Latest U.S. Resist Op Eds

By Ron Israel
Managing Editor
U.S. RESIST NEWS

March 18,2020

We have worried that there would be a 3rd world war since the end of the 2^nd World War in 1945. Pundits speculated that the 3rd world war would come from an escalation of an existing great power confrontation, like the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, or by the gradual global expansion of a regional conflict like the Korean or Vietnam wars; or through the unauthorized use of nuclear weapons by rogue states and non-state actors. But although none of these predictions has materialized we find ourselves today at the onset of World War III caused by a microbe—the corona virus.

From its origins in the Wuhan province of China in  December 2019 the virus has spread with deadly effect to 150 countries around the world. It has no geographical preference for whom it affects, and all who are in its path become its victims. Sadly as of yet the global community has  failed to come together and marshal the forces needed to defeat this enemy. Each country seems to be struggling on its own to do what it can to protect its own people.

The victors in World Wars I and II were the allied forces— countries who came together united by the presence of a common foe who challenged their mores and threatened their freedom. They shared armies and intelligence, coordinated battle plans, and helped out members of their communities who were hard hit by the conflict.

A winning response to World War III needs to have such an alliance on a global scale. Sure each country needs to adapt its own measures to help  safeguard its citizens, including travel bans for people from other countries. But countries also need  act on a global scale in order to win this war. The planet needs  a World War III Global Pandemic Alliance to combat the spread of Covid-19. The alliance should be open to all countries provided  they commit to the transparent  sharing  of all information  about the status of the virus in their countries, and to joining in collaborative efforts to combat the virus.. The battle plan for the alliance would include:

-The exchange of data and information about the virus and its spread.

-Joint scientific research focused on critical tasks such as vaccine development

-The setting of operational standards for important operations such as testing and risk status.

-The establishment of a global fund for poor countries affected by the virus  who may lack the funds to pay for its treatment.

-The exchange of information and technology related to approaches that work in combatting the virus.

-The monitoring of the incidents of the virus in each country, the morbidity and mortality rates, and a periodic assessment of the status of risk in all countries.

The  Global Pandemic Alliance will need leadership. It can come from national leaders with  global perspectives, leading scientists, business leaders and leaders from the philanthropic and  NGO community. The World Health Organization is one possible convening organization  for the Alliance but there may be others. We need  the  organizations and people with the ability  to bring the world together to fight and win World War III to step forward.

After approximately a year, the impeachment of US President Donald Trump, who is the third US president to face an impeachment trial, came to an end not amazingly in an acquittal.

Trump, who was impeached in the month of December over his dealings with Ukraine, but acquitted in the GOP-controlled Senate in February, was acquitted after a remarkable trial before the United States Senate. The Senate trial focused on the impeachment charges of abuse of office following allegations that Trump forced Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden by withholding foreign aid funds that had been approved by Congress. Biden is a likely contender in this year’s presidential election that is scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

Countries outside of the United States sense that the failure to convict Trump on obvious charges, reflects a further weakening of US democratic norms and practice. Boosting other nations to be more democratic and liberalize their markets has been a staple belief of America’s foreign strategy for several years.

Therefore, now, when US envoys and representatives communicate with their foreign equivalents to be less unethical, stick to the directive of principle, and resolve prejudiced glitches and difficulties,  there’s a bigger probability that those discussion and debate topics won’t echo.  Sadly Trump’s acquittal on impeachment charges by the US Senate also has ominous implications for the future of democratic governance throughout the world.

And should Trump be re-elected in this year’s presidential election in spite of all this, it would push am unambiguous communication to overseas regimes that a leader can disrespect the law without fear of being removed from office.

Democrats, please don’t mess things up; please don’t blow your party’s chances to defeat President Trump. Doing so will bring us four more years of despotic chaotic governance and the inevitable end to our democracy and rule of law.

You are all politicians and well versed in the art of the deal; so the time is now to draw on

the political skills that got you here. I know that you have labored long and hard to capture your party’s nomination; and one of you is going to be successful; but whoever this person is, she or he must have the wherewithal to bring everyone else into the campaign fight; to construct a tent that  big enough for coastal liberals, mid-western moderates and well meaning conservatives ,disgusted by this president’s conduct, to join hands.

The goal of the democratic presidential campaign—to defeat President Trump—is much bigger than any of the many well-crafted policies  and plans each of you has put together; it is much bigger than the investment of pride that you have put into your campaigns; much bigger than the group of followers that you have amassed.

The time has come for you to coalesce; to join forces to honor the pledges that each of you made at the beginning of this campaign; to support whoever wins; and whoever wins must honor the same pledge; not begrudgingly; not without softening their stand ever so slightly so that others can feel good about it.

The real test of the ability of any one of you to lead our country is your ability to bring our party together.  To fail to do this will destroy the party as an effective opposition and present President Trump with a mandate to further destroy our democracy.

The opening arguments in the Senate Trial of Donald J. Trump are in the books. House Managers opened the proceedings and argued for 20 hours over three days that President Trump is a danger to the country who needs to be removed from office. Trump’s legal team presented a considerably more concise argument refuting the Articles of Impeachment and portrayed their client as an adept president, targeted by his political opponents. The legal merits of each case will be a source of discussion in Constitutional law classes and impeachments to come.

The Democrat’s Case

Donald Trump withheld $400 million in military aid to Ukraine and conditioned it on dummy investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s role on Ukrainian gas company Burisma. This was the allegation central to the House Manager’s first Article of Impeachment, Abuse of Power. It was the Democrat’s contention that this act constituted solicitation of foreign election interference at the expense of US national security. In meticulous and painstaking detail, Adam Schiff led the Senate and viewing public through a ‘’factually chronology’’ of the scandal. In January of 2019 the president’ personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, visited Ukraine in the hopes of instigating investigations into his client’s political rival. He found willing partners in well-connected Ukrainians disaffected by the new regime’s anti-corruption platform. Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, represented an impediment to the White House’s back channel diplomacy, and well-connected Ukranians who had previously benefited from the corrupt status quo. Giuliani and co. orchestrated a smear campaign which would eventually lead to her recall.

Ukraine is a key US ally in fight against Russian aggression. They have been in a hot-war with their neighboring nation since 2014. The United Nations puts the estimated death toll  ataround 13,000. Newly-elected President Volodymr Zelensky was desperate, not just for the vital military aid, but for a White House visit, to demonstrate the United States’ strong support for his country’s efforts. Schiff highlighted the imminent danger faced by Ukraine and the power discrepancy between the two presidents as the leverage Trump would use to get Zelensky to do his political bidding.

The timeline of the hold on military aid had previously been somewhat nebulous. Mark Sandy, the lone official from the Office of Management and Budget to testify behind closed doors, cleared that up for investigators. His testimony was released by Democrats on Tuesday night. He stated word had trickled down to his office that Trump wanted a hold placed on the aid by mid-July, and on a July 18th call, an OMB staffer announced that a hold was to occur. Hours after the now infamous July 25th call, Sandy put the hold into effect. This proves Trump had made the unilateral decision to block the military assistance days before he would tell his Ukrainian counterpart he’d like him to ‘’do us a favor though.’’ Democrats had previously presented the testimony of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and their understanding of an explicit quid pro in regard to the announcement of investigations for release of aid. Supporters of the president largely disregarded their words as second-hand and inferential. The evidence presented By Mark Sandy lends additional credence to their remarks before the House.

All this amounted to a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, according to a recently released Government Accountability Office report. The funds at issue had previously been authorized by Congress on a bipartisan basis. In order for the Executive Branch to freeze the funds, a rationale based on programmatic reasoning (when a program must be implemented before money is dispersed) or unavoidable delay, must be offered to Congress. No attempt whatsoever was made to explain the hold.

Finally Trump released the aid on September 11th, well after he learned of the whistleblower complaint and Congress had announced an inquiry into the delay of Ukrainian military aid. It is the contention of House Managers that all this amounts to an iron-clad

case that the president abused the power of his office by demanding that an ally (who’d just been elected on a campaign of anti-corruption) announce sham investigations that would boost his 2020 reelection prospects by withholding security assistance without cause. In doing so, they contend Trump violated his oath of office by prioritizing his political interests over the stated foreign policy goals of the United States.

The Obstruction of Congress charge is less convoluted and rests on shakier Constitutional ground. Their premise is that the sole power of impeachment lies with the House. As such it is the legal obligation of the Executive Branch to comply with subpoenas for any and all  documents or and witnesses. In October, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone responded to House subpoenas with a defiant letter stating no cooperation would be forthcoming, deriding the inquiry as ‘’invalid and unconstitutional’’, and claiming that the House lacked the proper oversight to compel testimony or documents in this instance. Trump would subsequently order all current and former Executive Branch employees not to comply with Congressional request for documents or appear before the House for questioning. Democrats view this as an affront to their ability to investigate matters within their purview and a threat to the separation of powers. It would also appear the House views this as an extension of the nonsensical claim by Trump that he cannot be investigated. Executive overreach of a lawless president was undoubtedly given weight in their deliberation; Donald Trump, at a Conservative rally last year said ‘’then I have an Article 2, which says I can do anything I want as president.’’ the clip was played numerous times throughout the presentation.             The Democrats made a compelling case that Donald Trump is liable to rig the next election however he can, a threat to our system of government and needs to be removed promptly.

The Republican Case

Trump’s defense team presented a considerably briefer case over the three days they took to the Senate floor to defend the president. Their argument rested mostly on procedural issues, conjecture and a bit of projection.

The president did nothing wrong. No witness directly links Ukraine aid and Biden investigations. Even if he had, these Articles are too vague to stand. Trump is being victimized by political opponents who seek to ‘’undue the 2016 election results and interfere in the upcoming election.’’ These were the most common talking points heard from Trump’s star-studded defense team.

On the subject of innocence his lawyers focused primarily on the July 25th call between Trump and Zelensky that would eventually become the subject of the whistleblower complaint. Their interpretation of the call differed greatly from that of their Democratic counterparts. They contend the call featured no conditionality of aid, and nothing untoward that should have served as the impetus of impeachment.

This segued neatly into their attempt to legitimize their client’s purported concerns of corruption in Ukraine. Trump has always been skeptical of foreign aid. He said as much on the campaign trail and has repeatedly stated a disdain for what he’s sees as handouts. Ukraine, prior to the election of Zelensky ,has featured endemic corruption at the highest levels of government. So when Trump inquired into the activities of the Bidens in the country, he was not doing so for any nefarious reason, but acting as a responsible steward of American tax payer dollars. The alternative theory that Ukraine, and not Russia interfered with the 2016 election, has been debunked, but the president still seemed to put stock in it. His lawyers argued this belief spoke to his state of mind and his good faith intentions of ensuring American security aid was dispensed wisely.

The basis of the Obstruction of Congress charge was the White House’s blanket refusal to comply with subpoenas into the inquiry. Trump’s defense cited Executive Privilege as the rationale for senior level officials such as John Bolton to ignore calls to testify. Though the term was not found in Cipollone’s October letter or in the president’s orders to subordinates to prevent cooperation with the inquiry, his legal team argued it was his right to assert privilege to protect sensitive communication. Executive Privilege exists so that the president may receive honest counsel from close advisers who may otherwise be less candid if they were concerned what they say may later become public.

Also, Article II refers only to the official impeachment inquiry as it relates to the withholding of aid from Ukraine. In the case of Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and eight other Executive Branch officials, subpoenas were issued after impeachment articles were formalized, at which point the House lacked the authority to issue subpoenas, thus making them invalid. Previous requests for information that  the Executive Branch claimed was privileged have been resolved in the courts, and it is there the Trump team contends these disputes should have been settled as well. It was only to meet their rushed and artificial deadline to impeach that Democrats did not allow the matter to be resolved by the Judiciary Branch. Trump’s defense teams does not believe the second Article of Impeachment constitutes obstruction in a legal sense, and certainly not to serve as the basis for removal from office.

Perhaps the most substantive words in defense of the president came from Constitutional Scholar Alan Dershowitz. Bucking the consensus of the legal community (and his own opinions concerning the Clinton impeachment) Dershowitz argued that a crime is necessary in order for a president to be removed from office. He asserted that the matter at hand is essentially a policy disagreement and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidential impeachments. Dershowitz also gave little weight to the GAO report finding that Trump had violated the ICA, calling it a partisan agency inclined to defer to Congress. The example he raised to demonstrate his point further was Trump selling Alaska to Russia if he thought it was the right thing. ‘’That would be terrible. But would it be impeachable?’’ ‘’Not under the Constitution’’ he contends.

In this politically polarized landscape, the Senate Trial represents something of a Rorschach Test. Each side made their argument that their desired outcome is in the best interest of the country’s present and future. Each case had its weaknesses; Obstruction of Congress is a bit dubious, Trump’s concerns about Ukrainian corruption isn’t crediuble. The entire exercise felt like a continuation of the controversies swirling around the Trump presidency since it began in January of 2017.

Ultimately House Democrats found themselves in a position similar to that of a football team down multiple scores with two minutes remaining in the game. They probably weren’t ever going to be able to do enough to achieve their objective. A vote on witnesses is yet to come, and a bit more suspenseful than they may have been earlier in the trial, but the outcome of the trial has never really been in doubt. The most significant consequences of Trump’s Senate Trial will likely be seen at the ballot box in November and future presidential impeachments.

Learn More

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/27/20985454/impeachment-trump-ukraine-aid-timeline-news

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-congress-impeachment-and-constitutional-conflict

Photo by Free To Use Sounds

Immigration was a tentpole of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Utilizing racist and fear-mongering rhetoric, Trump demonized immigrants and rode a populist wave to an improbable victory. His solution to the ‘’scourge’’ of migrants crossing the southern US border? A wall to keep the so-called invaders out. Three years later the promise of a ‘’big, beautiful wall’’ has gone largely unfulfilled. To date roughly 85 miles of fencing have been erected during Trump’s tenure and almost exclusively where structures already existed. In an effort to make progress on the ’16 campaign promise in the run-up to the 2020 election the administration has announced 31 miles of new wall is slated for construction, with a projected end date of 12/20/20.

In November it was announced that Fisher Sand & Gravel had been awarded a $400 million contract to build the aforementioned stretch of wall. The North Dakota based company has earned similar sized government contracts in the past, but none had anything to do with walls or barriers. The company’s lack of experience in wall-building is not the only reason to question the merit or wisdom of their award.

Over the past 20 years, Fisher Sand and Gravel has been cited 16 times for environmental violations and paid penalties in excess of $450K. Seven times the company been fined for workplace safety infractions and incurred fines just shy of $50K. In 2011 the company was fined $150K by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for subjecting two female employees to ‘’egregious verbal sexual harassment’’ and firing one when she complained. Michael Fisher, the former head of the company, pled guilty to nine counts of felony tax fraud and received 37 months in federal prison. Fisher Sand and Gravel was able to defer prosecution against them by agreeing to  $1.16 million in restitution and penalties with a promise to install safeguards against future fraud at the company. However it is not FSG’s checkered past raising eyebrows in Washington.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for contracts relating to the border barrier project. The agency solicits competitive bids to ensure meritorious award, free from insidious political influence. FSG was one of six applicants to build border wall prototypes in the San Diego area during 2017. Their concrete design lacked a transparent aesthetic desired by officials at the Department of Homeland Security. Fisher then pivoted to a steel design which the Army Corps said ‘’did not meet its standards and lacked regulatory approvals.’’ The agency added that FSG’s work was also late and over budget. Stymied by bureaucratic red tape, Fisher sued the government after their rejection. The case was dismissed, but the Army Corps added the company to a group of bids in response to pressure from the White House. It has been reported that Donald Trump has repeatedly intervened in the process to steer the contract at issue towards Fisher Sand & Gravel.

Government contracting is intended to be free from political influence to guarantee the best value for the American taxpayer and prevent any untoward favoritism. In this case the most logical inference is that strategic political influence was exerted to elicit such special treatment. It is highly irregular for a president to personally intervene in the award of a major government contract. According to administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, Trump has done that repeatedly on behalf of Fisher to leaders at the Department of Homeland Security and the Army Corps.

Tommy Fisher is the CEO of FSG. What he and his outfit lack in substance, he apparently compensates for with well-placed political donations and public appearances. He and his wife each gave $10K to new Republican Senator, Kevin Cramer, of North Dakota. Cramer in turn invited Fisher to Trump’s State of the Union address last year. Cramer has also been vocal publicly, and privately in advocating for FSG. Perhaps as significantly, Fisher has made numerous television appearances on the president’s favorite cable channel, FOX News. The television spots may as well have been direct pitches to Trump. Fisher has appeared on various FOX programs, speaking Trump’s language in full support of his agenda. For instance, he has claimed on air (without supporting evidence) that his company can build the wall ‘’faster, better and cheaper’’ than anyone else and likened his patented wall hanging technology (compared to the methods used by other builders) to the difference between an iPhone and a payphone. Even Fisher’s booster in the Senate, Cramer, acknowledges the link between his T.V. appearances and the wall contract, saying they may not have helped with the Army Corps, ‘’but certainly helped with the president.’’

Cramer is not insulated from any impropriety regarding the award. In August the Senator delayed confirmation of a White House budget official in an attempt to access privileged information about the border wall bidding process. When told the bids contained sensitive, proprietary information, Cramer demanded a meeting with the Lieutenant General who heads the Army Corps of Engineers. He subsequently released a statement vowing to hold the military engineers ‘’accountable’’ and added ‘’I believe we have their attention and are in a good position to succeed.’’ The latter quote implies that the freshman senator had a specific agenda in mind. Tommy Fisher is a constituent of Cramer’s, responsible for thousands of dollars into his campaign coffers. He’s publicly lauded Trump in his preferred  news medium in a bombastic style familiar to the president. It is beyond any reasonable belief that these two factors are unrelated to Cramer’s promotion of FSG and Trump’s intervention in the bidding process.

