Friday, December 27, 2019

Climate Refugees

See the source image
Environmental migrants or climate refugees[a] are people who are forced to leave their home region due to sudden or long-term changes to their local environment. These are changes which compromise their well-being or secure livelihood. Such changes are held to include increased droughtsdesertificationsea level rise, and disruption of seasonal weather patterns (i.e. monsoons[1]). Climate refugees may choose to flee to or migrate to another country, or they may migrate internally within their own country.[2]
Despite problems in formulating a uniform and clear-cut definition of 'environmental migration', such a concept has increased as an issue of concern in the 2000s as policy-makers, environmental and social scientists attempt to conceptualize the potential societal effects of climate change and general environmental degradation. "Unless it is assumed" in order to consider a person a climate refugee, nature or the environment could be considered the persecutor.[5]

Definition and concept

Climate refugees do not really fit into any of the legal definitions of a refugee. Not all climate refugees migrate from their home country, on occasion they are just displaced within their country of origin. Moreover, the refugees aren't leaving their homes because of fear they will be persecuted, or because of "generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order."[6] Even though the definition of who is a refugee was expanded since its first international and legally binding definition in 1951 people who are forced to flee due to environmental change are still not offered the same legal protection as refugees.[7]
The term "environmental refugee" was first proposed by Lester Brown in 1976.[8] The International Organization for Migration (IOM) proposes the following definition for environmental migrants:[9]
"Environmental migrants are persons or groups of persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad."
Climate refugees or climate migrants are a subset of environmental migrants who were forced to flee "due to sudden or gradual alterations in the natural environment related to at least one of three impacts of climate changesea-level riseextreme weather events, and drought and water scarcity."[10]

Types[edit]

The International Organisation for Migration proposes three types of environmental migrants:
  • Environmental emergency migrants: people who flee temporarily due to an environmental disaster or sudden environmental event. (Examples: someone forced to leave due to a hurricane, tsunami, earthquake, etc.)
  • Environmental forced migrants: people who have to leave due to deteriorating environmental conditions. (Example: someone forced to leave due to a slow deterioration of their environment such as deforestation, coastal deterioration, etc.)
  • Environmental motivated migrants also known as environmentally induced economic migrants: people who choose to leave to avoid possible future problems. (Example: someone who leaves due to declining crop productivity caused by desertification)
"those displaced temporarily due to local disruption such as an avalanche or earthquake; those who migrate because environmental degradation has undermined their livelihood or poses unacceptable risks to health; and those who resettle because land degradation has resulted in desertification or because of other permanent and untenable changes in their habitat".[11]
Other categorisations include:
Pressured environmental migrants[12] – slow onset
This type of migrant is displaced from their environment when an event is predicted prior to when it would be imperative for the inhabitants to leave.[13] Such events could be desertification or prolonged drought, where the people of the region are no longer able to maintain farming or hunting to provide a hospitable living environment.[14]
Imperative environmental migrants[15] – gradual onset
These are migrants that have been or will be "permanently displaced" from their homes due to environmental factors beyond their control.
Temporary environmental migrants[15] – short term, sudden onset
This includes migrants suffering from a single event (i.e. Hurricane Katrina). This does not go to say that their status of being temporary is any less severe than that of the other, it simply means that they are able to go back to the place they fled from (though it may be undesirable to do so) granted that they are able to rebuild what was broken, and go on to maintain a similar quality of life to the one prior to the natural disaster. This type of migrant is displaced from their home state when their environment rapidly changes. They are displaced when disastrous events occur, such as tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters occur.[16]

Enumeration[edit]

Global statistics[edit]

There have been a number of attempts over the decades to enumerate environmental migrants and refugees. Jodi Jacobson (1988) is cited as the first researcher to enumerate the issue, stating that there were already up to 10 million 'Environmental Refugees'. Drawing on 'worst-case scenarios' about sea-level rise, she argued that all forms of 'Environmental Refugees' would be six times as numerous as political refugees.[17] By 1989, Mustafa Tolba, Executive Director of UNEP, was claiming that 'as many as 50 million people could become environmental refugees' if the world did not act to support sustainable development.[18] In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 1990: 20) declared that the greatest single consequence of climate change could be migration, 'with millions of people displaced by shoreline erosion, coastal flooding and severe drought'.[19] In the mid-1990s, British environmentalist, Norman Myers, became the most prominent proponent of this 'maximalist' school (Suhrke 1993). Noting, that "environmental refugees will soon become the largest group of involuntary refugees".[20] Additionally, he stated that there were 25 million environmental refugees in the mid-1990s, further claiming that this figure could double by 2010, with an upper limit of 200 million by 2050 (Myers 1997).[21] Myers argued that the causes of environmental displacement would include desertification, lack of water, salination of irrigated lands and the depletion of biodiversity. He also hypothesised that displacement would amount to 30m in China, 30m in India, 15m in Bangladesh, 14m in Egypt, 10m in other delta areas and coastal zones, 1m in island states, and with otherwise agriculturally displaced people totalling 50m by 2050.[22] More recently, Myers has suggested that the figure by 2050 might be as high as 250 million.[23]
A map showing where natural disasters caused/aggravated by global warming may occur, and thus where environmental refugees would be created[citation needed]
These claims have gained significant currency, with the most common projection being that the world will have 150–200 million climate change refugees by 2050. Variations of this claim have been made in influential reports on climate change by the IPCC (Brown 2008: 11)[24] and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (Stern et al. 2006: 3),[25] as well as by NGOs such as Friends of the Earth,[26] Greenpeace Germany (Jakobeit and Methmann 2007)[27] and Christian Aid;[23] and inter-governmental organisations such as the Council of Europe,[28] UNESCO,[29] IOM (Brown 2008) and UNHCR.[30]
Norman Myers is the most cited researcher in this field, who found that 25 million environmental migrants existed in 1995 in his work (Myers & Kent 1995),[22] which drew upon over 1000 sources.[31] However, Vikram Kolmannskog has stated that Myers' work can be 'criticized for being inconsistent, impossible to check and failing to take proper account of opportunities to adapt' (2008: 9).[32] Furthermore, Myers himself has acknowledged that his figures are based upon 'heroic extrapolation' (Brown 2008: 12).[24] More generally, Black has argued that there is 'surprisingly little scientific evidence' that indicates that the world is 'filling-up with environmental refugees' (1998: 23).[33] Indeed, Francois Gemenne has stated that: 'When it comes to predictions, figures are usually based on the number of people living in regions at risk, and not on the number of people actually expected to migrate. Estimates do not account for adaptation strategies [or] different levels of vulnerability' (Gemenne 2009: 159).[34]
In the first half of the year 2019, 7 million people was internally (e.g. in their country) displaced by events of extreme weather, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. This is a record and the number is 2 times bigger that the number displaced by violence and conflicts. Large part of the displaced people were evacuated when the storm came, what saved many lives, but the price for the economy was very big[35][36].

Asia and the Pacific[edit]

According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, more than 42 million people were displaced in Asia and the Pacific during 2010 and 2011, more than twice the population of Sri Lanka. This figure includes those displaced by storms, floods, and heat and cold waves. Still others were displaced by drought and sea-level rise. Most of those compelled to leave their homes eventually returned when conditions improved, but an undetermined number became migrants, usually within their country, but also across national borders.[37]
Climate-induced migration is a highly complex issue which needs to be understood as part of global migration dynamics. Migration typically has multiple causes, and environmental factors are intertwined with other social and economic factors, which themselves can be influenced by environmental changes. Environmental migration should not be treated solely as a discrete category, set apart from other migration flows. A 2012 Asian Development Bank study argues that climate-induced migration should be addressed as part of a country's development agenda, given the major implications of migration on economic and social development. The report recommends interventions both to address the situation of those who have migrated, as well as those who remain in areas subject to environmental risk. It says: "To reduce migration compelled by worsening environmental conditions, and to strengthen the resilience of at-risk communities, governments should adopt policies and commit financing to social protection, livelihoods development, basic urban infrastructure development, and disaster risk management."[38]
Additionally, it is maintained that the poor populate areas that are most at risk for environmental destruction and climate change, including coastlines, flood-lines, and steep slopes. As a result, climate change threatens areas already suffering from extreme poverty. "The issue of equity is crucial. Climate affects us all, but does not affect us all equally," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told delegates at a climate conference in Indonesia.[39] Africa is also one of the world regions where environmental displacement is critical largely due to droughts and other climate-related eventualities.[40]
In Minqin county, Gansu Province, "10,000 people have left the area and have become shengtai yimin, 'ecological migrants'".[41]
In 2013 a claim of a Kiribati man of being a "climate change refugee" under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) was determined by the New Zealand High Court to be untenable.[42][43] The Refugee Convention did not apply as there is no persecution or serious harm related to any of the five stipulated convention grounds. The Court rejected the argument that the international community itself (or countries which can be said to have been historically high emitters of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases) were the "persecutor" for the purposes of the Refugee Convention.[42] This analysis of the need for the person to identify persecution of the type described in the Refugee Convention does not exclude the possibility that a people for countries experiencing severe impacts of climate change can come with the Refugee Convention. However, it is not the climate change event itself, rather the social and political response to climate change, which is likely to create the pathway for a successful claim. The New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the High Court, "there is a complex inter-relationship between natural disasters, environmental degradation and human vulnerability. Sometimes a tenable pathway to international protection under the Refugee Convention can result. Environmental issues sometimes lead to armed conflict. There may be ensuing violence towards or direct repression of an entire section of a population. Humanitarian relief can become politicised, particularly in situations where some group inside a disadvantaged country is the target of direct discrimination".[44] The New Zealand Court of Appeal also rejected the claim in a 2014 decision. On further appeal, the New Zealand Supreme Court confirmed the earlier adverse rulings against the application for refugee status, with the Supreme Court also rejecting the proposition "that environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could never create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction".[45]
In 2014 attention was drawn to an appeal to the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal against the deportation of a Tuvaluan family on the basis that they were "climate change refugees", who would suffer hardship resulting from the environmental degradation of Tuvalu.[46] However the subsequent grant of residence permits to the family was made on grounds unrelated to the refugee claim.[47] The family was successful in their appeal because, under the relevant immigration legislation, there were "exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature" that justified the grant of resident permits as the family was integrated into New Zealand society with a sizeable extended family which had effectively relocated to New Zealand.[47]

