adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Powerful engines of political mayhem are cranking up in the U.S.

Published

 on

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy delivers a statement on allegations surrounding U.S. President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., Sept. 12.LEAH MILLIS/Reuters

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has authorized an impeachment inquiry directed at President Joe Biden. One of the most powerful engines of American political investigation is cranking up just as four other significant factors are in motion: legal questions surrounding Hunter Biden, the President’s son; Mr. McCarthy’s effort to stave off a rebellion on his right; the real threat of a government shutdown; and heightened campaigning for the 2024 presidential elections. Questions abound, answers are elusive. But here is a viewers’ guide to the political mayhem south of the border.

What has Mr. McCarthy set in motion?

He has initiated an inquiry into whether the House should proceed with an actual drive to impeach the President. The difference between an “impeachment inquiry” and “impeachment proceedings” is subtle but significant. This new development is an effort to determine whether formal impeachment proceedings should be undertaken. Republicans on the right believe it is a precursor to more formal action, but even some Republicans believe it is an investigation in dogged search of a crime. Democrats regard it as a desperate effort to match Donald Trump’s substantial legal liability with artificial political liability for Mr. Biden.

Is there real basis for this?

There is little question that many elements of the activities of the President’s son deserve legal scrutiny. Again, it is the subtleties that matter. The younger Mr. Biden, already facing tax and gun-possession charges, is in danger of being accused of influence peddling – the quiet if not overt use of his father’s political position and influence for financial advantage. The father’s presence on the son’s business telephone calls is problematic at best, a substantial element of jeopardy at worst. For years, the President’s opponents have wondered at the comfortable if not lavish lifestyle and real estate holdings of a man whose résumé includes nearly a half-century of government service – two years as a commissioner in Castle County, Del., 36 in the Senate, eight in the vice-presidency, and three in the White House.

Why did Mr. McCarthy move so decisively and so swiftly?

He is arguing that the cumulative questions about Mr. Biden’s finances, his son’s business activities and the answers that the President has given to inquiries about Hunter Biden’s private work bear investigation. Many Democrats are uneasy about those questions as well. But the timing suggests that the Speaker responded at least as much to questions about his own political survival. Facing a rebellion on the right from the very sources that made his election to the leadership of the House of Representatives an embarrassing spectacle, he announced an impeachment probe that those rebels have sought for months. Thus the inquiry is the blending of two hopes: that it might produce the proverbial “smoking gun” that could lead to an actual House impeachment; and that the Speaker’s gesture might placate the rebels.

What are the rebels’ complaints with Mr. McCarthy?

Like everything else on Capitol Hill, the answer is both simple and complicated. The simple: This group, known as the Freedom Caucus, wants to cut government spending, address immigration issues on the border with Mexico, and end what it calls “the left’s cancerous woke policies in the Pentagon undermining our military’s core war-fighting mission.” The complicated: The 45 members of this group – especially a core of about two dozen of them – are opposing a stopgap funding measure known as a “continuing resolution” that would prevent a government shutdown later this month. In most cases, continuing resolutions maintain current funding levels – but not always. These resolutions could include spending changes or alterations in the rate in which appropriated dollars are expended. All of that is fodder for negotiations later this month.

Why does the Freedom Caucus have such influence over the Speaker?

In the past, House speakers have ruled with power similar to European despots; speaker Thomas Brackett Reed, who ruled the chamber for four years beginning in 1894, actually was known as “Czar Reed.” In more recent years, Democratic speaker Thomas (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (ruling the House from 1977-1987) and Republican speaker Newt Gingrich (1995-1999) had iron control over the House; nothing moved without their support. But Mr. McCarthy barely won the Speaker’s gavel and is vulnerable in a way none of his predecessors were to a process called “vacating the chair,” which essentially allows a single lawmaker to call for a vote to declare the Speaker’s chair “vacant.” This little-understood element of House rules has never been employed. But it is a real threat that Mr. McCarthy’s skeptics hold over him every day.

Is this impeachment inquiry nothing more than political equity?

One of the impetuses for this inquiry is the double-impeachment of Mr. Trump and the old chestnut, perhaps dating to the middle of the 18th century, about turnabout being fair play. The former president has been urging his House allies to impeach Mr. Biden as retribution for his own impeachments. Just this week, one of his principal allies, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, had dinner with Mr. Trump and said she told the former president that she hoped the impeachment inquiry would be “long and excruciatingly painful for Joe Biden.”

Is Mr. Biden likely to be removed from office?

No, at least from what is known at this juncture. It is not even clear that there is sufficient support among Republicans, who hold a slim margin of power, to proceed further. And the Senate, where a two-thirds majority is required to remove a president, has a Democratic majority. Mr. Biden has relative job security, at least until next November’s election.

Will this become part of the presidential campaign?

Almost certainly. The Republican candidates for president now routinely are asked whether they would, if elected, pardon Mr. Trump and some of the insurrectionists in the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the Capitol. That question likely will be paired in the GOP debate later this month with whether they support impeaching Mr. Biden. In Iowa, site of the first caucus of the 2024 political season, Representative Randy Feenstra already has said that it was “evident that a further and more thorough investigation is warranted to protect the integrity of our institutions, defend the rule of law in our country, and hold President Biden accountable for his corruption.”

Is there triple danger here?

Surely there is. The first danger is to Mr. Biden, in the event that more damaging information emerges about his own financial holdings and his involvement in his son’s business activities. The second is to the Republicans who are undertaking this effort; the backlash to the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton resulted in the Democrats picking up five House seats in a midterm congressional election in which the party holding the White House generally suffers losses on Capitol Hill.

But the greater danger is in the normalization of impeachment, which has occurred only four times in American history – but three times in the past quarter century. The gap between the first impeachment (of Andrew Johnson, in 1868) and the next one (Mr. Clinton) was 130 years. The repeated employment of impeachment proceedings takes the sting out of what was intended to be the ultimate sanction in American politics.

 

728x90x4

Source link

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending