in 2008 at 12% — proved crushing. Struggling to make debt payments, tribal officials soon were forced to slash spending for essential programs on the reservation and lay off dozens of employees.

Protests erupted, with demonstrators barricading themselves inside a government building and demanding audits and investigations. When angry tribal members elected a new governing council, it refused to pay anymore. The tribe defaulted on a loan it had come to regret.

The LDF tribe turned to the one asset that could distinguish it in the marketplace: sovereign immunity.

This special status allowed it as a Native American tribe to enter the world of internet lending without interest rate caps, an option not open to other lenders in most states. The annual rates it charged for small-sum, installment loans frequently exceeded 600%.

Business partners, seeing the favorable math, were easy to find. So, too, were consumers who had run out of options to pay their bills. Their decisions to sign up for LDF loans often made things worse.

ProPublica traced the key decisions that put LDF on the path to becoming a prominent player in a sector of the payday lending industry that has long skirted regulation and drawn controversy.

LDF did not just dabble in this type of lending; it fully embraced it. Like other tribes that have taken this route, LDF built its success on a series of complex business arrangements, with roles and motives difficult to unravel.

Over time, ProPublica found, LDF signed off on deals involving outsiders with histories of predatory practices — associations that carried profound implications for the tribe. Not only did they put the tribe’s reputation at risk, they generated a barrage of costly lawsuits and questions of whether LDF was allowing partners to take advantage of tribal rights to skirt state usury laws.

In Boston, Brian Coughlin initially had no idea that a Native American tribe was involved in the small loan he took out with a high interest rate. He only learned about LDF after he filed for bankruptcy to seek protection from his creditors.

“I was definitely surprised,” he said. “I didn’t think they operated things like that.”

During the bankruptcy process, an LDF partner still hounded him to pay, which Coughlin said pushed him to a breaking point and a suicide attempt. Federal law prohibits chasing debtors who have filed for bankruptcy, and Coughlin sued the tribe in a dispute that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, the court — in a decision with far-reaching implications for tribes — ruled that LDF could be held liable under the Bankruptcy Code.

His and other consumer lawsuits paint LDF as a front for outsiders who take an oversized cut of the proceeds, leaving LDF with only dollars per loan. Interviews and ProPublica’s review of records also show how heavily LDF relies on its partners for most of the essential operations. These descriptions are disputed by LDF, which has told ProPublica that it merely is outsourcing for much-needed expertise while still maintaining control.

In a statement to ProPublica this year, John Johnson Sr., LDF’s president, described the tribe’s lending business as “a narrative of empowerment, ethical business practice, and commitment to community enrichment.” He has declined to be interviewed and did not respond to written questions for this story.

Over time, LDF has set up at least two dozen internet lending companies and websites, ProPublica determined. Its loans are so pervasive the LDF tribe showed up as a creditor in roughly 1 out of every 100 bankruptcy cases sampled nationwide, as ProPublica reported in August.

This year, LDF and some of its business affiliates agreed to a federal class-action settlement in Virginia that, if finalized, will erase $1.4 billion in consumer debt and provide $37 million in restitution. Tribal defendants are responsible for $2 million of that; the tribe in a statement has indicated that its business arm would pay.

Tribal officials have consistently denied wrongdoing. A newsletter to tribal members as LDF was starting up its venture said the tribe “is not practicing any type of predatory lending.” In his statements to ProPublica for the August story, Johnson stressed that the tribe complies with tribal and federal law, that its lending practices are transparent, that its collections are done ethically and that the loans help distressed borrowers who have little access to credit.

LDF leaders have not publicly stated any desire to alter their business practices, even as some community members express concern.

“Feeding greed with unscrupulous business practices is crushing us,” one LDF member recently wrote on a community Facebook page.

After the bond debacle in the 2000s, LDF leaders felt stung by their outside financial advisers, believing they were deceived about the terms of the transaction and risks involved.

Moving forward, they wanted someone they could trust. They found that in Brent McFarland.

McFarland was not a tribal member, but he grew up near the reservation and had friends on the Tribal Council. McFarland, an investment adviser who’d run a restaurant and worked in real estate, offered some helpful advice to the tribe, and the council eventually hired him for a wider role. He helped it establish the Lac du Flambeau Business Development Corporation in 2012, governed by a board answerable to the Tribal Council. And he looked for ways LDF could make money, apart from gaming.

“I ended up meeting some people that were doing online lending,” he said in an interview.

Tribes could get into the industry — attracting willing partners with expertise in lending — without putting up any capital because sovereign immunity was its own bounty.

But as certain as LDF was that state laws wouldn’t apply to its operations, the tribe took a careful approach. LDF decided it would not lend to people in Wisconsin, including its own members. “It keeps our relationship with the state of Wisconsin healthy,” McFarland told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Peter Bildsten, who ran the state Department of Financial Institutions then, remembers visiting the reservation as it was embarking on the new venture. He recalled that he met some of LDF’s business partners, who recognized that the lending operation would be extremely lucrative but also potentially controversial.

“They talked about yeah, we are doing it, and we know there’s virtually nothing you can do about it and especially if we don’t lend to any people in Wisconsin. You can’t do anything,” Bildsten said. “It was almost kind of a dare.”

Many tribes, still suffering from a legacy of racism and inadequate federal resources, struggle to find economic solutions for their people. McFarland, who no longer works for LDF but does consulting for tribes, defended LDF’s decision to move into high-interest loans as a legitimate option.

“The business is offering a service where the interest rates and cost of borrowing are well disclosed to consumers,” he told ProPublica in an email. “It’s expensive, but if used responsibly can be more affordable than many other options. The costs and risks are not hidden from consumers.”

Johnson, LDF’s president, has said there was a rational reason for the tribe’s business partnerships: It needed outside expertise as it entered a new industry.

“But let me be more specific: Zero I.T. enterprise architects, data analysts, or marketing strategists lived on the Lac Du Flambeau reservation when the Tribal Council decided to enter this industry,” he wrote in an email to ProPublica in August.

LDF’s partners run their operations far from tribal land. ProPublica identified several Florida lawsuits that allege a straight-forward process: “The LDF Tribe mints a new ‘tribal’ limited liability company, supposedly organized under Tribal law, for each new investor. Each new investor then runs his or her own ‘tribally owned’ website, offering consumers loans at interest rates between 450% and 1100% annually.”

Those cases were settled or dismissed without LDF addressing the allegations.

LDF does not publicly disclose its partners. ProPublica identified one of them as RIVO Holdings, a fintech firm based in a high-rise in downtown San Diego that has serviced two LDF websites.

RIVO is an acronym for respect, integrity, value and opportunity. The company’s founder and CEO is Daniel Koetting. His personal website touts his employment of “over 200 local employees at RIVO.” His brother Mark, of Kansas, managed a separate lending portfolio for the tribe.

The brothers entered the tribal lending industry after facing regulatory scrutiny for previous lending operations. In 2006, Califonia issued a cease-and-desist order to both men for unlicensed lending; Daniel Koetting received a similar demand from New Hampshire in 2011.

Initially, the Koettings partnered with the Big Lagoon Rancheria tribe in California to offer high-interest loans beginning in 2013. But that relationship began to fall apart several years later.

