FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Jul 13

Unlike the American DOGE Initiative, Canada Can Better Tackle Government Cuts

by bcurry

The initiative led by Elon Musk in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has turned out to be a major disaster with not much impact on the federal government’s overall debt.  It certainly is an example of what not to do for a planned Canadian government initiative to curt federal government spending and reduce its current debt.  Prime Minister Mark Carney has embarked on one of the most ambitious public spending reviews since former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his finance minister Paul Martin balanced the budget in the 1990s.  Carney’s government wants to cut operational spending by 7.5 per cent for the 2026-27 fiscal year, 10 per cent the following year and 15 per cent in 2028-29.  According to the CBC, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa estimates that, when those areas are carved out, the government is targeting a pot of money that is about $180 to $200 billion of the $570 billion it will spend this fiscal year.  Some former senior government officials believe that this is doable, but with some caveats. 

First, rather than an arbitrary across-the-board cut, a realistic program review will look at whether the existing program continues to serve a real need, especially when it comes to public services.  Secondly, it’s mostly important to first determine where you cut — rather than by how much.  Thirdly, there may be means to cut operating expenses by looking for ways to employ new technologies, including those involving artificial intelligence and automation.  Fourthly, there is also room to cut the use of consultants and outside contractors, but doing so could cut off access to valuable expertise.  In addition, extra replacement training of public servants could occur, but would be an added cost factor.

Interestingly, Carney has said that there will be no cuts to transfers to the provinces for things like health and social programs, nor would he cut individual benefits such as pensions and Old Age Security payments.  Key programs rolled out by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government such as child care, pharmacare and dental care are also spared.  These of course are high cost, almost untouchable programs, with a great deal of the electorate’s support.

Unlike in the DOGE exercise, federal public servants in Canada have strong union representation across the public service and will require consultation with union officials during the review process.  The unions have already expressed concerns about potential cuts to the workforce, but recognize that the review must address this issue as it will be difficult for the government to avoid cutting staff because wages, benefits and pensions are such a large part of the operating budget.  As in past initiatives, some cuts can be made through attrition.  However, serious cuts would involve the removal of some positions, moving staff to other programs or retraining for other government jobs.  The unions will argue that any program cuts should not be at the expense of certain key services to the public.

Previous program reviews have been undertaken given a government’s mandate to respond to a national crisis, such as the servicing of a growing government debt.  Given that the most fundamental issue of the last Canadian election was Donald Trump’s attack on the current U.S.-Canada trade relations and our sovereignty, Canadians are much more open to suffering through cuts then they were five to 10 years ago.  Due to the DOGE methodology of arbitrary cuts to departments and agencies, the ramification of those cuts to important public services is just now being felt by Americans.  Canada does not want to incur the same public wrath that the Trump administration is and will continue to experience as a result of program and service cuts.  As well, serious errors were made in the DOGE accounting process, often overestimating the actual cost savings as a result of government cuts.  Canada does not want to repeat such mistakes and must offer an open and accountable process during any program review.

The one most important factor in my view from past experience in federal program reviews is that imposing across-the-board cuts can quickly paralyse the effective delivery of certain important programs, especially those which are regulatory in nature.  While a ten percent cut to a program’s budget may not seem to be much, for some agencies this may be enough to hinder or negate its effective program delivery.  Agencies and departments which enforce regulatory requirements, such as those in occupational health and safety, transportation, and the environment most likely would be greatly compromised.  In some cases, program delivery becomes so ineffective that one could argue that the program is better off simply not existing.  This becomes the conundrum that any program must entertain and could endanger public safety.

Canada DOGE Donald Trump Federal Government Federal Government Public Service Public Service US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Jul 3

Trump’s Current Energy Policies Just Don’t Make Sense

by bcurry

There is no more clean and renewable federal energy support in the U.S.as a result of Donald Trump’s most recent policy actions.  In his first term as president, he imposed tariffs on imported solar panels, whereby American companies opened or announced plans for new U.S. solar panel factories, thereby reviving a manufacturing business that had largely withered away.  Now, those same companies, particularly in solar manufacturing, are concerned that the attack on clean energy, especially solar and wind, and increasing support for fossil fuels will mean a potential disaster for the continued growth of the industry.  Indeed, it has been reported that Mike Carr, the executive director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, concluded that the administration’s policies would give the entire solar manufacturing industry over to China starting in 2027.  The shift has been particularly jarring in Texas and other Sun Belt states.  For example, renewable energy companies had announced plans for $64 billion in new investments in Texas, mostly for solar and battery storage projects, when Washington passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. 