North America[edit]

Alaska[edit]

There have been 178 Alaskan communities threatened by erosion of their land. The annual temperature has steadily increased over the last fifty years, with Alaska seeing it double (compared to the rate seen across the rest of the United States) to the rate of 3.4 degrees, with an alarming 6.3 degrees increase for the winters over the past fifty years. Many of the communities residing in these areas have been living off the land for generations. There is an eminent threat of loss of culture and loss of tribal identity with these communities.[48]
Between 2003 and 2009, a partial survey by the Army Corps of Engineers identified thirty-one Alaskan villages under imminent threat of flooding and erosion. By 2009, 12 of the 31 villages had decided to relocate, with four (KivalinaNewtokShaktoolik, and Shishmaref) requiring immediate evacuation due to danger of immediate flooding along with limited evacuation options. [49]

However, relocation is proving difficult because there is no governmental institutional framework that exists for the aid of climate refugees in the United States. The Obama administration promised to fund $50.4 billion to help with relocation efforts in 2016.[citation needed]

Louisiana[edit]

Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, home to the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw First Nation, is being depopulated with federal grant money, due to saltwater intrusion and sea level rise. This Indigenous Nation residing on the Isle de Jean Charles is facing the effects of climate change. The resettlement of this community of around 100, exists as the first migration of a total community in the state of Louisiana. This state has lost almost 2000 square miles of its coast within the last 87 years and now an alarming rate of almost 16 square miles a year is disappearing. In early 2016, a 48-million-dollar grant was the first allocation of federal tax dollars to aid a community suffering from direct impact of climate change. Louisiana has lost land mass comparable to the size of the state of Delaware revealing land mass loss that is at a rate faster than many places in the world. The resettlement plan for the Isle de Jean Charles is at the forefront of responding to climate change without destroying the community that resides within.[50][51]

Washington state[edit]

The Quinault village of Taholah has requested $60 million to relocate away from the encroaching Pacific Ocean.[52]

South America[edit]

Many peer-reviewed articles analyzing migration in South America have found multiple types of linkages between climate change and its effect on migration.The effects and results vary based on the type of climatic change, socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics of migrants and the distance and direction of the migration.[53] Since most climate migration studies are done in the developed world, scientists have called for more quantitative research within the developing world, including South America.[54] Migration in South America does not always increase as a result of increased environmental threats but is affected by factors such as climate variability and land suitability. These migrations happen either gradually or suddenly but are typically directed from rural to urban areas. Inter-provincial migration is shown to not be as heavily influenced by environmental changes whereas migration outside of the home country is heavily influenced by environmental changes.[54] The results of a climactic event catalyzing migration change depending on the onset of the event, however, climate change related events such as drought and hurricanes augment or increase youth migration. Youth are more likely to migrate as a response to climate-related events. As a result, children who have been displaced are found to travel shorter distances to find work in rural destinations versus further to an urban area.[55] Researchers suggest a review of the terms that define who is an environmental migrant since policy-making bodies and intergovernmental agencies most affect responses when an environmental event causes people to migrate. Because of the increase in interest in this topic in the past decade some people call for a measure called preventive resettlement. The cases in which preventive resettlement appear appropriate is typically discerned by local and governmental bodies. Others call for an increase in social programs to both prevent and help in a migration event.[56]
Some Kuna people, such as those in the settlement of Gardi Sugdub, have decided to relocate from islands to the mainland of Panama due to sea level rise.[57]

Political and legal perspectives[edit]

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) expects the scale of global migration to rise as a result of accelerated climate change.[58] It, therefore, recommends policymakers around the world to take a proactive stance on the matter.[59] The IOM is composed of 146 member states and 13 observer states and "works closely with governments in promoting migration management that ensures humane and orderly migration that is beneficial to migrants and societies."[59] Additionally, when interviewing Oliver- Smith, an anthropologist and member of the UN group, National Geographic Magazine noted that "there are at least 20 million environmental refugees worldwide, the [UN] group says – more than those displaced by war and political repression combined." Therefore, it is imperative that we begin to recognize this recent division of refugee.[60][61]
The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) has argued that the people who will be forced to move due to climate change currently have no adequate recognition in international law.[62] The EJF contends that a new multilateral legal instrument is required to specifically address the needs of "climate refugees" in order to confer protection to those fleeing environmental degradation and climate change.[63] They have also asserted that additional funding is needed to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change. Sujatha Byravan and Sudhir Chella Rajan have argued for the use of the term 'climate exiles' and for international agreements to provide them political and legal rights, including citizenship in other countries, bearing in mind those countries' responsibilities and capabilities.[2][3][4]
In some cases, climate change may lead to conflict arising between countries that as a result of flooding or other conditions produce a large number of refugees, and bordering countries that build fences to keep out these refugees. The Bangladesh–India border is largely separated via a fence, and case studies suggest the possibility of violent conflict arising due to people fleeing from areas suffering from the destruction of arable land. Current migration has already resulted in low-scale conflicts.[64]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that sea levels will increase with up to 0.6 meters by 2100. This will cause populations to wipe out entirely. Small areas may have nothing left. This could lead to the loss of millions of refugees. Refugee organizations have taken on cases of many different refugees. The Organization for Refugees Asylum and Migration (ORAM) is designed to help refugees in seeking status and resettlement. They are designed to help refugees overcome the Refugee process. ORAM's main goal is to protect the vulnerable refugees for the laws put on refugee and help end the refugee asylum process. There is a ton of legal action taken against refugees. Political laws are put on the refugees to either harm or hurt the refugees.[65]

Global perceptions from possible countries of asylum[edit]

Reaction as for the possible acceptance of possible environmental migrants is mixed, this is because of countries dealing with other domestic problems. For example, India, which has a population of over 1 billion people, is building an India-Bangladesh barrier. While the stated purpose of the barrier is to deter drug trade, the barrier may also help prevent the possible refuge of 20 million Bangladeshis who may be displaced by future climate change.[66] This is a contrast to Canada in which public pressure is slowly building to create policies that will allow accommodation and better planning.[67][68][69][70] On 20 September 2016, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada told the UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants that plans just for resettlement would not be enough.[71] Sweden which had allowed refugees to seek asylum from areas of war in an open door policy has changed to a policy that is more deterrent of asylum seekers and is even offering money for asylum seekers to withdraw their requests.[72][73] The United States, which was warned under the Obama administration to prepare for climate change and the refugees, may have more future difficulties being prepared to do so under current President Donald Trump as he explicitly denies climate change.[74][75] This can be seen as Trump denies the possibility of climate change, has signed executive orders dismantling environmental protections, and has ordered the EPA to remove climate change information from their public site, likely signaling America's unwillingness to acknowledge the future possibility of increased environmental refugees from climate change.[76][77][78]
Asylum is the freedom of prosecution in the country the people want to be in. Different countries have their own rules and laws of asylum. The United States, for example, has a system recognized by federal and international laws. France was the first country to constitute the right to asylum. So the right to asylum differs in different nations. There is a still fight for the right to asylum in some areas of the world.[79]

Perspective of countries taking immigrants[edit]

In the UK, research is being done on how climate change's impact on countries that are emigrated to will vary due to the infrastructure of those countries. They want to put into place policies so that those who have to migrate could go throughout Europe, and have solid emergency planning in place so that the people being displaced would have a swift and quick plan of escape once their environment can no longer handle inhabitants-slow or sudden onset.[80] The end goal of this work is to determine the best course of action in the event of various environmental catastrophes.

Popular culture[edit]

German artist Hermann Josef Hack's World Climate Refugee Camp in Hannover displaying 600 small climate refugee tents.
The notion of 'environmental migrant', and particularly 'climate refugee', has gained traction in popular culture. A documentary entitled Climate Refugees has been released. "Climate Refugees" is an Official Selection for the 2010 Sundance Film Festival.[81] More recently, Short Documentary Academy Award Nominee, Sun Come Up (2011), tells the story of Carteret islanders who are forced to leave their ancestral land in response to climate change and migrate to war-torn Bougainville[82]
Since 2007, German artist Hermann Josef Hack has shown his World Climate Refugee Camp in the centers of various European cities. The model camp, made of roughly 1000 miniature tents, is a public art intervention that depicts the social impacts of climate change.[83]

Documentary films[edit]

  • Climate Refugees (2010), Documentary movie directed by Michael P. Nash. Starring: Lester BrownYvo de BoerPaul R. Ehrlich ...
  • Eco Migrants: The Case of Bhola Island (2013), Documentary movie directed by Susan Stein. Starring Katherine Jacobsen, Nancy Schneider, Bogumil Terminski
  • Refugees of the Blue Planet (2006), Documentary movie directed by Hélène Choquette & Jean-Philippe Duval.
  • The Land Between (2014) documentary movie directed by David Fedele.[84]

Michael Moore Predicts Trump Will Win Reelection in 2020: His Base Is ‘Even More Rabid’

See the source image
Documentarian Michael Moore believes President Donald Trump will be re-elected for a second term — especially if the election were held today instead of 2020.
In conversation with Amy Goodman of news program “Democracy Now!” the filmmaker said the Democratic nominee is likely to win the popular vote, just as Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
“I think if the election were held today… Hillary won by 3 million popular votes. I believe whoever the Democrat is next year is going to win by 4 to 5 million popular votes. There’s no question in my mind that people who stayed home, who sat on the bench, they’re going to pour out,” Moore started.
“The problem is, if the vote were today, I believe he would win the electoral states he would need because, living out there I will tell you his level of support has not gone down one inch,” he explained. “In fact, I’d say it’s even more rabid than it was before, because they’re afraid now. They’re afraid he could lose, because they watched his behavior.”
He said the Democrats’ responsibility is “to make sure [they] don’t give them another Hillary Clinton to vote for.”
Moore, a Bernie Sanders supporter, says Democrats need a candidate that “excites” the base: women, people of color and young people.
“They’re going to come out and vote for the fighter,” Moore explained. “For the person who shares their values, and the values of the majority of this country are the progressive values.”
You can watch Michael Moore’s full “Democracy Now!” interview — where he also weighs in on the upcoming Senate impeachment trial — above.

Republicans Stand Up To Trump

 Sen. Paul: 'Someone has   to stand up' to Trump

 In a rare show of bipartisan unity,   Republicans and Democrats are     planning to try to force President Trump to take a more active stand on human rights in China.
 Rubio: 'Congress needs to step up' »

WASHINGTON — In a rare show of bipartisan unity, Republicans and Democrats are planning to try to force President Donald Trump to take a more active stand on human rights in China, preparing veto-proof legislation that would punish top Chinese officials for detaining more than 1 million Muslims in internment camps.
The effort comes amid growing congressional frustration with Trump’s unwillingness to challenge China over human rights abuses, despite vivid news reports this year outlining atrocities, or to confront such issues globally.
To press Trump into action on China, lawmakers plan to move ahead with legislation that would punish Beijing for its repression of ethnic Uighur Muslims, with enough supporters to compel the president to sign or risk being overruled by Congress before the 2020 election. A version of the legislation, known as the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act, passed both the House and Senate this year, but its path to the White House was stalled this month by a procedural process.
Human rights causes draw rare bipartisan support in Congress, and many Republican lawmakers have broken from Trump on the matter, even as they move in lockstep with the president on nearly every other issue, including defending him against impeachment.
“There’s been a sense by some that the administration hasn’t prioritized human rights in its broader foreign policy,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “I don’t think that’s necessarily accurate — but that sense has grown. There’s been a sense that Congress needs to step up.”
Last month, Congress passed legislation by unanimous consent supporting the Hong Kong protests, forcing Trump to sign the bill. Trump, who had previously said he was “standing with” Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, risked being overruled by Congress and criticized as weak on China if he vetoed the measure. Still, when Trump signed the bill the night before Thanksgiving, he issued a statement saying he would “exercise executive discretion” in enforcing its provisions.
Lawmakers this year also passed legislation recognizing the 1915 killings of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians as a genocide, over the objections of Trump. And it approved a resolution calling for the end of U.S. military support of the war in Yemen, in which a Saudi Arabia-led coalition is bombing civilians. Trump vetoed the measure.
In October, after Trump withdrew U.S. forces just inside Syria’s border, paving the way for a Turkish military operation against Kurdish forces, lawmakers voted to rebuke the administration for the decision and show support for the Kurds, a persecuted group in the Middle East that has fought with U.S. troops against the Islamic State.
In the coming months, Congress is expected to try to pass legislation that would punish Turkey and Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses, though it is unclear whether those efforts would have a veto-proof majority. The effort includes a package of Turkey sanctions sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The legislation, which would penalize those who commit human rights abuses in Syria, was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December.
Some human rights issues draw greater bipartisan support than others. China hawks have become ascendant across Congress and in the administration, and many Americans increasingly see China as a threat.
Although Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have criticized China on the persecution of Muslims, Trump has said nothing. In July, Jewher Ilham, the daughter of Ilham Tohti, a Uighur professor whom China sentenced to life in prison in 2014, joined other victims of religious persecution to meet with Trump in the Oval Office. When she tried to explain the camps to Trump, he appeared ignorant of the situation and simply said, “That’s tough stuff.”
“It’s hard to find evidence of genuine personal interest,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “On China, at a minimum, President Trump should stop describing an authoritarian, abusive leader as a ‘terrific guy’; doing so gives Chinese authorities the opportunity to choose between that characterization and the far tougher ones offered up by other senior U.S. officials.”
Trump, who has criticized China over its economic practices, has refrained from imposing sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the camps, for fear of jeopardizing the chances of reaching a trade deal. Many top aides and lawmakers from both parties have pushed for sanctions, but the Treasury Department has opposed the penalties. The Uighur act, which had Rubio and Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., as sponsors, would compel Trump to impose sanctions on Chen Quanguo, the top Communist Party official in Xinjiang, where the camps are.
In October, the Trump administration placed a few Chinese businesses and security organizations on a commercial blacklist because of their suspected roles in Muslim abuses, but many analysts considered that a weak punishment.
Other countries are more complicated. Saudi Arabia has been a traditional U.S. ally; and hawks in Congress, who are generally Republican, argue the Saudis provide a regional bulwark against Iran. And Trump’s positive declarations about President Vladimir Putin of Russia have spurred a gradual shift from the anti-Russia views previously held by Republican politicians, conservative voters and right-wing news organizations.
Trump expresses open admiration for many authoritarian leaders, even those condemned by senior officials in his own administration for some of the world’s worst atrocities. They include Xi; Putin; Kim Jong Un, leader of North Korea; Mohammed bin Salman, crown prince of Saudi Arabia; President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey; President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt; Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary; and President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil.
“He’s celebrating the leaders who are the worst human rights abusers,” Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., said in an interview. “It almost seems like the president’s support for you is directly proportional to how brutal you are to your citizenry.”
This month, the Trump administration blocked a move by members of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the human rights situation in North Korea for the second year in a row. Trump has expressed warmth for Kim of North Korea and has engaged in personal diplomacy, meeting him at two summits to try, without success, to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
“The Trump administration has sent a clear message to Pyongyang and to the rest of the world that this administration doesn’t consider starvation, torture, summary executions and a host of other crimes to be a priority,” said Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director at Human Rights Watch.
On other prominent issues this year, Trump used his executive power to reject measures that would have either punished countries for human rights abuses or simply affirmed the abuses were happening.
Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution that would have punished Saudi Arabia for its air war in Yemen and the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and permanent U.S. resident. Khashoggi’s death last year — a grisly killing that U.S. intelligence officials have said was ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed — reignited a long-simmering effort among a small group of lawmakers to cut off U.S. support for Saudi-led bombings in Yemen that have helped create the world’s worst man-made humanitarian crisis.
Four of the six vetoes Trump has issued in his presidency overturned legislative attempts to penalize the kingdom. In May, Trump and Pompeo sparked bipartisan fury by declaring an emergency over Iran that allowed the United States to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, bypassing a congressional hold on the sales. This fall, in closed-door negotiations, the White House blocked similar language from making it into the final version of the annual defense policy bill, a must-pass package of legislation.
“I’m a big fan of the president on many fronts, but on this, someone has to stand up,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. and a proponent of withdrawing the United States from wars, said in a floor speech in June before voting to cut off arm sales to the kingdom.
In another recent instance that privately confounded Republican lawmakers, the White House recruited multiple Republican senators to block attempts to pass legislation formally recognizing the Armenian genocide. The administration argued the timing of the bill would upend diplomatic relations with Turkey, including when Trump received Erdogan at the White House in November. Trump insisted on holding that meeting over the objections of some Republicans who have criticized Turkey, a NATO ally, for attacking the Kurds in Syria.
The legislation finally passed this month, days after the Senate advanced a package of sanctions related to Erdogan’s invasion of northern Syria and his purchase of a sophisticated Russian surface-to-air missile system.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Trump’s New Legal Adviser Is an Anti-LGBT, Fox News-Ready Whore Slut Bomb Thrower

See the source image
If you don’t know who Jenna Ellis is, you are hardly alone. Many officials at the upper echelons of Trumpworld don’t really know her, either.
In more than a dozen conversations with senior figures in the White House, 2020 campaign, and broader Trump orbit, barely anybody had known Ellis as more than a blip on the Fox News radar—if that—before this October. “She literally came out of nowhere,” said one person close to President Donald Trump.
And yet, Ellis, a constitutional law attorney who’d worked since last year as the public policy director at the James Dobson Family Institute, has quickly gone from relative obscurity to talking directly with the president about politics and impeachment. In recent weeks, he’s reached out to her to ask about fighting back against his Democratic enemies, and has casually analyzed and praised her TV hits when she’s not around, say two people with knowledge of the president’s conversations.
“She gets it,” Trump has privately gushed in the past month, according to one of these sources.
More recently, Ellis says she’s even had the opportunity to flex her influence by counseling the president on his bombastic six-page letter delivered to Capitol Hill shortly before he was impeached this month, bashing Democratic leaders and insisting that “more due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials” in the 17th century.
“I reviewed [the letter]…but it’s 100 percent him. It’s perfect,” Ellis told PJ Media last week. The letter’s drafting process included White House brass such as Trump’s immigration adviser and chief speechwriter Stephen Miller, though White House attorneys were largely cut off from the initial process.
As of November, Ellis has been a senior legal adviser to both the Trump campaign and the president, and she’s quickly earned accolades from Trump’s core group of political advocates, not just for her legal work but for her reliably on-message cable news appearances.
“Jenna is an accomplished legal mind and a valuable asset to the President and campaign team,” Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, told The Daily Beast in a brief statement. “She is a strong advocate for the President and provides compelling legal analysis. We are thrilled she is on the team.” (Ellis did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.)
Indeed, Ellis has earned an honor befitting the president’s favorite aides, pundits, and public advocates: being retweeted by the big man himself. Trump even promoted a whole anti-impeachment tweetstorm of hers this month to his 68 million followers.
Behind the scenes, Trump is known to seek Ellis’ counsel, recently on matters pertaining to his impeachment, which Ellis has taken to her platforms on Fox and at the Washington Examiner to deride as a legal and political sham. From September to November, the West Wing promoted no fewer than five of Ellis’ Examiner columns in official White House newsletters.
Ellis, meanwhile, has made herself seen at—where else?—the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., where she’s been pictured since November mingling with Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Fox host Jeanine Pirro, senior Trump campaign aide Mercedes Schlapp, and Marc Lotter, the campaign’s director of strategic communications.
Ellis already had some notable connections in Trumpworld that aligned her with both its public communications apparatus and the machinery it constructed to beat back the many investigations and legal challenges it’s faced since Trump took office.
Prior to her promotion to senior legal adviser, Ellis had been a member of Trump’s 2020 media advisory board, a collection of TV and radio surrogates for the president and campaign that had been overseen by Trump campaign communications hand Mark Serrano. And according to state bar records in Colorado, she has also worked for Serrano’s firm, ProActive Communications.
Serrano also ran comms for the Patriot Legal Expense Fund Trust established to help pay legal bills accrued by White House aides and other Trump allies during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Ellis has also collaborating with two of Trump’s top outside allies, death deserving Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. and known pedophile Charlie Kirk, who leads the pro-Trump student group Turning Point USA. Kirk and Falwell have teamed up to form the eponymous Falkirk Center and Liberty, a think tank devoted, more or less, to promoting Trumpism as a political philosophy. Ellis serves as an “ambassador” to the group.
Ellis’ roots are firmly in the Christian right. Her 2015 book, The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution, argues that progressive judicial philosophy has spawned “a culture that lacks objective morality and embraces secular ideas” and urges the country to “get back to being a biblically moral, upright society.”
“In an increasingly politically and religiously diverse America, we have been sold the idea that the political questions of government, rather than being dependent on faith, are completely separate,” Ellis argued in a 2017 column. “But the Founders saw these questions of who we say Jesus is and what we say government is [as] inextricably intertwined.”
Much of her recent fire as a legal commentator has been aimed at the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. And while she couches those arguments in legal terms, Ellis has also exhibited some general antipathy to the gay community. Her book complains that the Supreme Court “told the LGBT community that their homosexual lifestyle was not just legal privately, but morally validated openly through government recognition and social celebration and therefore equally as valued as heterosexual unions.”
In the wake of a 2015 shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando that left 49 dead, Ellis penned a column that condemned the massacre, but bemoaned that it was being used to dignify homosexuality.
“I’m disappointed conservatives are acquiescing to the LGBT agenda,” Ellis wrote. “Let me be clear—the Orlando shooting was absolutely terrible and tragic. But the response to this tragedy should not be embracing and advocating for gay rights.” The piece was headlined, “Two Wrongs Do Not Make an LGBT Right.”
Ellis’ husband, David Rives, is also a Trump supporter who runs an online broadcast network devoted to promoting Creationism and frequently contributes video segments to the far-right conspiracy website WorldNetDaily. As his wife advised the Trump campaign over the summer, Rives signed onto a letter from a number of faith leaders calling for a “national day of prayer for President Donald J. Trump.”
Ellis’ elevation into the president’s inner sanctum comes as Trump’s historically strong support in the evangelical community has been challenged in some minor, but notable, ways.
Last week, the editor in chief of the prominent evangelical magazine Christianity Today published a scathing op-ed hammering Trump’s “profoundly immoral” conduct and calling for his removal from office. Hours later, Ellis penned Trumpworld’s rebuttal at the Examiner
The Christianity Today op-ed “is so devoid of any pretense of understanding the Constitution I am genuinely embarrassed for evangelicals (of which I am a member),” she wrote. “Pious ‘Never Trumpers’ who feel morally justified about this impeachment charade are as morally reprehensible as Democrats.”