Learn More:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/gop-senator-held-up-trump-nominee-demanding-to-see-border-wall-contracts-after-army-corps-panned-construction-firm-he-prefers/2019/08/02/b185a76a-b566-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html
• https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/23/dods-jedi-procurement-and-the-old-post-office/

Photo by Markus Spiske

By Ron Israel
Managing Editor
U.S. RESIST NEWS

January 6, 2020

America’s political elections–for President, Congress as well as state and local offices–are critical to the functioning of our democracy. Our electoral system enables us to select people who lead our government and make the critical decisions that affect our lives. It also provides a mechanism by which those entrusted with the responsibility to lead us are held accountable for their efforts. Our political elections depend on the ability of our electoral system to operate in a fair, reliable, transparent process, providing all citizens with the opportunity to vote, and allowing candidates for office to make their cases known to the voters.

Today America’s electoral system is under attack on various levels including; foreign interference, voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the sanctioning of unlimited campaign finance. U.S. RESIST NEWS believes there is no more important issue facing our country than the urgent need to reform our electoral system. Efforts to reform the system, such as those described below, need our support.

 Foreign Interference:

To get serious about protecting the electoral process our government needs to ensure that voters are not subjected to foreign influence operations that violate U.S. campaign laws. Regrettably the Trump administration has not done much to address the issue of foreign interference. Trump’s continual denial of Russian interference and the political gridlock in Congress are the main reason why.

In 2018, Congress approved $380 million to improve election security systems ahead of 2018 midterms. The money was to be used to replace aging voting machines, implement post-election audits, and provide cybersecurity training for state and local officials, among other election security related improvements. The Federal Election Assistance Commission was asked to distribute the approved funds to states within 45 days However, given the short timeframe, states only spent about 8 percent of the $380 million Congress approved by the time the elections rolled around.

Since 2018 the Democratically controlled House has passed several major electoral reform measures, that address the threat of foreign influence, that have died in the Senate where they have not been taken up for consideration. Electoral reform measures passed by the House include require candidates and political committees to notify the FBI and other authorities if a foreign power offers campaign help; tighten restrictions on campaign spending by foreign nationals and require more transparency in political ads on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

A 2^nd House passed bill allocates $600 million to spend on updating voting equipment to comply with new standards including requirements that voting machines produce a paper record, stay disconnected from the Internet and be produced in the United States. But Republicans have objected to the legislation, arguing that its provisions interfere with the authority of states and localities to conduct their own elections.

The issue of protecting voters from foreign-sponsored fake election news also has been taken up by several big tech companies. Twitter has instituted the most far reaching policy of any tech company banning all political advertising. Facebook has maintained a position that it is not in the position to make judgments on content and that voters need to make up their own minds about what to believe. At the same time however, Facebook has hired an army of fact-checkers and installed new algorithms to ferret out and delete hate speech.

With hate speech the main worry comes down to labeling legitimate speech as hate speech (protesters, BDS Movement/Middle East and black centered movements, etc.). And with fake news the concern is who will judge what is true and what is fake (the government/users or moderators who may have another agenda, etc. 

o Voter Suppression (election fraud)

Americans also need to be concerned with domestic bred

efforts to rig elections. Starting around 2010, states across the country  introduced legislation  that would put unnecessary barriers in front of the ballot box, particularly for voters of color. Some states with early voting reduced the number of days of advance access to the polls. Others required forms of identification to vote that lawmakers knew many Americans did not have. States like Tennessee also burdened community groups that help register voters with unnecessary regulations and restrictions.

To try to combat this surge in vote rigging the House of Representatives has taken meaningful action. It recently passed the Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill that would restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act to its full strength.  The bill, along with many others, awaits action by the Senate.

The Center for American Progress suggests that government take the following steps to prevent vote-rigging:

Require voter-verified paper ballots or records for every vote cast; replace old voting machines; conduct robust postelection audits to confirm election outcomes; update and secure outdated voter registration systems and e-poll books; require minimum cybersecurity standards for voter registration systems and other pieces of voting infrastructure; perform mandatory pre-election testing on all voting machines, as well as continuous vulnerability analysis; expand threat information sharing, including comprehensive threat assessments accompanied by mandatory reporting requirements; elevate coordination between states and federal agencies on election security, including real-time notification of security breaches and threats; provide federal funding for updating election infrastructure.

O Gerrymandering

Since 2010, legislators in a number of states have redrawn congressional and state legislative lines to draw districts that would ensure that a political party would win that district regardless of the candidate. This attempt to draw districts that would rig the system has led to an inequality in voting results. States that had a majority number of votes cast for one political party overall often ended up winning a minority of seats statewide. This has led to lawsuits in courts where some partisan maps were thrown out and even to some new options adopted by some states like independent redistricting commissions.

To help deal with this problem the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) recently announced a pledge that future political candidates at the federal and local level can commit to upcoming campaigns. The pledge states:

“For too long, partisan gerrymandering has been used as a tool to manipulate electoral districts to benefit political parties instead of voters. I believe every elected official should be accountable to the people they represent, which means we need to end gerrymandering. I pledge to support fair redistricting that ends map manipulation and creates truly representative districts.”

The pledge has been sent to current members of the Democratic Party and at last count has been embraced by twenty- six politicians which include a number of Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, a number of party leaders and a handful of congressional and state legislative leaders.

Other notable anti-gerrymandering actions  include efforts to overturn

Rucho v Common Cause, the 2019 Supreme Court case that eliminated partisan gerrymandering at the federal level only.

O Campaign Finance

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Court held that  corporations are people; and that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

The case tilted political influence towards wealthy donors and corporations. It spawned the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from corporate and union treasuries, as well as from individuals. These groups spent more than $800 million in the 2012 election cycle. Citizens United also triggered a boom in political activity by tax-exempt “dark money” organizations that don’t have to disclose their donors.

There are efforts underway to overturn or replace the

Citizens United decision by groups such as Common Cause, Public Citizen and the End Citizens United PAC. The focus of much ot their efforts has been on passage of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Such an amendment was introduced in Congress by the Democrats in 2019. It affirms the right of states and the federal government to pass laws that regulate spending in elections,

Photo by Randy Colas

Earlier this month, the  Trump administration formally notified the United Nations (UN) that it would withdraw the United States (US) from the Paris Agreement, which strives for an international framework to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

While taking this decision, it, of course, overlooked increasingly vital appeals and requests from establishments and stakeholders to take significant steps on the issues related to the global ecological crisis, and, at the same time, also coined a leadership and guidance vacuum in tackling the urgent concerns related with this global ecological crisis. The crisis poses a threat to humanity and scientists advise that it is necessary to limit the life-threatening harm from global warming such as increased famines, intensified droughts, forest fires, sea level rise and accelerating floods.

During the years since the accord was formed, several significant countries, including Brazil, China, Japan as well as India, have undergone fiscal, governmental, or political concerns, but none of these nations has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on climate change, and, in fact, other notable emitters, such as, China and the European Union, have made it very evident that they still favour the pact.

US withdrawal from the pact won’t legally take affect until after the next US Presidential election. However, the Trump administration already has begun rolling back the emission reduction commitments made to the Paris Agreement by the Obama administration.  This means that other countries will need to compensate for the gap in global climate change mitigation and adaptation caused by US policies.To ensure needed reductions in greenhouse gas emissions other foremost emitters like China and India will need  to step up their efforts.

America’s exit from the accord  also reflects the Trump administration’s trend towards   non-compliance with global treaties. This attitude of non-collaboration is affecting America’s status, stature and eminence in the world..

In the future, even if America comes back to the Paris Agreement, the US status as a dependable and trustworthy global associate has already undergone impairment that will require  time to restore and refurbish.

Photo by Alexander Kagan

Last weekend President Trump gave a much-publicized speech to young conservatives in Florida, which included his thoughts on wind energy. In response to his remarks, I wish to target some of his talking points and illustrate how they muddy the waters of discussion around renewables. For his narrative uses a common tactic of discrediting support for environmentalism by abandoning comparison in favor of political soundbites and criticisms of the energy system.

First, Trump says that wind turbines are made mainly abroad, with the insinuation being that the U.S. is supporting foreign industry and that we should stop purchasing them. Claiming that wind turbines are mainly manufactured abroad is, at best, a gross oversimplification. Wind turbines are constructed from a litany of parts, with some being produced in the U.S. and others overseas. According to the Department of Energy’s annual Wind Technologies Market Report, as of 2017, domestic manufacturing of wind turbine components is strong on the whole. Domestic industry accounts for the creation of 70 – 90% of wind turbine towers, 50 – 70% of blades and hubs, and over 85% of nacelle assembly. Although the domestic turbine industry is reliant upon imports, this does not warrant an all-inclusive condemnation of wind turbine production.   

Secondly , Trump spoke about turbine manufacturing generating enormous amounts

of greenhouse gases which threatens us all as it furthers the process of global warming. Manufacturing of wind turbines  probably creates some  some greenhouse gases, but this does not mean that it should be stopped. There is also no data on the amount of greenhouse gases created by wind turbine production specifically, so Trump’s claim of a “tremendous” amount is a factually bankrupt, subjective judgement. In addition, if Trump is so concerned about emissions, why does he support expanding the fossil fuel industry and the reduction of anti-pollution protections?

Third, Trump says that homes near wind turbines are worth 50% less than comparable properties. This is a contested claim, with some studies arguing against and others for. Many studies show that homes near turbines sell for anywhere between 10 – 50% less than comparable homes, but many others declare a negligible impact, while still others show that properties around wind turbines already have low property values. Although Trump’s assertion of 50% is nothing but a political soundbite, it is possible. Yet property value is dependent upon the location of said homes, the surrounding environment, and an array of other factors.  It also should be noted that more and more wind turbines are being located on wind farms far removed from residential neighborhoods.

Fourth, Trump claims that turbines are “noisy, bird graveyards.” Addressing the claim of “noisy,” wind turbines do indeed create noise. This is unavoidable. However, General Electric reports that at 300 meters (the closest that you are allowed to build a home next to a wind turbine), they create less noise than the average air conditioner. Perhaps that is too noisy for some, but it’s a subjective judgement. Turning to “bird graveyard,” it is true that turbine blades kill birds. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2013, turbines kill 679,000 birds per year at most. This means that at most, each turbine in the U.S. kills 12 birds a year. Perhaps this can be defined as a graveyard, but once again, it’s a subjective judgement. In addition, collisions with building glass kill somewhere around 500 million birds a year. If Trump is really so concerned about bird graveyards, perhaps he should consider how his support of offshore drilling effects waterfowl.

Fifth, Trump argues that turbines should not be constructed in “beautiful fields.” Once again, Trump is making a subjective argument. Turbines are constructed in areas where there is regularly enough wind to generate energy. The wind does not conform itself to the built human environment. Also, according to the Department of Energy in 2017, 91% of new wind installations are owned by private entities. Private ownership is to be respected under our system of law, so if a property owner chooses to build a turbine on their property, so be it. Perhaps Trump is suggesting a form of authoritarianism? Unlikely, but his desire to preserve supposedly virgin landscapes from the aesthetic stain of wind turbines comes with economic, moral, legal, and environmental impacts.

Sixth, Trump claims that after 10 years, turbines face serious repairs, with the implication being that they are unfeasible in the long-term and unprofitable. Perhaps he’s referring to how every 8 – 10 years a turbine’s gearbox typically needs to be rebuilt. However, this does not mean that the turbine is finished. The design life of a modern, industrial turbine is usually projected as being 20 – 30 years, with this being negatively or positively affected by a multitude of factors such as the turbulence of the site. Maintenance price will obviously rise as the turbine gets older, but this is no different from any other machine and does not render turbines economically unviable. If the turbine was placed somewhere that does not have enough regular wind or the owner cannot front repair costs a turbine can be a profit failure, but this is utterly dependent upon context. Trump is assuming far too many variables for this claim to be correct.

Finally, Trump implies that wind energy only remains financially viable because of government subsidies. The industry does receive $176 billion in government subsidies. In addition, U.S. wind energy faces the struggle of balancing significant demand and growth with robust competitive pressures from foreign firms and the anticipation of reduced domestic demand due to the decreasing of Production Tax Credits (PTC). The argument for or against government subsidies, no matter the industry, hinges upon whether the tax dollars spent in the short-term to support positive growth leads to a clear public good and economic profit in the long-term. I believe that this is the crux of Trump’s argument, and when examined, displays his inherent bias against renewables and the influence of the fossil fuel lobby upon his campaign.

