Hasta La Gadget!

Who is a terrorist? Is there a credible entity that brands terrorists? Answers to these questions matter. Qatar, a sovereign country, has been embargoed and threatened with invasion because it is accused of funding “terrorists.”

The United States is the leading country that unilaterally brands entities around the world as terrorist and sanctions anyone who supports or has normal relations with these named groups. In effect, the United States uses, in part, its unilateral branding of terrorists as an instrument of foreign policy to isolate, coerce and sanction countries that fail to do its bidding. This cavalier, off-the-cuff branding of entities as terrorists, who don’t follow U.S. dictates, has serious consequences and is currently not only undermining the fight against terrorism but also may be promoting terrorism.

There is general agreement that Al-Qaeda (and all its offshoots), ISIS, Boko Haram and a number of other such entities are terrorist organizations. They have attacked innocent civilians the world over and have claimed responsibility for their heinous acts. Today, the U.S. State Department has a long list of organizations it classifies as terrorist and a much shorter list of de-listed entities. Two entities on the list, one not on the list and one de-listed help make our point.

While the U.S. classifies Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, to most of the world’s 1.7 billion Muslims, these are two legitimate political organizations. Hezbollah has defended Lebanon against Israeli incursions; it has helped elevate the voice of Lebanese Shia Muslims; and it has provided many benefits to the most deprived segment of the Lebanese population. Yes, it is heavily influenced by Iran. Yes, Hezbollah is supporting the oppressor Assad in Syria. But if these activities merit a terrorist designation, then there are governments that oppress the people of other countries and should be on the top of such a list, for example, Saudi Arabia in Bahrain. Interestingly, Muslims in the Middle East have consistently voted the leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah, as one of the two or three most popular Arab leaders.

Hamas is the de facto government of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Yes, it has been at war with Israel. While Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is in violation of international law, something that nations of the world (except the United States and fewer than a handful of other countries) have confirmed again and again at the United Nations, the United States brands Hamas as a terrorist organization. In the branding of Hezbollah and Hamas, the United States seems to be following Israeli wishes. But no matter, America’s process of terrorist designation is woefully inconsistent and compromised.

To America’s credit, although it has had on-and-off relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Brotherhood is not on its terrorist list. This is an organization developed nearly a century ago devoted to political and social activism in an Islamic context and has disavowed violence. But it is seen as a threat by a number of Arab dictators who view the Brotherhood as a popular movement that could undermine their autocratic or military (and we would add un-Islamic) rule. Six countries reportedly classify the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Syria and Russia).

The People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) has been on and off the list and is today delisted. It is a movement that opposes the regime in Tehran; it was based in Iraq and fought alongside Iraqi forces in the Iran-Iraq War; and it has carried out terrorist acts inside Iran. A number of high-profile U.S. politicians, reportedly including former House Speakers Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, former Senator Joe Lieberman, former governors Howard Dean and Ed Rendell, former mayor Rudi Giuliani, retired generals Anthony Zinni and Wesley Clark, former United Nations Ambassadors Bill Richardson and John Bolton and many more have been paid speakers, a.k.a lobbyists, for the People’s Mujahadin of Iran. Yes, the MEK has high-profile support. But on the basis of what sort of logic could the MEK be exempted from the U.S. terrorist list and Hezbollah and Hamas be on the list?

The U.S. can have whatever list of terrorists it wants but given the arbitrary basis of its list, it should not be used to sanction countries that have relations with those on the list or to support countries (Saudi Arabia and its allies) who threaten countries (Qatar) who have relations with those on the list. Today, the U.S. has encouraged and supported Saudi aggression on Qatar because Qatar has dealings with Hezbollah and Hamas. Saudi Arabia (the creator of Al-Qaeda, the financial backer of radical Islamic teachings around the world and reportedly the heaviest financier of ISIS) has taken further advantage to create its own list to include the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and others. All in the name of fighting terrorism!

Washington’s arbitrary branding of organizations as terrorist has serious consequences; it compromises the fight against terrorism and makes a mockery of America’s proclaimed support for human rights and democratic values:

– The vast majority of Muslims, whose support the world needs to fight terrorism successfully, do not support the U.S. designations.

– U.S. support for repressive regimes such as those of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt in the name of fighting terrorism rings hollow and exposes U.S. duplicity when it comes to fighting terrorism and supporting human rights.

– To many Muslims, the terrorist list and its application to support oppressive rulers is an indirect method of oppression in support of client dictators.

-All this provides more recruits for ISIS and other terrorist organizations.

In the current standoff between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Saudi Arabia is using the U.S. list as the basis to embargo and issue an ultimatum on a sovereign country. This is in essence an attempt at a ‘soft’ takeover of a sovereign nation with President Trump’s backing. Qatar has been asked to shut down Al-Jazeera, arguably the most independent news network in the Arab world; to sever relations with countries and entities found objectionable to Saudi Arabia; to act in ways acceptable to the Gulf Cooperation Council (i.e., Saudi Arabia); and to pay unspecified compensation as dictated by Saudi Arabia.

Is this attempt at a soft annexation of Qatar (with U.S. encouragement and support) that much different from Russia’s takeover of the Crimea? How will this help the legitimate fight against terrorism?

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) conceded Democrats need to do a better job of showing Americans the party’s values after they lost a closely watched congressional special election in Georgia on Tuesday.

Schumer said the biggest lesson from the loss in Georgia is Democrats need a “bold, sharp-edged” economic plan. He said he plans to unveil one this summer.

Following Georgia’s 6th District special election on Tuesday, there was chatter among some Democrats that Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) should be removed from her post as the Democratic leader in the House. Pelosi herself brushed off such talk.

Asked about calls for Pelosi’s removal, Schumer said instead that Democrats need to be bolder. 

“You lose an election, you don’t blame other people, you blame yourself,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

″They always blame the leader. I think if we come up with this strong, bold economic package, it will change things around. That’s what we were missing,” he continued. “People don’t like Trump; he’s at 40 percent. But they say, ‘What the heck do the Democrats stand for?’ [Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)] has a point here ― we better stand for something and it can’t be baby steps.”

In a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted Democrats had lost the White House, many governorships, the House and Senate over the past nine years. He said Americans are fed up with both political parties.

 “There is a massive amount of demoralization on the part of the American people with the Democratic Party, with the Republican Party,” said Sanders, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination last year. “There is an enormous amount of pain in this country and people are saying, ‘Does anybody in Washington know what’s going on in my life?’

“I think what the Democrats have gotta say is that we will be on the side of the working class in this country.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the Obama administration for not speaking out more forcefully to expose Russian hacking during the 2016 election, but also thinks President Donald Trump is in no position to blame Obama for failing to stop it.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Schiff addressed a report in The Washington Post detailing the way the Obama administration was slow and hesitant to publicly accuse Russia of interfering in the election even after it received intelligence that President Valdimir Putin was involved.

“I think the administration needed to call out Russia earlier, and needed to act to deter and punish Russia earlier and I think that was a very serious mistake,” he said. Schiff, who said he urged the Obama administration to make a more forceful case against Russia, also believes politics were too much of a factor in the Obama administration’s thinking leading up to the election. The administration, he said, didn’t want to be seen tipping the scales for Clinton or supporting Trump’s claim the election would be “rigged.”

“But both of those factors did not outweigh, in my view ― and I argued this at the time ― did not outweigh the public’s need to know. The American people needed to know,” he said. “And I didn’t think it was enough to tell them after the election.”

The idea the Obama administration didn’t do enough to prevent the hacking is one Trump has adopted recently, after casting doubt on Russia’s role in the hacking for months despite an overwhelming consensus among intelligence officials that Russian hackers were behind the attacks and acting at Putin’s direction.

Schiff said such a stand from the current president is absurd.