Trump Hosted Convicted Navy SEAL at Mar-a-Lago Who Was Described as 'Evil' and 'Toxic' by Platoon Members

See the source image
President Donald Trump hosted a retired Navy SEAL who had been charged with numerous war crimes and was called “evil” and “toxic” in a recent report by his former platoon members during a military investigation.
According to Edward Gallagher‘s Instagram account, he met with President Trump at his Mar-A-Lago resort and gave the president a “gift” from his time serving in Iraq.
During Gallagher’s time in Iraq, as a platoon chief, he was accused of multiple war crimes, including shooting at civilians and killing a sedated teen ISIS member with a hunting knife who was being held captive and receiving medical aid, The New York Times reported at the time.
He stood trial last summer but was acquitted on charges of first-degree murder and attempted murder of civilians. He was convicted of the lesser crime of posing for inappropriate photos with a dead captive after having admitted to posing with the teen ISIS fighter’s corpse, The Times reported.
New York Times report published Friday morning revealed direct quotes from members of Gallagher’s former SEAL team, who told investigators they were worried about their chief’s actions.
“The guy is freaking evil,” Special Operator Miller told investigators, according to The Times.
“The guy was toxic,” said Special Operator First Class Joshua Vriens, a sniper, in another interview.
“You could tell he was perfectly O.K. with killing anybody that was moving,” Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a medic in the platoon, told Navy investigators, according to The Times, which reported that the platoon members declined to comment to the newspaper.
Gallagher denied the most serious allegations against him, and his family members have repeatedly appeared on Fox News to defend him and brand him as a hero. His lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, told the Times the soldiers’ accounts were riddled with inconsistencies, and Gallagher himself has said his accusers concocted their accounts to cover up their inability to meet his high standards.
After the accusations against Gallagher, Republican lawmakers and conservative media outlets rallied around him.
President Trump publicly jumped to Gallagher’s defense, reversing Gallagher’s demotion and then directing the Navy to not take away Gallagher’s trident pin — a symbol of membership in the prestigious Navy SEALs.

Even Popular Mechanics Is Exposing Trump's Lies And Stupidity And What A Dim Bulb He Is?

