Send Channel migrant boats to Ukraine to help war effort, Government urged
Danielle Sheridan – January 19, 2024
Since October, British and Ukrainian volunteers have delivered 15 inflatable dinghies and rigid inflatable boats to soldiers fighting along the Dnipro River – Alex Kruglyak/MissionUkraine UK
Boats used by migrants to cross the Channel to the UK should be sent to Ukraine to help the war effort, a volunteer organisation has told the Government.
Since October, British and Ukrainian volunteers have delivered 15 inflatable dinghies and rigid inflatable boats to soldiers fighting along the Dnipro River.
The small boats, which were in relatively poor condition, were driven from the UK to the south of Ukraine, where they were refurbished. This included the installation of new engines and painting the vessels khaki.
They have provided a lifeline to the Ukrainian soldiers holding three established bridgeheads on the occupied eastern side of the river, by carrying vital supplies and evacuating wounded soldiers.
When MissionUkraine, the organisation leading the small boats initiative, initially appealed to the Government for boats used by migrants to cross the Channel to be sent to Ukraine, it was informed by Border Force that this would not be possible.
Officials said: “The majority of boats are not fit for re-sale or to ever go to sea again, because they arrive in very poor condition. These boats also deteriorate and perish over the period, and are therefore often destined for recycling.
“The boat engines might also be sold at auction, but again, over time, they are no longer operational, or require additional funds to bring their condition back to normal.”
A small boat that was taken from the UK to Ukraine, repaired and then delivered to the front line – Alex Kruglyak/MissionUkraine UK
A government spokesman told The Telegraph that while it was “committed to supporting Ukraine” it “cannot donate unsafe and dangerous small boats which will put more lives at risk”.
However, Alex Kruglyak, one of the leaders of MissionUkraine, said poor quality boats were still useful to troops because marine engineers in Ukraine were able to refurbish them to a decent operating standard, meaning they were seaworthy again.
“All of the boats we deliver go through a boat maintenance procedure which is done by marine experts and all the engines go through an engine testing and maintenance procedure done by guys with decades of experience,” he told The Telegraph. “We will pay for all transport and maintenance costs – we are not asking for a penny.”
In June last year, the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine was breached, causing widespread flooding that stopped Ukrainian troops advancing via the Dnipro River.
By October, troops had started to cross the Dnipro, but were using rowing boats in order not to attract attention from the Russians.
There are now three established bridgeheads on the occupied eastern side of the river, with the Ukrainian troops at those secured areas dependent on small boats.https://www.youtube.com/embed/viYOh8tkwJY?enablejsapi=1&modestbranding=1&origin=http://www.telegraph.co.uk&rel=0
To date, MissionUkraine has delivered second hand boats to Kharkiv, Zaporizha, and Dnipro, which have then been transported to soldiers on the frontlines.
Mr Kruglyak, 35, originally from Odesa but living in London, added that it “made sense” for the Government to donate the boats confiscated from migrants, which are currently in a pound in Dover.
His calls were echoed by Paul Watson, 69, from Bridgend, Wales, who has driven to Ukraine’s front line numerous times with his friend Martin Blackwell, 70, to deliver both 4x4s and small boats.
Mr Watson said that the rigid inflatable boats they had transported so far were purchased from private owners for prices ranging between £1,500 and £4,000, with money raised through their local church.
Some of them were “in a very bad state when we first took them out,” he said, adding: “In any time of crisis, people can be very versatile and alter things to become usable. If one boat saved one life it was worth it.”
The US is struggling to handle an immigration surge – here’s how Europe is dealing with its own influx
Tara Sonenshine, Tufts University – January 19, 2024
Workers from the Spanish nonprofit Open Waters rescue 178 migrants from different countries, off the coast of Italy in September 2023. Jose Colon/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
As record-high numbers of undocumented migrants cross the United States-Mexico border illegally, one key question is how the U.S. got into this situation, and what lessons can be learned from how other countries respond to border security and immigration problems.
Having worked both inside the U.S. government and in the private sector, I have observed the growing importance of welcoming foreign citizens to one’s country for improving economic growth, scientific advancement, labor supply and cultural awareness.