On the other hand, the oil and gas industry is counting on the administration’s help to keep oil and gas prices higher in order to increase exploration and lower fracking costs, and subsequently their profits.  With a strong desire not to offend the president, one has to remember that the oil and gas industry apparently spent more than $75 million to elect Trump.  Interestingly, the U.S. also relies heavily on Canadian oil in particular, which American refineries combine with domestic crude to make gasoline and diesel fuel.  For this reason, there is much industry anxiety around the tariffs on Canadian oil currently set at 10 percent.  This and cross border pipeline discussions will certainly dominate trade talks between the two countries.

Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency — paired with other executive orders — amounts to a promise to test the limits of presidential power to ensure demand for fossil fuels, including coal, remains robust.  It’s a sharp reversal from his predecessor’s agenda, which aimed to push the nation away from fuels that are primarily responsible for climate change.  In addition, Trump’s efforts to support coal during his first term were no match for cheap natural gas that ultimately out competed coal in the market.  U.S. coal consumption reportedly declined more than a third during Trump’s first term.  Coal extraction is clearly no longer economically viable.

Studies have also shown that any restrictions on renewable development would increase electricity prices over the next decade in both Canada and the U.S., and potentially leave thousands of homes without electricity during extreme weather events.  For this reason, Canada is continuing to promote the expansion of clean energy, including that produced by nuclear and wind and solar.  On the other hand, the demand for electricity continues to increase due to new high tech needs, including those related to transportation and artificial intelligence.  Canada, unlike the U.S. under President Trump, is still committed to tackling the adverse effects of climate change by attempting to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels and by reducing our green house emissions.

Solar energy and wind power are much more capable of having electricity provided in a more decentralized and efficient way by being located closer to the sources of need, without the requirement for costly long-distance transmission infrastructure.  This more mobile asset can reduce the initial costs of electricity production and in turn the costs of delivery to consumers.  Not surprisingly, the current shift has been particularly jarring in Texas, a Republican state and the nation’s top wind power producer, second only to California in solar energy and industrial battery storage.  Moreover, the Trump administration’s energy policies just don’t make sense, adding to the inflationary cost of electricity for consumers and to the costs associated with the evident extreme consequences of climate change.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump Economy Energy New Technologies Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Technological Change Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Jun 6

What Is Going On With the Circus in Washington?

by bcurry

Never before in all the years that I have been following American political news have I ever seen such a circus as the current one in Washington.  We now have the current break-up of the romance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.  With the use of social media, the barbs are flying everywhere.  Remember that on X, Musk has almost 225 million followers.  Trump on the other hand was reported in August 2022 to have only 3.9 million Truth Social followers.  The number of Trump followers has certainly increased since becoming president, but no where near Musk’s numbers.

Then there are the members of Trump’s cabinet who continue to not impress us with their mistakes and lack of applicable backgrounds and experience.  One has the Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, who recently discussed top secret military missions against the Houthi rebels in Yemen on the non-secure platform “signal”, and included his wife and personal lawyer in one post.  Then you have the Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has initiated a quick study about the causes of “autism” by a number of non-experts with dubious backgrounds.  Kennedy has endorsed a number of health claims that are not backed by scientific evidence, including many on vaccines, which have concerned many medical experts.  Next is Attorney General Pam Bondi who did not know the meaning of “habeas corpus” as defined in the constitution.  Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, likes to dress up and have photo ops at the southern border.  Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, who was a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) co-founder, did not know the difference between AI (artificial intelligence) and the steak sauce A1.  We also hear very little from Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who appears often to take a back seat to Vice-President J.D. Vance.  Vance actually visited Greenland, only to the displeasure of the Prime Minister of Denmark and the vast majority of Greenlanders.  Today, it was announced that Trump Administration has taped a 22-year-old Thomas Fugate, who is one year out of college, to head up the Terrorism Prevention Role at Homeland Security.  He just happened to work on Trump’s campaign and has no experience in this important national security field.

Trump is reportedly fuming about his new nickname “TACO”, standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out”.  The acronym was brought to Trump’s attention at the White House press conference on May 28th by CNBC correspondent Megan Cassella.  The acronym refers to the President’s ongoing tendency to suddenly introduce high tariff rates on countries, only to reduce them shortly after or to defer them to some future date.  The continuous introduction of new fluctuating rates has created a great deal of economic uncertainty and has caused chaos in the markets and affected most business sectors.  It makes no sense at all!

With the Trump-Musk feud, late-night hosts are having a field day.  The heads of foreign countries are wondering what the hell is going on in Washington, including the Prime Minister of Canada.  Hopefully, trade negotiations and foreign policy matters can continue to be carried out rationally behind closed doors in order to avoid all the senseless and needless noise.  If the Trump administration’s gaffs weren’t so serious, they unfortunately would actually be hilarious.

Donald Trump Economy Elon Musk Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Social Media Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
May 22

The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Foreign Policy Stance

by bcurry

This week, President Trump sat in a press conference and berated President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, a democratic state, with false claims about a genocide being committed against white Afrikaner farmers.  On the other hand, just a week ago President Trump had traveled to three Middle East countries ruled by repressive and non-democratic regimes and told them he would not lecture them about how they treat their own people.  The above meeting was subsequent to the administration’s fast tracking of the refugee status of dozens of white Afrikaans to the U.S. from South Africa, claiming that they were being persecuted by the government of that country and their lives and livelihood had been threatened.  No proof of the accusations was provided.

In contrast, one of Trump’s first actions on taking office in January 2025 was to issue an executive order suspending the Afghan resettlement program and leaving those eligible in legal limbo.  Approximately 180,000 Afghans had been admitted to the United States after August 2021.  Some were given special immigration visas (SIVs) that provided a path to permanent residency, while others were given humanitarian parole and granted temporary protected status (TPS) that allowed them to stay and to work in the U.S.  On April 11th, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced its decision to end TPS for more than 9,000 Afghans because Afghanistan “no longer continues to meet the statutory requirement for TPS.” Those targeted were given the option to self-deport before May 20, 2025.  Some of these Afghans had served with the American forces as interpreters and in other capacities, and any return to Afghanistan would most likely prove to be fatal to them and their families.

The encounter with President Ramaphosa in some ways echoed the previous February visit to the Oval Office by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.  Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelensky in front of TV cameras, cutting short a visit meant to coordinate a plan for peace.  At one point, Trump even suggested that the Ukraine was responsible for starting the war with Russia which is completely false.  Since then, Trump has subsequently met with Zelensky and had a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin in seeking to begin discussions for a permanent cease fire and resolution of the dispute.  However, most experts believe that Putin is simply stringing Trump along and has no intention of committing to fair and equitable negotiations with Zelensky.  Having failed to get both parties to the table, Trump now appears to have decided to concentrate only on economic talks with Ukraine, including those over that country’s rare minerals, and to forgo his intermediary status in the talks.

On May 6th, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Trump met at the White House and held a brief news event that focused on tariffs, trade and Trump’s repeated assertion that Canada should be the 51st state — a notion that Carney again clearly rejected.  While this meeting was somewhat more cordial in tone, the primary discussion of the existing Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) didn’t really get addressed.  Instead, Trump simply restated that there wasn’t anything Carney could say to convince him to lift the existing tariffs.  However, Carney has called the CUSMA as “the basis for a broader negotiation.”  Remember, that it was under the previous Trump administration that the current trade agreement was signed, which has now been violated with Trump’s recent tariffs on both Canadian and Mexican imports to the U.S.

What we have to date is a weird collage of approaches to foreign policies under the Trump administration.  Where Trump believes there are positive economic returns to the U.S., such as in the Middle East, he is quite willing to enter into bilateral trade arrangements, despite having to deal with non-democratic and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.  His administration has even alluded to possibly reducing or eliminating existing economic sanctions on Russia imposed after Putin’s past invasion of Crimea and the current armed invasion of Eastern Ukraine.  All of this contributes to the evident hypocrisy of Trump’s foreign policy stance.

Afghanistan Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Immigration NAFTA The Middle East Trade with U.S. Ukraine Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
May 12

Would Canadian Universities Be Susceptible To Trump-Like Attacks?

by bcurry

Back in April, the New York Times reported that two groups representing Harvard professors sued the Trump administration claiming that its threat to cut billions in federal funding for the university violates free speech and other First Amendment rights.  The group’s lawsuit by the American Association of University Professors and the Harvard faculty chapter follows the Trump administration’s announcement that it was reviewing about $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives.  Earlier in March, the administration admitted that investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), typically focusing on human traffickers and drug smugglers, had begun scouring the internet for social media posts and videos that the administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas.  Subsequently, several students were illegally arrested and detained by ICE.  Numerous American universities are now under the gun.  The result has also been hundreds of protests, including those by students, professors and members of the community at large, against the Trump administration’s threat to further cut funding for universities.

In Canada, the situation is very different.  There have also been protests over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including temporary encampments on campuses.  However, the majority were settled peacefully and without most students being expelled or detained.  Yes, there is no doubt that some anti-semitism and anti-Islamic activities have occurred on campuses.  Moreover, such activities are normally dealt with by the university administrations without needless inference by the authorities.  Canadian universities have long professed the need for academic freedom and freedom of speech as fundamental principles for places of higher learning.  Most have clear guidelines dealing with on-campus hate messaging, harassment or any form of violence.  Should such outcomes occur, it is only then that the authorities would be brought in to determine if any crimes had been committed.  So far, this approach appears to have worked well.

Imagine a government sending a school a list of demands that it must meet if it wants to keep receiving funding support!  As in the case of the Trump administration, such a list would require the university to examine how teaching staff are hired, the background of potential recruits related particularly to certain types of political activity or views, any suspected possible plagiarism regarding previous papers or dissertations, etc., etc.  This would also include current academic staff and administrators.  Such interference by governments in Canada would never be tolerated.  One would certainly have to deal with many cases of unjust dismissals and discriminatory practices.  I very much doubt that any Canadian university would bend to such government pressures, declaring such interference as an attack on academic freedom and their very independence. 

The attacks on American universities and blockage of government funding support for scientific and medical research may actually benefit Canadian universities in the long run.  This has already happened in a reported case whereby three Yale professors have decided to accept positions at the University of Toronto.  One can only speculate that as more R&D projects are halted due to the loss of funding, researchers, including Masters and PHD students, may seek to potentially check out opportunities in Canada and elsewhere.  The current leadership of the U.S. in scientific research is now being greatly threatened by such policies. 

All in all, no matter the results of the above noted litigation, extensive damage has already been done.  The reputations of numerous American universities and their academic freedom have suffered.  Fortunately, to date there is no evidence that Canadian governments would want to go down the same road.  Canada is very fortunate to have a strong and vital education system, most of which is largely publicly funded and readily accessible to both domestic and international students.  Would Canadian universities be susceptible to Trump-like attacks?  I believe that the answer is a clear and emphatic “No”.  

Canada Civil Liberties Donald Trump Education Education in U.S. Extremism Free Speech Scientific Research US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Apr 30

What The Results of The Canadian Election Mean For Canada

by bcurry

By now, anyone who keeps informed about Canadian news events, including a few Americans, have come to realize how the final federal election results are more than just significant for Canada and its federal parties.  Federally, there are six federal parties: the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Bloc Quebecois, the Green Party and the Peoples’ Party of Canada (PPC).  Moreover, the election became a two party race to win by either the Liberals, under Mark Carney or the Conservatives, under Pierre Poilievre.  The primary issue of the campaigns became that of Canada’s relationship with the U.S., more precisely with President Trump.  The Green Party has only one seat and the PPC has none.

In the end, the election results proved to be extraordinary with the Liberals winning enough seats in Parliament to form a minority government — its fourth consecutive term!  What is remarkable is the fact that the Liberals a few months before the election were more than 20 points behind the Conservatives in the polls.  Then suddenly, all that changed when Donald Trump got elected, Justin Trudeau stepped down as Prime Minister, and Mark Carney took over leadership of the Liberal Party.  The Liberals increased their position in recent polls to take the lead over Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives.  Then came the election itself, with the Liberals taking 169 seats to form a minority government.  Close behind is the Conservatives with 144 seats.  However, what is even more astonishing is that the Liberals gained most of their new seats at the expense of the NDP, a socialist party, with only 7 seats (a loss of 17 seats from 2021) and the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party, with 22 seats in Quebec (a loss of 13 seats from 2021).  Even more surprising, is the fact that Pierre Poilievre and the NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, both lost their riding seats.  Once an opposition party, the NDP no longer has official party status in parliament, which handicaps its ability to perform or contribute. 