See the source image

  • The Department of Energy has refused to enforce suggested light bulb efficiency standards.
  • Incandescent bulbs are the hottest, shortest-lived, and least energy-efficient bulbs.
  • U.S. households will likely continue to use energy-efficient bulbs anyway.
President Trump’s Department of Energy (DOE) has decided not to enforce raised standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs. Light bulbs may not seem like the largest issue in the world, but they’re a canary in the coal mine of energy policy; switching to LED bulbs is an extremely simple, accessible, money-saving change that almost everyone can make easily.
By choosing to go against recommendations to introduce limits on incandescent bulbs, Trump’s administration is continuing to take a stand against energy-saving innovations in general—even the ones that benefit consumers in a hands-on way.
“DOE’s analysis determined that more stringent standards for GSILs [general service incandescent lamps] would have increased the price of those light bulbs by 300 percent. This increase is not economically justified because the bulbs do not last long enough for the energy savings to surpass the higher upfront price,” the department says. In other words, an incandescent bulb held to recommended standards would cost so much that it wouldn’t be worth paying for.
There may be people who only have access to incandescent bulbs. For everyone else, CFL or LED bulbs represent a wild savings in energy and in operating cost over time, according to the DOE. In fact, the original energy-saving lightbulb advice—to switch the lights off when you leave the room—is contraindicated for incandescent bulbs and shortens their life. There are incandescent bulbs that have lasted for 100 years, but that longevity doesn’t come with efficiency or even brightness. Most of the longest-lasting bulbs have unconventional filaments that avoid the telltale tink! of a breaking tungsten filament.
The DOE’s focus on financial feasibility is interesting, because consumers have chosen to adopt LED bulbs over time despite a very high cost at the beginning. Without these early adopters, momentum would likely have been much slower. Now, cities are racing to ban plastic straws—a tiny gesture that mostly hurts disabled people who need to use straws—but struggling to hold up larger energy-saving policies. The reason an up-front regulation works with lightbulbs is that a higher cost would discourage consumers. Even the nosiest local governments can’t roam the streets to peek into windows and identify illicit incandescent bulbs.
Over time, use of incandescent bulbs continues to fall even without costly new standards. In a feature earlier this year, the New York Times reported that just 6 percent of lightbulbs in home use in 2016 in the U.S. were incandescent bulbs, down from 68 percent in 2010. That feature corresponded with a previous Trump rollback of an Obama administration policy that sought to include all lightbulb shapes, not just classic round or “pear-shaped” bulbs. It was President George W. Bush who signed the first national lightbulb standard in 2007, and the DOE has rolled back the second phase of this policy.
You Might Also Like

Thursday, December 26, 2019

Putin Needs To Be Gone

See the source image
By Andrew Osborn and Anastasia Teterevleva
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian authorities raided the Moscow headquarters of opposition politician Alexei Navalny on Thursday, using power tools to gain entry before dragging Navalny out by force and confiscating technical equipment such as laptops.
Navalny and his allies said the raid on his Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) was carried out by the Federal Bailiffs Service and was connected to his refusal to delete a video investigation which leveled graft allegations against Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and billionaire businessman Alisher Usmanov.
The Federal Bailiffs Service told Reuters it was carrying out investigative activities at Navalny's foundation as part of a criminal investigation. It said it had not detained anyone during the raid.
Usmanov brought and won a defamation lawsuit against Navalny in 2017. That case ended with a court ordering Navalny to delete within 10 days all references to the allegations in his video, which Medvedev and Usmanov said were utterly false.
Navalny said on Thursday he would not delete the offending video, which has been watched over 32 million times on YouTube since it was first posted in March 2017.
CCTV footage of Thursday's raid showed men using power tools to saw through the front door of Navalny's foundation. The men, some of them masked and wearing black uniforms, could then be seen searching the office before one of them covered a CCTV camera up with tape.
The raid occurred a day after Navalny said that the forcible military conscription of one of his allies to a remote air base in the Arctic amounted to kidnapping and illegal imprisonment.
CRITIC OF PUTIN
Allies said Navalny, who was barred from running in a presidential election against Vladimir Putin last year, had been due to present his own show, which is critical of the authorities, on his online TV channel later on Thursday.
Navalny's foundation, which specializes in publishing exposes on the alleged corruption of state officials, is the subject of a separate criminal investigation into alleged money laundering.
Investigators opened the money laundering case in August after Navalny called for people to demonstrate in central Moscow over the exclusion of opposition candidates from a local election.
Those protests grew into Moscow's biggest sustained protest movement in years before fizzling out.
The Justice Ministry in October formally labeled Navalny's anti-corruption group a "foreign agent", meaning it can be subjected to spot checks and face bureaucratic scrutiny.
Navalny has called that move and others part of a coordinated and trumped-up campaign to stifle the anti-Kremlin opposition's activities.

(Additional reporting by Maxim Rodionov and Maria Vasilyeva; Editing by Gareth Jones)

Democracies Worldwide Should Execute Trump Trolls and Putin Trolls

 Trump trolls and Putin trolls are committing espionage and therefore they can be treated as spies and executed under the law. When the spre...