Hong Kong’s Challenge to Xi Jinping’s Iron Rule

The Editorial Board

The New York Times: The Chinese government says the Hong Kong demonstrators are radicals using “conduct close to terrorism” to wrest their home back into the Western camp. But terrorists and zealots rarely apologize for violence or promise to learn from their mistakes.

No, the protesters in Hong Kong are not the small band of pro-Western troublemakers who Beijing wants the world to see, however wrong their moment of violence at the Hong Kong airport on Tuesday was. They are young people, a great many of them, who ardently don’t want to come further under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communists.

That’s not hard to understand, given how China has treated its dissidents and ethnic minorities like the Uighurs or Tibetans. But the authorities in Beijing understand something else: The protests are no local matter, but a direct challenge to the Communist Party’s control. The broad demands for more self-rule, as well as for investigations into the police’s use of force, strike at the very heart of the party’s fiercely held monopoly on power and coercive violence.

In earlier times, when China was more secluded from the world, Beijing might not have hesitated to go in and crack down on the protests, as it did at Tiananmen Square 30 years ago. But China today is a global economic power, and any direct intervention in Hong Kong would have global consequences, especially at a time when Beijing is already embroiled in a nasty tariff war with the Trump administration. So far, China has limited its reactions to disinformation and threats.

Yet Hong Kong poses an intolerable affront for a leader as stern and unyielding as Xi Jinping, who has steadily sought to increase China’s control over the troublesome enclave and bristles at any Western criticism. An editorial in Global Times, an outlet for the leadership’s views, described the Hong Kong protests as a “color revolution” by radicals determined to turn the city into a “base for the West to subvert China’s political system.”

In the beginning, when the protests focused on legislation that would have made Hong Kong residents vulnerable to extradition to the mainland and its politicized courts, Beijing was willing to retreat. The Hong Kong government eventually backed off from, but never killed, the bill, and the protests swelled into a leaderless, passionate, social-media-driven uprising essentially encompassing the city’s future and its character.

Over Monday and Tuesday, the protesters went too far. Thousands descended on the Hong Kong airport, seriously disrupting operations, scuffling with travelers and beating at least two men from China. At one fraught moment, a riot police officer cornered by protesters drew his gun but did not fire.

By the standards of more violent corners of the world, it was not a terrible clash. But Hong Kong’s role as a financial, commercial and transportation hub rests on its reputation for order and efficiency and the openness and politeness of its people. The scenes of chaos and violence at its normally impeccable airport threatened a huge disruption of the city’s economy, and came as a shock even to the demonstrators.

On Wednesday, contrite protesters came out with apologetic posters and posts. “Please accept our sincere apology to all travelers, press reporters, paramedics,” read one. “We will learn from our mistakes.”

The difficulty now is to ensure that the eruption of violence at the airport not be a point of no return, after which Mr. Xi concludes he has no choice but to react, but rather a shock that drives both sides back from the precipice. The United States and its allies have a distinct interest in the latter.

For that to happen, Carrie Lam, the leader of Hong Kong, and her superiors in Beijing must show restraint and convince the people of Hong Kong that they will not further erode the citizens’ rights and liberties, enshrined until 2047 in a treaty with Britain. President Trump, who has so far limited his reaction to saying, “Everyone should be calm and safe,” should join with Britain and other allies in insisting that China honor Hong Kong’s special status, and in making clear that any use of armed force to crush dissent would lead to stern and certain sanctions.

The Borowitz Report, The New Yorker: After rebuffing Donald J. Trump’s hypothetical proposal to purchase Greenland, the government of Denmark has announced that it would be interested in buying the United States instead.

“As we have stated, Greenland is not for sale,” a spokesperson for the Danish government said on Friday. “We have noted, however, that during the Trump regime pretty much everything in the United States, including its government, has most definitely been for sale.”

“Denmark would be interested in purchasing the United States in its entirety, with the exception of its government,” the spokesperson added.

A key provision of the purchase offer, the spokesperson said, would be the relocation of Donald Trump to another country “to be determined,” with Russia and North Korea cited as possible destinations.

If Denmark’s bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. “We believe that, by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a vast land mass into a great nation,” the spokesperson said.

Andy Borowitz is a Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes The Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the 

Russia Gains Stranglehold Over Persian Gulf

Oil Price: In a potentially catastrophic escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf, Russia plans to use Iran’s ports in Bandar-e-Bushehr and Chabahar as forward military bases for warships and nuclear submarines, guarded by hundreds of Special Forces troops under the guise of ‘military advisers’, and an airbase near Bandar-e-Bushehr as a hub for 35 Sukhoi Su-57 fighter planes OilPrice.com has exclusively been told by senior sources close to the Iranian regime. The next round of joint military exercises in the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Hormuz will mark the onset of this in-situ military expansion in Iran, as the Russian ships involved will be allowed by Iran to use the facilities in Bandar-e-Bushehr and Chabahar. Depending on the practical strength of domestic and international reaction to this, these ships and Spetsntaz will remain in place and will be expanded in numbers over the next 50 years.

This gradual roll-out of Russian capability in a country is the Kremlin’s tried and tested operating procedure for leveraging economic and/or political support for a country into that country allowing itself to be used as, effectively, one large multi-level forward military base for Russia. Exactly the same plan was used, and remains in place, in Syria, with Russia maintaining a massive army presence in and around Latakia, Syria, despite having repeatedly made assurances that it was to withdraw from this military theatre. In the early stages, these troops – again, in reality all Spetsnatz foreign operatives – appeared in the guise of military advisers and to provide ‘security staff’ for the huge Russian Khmeimim Air Base and the S-400 Triumf missile system in place in and around Latakia. This Russian presence was later duly expanded and formalised under an agreement signed with Syria in January 2017, which allowed Russia to continue its operations in Latakia and also to utilise the naval facility at Tartus for the next 49 years. This is precisely the format of agreement that has been agreed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the last few days, despite muted protest from the broadly pro-JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) nuclear deal allies of President Hassan Rouhani.

Given how poorly Iran has fared in its recent dealings with Russia – most notably over its Caspian Sea oil and gas rights– Iran’s decision to go ahead with this latest deal may seem surprising to many but is the product of two key reasons. First, Iran has no other choice of a potential geopolitical ally in its current fight against sanction-induced economic austerity and political marginalisation. There are only five Permanent Members on the United Nations Security Council: the U.S. (the prime mover against Iran), the U.K. and France (both toeing the U.S. line), China (whose support ebbs and flows according to its own agenda), and Russia. “If you have no means of getting food from the supermarket ten miles away then you have no choice but to shop at the store around the corner, no matter how crappy it is,” one senior Iran source told OilPrice.com last week.

The second reason is that President Rouhani and his broadly moderate pro-West, pro-JCPOA supporters have lost the confidence of many who voted for him due to his inability to deliver the economic prosperity that he promised would result from the nuclear deal agreed in 2015 and implemented on 16 January 2016. “This includes [Supreme Leader, Ali] Khamenei, who supported Rouhani for the first few years but now has no choice but to go along with the IRGC’s recommendations, and this Russia deal is at the forefront of these,” said a senior Iran source.

Why is the IRGC backing this deal with Russia, given that its senior personnel are extremely capable people and hardened military officers, well aware of the trouble that the deal could create on a global scale? “Firstly, they [the IRGC] honestly believe that a corollary financial deal agreed with Russia last year is the only economic lifeline that Iran has that will stop it from falling into a popular revolutionary scenario, and the second reason is that some of the most senior figures in the IRGC also stand to gain monetarily by co-operating with Russia,” an Iran source told OilPrice.com last week. The cornerstone deal in question was part of a wide-ranging 22-point memorandum of understanding signed by Iran’s deputy petroleum minister, Amir-Hossein Zamaninia, and Russia’s deputy energy minister, Kirill Molodtsov, at the time covering closer co-operation between the two countries across the board.

