It seems that Suu Kyi may be between a rock and a hard place. However, many believe that she does not only have the responsibility, but also the power to advance human rights in the country.

“As the moral leader of the country and as the senior most political leader, she is certainly in a position to shape the way that people in the country think about human rights, the way they think about the situation in Rakhine state,” Smith told IPS.

Tadros echoed similar sentiments to IPS, stating: “Even if you don’t have much power over the military, you don’t have to be an apologist for them.”

“She has political concerns and that is a normal thing for any leader, but the fact that the political concerns are taking precedence over the killing and injuring of thousands of people…it’s just beyond words,” she continued.

Suu Kyi also reminded the international community in her speech that Myanmar is a newly democratic country that is still learning its way, stating: “After half a century or more of authoritarian rule, now we are in the process of nurturing our nation.”

“We are a young and fragile country facing many problems, but we have to cope with them all… we cannot just concentrate on the few,” she continued.

Tadros said that excuse is not good enough and that she can show leadership without the state collapsing.

“Myanmar has had decades to deal with the issue and has never done it in an effective way and the Suu Kyi administration is no different,” Smith said.

Though Suu Kyi claimed that her government has made efforts in recent years to improve living conditions for Muslims living in Rakhine without discrimination, Myanmar’s government has long disputed the Rohingya people’s status as citizens.

Since 1982 when they adopted the biased citizenship law, the country has enacted a series of discriminatory policies including restrictions on movement and exclusion from healthcare, rendering the majority of the group stateless and impoverished.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) previously described the Rohingya community as one of the most “excluded, persecuted, and vulnerable communities in the world.”

However, Suu Kyi has consistently remained silent on the plight of the Rohingya and has instead perpetuated their discrimination and exclusion.

In her address, Suu Kyi refused to use the “Rohingya” by name, only referencing it when she spoke of ARSA which she said are responsible for “acts of terrorism.”

When asked if this continues to perpetuate the narrative that Rohingyas are terrorists, Smith said yes.

“She is in a position now to actually save lives, she is in a position now to stop atrocities. Not only is she failing to do that, but she is making matters worse,” he told IPS.

He added that she is contributing to a narrative that may push more civilians to attack Muslim populations in the country.

Suu Kyi said all those who have fled to Bangladesh will be able to return after a process of verification, and added that she wants to find out what the “real problems” are in Rakhine.

“We want to find out why this exodus is happening. We’d like to talk to those who have fled, as well as those who have stayed,” she said.

Though there is no end in sight to the country’s crisis, Smith expressed concern that her promised actions may coerce the population to disavow their ethnic identity.

“That is not a [verification] process to allow the population to self identify as Rohingya, it’s a process to try to systematize and document this population as Bengali and it’s not a pathway to full citizenship.”

Tadros questioned the fate of Rohingya that do return, stating: “The people who have fled have the right to return. But return to what? Return to what sort of conditions? Return to a country where they have no rights and for this cycle of violence to happen again?”

“This isn’t about being able to physically cross the border to go back to your house anymore, this is about using this moment to actually get the Rohingya the rights that they deserve,” she added.

She urged for Suu Kyi and the international community to do everything in their power to stop the violence, while Smith called on the Security Council to declare the crisis as a threat to international peace and security.

“What is needed right now is action. The Security Council needs to start preparing itself to act towards international justice,” he concluded.

© 2019 Inter Press Service

While critics have sounded the alarm about the bill’s insufficient block grants and other provisions which could eliminate coverage for as many as 32 million Americans, Kennedy’s only concern about the grants is that states could potentially use the funding to set up systems covering all residents.

“I don’t think states should have the authority to take money from the American taxpayer and set up a single-payer system,” said Kennedy, adding, “It’s our job to make sure that money is properly spent.”

In addition to scrapping marketplace subsidies, the block grant funding would also be spent to eliminate the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and replace it with a fixed amount paid by the federal government to states for each Medicaid recipient, regardless of actual Medicaid costs.

While Republicans attempt to push through their third attempt to repeal the ACA, proposals for a nationwide government-funded healthcare system has gained traction in recent weeks. Sixteen Democrats signed on as co-sponsors of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) Medicare for All bill last week; a year ago Sanders was the only member of the Senate Democratic Caucus officially promoting a universal healthcare system.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Click Here: st kilda saints guernsey 2019

Similarly, the OCI report concludes that “every dollar spent subsidizing this industry takes us further away from achieving internationally agreed emissions goals, and maintaining a stable climate.” It also notes that without a rapid reduction in U.S. fossil fuel reliance, the world will likely fail the meet goals outlined in the 2015 Paris climate accord, in which nearly every nation on Earth agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of limiting global average temperature rise to below 2°C, while aiming for below 1.5°C.