But migrants entering and staying in the U.S. without visas or proper documentation can create problems – for the migrants themselves, and for overtaxed governments that lack the ability to quickly process asylum cases in immigration courts, for example, or to provide temporary shelter and other basic services for large numbers of arriving migrants. These strains are happening now in many places in the U.S.
In 1924, after decades of the U.S. welcoming foreign-born citizens to its shores, Congress passed the Immigration Act, restricting the numbers and types of people who could legally enter and stay in the U.S.
That legislation ushered in even more xenophobia and division in the U.S. over the ethnic origins of immigrants – cutting off large-scale immigration, especially from Europe and Asia, until jobs needed to be filled – and there weren’t enough people in the U.S. to fill them.
In the 1960s, immigration laws were reformed again, ushering in waves of immigration from Asia because the U.S. needed people to work at unfilled jobs.
Today, once again, some U.S. politicians are pushing for new ways to restrict immigration. Much of their work focuses on making it harder for migrants to get asylum – meaning legal permission to remain in the U.S. if they have a legitimate fear of persecution in their home countries.
Overall, U.S. border officials encountered more than 1.1 million people illegally crossing the U.S. border from April 2022 through March 2023 – a sharp rise from previous years, when the number of people illegally crossing each year hovered at less than 300,000.
U.S. authorities are now stepping up deportations, quickly sending more undocumented people back to their home countries.
Germany deported close to 8,000 people, many of them fleeing the war in Ukraine, in the first part of 2023. In total, an estimated 92,119 immigrants entered Germany illegally from January through September 2023.
New German government reforms will increase that figure and no longer require officials to announce deportations in advance.
Italy, which is also battling a huge influx of undocumented migrants from North Africa, recently doubled the amount of time that it can detain undocumented migrants, rising from three months to at least six months. This decision is seen as an effort to deter more migrants from illegally entering Italy.
This allows Italy to skirt a European Union policy that requires its member countries to consider and process all asylum applicants’ requests within a year of their arrival. Since Albania is not part of the European Union, it could quickly deport the migrants that Italy sends there.
In December 2023, the European Union’s 27 countries also voted on a major overhaul of asylum laws. These changes will make it easier for countries to deport migrants who fail to get asylum. They also direct the European Union to give money to countries that allow more asylum seekers to stay in those countries.
Other approaches
Right now, Italy and Greece bear much of the brunt of migration in the EU.
More than 31,000 undocumented migrants, mainly from Syria, crossed into Greece in 2023, up from 18,000 undocumented people who entered the country in 2022.
The parliament in Greece is considering new laws that would enable the country to issue tens of thousands of undocumented migrants residence and work permits to address labor shortages.
Greece is also pushing the European Union to slap economic sanctions on countries, like Pakistan, that refuse to take back the undocumented migrants that Greece deports to their home countries.
Closer to home, Canada is also experiencing a surge of undocumented migration into Quebec and other places, prompting some Canadians to feel growing anxiety, in part because of perceptions that the sudden population growth is also raising the country’s already-high housing costs. Canada deported 7,232 undocumented people in the first six months of 2023 – a rise compared to the 7,635 deportations Canada carried out in the entire year of 2021.
Canada also announced in December 2023 that it is planning to allow people who entered the country with valid, short-term visas, and who continue living in Canada after these visas expire, to apply for permanent residency. This would mainly affect foreign students and temporary workers.
Back in the U.S., the fight over immigration continues, with Republicans eager to crack down and Democrats who generally want to avoid harsh new standards that could lead to more deportations and mass roundups of undocumented immigrants.
Traditionally, Democrats have been supportive of immigration and the rights of undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
But the wave of migrants who arrive in cities like New York and Chicago without any money, jobs or places to live is severely straining city governments’ capacity and budgets. Local leaders like New York Mayor Eric Adams are pleading with the federal government to help with a crisis that, as Adams said in September 2023, has no clear end in sight.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.
Tara Sonenshine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Pastor Mock: In 2024, democracy is on the ballot, choose the democracy candidate – Biden
Charles Mock – January 17, 2024
According to The Washington Post, and I quote, “A Post-University of Maryland poll published this week shows a sizable share of Americans accept lies about the 2020 election and the insurrection that followed on Jan. 6, 2021. Only 62 percent say Joe Biden‘s victory was legitimate, down from 69 percent two years ago, and far lower than after the contested 2000 election. One-third of U.S. adults say they believe there’s ‘solid evidence’ of ‘widespread voter fraud’ in the 2020 election. Regarding Jan. 6 itself, 28 percent say former president Donald Trump bears no responsibility, 21 percent say the people who stormed the Capitol were ‘mostly peaceful’ and 25 percent say the FBI probably or definitely instigated the attack.”
With each presidential election, comes opportunities to vote for the person whose policies best represent the best values, principles, processes and practices of a constitutional democracy. If we are not careful as citizens, we will be voting for a person’s policies rather than voting for democracy.
Democracy is far more important than the policies that constitute it. It is not policies that sustain democracy. It is democracy that sustain policies.
If we do not like a president whose personal policies are pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-transgender, etc., we can always use our vote to vote him or her out of office because the power of democracy rests on the freedom to vote and freedom of choice.
It has become obvious there is no pure democracy. Democracy is always an experimental work in progress. Some decades require much more work than others. For example, we read of present egregious challenges such as growing disparities of wealth and autocratic tendencies within our democracy. These autocratic tendencies are driven by multinational corporations that continue placing democracy at risk.
Insurrections loyal to President Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol in Washington. The Department of Justice is prosecuting those who violently stormed the Capitol.
If we want to kill the democracy that makes autocratic, financially oppressive mega-corporations normalize greed, all we have to do is change our form of government from a democracy to pure dictatorship or a king-centered monarchy. In dictatorships the dictator determines the means of corporate capitalism. I pray we choose otherwise.
In a real sense, democracy is being voted for or against in 2024. We cannot afford to vote for candidates based on three or four particular policies we might find immoral. We must vote for candidates who will be governed by a constitution that upholds and sustains democracy as the chosen form of governance. For better or for worse, democracy is still the best form of governance. I have heard it said and believe it true that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.
Without democracy there’s no genuine freedom to vote or freedom to choose.
Choose today which government you will serve. As for me and my house, I choose democracy. The Rev. Dr. Charles Mock is the interim pastor at Second Baptist Church in Erie.
These voters will pick the next president. They’re frightened about American democracy.
Zach Montellaro – January 17, 2024
WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 12: Members of the U.S. National Guard arrive at the U.S. Capitol on January 12, 2021 in Washington, DC. The Pentagon is deploying as many as 15,000 National Guard troops to protect President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, amid fears of new violence. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
NAZARETH, Pennsylvania — Earlier this month, 15 voters in this closely contested area of Pennsylvania convened to discuss the state of American democracy.
To say they were discouraged as the 2024 election gets underway would be an understatement.
Three years after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, half of the voters in the focus group immediately started nodding when asked about the possibility of violence around the election.
Sitting around folding tables in an arts center just off of the small town’s Rockwell-esque Main Street, the voters painted a bleak picture over the next hour: A largely negative view on everything from trusting that their votes and their neighbors’ votes will be fairly counted, the speed it takes to get results and that those results will be accepted by the losers.
“I almost feel numb to it,” Jackie, a younger voter in the focus group, said of the violence on Jan. 6. “We’re going to have another election, could that happen again? I probably won’t even react the same, because I’m like ‘this is what happens.’ … Something’s probably going to happen.”
The focus group was brought together by Keep Our Republic, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that seeks to educate the public about strengthening the democratic system. It was convened in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, a swing county in one of the most important swing states in the nation.
The participants’ pessimism encapsulates one of the most pressing challenges in American politics right now — the loss of public trust in democracy itself and the electoral infrastructure that supports it. It is a problem that stretches far beyond just Nazareth; a Gallup poll released the day after the focus group found that a record low 28 percent of American adults are satisfied with the way democracy is working in this country.
