Thursday, March 9, 2017

On Monday, U.S. president Donald Trump signed in the Oval Office a revised version of his executive order barring entry to the United States by refugees and individuals from certain Muslim-majority countries. While the previous ban, which caused chaos at airports and drew considerable criticism from within and outside of the U.S. government, covered seven countries, this one names only six and specifically exempts legal permanent residents and anyone who already has a visa to enter the country, or a visa revoked by the earlier executive order.

Residents of Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen must now wait 90 days for visas. Iraq was removed following concerns that people who had helped the United States military and Iraqi government during and after the Iraq War might be left in danger. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said this was because the U.S. State Department and Iraqi government improved the vetting process, though he did not say what exactly changed. The Iraqi government also lobbied heavily. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi spoke with President Trump by phone and Vice President Pence in person. A senior official with the Trump administration also told reporters the Iraqi government had promised “timely repatriation” for Iraqi nationals whom the U.S. has decided to deport.

There is still a 120-day moratorium on accepting refugees into the U.S., though the ban on Syrian refugees is no longer indefinite. The new order omits language that gave priority to religious minorities, which critics such as National Public Radio’s Domenico Montanaro read as “Christians.” Claims of religious discrimination against Muslims contributed to the first order’s overturn by the judiciary.

Under the previous travel ban, permanent residents in possession of a green card were concerned that if they were to visit their home countries they might be barred from returning to the United States. The new executive order exempts them.

Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said both orders have “the same fundamental flaws.” Representative Andre Carson of Indiana, who is Muslim, referred to this as “Muslim ban 2.0” on Twitter. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, called for the order’s repeal, saying, “A watered-down ban is still a ban.”

Not all of the response has been negative. “I have always shared President Trump’s desire to protect our homeland,” said Senator Lindsay Graham, a Republican and a critic of the first executive order. “This Executive Order will achieve the goal of protecting our homeland and will, in my view, pass legal muster.”

The order is set to go into effect on March 16. The White House continues to affirm that the original travel ban was legal and the issue may still be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friday, March 10, 2017

UK chancellor Philip Hammond announced his 2017 budget on Wednesday, which included a £2 billion pledge to social care and a tax hike on the self-employed. It was accused of breaking Conservative Party manifesto promises.

It was announced there will be a 2% increase in national insurance contributions for the self-employed, with chancellor Philip Hammond citing worries that people were choosing to become self-employed in order to pay lower taxes and his perception of unfairness in the different rates paid by employees and self-employees. There were accusations this change in policy goes against the manifesto promises the Conservative Party ran on in 2015, which promised four times that there would be no increase in national insurance rates. Conservative MP Anna Soubry tweeted saying she believed these new measures would be unpopular as many would see them as unfair. The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, claimed the new measures will not clamp down on people whose self-employment is just for tax benefits, instead causing problems for those legitimately self-employed, arguing that if they are to start paying similar tax rates to the employed then they should get rights such as statutory maternity pay. The think tank Resolution claimed, however, this increase is outweighed by other government policies and is, therefore, a good move.

In addition to this, the chancellor announced a £2 billion pledge to social care over the next three years, saying he was aware of the stress the ageing population is having on the NHS and social care. Liberal Democrat Norman Lamb described the amount as “wholly inadequate”, saying much more is needed to pay for an increase in care demands due to the ageing population. The lowest threshold at which shareholders pay dividend taxes is to be lowered from £5,000 to £2,000 claiming that the taxes for dividends provided “an extremely generous tax break for investors with substantial share portfolios”. Other budget announcements include an additional £325 million for the NHS, £90 million transport spending for the North of England, £20 million to support campaigning against violence against girls and women and a slight increase in funding for the devolved governments.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Facebook hired a public relations firm to systematically discredit Google by paying two journalists to plant negative pieces in U.S. newspapers, leaked correspondence discloses. The new revelations are likely to increase tension between the two companies, which are already fierce rivals.

The social network has confirmed the validity of the leaked emails, seen by Wikinews, which suggest executives at the social networking giant hired Burson-Marsteller, a high profile PR and communications firm, to discredit Social Circle, a rival website run by Google. Burson-Marsteller then recruited two journalists — Jim Goldman and John Mercurio — to push editors at The Washington Post and USA Today to publish editorials criticising Social Circle over its privacy settings. The story was exposed after Burson-Marsteller approached a blogger to publish the propaganda, but the blogger posted the correspondence online.

Burson-Marsteller has been forced to apologize for taking on Facebook as a client, admitting the orders to discredit Google violated company policy. “The assignment on those terms should have been declined,” a spokesperson said. The revelations are likely to be incredibly damaging for the firm, who have represented a number of controversial clients in the past. Facebook, however, said the allegations against Google were valid, insisting there were genuine privacy concerns with Social Circle. Google has declined to comment on the issue.

Monday, November 28, 2005

U.S. Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R–CA) pled guilty today to conspiring to take bribes in exchange for using his influence as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to help a defense contractor get business. In total he pled guilty to one count of income tax evasion and four counts of conspiracy, namely mail fraud, wire fraud, bribery of public official and accepting bribes. U.S. District judge Larry A. Burns scheduled Cunnigham to be sentenced on February 27. He is facing up to 10 years in prison and nearly $500,000 in fines, as well as forfeiture of unspecified amounts of cash and property.

In the court hearing, Cunningham admitted to accepting “bribes in exchange for performance of official duties” between “the year 2000 and June of 2005”, taking “both cash payments and payments in kind” and following up by “trying to influence the Defense Department”.

The federal investigation against Cunningham was triggered by his sale of his California residence to defense contractor Mitchell Wade in late 2003. However, Wade never moved in and sold the house at a $700,000 loss three quarters of a year later. At the same time Wade’s company MZM won tens of millions of dollars in defense contracts. Subsequent investigations discovered more questionable business transactions, including interactions with the defense contractor ADCS. In his plea agreement he testified that, among other charges, he “demanded, sought and received at least $2.4 million in illicit payments and benefits from his co-conspirators in various forms, including cash, checks, meals, travel, lodging, furnishings, antiques, rugs, yacht club fees, boat repairs and improvements, moving expenses, cars and boats.”

Cunningham announced his resignation after the hearing. In a written statement released by his law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP he declared “The truth is — I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my high office. I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, and most importantly, the trust of my friends and family.”