The tribe alleged that the Koettings surreptitiously pushed customers to new lending companies set up with LDF, and an arbitrator awarded Big Lagoon Rancheria $14 million in 2018. Years of litigation followed as the Koettings fought the decision. The case is still pending.

“I actually called Lac du Flambeau and warned them and informed them that they were getting into business with Big Lagoon’s client list,” Virgil Moorehead, Big Lagoon Rancheria’s chairperson, told ProPublica.

Joseph Schulte Jr., who once worked at RIVO, likened one area of the company’s San Diego office to a Wall Street trading floor, with exuberant staff celebrating short-term wins, such as meeting daily sales goals. To keep the staff pumped up, he said, management brought in pallets of free Celsius energy drinks.

“People were making a lot of money working there,” Schulte said of RIVO Holdings.

Although figures for LDF’s loan portfolios are private, Daniel Koetting’s previous venture with the Big Lagoon Rancheria amassed approximately $83 million in revenue over five years, according to a legal filing.

Court papers, including divorce filings, show Daniel Koetting enjoying a lavish lifestyle in recent years, living in a five-bedroom, five-bath house in La Jolla, an affluent seaside enclave of San Diego. He owned thoroughbred horses, drove a Porsche and dabbled in motion pictures. He and his wife had three children. In the divorce, he reported household expenses in 2021 that included an average of $7,000 a month on groceries and eating out, plus an additional $5,000 a month for “entertainment, gifts and vacation.”

Daniel and Mark Koetting did not reply to emails, calls or letters from ProPublica seeking comment.

Meanwhile, the two companies that RIVO and LDF run — Evergreen Services and Bridge Lending Solutions — are associated with more than 200 complaints from customers since 2019, frequently about onerous interest rates and payment terms. “I just don’t understand how people can do this,” a California resident protested to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “This is a predatory lender and I am a victim.”

Bildsten, the former Wisconsin department head, believes that LDF tribal leaders are trying to help the reservation improve services, such as dental care, for its members and that the lending business is part of that laudable goal.

“They’re able to do some good stuff,” Bildsten said, “but the money is dirty.”

Brian Coughlin lit a cigar. Sitting in his Chevy Malibu with the sunroof open to let out the smoke and a bottle of pills next to him, he wondered: When will this end?

He’d faced many hurdles in life, from serious physical and mental health issues to the loss of his father. He’d also used bad judgment, overspending and loading up on multiple credit cards as he blew through a decent paycheck as head of trash collection for the city of Boston.

Like many other Americans with little to no savings and poor credit scores, he was enticed by online pitches for quick cash — offers that came with exorbitantly high interest rates.

Months earlier, in December 2019, he’d filed for bankruptcy, expecting relief. There would be payment plans and a court injunction halting contact from creditors — a key protection laid out in U.S. bankruptcy law. But one creditor would not give up.

Lendgreen, one of LDF’s initial companies, had loaned Coughlin $900 at an annual percentage rate of 741%. At the time of the bankruptcy, he owed $1,595. The company continued to call, email and text him, fueling his anxiety. A phone log shows Lendgreen called Coughlin 50 times during one four-month period.

“This is all for nothing,” Coughlin recalls thinking of the bankruptcy process.

That night in his Chevy, Coughlin took a fistful of pills and ended up in the hospital. Lendgreen still was calling him while he recovered. But now he was ready to fight.

Coughlin’s attorney filed a motion with the bankruptcy court in March 2020 asking a judge to order Lendgreen, the LDF tribe and LDF Business Development Corporation to stop harassing him.

The case was about more than just harassment, however. Coughlin wanted compensation for all that had happened. He asked the court to award him attorneys fees, medical costs, expenses for lost time from work while hospitalized and punitive damages.

To Coughlin’s surprise, LDF told the court that sovereign immunity protected it even in a federal bankruptcy case, and the bankruptcy judge in Massachusetts agreed. When Coughlin took the case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won, the tribe appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As they dug into who actually violated the collections ban, Coughlin’s attorneys needed to unravel the business relationships surrounding Lendgreen, which no longer has an active website. That led them on an international paper chase from Wisconsin to Ontario, Latvia and Malta, an island in the Mediterranean, where an entity that provided capital for Lendgreen appeared to be based.

In gathering evidence, Coughlin’s lawyers obtained an agreement between Lendgreen and another company — Vivus Servicing Ltd. of Canada — showing Vivus was to handle most all operations of issuing and collecting the loans made in Lendgreen’s name. It also would retain most of the profits.

For each new or renewed loan, the contract called for Vivus to share $3.25 with LDF as well as $3.25 per loan payment, or not less than $10,000 a month.

Vivus Servicing had subcontracted certain administrative functions of the Lendgreen loans to 4finance Canada, an affiliate company of a European lending conglomerate based in Latvia, court records show. An attorney who represents Vivus and 4finance declined to comment.

“There’s money flowing to all sorts of places,” Coughlin’s attorney Richard Gottlieb said.

As he began to better understand the web of connections, Gottlieb concluded that LDF’s role in its lending operations was minimal. The partners, he said, performed all the key functions — “from the creation of the loans themselves to the maintenance of the computer software and internet sites to the collections personnel to the customer service reps to the management.”

Even though LDF fought in court to be able to pursue collections against people in bankruptcy, internal documents indicate that the head of LDF Holdings, which oversees the tribe’s lending enterprise, was not pleased with how a business partner treated Coughlin.

Coughlin inquires with Lendgreen about why its phone calls have not ceased.

Jessi Lorenzo, president of LDF Holdings at the time, communicated in May 2020 with 4finance Canada about Coughlin’s loan. Why had they not stopped soliciting repayment once notified that Coughlin had filed for bankruptcy, she asked in an email.

“Everything should have ceased then,” wrote Lorenzo, who was based in Tampa.

In a brief interview on her porch, Lorenzo declined to comment on the Coughlin case and said she did not want to be part of a tribal lending story that might be negative. Later, in an email, she wrote that she was proud to have worked for LDF as it “built a business that benefited their community, providing modern careers with upward mobility and good benefits in a remote part of Wisconsin.”

LDF tribal leaders don’t talk much about their business with outsiders. But there is little doubt that the lending business has altered the shape of the tribe’s finances, allowing LDF to move past its costly mistake of issuing $50 million in bonds for the Mississippi casino boat.

The Tribal Council agreed in 2017 to pay $4 million and finance an additional $23 million to settle claims against it after defaulting.

But the tribe and its partners continue to face new threats from a range of legal actions.

The attorneys in the Virginia case have promised future litigation against more LDF partners. And as LDF keeps lending, it opens its companies up to additional consumer lawsuits. Dozens of such cases have been filed since 2019, most of which end quickly, with undisclosed settlements.

McFarland takes issue with these types of cases against tribes. “The law firms filing class action lawsuits seek to paint tribes as either victims or villains in online lending,” he said in an email. “This approach has been employed against tribes since Europeans came to the Americas, whether Tribes are entering gaming, cannabis, selling tobacco, and a host of business opportunities.”

When Coughlin’s suit reached the Supreme Court, some of the issues involving tribal-lending partnerships were touched on, if only briefly.

During a hearing in April 2023, Justice Samuel Alito interrupted LDF’s lawyer as he was talking about sovereign immunity and the Constitutional Convention. Alito inquired about the tribe’s relationship with Lendgreen.

“Who actually operates this?” he asked.

“The tribe does, Your Honor,” replied attorney Pratik Shah, representing LDF. “This is not a rent-a-tribe situation.”

Shah said the enterprise employed 50 to 60 people working out of a headquarters on the reservation, though “they use third-party vendors, servicers and all, like any other business.”

Shah added: “This is a fully tribal operation.”

But the central issue was whether the tribe could be held liable for violating bankruptcy rules.

“What the tribe is saying is you can’t sue them for hundreds of thousands of dollars of actual damages,” Shah told the court. “That’s at the core of sovereign immunity.”

In June of last year, the high court sided with Coughlin, ruling 8-1 that there’s no sovereign immunity for tribes when it comes to the Bankruptcy Code.

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the ruling, not because of his reading of the Bankruptcy Code, but because he held that sovereign immunity does not apply to lawsuits arising from a tribe’s commercial activity conducted off-reservation.

Back in Bankruptcy Court, Coughlin continued to pursue LDF and Lendgreen for damages and legal fees. In mid-August, in the midst of settlement talks, Coughlin asked the court to pause the process required to unmask the outside entities involved with LDF as all sides tried to resolve the dispute. In September, a judge approved a settlement in which the tribe and Lendgreen agreed to pay Coughlin $340,000. LDF denied liability as part of the agreement.

At the same time, pressure is mounting on the tribe’s business partners. As part of the deal, the tribe will give Coughlin documents “with respect to the culpability and responsibility” of the outside partners, according to the settlement. That will enable Coughlin’s lawyers to dig further. LDF also will make a corporate representative available to testify in legal actions against their former business allies, if necessary.

“I want to see all the actors that are actually part of this scheme brought to justice, in a way,” said Coughlin, who now lives in Florida.

“I don’t necessarily believe the tribe is the orchestrator of this whole mess. I think they’re a pawn, unfortunately.”

To do the best, most comprehensive reporting on this opaque industry, we want to hear from more of the people who know it best. Do you work for a tribal lending operation, either on a reservation or for an outside business partner? Do you belong to a tribe that participates in this lending or one that has rejected the industry? Are you a regulator or lawyer dealing with these issues? Have you borrowed from a tribal lender? All perspectives matter to us. Please get in touch with Megan O’Matz at megan.omatz@propublica.org or 954-873-7576, or Joel Jacobs at joel.jacobs@propublica.org or 917-512-0297. Visit propublica.org/tips for information on secure communication channels.

Mariam Elba contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Megan O’Matz and Joel Jacobs.

Despite tons of out-of-state money flowing into his campaign Sheehy apparently thinks the increasingly befuddled Donald Trump will come to his rescue in Bozeman next week.

What’s puzzling, of course, is why any of this is necessary. Just look at the facts. Every statewide elected office in Montana is held by Republicans except Tester’s Senate seat.  One might think, given the obvious, that Mr. Sheehy could probably settle for doing his own campaigning and presenting himself to Montana’s voters without the brash accompaniment of Trump’s tidal waves of lies, insults and threats.

But apparently this “American hero” as Trump calls him, isn’t confident that he can pull this one off on his own and needs another out-of-stater to tell Montanans how to vote.

Or maybe it’s to convince us that Sheehy, who has never run for elected office and remains in far too many ways, an unknown quantity, should replace Montana’s senior Senator because his total lack of experience at public policy or governing will serve the state so much better than Tester.

Whether you like Tester or not, one has to acknowledge that he was a State senator for eight years, during which time he rose to be elected President of the Montana Senate by his colleagues. After winning in 2006, Tester has now been negotiating the sharp teeth of the U.S. Senate for 18 years.  If there’s one thing Tester lacks, it’s certainly not extensive experience in making law, appropriating funds, implementing programs, and overseeing the vast spectrum of the federal government.

But here’s the rub — Sheehy’s hoped-for reinforcement has been having a rather rough go of it lately.  Trump’s pick of J.D. Vance as his vice president candidate has not exactly thrilled the GOP’s top dogs.  In fact, just the opposite as Vance keeps stumbling over his own words and positions, including his incredible statement that the country is being run by “childless cat ladies.”

They say when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.  But Vance has in fact, dug the hole much deeper by doubling down on his belief that unless you have kids, you’re a liability to society because you won’t care as much about the future.  Apparently that would include Dolly Parton, who made a conscious decision not to have children but is certainly one of the most accomplished, caring, generous, and much-loved women in the world.

Yet, while Vance brings unneeded negative coverage to the campaign, Old Donald is having a very rough ride of his own. Just this week he had what can only be described as a disastrous interview with the National Association of Black Journalists in which his racism and sexism were on full display.

There may be places an increasingly confused Donald Trump feels he can get away with claiming Vice President Kamala Harris “happened to turn Black” several years ago — but not at a convention of Black journalists. Since Harris’ mother is Indian and her father is Jamaican, she is rightfully both Indian and Black — and assailing her race is just another low in the very low life of the ex-president.

One thing Sheehy should hope is that Trump actually remembers what seat he’s running for.  Just this week in another bid to prop up a candidate in Pennsylvania, Trump’s old and tired brain mis-fired again, and he twice claimed his support for “the future governor” of Pennsylvania.  But the candidate, David McCormick, is running for the Senate. It would be funny were it not so pitiful — and just another in the growing evidence of Trump’s declining faculties.

The post Shaky Sheehy Calls for Dubious Reinforcements appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by George Ochenski.

The vouchers, essentially IOUs, were issued in 2021 in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Authorities explained that they could be used just like cash, and that they would be phased out once the pandemic ended. 

Until then, the vouchers – printed on lower quality paper than the currency –  are supposed to be traded with cash on a 1:1 ratio, but nobody knows how long they will be good.

North Koreans are already distrustful of their government on money matters because in 2009 it revalued the won, issued new currency and limited the amount of older currency that could be traded for the newer one, wiping out the life savings of many. 

Since then, faith in the won has been shaky, so dollars, euros and yuan are therefore freely traded in North Korean marketplaces. Faith in the vouchers is even shakier than the won.

“Most of the workers feel like they have returned empty-handed, so they are angry,” a resident of the northwestern province of North Pyongan told RFA Korean on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

“Although the party emphasizes that the money vouchers should be used without restrictions like cash, people distrust them because the authorities clearly stated that they are a temporary measure due to the prolonged COVID-19 crisis,” she said.

Assumptions

When workers are sent overseas – mostly to China – there’s already an understanding that the lion’s share of their wages will be forwarded to the cash-strapped government in Pyongyang. 

The remainder, however, is several times more than what they would earn doing the same job in North Korea. 

So the Chinese companies get cheap labor, the government gets a lot of foreign cash, and the workers still come out ahead – or such was the assumption.

The workers, mostly young women working in factories, had been in China since before the pandemic, some for six years or more.

Because they were earning yuan in China the workers thought they would be paid in yuan upon their return.