Their distrust comes at a moment of intense polarization in America — and after former President Donald Trump has spread constant lies about the security of American elections in the three years since the Capitol riot.
“Everybody agreed on one thing: That there’s a very good chance there’s gonna be violence in the next election,” said former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who sits on the state advisory board of Keep Our Republic. “There’s a heightened sense of, or concern about, civil disorder in the next election.”
The voters in the focus group are, in a literal sense, the mythological “Main Street” swing voters that politicians talk about in their stump speeches. Christopher Borick, a pollster and professor at nearby Muhlenberg College, selected them from his neighbors who lived on or near the town’s Main Street.
The group was overwhelmingly white, like both the town of Nazareth and Northampton County more broadly, but was otherwise emblematic of the voters who will decide 2024. They were all registered voters — and those who said how they voted in 2020 during the focus group seemed evenly divided between Trump and President Joe Biden.
Borick asked them to participate because he never saw a political sign pop up on their front lawns. POLITICO observed the focus group under the condition that voters would be identified by their first names only.
The focus group came just a day before Biden gave a speech near Valley Forge, about an hour’s drive away, on the state of the country’s democracy. There, the president cast the 2024 election as a referendum that will decide “whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause.”
But the focus group made clear that much of the distrust in the democratic system is rooted in the broader political polarization of the moment.
Borick often tried to steer the conversation away from the politics of the 2024 election to the mechanics of it, but participants consistently returned to their displeasure in another Biden-Trump rematch.
Almost to a person there was a wariness — and in some cases an outright distrust— of the democratic process in the county. Two voters, distinctly in the minority, repeated conspiracy theories popularized by Trump about mail ballots being used to steal the election from him. And roughly a third of participants said they believed unregistered people were casting ballots.
But more broadly, the participants were confused by the process, with complaints especially about the time it takes to know the winner. Pennsylvania did not allow for election officials to pre-process mail ballots in 2020 — a significant cause of the state’s elongated vote count — and is now an outlier state that hasn’t updated its laws to allow for it in 2024.
“America’s Got Talent can tally 50 million votes in 15 minutes,” Mike, a middle-aged engineer, joked during the focus group. “How can we not elect officials effectively, and not feel confident? Across the board, I don’t feel a lot of confidence here that all of our votes are getting counted properly.”
Northampton voters’ suspicions are fueled by a string of recent election administration failures. In recent municipal elections, election machines have faltered twice: In 2019, initial vote totals showed a candidate who would go on to narrowly win their contest only initially get less than 200 votes across some 55,000 ballots. And just last year, the printout of a person’s ballot would in some cases display the wrong selection on judicial retention elections.
In both cases, election officials stressed that the final outcomes were correct. A paper trail backup was used to count the votes in 2019, and election officials said last year’s erroneous printouts were due to human error when programming the machines and that they were able to correctly tally the final count as voters intended.
“If they tell me they’re working, I am hoping they’re working,” Jimmy, another participant in the group, said of the voting machines. “I try to be optimistic.”
But election officials and groups like Keep Our Republic face a tough climb ahead, even in counties that did not have demonstrable problems like Northampton did.
Keep Our Republic’s theory is that the group can reverse — or at least slow — the declining trust in the democratic process by working with local leaders in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The group has hosted legal education classes for attorneys in Pennsylvania about the state’s election laws, and meetings with local election officials and their community in Wisconsin. The goal of the group, in the words of the group’s executive director Ari Mittleman, is to educate the local “chattering class” — local attorneys, community leaders and regular voters.
“If you look at the climate, I think we should assume that it’s going to be incredibly, incredibly tumultuous,” Mittleman said in an interview over a plate of pierogi and beer at a local brewery. “All we can do is put up speed bumps. And our hypothesis is … who is turned to in these communities in purple America, in these three states? It’s not the president. It’s not the politicians.”
The hope, he said, is that instead of turning to national pundits or politicians, voters turn inward to their community with questions. The theory is that another parent on a child’s Little League team or a church elder would be a more effective messenger about the democratic process than a prominent politician or expert parachuting into the community. And when there are questions over things like election litigation, or problems that do occur, community leaders would be inherently more trustworthy.
“I’ll be the first to say, it’s a total hypothesis that might be proven wrong. People might tune into national news, talking heads and experts who’ve never been to Northampton County or Kent County, Michigan, or whatever,” Mittleman said. “But I have a feeling they’re going to go and say to people in their community, ‘What’s this all about?’”
Opinion: George Washington’s Farewell Address provides stark warning for Americans Today
Jeff Frenkiewich – January 17, 2024
On September 19, 1796, George Washington published his Farewell Address. In it, America’s “founding father” announced his retirement and explained his reasons for not seeking a third term as president. Nervous about the upcoming election that threatened to tear apart the country he loved, Washington also offered his fellow citizens, “some sentiments which are the result of much reflection.” With New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary less than a week away, and a divisive general election later this year, we would be wise to consider George Washington’s advice, as it is just as relevant today as it was 228 years ago.
Washington’s America, much like today, was a nation divided by regional differences and sectional interests. Our first president could have predicted a time when politicians openly call for a “national divorce” based on regional differences, and state legislatures would feel empowered to debate the idea of secession.
Rebutting those who look to divide America, Washington argues that a unified country brings us, “greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value!” He states, “your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”
Washington acknowledges that regional differences exist between the North and South, East and West, but he is urging us to consider that the whole is greater than the sum of our parts; a break up of our union will only damage the liberty and prosperity that we have worked so hard to secure.
Washington is not shy in identifying the cause of animosity between regions of the United States – political parties. Washington states, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Foreshadowing a media saturated with disinformation, Washington says, “You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.” Again, our unity provides us strength, and only those who wish to weaken the United States look to exploit the perceived differences amongst our people.
For Washington, the end result of political parties stoking regional divisions is despotism – a dictatorship. He states, “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty… It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.” In this election cycle, we have one candidate who actively created jealousies and false alarms when he tried to overturn the last presidential election with lies. He kindled animosity urging his followers to march on the Capitol as lawmakers were certifying that election, and he fomented an insurrection, watching idle as his followers attempted to overthrow our democracy. That same candidate, when asked if he would be a dictator if elected president, replied, “No, no, no, other than day one.” Most recently, this candidate endorsed the claim that a president, “could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.” We must take these threats to our democracy seriously.
In his Farewell Address, a letter that runs just over 6,000 words, George Washington uses the pronouns “you” or “your” 75 times (he used “yourselves” twice). Washington is speaking directly to us, the American people, making clear that despite the cult of personality that surrounded him, he was only one of many responsible for the nation’s welfare; it is “We the People” who are the stewards of our republic.
Washington knew that we would be challenged in preserving our Union; he knew that sectional divisions would promote a spirit of party and that these factions would produce a want-to-be despot surrounded by his own cult of personality. We the people are the only guards against such a dictatorship; we must heed Washington’s warning and do everything we can to preserve our union. We must protect our democracy from those who wish to put their own self-interests above the interests of our Union. Please vote in this upcoming election.
Jeff Frenkiewich teaches social studies at Milford Middle School and he is an adjunct professor of education at the University of New Hampshire. (The views expressed here represent those of the author, not Milford School District or UNH.)
Trump posts all-caps rant telling people they ‘JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH’ presidents who ‘CROSS THE LINE’
Grace Eliza Goodwin – January 18, 2024
Donald Trump said people “JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH” presidents who “CROSS THE LINE.”
He posted the lengthy all-caps rant on Truth Social early Thursday morning.
A DC appeals court is weighing whether Trump should have criminal immunity.
Donald Trump is once again claiming that presidents should have total immunity from any crimes they commit while in office — this time, with an all-caps rant posted to Truth Social.
And he says that people need to just accept it.
“A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION,” Trump wrote on his social-media platform in the early hours of Thursday morning. “ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END.
“EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD,” he continued.
Trump’s lawyers argue that unless Congress had already impeached and convicted him of a crime, then he is immune.
Trump’s lawyers previously argued the opposite in his 2021 impeachment case, saying that a former president should answer to the courts, not to Congress.