For the oil and gas sector, specifically, it involved Russia giving US$50 billion per year every year for at least five years so it could complete its top priority oil and gas projects to Western standards, which was estimated to cost around US$250 billion. Another US$250 billion would then be available for the following five years for Iran to build-out the remainder of its economy. In exchange for this, Iran would give Russian companies preference in all future oil and gas field exploration and development deals, to add to the seven already agreed at that time. These included: Zarubezhneft for Aban and Paydar-e Gharb, Lukoil for Ab Teymour and Mansouri, GazpromNeft for Changouleh and Cheshmeh-Khosh, and Tatneft for Dehloran. In addition – and crucial for what is now in view militarily – Iran also agreed to buy Russia’s S-400 missile defence system, to allow Russia to expand its number of listening posts in Iran, and to double the number of senior ranking IRGC officers that are seconded in Moscow for ongoing training, to between 120 and 130.

The deal also ensured that there was a clause not allowing Iran to impose any penalties on any Russian development firm for slow progress on any field for 10 years, including not being able to re-offer these fields in new bidding rounds even if no progress at all was being made. Over the 10-year period the Russians would have the right to dictate exactly how much oil was produced from each field (to the barrel), when it was sold (to the day), to whom it was sold (by company), and for how much it was sold (to the cent). “Added to this is the fact that within the contracts there was another killer clause: Russia had the right to be able to buy all of the oil – or gas – being produced from fields that their companies were supposedly developing at 55 to 72 per cent of its open market value, for the next 10 years,” said one of the Iran sources. In just the last week as well, Russia – despite it swindling Iran out of its arguably rightful share of Caspian Sea resources – has offered to extract oil and gas from Iran’s sector in the Caspian and sell supplies on in the international markets >>>

Militarization Has Become Our National Religion

By William Astore

The Nation: When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I looked to the heavens: to God and Christianity (as arbitrated by the Catholic Church) and to the soaring warbirds of the US military, which I believed kept us safe. To my mind then, they were classic manifestations of American technological superiority over the godless communists.

With all its scandals, especially when it came to priestly sexual abuse, I lost my faith in the Catholic Church. I would later learn that there had been a predatory priest in my parish when I was young, a grim man who made me uneasy at the time, though back then I couldn’t have told you why. As for those warbirds, like so many Americans, I thrilled to their roar at air shows but never gave any real thought to the bombs they were dropping in Vietnam and elsewhere, to the lives they were ending, to the destruction they were causing. Nor at that age did I ever consider their enormous cost in dollars or just how much Americans collectively sacrificed to have top cover, whether of the warplane or godly kind.

There were good and devoted priests in my Catholic diocese. There were good and devoted public servants in the US military. Admittedly, I never seriously considered the priesthood, but I did sign up for the Air Force, surprising myself by serving in it for 20 years. Still, both institutions were then—and remain—deeply flawed. Both seek, in a phrase the Air Force has long used, global reach, global power. Both remain hierarchies that regularly promote true believers to positions of authority. Both demand ultimate obedience. Both sweep their sins under the rug. Neither can pass an audit. Both are characterized by secrecy. Both seem remarkably immune to serious efforts at reform. And both, above all, know how to preserve their own power, even as they posture and proselytize about serving a higher one.

However, let me not focus here on the one “holy catholic and apostolic church,” words taken from the profession of faith I recited during mass each week in my youth. I’d prefer to focus instead on that other American holy church, the US military, with all its wars and weapons, its worshipers and wingmen, together with its vision of global dominance that just happens to include end-of-world scenarios as apocalyptic as those of any imaginable church of true believers. I’m referring, of course, to our country’s staggeringly large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, just now being updated—the term seems to be “modernized”—to the tune of something like $1.7 trillion over the decades to come.

A Profession of 21st Century All-American Faith

“Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value” is a telling phrase linked to Joe Biden. And in those terms, there’s no question what the US government values most: its military, to the tune of almost $1.5 trillion over the next two years (although the real number may well exceed $2 trillion). Republicans and Democrats agree on little these days, except support for spending on that military, its weaponry, its wars to come, and related national security state outlays.

In that context, I’ve been wondering what kind of profession of faith we might have to recite if there were the equivalent of mass for what has increasingly become our military church. What would it look like? Who and what would we say we believed in? As a lapsed Catholic with a lot of practice in my youth professing my faith in the church, as well as a retired military officer and historian, I have a few ideas about what such a profession might look like:

* We believe in wars. We may no longer believe in formal declarations of war (not since December 1941 has Congress made one in our name), but that sure hasn’t stopped us from waging them. From Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan to Iraq, the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, and so many military interventions in between, including Grenada, Panama, and Somalia, Americans are always fighting somewhere as if we saw great utility in thumbing our noses at the Prince of Peace. (That’s Jesus Christ, if I remember my Catholic catechism correctly.)

