FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 23

How Trump Continues to Denigrate Congress in His Push for Power

by bcurry

No one should be surprised as to how Congress, and in particular the Senate, have once again been denigrated by President Trump.  This was attempted in Trump’s first term, but not to the extent as witnessed to date under his second term in office.  If you don’t believe me, you might want to read The Betrayal by Ira Shapiro.  The author outlines in detail how Mitch McConnell, then the Senate majority leader, and the Senate Republicans gave into many of Trump’s policy demands during his first term.  Several episodes took place during the impeachment hearings against Trump at that time and during the selection and confirmation of Supreme Court judges, including Brett Kavanaugh.  Even the January 6, 2021, insurrection and mob attack on the Capital by Trump supporters did not cause the Republicans, who were outraged at the time like many Americans, to subsequently reduce their support for Trump.  Remember that on January 20, 2025, upon taking office, Trump granted clemency to all January 6 rioters, including those convicted of violent offences.  This even angered several Trump law and order supporters in the Republican Party, but most refused to comment publicly on the matter.

Supposedly, it is Congress that controls the government’s purse strings.  However, what is actually happening is that a Republican controlled Congress is simply rubber stamping Trump’s policies.  With the current federal government shutdown, the Trump administration has taken the opportunity to shift billions of dollars around to take care of its priorities during the shutdown with scant input from lawmakers.  Trump is once again ignoring Congress’s clear constitutional supremacy over the power of the purse.  Congressional Republicans have also been mainly silent as Trump has unilaterally imposed and threatened tariffs to achieve his own strategic, political and economic goals.  Despite the fact that the Constitution gives Congress chief responsibility for levying tariffs, the Republicans appear willing to simply wait until several cases against the tariffs are reviewed by the Supreme Court, which could take months.

The Trump administration most recently has taken upon itself to authorize the drone bombing of boats in international waters off both the Pacific coast and in Caribbean waters off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia, alleging that they are drug smugglers.  Whether they are or not is not the issue.  The issue is whether such actions are legal or not under international laws of the seas and one which would normally need the consent of Congress.  These are not police operations, but are clearly extraterritorial military operations which could be deemed as hostile by the affected countries whose dozens of citizens have already been killed.

Only a few days ago, Trump appeared more willing to restrain Moscow in its war on Ukraine.  Once again sidestepping Congress, his administration announced new penalties on Russia.  However, Congress has always pressed for even more stringent measures against Russia.

These are only a few examples of how the current Trump administration is obviously attempting to enhance the powers of the president.  Democrats have been largely steamrolled by Trump and his Republican allies all year.  Democrats have had to rely on the courts to hold the line against illegal actions by the White House, a hope that has so far met with mixed success.  The matter is further exemplified by the fact that the Republican leaders themselves have made it quite clear that they view their role as subordinate to the president, saying they won’t open talks with their Democratic counterparts unless Trump allows them to do so. 

Nevertheless, one will find lawmakers in both parties who worry that the steady erosion of congressional prerogative they are witnessing daily could inflict permanent damage on the institution at the forefront of representative government.  All one can ask at this point in time is whether or not the damage has been done and whether this blatant acquisition of power and influence by Trump can be reversed in the future?  America needs to reinstate the constitution’s checks and balances critical to its democracy, or potentially face a more authoritarian future.

Democratic Party Federal Government Republican Party Trump US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Oct 16

Strange Things Are Happening Over At The U.S. Department of Defence

by bcurry

In recent weeks, some weird things were happening over at the Department of Defence (aka: the Department of War).  Most of it had to do with the current Secretary of Defence, one Pete Hegseth.  Firstly, all of the military brass was summoned to Washington to be spoken to by Hegseth, and in turn President Trump.  This included senior commanding officers stationed on bases outside of the U.S.  For what it’s worth, a Zoom call probably would have been adequate for those matters Hegseth raised.  Instead of anything of real strategic value, Hegseth went on to criticize the prevalence of “fat” soldiers, sailors and airmen.  In addition, he introduced a new requirement that would eliminate the growth of beards by those in the armed forces, calling them “beardos”.  Trump then went on about all kinds of unrelated themes, further baffling the commanders sitting motionless and bewildered in the auditorium.