Trump’s most coherent and factually correct arguments (namely bird deaths, noise, government subsidization, and the manufacturing of turbines creating emissions) rely upon his opinion. It is his opinion that bird deaths by turbines are unacceptable, that manufacturing turbines generates far too much greenhouse gases, that turbines make too much noise, and that the government is giving the wind energy industry too much money. These are all very real and factually correct effects of producing, installing, and running wind turbines. However, when we speak about combating climate change, we must utilize a comparative lens. Whether we are speaking about paper straws, LED bulbs, or the institution of a carbon tax, we must measure the status quo against the alternative. For example, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind energy creates 11 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (CO₂/kWh) of energy generation. Coal produces 980 grams CO₂/kWh, and natural gas produces 465 grams CO₂/kWh. In this example, if we are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, wind energy far and away defeats fossil fuels. Opponents may point to the necessity of having fossil fuel backups for wind power and that turbines need to be driven to sites with fossil fuel-powered trucks. This is all true, but it does not mean that wind energy and renewable energy on the whole should be demonized or abandoned. It simply points to the need to continue developing and improving green energy along with improving transportation modes and systems, manufacturing, and further the growth of green energy networks. Compared to fossil fuels, renewables cannot be said to be worse for the environment, and they generate economic growth in their own right. Global Share Statistics reports that the wind industry will be valued at $160 billion in 2024 fueled by a growth rate of 12%.

Does Trump say that wind energy should be abandoned? No, but he certainly implies that it should be publicly defunded, limited in growth, and that people should not invest in it. He claims that he wants “the cleanest water and air in the world” for the U.S., and yet his rhetoric and the implications of his speech point to something altogether different.

Photo by Richard Horne

After several debates, countless interviews and media coverage, it is still difficult for me, and perhaps many others, to identify the best Democratic candidate for President. Each of the leading candidates has strong points and weaknesses, and so making the best choice is going to be difficult.

What I do know is that I want a candidate who can do 3 things: (1) effectively take on Trump during a heated 3-month Fall election contest; (2) generate the greatest voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket and (3) have an approach to governance  that seeks to unify the country.

Let’s examine each of these attributes in a little greater detail. In terms of a strategy for taking on Trump, some people want a candidate that can go toe-to-toe with him on the debate stage, an experienced prosecutor like Kamala Harris. I myself think this strategy may further polarize the electorate, as they take sides in a war of attack dogs. A better approach might be an ignore/deflate strategy, where the Democratic candidate scarcely mentions Trump by name

while continually casting light on the failures of his policy agenda to do  much good  except benefit  the wealthy. This bashing of Trump’s policies would need to be coupled with an effort to convince the electorate of the merit of the policies of the 2020 Democratic platform, and would need to focus on core issues such as jobs, healthcare, abortion, racial justice,climate change, immigration and gun control. The need to address income inequality should  be addressed in proposals for stronger fiscal and monetary policies, while minimizing ad hominem polarizing bashing of rich people.

The  strategy for generating the best turnout depends on a candidate who can motivate voters in several key demographic  categories  —African-Americans and Latinos, suburban voters, people in mid-country swing-states , and young people. Unfortunately at this point I don’t see any of the currant candidates  appealing to all of these important demographic groups. More progressive candidates like Warren and Sanders have an appeal to younger voters who want radical change. More middle of the road candidates like Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, may appeal to mid-America and older African-Americans, but have yet to make inroads with younger voters, and with blacks in the case of Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

The third essential quality in a strong Democratic candidate is someone who stresses the need for unifying the country, who appeals to America’s morality and core values as enshrined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Many Americans yearn for this after several decades of divisive politics.  A strong Democratic  candidate should offer a broad vision of reconciliation, unity, and respect for people who don’t agree with him or her. A unity approach also ought to put forward sensical ways for reforming the electoral system to make it more open, participatory, and responsive to the will of the people; reforms that would include  taking the money out of politics, protecting voting rights,  and linking the election of a President to the popular vote

There are those that say that such an approach is not what’s needed and won’t be heeded by the opposition. But I believe that promoting and  practicing an inclusive form of governance that  does not demonize the opposition is  desperately needed by our country right now. It is an approach that seeks to go beyond  the realm of the daily  Democrat/ Republican political power contest. There are some candidates who realizes the necessity of taking this approach, such as Corey Booker  Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Biden  but they have their own set of vulnerabilities.

Ultimately it is the Democratic voters in early primary states who will play the strongest role in determining the next Democratic candidate for President. Any candidate with a solid lead after these three primaries will likely emerge as the nominee. Let’s hope our brothers and sisters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Utah, and South Carolina choose wisely.

One thing is for sure though; although you can find flaws in each of them (as you can in all humans) any of the currant group of Democratic candidates is 10000% better than President Trump, who has more flaws than one can count. That said  we all need to actively support the chosen Democratic  candidate , whoever he or she may be, no matter what their strengths and weaknesses. No moaning and groaning, voting for a rogue candidate, or staying home. This election is too important.

Photo by History in HD