“A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function,” Trump said in a lengthy post on Truth Social in all caps. “Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.”
“Sometimes you just have to live with ‘great but slightly imperfect,'” Trump added. “All presidents must have complete & total presidential immunity, or the authority & decisiveness of a president of the United States will be stripped & gone forever. Hopefully this will be an easy decision. God bless the Supreme Court!”
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is expected to soon issue a ruling in the case brought by Trump in his effort to dismiss the federal election interference case against him. He has claimed that he should be immune from prosecution because his efforts to overturn the 2020 election fell within his official duties as president.
The court could issue a ruling that decisively resolves the immunity question, thereby allowing the election interference trial, scheduled to begin March 4, to move forward.
The judges could also issue a narrower ruling that could leave some issues unresolved. The court could also simply rule that Trump had no right to bring an appeal at this stage of the litigation.
The former president has argued that his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and his involvement with the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were part of his presidential responsibilities. He has said that he was investigating election fraud as president at the time even though there was no evidence of widespread fraud.
Trump’s Truth Social post came after he sat in a New York courtroom Wednesday in a trial to determine damages in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against him.
Taxes are the only way to get rid of excess money? “We ask you to tax us, the very richest in society,” reads an open letter to the world leaders assembled in Davos, Switzerland, penned by 250 millionaires and billionaires who seem to be gluttons for punishment.
“We’d be proud to pay more,” declares their website, which is thusly named. “This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations’ economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.” Signatories include Disney and Rockefeller heiresses, as well as actor Brian Cox.
Currently, nobody is forcing them to keep their earnings. They have full freedom to do whatever they’d like with their money—including giving it away to charity or coordinating with other similarly rich people to pool money together to tackle specific issues that might be too large for just one billionaire to handle.
“Inequality has reached a tipping point, and its cost to our economic, societal and ecological stability risk is severe—and growing every day,” reads the letter, which in no way substantiates how “inequality” has reached this “tipping point” or what exactly happens if inequality continues to grow. (Absolute wealth is infrequently mentioned in these types of calls to action. It’s always relative wealth, which allows signatories to ignore the vast standard-of-living gains that have been made over the last century.)
“If our elected officials refuse to address this concentration of money and power, the consequences will be dire,” warned Cox.
Speaking of concentrations of power: The impetus for the open letter is the World Economic Forum’s meeting in Davos, which is happening now and drawing leaders from across the globe—frequently arriving on their private jets. (“Private jet emissions quadrupled during Davos 2022,” reads a Guardian headline from last year, which put the total number of private jet flights at 1,040. Fascinating that those who are so concerned with climate change still feel comfortable flying private.)
The bright spot, amid the calls for coercive wealth redistribution, was undoubtedly the speech given by newly elected Argentine President Javier Milei, who is so full of fiery takes that he might just singe your eyebrows off.
“Today I am here to tell you that the Western world is in danger, and it’s in danger because those who are supposed to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism, and thereby to poverty,” said Milei. “Unfortunately, in recent decades, motivated by some well-meaning individuals willing to help others, and others motivated by the desire to belong to a privileged class, the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism.”
But Argentina knows firsthand, he warned, just how bad of an economic situation can arise from state intervention: “We are here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world, rather they are the root cause.”
“Today’s states don’t need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the life of individuals,” he continued. “With tools like printing money, debt, subsidies, control of the interest rate, price controls, and regulations to correct the so-called market failures, they can control the lives and fates of millions of individuals.”
And, later on: “They say that capitalism is evil because it’s individualistic and that collectivism is good because it’s altruistic, of course with the money of others.”
You couldn’t engineer a better response to the taxation-hungry billionaires mentioned above if you tried. People are always free to give their own money away, but it takes a special breed to favor coercion.
“Do not be intimidated either by the political caste nor by parasites who live off the state. Do not surrender yourself to a political class that only wants to perpetuate itself in power and keep their privileges,” Milei added, closing with a forceful defense of value creators: “You [entrepreneurs] are social benefactors, you are heroes, you are the creators of the most extraordinary period of prosperity we have ever seen. Let no one tell you that your ambition is immoral.”
After all, “the state is not the solution, the state is the problem itself.”
It’s about time someone went into the lion’s den and forcefully defended free market capitalism.
Oh, and Milei? He flew commercial, saving taxpayers an estimated $392,000.
Hundreds of millionaires, billionaires urge politicians at Davos to tax their wealth
Darryl Coote – January 17, 2024
Actor Simon Pegg is among the millionaires urging world leaders congregating in Switzerland for The World Economic Forum to tax their wealth, warning of rising economic inequality. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI
Jan. 17 (UPI) — Nearly 270 millionaires and billionaires urged world leaders congregating in Switzerland for The World Economic Forum on Wednesday to tax their wealth, warning that if their elected representatives don’t address the drastic rise in economic inequality, the consequences will be “catastrophic.”
“Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society,” the letter signed by 268 millionaires and billionaires from 17 countries and published Wednesday.
“This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations’ economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.”
The World Economic Forum is being held this week through Friday and will be attended by political leaders as well the world’s rich and powerful in the Swiss resort town of Davos where they will discuss global, regional and industry goals.
In their letter to the congregated world leaders, the hundreds of rich signatories said they are surprised their previous calls to be tax have yet to be heeded, stating they are not seeking drastic changes, only financial policies that will prevent society from further degradation.
Actor Brian Cox, who famously plays a wealthy media mogul in “Succession,” is among the real-life millionaires urging world leaders congregating in Switzerland for The World Economic Forum to tax their wealth amid rising economic inequality. File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI
“Inequality has reached a tipping point, and its cost to our economic, societal and ecological stability risk is severe — and growing every day. In short, we need action now,” the letter states, adding that philanthropy and one-off donations will not fix the issue.
“Not only do we want to be taxed more but we believe we must be taxed more. We would be proud to live in countries where this is expected, and proud of elected leaders who build better futures.”
The letter’s signatories include filmmaker and Disney heir Abigail Disney, actors Simon Pegg and Brian Cox and Valerie Rockefeller of the U.S. Rockefeller family.
“We need our governments and our leaders to lead. And so we come to you again with the urgent request that you act — unilaterally at the national level, and together on the international stage,” they said.
The letter comes as a new poll published Wednesday shows that 74% of wealthy people support higher taxes on their fortunes, while 75% support the introduction of a 2% tax on billionaires, as proposed by the European Union Tax Observatory.
The poll by Survation on behalf of the nonpartisan Patriotic Millionaires surveyed more than 2,300 people from G20 countries who hold more than $1 million in investable assets, excluding their homes, making them the richest 5% of society.
A majority of respondents at 58% said they also supported the introduction of a 2% wealth tax for people with more than $10 million.
“Throughout history, pitchforks were the inevitable consequence of extreme discontent, but today, the masses are turning to populism, which is on the rise throughout the world,” Disney said in a statement.
“We already know the solution to protect our institutions and stabilize our country: it’s taxing extreme wealth. What we lack is the political fortitude to do it. Even millionaires and billionaires like me are saying it’s time. The elites gathering in Davos must take this crisis seriously.”
The World Economic Forum kicked off Monday, which is when Oxfam published its Inequality Inc. report that warned inequality has worsened since 2020, with the world’s richest five men seeing their fortunes double while the planet’s poorest 60% became poorer.
Credit…Illustration by Rebecca Chew/The New York Times
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstandingvalues. It is separate from the newsroom.
Republicans who will gather to cast the first votes of the 2024 presidential primary season have one essential responsibility: to nominate a candidate who is fit to serve as president, one who will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Donald Trump, who has proved himself unwilling to do so, is manifestly unworthy. He is facing criminal trials for his conduct as a candidate in 2016, as president and as a former president. In this, his third presidential bid, he has intensified his multiyear campaign to undermine the rule of law and the democratic process. He has said that if elected, he will behave like a dictator on “Day 1” and that he will direct the Justice Department to investigate his political rivals and his critics in the media, declaring that the greatest dangers to the nation come “not from abroad but from within.”
Mr. Trump has a clear path to the nomination; no polling to date suggests he is anything but the front-runner. Yet Republicans in these states still have their ballots to cast. At this critical moment, it is imperative to remind voters that they still have the opportunity to nominate a different standard-bearer for the Republican Party, and all Americans should hope that they do so. This is not a partisan concern. It is good for the country when both major parties have qualified presidential candidates to put forward their competing views on the role of government in American society. Voters deserve such a choice in 2024.
Mr. Trump’s construction of a cult of personality in which loyalty is the only real requirement has badly damaged the Republican Party and the health of American democracy. During the fight over the leadership of the House of Representatives in the fall, for example, Mr. Trump torpedoed the candidacy of Tom Emmer, a lawmaker who voted to certify the 2020 election results, to ensure the ascendancy of Mike Johnson, a loyalist who was an architect of the attempt to overturn that election. (Mr. Emmer has since endorsed Mr. Trump.) But some Republicans have set an example of integrity, demonstrating the courage to put their convictions and conservative principles above loyalty to Mr. Trump. Examples include people whom he once counted as allies, like former Attorney General Bill Barr, former Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats.
Voters may agree with the former president’s plans for further tax cuts, restrictions on abortions or strict limits on immigration. That’s politics, and the divisions among Americans over these issues will persist regardless of the outcome of this election. But electing Mr. Trump to four more years in the White House is a unique danger. Because what remains, what still binds Americans together as a nation, is the commitment to a process, a constitutional system for making decisions and moving forward even when Americans do not agree about the destination. That system guarantees the freedoms Americans enjoy, the foundation of the nation’s prosperity and of its security.
Mr. Trump’s record of contempt for the Constitution — and his willingness to corrupt people, systems and processes to his advantage — puts all of it at risk.
Upholding the Constitution means accepting the results of elections. Unsuccessful presidential candidates have shouldered the burden of conceding because the integrity of the process is ultimately more important than the identity of the president. “The people have spoken, and we respect the majesty of the democratic system,” George H.W. Bush, the last president before Mr. Trump to lose a bid for re-election, said on the night of his defeat in 1992. When Mr. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he sought to retain power by fomenting a violent insurrection against the government of the United States.
It also means accepting that the power of the victors is limited. When the Supreme Court delivered a sharp setback to President George W. Bush in 2008, ruling that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay had the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Bush administration accepted the ruling. Senator John McCain, then the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, said he disagreed with the court, “but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made, and now we need to move forward.”
By contrast, as president, Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked the integrity of other government officials — including members of Congress, Federal Reserve governors, public health authorities and federal judges — and disregarded their authority. When the court ruled that the Trump administration could not add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, for example, Mr. Trump announced that he intended to ignore the court’s ruling. After leaving the White House, Mr. Trump refused repeated demands, including a grand jury subpoena, to return classified materials to the government. As the government investigated, he called on Congress to defund the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice “until they come to their senses.”
Voters inclined to support Mr. Trump as an instrument of certain policy goals might learn from his presidency that changes achieved by lawless machinations can prove ephemeral. Federal courts overturned his effort to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities. Campaign promises to roll back environmental regulations also came to naught: Courts repeatedly chastised the Trump administration for failing to follow regulatory procedures or to provide adequate justifications for its decisions. His ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, announced on Twitter in 2017, was challenged in court and reversed on the sixth day of the Biden administration.
In 2016, Mr. Trump appealed to many caucus and primary voters as an alternative to the Republican establishment. He campaigned on a platform that challenged the party’s orthodoxies, including promises to provide support for domestic manufacturing and pursue a foreign policy much more narrowly defined by self-interest.
Voters who favor Mr. Trump’s prescriptions now have other options. The Republican Party of 2024 has been reshaped by the former president’s populism. While there are some meaningful differences among the other Republican candidates — on foreign policy, in particular — for the most part, Mr. Trump’s “America First” agenda has become the new orthodoxy.
Mr. Trump is now distinguished from the rest of the Republican candidates primarily by his contempt for the rule of law. The sooner he is rejected, the sooner the Republican Party can return to the difficult but necessary task of working within the system to achieve its goals.