Next, one has the obvious attack on the free press by Hegseth and company.  In a 21 page document, a new set of strictures was laid out that immediately drew criticism from news organizations representing those accredited to cover Defence department news.  One of its provisions was widely interpreted as requiring reporters to seek prior approval from the government for their coverage.  Failure to comply could lead to a revocation of press passes.  A deadline was subsequently set and has now been passed.  The result is that all the major news outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax, withdrew their journalists from the Pentagon.  In short, this move by Hegseth, formerly of Fox News himself, leaves the Defence department without any mainstream media coverage.  So much for a “free press”!

In an effort to appease Trump’s irrational claims of “insurrections” in American cities, national guard were deployed to Chicago, Illinois and Portland, Oregon.  Trump referred to these cities as “hell holes”, a statement greatly contested by state Governors and the affected mayors.  Visual evidence clearly does not support the administration’s claims, and if anything demonstrates the irrationality of the decision.  If nothing else, these deployments simply create a greater dangerous possibility of confrontations by locals with the authorities.  In both cases, serious crime rates have declined in recent years.  Hegseth even replaced some of the national guard members who apparently were somewhat “obese”, as witnessed by broadcast media upon their arrival in the city.

Last but not least, the Pentagon is carrying out a number of drone strikes in International Waters against suspected boats allegedly coming from Venezuela with drugs destined for the U.S.  However, MSN just reported that the mother of a fisherman in Trinidad and Tobago says her 26-year-old son was among six people killed Tuesday in the Trump administration’s fifth drone strike on boats off the coast of Venezuela.  As yet, there has been no official comment from the Trinidadian government. The U.S. government also has not identified who was on board.  Apparently, this is not the first time there have been claims that the strike may have killed non-Venezuelans.  Some critics in Congress are now questioning whether such drone strikes are illegal under international laws and why no permission was given by Congress.  Once again, Trump has taken it upon himself to initiate these military operations, obviously with the backing of Hegseth.

The above cases are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the use of Defence officials and military personnel and equipment for what can be considered to be nebulous purposes.  For this and other reasons, one can certainly ask what the hell is going on at the Department of Defence?

Defence Free Speech Military Prowess Trump US US Politics

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 25

Can Canada Return to a Former Foreign Policy Partly Based on Non-Alignment?

by bcurry

In the early 1970s while in college, I wrote a paper which concluded that Canada’s foreign policy in the post-colonial era was largely influenced by the non-alignment movement that had emerged globally at the time.  This position was particularly true given that the majority of Canada’s foreign aid was directed at newly established states such as Bangladesh and Cambodia, and several developing countries such as India and Mexico.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged as one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives of the 20th century, offering newly independent nations a third path during the height of the so-called Cold War.  Founded on principles of independence, peace, and solidarity, NAM represented an alternative to the rigid bipolar world order dominated by the U.S. and Soviet Union. This movement, which began with just 25 countries in 1961, grew to encompass over 120 nations, fundamentally reshaping global diplomatic dynamics and giving voice to the developing world’s aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.  Canada however was not a formal member of the movement.  The movement’s advocacy for the new international economic order in the 1970s, though ultimately unsuccessful, raised important questions about global economic inequality and the need for fairer trade arrangements.  In particular, the member countries used their collective strength to democratize United Nations (UN) procedures and decision-making, something that Canada strongly endorsed.

However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the global scene rapidly changed.  The NAM countries initially supported the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which in turn Canada greatly supported.  However, member states such as India and Pakistan, went on to develop nuclear capabilities, greatly angering Canada who had earlier provided nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to each country.  In addition, Canada’s ties to American foreign policy had increased during the Cold War and after.  As a result, Canada has unfortunately failed to secure a seat on the UN’s Security Council by not receiving sufficient votes from NAM countries.  It is worth noting that over the years Canada played a major role in UN peacekeeping initiatives along with other nations directed at resolving several conflicts among NAM countries themselves.

In the aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as a military alliance between 32 member states, including Canada, the U.S. and 30 European states.  Canada’s contribution to NATO forces has increased over time, making it almost impossible to have a non-aligned defence or security policy.  Canada’s defence spending is expected to increase even more in the coming years.

Moreover, the NAM movement’s effectiveness in the post-Cold War era soon became limited. The rise of a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. created new challenges, while economic globalization exposed the limitations of traditional non-alignment approaches.  Many NAM countries found themselves forced to choose between economic integration and political independence.  In addition, China and India emerged as the second and third respective economic powers, challenging the U.S.   While Canada still supports the dominance of global trading mechanisms, the recent American move to greater bilateral trading arrangements and the use of tariffs has forced Canada to seek out and strengthen trading relationships in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.  U.S. isolationist policies have forced Canada to further diversity its domestic economy and its offshore trading partners. 

