Monday, February 17, 2020

spring semester current event week 2

LEAK: Secret Documents Show How China Targets Muslims for 'Re-Education' Camps — and Spies on Their Families


The vast majority of people were interned for mundane behavior like wearing a hijab, having “thick beards,” visiting a foreign website, or applying for a passport.

By Isobel Yeung and Nicole Bozorgmir
ISTANBUL— When Rozinisa Memet Tohti’s family stopped returning her calls three years ago, she feared the worst. But nothing could prepare her for seeing a leaked Chinese government database document of Uighurs targeted for internment.
There, in row 358, she found her younger sister's ID number and full name: Patem Memet Tohti. The document says she was sent to “re-education camp” No. 4, in the county of Karakax, on March 7, 2018.


Rozinisa broke down in tears. “Of all my family members, my parents, I miss my sister the most,” she told VICE News.
Rozinisa’s family are Uighur Muslims living in northwest China, where one million or more Muslims have been interned in “re-education” camps since 2017. Rozinisia left China for Istanbul, Turkey in 2003 to pursue an education; now she was receiving the news that every Uighur living outside China dreads above all else. The 137-page document is titled “Trainees whose relatives went abroad and did not return.”
Now, she realized her presence in Turkey could have put the rest of her family in jeopardy.
The goal of China’s so-called re-education camps in the region of Xinjiang is to assimilate long-marginalized Muslim minorities, mostly Uighurs and Kazakhs, into Han Chinese culture. The government says the centers have expanded development and helped prevent terrorism. But the internee records reviewed by VICE News reveal that the vast majority of people sent to the camps were detained for mundane and legal behavior, including wearing a hijab, having “thick beards,” visiting a foreign website, applying for a passport, traveling abroad to a “sensitive country” or having family members living in one, or being part of a “religious family.”
Once in the camps, internees are kept behind double-locked doors, surveilled 24 hours a day, given scores based on their behavior, allowed little or no contact with the outside world, and indoctrinated into the Communist Party line, according to a handbook on how to run the camps, previously seen by VICE News. They are held for at least a year. Many Muslims who have been in the camps and then moved abroad have also detailed physical and psychological torture.
Rozinisa’s family suddenly stopped responding to her in 2016 as the Chinese Communist Party began rounding up Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang. It was the government’s latest response to discontent over Han Chinese rule in the region, tension that has led to occasional violence over the last decade. Beijing blames the unrest in Xinjiang on Islamic extremism and ethnic separatism.
Rozinisa and Patem had been close. “She was one and a half years younger than me, but we were like best friends. Some people mistook us for twins.” Rozinisa said her sister was “mischievous,” and that when they were younger they sometimes fought over clothing.
When Rozinisa was just 18, she moved to Turkey to study. “When I left to go that evening, my sister was the one who cried the most. She couldn't let me go.”
Rozinisa would call Patem every few days, chatting about what their family had been up to, what they’d been eating, and fashion. Then one day in early June 2016, her sister’s phone was switched off. She hasn’t heard from Patem, or any of her other family members, since.
But as news of what was happening to her fellow Uighurs back home trickled out, Rozinisa never suspected that her sister could be one of them. She hadn’t done anything wrong afterall, but was simply living a peaceful life running a small bakery with her husband and looking after her four children, Rozinisa said.

