Category Archives: Liberal

I would not be averse to being described as centre-left, social democratic, liberal and moderate, but I am unable to agree with Vince Cable (The centre-left parties must work together more closely, 17 December) that Labours manifesto was advocating radical socialism.

Proposing to raise the level of public expenditure to around that of Germany or France is hardly revolutionary. Its promise of public ownership and control of railways and public utilities is modest in contrast to the commanding heights of the economy run by governments during the 1970s. Even the offer of free broadband is positively Wilsonian in its faith in the white heat of modern technology. Overall, its range of practical and costed measures to deal with the modern day manifestations of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness was firmly in the reformist tradition of Beveridge. Its intention to borrow at low interest rates in order to promote (green) industrial growth and full employment was essentially Keynesian.

On the other hand, when in office from 2010 to 2015, the Liberal Democrat party, pursuing its own Orange Book principles, shared responsibility for the imposition of neoliberal economic policies of austerity, in combination with the privatisation and fragmentation of public services.

As Cable was himself the minister who virtually gave away our Royal Mail to hedge funds and City institutions, he really needs to reflect on whether it is actually the Liberal Democrat rather than the Labour leadership that has made the radical departure from social democracy.Simon HinksBrighton

I agree with Vince Cable that excessive zealous Europeanism was a huge error in their campaigning and a grave disappointment.

But for me it started with the crass T-shirts declaiming Bollocks to Brexit worn delightedly by their new tranche of MEPs. I am an ardent remainer and, if that ship has now sailed, this party needs to row back from such divisive messaging. I voted for the Lib Dems in the European elections because they had an unapologetic and stalwart remain stance, but I fear it went horribly wrong with the very idea of revoking article 50 and cancelling Brexit. Added to which, Jo Swinsons arrogant position of who she would or would not do a coalition deal with. Judith A DanielsCobholm, Norfolk

It was probably about time we had the ritual call for a party of nice, civilised people. Up pops Vince Cable, right on schedule. As Liberals know from their fraught experience, there is a crucial distinction between working together and the enfeeblement of a distinctive Liberal party by narrowing its electoral opportunities, and that the first-past-the-post electoral system exacts a high price for any fragmentation of a worthy appeal. Vince Cable acknowledges this truth, but glosses over any renewed campaign to change the system.

The consequences of the recent election are not just unfair to specific political parties but, even more so, they traduce the electors. The Brexiters have repeated incessantly that the 52% to 48% vote at the referendum is a democratic authority for Brexit. How can they now claim that a 43% vote for the Conservatives gives them the authority to force Brexit through?Michael MeadowcroftLeeds

What a silly column by Simon Jenkins (The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband, 16 December). If the Liberal Democrats had not won seats like Twickenham, Richmond Park, Kingston and Bath, who on earth does he think would have won them?

When a long-term Conservative government was defeated in 1997, their defeat was partly brought about by a series of Lib Dem byelection wins and the 28 gains made by the Lib Dems from the Tories in that general election (as well as a result of Labour members choosing someone with greater appeal to the electorate than Jeremy Corbyn).

It is arrogant to assume that if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, all of their voters would prefer Labour irrespective of Labours leader and programme. Who else would have solidly stood in support of our membership of the EU?Lord RennardLiberal Democrat, House of Lords

Simon Jenkins correctly recognises the problem of progressive disunity. Since 1945 regressives have only won a majority of the vote at one general election, yet have led 60% of UK governments in that time. However, his diagnosis represents the kind of domineering tribalism that has prevailed in progressive circles and serves us badly. It rejects the diversity of opinion that exists in Britain and compels the disunity to continue.

With Labour and the Lib Dems conducting leadership elections at the same time, there is an opportunity to lay foundations for a winning progressive realignment ahead of the next election. Two Lib Dem leadership candidates (Daisy Cooper and Layla Moran) already indicate they would steer the Lib Dems in an even more progressive direction (as occurred under Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown). Far from preventing a progressive victory as Jenkins holds, the Lib Dems could make a significant contribution. Of the 30 seats the Lib Dems are currently best placed to gain on a uniform swing, 26 are fights versus the Conservatives. Only two are versus Labour.