But they are now told to accept payment in money vouchers, which the people have very little confidence in, the North Pyongan resident said.

Red tape and unfair exchange rates

On top of this, the government appears to be exploiting the workers further through red tape and unfair exchange rates, the sources said. 

“The market exchange rate is 1,700 to 1,800 won per Chinese yuan,” she said. “But the announced rate is fixed at 1,260 won per yuan, so the workers are getting screwed.”

The Chinese companies paid 2,500 yuan (about US$350) for each worker every month, but about two-thirds of this money was sent to the state. 

The workers were said to be earning about 800 yuan ($110) per month, but then red tape fees cut into even that amount.

“There’s management fees at headquarters, maintenance costs at the consular department, insurance costs, social subsidies, and accommodation fees,” the resident said. “When all is said and done the workers are said to be getting between 100 and 300 yuan (US$13-41) for the whole month.”

Remarkably, that is still above the paltry salaries for government-assigned jobs in North Korea.

Another North Pyongan resident said that the workers are getting a raw deal after putting in 14-hour days in China and now have to accept payment in money vouchers.

“The selection of workers dispatched overseas is still ongoing these days, but not many workers are willing to go to China,” she said. “The poor working environment and intensive labor exploitation in China, as well as the fact that the payment is not properly compensated, have become widely known facts.”

She said that some of the workers who returned this time gave up all of their wages and returned with nothing, after the authorities compelled them to donate to various funds and subsidies.

These include supporting national and local construction projects, condolence donations for the late former leaders Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on their death anniversaries, and funds to strengthen national defense.

“They won’t see even a single yuan coin for all their hard work in China,” the first resident said.

 Translated by Claire S. Lee. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Kim Jieun for RFA Korean.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Georgia Gee.

The Willow Project’s champions have stressed the need for the U.S. to achieve energy independence in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said last month that Willow could help “reduce our energy imports from some of the worst regimes in the world.” Mary Peltola, a Democratic representative and Alaska Native who was elected to Congress last year, said just last week that the project could “make us all safer in a world that has grown more unpredictable after Russia invaded Ukraine.”

There’s no doubt that the Willow Project, led by ConocoPhillips, represents the largest new Alaskan oil project in decades. At full capacity, it could increase total oil production in the state by more than a third. But experts told Grist that the energy and economic benefits of the project are smaller and less certain than its boosters have suggested. Not only will the Willow Project provide an insufficient substitute for Russian oil, but it will also deliver an ambiguous mix of costs and benefits to Alaska state coffers, which have long relied on fossil fuel revenue that is increasingly hard to come by — even with new drilling in the Arctic.

It’s not clear how much the Willow Project would help replace Russian oil supplies. First there’s the matter of timing: The project will not deliver its first barrels until 2028 or 2029, and it will take even longer for all three well pads that the Biden administration approved to start producing at full capacity. It’s possible the global oil supply picture will look very different by then: Western countries may have access to new sources of oil, like recent offshore projects in places like Guyana, and where crude prices will be is anyone’s guess.

Second, the particular kind of oil that Willow will produce isn’t a perfect substitute for the oil that the U.S. once bought from Russia. The chemistry of petroleum beneath Alaska’s North Slope is different from both light shale oil and the heavier oil that tends to come from places like Russia and Venezuela, so it will need to be blended with other oil in order to enter domestic refineries, which are mostly designed to refine specific types of crude. That’s why the United States kept importing oil even after the fracking boom began, and it’s why much of Willow’s oil wouldn’t replace imports from other countries.

“Alaska remains an important energy state, but it will not make or break the nation’s energy independence in the coming decades,” Phil Wight, an assistant professor of history and northern studies at the University Alaska Fairbanks, told Grist. 

Indeed, the federal Bureau of Land Management’s own analysis found that Willow’s effect on the global energy market and American energy independence will be muted. According to the Bureau’s final environmental impact statement, only around half of the oil produced from the project will replace foreign imports from tankers and pipelines, with around 30 percent replacing other oil extracted in the United States. 

Furthermore, the project’s position on the North Slope of Alaska will constrain potential demand for the new crude from refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, since it would need to travel through the Panama Canal to get there. The top domestic markets for the oil will be California, Oregon, and Washington, three states that are all making aggressive attempts to promote electric vehicles and transition away from fossil fuels. Given that some estimates suggest electric vehicles could make up the majority of U.S. passenger car sales by 2030, it’s difficult to gauge how much West Coast demand there will be for Willow’s oil over the coming decades.

Even if ConocoPhillips does find buyers on the West Coast and overseas, Willow’s overall impact on oil prices will likely be small. According to the Bureau’s model, Willow will lower global oil prices by about 20 cents a barrel for as long as it operated at peak capacity. As of late Wednesday, the Brent oil benchmark was trading at around $75 a barrel.

“It’s hard to say that this will make a dent in either prices or supply,” said Chanda Meek, a professor of political science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The project’s economic impact within Alaska isn’t clearcut, either, despite what the state’s politicians say.

Alaska is the third-most oil-reliant state in the nation, behind Wyoming and North Dakota. According to the state’s own estimate, nearly 85 percent of the state budget comes from oil revenues. Taxes on oil have funded the construction of new buildings and hospitals, and oil prices affect how much funding public schools get. Alaskans, who don’t pay an income or sales tax, also get a check every year from a pot of money called the Permanent Fund Dividend, which is funded by oil royalties. (Each check topped more than $3,000 each last year, the highest amount residents have ever received.)

But this picture is changing. In 1988, Alaska’s trans-Alaska pipeline, or TAPS, was pumping a tremendous amount of petroleum from Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope to Valdez on the state’s southern coast — approximately 2 million barrels a day. Now, however, depleted reserves within Alaska and the competing fracking boom in the Southwest’s Permian Basin have made the state’s oil less relevant — Alaska is currently pumping less than a quarter of the oil it was moving in the 1980s. Alaskan oil production hit a 40-year low in 2020. 

That’s why the Alaska congressional delegation lobbied the Biden administration long and hard to approve the Willow Project. 

“Willow is finally reapproved, and we can almost literally feel Alaska’s future brightening because of it,” Murkowski said after the Biden administration announced its decision. “We are now on the cusp of creating thousands of new jobs, generating billions of dollars in new revenues, improving quality of life on the North Slope and across our state, and adding vital energy to TAPS to fuel the nation and the world.”

Experts in Alaskan economic policy say those assertions don’t hold up under scrutiny, and the Willow Project is unlikely to bring back the kind of economic security oil provided the state a few decades ago.

Some estimates say Alaska could see $6 billion in revenue from the Willow Project, but that payout is years away. In the short term, the state may actually see a decrease in revenue. Because the project is on federal land, the state can only collect production taxes on the project and can’t collect royalties on the oil produced there. More importantly, ConocoPhillips can use a carveout in the state’s tax law to write off its expenses for this project against the taxes the company pays on its other oil developments in the state. One analysis, conducted by the governor’s office in 2018, forecast that the state wouldn’t see a positive economic impact from the Willow Project until 2026 and that the development would result in up to $1.6 billion in negative revenue through 2025 — a 6 percent decrease to the state’s overall revenue. An analysis from this year, conducted by Alaska’s Department of Revenue, says the project wouldn’t become “cash flow positive” for the state until 2035.   