While the popular vote was close, 43.7% for the Liberals and 41.3% for the Conservatives, Canadians favoured Mark Carney as the leader who could confront Trump over his tariffs on Canadian industries.  As a former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England and a former CEO, Carney is seen as someone with fairly qualified experience in finance, business, economics and international trade.  Canadians switched their support to the Liberals to support a strong opposition to the tariffs and political attacks by Trump who has frequently referred to Canada becoming a 51st state.

Now, Carney will have to start negotiations with the Trump administration with respect to an updated or new trade agreement, such as is governed by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) previously signed by all three countries in 2018.  By introducing initial tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel, oil and gas, softwood lumber and automotive sectors, Trump has already broken that trade agreement.  The danger for Canada is that if additional tariffs are introduced by the U.S., the economic impact on Canada would most likely lead to a major recession similar to that in 2008-09.  Canada would have to retaliate with tariffs on American goods, leading to higher prices for Canadians.  Americans would also see similar inflationary pressures due to Trump’s tariffs.

The election also resulted in a clear split between the eastern provinces which largely supported the Liberals and the western provinces, especially Alberta and Saskatchewan, which largely supported the Conservatives.  The western provinces have long argued that the federal government under the Liberals has harmed the growth of their oil and gas industry, particularly because of environmental policies.  Some westerners have already claimed that they might potentially be better off by withdrawing from the Canadian federation in some manner.  The Prime Minister will have to attempt some form of compromise to assuage the western grievances and maintain a sense of unity among all ten provinces.  Canada needs to provide a common, strong and unified front in its planned negotiations with the Trump administration.  After all, we are talking about Canada ’s state of sovereignty as a nation.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Federal Election Federal Government Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Apr 15

Canada’s Version of a Mini-Trump

by bcurry

As the federal election moves forward to its April 28th voting date, there is one leader of a party who is increasingly portraying himself as Canada’s version of a mini-Trump.  That leader is Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  His discourse prior to the election call has on several occasions been similar in content and tone to that of Donald Trump.  He spoke of Canada being broken; of “woke” predominance among the current Liberal government and the New Democratic Party (NDP); of a need to be tougher on crime; of Canada’s need to “drill-baby-drill” when it comes to fossil fuels, most notably in crude heavy oil found in Alberta.

In recent weeks, Poilievre appears to be even more aggressive, primarily due to the recent polls which show that the Liberal leader, Mark Carney, is now leading: including being the preferred candidate for the position of Prime Minister.  This is a major shift from prior to the election and the resignation of Pierre Trudeau as PM, when the Conservatives had a twenty plus lead in the polls.  However, along came Donald Trump and his tariffs against Canada and all that changed.  Carney has a business, economic and international finance background.  This has led Canadians to believe that Carney can better negotiate some sort of new trade deal with the Trump administration.  In addition, many Canadians are now comparing Poilievre to a mini-Trump because of the Conservative policies and the ongoing slogans surfacing in his campaign. 

Most recently, Poilievre has pushed for tougher measures as they pertain to sentences handed out by the courts under Canada’s Criminal Code.  This included the idea of arbitrary “three strikes” vis-à-vis convictions, whereby one’s prison term will be automatic and potentially longer.  However, one only has to study the consequences of this approach in California where its use clogged up the justice system for years and resulted in extreme over crowding in its prisons.  The situation was so bad that many non-violent prisoners had to be released as a result of COVID 19 and the danger of widespread infection in these crowded facilities. Get ready to build new prisons!

Next, is Poilievre’s pledge to use the “notwithstanding clause” in the Canadian constitution (Section 33) to allow longer sentences for multiple murderers, something that the Supreme Court of Canada had in 2022 ruled against as a violation of an offender’s Charter rights.  Politically, this represents a groundbreaking promise and he would become the first prime minister to invoke the clause while in office.  As one expert noted, the extraordinary use of the “notwithstanding clause” would occur not in crisis situations, not judiciously, not after massive public debates and so on, but due to a majority government which for its own political reasons is playing to its base.  Sounds like something that Trump would do.  Both Liberal Leader Mark Carney and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rejected using the notwithstanding clause.  In order to protect established rights, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, more than 50 organizations, human rights advocates and legal experts have openly urged all federal party leaders to commit to a public consultation on the notwithstanding clause within six months of forming a new government.  Without extensive prior-consultation within Canadian society at large, the clause’s federal use would establish a potentially perilous precedent with its first-time usage at the federal level.