The leak

VICE News received a document in November 2019 that would crush Rozinisa’s heart.
The list contains detailed records of 311 individuals, all from Karakax County in southern Xinjiang, which is mostly Uighur. All of those listed have been incarcerated in one of four indoctrination camps in the area. It reveals for the first time the specific reasons why individuals were detained and the information collected in order to determine their eligibility for release.
The Karakax List was leaked to VICE News and several other media outlets, by the same source as the collection of government files known as the China Cables, which came to light in November. Beijing’s foreign ministry has condemned previous leaks. China’s ambassador to the U.K., Liu Xiaoming, told reporters last year, “Don’t listen to fake news,” when questioned about the authenticated classified documents. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to a VICE News request for comment
Adrian Zenz, a leading researcher on the re-education program in Xinjiang and senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a nonprofit based in Washington DC, spent several weeks reviewing the documents, confirming their authenticity, and analyzing the data. He has corroborated the details with past reports and cross-checked individual ID numbers with his database of documents. He shared his findings with VICE News and other journalists.
“The document shows us the anatomy of the internment drive.”
“The document shows us the anatomy of the internment drive. It’s the first time we have a document that in one paper tells us why people were interned and why they are being released or not,” he said.
China claims that their “vocational training centers” provide much-needed education and skills training for a politically unstable and economically disadvantaged region. But since late 2019, a trove of secret documents leaked out of China have sharply contradicted Beijing’s narrative. Official government memos, speeches and a manual on how to run the internment camps exposed high-level directives for the internment campaign. Now with this latest leak, the Karakax List shows the inner workings of the re-education drive.
Each row in the document pertains to one main person and serves as a case study in how individuals are swept up in China’s dragnet. Taken as a whole, the list also reveals how government localities are collecting a chilling level of detail on Uighur individuals, suggesting that they are all treated with suspicion and distrust.
“We can compare it to coronavirus. They can detain someone because the family has become infected. They view religion like a disease.”
In one column, it states why each individual has been sent for “training.” Some are charged with extremist thoughts or behaviors. But the vast majority are in for far more innocuous behaviors. This falls in line with what former detainees now living abroad have told us about the often tenuous reasons they were sent to camps.
The most common categories for internment are violating China’s one-child policy, religious behavior, having a link to anything “abroad,” or simply being labeled an “untrustworthy” person.
Another column contains information on family members, social circles, and religious heritage. Three generations of family members are meticulously named, alongside their current whereabouts, occupation, and behavior — including any others in training, sentenced to prison, or living abroad. There are notes on whether the family members comply with community officers and their current behavior.
Uighur
ROZINISA MEMET TOHNTI’S SISTER APPEARS ON THE KARAKAX LIST.
In one entry, which is typical of the entire spreadsheet, it says the main person’s wife and younger brother are also sent to training. Then it lists their eldest son, daughter-in-law, second son, eldest daughter, and second daughter, along with their ID number, job, and either “OK behavior” or “good behavior.” It even includes their granddaughter, a preschooler who shows “good behavior.”
“Social circle” includes neighbors and co-workers, while “religious heritage” include specifics like whether the person prays or goes to mosque, and who gave them their religious education.
In his report, Zenz compares this to a witch-hunt and argues the list “reveals a mindset whose perhaps most notable feature is the endless vicious cycles of suspicion by association.”
More than 3,000 Uighurs are named and described in total throughout the document. And this is just one subset of data, organized by the interned having relatives abroad and registered at addresses in one area. The list reveals the government’s substantial investment in mapping out webs of intimate family and social connections among the Uighur population.
All of this information factors into the last column, an “evaluation” of each person and a verdict on their eligibility for release. Some are approved for various forms of release or “graduation,” either to their home village or into community control, while others are judged to need further “training.” In still other cases, the main person has already been released but is still being closely monitored.
“No major issues were found in the case of [an individual], besides the fact that his wife covered her face… [he] poses no threat to society. It’s therefore approved that he shall be handed over to his local offices for future management, after completing his training and leaving the center,” reads one man’s evaluation.
In another individual’s evaluation, it states, “Many of his family members are detained or arrested. His ideological transformation is not good. He needs deeper repentance. It’s advised that he continues his training.”
Notes about the family circle are often repeated in the evaluation. For those who had yet to be released, their relatives’ behavior factors into their release verdict in 67% of cases. This document confirms what many Uighurs abroad have testified and feared — that people are punished for their relatives’ actions. The records show the mechanics of how family dynamics are systematically recorded and analyzed in breathtaking detail.
“We can compare it to coronavirus. They can detain someone because the family has become infected. They view religion like a disease,” Zenz said. “It’s like a virus mindset. Something that is dangerous and contagious can only be contained by taking everybody who has the virus.”