While the state would see negative revenue from the project’s first years of operation, municipalities will admittedly see more immediate positive benefits. Production taxes from the project are earmarked as grant programs for local communities, especially in the North Slope borough. The Department of Revenue’s recent analysis shows the North Slope will get $1.3 billion through 2053, and the cash will start flowing in the coming months. Communities impacted by the project will get an additional $3.7 billion over the next three decades.

Of course, the communities closest to drilling face a complex and sobering set of tradeoffs. The Alaska Native Village of Nuiqsut is going to be virtually surrounded by oil fields as a result of the approval of Willow, which threatens the subsistence hunting and fishing that has long sustained the town’s households. Nuiqsut’s mayor has been vocally opposed to the Willow Project, and local tribal leaders passed a resolution opposing it in 2019.

Zooming out, Wight said, the project signals to Alaskans, oil companies, and the rest of the world that the United States believes there will still be a market for Conoco’s oil three decades from now. At that time, however, the world’s governments should be completing a transition to clean energy. Indeed, President Biden recently signed a law that puts the nation on track to slash emissions 50 percent by 2030. How can that be the same world that needs 600 million new barrels of oil from Willow?

“We have the policy to build a renewable energy future,” Wight told Grist. “It’s much less clear how a managed decline of fossil fuels is going to happen.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The dubious economic calculus behind the Willow Project on Mar 16, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Zoya Teirstein.

What do Vladimir Putin and Henry Kissinger have in common?* Late last month, the Russian President threatened the use of nuclear weapons in the war over Ukraine, stating: “To those who allow themselves to make such statements about Russia, I would like to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and for some components more modern than those of the NATO countries.” In the same vein in 1957, Kissinger wrote: “The tactics for limited nuclear war should be based on small, highly mobile, self-contained units, relying heavily on air transport even within the combat zone.” Putin spoke as his country is being stymied in its efforts to incorporate Ukraine into the Russian Federation. Kissinger was writing at the height of the Cold War as the Rapporteur for a study by the Council of Foreign Relations which later appeared in the book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.**

To contextualize the possibility of using nuclear weapons by Kissinger and Putin: Both happened at times of extreme tension between the West and the Soviet Union/Russia. Both occurred when a major confrontation between the two sides was not taking place but could not be excluded.

But there are significant differences between the two. Kissinger’s advocacy of limited nuclear war was his attempt to set out a U.S. strategy to avoid a major, direct confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. He was trying to elaborate a United States military policy for the nuclear age after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hoping any confrontation between the two belligerents could avoid massive retaliation and mutual assured destruction.  Putin’s strategy is to use the nuclear threat to gain bargaining chips in an eventual settlement over Ukraine’s borders. Stymied in an immediate takeover of Ukraine and witnessing continued Ukraine successes as the fighting continues, Putin alluded to using nuclear weapons to hasten advantages in an eventual solution.

While much is being written in the West’s reaction to Putin’s threat about the horrors of using nuclear weapons, it should be remembered what former President Bill Clinton said in 2007: “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any President should make blanket statements in the regard to use or non-use.” It should also be remembered that prior to the Cold War the United States used nuclear weapons, leading Putin to argue that the United States’ bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “created a precedent” for their use.

Besides the political, military and ethical implications of using nuclear weapons, there is also a legal aspect. Many of the arguments for and against the use of nuclear weapons appeared in the 1996 International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on the “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”. In the crucial part of its decision, the Court opined: “The threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.” But the Opinion did not completely disqualify their use: “However, in view of the current state of international law, and the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

The Court did not say that the possession of or the threat of using nuclear weapons was illegal. The Court emphasized that there are restrictions on the actions of belligerents in armed conflicts in terms of what they can do. In other words, the legality of the use of the use of certain weapons is because of their specific effects during conflicts. According to the Court, the threat or use of nuclear weapons is restricted by the rules and principles of international humanitarian law because of their effects on non-combatants and soldiers. The weapons are, in Professor Georges Abi Saab’s words; “indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.”

But the court did not formally ban the use of nuclear weapons in conflicts – the final decision was tied seven and seven – because “it does not have sufficient elements to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance.” Specifically, it recognized that every State has its right to self-defense when its survival is at stake. “In view of the current state of international law, and the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake,” it declared in the famous final sentence of Paragraph 2E. It is important to remember that Article 51 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter permits the use of force by States “in the exercise of this right of self-defence.”***

Kissinger believed that the very survival of the United States could be a stake if the Soviet Union attacked, justifying the possible use of limited nuclear weapons. But Putin? What is his justification for the threat? Is the survival of the Russian Federation at stake? Is Russia being attacked? While Putin may fantasize that Ukraine is a part of the Russian Federation, it has long been accepted as an independent country, even by Russia. No country invaded or threatened the Russian Federation as it exists today.

Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov followed the State survival reasoning by equating State survival with an existential threat. “So, if it is an existential threat for our country, then it [nuclear weapon] can be used, in accordance with our concept,” Peskov proposed.

The Russians are invoking the glaring weakness of the Court’s ambiguous decision. By invoking State survival, the Court invited unlimited State actions in the name of survival, both in terms of its perception of its need to use force for self-defense and the type of force it can use once it decides that its survival is at stake.

Whatever the Russians present as the basis for their eventual use of tactical nuclear weapons in the name of their survival, it should be emphasized that there has been international condemnation of the use of nuclear weapons in any situation, even State survival. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 “for spreading authoritative information and by creating awareness of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war.” The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”

While Clinton’s statement remains in the deepest background of potential actions by a U.S. president, Putin’s threat is more immediate and more problematic. Most importantly, it does not meet the criteria of State survival permitted by the Court. Putin’s justification of “existential threat” does not meet any legal standard of State survival. But then again, respecting international humanitarian law or international law in general is not high on the Russian government’s agenda today.

Notes.

*In terms of similar negatives, an extensive list of Kissinger’s sins can be found in Christopher Hitchens’s The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Putin’s malfeasance is being investigated by various official and non-official bodies and awaits final listings since it is still unfolding.

**The book was a strategic studies best-seller, Book-of-the-Month Club selection, and launched Kissinger’s public career.

*** On the question of the legality of using nuclear weapons in the case of State survival, Judge Koroma wrote in his dissenting opinion; “This finding…would constitute an exception to the corpus of humanitarian law which applies in all armed conflicts and makes no exception for nuclear weapons.”

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Daniel Warner.

Kejriwal shared it on Facebook and Twitter. (Archived link)

https://t.co/0WUgPOBzaf

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) August 11, 2022

The official handle of Aam Admi Party Delhi shared it on Twitter.

ब्रिटेन के आम चुनावों में दिख रही है “केजरीवाल मॉडल” की छाप।

Kejriwal Model देश तक सीमित नहीं रहा, अब वो दुनिया भर में तेज़ी से फैल रहा है।

अब विकसित राष्ट्र भी “Kejriwal सरकार” से सीख कर आगे बढ़ना चाहते हैं।
https://t.co/ScvYNO2Qot

— Aam Aadmi Party Delhi (@AAPDelhi) August 11, 2022

Pro-BJP propaganda account @PoliticalKida shared an infographic that linked the News 24 India Facebook page to AAP worker Dimpal Singh, implying that News 24 India was an AAP propaganda website. This tweet garnered almost two thousand likes. Several other users also dubbed the News 24 India outlet as inauthentic (1, 2, 3, 4), owing to its links to the Aam Aadmi Party.

