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?

300x250x1

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

Politics

Julia Malott: Nope, parents are not ‘fascists’ for being skeptical of gender politics

Published

 on

The core issue at hand is preserving their agency and autonomy over the ideological content of their children’s education

In the coming days, Canada will see heightened activity in the nation’s ongoing gender identity politics debate. The “1 Million March 4 Children” protest against how gender identity is taught in schools, is set to occur on Wednesday, with synchronized events in more than 50 cities countrywide. Two days later, separate Toronto rally will spotlight two figures prominent in the gender-critical movement: Chris Elston, colloquially known as “Billboard Chris” for his distinctive method of protesting against childhood medical transition, and Josh Alexander, a Renfrew, Ontario student who was expelled earlier this year after objecting in class to his school’s transgender washroom policy.

Organizers of these events bill them as a defense of the safety and wellbeing of children, though the protesters’ opinions span a wide spectrum of positions. While some desire personal discretion in how matters of gender identity are handled for their own children, others urge broader constraint on transgender-related discussion and accommodations for the entire student body. The perspectives reflect the diverse community backing the movement.

300x250x1

As parents’ voices grow louder, there’s a perception in the progressive left that all of these emerging movements are rooted and inspired by “far-right” extremism. Many in leftist circles suggest that parental rights advocacy is a dog-whistle: a veiled attempt to advance anti-transgender policies. A recently leaked video from an Ontario Federation of Labour meeting offers a glimpse into how some of the province’s most influential union members perceive these protests. As one member notably stated during the meeting: “The fascists are organizing in the streets … . This is far more than a far-right transphobic protest. They’re fundamentally racist, they’re fundamentally anti-union, they are fundamentally transphobic, and it’s just a matter of time before they come for us.”

Such language of a growing fascist movement, evoking images of 1933 Berlin, is more than a little unhinged, particularly when all they are discussing is parents uniting together to demand involvement in their children’s education. As a covert spectator in the union meeting, there was an undeniable sentiment among participants that if not for them democracy would surely collapse.

It’s a grave mistake to deride the parental collective pushing back against the status-quo as fascist sympathizers motivated by transgender hate. A glance past such alarmist rhetoric reveals that — while a fringe group of hate has always existed — the concerns many parents are championing are much more moderate than a “far-right” moniker suggests.

For many parents, the core issue at hand is preserving their agency and autonomy over the ideological content of their children’s education. They want transparency about what is being taught, the option to excuse their child from content they believe doesn’t align with their values, and the discretion to determine age-appropriateness for activities, such as certain reading material or events like drag queen performances at schools. Perhaps least surprisingly, parents want to be involved in the key decisions of their own child undergoing a social transition in the classroom.

Many of these matters have been surfacing in school board meetings for several years, largely to be ignored by Trustees and Education Directors. The shared sentiment among these parents is the perception that the education system increasingly sidelines them, diminishing their role in their children’s upbringing. This sense of alienation is leading a growing number of parents to take a stand, even if it means confronting accusations of extremism.

The matter of social transition behind parents’ backs in particular is so condemning of their role in upbringing that it has thrust the entire gamut of gender identity matters into the national spotlight, revealing just how out of balance transgender accommodation has become. The manner in which the left has responded — by doubling down in their rhetoric and deriding parents as militant zealots, has played powerfully into the rapid growth of this grassroots movement.

Many parents, even amid those who will stand in protest, have little desire to limit other families’ decisions regarding gender teachings and expression for their children. They realize that their objective of ensuring their own parental autonomy is intertwined with safeguarding those same freedoms for other families as well.

Over time, the persistent branding of even modest parental rights positions as far-right extremism does injury. As the left cries foul each time they encounter a perspective they don’t like, they desensitize the meaning in such a label. By regularly branding modest parental concerns as extremist, progressives may very well be shoehorning the adoption and normalization of more hardline positions that do straddle the line of the parental rights of others. As grassroots gain traction, a vocal minority have now taken to calling for sweeping bans on gender affirming teaching and accommodation for all children and families alike within the public education system.

So where do we go from here? What might a balanced approach to parental rights look like within the nuanced landscape of gender identity politics? Fortunately, we need not start from scratch; history offers us a model for the coexistence of diverse ideologies within our educational institutions. Look no further than religion.

For years, Canada has upheld an educational system truly inclusive of students from all religious backgrounds. The classroom approach to religious topics is robust; it sidesteps direct religious instruction, and when religion intersects with the curriculum, it is presented academically rather than doctrinally. Instead of dictating what’s “true” in religious contexts, educators shed light on what various groups “believe,” cultivating an environment of both choice and critical thinking.

Amid religious diversity, we teach acceptance. Students are taught to make space for varied faith expression among their peers, whether through clothing or other customs, and with a strong desire to maintain neutral, religious symbols are not adorned by the institution. The lesson for students is to embrace and include, even where personal beliefs diverge; Meanwhile, the guiding principle for the institution is to avoid actions that display favouritism toward any specific religious doctrine.

Such a solution could address a significant portion of the concerns fuelling the rising parental unrest. Moderate parents would applaud such an education system, and this would still be inclusive of transgender students. But in order for this to be realized, the two factions moving ever further apart will first need to come to the table and talk. Given the recent rhetoric from progressive quarters, the prospect of this dialogue anytime soon appears distant.

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Ex-diplomat says Poland asked him to keep tabs on Alberta politician

Published

 on

A month after Global Affairs Canada told CBC News it was looking into claims that the Polish government asked one of its diplomats in Canada to gather information on a former Alberta cabinet minister, the dismissed consul general at the centre of the affair says he still hasn’t heard from the department on the matter.

Andrzej Mańkowski told CBC News the only official he has heard from is a B.C. bureaucrat who asked him to return his diplomatic licence plates and identification.

“[Officials with Global Affairs] haven’t tried talking to me,” he said.

Mańkowski showed CBC News a copy of a letter dated Aug. 31 he received from B.C.’s Chief of Protocol for Intergovernmental Relations Lucy Lobmeier asking him to turn in his identity card and to return his diplomatic plates “within 30 days of this letter.” She also thanked him for his service.

300x250x1

Mańkowski alleges he was dismissed from his post in late July after he refused to carry out orders from the Polish government to gather information about Thomas Lukaszuk, a former deputy premier of Alberta who often provides commentary to CBC News about the province’s politics.

“It’s clear that Polish diplomacy during Communist times, the main responsibility was to collect information, to gather information on some Polish representatives abroad,” Mańkowski said, adding he felt as if the request was a throwback to that time.

“The analogy’s extremely evident.”

Last month, Global Affairs Canada said it was taking the allegations seriously.

Spying allegations ‘out of this world’: ambassador

In August, Lukaszuk said he believed he had been targeted by Poland’s department of foreign affairs over his activism against a controversial Polish pastor, Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, who has private radio and television stations in Poland.

Rydzyk, who has ties to the Polish government, has been criticized for delivering sermons featuring homophobic and anti-Semitic views and for preaching against the European Union.

Lukaszuk also shared what he said were encrypted messages Polish government officials sent to Mańkowski asking him over the course of a year to prepare notes on the former Alberta politician.

CBC News has not independently verified these messages were official government communications. Mańkowski did not dispute their veracity in his interview.

“Asking for my opinion about Lukaszuk was just a kind of trap, was just a political test of my loyalty,” he said.

Polish Ambassador to Canada Witold Dzielski has dismissed the claim that his government tried to get a diplomat to keep tabs on a former Alberta politician. (Darryl G. Smart/CBC News)

Poland’s Ambassador to Canada Witold Dzielski called the allegation “totally absurd.”

“The idea of Polish diplomacy spying on a former provincial politician … it’s really out of this world,” Dzielski said.

He said he has never met Lukaszuk and did not know of his previous career in politics before Lukaszuk emailed him about an unrelated consular matter long before the reports about Mańkowski came out.

Dzielski said that if the notes cited by Lukaszuk are real, they were leaked illegally because they would constitute private diplomatic communications.

The affair has captured attention in Polish media, where the story first broke.

In July, Polish opposition politicians cited the messages released by Lukaszuk when they asked Piotr Wawrzyk, a secretary of state in the government’s foreign affairs department, whether Mańkowski was dismissed because he refused to spy on Lukaszuk.

In reply, Wawrzyk said the government could recall a diplomat who refused to carry out an assignment.

Wawrzyk, who was also a deputy foreign minister, has since been fired himself over an unrelated matter both local media outlets and Reuters have linked to a clandestine scheme awarding migrants visas in exchange for cash.

On Saturday, The Associated Press noted he had been hospitalized following an apparent sucide attempt. 

“The minister, Wawrzyk, was laid off because of a totally different subject,” Dzielski said.

He pointed out that those documents were cited by opposition politicians in the context of a heated election campaign.

Dzielski� also said it’s normal for diplomats to be asked to gather information on notable members of diaspora communities.

‘A very marginal conversation’

“We are working very closely with them,” he said. “It is obvious and natural, and it is an element of diplomatic workshops, that we provide and we build ourselves opinions about the quality of cooperation with particular actors.”

He said Global Affairs has spoken to him about the allegations. “We had a very marginal conversation on this which reflects the level of seriousness of this topic,” he said.

A NATO member, Poland has worked closely with Canada to help out its neighbour Ukraine ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion last year.

Asked for comment, Global Affairs said in a media statement it “continues to work closely with security and intelligence community partners to assess the situation and identify next steps as appropriate.”

The department said last month it had contacted Lukaszuk and that it took the responsibility of protecting Canadians from “transnational repression” very seriously.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Put politics aside to solve housing crisis, or your kids might never own a home: Raitt

Published

 on

 

The Current20:05Putting politics aside to tackle the housing crisis

 

Political leaders of all stripes must find a way to work together to solve the housing and climate crises impacting Canadians, says former Conservative MP Lisa Raitt.

300x250x1

“Toronto is the best example. NDP mayor, provincial premier who’s Conservative, federal Liberal who’s the prime minister,” said Raitt, co-lead of the new non-governmental Task Force for Housing and Climate, which launched Tuesday.