“I think this is torture”

In the case of Rozinisa’s sister, Patem, the document says she was detained for violating the one-child policy. Rozinisa told us she fears that Patem’s husband could be detained too, leaving their four young children, aged 7 to 13, without anyone to look after them.
But at the time of Patem’s evaluation, her husband and children are listed as living in their hometown, a rural village about 30 minutes north of the camp. It says that Rozinisa’s parents and other siblings are also living at home and they “show good behavior.” Her older sister appears again further down in the document — this time as the subject of an entry. It states that she has completed her “training” but is still being monitored and that she “attends roll calls on time every night in the community, after she gets off work.”
“Until I hear her voice on the phone, I won't believe that the Chinese released my sister.”
Rozinisa is mentioned in Patem’s record, both under family circle and again in the evaluation. It says that she moved to Turkey (which is considered one of 26 “sensitive countries”), but it also says she hasn’t been in contact with her family for a while. This appears to be a positive thing for her family back home, as contact with those abroad is often a black mark. It’s possible that Patem and her family had sensed this and cut off all contact.
“I think this is torture, what the Chinese are inflicting on us and our parents. They are saying that because you moved to Turkey, they tortured our parents and oppressed them. I don’t think that this is anything but oppression,” said Rozinisa. She would never have left her homeland had she known that her movements could have an impact on her own family, she added.


It’s not clear from the document why a list of detainees who have relatives abroad was created. VICE News spoke to a number of other Uighurs in Turkey whose close family members were also listed in the document. Each expressed anger, sadness, and guilt that they could be used as cause to further oppress their relatives.
Testimonies from former camp detainees have made headlines outside of China, and these accounts haunt Rozinisa. Many have described the camps as ridden with physical, psychological, and sometimes sexual abuse. Rozinisa worries that Patem’s boisterous personality and tendency to speak her mind might get her in trouble, and she wonders if her sister may have been beaten into acquiescence.
According to the evaluation, the community office in Patem’s hometown assessed that “her relatives complied with village officers.” It then says that Patem “also showed good behavior and poses no threat.” She is recommended for graduation into “local community control.” This is a term that frequently comes up in the records without further explanation. Initially, Rozinisa was ecstatic to see this part of the record, but she quickly tempered her expectations.
“Until I hear my sister's voice, a phone call or a picture, even a picture of her current condition, or until I hear her voice on the phone, I won't believe that the Chinese released my sister” she says.
Cross-referencing Patem’s ID against Zenz’s database of records reveals further clues about her time in the camps. She appears on a list of participants in vocational skills training. According to that document, in December 2018 Patem began three months of so-called professional training in housekeeping in the same facility. After that, it says that Patem is to be employed “nearby.” But we found no further record of Patem’s whereabouts after February 2019.


The final verdicts for nearly 75% of cases in the document, like Patem’s, suggest some type of release, which is often connected to employment. But release from re-education doesn’t necessarily mean freedom.
According to the China Cables, those who complete re-education will then be “included” in vocational skills improvement training for 3-6 months, and after that, “they must not be out of sight for one year.” Recent reports suggest the camps are effectively acting as a pipeline for Muslim detainees to move from ideological indoctrination into forced labor.
When Rozinisa learned that Patem was sent to “vocational training,” she said it was hard for her to imagine her sister doing housekeeping. She remembered how much Patem hated cooking and cleaning when they were growing up. In spite of that, Rozinisa mostly felt relief. “I’ve been worrying about her a lot these days and wondering whether she is alive or not. If she really did get the training, I can at least believe that she is alive.”