* We believe in weaponry, the more expensive the better. The underperforming F-35 stealth fighter may cost $1.45 trillion over its lifetime. An updated nuclear triad (land-based missiles, nuclear submarines, and strategic bombers) may cost that already mentioned $1.7 trillion. New (and malfunctioning) aircraft carriers cost us more than $10 billion each. And all such weaponry requests get funded, with few questions asked, despite a history of their redundancy, ridiculously high price, regular cost overruns, and mediocre performance. Meanwhile, Americans squabble bitterly over a few hundred million dollars for the arts and humanities.

* We believe in weapons of mass destruction. We believe in them so strongly that we’re jealous of anyone nibbling at our near monopoly. As a result, we work overtime to ensure that infidels and atheists (that is, the Iranians and North Koreans, among others) don’t get them. In historical terms, no country has devoted more research or money to deadly nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry than the United States. In that sense, we’ve truly put our money where our mouths are (and where a devastating future might be).

* We believe with missionary zeal in our military and seek to establish our “faith” everywhere. Hence our global network of perhaps 800 overseas military bases. We don’t hesitate to deploy our elite missionaries, our equivalent to the Jesuits, the Special Operations forces, to more than 130 countries annually. Similarly, the foundation for what we like to call foreign assistance is often military training and foreign military sales. Our present supreme leader, Pope Donald I, boasts of military sales across the globe, most notably to the infidel Saudis. Even when Congress makes what, until recently, was the rarest of attempts to rein in this deadly trade in arms, Pope Donald vetoes it. His rationale: Weapons and profits should rule all  >>>

America’s mental illness is guns

The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial 

Rattlesnakes are only poisonous if you think they are.

Women can stop their bodies from getting pregnant as a result of rape.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is prohibited from computerizing gun sale records into a searchable database that would allow them to easily trace guns used in crimes.

All of these statements are insane. And one of them is true: the ATF is forced to rely on primitive digital records on gun sales, forcing a cumbersome search, via paper or phone, whenever a gun used in a crime is investigated. Because gun owners want privacy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, charged with our public health and safety, is prohibited by law (and lack of funding) from using its budget to research gun violence. The strict language is that research can’t argue for gun control, even if data suggests homicides increase in houses that have guns. Denying that gun violence — responsible for 30,000 deaths a year — is a public health problem is like saying cancer can be cured by the application of leeches.

When it comes to guns, we are expected to disbelieve everything that our own eyes — and our broken hearts — tell us.

When the mass shootings like those last week in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, occur, the talk quickly turns to mental illness. That isn’t wrong, but the true insanity is the outrageous things the NRA and its followers keep expecting us to swallow.

The fact is, our mental illness is guns.

Poll after poll points to huge numbers of American in favor of gun control laws to minimize the chance of mass slaughters. The majority support expanded background checks that close the loopholes that allow anyone, whatever their criminal history, to purchase a gun at a gun show or from a private dealer.

There is widespread support for heavier regulation of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. But mass murder after mass murder, Congress has done nothing.

The two mass shootings last weekend have given some people hope that this might be the “tipping point.” President Trump is indicating support for expanded background checks though with few concrete details. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is making similar noises.

We’d have more optimism if there was also noise being made to bring Congress back from its current recess, to start taking action now.

Also on the table is a “red flag” bill — Cease Fire PA prefers the term “extreme risk protection order bill” — through which family members or members of law enforcement can temporarily take guns away from someone in crisis. This, too, could help.

But a ban or heavier regulation of assault-style and military weapons that wreak so much human devastation? Not a whisper. And limiting the high-capacity magazines that are allowed to mow down lots of people? Not a peep.

It might be crazy to believe that things will change, given our violent history and Congress’ history of inaction. But so is surrendering to the idea that the interpretation of a 228-year-old amendment is more important than human life.