“And if they don’t figure this out, one voter is going to punish them all.”

The new task force is concerned with accelerating the construction of new homes, while ensuring that’s done in a sustainable way. In a press release, the group of former city mayors, planners, developers, economists and affordable housing advocates said it intends to convene until April 2024 to develop policy recommendations. The work is supported by the Clean Economy Fund, a charitable foundation.

Raitt held several senior cabinet posts under former prime minister Stephen Harper. But as co-lead of the task force, Raitt said she won’t engage in the political partisanship that she thinks “poisons the well” around these issues.

“Part of the reason why we’re coming together as the task force is to have a real pragmatic and practical conversation about these issues instead of weaponizing it into a political arena, and finger pointing back and forth,” she told The Current’s Matt Galloway.

Trudeau pledges more housing as pressure mounts over affordability

 

Justin Trudeau announced funding to build more housing in London, Ont., as he and Liberal MPs kicked off their caucus retreat. The agreement comes as the government faces growing pressure to help make housing more affordable.

Canada needs to build an extra 3.5 million new units by the end of the decade, over and above what’s already in the works, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. A report this week showed rental costs have increased 9.6 per cent from Aug. 2022 to 2023, to an average now of $2,117 a month.

This week, the federal government announced it would cut the federal goods and services tax (GST) from the construction of new rental apartments, in an effort to spur new development. The Liberal government also pledged $74 million to build thousands of homes in London, Ont., — the first in what it hopes will be a series of agreements to accelerate housing construction.

Speaking in London on Wednesday, Housing Minister Sean Fraser called on municipalities to “legalize housing,” urging them to remove “sluggish permit-approval processes” and zoning obstacles if they expect federal investment in housing construction.

Poilievre slams PM on housing, says Trudeau ‘funds gatekeepers’

 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre took aim at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s housing plans Thursday, saying the Liberal government’s ‘inflationary deficits’ and ‘taxes and bureaucracy’ are holding back construction of new homes.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the government’s plans as not going far enough, while pointing out it echoes some of his party’s proposals. He’s proposed measures that tie federal funding to the number of housing starts. Funding would be withheld from cities that fail to increase the number of homes built by 15 per cent, while cities that pass that threshold would receive bonuses.

Poilievre’s proposals also include a “NIMBY” fine on municipalities that block construction because of opposition from local residents, and the sale of 15 per cent of federally owned buildings so the land can be used to build affordable homes.

Don Iveson, former mayor of Edmonton and co-lead of the task force, said he understands why partisan politics can creep into the debate — but Canadians expect more.

He said the task force intends “to help all orders of government” understand what’s needed to tackle these problems from an economic, technical and planning perspective.

“We’re not going to be able to solve the housing crisis [by] building housing the way we built it for the last several generations,” said said Iveson, who was mayor of Edmonton from 2013 to 2021.

A woman stands in the House of Commons in Ottawa, with people sitting in the background.
Lisa Raitt held several senior cabinet posts under former prime minister Stephen Harper. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Your kids need a place to live: Raitt

Iveson said the challenge of scaling up housing construction will require some new ways of thinking.

That might mean a greater emphasis on automation and building houses from components prefabricated off-site, which he described as “essentially a more factory approach” that could also reduce construction costs.

Raitt said the task force will examine where houses are built, and in what kind of density, to ensure scaling up can “get the most bang for the buck.”

That might mean Canadians might need to have difficult conversations, including whether to build multi-storey buildings instead of single-family homes.

Raitt said older Canadians who already own their own homes might not like the idea of taller buildings going up around them, but they should speak to their kids about it.

 

Strangers buy homes together to combat unaffordable housing.

 

CBC’s Sohrab Sandhu reports on an unorthodox strategy where some people are deciding to buy homes with strangers.

“They don’t care if it’s going to be four, six storeys in a residential neighbourhood. They just want a place that they know that they can purchase,” she said.

“Talk about whether or not our kids are going to have a place to live, let alone rent, let alone own, let alone a house in the communities where they were brought up, because right now it’s not looking so good.”

Counting the cost of climate change

When it comes to climate change and sustainability, the task force’s goals come down to a “very simple equation,” Raitt said.

“Whatever we’re building now is going to be here in 2050. So if it’s going to be part of the calculation of our net-zero aspirations, whatever they’re going to be,” she said.

She said the task force will work to formulate ways to build housing that take emissions into account, but don’t include prohibitive costs that slow down the rate of construction.

“It’s going to be a little bit more costly to build with climate indications built in … but you’ve got to make sure that there’s policies surrounding that to make sure it still makes it affordable,” she said.

 

Visuals of homes destroyed by wildfire in Upper Tantallon, N.S.

 

Officials say the fire, which is burning out of control as of Monday morning, is expected to grow.

Iveson said wildfires, floods, heat domes and extreme weather events are already disrupting the economy, as well as posing huge financial burdens for the Canadians caught up in them.

“Climate change is already costing us a fortune,” he told Galloway.

Building without those climate considerations “maybe seems affordable in the short term, but it’s false economy when it comes to the real costs ahead of us,” he said.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending