FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Jan 11

Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Obvious Distraction From America’s Domestic Issues

by bcurry

For weeks now, the Trump administration has caught world media attention with its incursion into Venezuela and capture of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.  However, attempting to avoid the appearance of seeking regime change, Trump has instead now focused on the oil reserves in that country.  What is not clear is whether the CEOs of major oil companies were consulted before hand, especially as they are apparently not ready to invest billions of dollars toward the restoration of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.  Economically and from a business perspective, the addition of that country’s crude oil would not make much difference to gas and oil prices in the U.S., certainly in the short term.  In addition, continuing the naval blockade against oil tankers in the region has become a costly endeavour and has stretched the operational capabilities of U.S. forces.

More recently, Trump has turned his attention to directing his overall foreign policy strategy to Greenland, Cuba and even Iran.  For example, he has repeatedly said that the U.S. must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semi-autonomous region of NATO ally Denmark.  From a military standpoint, the U.S. already has a defense agreement with Denmark
dating back to 1951.  Its installation at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of Greenland
currently supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.  There is nothing to stop the Americans from increasing their military presence on the island under the current agreement.  Instead, it became evident, as in the case of Venezuela, that his administration is more interested in exploring business and mining deals by controlling Greenland’s governance.

Next, we have statements by Trump about the economic impact of the loss of Venezuelan crude oil to Cuba.  The control of Cuba and removal of its current regime is a big personal issue for Secretary of State Marco Rubio who has family ties to Cuba.  A day after the U.S. captured Maduro, Rubio issued a warning to Cuba, telling NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he thinks the country is “in a lot of trouble.”  As in the case of Venezuela, Trump has suggested that the U.S. could run Cuba.

Finally, Trump’s attention has also turned to Iran and the current large-scale protests against the current regime under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, mostly as a result the deteriorating economic situation in Iran and the regime’s heavy handed approach to any opposition.  Iranian protests rage and civilian deaths mount. Trump has renewed his warning of possible U.S. intervention, without being very specific about what a U.S. intervention might involve.  Khamenei has accused the U.S. and Israel of having hands “stained with the blood of Iranians”, arguing that they are behind the protests.  Trump has simply asserted that any possible American strike wouldn’t “mean boots on the ground but that means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts.” 

As many historians and political scientists have asserted in the past, the focus on foreign policy initiatives, especially those involving military actions, are often a form of distraction from economic and political problems at home.  One only needs to remember the former unpopular U.K. Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and her administration’s military actions in 1982 against Argentina over the Falkland Islands.  Even some Republicans in Congress are beginning to question the foreign policy goals of the Trump administration.  Far-right activists such as Laura Loomer, Tucker Carlson and others opposed the operation in Venezuela, maintaining that Americans will ultimately pay the price.  They have also questioned how the administration’s vague plans are squared with a commitment to refrain from military intervention and regime change, something certainly not in line with Trump’s “America First” base.

Moreover, on America’s domestic front, things are not going well politically and economically.  Unemployment is up and inflation continues to rise, especially for food, housing and other staples.  The operation of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) in numerous cities has resulted in harm to American citizens and legal immigrants, including recent ICE-related deaths and injuries.  As a result, country-wide protests against ICE initiatives have emerged, leading to administration officials having to justify the use of force against protesters.

Recent polling has shown that Trump’s popularity has fallen to an all time low, including with respect to his once-popular immigration policies.  In addition, hundreds of cases involving the administration’s policies are before the courts.  Americans’ trust in the judicial system and governance has taken a massive beating.  For this reason, a strong argument can be made that the Trump administration has decided to assert U.S. foreign policy and power in order to distract from continuing domestic problems.


Donald Trump Economy Energy Foreign Policy Immigration Iran Latin America Military Prowess Oil and Gas Republican Party Trump US

Leave a comment »
Dec 29

Trump Administration’s Biggest Blunders of the Past Year

by bcurry

Remember what prevented George H.W. Bush from getting a second term was his failure to adequately address the economy at that time.  Thus the phrase: “It’s the economy stupid”.  What we now see under Trump’s second term is his downplaying of what is happening to the economy, including the continuing high inflation and increasing unemployment across the country.  One has to remember that the real impact on inflation of the tariffs will only be felt next year.  In addition, the discontinuance of subsidies for Obama care will also result in insurance premium increases for millions of Americans.  It’s becoming increasingly evident that a major split among Republicans is beginning to show as a result of the resulting anger among their constituents. 

Instead, the Trump administration seems to be concentrating on foreign policy initiatives.  Here again, there are obvious problems with a number of issues.  Trump cozied up to Putin from the outset, even meeting with the Russian dictator in Alaska which resulted in no change in the aggression against Ukraine.  Now, Trump is attempting to play the peacemaker by holding numerous meetings with Putin and Ukraine’s Zelensky.  Unfortunately, Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle and will not stop until his occupation of Ukraine is complete and is recognized by the U.S. as being legitimate, something Ukrainians may not be able to abide.

When it comes to Gaza and the Israeli administration under Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump continues to obscure the real issues in Palestine because of his close relationship with Netanyahu.  Once again, the Trump administration is attempting to broker a more permanent ceasefire agreement, while failing to provide any strategic plan for Palestinian self-rule in Gaza.  With the horrendous economic situation, lack of food and few medical services in Gaza, the U.S. appears to simply ignore what the war has done to the Palestinian people, its infrastructure and its governance.  The administration has failed to see Netanyahu’s drive to formally and militarily occupy Gaza and the West Bank, much to the opposition of America’s allies and Arab states.  Netanyahu rejects the concept of a two-state solution regarding Palestine and to date Trump has not taken a clear position on the matter.

On the other major foreign policy initiative, the Trump administration has launched an all out war on Venezuela and notably the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro.  Not only have they attacked boats in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, but Trump declared the air space around the country as being closed and has implemented a naval blockade against tankers containing Venezuelan oil.  In addition, Trump recently disclosed that a facility had apparently been destroyed within the country, without providing more details.  Moreover, his administration has not ruled out the use of the American military’s involvement in land incursions.  Given the adversarial approach by Trump towards Maduro, one cannot rule out the real objective as being regime change.

At home, Trump has backed policies that allow the Big Tech industry to grow unfettered, especially when it comes to artificial intelligence (A.I.).  The mutually beneficial alliance is even causing concern among some conservatives.  The biggest tech companies have gotten almost everything they wanted from Trump, whose administration has cleared the way for the fast-tracked building of data centers that power A.I. development.  As far as issues such as A.I. safety for children and A.I.’s effect on jobs, the Trump administration has opposed any regulation governing the industry’s actions and has actually taken federal measures to block state laws on A.I.  The implications of fast-growing technologies like A.I. have already raised new issues that are likely to play into next year’s midterm elections, much to the chagrin of many Republicans.

These are but a few of what I would consider as being major blunders under the Trump administration.  As a result, 2026 will be a tough year both domestically and abroad.  In addition, there are still a number of important cases before the Supreme Court, including the use of tariffs by his administration and whether the president has the authority to impose such trade measures.  We can only wait and see.

Artificial Intelligence Donald Trump Economy Foreign Policy Israel Latin America Republican Party Trump Ukraine US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Dec 1

Trump’s Attempt to Interfere by Force in Venezuela Politics is Once Again a U.S. Blunder in Latin America

by bcurry

Using the Trump administration’s excuse of targeting suspected drug shipments off Venezuela’s coast by military means is not defensible and possibly dangerous for U.S. foreign policy.  After all, Venezuela is a sovereign state, and any future incursion into its coastal waters or its territory would be considered by international law to be an act of war.  Past history has shown that American interference in Central and South American countries has not fared well. 

Long before the U.S. military’s involvement in the region became so contentious, the U.S. under President James Monroe asserted that it could use its military to intervene in Latin America, often referred to as the “Monroe Doctrine”.  At that time there were concerns over European meddling in the western hemisphere.  Today, the issue is primarily with the growth of China’s influence in the region.  In the 1840s, President James K. Polk invoked the doctrine to justify the Mexican-American War, which produced the U.S. conquest of Mexican lands now comprising states such as California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.  That humiliating outcome and other U.S. military interventions in Mexico in the 1910s, profoundly shaped Mexico’s political identity, fostering a strong sense of nationalism in opposition to the U.S. which often continues to be seen today.

The first notable modern times example was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, an abortive and disastrous invasion of Fidel Castro’s Cuba by some 1,500 Cuban exiles opposed to Castro’s regime. The invasion was financed and directed by the U.S. government under President Kennedy’s administration and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), resulting in the deaths and imprisonment of the invaders.  Cuba’s relations with the U.S. went down hill from thereon, leading to greater reliance on aid, including military aid, from the Soviet Union.

The next worst example was in early September 1973, when the Chilean military, aided by the U.S. and the CIA, staged a coup against and killed President Salvador Allende, who was at the head of the first democratically elected Marxist government in Latin America.  Under General Pinochet, who replaced Allende, a series of human rights abuses in Chile occurred as part of his brutal and long-lasting campaign of political suppression through torture, murder, and exile.  Despite Chileans’ subsequent opposition, Pinochet ruled the country with American support until 1990.  In exile, Pinochet died in 2011.  A Chilean court opened a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Allende’s death, long suspected to have been orchestrated by the CIA. 

Most recently, Trump threatened to take over the Panama Canal and to bomb Mexican drug labs.  His administration has thrown itself into Brazilian domestic politics on behalf of former President Jair Bolsonaro.  Earlier in the year, a Trump executive order placed heavy tariffs on Brazilian exports in a move against Brazilian authorities involved in the prosecution and conviction of Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power after losing the 2022 election. This was despite the fact that the conviction was subsequently upheld by that country’s Supreme Court.  Earlier this year, the administration also offered a $20 billion loan to prop up the political fortunes of President Javier Milei of Argentina and to purchase Argentina’s beef to offset rising beef costs in the U.S.   In 2023, as a member of the Libertarian Party, Milei ran for president as part of La Libertad Avanza, an extreme right-wing political coalition. 

President Trump announced on November 28th that he would grant a full and complete pardon to a former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández.  Associated with drug cartels, Hernández was at the center of a sweeping drug case.  Last year, he was found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt by an American jury of conspiring to import cocaine into the U.S.  Certainly, this represents a very strange move given the administration’s formal declaration of war against the drug cartels.

In the past, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that efforts by U.S. drug enforcement officials to cut off narcotics trafficking by intercepting boats, trucks and horses laden with drugs and arresting the smugglers were not bold enough.  He has since helped steer the Trump administration toward a much more aggressive and often deadly tactic: the use of military force to destroy suspected drug boats and kill all the people on board, without any legal process.  Rubio has also long sought the ouster of leftist strongmen in the region, particularly the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, whose governments he has called “illegitimate”.  Last August, Rubio ordered the State Department to increase a reward to $50 million for any information leading to the arrest and conviction on U.S. drug charges of Venezuela’s current president, Nicolás Maduro.  During the first Trump administration, Rubio apparently played a leading role in pushing the president to try to oust Maduro from power.  Thus, the saga continues.

In a part of the world where the U.S. has a long history of military intervention and support for dictatorships in Latin America, in more recent years there has been a visceral rejection of the idea of American-imposed regime change.  The real possibility of American military incursion in Venezuela
would once again raise the specter of past U.S. foreign policy blunders in Latin America.  Also, it is noteworthy that no senior aide close to Trump reportedly has a long history of working on Latin America
policy. 

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Latin America Trump US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Nov 11

When Will We Stop Young Men From Going To War?

by bcurry

Years ago, I read somewhere that old men begin wars and send young men to fight them.  This was certainly true of the multitude of wars fought during the Twentieth Century.  Today, it would appear that nothing has really changed.  Look around the world, and you cannot help to witness the continuing atrocities caused by wars and the loss of not only young soldiers, but also, and most importantly, the loss of civilian lives.  There is no need to once again recount the statistical losses of war, for what matters most is the real human suffering that one sees among the individuals and families affected by war.

I had family members who fought in both World Wars, and gratefully had survived to return.  Born shortly after WWII, I lived through the Cold War period and the West’s battles with the then Soviet Union.  I lived through the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent struggles of East European countries for independence.  I lived through the Vietnam conflict, which one must remember like the earlier Korean conflict, was never officially declared a war by Congress. Then came the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 toppling the long time dictator Saddam Hussein and leading to the subsequent decade occupation of Iraq.  Fortunately, the then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to send Canadian troops to fight in Iraq.  However, Canada did join the NATO mission in Afghanistan where in over ten years of fighting, Canadian combatants loss their lives and several were seriously injured.  With the war in Afghanistan going poorly and in light of the gains being made by the Taliban, the U.S. couldn’t wait to get out of that country, much in the same way the Vietnam conflict ended.  And for what?

Now, we have the Ukrainian-Russian war being initiated by 73 year old Vladimir Putin, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years and de facto dictator of Russia since 2000.  To date, while supplying Ukraine with weapons and financial support, no NATO country has boots on the ground in Ukraine.  However, there is little doubt that NATO’s European countries are deeply concerned about Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and potential future threat.  The result is that they have begun to build up their military forces and to expend a larger proportion of their budgets on defence.  Canada, as a NATO member, has also agreed to significantly increase its military spending to meet its continuing commitments to the alliance.

In the Middle East, Israel’s conflicts with Hamas in Gaza, its attacks on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, and its most recent attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar, represents a long period of wars and deaths and destruction on both sides.  Indeed, there have been multiple wars with Israel, including those in 2008-09, 2012, 2014, 2021 and an ongoing one since 2023, which began with the infamous October 7 attacks.  According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the U.S. spent almost $18 billion on military aid to Israel from October 2023 to October 2024.  While the U.S. continues to provide this massive support, do date President Trump has not indicated that American troops could become directly involved in Gaza.  Time will tell!

People in the Trump administration like to describe the president as a president for peace — this despite the recent change whereby his Secretary of Defense is now the Secretary of War.  In addition, the Trump administration is building up its military presence in the Caribbean, especially off the coast of Venezuela.  Drone attacks have been carried out on boats in international waters, with the administration declaring that these are drug smugglers originating out of Venezuela and supported by the country’s president Nicolás Maduro.  However, some current and former U.S. officials contend that the unspoken goal is the goal is to force Maduro from power.  In other words, regime change.  As of November 6th, the U.S. Senate has twice failed to pass resolutions that would limit Trump’s authority to continue military action against Venezuela or airstrikes against alleged drug vessels.  After long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the combination of the words America and regime change raises alarm bells, both inside and outside the U.S.  Let’s hope that this aging American president isn’t once again ready to sacrifice American young lives in another worthless war.

Afghanistan Canada Defence Defence Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Today Russia Trump Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Oct 7

Would Trump Really Enact the Insurrection Act?

by bcurry

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to use active-duty military personnel to perform law-enforcement duties inside the U.S.  Unfortunately, the Insurrection Act was written in fairly broad terms, with little specific guidance on how and when the powers can be used.  It apparently gives presidents wide latitude in deciding when to mobilise military personnel for domestic operations.  Presidents can invoke the law if they determine that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the government make it “impracticable to enforce” U.S. law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”.  To date, President Trump has chosen not to invoke this Act.  One important reason is that if he chooses to invoke the Act, it remains unclear what further legal challenges he might face.  Since the start of his second term, he has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 American cities.

Already, the Trump administration is facing numerous challenges to his use of federalizing the National Guard in cases involving Los Angeles and Chicago.  Most recently, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Portland, Oregon, including the California National Guard.  U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, issued the order pending further arguments in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.  She said the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.  California and Oregon also sought the temporary restraining order after U.S. President Donald Trump sent guard members from California to Oregon.  The same judge temporarily blocked his administration from deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.  This upset Trump who then talked about invoking the Insurrection Act.

The use of the Insurrection Act has normally been under very exceptional circumstances since its first use by Abraham Lincoln when the southern states rebelled during the US Civil War, and by former President Ulysses S Grant against a wave of racist violence by the Ku Klux Klan after the war.  It was last used by President George Bush in 1992 when massive riots broke out in Los Angeles over the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a black man.  The American government has traditionally worked to limit the use of military force on American soil, especially against its own citizens.  Its use would be an extreme option in order to allow the Trump administration to circumvent legal hurdles.  It was reported that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller in creditably declared that the government was facing a “legal insurrection”, and that court rulings against its law enforcement efforts were tantamount to “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States”. 

Suggesting that the use of the military to assist local police forces, as was the case in Washington, D.C., in fighting urban criminal activities would appear to be an extreme measure and one which does not inspire confidence in local and state police forces.  There has to date been no real evidence of any form of organized insurrection in American cities.  Suggesting that the police cannot deal with civil protests against such policies as the Trump administration’s approach to the potential arrests of illegal undocumented persons has been greatly exaggerated.  In effect, the appearance of military personnel on the streets only makes the potential angry reaction of peaceful protesting groups even more likely, especially when they are exposed to the use of tear gas and other riot control measures.

Invoking the Insurrection Act under the current circumstances would be a serious political and policy mistake on the part of the President.  It would certainly strengthen the perception that this administration has become increasingly authoritarian in its use of presidential powers, very often attempting to circumvent the judicial system.  I strongly believe that given its very definition, there is no existing insurrection in the U.S., armed or otherwise.  The very use of this term has been severely abused by the Trump administration, and can only lead to much more unrest by the citizenry in the affected cities of this great nation. 

Civil Rights Donald Trump Judicial System Urban Issues US

Leave a comment »
Sep 18

Free Speech is on the Decline in America

by bcurry

Political satire has long been considered one of the gems reflecting the strength of free speech in America.  However, recently, freedom of expression has taken a hit in the entertainment industry, as exemplified by the cancellation by networks of two popular late-night talk shows.  I am of course referring to The Late Show With Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel Live.  Both shows have been signalled out by the Donald Trump and his administration.

Let’s first begin by pointing out that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a political appointee.  Trump nominated Brendan Carr for FCC chairman in November 2025, obviously someone trusted by the president.  The FCC is supposed to be an independent body overseeing licensed media sources in the U.S., primarily regulating the industry and ensuring certain prescribed activities are followed under its purview.  The FCC also oversees the rules governing how much of a sector a private company can obtain in order to prevent any one company from monopolizing the output of a media source — be it television or radio for example.  For this reason, the FCC wields power over the broadcast licenses that are granted to local TV stations by the federal government and the merger of companies running specific media sources.

Paramount Global’s pending sale to Skydance Media needed the Trump administration’s approval (i.e. FCC).  It just so happened that Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, settled a recent lawsuit with Trump over a 60 Minutes interview involving Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.  In Stephen Colbert’s subsequent monologue, he said he was “offended” by the $16-million U.S. settlement.  In addition, Colbert has targeted Trump for years.  From 2005 to 2014, The Colbert Report aired a satirical riff on right-wing news talk shows, especially Trump’s favourite Fox News.  Paramount and CBS executives claimed in a statement that the cancellation was purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night television, noting that it was not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.  Something difficult to believe given that Colbert’s award winning show was ranked in the most recent ratings from Nielsen as the best late-night show and the only one to gain viewers so far this year.

Shortly after Carr’s criticism on Fox News of Kimmel’s remarks in a podcast about MAGA and the assassination of Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Nexstar, an owner of ABC affiliate stations around the country, pre-empted Mr. Kimmel’s program for the foreseeable future.  Of note, Nexstar recently announced that it planned to acquire a rival company in a $6.2 billion deal, which has to be scrutinized by the F.C.C.  According to the New York Times, Chuck Schumer, opposition Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, denounced on CNN the pressure on ABC from the Trump administration as “despicable, disgusting, and against democratic values.”  He compared it to the playbook of autocratic Chinese and Russian leaders, noting that Trump and his allies seem to want to shut down speech that they don’t like to hear.  It certainly would appear, given Carr’s public outbursts, that the FCC is being used to do just that.

Now, the life of television and radio shows normally rely on the free enterprise market as it relates to corporate sponsors and their marketing through ads on popular shows.  This is fine given that there is a good deal of healthy competition within varying media.  People’s interest in and following of media outlets is what rightfully determines a show’s success.  However, as in the print news media, we see today increasing interference by leaders in trying to influence the programming and content of shows, especially those involving political satire and editorial opinion.  The power of the FCC to regulate the industry is obviously being abused by the current administration.  Once again, this is clearly another attack on the right to free speech as provided for under the U.S. constitution. 

Civil Liberties Donald Trump Free Speech Republican Party Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 29

Just Who Are These American People Supporting Trump Administration’s Policies?

by bcurry

I keep reading and hearing about the American public whom the Trump administration appears to listen to and who in turn supposedly lend their support.  Some have speculated that they are those who claim to be part of the so-called Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.  However, the MAGA supporters still only represent a fraction of the Republican Party.  Based on recent polls in the U.S., which put Trump’s approval ratings at an all time low, it certainly doesn’t appear to include the vast majority of independent voters.  As for the “big, beautiful bill” recently passed by the Republicans, at the town halls held by Republican Congressional representatives the negative and furious reactions by their constituents don’t appear to be very favourable.  The majority of Americans are now also beginning to question the administration’s tariffs and immigration policies.  It would appear the emphasis on dealing with inflation, remembering Trump’s references to the high cost of “groceries”, has now taken a back seat to his other priorities.  This at a time when the real impact of high tariffs on imports from India and China have yet to be fully felt by American consumers.  Many Americans, particularly those in states bordering with Canada, are not happy with how the Trump administration is dealing with its northern neighbour and long time friend, ally and trading partner.

Prior and during the last election, there is little doubt that some Americans were concerned about numerous federal agencies, especially with respect to their credibility and trust wariness.  Instead of restoring their trust in agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Justice Department to name a few, we now see the administration attempting to dismantle and weaponize these independent bodies.  Trump is replacing their heads with politically loyal hacks with little or no expertise in leading or running such institutions.  By doing this, the administration argues that the ability of the President to exercise his hiring and firing policies ensures political accountability for them to the American people.  Again, who just are these American people?  While there are always ways to improve their operations, attacking independent bodies in this manner tends to undermine their important mandates which are intended to be apolitical and based on expertise and research-based objectivity.  No other administration in U.S. history has ever assailed these institutions in the way that the Trump administration is proceeding to try to bring them into line with his political thinking.  Furthermore, there is no clear evidence of any form of so-called “deep state” existing among independent bodies.

Of course, within the federal government, there are senior positions that each new administration will fill with its own politically motivated appointments, normally leaving the remainder of each department’s operations under the capable hands of career civil servants.  One can only hope that confirmed appointees are credible and experienced administrators in what ever mandate they will represent.  Unlike in Canada, the appointment of hundreds of senior administrators is left up to the President, resulting in a major turnover at the top with each new administration.  Generally, in Canada the bulk of senior federal officials are career bureaucrats with the applicable administrative capabilities, frequently serving under governments of varying political stripes.  For this reason, the Canadian public service is somewhat admired among democratic countries and often put forward as a good administrative example for governments.

There is little doubt that Trump was attempting to appease his base, in particular MAGA, by instituting his policies via many executive actions in his first hundred days in office.  Meanwhile, the Republican dominated Congress sat on the sidelines watching it all happening and has failed to address some of the more controversial executive orders, some of which most likely are unconstitutional.  So just who are these members serving at this time?  It certainly doesn’t appear to be their own constituents based on the resulting outrage being witnessed throughout the country, even in red states!

Conservative Political Groups Donald Trump Federal Government Immigration Protectionist Trade Policies Public Service Trading Relationships US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 24

How the Trump Administration Has Undermined the Justice System

by bcurry

There isn’t a day that goes by without some new revelation about the Trump administration’s interference in or misuse of the justice system.  The most recent abuse to surface was revealed when a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, a Trump appointee, had been serving as New Jersey’s U.S. attorney without legal authority for more than a month.  The judge ruled that she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of that office in an acting capacity and she has no experience in criminal law.  At the time of her acting appointment, other potential reputable veteran prosecutors were already under consideration in the office of the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.  The thing is that such moves used by the administration to keep Habba in charge of the New Jersey office after her interim tenure ran out have apparently been replicated by the Justice Department in several other U.S. attorney’s offices.  It has also be pointed out that since the legality of the appointment was being challenged, the questions had left the state’s district court system at a standstill for several weeks, delaying hearings, plea agreements, grand jury proceedings and at least one trial.

In the past few months, members of Trump’s Justice Department have repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them.  In the past, Justice Department lawyers long enjoyed a professional benefit when they appear in court. As a general rule, judges tend to take them at their word and assume they are telling the truth.  Now, because of the current inappropriate behaviour of Justice Department lawyers, legal experts say that the actions have resulted in serious doubts among judges about the department and those who represent it.  This doubt could ultimately have a more systemic effect and erode the healthy functioning of the courts.  In addition, this confusion and negative reaction has been further exacerbated by the fact the Trump administration has fired numerous veteran prosecutors at the department, apparently without cause and in some cases simply because they had been involved in past cases involving Trump.  As for the remaining prosecutors, their credibility and integrity is now being more frequently questioned by the courts.  A good recent example is where federal grand juries in Los Angeles have been refusing to indict many defendants whom prosecutors have sought to charge in connection with immigration protests.

Trump hypocritically had accused the Biden administration of “weaponizing” the Justice Department, when he in fact has gone even further do exactly the same thing, but in much more evident and worst ways in real terms.  The most recent example is where Edward R. Martin Jr., appointed by Trump last January as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was tapped by the Justice Department to investigate the New York attorney general, Letitia James.  James of course was the person who successfully prosecuted Trump in the civil fraud case against him and his business, resulting in a finding that he altered his net worth for tax and insurance benefits — a blow to his real estate mogul image.  To date, James has not been formally accused of any wrongdoing.  In May, Trump withdrew Martin’s nomination to take the U.S. Attorney job permanently when it appeared that he would not be confirmed by the Senate.  Subsequently, Martin was quickly reassigned to Justice Department headquarters, where he holds four titles, including United States pardon attorney and director of the so-called Weaponization Working Group — a task force established to seek retribution against Trump’s past perceived political enemies.  Often, referred to as the Weaponization Czar, he is expected to sidestep Justice Dept. norms to expedite investigations.  It has been reported that over the past two months, Martin has been in charge of several investigations all at once and has quietly worked with federal prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia and Maryland.  Again the persons were involved in cases making them Trump’s so-called political enemies.  It is also noted that Martin has virtually no experience overseeing investigations, or in compiling a case that successfully persuades a grand jury to bring an indictment.

All in all, these are just a few recent examples of how the Trump administration has attempted to weaponize the Justice Department, and in turn the justice system as we know it.  These scurrilous attempts will consequently represent a growing decline in the public’s credibility and trust when it comes to the courts and this particular federal institution.

Donald Trump Federal Government Joe Biden Justice Department US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 12

Trump’s Use of Military for Domestic Policing Represents a New and Dangerous Trend

by bcurry

Let me take you back to the province of Quebec in the fall of 1970, and what became known as the October Crisis in Canada. The crisis was the culmination of a long series of terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), a militant Quebec independence movement, between 1963 and 1970.  On 5 October 1970, the FLQ kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross in Montreal.  Within the next two weeks, FLQ members also kidnapped and killed Quebec Minister of Immigration and Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte. Quebec’s premier Robert Bourassa and Montreal’s mayor Jean Drapeau called for federal help to deal with the perceived crisis.  In response, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, by invoking the War Measures Act, deployed the Armed Forces across Quebec and in Ottawa — the only time it had been applied during peacetime in Canadian history.  Seen as inappropriate and overkill at the time by legislators, the federal government subsequently substituted it with the Emergencies Act in 1988 as the modern-day replacement to the previous War Measures Act which had not been designed to deal with domestic security issues.  At the time of the October Crisis and the related deployment of Canadian troops, the American media quickly decried the move as something that could never happen in the U.S. under its constitution!

Well, all that has now changed with the Trump administration’s recent deployment of 4,700 National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles, without the California governor’s request,  to help quell protests that had erupted over immigration raids and to protect the federal agents conducting them.  Just this week, that move has been followed up by the contentious announcement that at least 800 National Guard troops are to be deployed into the streets of Washington, D.C., to supposedly fight a growing crime wave.  What is concerning is that officials have stated that the soldiers in Washington will probably be able to detain people temporarily in certain circumstances until federal agents arrive.  It is also reported that Military leaders are trying to keep the rules of engagement for the D.C. mission as narrow as possible. One Defense Department official reportedly stated that soldiers carrying M-16s, who have been trained to kill adversaries, are not to be put in policing roles.  However, if threatened they can use force in response, whatever that means.  In the case of L.A., some National Guard soldiers were accused of having used overly aggressive tactics against protesters. Trump has also hinted that similar deployments could be done in other urban centres, mentioning Chicago and New York City.

Local citizen protests have already begun in Washington, and are expected no doubt to continue.  The city’s mayor expressed similar disbelief, noting that the last two year’s statistics have shown an actual decline in violent crime ranging from 20 to 25 percent.  The outrage is understandable, since the Canadian 1970 experience led to hundreds of unwarranted arrests of innocent people by the authorities, who in several cases where simply political opponents of the Quebec government at the time.  This created a subsequent backlash among political parties and Canadians, resulting in the legislative changes as noted above. 

In interviews with The New York Times, members of the California National Guard said the deployment to Los Angeles had eroded the morale of the force.  Guard officials also expressed concerns that the L.A. deployment would hurt re-enlistment.  For the military as a whole, the cost could come in recruiting and retention, something critics are warning could also happen in Washington.

In a democracy, deploying troops domestically during peacetime without justification and on a whim can be very damaging from an institutional and political standpoint.  In this case, the president is overstepping his power and needs to be challenged by Congress and in the courts.  Let’s face it, there is no immediate threat to national security and this militarized process undermines the credibility and integrity of local and state police forces.  While the domestic deployment of armed forces to assist communities facing local natural disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes and floods can be justified, their deployment under the above circumstances is unwarranted and represents a dangerous precedent.  

Civil Liberties Defence Donald Trump Federal Government Immigration Police Services Quebec Politics Terrorism Urban Issues US

Leave a comment »
Aug 7

When It Comes toTackling Climate Change, Trump is Nowhere to be Found

by bcurry

In the latest move, the Trump administration has decided to no longer fund in fiscal year 2026 the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, which can precisely show where carbon dioxide is being emitted and absorbed and how well crops are growing.  A free-flying satellite launched in 2014, the mission has become an important source of greenhouse gas data for scientists, policymakers and farmers.  Experts said the administration’s move is just another one designed to eliminate funding aligned with other actions aimed at cutting or burying climate science.  NASA employees are currently making plans to end the missions.

This move is no surprise given that you have a president and a governing party that believes climate change is a hoax.  You have a president who has greatly weakened the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to use science to understand the impacts associated with climate change and those that support counter measures.  There are also policies aimed at stimulating the coal industry, oil and gas exploration, mining and lumbering in national parks, and attacking regulated greenhouse gas emissions in the automotive industry.

Back in a January 2025, reports noted that President Trump was stocking the EPA with officials who have served as lawyers and lobbyists for the oil and chemical industries, many of whom worked in his first administration to weaken climate and pollution protections.  Lee Zeldin, Mr. Trump’s choice to lead the E.P.A., has little experience with environmental policy. He was expected to fulfill Mr. Trump’s fire hose of orders directing the agency to cut regulations.

This year, the world has seen a greater number of extreme weather events than ever before.  The U.S. and Canada alone have had to cope with drought caused by heat waves and a lack of normal precipitation, resulting in some of the worst wildfires and potential crop failures in our time.  Flooding, tornadoes and major hurricane activity have become more prevalent, causing enormous property damage and multiple deaths.

The sad fact is that one could see this coming, especially after Trump’s first term in office.  The U.S. emits around 40% of the world’s greenhouse gases.  Without a sustained and committed support by the U.S. to tackle the issue of climate change and its consequences for our planet, the situation will simply get worst.  Maybe, this is exactly what climate change deniers want?

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.