Jewish Groups Condemn Israel For Denying Omar, Tlaib Entry

Newsweek: The decision by Israel Thursday to ban two Muslim congresswomen from entering the country after tweets from President Donald Trump led some Jewish groups to lambast the decision.

The move to not allow Representatives Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan to visit would only exacerbate current divisions between the minority Democrats and the Jewish state and forgo them the opportunity to better understand the country and its people, argued several Jewish advocacy and lobbying groups with varying political ideologies.

"The fact that the U.S. president would urge the Israeli prime minister to bar members of Congress really does a disservice to this bilateral relationship and is yet another attempt by President Trump to politicize this relationship," Halie Soifer, executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, told Newsweek.

She called the move "unprecedented" and said that "never before have U.S. members of Congress been barred from entering Israel."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to ban Omar—who was accused of and condemned for making anti-Semitic tropes earlier this year—and Tlaib for "planning a journey with the sole target of strengthening" the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, highlighting the lawmakers' lack of intention to meet with Israeli officials.

BDS promotes boycotting the country over disputed territories, including the West Bank, and ongoing conflicts with Palestine. The ban was implemented despite Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer saying last week they would not bar any lawmakers from entering.

Omar said in a statement it was an "affront" that they would not be able to enter the country, adding that, with her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, it's "both an insult to Democratic values and a chilling response to a visit by government officials from an allied nation."

"Denying entry into Israel not only limits our ability to learn from Israelis, but also to enter the Palestinian territories," Omar added.

In a tweet, Tlaib categorized the ban as "a sign of weakness."

The lobbying and advocacy group American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or better known as AIPAC, said that while they, too, disagree with Omar and Talib's policy stances and calls for a one-state solution, they "believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand." Omar has been critical of AIPAC in the past.

Jewish Voice for Peace, a progressive group, categorized Israel's move as part of its "increasingly authoritarian policies."

Omar and Tlaib have been highly critical of Israel and were planning a trip with a Palestinian-led nonprofit to visit various Israeli cities and the West Bank—where Tlaib has family—and to meet with members of the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu's announcement came just after a morning tweet from Trump, in which he stated it would show "great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit."

"They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds," the president wrote, who previously told the minority women and other outspoken freshmen Democrats to "go back" to the countries they came from. "Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!"

Soifer and other Jewish groups argued that banning the congresswomen is "counterproductive." But she went a step further to say it "plays into Trump's goal of politicizing support for Israel." Soifer made it clear that her group has "vocally disagreed" with Omar and Tlaib on their decisions to support BDS and to side with Palestine over Israel on policy matters. But she stressed that, without them being able to visit, the lawmakers would miss out on experiencing the culture and interacting with Israeli citizens.

"It is important that they have this opportunity to see the facts on the ground. It is critical to actually live it and to see the realities that Israelis and Palestinians live with each day. A willingness to listen and experience and learn is important for any individual, especially members of Congress. That is, in effect, why members travel," Soifer said. "Now, do I think it would have changed their views? I don't know. I don't know. But it at least would have helped to inform them."

The advocacy group American Jewish Committee (AJC) labeled Omar and Tlaib's trip as "not a fact-finding mission, but rather a propaganda exercise" because of the lack of Israeli officials they planned to meet with. However, AJC made a similar argument about why the congresswomen should not be barred from entering the Middle Eastern nation, saying the right thing to do would have been to adhere to the original plan and allow them to visit.

"AJC believes that, out of two less-than-ideal options, neither of which was risk-free, Israel did not choose wisely by reversing its original decision," the group said in a statement. "While we fully respect Israel's sovereign right to control entry into the country, a right that every nation employs, and while we are under no illusions about the implacably hostile views of Reps. Omar and Tlaib on Israel-related issues, we nonetheless believe that the costs in the U.S. of barring the entry of two members of Congress may prove even higher than the alternative."

Republican Senator Marco Rubio of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote on Twitter that while he disagrees "100% with Reps. Tlaib & Omar on #Israel," denying them entry "is a mistake."

"Being blocked is what they really hoped for all along in order to bolster their attacks against the Jewish state," Rubio claimed.