Eliminating industry subsidies, however, faces strong political resistance in the U.S. Subsidies, the OCI report notes, “have been defended by a Congress influenced by $350 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures by the fossil fuel industry,” which reseachers estimate “equates to a 8,200 percent return on investment.”

“For members of Congress who consider themselves climate champions, eliminating the subsidies that drive fossil fuel expansion and climate pollution is a critical starting point,” said Janet Redman, OCI’ s U.S. policy director and principal author of the report.

Congress, though, is not the only political barrier to curbing U.S. emissions. President Donald Trump, in June, vowed to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, and since then the U.S. has sidelined itself in discussions about reducing emissions globally.

“While the rest of the world moves toward a renewable energy future, dirty energy defenders in the Trump administration are using our taxpayer dollars to promote dangerous new fossil fuel development,” Redman added. “Until we separate oil and state, the dirty energy money cycle of fossil fuel contributions going into Congress and oil, gas, and coal subsidies coming out will stymie our chances at revolutionizing the energy sector and staving off worsening climate disasters.”

To achieve that, Tim McDonnell argued in a Washington Post analysis published Monday, “forget the Paris agreement. The real solution to climate change is in the U.S. tax code.” Noting that fossil fuel industry lobbyists are celebrating the new Republican tax plan, released last week, as “a win,” McDonnell concludes “tax reform can help fight climate change—just not the kind of tax reform Trump and Republicans are proposing.”

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Click Here: essendon bombers guernsey 2019

With such impacts in mind, Cheryl Fish-Parcham, director of access initiatives at Families USA, called the ending of the subsidies “the most malicious and harmful attack yet by the Trump Administration on the Affordable Care Act.”

Denouncing the cut-off as well as Trump’s executive order Thursday attacking the ACA, Derrick Johnson, interim president and CEO of NAACP, said, “President Trump does not care about protecting the health of Americans. To end the Affordable Care Act in this way is a desperate maneuver to engineer a political win for his right-wing base, after nearly a year of covert, detrimental action.”

According to Chris Carson, president of League of Women Voters, it showed that “Trump is attempting to dismantle the American healthcare system piece by piece, in the same dangerous and under-the-table manner that the American people made clear to their Congressional leaders is unacceptable.” While the healthcare law is imperfect, “Congress should work to improve it,” she said. “The White House should not undo the positive impacts this legislation has had for millions of Americans who previously could not afford healthcare coverage.”

As Sen. Bernie Sanders sees it, “we have a president who is trying to destroy the American healthcare system.”

Joining California and New York in the new suit are the attorneys general of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Oregon, North Carolina, Illinois, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Iowa, and the District of Columbia.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Click Here: brisbane lions guernsey 2019

Concerns that “audacious cronyism” is threatening to overtake the Puerto Rico recovery grew even louder Thursday after a copy of the Whitefish Energy contract was published online by USA Today.

One of the more startling sections of the agreement declares that “[i]n no event shall PREPA, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the FEMA administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their authorized representatives have the right to audit or review the cost and profit elements of the labor rates specified” in the contract.

“The most alarming part of this contract is that it prohibits the government from reviewing the costs Whitefish charges for services.”
—Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi

The agreement also states that the Puerto Rican government “waives any claim against [Whitefish] related to delayed completion of work.”

Journalist Ken Klippenstein concluded that the contract appears to be little more than permission for Whitefish to carry out “colonial-style plunder,” and the leaked document quickly caught the attention of members of Congress, who immediately began demanding answers.

On Friday, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) wrote a letter to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform demanding that Congress “convene hearings to investigate both the Whitefish deal and the full scope of any anti-auditing language in government contracts.”

“The most alarming part of this contract is that it prohibits the government from reviewing the costs Whitefish charges for services,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “The federal government has a sacred promise to the American people not to misuse or waste federal funds. This contract breaks that promise, and Congress needs to investigate both the deal with Whitefish and the full use of any anti-auditing clauses in the federal contracting process.”

This post has been corrected to reflect the fact USA Today first published the Whitefish contract.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

“A sit-in expresses that your group is willing to sit there until your senator or his or her staff address your concerns—that you are demanding to be heard,” read Indivisible’s breakdown of the action plan. “That is what makes these actions powerful.”

Americans for Tax Fairness released a study on Tuesday showing that 82 million middle-class households would pay more in taxes in 2027, should the GOP plan become law. The Tax Policy Center’s analysis came to the same conclusion this week, while finding that the plan would only produce $169 billion in additional revenue over the next decade, while adding a $1.5 trillion deficit.

As of Friday, at least 50 events were planned as part of Indivisible’s National Day of Action.

Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.