Poilievre also appears to want to give carte blanche to the Canadian oil and gas industry to expand its production and exports in order to offset the American tariffs and grow the industry.  This of course would mean rapidly expanding pipeline construction from Alberta to the west coast, speeding up environmental reviews and consultations with indigenous peoples in the territories through which pipelines would go.  However, while this would certainly benefit the oil and gas industry in Canada
, one has to ask whether and by how much Canadians will benefit.  The Conservative base in Alberta
will certainly benefit, but how about the rest of the country?  In addition, many in the Conservative party tend to be “climate change” deniers.  Sounds familiar! 

All in all, Poilievre’s campaign has clearly had elements of Trumpism reflected in its content: something not lost on many Canadians.  Let’s face it, Trump is not too popular in Canada at this moment, and his unpopularity is definitely echoed in this election.

Canada Climate Change Donald Trump Federal Election Federal Government Populism in Canada Trade with U.S.

Leave a comment »
Mar 30

U.S. Increasingly Moving Towards Police State

by bcurry

President Trump is obviously clamping down broadly on dissent using the tools of the federal government.  Now, the administration has put the pressure on universities themselves to crack down on student protesters.  Increasingly, for example, one is seeing that colleges are using surveillance videos and search warrants to investigate students involved in pro-Palestinian protests.  Some experts believe that it’s this new frontier in campus security that could threaten civil liberties.

In addition, it has been pointed out in the media that some colleges, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, George Mason University, University of California, Indiana University Bloomington, and University of North Carolina to name a few, have had the university police obtain warrants to search personal property such as a student’s car, laptop or cellphone.  In most cases, no actual crime has been committed by the affected student.

Zach Greenberg, a First Amendment lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group, reportedly notes that university police have sometimes even cited social media posts to justify warrant requests.  But as he states, such posts are constitutionally protected speech, and he goes on further to stipulate that such campus police tactics could very likely chill free expression.  Furthermore, lawyers representing affected students argue that a college seeking a search warrant against one of its own students is not because that student committed a crime, but purely because in many cases a student attended a protest and was filmed at the protest.  In most cases so far, few students end up not even being charged.  In some cases, the university may simply threaten them with possible suspensions should they continue to participate in protests, including those that are peaceful.

In addition, for months now, President Trump has been threatening to deport foreign students who took part in last year’s campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.  Apparently, investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have begun scouring the internet for social media posts and videos that the Trump administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas.  Curious indeed since ICE typically focuses on human traffickers and drug smugglers for possible deportation.  As in the recent arrest by ICE of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student with a green card living in New York, the government is using an old provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to argue that his actions during protests at Columbia University harmed U.S. foreign policy interests by fomenting anti-Semitism.  As of yet he has not been charged with an actual crime.  The Act was passed in the context of Cold War-era fears and suspicions of infiltrating Soviet and communist spies and sympathizers within American institutions and federal government.  Anticommunist sentiment was associated at the time with McCarthyism in the U.S., led by an administration aiming to push for selective immigration to preserve national security.  Since then, there have been very few cases where similar powers were cited in deportation proceedings under the Act.  Its current use would certainly be difficult to defend in the courts.

While some search warrants may be related to an ongoing campus vandalism investigation, few of the campus police seizures have actually resulted in charges being laid.  Indeed, without just cause I would argue that such search and seizure practices by campus police endanger free speech and the civil liberties of those affected university students.  As was the case in the 1930s Nazi Germany, today it’s students, but tomorrow it could be anyone; including those living, studying and working legally in the U.S.  This new reality certainly meets the definition of a police state.

Civil Liberties Donald Trump Education in U.S. Federal Government Judicial System Social Media US

Leave a comment »
Mar 17

Donald Trump’s Administration Is Clearly Showing Signs Of Becoming Despotic

by bcurry

The Oxford English Dictionary states that a despot is “a ruler who exercises absolute power especially in a cruel and oppressive way.”  Anyone who has studied American governance under the constitution understands that it provides for “checks and balances.”  In order to do this, there are three basic pillars: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.  However, today we are seeing an evident weakening of two of these principle pillars under the Trump administration.  There is little doubt that attacks are being made against the justice system and the rule of law.  The President has entered into a new process never before witnessed in the U.S., other than during times of wars.  The President is abusing his powers while contesting the roles of the courts and of Congress.  He is undermining the very constitutional rights of many people, whether citizens, legally living or refugees in the U.S.