In today’s world, Canada is more or less portrayed as a middle power seeking to maximize its autonomy while engaging with competing global powers.  This approach is no longer in line with that of the pre-Cold War era and any move to non-alignment as a foreign policy.  However, this does not mean that Canada cannot take an independent stance when it comes to formulating and implementing its foreign policy.  There is certainly a need to be not too closely aligned with the current American administration’s isolationist approach to foreign matters.

Canada China's Influence Foreign Policy Foreign Policy India NATO Protectionism Trade with EU Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships 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 »
Jul 28

U.S. Is Trying to Milk the Canadian Dairy Industry

by bcurry

As part of the Trump administration’s trade talks with Canada, Trump has once again unfairly attacked Canada’s supply management system in the dairy industry.  The problem is that this continuous American attack doesn’t really make much sense!  Here’s why.

First and foremost, Canada, with a population of about 40 million, is a small market to begin with.  Secondly, while the American dairy and poultry markets are dominated by large industrial farms, the Canadian scene is primarily one of smaller farms, often family managed.  Thirdly, U.S. dairy producers reportedly insist they’re not looking for Canada to dismantle its crucial supply management system.  Fourthly, Canada’s imports of U.S. dairy products have risen significantly since the quotas imposed under the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) took effect in 2020.  Those imports totalled $897 million in 2024, according to Statistics Canada data, more than four times the value of imports in any year before 2020.  In 2024, American dairy exports to Canada had increased by 67% since 2021. This made Canada America’s second-largest dairy customer and its largest customer per capita.  Moreover, Canada presently has a $520 million dairy trade deficit with the U.S.  Fifthly, Trump’s claims of a 390 or 400 per cent tariff are false, particularly given the way the quotas on American dairy products actually work under the CUSMA.  Indeed, it is reported that to date, no U.S. dairy products imported by Canada have been subjected to those higher tariffs under the current agreement.  Under CUSMA, the U.S. can send 49 million litres of milk to Canada every year, before a single drop would have a tariff imposed.  In addition, that tariff-free amount is set to continue to grow gradually over the next 13 years.  The U.S. uses the same system of tariff-free imports of certain Canadian products up to a set quantity before imposing its tariffs. Finally, Canada’s maximum allowable dairy exports to the U.S. are lower than those for other countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s harmonized tariff schedule.  So, let’s not talk about unfairness when it comes to dairy exports between the two countries.

Furthermore, the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, David Wiens, notes that countries such as the United States heavily subsidize their dairy industry for production, forcing taxpayers to pay twice for their milk (once at the store and again through their taxes). In contrast, Canadian dairy farmers do not receive similar production subsidies.

Importantly, supply management has delivered food security and sovereignty to Canada for more than six decades by producing dairy here for Canadians.  It aligns production with demand to deliver high-quality, diverse products at stable prices for Canadian consumers and a fair return for its farmers.  It also strengthens the economy, with about 340,000 Canadian jobs fuelled by the supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg sectors, and over $30 billion contributed to Canada’s gross domestic product.  Simply put, Canada’s rationale for the approach taken under CUSMA is to ensure that the domestic dairy industry thrives by effectively capping how much the U.S. can export each year, preventing cheaper American products from dominating the smaller market.

There are also benefits to having few industrial farms as demonstrated by the recent and ongoing costly toll of the bird flu outbreak on U.S. dairy farms, which in particular drove up the price of eggs in the states, affected dairy cows, decreased milk production and financially decimated many affected farms.  None of this happened to the same extent in Canada.

One chief complaint from the U.S. focuses on Canada’s cheap exports of milk proteins, also described as milk solids, such as skim milk powder.  The Americans argue that because Canada’s supply management system keeps domestic prices artificially high, Canada can sell its excess production of milk proteins internationally at artificially low prices, undercutting the competition.  Such issues can certainly be reasonably discussed as part of any renegotiation of the CUSMA scheduled to be undertaken in 2026.  Remember that Trump actually signed that agreement during his first term as president.  The key point is that one has to do away with sources of misinformation and continue to deal with this particular trade issue in a way that both countries can benefit, thereby profiting farmers on both sides of the border.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Economy NAFTA Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US US.-Canada Relations

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