Many Democrats in Congress, ranging from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to rank-and-file members, also condemned Trump and Israel.

Trump’s Policy Could Alter the Face of the American Immigrant

The New York Times: The Trump administration has said the immigration overhaul it announced this week will ensure that new legal residents carry their own weight, without prejudice or favor. Yet the new rule for weeding out those who might be a drain on taxpayers will almost certainly disadvantage poor people from Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia.

Over time, people who are granted green cards — the major step toward winning citizenship — will become wealthier but their numbers will shrink, researchers predicted. More green cards will go to immigrants with a good education and a measure of self-sufficiency; fewer will be granted simply because someone has a family member in the United States.

Immigrants from Europe and Canada are least likely to face problems under the new regulations, according to one study, which found that, by contrast, nearly three-quarters of recent arrivals from Mexico and the Caribbean have relatively modest incomes that would jeopardize their chances at a green card.

“Never before in our history have we closed off the American dream to strivers who aren’t already middle class,” said Doug Rand, who worked on immigration policy in the Obama White House and co-founded a technology company that helps immigrants obtain green cards. “This is an attempt to turn back the clock and dramatically change the face of new Americans.”

Get what you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox.
The so-called public charge rule, which denies green cards to immigrants deemed likely to be heavy welfare users, represents a fundamental shift for a nation that has long welcomed impoverished immigrants from around the world who seek a fresh start in a country with more opportunity than where they came from.

There has always been a mix of immigrants, some arriving with skills and investment to make, while others bring little education or money. Immigrants seeking to live and work in the United States permanently may be engineers or construction workers, web designers or farmers, truck drivers or college students.

The new rule — pushed by the White House adviser Stephen Miller as a critical piece of President Trump’s America First immigration agenda — aims to reshape that immigrant community. Its backers want fewer poor people who might require public housing and food assistance. They want to turn away sick people whose maladies may end up requiring costly Medicaid services, paid for by the government. And they want to discourage those whose lack of English proficiency could hold them back from succeeding in a competitive economy.

“Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge,’” Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, said bluntly on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” adapting the poem on the Statue of Liberty to a more Trumpian view of the country’s duty to immigrants.

Asked later by CNN whether that meant that the Statue of Liberty’s historical invitation to “wretched, poor” immigrants was off the table, Mr. Cuccinelli clarified. “Well, of course, that poem was referring back to people coming from Europe,” he said, “where they had class-based societies, where people were considered wretched if they weren’t in the right class.” >>>

Boris Johnson: No Healer of Nations 

The Humanist: In the new trend of undemocratically electing heads of state, the United States and the United Kingdom seem to be on the vanguard of how far comparable governments can go. It would be a lie to say the past few years haven’t felt like a race-to-the-bottom with regard to intolerance and bigotry.

Brexit preceded the election of Donald Trump to the presidency by just a few months. At Brexit’s center were far-right champions, including Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Matthew Elliott, and former London mayor Boris Johnson. Johnson became foreign secretary under Prime Minister Theresa May. As a top-tier Brexit-trumpeter, Johnson’s role as the UK’s top diplomat was disconcerting. Now that he is prime minister, a second referendum is entirely out of the question, and the road to Brexit will continue to be rocky.

Johnson, painted as a charming subversive by the nation’s media, campaigned aggressively for the UK to leave the European Union (EU). He famously campaigned for the leave option, saying that the UK would divert funds the country currently gives to the EU to the National Health Service. Johnson wasn’t penalized for plastering the inaccurate and misleading claim across the side of the bus.

The major promise of newly minted Prime Minister Johnson is a “do or die” Brexit by October 31 of this year. How Johnson proceeds with successfully executing Brexit, and what style of Brexit it will be (no-deal, soft exit, hard exit, etc.) will be something to pay close attention to in the coming months. Naming a deadline means that, like May’s previous Brexit proceedings, decisions will be rushed and necessary negotiation pieces will fall to the wayside in order to meet the aptly spooky October 31 deadline.

Everything about Johnson just speaks chaos, from his policy stances to his attire, to the fact that he actively reminded dignitaries from Myanmar of British colonial rule by reciting a Rudyard Kipling poem with strong racial undertones. He certainly was not reciting “The Road to Mandalay” out of respect.