The latest example is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student who is married to an American citizen, living in New York, and recently obtained a green card giving him permanent residency in the U.S. Mr. Khalil has never been charged with a criminal offence.  On March 8th, Mr. Khalil was arrested by ICE officers and flown to LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.  On March 10th, District Judge Jesse Furman ordered that the Trump administration not deport Khalil pending judicial review of his arrest.  Mr. Khalil was a student activist and negotiator in the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations.  After student protests on numerous American campuses, President Trump issued an executive order promising to combat anti-semitism and prosecute or “remove” perpetrators of such views.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited a little-used 1952 Cold-War era statute as the rationale for Mr. Khalil’s detention. The law says that the government can initiate deportation proceedings against anyone whose presence in the country is deemed adversarial to the U.S. foreign policy interests.  Rubio subsequently posted a threat to deport Hamas supporters. No one has yet provided any proof that Mr. Khalil has a direct or indirect connection Hamas.  If anything, he was actively exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech in a peaceful manner.  Needless-to-say, there were those, including Trump who would deny this right because they simply did not agree with his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including some Columbia administrators.  For this reason, he was targeted from the outset.

Just this past weak, Trump signed an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to rapidly arrest and deport those the administration identifies as gang members without many of the legal processes common in immigration cases. The enemies law allows for summary deportations of people from countries at war with the United States.  One result is the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, some of whom are claimed by the administration to be gang members.  Subsequently, Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law after Trump’s order invoking it.  In a hastily scheduled hearing sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judge said he did not believe that federal law allowed the President’s action.  Now there is serious contention over whether the Trump administration had ignored an explicit court order, given that the deportees are currently in the El Salvador prison.

Moreover, there appears to be an apparent use of unproven assertions pertaining to ensuring matters related to “national security”, without undergoing the normal “due process” in providing proof or clear evidence before the courts.  In addition, it is obvious that Trump is blatantly “weaponizing” the Department of Justice to do his bidding, something that he falsely claimed had be done to him in the past.  In my opinion, Trump’s actions are increasingly becoming those of a despot.  Whether you agree with me or not, these are certainly dangerous times for American governance!

Civil Rights Donald Trump Free Speech Immigration Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Mar 8

As a Canadian, How Are We Supposed to React to Donald Trump?

by bcurry

The border treaty Donald Trump recently referred to was established in 1908 and finalized the international boundary between Canada, then a British dominion, and the U.S.  Trump also mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations, which is regulated by a number of treaties.  For years, both Canada and the U.S. have shared responsibility and resources in managing border security and environmental concerns surrounding the Great Lakes in particular.  For example, the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1991 to address transboundary air pollution leading to acid rain.  Both countries agreed to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the primary precursors to acid rain, and to work together on acid rain-related scientific and technical cooperation.  The Ozone Annex was added to the Agreement in 2000 to address transboundary air pollution leading to high ambient levels of ground-level ozone, a major component of smog.  One result was that, as of 2020, emissions of sulphur dioxide in Canada and the U.S. decreased by 78% and 92%, respectively, from 1990 emission levels.  This preserved our water quality and in turn the health of our fish stocks in shared waters and in general.

As far as border security is concerned, this is a red herring put out there by Donald Trump.  As it stands, for sometime now, only less than one percent of the fentanyl comes across the border from Canada, as per the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Under the other hand, the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) estimates that over 80% of all guns used in violent crimes in Canada originate in the U.S.

According to the New York Times (March 7, 2025), Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that Trump wants to abandon our treaties and he wants to:

  • eject Canada out of an intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand,
  • tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario, and
  • review and reconsider military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

We already know that Trump is interested in having access to Canada’s abundance of critical mineral rights as noted in my previous blog of February 17, 2005: Trump’s Trade Policy Appears to be Directed at Securing Critical Mineral Rights | FROLITICKS. 

With his recent flip flopping on the proposed 25 percent tariffs against all Canadian exports to the U.S., it’s hard to get a reading on where Trump’s next move will go.  All that his administration is doing is creating a hell of a lot of global and economic uncertainty.  His expectation that Canadians would be cow towing to his wishes is way off.  If anything, he has generated an immense amount of Canadian pride across this country.  Canadians see these attacks on our sovereignty as an insult, especially from a nation that was a trusted friend and ally.  All in all, it’s difficult to know exactly what Trump’s expectations are!  Just how are Canadians supposed to react differently?  Your guess is as good as mine!

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations War on Drugs

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