Understand the chronology of fake news shared by Kejriwal. pic.twitter.com/ndvQQrUHyh

— Political Kida (@PoliticalKida) August 12, 2022

Analyzing the article

The three-lined News 24 India article opines that Rishi Sunak is following the “Kejriwal Model” after Sunak promised to give more money to help the people of the United Kingdom deal with rising electricity bills if he becomes the Prime Minister. The “Kejriwal Model” reportedly entails Kejriwal’s promise of free electricity which has helped him win several elections, including the recent Punjab assembly elections.

This article, like many other News 24 India articles, lacks a proper byline. The author of this so-called opinion piece has only made claims without any substantiation whatsoever. Several major media outlets including Aaj Tak and Zee News have published opinion pieces comparing Sunak’s move to Kejriwal’s campaign strategy. But as the reader might notice, all of them are well-drafted pieces with proper corroboration and noticeably more than three lines. In fact, the title of the News 24 India article seems to be more articulate than the actual article. It is thus safe to say that the News 24 India piece shared by Kejriwal can hardly qualify as journalism. It is surprising that the Chief Minister of Delhi would share such an inarticulate report.

Moreover, the News 24 India report has used the terms “आम चुनावों” or “General Elections” in its title. According to a Business Standard article, the current race for the UK Prime Minister is “not a general election but an election within the Conservative Party”. The Conservative Party still holds a majority in the parliament, hence a general election is not necessary. It may or may not be held, depending upon the choice of the new Prime Minister.

Alt News further analyzed news24india.org to check the authenticity of the news website.

A look at news24india.org

The ‘About’ section of News 24 India is indistinct. It consists of a vaguely written paragraph, bereft of the names of the editors or sources of funding, and an email ID. It only states that News 24 India is an independent news portal giving us the latest news on entertainment, politics, sports, and health. Clearly, a lack of transparency is existent between News 24 India and its readers.

News 24 India primarily covers local news from Uttarakhand. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, none of the articles contains a name in their respective bylines. All reports are attributed under “By Admin”. There is no information regarding the identity of the admin. It must also be noted that the articles published by News 24 India usually contain three to six lines.

The Twitter and Facebook accounts that are linked to the website of News 24 India have been deactivated. However, Alt News found the archives of the linked Twitter account on Wayback Machine and, on visiting the URL of one of the Tweets (https://twitter.com/News_24India/status/1547968410805731329) that were archived, we were redirected to the account @AAP_USNagar. Similarly, all the archived links led to this Twitter handle. The page is named “Aam Aadmi Party Udham Singh Nagar” and the bio of the page reads “Official Twitter Handle Of @AAPUttarakhand District Udham Singh Nagar”. All the tweets by @AAP_USNagar are News 24 India reports.

We also matched the unique Twitter IDs of the two pages. Both accounts have the same Twitter ID. Hence is it apparent that the News 24 India Twitter page changed it’s Twitter handle from @News_24India to @AAP_USNagar. 

Upon a Facebook search, Alt News found an obscure page with News 24 India’s name and logo. The page was created on August 12 and had only 7 likes. Upon Google reverse image search of the logo, we found another page with the same name that had been deactivated. However, we found the cached version of that page. Here, under the ‘Related Pages’ section, politician Dimpal Singh’s profile can be seen. According to Dimpal Singh‘s Facebook page, she is the State Vice President of AAP Uttarakhand.

Apart from this, we also found three other obscure Twitter pages with the same name and the same logo. All the pages had minimal interactions and followers (1, 2, and 3). All the pages have news24india.org linked to their respective Twitter pages. These pages have all been created arbitrarily over a span of six months.

Alt News also noticed that in spite of News 24 India being obscure, several Aam Aadmi Party workers have shared its news reports in the past.

Hence, the report that Arvind Kejriwal shared, to suggest that Rishi Sunak’s strategy to provide more money to help people cope with the UK energy crisis matches Kejriwal’s promise of free electricity, was published by a dubious news website with links to Aam Aadmi Party members and units.

The News 24 India website has a vaguely written ‘about’ section with no information about the editorial team or the funding process. None of the articles carries a byline. The Facebook and Twitter pages that are now deactivated can be linked to various AAP workers. Moreover, several obscure social media pages of News 24 India can be found online. These pages have minimal interaction. The authenticity of News 24 India cannot be verified.

The post Arvind Kejriwal shares dubious report crediting him for Rishi Sunak’s campaign strategy appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Shinjinee Majumder.

Latest DEATH THREAT letter to all non Muslims who don’t follow ALLAH.

Is this TRUTH or PROPAGANDA? क़ौमी नफ़रत का सत्य या झूठी कहानी?

Dear Comrades, now who is provoking them? Should we tell this TRUTH or cover it up like Kashmir Genocide of Hindus? pic.twitter.com/drNpTgPwiN

— Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri (@vivekagnihotri) April 13, 2022

Newsroom Post published an article based on Agnihotri’s tweet. “Vivek Agnihotri has brought to light a venomous letter,” wrote the outlet. (Archive link)

‘Pandits, leave Kashmir or get killed’: Vivek Agnihotri shares terror group’s ‘letter to kafirs’
| #KashmiriPandits |https://t.co/yaihli8arR

— Newsroom Post (@NewsroomPostCom) April 13, 2022

Similar reports were published by Amar Ujala and Lokmat News.

News18’s Amish Devgn anchored a show on Agnihotri’s tweet as “breaking news” and yelled to his audience – “Lashkar-e-Islam gives big threat”.

#BreakingNews
लश्कर-ए-इस्लाम ने कश्मीरी पंडितों को दी धमकी, कहा- “कश्मीर छोड़ें या धर्म बदलें”#AarPaar #Hindu #Secularism #SecularPolitics @AMISHDEVGAN pic.twitter.com/vNJCw8Ga8t

— News18 India (@News18India) April 13, 2022

Pro-BJP propaganda outlet OpIndia, while reporting on the killing of civilian Satish Kumar Singh in Kulgam, also claimed that the letter was issued by Lashkar-e-Islam.

Fact-check

Alt News found that one Vijay Raina tweeted the same letter a few hours before Vivek Agnihotri. Raina claimed that the letter was found in Veervan Pandit Colony in Baramulla and that it was “sent by post”.

Veervan Pandit Colony #Baramulla received threatening letter through post saying “Raliv, Galiv or Tchaliv” pic.twitter.com/6umZrxSoux

— Vijay Raina (@RealVijayRaina) April 13, 2022

This is the earliest tweet carrying the letter that Alt News could find. We spoke with Vijay Raina, who is a sarpanch of Kulgam. “I am in touch with Kashmiri Pandit settlements living in Kashmir under PM package jobs. I received the letter from a resident of Veervan colony in Baramulla district,” he said, adding that as per his knowledge, the letter was delivered by a postman.