“For Donald Trump, who openly egged on the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and celebrated every release of these stolen documents to criticize Obama, now it’s a bit like somebody knowingly receiving stolen property blaming the police for not stopping the theft,” he said. “Donald Trump is in no position to complain here.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Sunday came right out and said what so many Republicans are probably thinking ― that taking Medicaid away from able-bodied adults is no big deal, because they can go out and find jobs that provide health insurance.

Apparently nobody has told Conway that the majority of able-bodied adults on Medicaid already have jobs. The problem is that they work as parking lot attendants and child care workers, manicurists and dishwashers ― in other words, low-paying jobs that typically don’t offer insurance. Take away their Medicaid and they won’t be covered. 

Appearing on ABC “This Week” program, Conway faced tough questions about steep cuts to Medicaid in the Better Health Care Act ― the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act that Senate Republican leaders released on Thursday and hope to bring to a vote this week.

The Affordable Care Act ― Obamacare ― offered states extra federal matching funds to expand Medicaid eligibility, so that anybody with income below or just above the poverty line would qualify. Under the Senate bill, like its House counterpart, the federal government would withdraw those extra funds, forcing most of the 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) that accepted the money to roll back their expansions partly or entirely.

When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Conway about this possibility, she offered an increasingly familiar argument ― that Obamacare had over-extended Medicaid by taking the program away from its historic mission of covering children, pregnant women, the elderly and the disabled.

“Obamacare took Medicaid, which was designed to help the poor, the needy, the sick, disabled, also children and pregnant women, it took it and went way above the poverty line to many able-bodied Americans who … should at least see if there are other options for them.” 

She added: “If they are able-bodied and they want to work, then they’ll have employer-sponsored benefits like you and I do.”

If only it were that easy.

Among the able-bodied adults that Conway and congressional Republicans have in mind ― that is, non-elderly adults on Medicaid who don’t qualify for disability benefits ― 79 percent are in families where someone works and 59 percent have jobs themselves, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

The problem is that many work in low-paying, temporary, or part-time jobs that don’t offer coverage. In 2014, just 30 percent of working adults with incomes at or below the poverty line had employer-sponsored coverage available to them. 

As for the idea that the House and Senate GOP bills would strengthen Medicaid by focusing on its more traditional populations, that claim would appear to be inconsistent with the other big change they would make.

Both proposals would fundamentally change Medicaid by ending the federal government’s open-ended commitment to providing its share of funding for the program, no matter how many people become eligible and no matter how much their care ends up costing.

Federal payments would likely fail to keep up with costs, forcing states to make cutbacks that would inevitably affect all groups that depend on the program ― very much including the disabled and elderly, whose predictably high medical needs mean their bills account for roughly half of all Medicaid expenditures, even though they represent a minority of enrollees.

When Stephanopoulos asked Conway about this, she said, “These are not cuts to Medicaid, George. This slows the rate for the future and it allows governors more flexibility, with Medicaid dollars, because they’re closest to the people in need.”

That claim, which the Trump administration and its allies in GOP leadership have made repeatedly in recent weeks, has drawn rebukes from Republican senators ― including Susan Collins of Maine, who appeared on “This Week” shortly after Conway.

“I respectfully disagree with her analysis,” Collins said. 

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet evaluated the Senate bill. But when the CBO analyzed the House version of the legislation, which envisions slightly less severe cuts over time, it predicted the bill would mean 14 million fewer Americans would have coverage under Medicaid by 2026.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

So you’ve got the blue spiky hairdo, and you still can’t run as fast as Sonic. Clearly, what you need are his tennis shoes. These official Sonic the Hedgehog sneakers should do the trick quite nicely.

These colorful slip-ons look just like the iconic red and white strapped sneaks that Sonic wears as he runs and spins through the Green Hill Zone, as he makes his way to take on Doctor Robotnik and free his animal friends. They come in a commemorative box and include a collectible Sonic acrylic stand.

They’re available over on Amazon Japan for ¥7020 (~$64 USD).

[via Polygon]