spring semester current event week 2


Two million Americans still don't have running water, new report says


a man fills a bucket with a hose
Image 1. Mose Gibson fills water barrels outside St. Bonaventure Indian Mission and School in Thoreau, a community in the New Mexico portion of the Navajo Nation. Gibson was delivering the water on November 25, 2019, to a relative who does not have running water. Photo: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post tk
By Frances Stead Sellers, Washington Post
Published:
Word Count:1772
Recommended for:Middle School - High School
Text Level:12
SWEETWATER, Navajo Nation — On a good day, when the breeze is up and Apache County's rutted red-clay roads are passable, Legena Wagner's family drives 45 minutes to fill water containers at a windmill pump. In the days that follow, Wagner dispenses their contents sparingly: half a cup for her 5-year-old to brush his teeth; a couple of pints, well heated, to wash dishes in the decorative enamel bowl on her kitchen table; and about 10 gallons, measured out to last a week, for bathing.
"Running water, it would be such a luxury," Wagner said, pausing to describe how different her life would be if she didn't have to trek outside, past the empty plastic buckets and the rootling pigs, to the outhouse with its majestic views across northeast Arizona's snow-skimmed plateaus.
Wagner is one of more than 2 million Americans who do not have running water and sanitation, according to "Closing the Water Access Gap in the United States." The report, released by two national nonprofit organizations last month, outlines stark, race-based inequalities: Native American households are 19 times more likely than white households to lack indoor plumbing; black people and Latinos are twice as likely.
The disparities also reflect an urban-rural divide. While the lead-contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, highlighted the perils of aging infrastructure in the nation's cities, rural communities face special challenges, often lacking the economies of scale to upgrade systems and the local expertise to operate them. The situation is so dire in parts of rural America that experts liken it to the developing world.
"The cultures are different, but the experiences are similar," said Brett Gleitsmann, a water supply and sanitation engineer with the Rural Community Assistance Corporation who worked on projects in Africa and south Asia before coming to Native American lands. "Always people are hauling water — from a well, from a relative who has water or a public water station."
The United States does not have a comprehensive means of tracking the number of people living without piped water, according to George McGraw, founder and CEO of the nonprofit DigDeep.
Harder still is to calculate how many people cannot afford water even if they can access it, said Radhika Fox, CEO of the U.S. Water Alliance, a policy-focused nonprofit group that partnered with DigDeep to produce the report.
"That number is much larger than 2 million," she said.

a woman with a breathing mask on looks out a window
Image 2. Legena Wagner stands in her living room in the Sweetwater Chapter of the Navajo Nation on November 26, 2019. Wagner's home, along with about a third of households in the Navajo Nation, does not have plumbing or running water. Photo: Bonnie Jo Mount/Washington Post