Progressive voters are already ahead of the parties, with many hundreds of thousands having voted tactically last Thursday and, in the process, they restrained significantly the size of the Conservatives majority. It is time the progressive parties caught up and stopped discarding the pluralistic and cooperative values we say we uphold.Paul PettingerCouncil member of the Social Liberal Forum

Simon Jenkins suggests that the Lib Dems should disband to give Labour a clear run. Here are the results for Cheltenham: Con 48%, LD 46%, Lab 5%, Monster Raving Loony 1%.

Perhaps Labour and the Loonies should shut up shop? I suppose Labour can celebrate the fact that they didnt come last.Nick ChiplenCheltenham, Gloucestershire

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo youd like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and well publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

See the rest here:

The Liberal Democrats place in progressive politics - The Guardian

DumpsterFire45s cyberhandle pretty much gives it away.

In other words, he explains, hes just like the typical Trump supporter that he comes across in his everyday life except for one thing: Hes a fiscally conservative and socially liberal Democrat.

From there, DumpsterFire45 launched into a viral tweetstorm based on seven insights he has gleaned on the ground rather than, say, in a roadside diner with a cable-news camera in MAGA country.

Heres a breakdown:

1. The talking points are all-pervasive: Decades of faux and talk radio in combination with conservative social media have ingrained right wing talking points into even casual viewers. Its everywhere. On every TV at the doctors office. In every gym. On every radio. Everywhere.

2. Right-wing views are rarely questioned in public: Even the folks that are starting to (only just now) realize that something is wrong about Individual-1 are actively shamed if they question [President Trumps] actions openly.

3. Potential Democratic voters are swayed culturally: Im sorry. I dont like it either and I wish it wasnt so. But if everyone around you is claiming that the dems are out to destroy the country ... its a goddamn stretch just to vote blue. And if done, will mostly be done in secret to avoid ridicule.

4. Its still about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: They cant get past it. These folks are so radicalized against Obama, he is literally seen as a usurper and foreign agent that took the presidency with the help of the deep state (Hillary) and tried to bring down democracy.

5. Those willing to change must be convinced: We want them and we need them. If crossing over will result in more shame folks will stay where they are. We can teach them all about embracing progressive values after we get em. ... Wars are won one battle at a time. We need to take any victory we can get.

6. Democrats need to embrace reality: Im uninsured right now and its scary. I cant afford the [Affordable Care Acts] marketplace and Im cash-n-carry at the doctors office. I want a progressive. Badly. But if a centrist gets the nomination Im all in. This is about democracy.

7. Maybe its better we dont get our top pick: Twitter is not our country, and we have to accept that. Not everyone has the same understandings we do and we all still need each other to stay intact as a democracy. Vote for the dem that can win and encourage/help others to do the same.

DumpsterFire45s thread rapidly drew tens of thousands of likes, shares and comments, most of them, like this one, cheering his observations:

To be fair, when it comes to grabbing media attention, the I-am-the-exception formula seems to work on both sides of the aisle.

Just ask Bryan Dean Wright, the prolific Im a Democrat, but ... guy, who, as you can see from this tweet, appears to be a regular on Fox News.

Original post:

Gun-toting, Wrangler-wearing, truck-driving red stater has a message for liberals, and its not what you might think - MarketWatch

A Liberal MP is denying allegations, broadcast on an Iranian-language television network, that he has worked with and accepted money from Iran's government.

"These accusations are absolutely false and unfounded," Majid Jowhari told CBC News in a written statement. "I strongly deny any accusations."

The allegations against the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill were made by freelance journalist Alireza Sassani on the program Window on the Homeland on the Iran-e-Farda network.

CBC News has not been able to independently verify Sassani's claims.

Sassani is described as a close collaborator of Masoud Molavi, an Iranian intelligence agent who defected and revealed details of Iranian influence operations overseas.

Molavi was shot dead on the streets of Istanbul on November 14. He had been granted asylum in Turkeyafter fleeing Iran and had set up a digital channel, BlackBox, which he used to broadcast revelations about corruption and wrongdoing within the Iranian regime.

The U.S. government blamed his assassination on Iran's intelligence services.

Describing Iranian government influence operations in other countries, Sassani said that "Masoud talked to me about someone by the name of Majid Jowhari. He's a member of the Parliament of Canada. He's from the Liberal Party, representing Richmond Hill.

"He said that Jowhari was in touch with some of the intelligence officers of Iran, and that he even visited the representatives of Taeb and Mojtaba Khamenei. He even received financial support from these people.

"Now he's been elected in Canada for a second time."

Hossein Taeb is the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) intelligence division. Mojtaba Khamenei is a son of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and is sometimes described as head of the Basij militia, a pro-regime force that is heavily involved in suppressing protests in Iran.

Since 2010, the IRGC has been a listed entity under Canada's Special Economic Measures Act. The law prohibits Canadians from engaging in any financial, service or goods-related transactionswith listed entities and individuals; Hossein Taebhimself is a listed individual under the law. Part of the IRGC is also listed as a terrorist group in Canada.

Mojtaba Khamenei has not been named as a listedindividual under the Special Economic Measures Act. He was, however, designated last month by the U.S. TreasuryDepartment "for representing the Supreme Leader in an official capacity despite never being elected or appointed to a government position aside from work in the office of his father," according to a press release. The assets of those designated by Treasury are blocked, and Americans are banned from dealing with them.

"The Supreme Leader has delegated a part of his leadership responsibilities to Mojataba Khamenei, who worked closely with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and also the Basij Resistance Force (Basij) to advance his father's destabilizing regional ambitions and oppressive domestic objectives," says the Treasury release.

Jowharisaid today that he's being singled out "without a shred of evidence ...

"Those who spread these slanderous and baseless accusations want to instigate hate and fear without providing a single fact to support it. We should stand together against this hateful behaviour."

The allegation is already drawing pointed political reaction, with Conservative Sen. Linda Frum calling for an investigation.

It's not the first time Jowhari has had to push back against claims that he is close to the regime in Iran.

Shortly after he was elected in 2015, he was heavily criticized for inviting three Iranian parliamentarians to visit him in his riding office. He also drew negative attention for some of his tweets including one he sent out during the wave of protests that shook Iran in December 2017.

Jowhari said he hoped the protesters would be able to demonstrate "with the support of their elected government".

Jowhari was condemned by many Iranian-Canadians for appearing to suggest that the regime was "elected"and that it was supporting protesters. In fact, government forces were suppressing the protests with considerable bloodshed.

Thomas Juneau researches Middle Eastern affairs at the University of Ottawa and is a former strategic analyst at the Department of National Defence.

Last year, he conducted a research project on the debate over whether Canada should re-establish ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a hugely controversial topic in the Iranian-Canadian community.

Advocates of re-engagement include both regime supportersand people who merely want to make it easier to visit family in Iran or send help to family members in the country.

"[Jowhari's] name did come up on a number of occasions. He was known inside the Liberal caucus as one of the main proponents of re-engagement with Iran a view that I agree with," he said."But he was viewed as being a bit too much of a proponent of that view and a bit too much with individuals associated with the Islamic Republic."

Juneau says many of those he spoke to who supported re-engagement were still reluctant to be seen associating with Jowhari, who had a "controversial history".

But he cautions that an allegation made by an "individual associated with a dead Iranian spy" falls far short of the evidence he would need to see to conclude that Jowhari crossed a line.

"To label an individual an asset of a foreign government is a very serious accusation, and it has to be made on the basis of clear information,"he said. "And we do not have we're not even close to having enough information publicly available to make that accusation toward that MP."

Shortly before the federal election in October, a email was widely distributed in the Richmond Hill riding drafted byLiberals who said they had come "to the regrettable conclusion that we simply could not vote for" Majid Jowhari.

The email quoted four prominent Liberals: former Ontario cabinet minister Reza Moridi, who represented the provincial riding of Richmond Hill for over a decade; Bryon Wilfert, who previously held the federal riding for the Liberal Party; Sarkis Assadourian, who represented the federal riding of Brampton Centre for the Liberals; and Richard Rupp, past president of the Richmond Hill federal Liberal riding association.