Times Now reported on the letter that surfaced in Veervan colony. The outlet wrote, “Around 150-200 families of Kashmiri Hindus live in Baramulla, Veervan, who have secured government jobs in the Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Yojana under the rehabilitation scheme in the region.”

The report further said, “The threatening letter was delivered via post to the security detail of the colony on Tuesday evening” and added, “however, it doesn’t seem to be real, according to the police, given the fact that the said terrorist organisation’s existence is uncertain. The police assured that robust precautions and security measures have been put in place nonetheless.”

There are also certain red flags in the letter that raise doubts about its authenticity.

1. The letter is unsigned

The letter merely says “commander” at the end, without the name and signature of Lashkar-e-Islam’s commander.

2. Lashkar-e-Islam is misspelt

The word “Lashkar” is misspelt as “Lashker” in the letter. It is unimaginable that the outfit would misspell its own name on official letterhead. Pakistan banned Lashkar-e-Islam on June 30, 2008, and a government document that lists proscribed organisations gives the correct spelling – “Lashkar”. It is noteworthy that the outfit’s name transliterated in English is also written as “Lashkar-e-Islami”. This is the spelling given in the document below prepared by the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) of Pakistan. However, both “Islam” and “Islami” are used even on Pakistani government websites. This is not the case with “Lashker”. Readers are requested to check for themselves by searching “lashker” site:gov.pk on Google.

3. The logo on the top left corner of the letter is of Jamaat-e-Dawa Pakistan

On the left of the letterhead is a logo that belongs to a different terror group – Jamaat-e-Dawa (JuD). This outfit was banned by the United Nations in 2008 which recognised it as an alias of the proscribed Lashkar-e-Taiba terror group.

A simple reverse-image search (by cropping the logo from the viral letter) throws results revealing that the logo belongs to JuD. Furthermore, the Urdu text below the two swords in the circle (marked in black) itself reads “Jamaat-ud-Dawa Pakistan”.

We spoke with Pakistani journalist Zarrar Khuhro to corroborate Lashkar-e-Islam’s symbol. Khuhro shared with us a genuine letter issued by the outfit where its flag is spotted in the top right corner. It doesn’t match the symbol in the viral letter. Furthermore, this letter is in Urdu, it is signed and has a completely different letterhead that says “Lashkar-e-Islam”, not JuD.

The photo below, credited to AFP, shows a picture of the flag of Lashkar-e-Islam which is the same as the one on the letter shared by Khuhro.

In both the flags (the one in the letter shared by Khuhro and the one in the AFP image), the Urdu text in the middle says “Lashkar-e-Islam”.

4. A letter with identical letterhead was circulating in 2016

A similar letter claimed to have been issued by Lashkar-e-Islam in 2016 was published by DNA. This letter too showed the terror outfit threatening Kashmiri Pandits to leave Kashmir or face death. It also carries the logo of JuD on the left and misspells “Lashkar” as “Lashker”.

However, the main red flag in the 2016 letter is the incomplete greeting. It says, “Aa Salam Aalai Kum – wa Barkat e Ho” and omits the phrase “Wa Rahmat Ullahi” in between. The line should either have only been “As Salamu Alaikum” (peace be upon you) or the complete phrase “As Salamu Alaikum Wa Rahmat Ullahi Wa Barkatuh” (peace be upon you and mercy of Allah and blessings).

On August 7, 2016, Hindustan Times reported that the letter surfaced near the transit accommodation for government employees in South Kashmir. While the police confirmed the presence of the poster, Pulwama SP Rayees Mohammed Bhat said, “We believe it is a work of miscreants who want to create fear among the minority community.”

5. The letter has factual inaccuracies 

There is a portion in the letter that says, “We have started what was left unattended in 1990. We started this again with the killing of Kafir Nischal Jewellers and Kafir Bindaroo.”

Satpal Nischal, 70, was killed in January last year by militants in Srinagar “apparently for having obtained a certificate under the new domicile law, that allows people who have lived in Jammu and Kashmir for more than 15 years rights to purchase immovable property”. The Resistance Front (TRF) had taken responsibility for the attack. Nischal hailed from Gurdaspur, Punjab.

Pharmacy owner Makhan Lal Bindroo, 68, was killed in a series of attacks on minorities in J&K in October 2021. While the police did not identify any specific terror group, TRF had claimed responsibility for shooting Bindroo point-blank, reported India Today. Bindroo was a Kashmiri Pandit.

There are no reports that say Lashkar-e-Islam had claimed responsibility for either of the attacks mentioned in the letter.

The viral letter, therefore, appears to be dubious and not a genuine handiwork of Lashkar-e-Islam as claimed on social media.

The post Dubious letter claimed to be issued by Lashkar-e-Islam to threaten Kashmiri Pandits viral appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Mohammed Zubair.

Democracy defenders on Monday warned of ominous consequences as right-wing Hungarian President Viktor Orbán was overwhelmingly elected to his fourth term in a contest progressive observers said was unfairly stacked against the opposition.

"Hungary seems to have reached a point of no return."

Péter Márki-Zay, leader of the opposition United for Hungary alliance and mayor of the southeastern town of Hódmezővásárhely, said that "we never thought this would be the result. We knew in advance that it would be an extremely unequal fight. We do not dispute that Fidesz won this election. That this election was democratic and free is, of course, something we continue to dispute."

According to the National Election Office, with nearly 99% of ballots counted Orbán's Fidesz-led coalition won 53.3% of the vote, while United for Hungary—a big-tent alliance whose members ranged from the right-wing Jobbik party to Hungary's Green Party—had 34.9%. The far-right Our Homeland Movement nearly doubled its 2019 showing to 6.2%, passing the 5% threshold for parliamentary representation.

Preliminary results point to a two-thirds parliamentary supermajority for Fidesz, whose members will occupy 135 seats to United for Hungary's 56.

Edit Zgut, a political scientist at the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, told the Associated Press that "Hungary seems to have reached a point of no return," and that Orbán will now be empowered to move in an even more autocratic direction.

"The key lesson is that the playing field is tilted so much that it became almost impossible to replace Fidesz in elections," she added.

According to Progressive International:

Hungary held its last free and fair election 12 years ago, when Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party, together with its coalition partner KDNP, won a "supermajority" in the Hungarian parliament that enabled it to change the country's constitution.

Since then—and often under the protection of right-wing political forces in the European Union—Fidesz has slowly eroded the rule of law, democratic institutions, and the integrity of the electoral process...

Since 2010, the Fidesz-dominated parliament has approved over 700 changes to the electoral system—often without public consultation, despite resistance from opposition parties and notably during the Covid-19 state of emergency. Crucially, this included the gradual gerrymandering of electoral constituencies to favor Fidesz candidates.

Government control over the media has played a crucial role in perpetuating Fidesz's power. A report published last month by the International Press Institute (IPI) detailed how the government continues to "systematically erode media pluralism, muzzle what is left of the independent press, and manipulate the market to further entrench a dominant pro-government narrative."

"To achieve this unprecedented level of political control over the country's media ecosystem, Fidesz has pursued the most advanced model of media capture ever developed within the European Union," said IPI. "This process has involved the coordinated exploitation of legal, regulatory, and economic power to gain control over public media, concentrate private media in the hands of allies, and distort the market to the detriment of independent journalism."