The report was produced by collating federal data sets, including 2014 data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey, which asks a small representative sample of residents whether they have running water. DigDeep and the U.S. Water Alliance identified six communities with poor access to running water and wastewater services, including the Navajo Nation, and spent more than a year assessing how residents' lives are affected.
In the Navajo Nation, the country's largest Indian reservation, where water has long been held sacred, about one-third of the population of more than 300,000 does not have a tap or flushing toilet.
"Water is life," the Navajo say. "Tó éí ííńá."
Its cultural importance echoes in the place names — Lake Valley, Whippoorwill Springs, Indian Wells.
Here in Sweetwater, or Tó likon, 15 miles south of Interstate 160 on largely dirt roads, the spring water was known for its bracing mineral taste.
"People couldn't get enough of it," Wagner said. But the springs no longer flow — one of several changes that residents of this drought-prone region attribute to climate change and environmental degradation.
The seeps that used to ooze up before daybreak to refresh grazing sheep and goats have disappeared. Rains that once sustained apricots, corn and squash have been replaced by occasional downpours that race through the empty creek beds. And the winter snows no longer cloak the high desert with the thick, moist blankets Wagner's grandfather recalls.
Those who drive miles to windmills, often carrying matches and wood to light fires below the wells' frozen spigots, may draw water that is not safe. Many water sources across the Navajo Nation are marked with signs warning of contamination, some with naturally occurring toxins such as arsenic, some with uranium and other byproducts of the mining industry.
"A lot of people still drink from those wells," said Jordan Begaye, who had a summer job painting "For livestock use only" on them in red. That's despite extensive public education efforts, according to Yolanda Barney, environmental program manager for the Navajo Nation's Public Water System Supervision Program.
Wagner wonders whether the rare autoimmune disease she suffers from — adult-onset Stills disease — could have been caused by the water, and she now supplements her supplies with bottled water from a grocery store an hour away.
Efforts to bring clean water to remote households have been marked by ambitious aims and setbacks.
Federal funding for water infrastructure has dropped to about one-seventh of what it was in the 1970s after the passage of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water acts, which set up partnerships, with the federal government setting national standards for water quality that the states were responsible for implementing. These days, the funding that is available is largely loan-based, requiring repayments that can be crippling for small communities.
The American Water Works Association estimates that maintaining and expanding the country's water systems will cost $1 trillion over the next 25 years. The Indian Health Service has put a price tag of $200 million for providing water and sanitation in the Navajo Nation.
The long-term underinvestment has come under new fire this year. In July, Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California, introduced legislation that would plow nearly $220 billion into safe drinking water programs, prioritizing at-risk communities. At last summer's Democratic primary debate in Detroit, Michigan, an hour's drive from Flint, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota touted her $1 trillion infrastructure plan, which includes water among the country's many failing systems.
In a rare bipartisan move, both the House and Senate recently introduced legislation to establish pilot programs designed to assist low-income residents in paying for water and sewage in much the way they can receive assistance for food and heating oil.
"It's a very new concept," said Nathan Gardner-Andrews, chief advocacy officer for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, who warned, "It is going to take a while."
That's because political wrangling is only the first step in a process that people here describe as frustratingly slow.
People have their hopes raised by big projects, said Cindy Howe, a longtime community leader who now works as a field operations manager for DigDeep.
"It all sounds so good," she said."But will it happen?"
A giant blue pipe lies in sections alongside Route 491, part of a multimillion-dollar project to bring water from the San Juan River 280 miles south across the Navajo Nation to communities including Gallup, one of the biggest population centers, where groundwater levels have dropped about 200 feet in the past decade.
The project is designed to meet the needs of approximately 250,000 people by the year 2040, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. But many rural residents doubt it will help them, noting that it can be prohibitively expensive to bring water a few hundred yards from a major pipeline through rocky terrain to an individual home. In the most remote areas, Gleitsmann said, "you might have to run a water line eight miles to two houses."
Those problems are compounded by jurisdictional challenges.
In Teec Nos Pos, at one of the few remaining trading posts, owner John McCulloch described how one elderly woman refused for years to allow water pipes to cross her land. And farther south, in an area known as the Checkerboard, where tribal lands share a boundary with privately owned tracts, and federal and state properties, the differing forms of ownership impede the installation of all kinds of infrastructure, including water pipes and roads.
On a frigid late-November morning, residents began trickling in from isolated homes in the Checkerboard to fill 55-gallon barrels with ice-cold water at the St. Bonaventure Indian Mission and School in Thoreau, New Mexico.

a woman sprays a hose
Image 3. Driver Darlene Arviso fills a 1,200-gallon water tank that was recently installed outside a home in Mariano Lake, a community in the New Mexico portion of the Navajo Nation. Photo: Bonnie Jo Mount/Washington Post

Across the parking lot, DigDeep has an office, stocked with supplies to provide households with a 1,200-gallon tank, a pump, a water heater and a single sink, deep enough to wash a baby. The nonprofit group installs about three of these systems each week, some powered by solar panels in traditional one-room hogans, others in kitchens that seem to be equipped with everything but a functioning faucet.
The nonprofit organization refills the tanks every month, providing about 40 gallons of water a day, less than 15 percent of the quantity used by the average American household.
Henry King, who lives five miles from the nearest asphalt road on land punctuated by pinyon pines and sagebrush, has been hauling water all his life, these days choosing among three public sources, each about 30 miles away.
He never believed the Clean Water Act would do much to benefit people like him, and doesn't hold out much hope for future help from the federal government. The past, he said, is littered with betrayals and broken promises.
"Like water going downhill, it thins out, dries out before it gets to us," he said.
So when King learned from a neighbor about DigDeep, he was eager to help bring a system into his sister's house.
He oversaw the installation, reminiscing about trips by horse-drawn wagon with his parents to collect water from a canyon, until — whoosh! — water sputtered from the brand-new faucet in a small room adjacent to the kitchen.
King smiled. "I can wash my hair," he said with a laugh, throwing off his cap and leaning forward to welcome in the gusher. "Thank you. Thank you. Thank you."
Forty gallons of clean, warm water a day is a luxury Wagner dreams of.
But she also worries about water's growing scarcity and is wary of the way some people come to misuse it. Of how, when they move away to cities, they grow careless with a life-giving resource that her ancestors revered.
"We must not waste it," Wagner said.
"That's how we live. It's who we are."
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2019 Washington Post. All rights reserved.

spring semester current event week 2

rump is sending armed tactical forces to arrest immigrants in sanctuary cities

It’s yet another attempt to target sanctuary cities.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents fire H&K P2000 handguns during a qualification test at a shooting range on February 22, 2018, in Hidalgo, Texas. 
 John Moore/Getty Images

The Trump administration is reportedly sending armed and highly trained law enforcement units to sanctuary cities across the country to support US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in carrying out immigration raids.
As first reported by the New York Times, 100 US Customs and Border Protection officers, including those from the SWAT-like Border Patrol Tactical Unit, will be deployed from February through May across nine sanctuary cities: Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, and Newark, NJ.
Border Patrol Tactical Unit agents receive special training for high-risk law enforcement activities, including sniper certification and other advanced weapons training. Their primary charge has been tracking down drug traffickers on the US-Mexico border, where violence can often break out, but now they will also be responsible for conducting routine immigration arrests in some of America’s largest cities, according to the Times.
It’s just the latest instance in which President Donald Trump has sought to target sanctuary cities — which do not allow local law enforcement to share information with ICE or hand over immigrants in their custody — for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Immigrants advocates say that the deployment is not only a waste of federal law enforcement resources, it also might endanger immigrant communities.
“This is transparent retaliation against local governments for refusing to do the administration’s bidding,” Naureen Shah, senior policy and advocacy counsel on immigrants’ rights for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “It will put lives at risk by further militarizing our streets.”
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Heather Swift said in a statement Friday that the additional CBP agents (which she emphasized come from a variety backgrounds and not just tactical units) will help overstretched ICE officers deal with the rising number of immigrants who could be arrested on immigration violations but have yet to be detained.
“ICE does not have sufficient resources to effectively manage the sustained increase in non-detained cases which is exacerbated by the rise of sanctuary jurisdictions,” she said. “These officers have also been trained in routine immigration enforcement actions, which is what they have been asked to do.”

It’s all part of Trump’s campaign against sanctuary cities

Friday’s decision is just one in a long line of Trump’s attempts to crack down on sanctuary cities. The administration has tried to withhold federal law enforcement grants from sanctuary states and vacate California’s sanctuary laws (but has mostly failed). And it recently blocked New Yorkers from enrolling in Global Entry and other programs that offer faster processing for pre-vetted travelers in response to new state sanctuary laws.
At his State of the Union address earlier this month, Trump characterized sanctuary cities as a danger to public safety and broadly painted immigrants as violent criminals, highlighting a case of an immigrant arrested on charges of murdering and sexually assaulting a 92-year-old woman in New York City.
Trump has done this over and over during his time in office, turning his ire on international criminal gangs like MS-13 and invoking the stories of “angel moms,” parents of those killed by gang members.
But in reality, research suggests that his characterization doesn’t hold water: Sanctuary policies don’t appear to make a city more dangerous. While there isn’t a huge body of research on sanctuary policies’ impact on crime rates, studies have found that they either slightly decrease crime rates or have no effect.
study published in the journal Urban Affairs Review in 2017 found that cities with similar characteristics but for their sanctuary policies had “no statistically discernible difference” in their rates of violent crime, rape, or property crime. Using data from the National Immigration Law Center and the FBI, researchers compared crime rates before and after cities passed sanctuary laws, finding that they had no effect on crime.
Another study by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, examined the almost 2,500 counties that don’t accept requests from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain unauthorized immigrants. The study found that counties with sanctuary policies tend to have lower crime rates than those that don’t: about 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people on average. The counties with the smallest populations exhibited even bigger differences in crime rates.
Many police chiefs say there’s good reason behind those results: Sanctuary policies facilitate better crime reporting and cooperation with law enforcement in criminal investigations.

spring semester current event week 2

Pete Buttigieg replies to Rush Limbaugh’s homophobic comments: “I love my husband”

Limbaugh made homophobic comments about Buttigieg and argued his sexual orientation makes him a weaker candidate.