It is worth noting the parallels between Trump and Johnson. Both, it could be argued, came to power undemocratically. Both make a spectacle of themselves and their country in media appearances. Both have unique hairstyles. However, the most notable is their shared history of anti-Muslim and xenophobic statements.

John Oliver had a recent segment about Johnson that explored the potential hazards of the UK’s new leader. Oliver detailed the tactics Johnson uses to present his deplorable policies in a charming manner. The Last Week Tonight segment touched on how Johnson wants to look like a mess, with eccentric, chaotic outfits and ruffled hair, as a means to distract from his problematic views.

Johnson’s comments range from calling Islamophobia a natural reaction, to claiming Islam is “the most viciously sectarian of all religions” to a book he wrote where he claimed that “Muslim grievance” was a factor in the demise of the Roman Empire, apparently proving that Islam directly contradicts Western ways of life.

In a 2007 essay titled “And Then Came the Muslims,” Johnson laments that Islam is countercurrent to progress and the spread of democracy:

    There must be something about Islam that indeed helps to explain why there was no rise of the bourgeoisie, no liberal capitalism, and therefore no spread of democracy in the Muslim world.

    It is extraordinary to think that under the Roman/Byzantine Empire, the city of Constantinople kept the candle of learning alight for a thousand years, and that under Ottoman rule, the first printing press was not seen in Istanbul until the middle of the nineteenth century. Something caused them to be literally centuries behind.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the nightmarish iceberg. Johnson’s strategic calculation paired with his bigoted sentiment make him a threat to democracies the world over. Even dismissing his comments in the face of his intentional buffoonery, there is a scary level of sociopathy underlying Johnson. The fact that he is well aware of the chaos of his actions makes him a great danger, not a healer. His actions are intentional and much more malice-driven than May’s, which does not bode well for the United Kingdom.

However, the control he has over policy may quickly dwindle. The Conservatives, Johnson’s political party, lost the country’s most recent special election, which means that the coalition that granted Johnson the ability to become prime minister and form a government now only holds one seat. Johnson’s window to make Brexit a reality may be closing fast. The UK may have a second referendum option if a new election is forced. However, Johnson’s government may act very swiftly and messily to bring about Brexit, which will cause ample collateral damage today and further down the road.

Sam Gerard is the Member Services Assistant at the American Humanist Association. 

Italy's Hitler

VATICAN CITY (Church Militant) - Pope Francis is again slamming Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini over his "Italians first" platform, comparing the right-wing leader's rhetoric to that of the Nazi regime.

"I am concerned because we hear speeches that resemble those of Hitler in 1934," Francis told Italian newspaper La Stampa on Friday. "'Us first. We … We …' These are frightening thoughts."

The Pope also denounced Salvini's defense of Italy's national sovereignty, calling it "an attitude of isolation."

"Sovereignism means being closed," said the pontiff. "A country should be sovereign but not closed. Sovereignty must be defended, but relations with other countries and with the European community must also be protected and promoted. Sovereignism is an exaggeration that always ends badly: it leads to war."

Francis went on to characterize migration as a pro-life issue:

First of all, never forget the most important right of all: the right to life. The immigrants arrive mainly to escape from war or hunger, from the Middle East and from Africa. On the war, we must engage and fight for peace. Hunger mainly concerns Africa. The African continent is the victim of a cruel curse: in the collective imagination it seems to be exploited. Instead, part of the solution is to invest there to help solve their problems and stop migratory flows.

"Criteria must be followed," Francis continued. "First: to receive, which is also a Christian, evangelical task. Doors must be opened, not closed. Second: to accompany. Third: to promote. Fourth: to integrate." 

Roughly 700,000 migrants have entered Italy since 2013.

"At the same time, governments must think and act prudently, which is a virtue of governments," the Pope added. "Those in charge are called to think about how many migrants they can take in."

Roughly 700,000 migrants have entered Italy since 2013. The influx has sparked a growing backlash, with Salvini and other populist leaders arguing the country cannot sustain additional inflows.

