More than 70k Afghan refugees may face deportation if Congress fails to act.

More than 70,000 Afghan refugees  who were evacuated to the US  after the Taliban takeover are at risk of losing their work permits and, far worse, could face deportation by this summer if congress fails to extend their stay with something called the Afghan Adjustment Act in time. These refugees worked with the US forces during our longest war, and they and their families would almost certainly face torture and death at the hands of the Taliban if they were sent back to Afghanistan. The fate of these people is almost never discussed in the highly repetitive news cycle in the US. Yet we not only recruited them in Afghanistan, but brought them here after the withdrawal of US forces. Then we failed to provide a path to citizenship for them, in stark contrast to the resettlement of former war refugees that stuck their necks out for the US such as those in Vietnam. A few members of congress  claim they were "not sufficiently vetted." This is not only untrue, but in order to settle them more vetting would be required anyway. Clearly they pose no risk, as we have heard nothing about terrorism plots that a few paranoid voices in politics and the media have occasionally warned about. They are victims and not perpetrators of terror. The real threat of terrorism here comes from our own radical Right, as emphasized on this blog regularly. 

A few days ago, PBS aired this interview with Krish Vignarajah, herself a refugee who runs the highly effective Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. It is a heartbreaking and enraging interview. These people really need our help. The US spreads death and destruction with impunity through its wars and interventions;  then consigns those who sincerely tried to help themselves and the US to oblivion-- or worse prolonged ordeals of torture. We  don't hear much about the aftermath of Afghanistan a year and a half after the US withdrawal.  If any of you are able, please consider making a donation to LIRS here or any other credible and effective charity that is helping this tragically neglected population. Here is the PBS interview with Krish Vignarajah:

News bits: Repubs blame regulators for bank failure; Trump launders money for Russkis

From the We All Knew This Was Going To Happen Files: The HuffPost writes:

Republicans Accept No Blame For Bank Failures After They Voted To Deregulate Banks

“Where were the regulators?” Sen John Kennedy (R-La.) said on the Senate floor. “This whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said, ‘Silicon Valley Bank, what you’re doing is dumb, and you can’t do it anymore.’”

Kennedy omitted a key detail from his remarks. He and the other members of the Senate Banking Committee — including several of the panel’s Democrats — wrote a bill in 2018 that told regulators they could relax their scrutiny of institutions like Silicon Valley Bank. (BuzzFeed, HuffPost’s parent company, banked with SVB.)

“The legislation that we passed did not eliminate liquidity stress testing,” Kennedy told HuffPost. “It did not eliminate the regulation at all of banks in that range.”

Kennedy is right — the law made enhanced prudential regulation optional instead of mandatory for mid-sized banks. But it wasn’t a mystery what regulators would do. Jerome Powell and Randy Quarles, the chairman and former top bank regulator at the Federal Reserve, told lawmakers during hearings on the legislation in 2018 that it would be a good idea to cut regional banks some slack.

“They had the tools available,” Sen Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told HuffPost. “The question is, why didn’t they use the tools?”

“It was an option,” Sen Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said. “And if they chose not to do it, that’s gonna be a really good question based on the activities of Silicon Valley.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said it’s not clear whether Silicon Valley Bank would have failed to meet the higher standards under Dodd-Frank. Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat behind the 2018 rollback, said Wednesday that regular bank oversight could have caught the problems.  

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who chaired the Senate Banking Committee in 2018 and was the lead author of the Dodd-Frank rollback, said Wednesday the bill had nothing to do with banks going belly-up.

“The fact is, this is not a capital issue. This is a liquidity issue,” Crapo said. “It’s an entirely different set of issues.”

Crackpottery pulse check: 

An example of why truth doesn't stand a chance

in the face of demagogic dark free speech 

Let's get this straight.

1. Radical right and regular conservative Republicans hate government and regulations. They claim that free markets always do better than regulations. So Republicans and neoliberal Democrats, who also hate business regulations, voted in 2018 to deregulate "medium sized" banks with assets up to $250 billion.

2. Democrats who support reasonable regulations opposed the 2018 deregulation and warned that some deregulated banks would collapse, just like they did in 2008. New regulations were put in place in 2008 after bank failures. Before that, the neoliberal Bill Clinton signed onto deregulating banks, which led to the 2008-2009 financial and housing disasters, ruining thousands of lives. 

3. In Nov. 2017, Trump, radical right and regular Republicans in congress put brass knuckles capitalist Jerome Powell in charge of the Federal Reserve. Once the 2018 deregulation law came online, Powell pushed bank deregulation as far as possible. Some experts argue he pushed deregulation farther than was legal. Powell and the entire GOP in congress hated and still hate bank regulations.

4. Elizabeth Warren says now in 2023: “If we hadn’t allowed the regulators the discretion to weaken bank regulations, then the regulations would not have been weakened. And if the regulations had not been weakened, there would have been tough stress tests on these banks. And we would have caught the problems at SVB.”

5. See how weak inconvenient truth and inconvenient reasoning are? The Repubs and Dems who deregulated, claims the regulations were not needed. Now, they blame the regulators, not themselves, for not regulating, even though their top regulators opposed regulating. This is completely nuts.

6. Despite being completely nuts, I bet that most, probably ~85%, of the radical right rank and file will fall for the deceit inherent in shifting blame onto regulators that the radical right elites put in charge of regulating banks. For a significant minority of Americans, e.g., nearly all radical right rank and file, neither truth nor sound reasoning stand a chance against ruthless dark free speech. 

7. Or, are the anti-regulation Repubs and Dems correct to argue that this is all the fault of those tyrant deep state, Godless socialist bureaucrats who refused to regulate? Notice the blatant illogic inherent in that reasoning? Radical right elites vehemently tell us that tyrant, deep state, Godless socialist bureaucrats are the ones who push for freedom-killing tyranny socialist deep state regulations. Is this "reasoning" is completely nuts, or not? (It's completely nuts)

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Trump is laundering money for the Russkis - MAGA!! for president 2024: Forbes writes:

A federal criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s media company Trump Media has expanded to include potential money laundering violations linked to an $8 million loan with Russian ties, the Guardian reported Wednesday, potentially further threatening the ex-president’s media company and its planned merger with special purpose acquisition company Digital World Acquisition Corp (DWAC).

Fortunately for us MAGA!!land residents, the ex-pres will probably not face any legal jeopardy. The law is not intended to apply to rich and/or powerful people like him. 

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Why the radical right targets corporate DEI and ESG: The NYT writes in a fact check and analysis article:

A growing chorus of [radical right] conservative pundits and politicians have said the failure of Silicon Valley Bank was the result of the bank’s “woke” policies, blaming the California lender’s commitments to workplace diversity and environmentally and socially conscious investments.

These claims are without merit. The bank’s collapse was due to financial missteps and a bank run.

Moreover, the firm’s policy on diversity, equity and inclusion — also known as D.E.I. — is similar to ones that have been broadly adopted in the banking sector. So is its approach to taking environmental and social considerations into account when investing — referred to as E.S.G. — although that has become a target of [radical right] conservatives.

In fact, Silicon Valley Bank is considered about average in the industry when it comes to these issues.

WHAT WAS SAID

“They were one of the most woke banks in their quest for the E.S.G.-type policy in investing.”
— Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky, in an appearance on Fox News on Sunday

FACT CHECK

This lacks evidence. First, experts have broadly agreed that the bank’s demise had little to do with “wokeness.” As The New York Times and others have explained, the collapse was due to a bank run precipitated by a decline in start-up funding, rising interest rates and the firm’s sale of government bonds at a huge loss to raise capital.

The bank’s loans to environmental and community projects “were not an important factor behind the collapse of SVB,” said Itay Goldstein, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “There is no immediate indication that these loans precipitated the run by investors.” 

Silicon Valley Bank also was not an outlier in its diversity goals or its E.S.G. investments.

What the animosity to DEI and ESG amounts to is a major front in the bigoted and racist Christian nationalist (CN) culture war. Core CN dogma is open bigotry or racism toward out-groups that God hates. What groups does God hate and demand to be subjugated and oppressed by wealthy, White heterosexual men? Mainly:

• Women

• The LGBQT community

• Non-White people

• Atheists and agnostics  

• Non-Christians and wrong-flavored Christians, e.g., pro-abortion and pro-church-state separation Christians and secularists generally

• Non-White immigrants, legal or not

• People who reject history rewritten into false narratives, e.g., lies about America being founded as a Christian nation or lies about Trump the Fornicator being chosen by God to lead America's moral re-enlightenment

Good 'ole CN. It's one heck of a dogma. Nasty to its morally rotted core.

Early days Christian nationalists

Christian nationalists at the 1/6 coup attempt

God chose the Fornicator to lead us to the

golden land of God's infallible self-righteousness

and deep hypocrisy 

News bits: 5th Circuit vindicates free speech; Christianity’s fight for tax revenues

The federal 5th circuit appeals court (TX, LA, AL) is often said by experts to be the most radical right of all the federal circuits. A recent decision indicates that it has not yet crossed a line where non-religious speech in public places can be suppressed while religious speech is allowed. I suspect that day is coming, but it's not here yet. This will be one of the trickiest things for Christian nationalism to pull off, but it is a cherished goal. 

The FFRF writes:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation today won its case before an appeals court against the Texas governor’s censorship of its Capitol display.

After Gov. Greg Abbott and the State Preservation Board blatantly and illegally censored FFRF’s display in the Texas Capitol in 2015, Abbott and the board have fought every step of the way to delay the ultimate resolution of FFRF’s now six-and-a-half-year lawsuit, engaging in protracted, entirely avoidable litigation at taxpayer expense.

FFRF, with help from members and with requisite permit and sponsorship by a legislator, had placed a Winter Solstice display in the Capitol building in December 2015 to counter a Christian nativity there. FFRF’s whimsical exhibit depicts the Founders and the Statue of Liberty celebrating the “birth” of the Bill of Rights (adopted on Dec. 15, 1791). Abbott, as chair of the Preservation Board, while permitting the Christian exhibit, ordered FFRF’s display removed only three days after it was erected, lambasting it as indecent, mocking and contributing to public immorality. FFRF initially won its lawsuit at the district court level in 2018.

Instead of allowing secular speech, Abbott closed the Texas capitol to all private speech. This tends to be the outcome when secularists move to match Christian displays on government property with secular displays. Instead of allowing hated secularism speech in public, the radical right usually shuts down all speech. This legal tactic has also successfully been employed by The Satanic Temple.

If the day ever comes when federal courts hold that religious speech is acceptable but secular speech is not, that will mark a major blow to secularism and democracy. This is a drawing of what Abbott called indecent, mocking and contributing to public immorality. 

Not indecent, mocking or 

contributing to public immorality

The state of Texas, or preferably Abbott personally, should be forced to pay for all of FFRF's legal fees plus ~10-fold higher punitive damages for blatantly illegal and frivolous litigation. FFRF is currently petitioning the court for attorney’s fees given the outrageousness of the lawsuit.

The FFRF states that its purpose is to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

A core goal of Christian nationalism (CN) is to gain access to more and more tax dollars over time. The effort has been ongoing in the courts for years. This goal ranks high along with killing abortion rights, discriminating against the LGBQT community and completely eliminating secular public education and replacing it with fundamentalist Christian education. The FFRF writes about a major CN advance in access to tax dollars and their use to replace secular public schools:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is appalled at Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signing legislation that will funnel over $340 million in taxpayer dollars to private, mostly religious schools.

The new law is an egregious decimation of the public school system in the name of “school choice.” The “Students First Act” creates an education savings account redirecting taxpayer funds to private school education. The newly enacted law makes these funds available to families who make 300 percent of the poverty income guidelines for the first year. The following year, the availability of the funds will be expanded to families making 400 percent of the poverty income guidelines. After that, the funds will be available to all families, regardless of income. Eventually, all Iowa families can use up to $7,598 a year for private school tuition.

In short, even if a family is fully financially capable of sending their children to private schools, and even if they have always planned to utilize private schools, they will soon be eligible to receive taxpayer-funded assistance for that purpose.

In addition to being bad policy, the law runs counter to the Iowa Constitution. Article 1, Section 3 of the Iowa Constitution states, “... nor shall any person be compelled to … pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.”

FFRF has long held that where public tax dollars go, public accountability must follow. But there will be little public accountability for funds going to these religiously segregated and unaccountable parochial schools.

“Forcing taxpayers to pay for the religious education of others is a fundamental violation of religious liberty,” comments FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. “Public education funds should be utilized solely for secular, public education.”

The Supreme Court has continued to erode church-state separation by allowing taxpayers to support religious schools, calling religious education free speech and religious activity such as prayer protected by the free exercise clause. By employing legal tactics to subvert the establishment clause, the radical right CN movement has significantly weakened the vitality of church-state separation. The establishment clause used to have power to keep the church away from tax revenues, but it is fading into legal irrelevance in view of radical CN Supreme Court decisions in recent years.[1]

Over time, it the US Supreme Court will narrow the scope of the establishment clause to the point of it being almost completely irrelevant. That outcome is a highly cherished, long-time CN goal.

Footnote: 

1. A 2022 Supreme Court case severely limited the vitality of the establishment clause. One source writes:

The United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision on June 27, 2022, that significantly affects the analysis courts use to determine whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been violated. The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and it has long been interpreted to apply to state and local governments.

The case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, arose in Washington State. Joseph Kennedy (Kennedy), a public high school football coach, took a knee on the 50-yard line after games and prayed.

The Court then addressed the role of the Establishment Clause, and in so doing, overruled the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Lemon Court Establishment Clause analysis calls for an evaluation of the purposes and effects of an action and whether it fosters “excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court asserted that the Lemon test for Establishment Clause violations caused chaos in lower courts and led to differing results in materially similar cases. Also, in the Court’s view, the Establishment Clause test in Lemon overemphasizes the importance of the Establishment Clause in relation to the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses.

China brokers deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia

The Eurasia Group's  Ian Bremmer provides a quick, multi-perspectival take on the recent peace deal between the Middle East's biggest rivals-- Iran and Saudi Arabia. Is it for real? What are the implications for the US, China, the Saudis, and Iran? How might it affect efforts at negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, given China's recent 12 point "peace plan" proposal? If the US is "against" all autocracies, what role do we have left in a MENA (i.e. mid east and northern Aftica) where democracies are all but extinct (with Israel hanging on by a thread as Netanyahu does his best to extinguish it there)? These and other questions are cursorily touched on in this 10 minute update by Bremmer. Might the Chinese, even if their own plan is rejected, change the tone of global discourse on the War in such a way as to make talk of sanctions and prolonged fighting, with attendant risks of escalation less palatable?  Are we seeing a "game-change" in MENA as Bremmer suggest, or just a tempest in a teapot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YpDYF-M2Fo&list=TLPQMTUwMzIwMjMph2hK17YBvw&index=2