Pete and Chasten Buttigieg wave to the crowd amid supporters holding up signs.
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and his husband Chasten greet supporters in Iowa in February 2020.
 Win McNamee/Getty Images

Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg responded Sunday to homophobic comments right-wing radio show host Rush Limbaugh made about him last Wednesday by standing firmly by his marriage.
Limbaugh, who was feted by President Donald Trump at the 2020 State of the Union address, and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, referred to Buttigieg as “Booty-gieg” on his radio show last week, and offered a bigoted take on how the former mayor’s sexual orientation would affect his chances of winning the presidential nomination. In particular, he questioned what Democratic Party officials might say about Buttigieg.
“‘Okay, how’s this going to look, 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage next to Mr. Man Donald Trump? What’s going to happen there?’” Limbaugh said. “They’ve got to be saying that despite all the great progress and despite all the great wokeness, and despite all the great ground that’s been covered, America’s still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president.”
Limbaugh added that Buttigieg would be an ideal rival to Trump, who he said would “have fun” facing off against a politician who “loves kissing his husband on debate stages.”
Buttigieg is the first openly gay candidate to mount a major presidential campaign in American history, and has been married to his husband, Chasten, for over two years.
Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Buttigieg to respond to the comments on State of the Union.
“Well, I love my husband. I’m faithful to my husband. On stage, we usually just go for a hug, but I love him very much,” Buttigieg said. “And I’m not going to take lectures on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.”

“I love my husband. I’m faithful to my husband,” @petebuttigieg responds to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments. “I’m not going to take lectures on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.” https://cnn.it/2UR6m94 

And in an appearance appearance on Fox News Sunday, Buttigieg took an opportunity to use Limbaugh’s remarks to take a direct strike at Trump.
“I’m not going to be lectured on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or anybody who supports Donald J. Trump as the moral as well as political leader of the United States,” Buttigieg said.
“America has moved on, and we should have politics of belonging that welcomes everybody,” Buttigieg continued. “That’s what the American people are for. And I am saddened for what the Republican Party has become if they embrace that kind of homophobic rhetoric.”

Limbaugh often makes ugly remarks — these, however, have drawn bipartisan rebuke

Limbaugh’s comments were par for the course with him. Despite being given a civilian honor typically reserved for those who have made positive contributions to American life like Toni Morrison and Ansel Adams, the radio personality has long been a divisive figure who openly peddles racist, sexist, and otherwise inflammatory views.
As Vox’s Laura McGann has explained, “Limbaugh fills hours of airtime each week with hateful commentary directed at African AmericansAsian Americanswomen, people with disabilities, and pretty much anyone who is not white, straight, and male.”
He has mocked the president of China by saying, “Hu Jintao was just going, ‘Ching cha, ching chang cho chow’”; said the NBA should be rebranded “the TBA, the Thug Basketball Association”; and has recently made sexist, ablest attacks on teenaged climate activist Greta Thunberg. And these are just a few of his many, many hateful remarks.
Limbaugh’s remarks are part of why his base tunes into his show, and have not always drawn bipartisan criticism, but his most recent attacks on Buttigieg did just that, with both Republicans and Democrats censuring him.
A spokesperson for Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, said: “There may be reasons not to vote for Mayor Buttigieg, but that’s not one of them. This is a tolerant country.”
“It’s a miscalculation as to where the country is at,” Trump ally and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said. “I think the country is not going to disqualify somebody because of their sexual orientation.”
Democrats offered stronger condemnation, with former Vice President Joe Biden praising Buttigieg and calling Limbaugh’s language “part of the depravity of this administration.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted, “These homophobic attacks against [Buttigieg] are hateful and offensive. ... We will fight together against the hate and bigotry that Donald Trump promotes and rewards.”
And while he did not exactly criticize the man he honored weeks ago, even Trump suggested Limbaugh may have gone too far. When asked during an interview with Geraldo Rivera on Cleveland’s Newsradio WTAM if Americans would vote for a gay man to be president, Trump said, “I think so.”
“I think there would be some that wouldn’t. I wouldn’t be among that group, to be honest with you,” he added.

Week 5

Hello everyone. I hope this week finds you and your family safe and healthy. I know it is getting increasingly more difficult to be home and...