In their email, they state that their decision is "based on a review of the Liberal candidate's record and of various media reports regarding some of his activities over the past four years."

They did not give details on which aspects of Jowhari's record they took issue with.

"Team Jowhari" responded on the MP's Facebook page: "This communication represents the worst type of campaign tactics a non-specific note from a group who do not have the courage of their convictions to say what party and policies they do support but are prepared to say only what they don't support."

Link:

'False and unfounded': Liberal MP denies claims that he's worked with Iran - CBC.ca

Illustrated | NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images, Aerial3/iStock, MicrovOne/iStock

December 18, 2019

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

I don't know how to put this delicately, so I will just out with it, in the hope of sparing the feelings of as many New York Times columnists as possible: The American people are not all that shot up with impeachment.

It's true that polls show that many of us are broadly in favor of it, whatever that means (though others also show, oddly enough, Trump beating every single one of the roughly 437 Democratic hopefuls). But even those who will blandly affirm their support for the process in a poll were not exactly taking to the streets on Tuesday night.

Impeachment was always going to be like this: one of those pet causes beloved of (mostly wealthy or very young) liberal activists and very serious people in the media. The rest of the country, whatever they think about Donald Trump, have more important things to do than develop detailed and passionate opinions about the contents of the House's nearly 700-page impeachment report. As soon as it became clear that "Trump Ukraine impeachment" was not going to be a story involving Eurasian hookers and coke and urine-related videocassettes, people started tuning it out. Bill Clinton's impeachment also divided the country 20 years ago, but for some reason people seemed to care more about the details.

All of this was, as I say, predictable. So too were the increasingly serious-sounding negative repercussions from impeachment in crucial states like Wisconsin and Michigan. This is the price you pay for a self-aggrandizing cynical strategy long opposed by your own party's leadership.

What I don't understand is why so so many of the president's critics are still pouting. Gee, it's so disappointing that you got exactly what you wanted and roughly half of the American people nominally agree with you about it. What a pity that ordinary working men and women feel like they have better things to do than join the rent-a-protester mobs being put on by various well-endowed SuperPACs to protest what, exactly? This impeachment game has been going on for a long time. Everyone knew what the final score would be.

So why shouldn't Trump's opponents enjoy impeachment for what it's been that is, a massive if mostly symbolic victory? They got under the old lizard's skin. They made it almost impossible for him to pursue infrastructure or any of the other things he campaigned on. They are living rent-free in his head and rarely leave their apartments. The same goes for his supporters. So have some fun. Invite friends over. Tweet your pronouns, thank your local graduate student or journo union, bathe in avocado liqueur, or whatever it is that people slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman are popularly supposed to do in the right-wing imagination. It doesn't matter what the lumpenproletariat think. Just keep dancing on your own.

Liberals will be glad they did six months from now, when they find themselves in the exact same position they did four years ago: trying to prevent the guy who once got paid millions of dollars to pretend to fire Gary Busey on television from being duly elected president of the United States. They thought it would be easy in 2016. They should know better now.

Powered By ZergNet

View post:

Wait did liberals actually think they'd remove Trump from office? - The Week

Once again, TIME has chosen a reliably liberal recipient to be Person of the Year. The winner is 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has spent the past year appearing at rallies and giving speeches railing about the dangers of fossil fuels. At a 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland, Thunberg claimed not to care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet.

In September, she spent two weeks sailing across the Atlantic Ocean in a zero-emissions yacht. Her destination was New York City for the United Nations Climate Action Summit. In a speech that made international headlines, Thunberg fulminated that world leaders have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet Im one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. She challenged world leaders to stop destroying the future for young people and to address a problem that they were ignoring. She said, We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

In response to this well-publicized speech, President Trump sarcastically tweeted, She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see! In his comment, the President perfectly highlighted the hysterical nature of Thunbergs remarks. In contrast, liberals loved that Thunberg was so passionate about climate change. It set the stage for her to receive even more speaking engagements and publicity. Thus, it was not a complete surprise that TIME would have bestowed this award on her.