This has led to fawning election coverage and disproportionate airtime for Orbán and marginalization of Márki-Zay, as well as what political commentator Péter Krekó called "an orgy of disinformation over Ukraine" to the point where many Hungarians believe the invaded nation started the war.

European leaders bristle at Orbán's warm personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, although the Hungarian leader did condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and vote along with the rest of the 27-nation European Union on economic sanctions.

Orbán relished his landslide victory, triumphantly declaring that "the whole world has seen tonight in Budapest that Christian democratic politics, conservative civic politics, and patriotic politics have won. We are telling Europe that this is not the past, this is the future."

"We won a victory so big that you can see it from the moon, and you can certainly see it from Brussels," he gloated, referring to the E.U. capital.

In addition to the Russia issue, the E.U. and Hungary have been at odds over the latter's human rights violations—especially against LGBTQ+ people, women, Roma, and migrants—and the erosion of democracy in the Central European nation of 9.75 million people.

Progressives hailed the failure of an anti-LGBTQ+ referendum modeled party on Russia's so-called "gay propaganda" law as a bright spot in Hungary's elections.

The Hungarian leader's anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, and other regressive policies and actions have won widespread admiration and support from right-wing leaders around the world, as well as from uber-conservative U.S. media personalities like Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who has repeatedly broadcast from Hungary.

In January, former U.S. President Donald Trump endorsed Orbán's reelection. The following month, Orbán hosted Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who called Hungary Brazil's "big little brother."

Orban's victory came on the same day that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić—another right-wing populist with close ties to Putin—was decisively reelected, avoiding a second-round runoff contest in the Balkan nation caught between its historically close relationship with Russia and its E.U. aspirations.

International observers also said that Serbia's elections were unfair, with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) alleging the contest was held on "an uneven playing field."

Kyriakos Hadjiyianni, special coordinator and leader of the OSCE short-term elections observers, said that "this was a competitive campaign and, importantly, included opposition candidates this time, but the pervasive influence of the ruling parties gave them undue advantage."

The conservative victories in Hungary and Serbia are likely to resonate with right-wing candidates in other European nations including France, where according to recent polling incumbent centrist President Emmanuel Macron holds a single-digit lead over far-right challenger Marine Le Pen in next week's first-round election.

Hungarian progressives vowed to keep fighting against the erosion of democracy, pointing to signs of hope like the election of left-wing activist András Jámbor to parliament.

"Our goal will not change: We want to reestablish the left in Hungary, to create the possibility of economic and political democracy," Szikra Mozgalom, or Spark Movement—Jámbor's party—tweeted. "We will continue to fight for everything we believe in and what András Jámbor now represents in parliament!"

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The viral letter was tweeted by lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha. This tweet gained over 1000 retweets.

Surprising:
Khalistan group “Sikhs for Justice” declares support for Aam Aadmi Party. pic.twitter.com/qRpw5gElun

— Shashank Shekhar Jha (@shashank_ssj) February 17, 2022

It was also posted by multiple verified social media users such as BJP’s Haryana IT cell head Arun Yadav, National Media In-charge at BJP’s youth wing BJYM Amandeep Singh, BJP leader Anirban Ganguly, National President Indian Youth Congress Srinivas BV, and author of the book ‘Narendra Modi Censored’ Ashok Shrivastav. It was also tweeted by Twitter handle @PollUpdateInd and CapitalTV India chief editor Manish Kumar.

Several Twitter and Facebook users have shared this document. Using CrowdTangle, a social media monitoring tool, we found that at least 20 Facebook users made this claim.

We used Google Lens to translate the viral letter to English. The letter allegedly declares that SJF has extended full support to AAP and their Punjab candidate CM Bhagwant Mann. It says if AAP is elected, SFJ’s goals will be revived. It is worth noting that in the second part, the letter claims the SFJ also supported AAP in 2017, during the previous Punjab assembly polls.

Fact-check

Zee News reporter Shivank Mishra uploaded a video of Pannun stating that SFJ hasn’t issued the viral letter. He even alleged that AAP is behind circulating this letter.

Fact Check : सिख फ़ॉर जस्टिस के नाम से वायरल किया जा रहा आम आदमी पार्टी को समर्थन देने वाला पत्र फ़र्ज़ी है…

खुद गुरपतवंत सिंह पन्नू ने इसके फ़र्ज़ी होने का ऐलान किया है. @BhagwantMann @ArvindKejriwal @AamAadmiParty @raghav_chadha pic.twitter.com/100ptq2nVr

— Shivank Mishra (@shivank_8mishra) February 17, 2022

The viral letter was shared on social media on February 17. Punjab-based journalist Taruni Gandhi tweeted SFJ had released only one letter on February 17 that called for a ‘Rail Roko’ protest to honour actor-activist late Deep Sidhu. She also pointed out that there are differences between the viral letter and the genuine ‘Rail Roko’ letter.

I think Sikh for Justice released only one letter today saying #RailRoko. So far this letter regarding AAP is concerned from SFJ, it needs factcheck. Anyhow here are two letters, anyone can make out the difference. @AamAadmiParty @AartiTikoo @srinivasiyc pic.twitter.com/k5Rkktrnxs

— Taruni Gandhi (@TaruniGandhi) February 17, 2022

Taruni told Alt News, “Pannun sent an email to me and several journalists from Punjab where the February 17 letter regarding late Deep Sidhu was attached along with a video. Based on the letter in the email, we can say that the viral letter targeting AAP is not authentic. To the best of my knowledge, his letters are in English.”

The screenshot below was shared by Taruni. It highlights Pannun’s email ID as the sender (top left), the date of the email sent (top right) and the attached letter about ‘Rail Roko’ protest (arrow). We have omitted personal details from this screenshot.

We found two more SFJ letters – one from June 2020 which was tweeted by Congress leader Ravneet Singh Bittu, and the other from last year which was posted by The Hindu’s Jatin Anand.

Upon comparing the viral letter with the three genuine SFJ letters (2022, 2021, 2020), Alt News noticed abnormalities in:

1. Letterhead
2. Left margin

Letterhead

SFJ letters included three links — sikhsforjustice.org, referendum2020.org, facebook.com/sikhsforjusticepage  — just beneath the addresses mentioned in the letterhead. However, that’s not the case with the viral letter.

Left alignment

The body of the letter is misaligned in the viral letter. It goes beyond the green line. In all the three genuine letters, the body does cross over to the left of the ‘Sikhs For Justice’ logo.

It is worth noting that the second part of the viral letter claims SFJ supported AAP in 2017, however, Hindustan Times had reported just the year before that SFJ had lodged a formal complaint against AAP with the Canadian foreign affairs minister asking the federal government to intervene with respect to AAP’s election-related activities within Canada and block the proposed visit of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal to the country.

To sum it up, a dubious letter alleges that banned outfit ‘Sikhs For Justice’ extended support to AAP. It was shared on social media by several users, including BJP and Congress leaders and members.

The post BJP, Congress members share dubious ‘Sikhs For Justice’ letter supporting AAP in Punjab appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Archit Mehta.