Francis' comments came just a day after Salvini called for snap elections in a bid to decouple his Lega party from the Five Star Movement, an anti-establishment coalition partner whose popularity among Italian voters is waning.

Buoyed by the deputy prime minister's resolute opposition to mass Muslim migration, Lega has been surging in the polls in recent months, and a new election could propel it across the 40% threshold to become Italy's lone governing party.

The Pope's remarks are the latest in a volley of criticism directed against Salvini by Vatican officials and prominent Italian Catholic leftists.

In June, Francis compared Salvini to Cain, the Old Testament figure who murdered his brother Abel.

In May, after Salvini publicly entrusted Italy to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at a rally in Milan, Vatican Secretary of State Cdl. Pietro Parolin chided the deputy prime minister: "I believe partisan politics divides, but God belongs to everyone. Invoking God for oneself is always very dangerous."

The next day, Bp. Domenico Mogavero, head of the judicial affairs panel of the Italian bishops' conference, issued his own condemnation: "We can no longer allow (people) to appropriate the sacred signs of our faith to peddle their inhuman, anti-historic views, diametrically opposed to the Gospel message. Those who are with him cannot call themselves Christian because they have reneged on the commandment of love."

In March, reports in the Italian press indicated that Pope Francis refuses to meet with Salvini, owing to his stance on migration.

In July 2018, Famiglia Cristiana, Italy's largest Catholic publication, ran a cover story comparing Salvini to Satan.

That same month, during a homily inside the crypt of St. Peter's Basilica, Italian priest Fr. Alex Zanotelli declared the deputy prime minister to be "the Antichrist."

In spite of ongoing criticism, Salvini is unbowed. His unyielding stance on migration has made him the country's most trusted political leader.

Support for Pope Francis, meanwhile, is eroding across Italy — a slump attributed to his support for the European Union's open-door migration policy.

"Many Catholics no longer perceive the Holy Father as a spiritual leader," said Oliviero Forti, head of migration services for Caritas Italy. "On the contrary, in some cases, he is even accused of being too far from the problems that people face."

How conspiracy theories spread after financier's death

BBC: Just hours after the high-profile financier Jeffrey Epstein was found dead on Saturday, unsubstantiated theories about his death began to gain traction online.

Epstein, who was set to stand trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, killed himself in his jail cell in New York, prison officials said. He was accused of running a "vast network" of underage girls for sex, and pleaded not guilty to the charges last month.

The 66-year-old was known to court famous friends and acquaintances. President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and the UK's Prince Andrew all had ties to him. Some of his powerful associates have been embroiled in the allegations against him, which has only served to fuel the conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Many rumours have centred on what politicians may have known about Epstein's alleged crimes and whether some may have wanted him dead. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this was the case. And yet, the hashtag #EpsteinMurder trended worldwide on Saturday.

Joke images and memes - suggesting everything from a faked suicide to an orchestrated hit-job - were shared thousands of times throughout the day. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were rife with unfounded theories about what may have happened to the financier.

This wild speculation was not confined to a fringe minority - far from it. Politicians and high-profile journalists also stoked rampant speculation at a time when little information was publicly available. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tweeted:

"A guy who had information that would have destroyed rich and powerful men’s lives ends up dead in his jail cell. How predictably...Russian."

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said it was "way too convenient" that Epstein could no longer incriminate others.

"What a lot of us want to know is, what did he know?" he told reporters. "How many other millionaires and billionaires were part of the illegal activities that he was engaged in?"

Questions like these alluded, without evidence, to a malevolent conspiracy and fed the feverish speculation on social media.

Further rumours centred on how a man who was found semi-conscious and with injuries to his neck just weeks earlier was able to take his own life. Initial reports said Epstein was placed on suicide watch after that incident in July, which led many people to ask how he could have died while being so closely monitored.

"What does the word watch mean in the phrase suicide watch?" tweeted President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giulani. "Who was watching?" He then said it was "inconceivable" Epstein could have taken his own life under those circumstances.

But prison officials later said Epstein had actually been taken off suicide watch prior to his death. Conspiracy theories then began to focus on why this decision was made, rather than how he was able to take his own life.

The speculation, as was the case throughout Saturday, appeared to shift and change with the few concrete details that were released >>>