TIME Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal called her the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet. Possibly, TIME believes that Thunberg is the biggest voice, but others including Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro think that she is a brat because of her regular lectures directed at adults in leadership positions. Recently, Thunberg condemned the murder of two indigenous people in areas of the Amazon rainforest known for illegal logging. She tweeted, Indigenous people are literally being murdered for trying to protect the forest from illegal deforestation. Bolsonaro claimed that the illegal logging is being done by foreign governments and questioned why the media gives so much space to this kind of pirralha, which is a Portuguese word for brat.

As far as climate change being the biggest issue, surely this is the mantra of the left, as it is viewed as almost a religion. However, in a recent Yale survey, climate change was not listed as a top concern to most Americans. The study showed that global warming ranked as the 15th most important issue out of a list of 28 possibilities. Hard-working Americans are more concerned about healthcare, the economy, education and crime. Climate change is not an immediate problem for Americans who are taking care of their families and careers.

Instead of addressing concerns of average Americans, TIME has shown its elitism once again by this selection. The choice might not register with most Americans, but liberal professors, journalists and Hollywood stars surely celebrated Thunbergs selection. These activists can afford to obsess about climate change, but most Americans are too busy working.

Others who were considered for the award include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the CIA Ukraine whistleblower, the Hong Kong protesters and President Donald Trump. If TIME had been truly honest, Trump would have won the award this year. He has dominated the news unlike any other U.S. President in history.

Thunberg has had a fraction of the impact that Trump has had on the world. Unfortunately, TIME consistently refuses to bestow this award on conservatives. While Trump won it in 2016, he also should have won it in 2017 and 2018.

Donald Trump, Jr. blasted the award as a marketing gimmick and noted that TIME overlooked the Hong Kong Protesters fighting for their lives and freedoms. Trump, Jr. is right that the courageous people of Hong Kong have been true heroes this year. They displayed remarkable courage for standing up to the tyrannical regime in China to advocate for more autonomy for their region.

Not surprisingly, Thunberg has said absolutely nothing about China, a country that is known for massive pollution, abusing human rights, limiting freedoms, inhumane working conditions and doing very little to combat climate change. TIME should have given the award to President Trump or those Hong Kong protesters fighting real threats, such as Chinese communism. Instead, the award was given to a youngster who is promoting an elitist agenda which involves the transfer of massive amounts of wealth and is fighting a threat that many people, including renowned scientists, believe is not even real.

Original post:

Jeff Crouere: Another liberal named Person of the Year - The Franklin Sun

OTTAWA The Liberal government has likely painted itself into a corner on carbon taxes, particularly after Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he was wrestling with the approval of a major oilsands mine.

Ottawa has declined to commit to major carbon tax increases after 2022, despite Liberal claims that the levy will play a key role in meeting their climate targets. The Liberal government has committed to meeting its 2030 Paris agreements as well as a more recent pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Wilkinson on Wednesday signalled that the 2050 target could weigh heavily on his decision to either approve or reject Teck Resources $20.6-billion oilsands mine in Alberta, saying it was not clear the project would fit into the Liberals environmental goals.

That is something that we will have to be discussing and wrestling with as we make a decision one way or the other, Wilkinson told reporters in Calgary on Wednesday.

The stakes are very, very high

The Frontier project north of Fort McMurray would mark the most significant new investment in the Alberta oilpatch in years. It is expected to generate $70 billion in tax revenue for the federal, provincial and local governments, create 7,000 construction jobs and 2,500 permanent jobs.

It would also generate about 4.1 million megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year over its 40-year lifespan. A federal-provincial review this summer found that the project would be in the public interest, while also laying out a number of environmental damages that would come from the mine.

Wilkinson will make a final decision before the end of February on whether to approve the project.

But killing it would be a major blow, said Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon.

It would send a signal to investors that Alberta is not open for business and the federal government is going to go out of their way to stop projects. The stakes are very, very high, he told the Edmonton Journal.

Wilkinsons dilemma over the approval seems to underscore the challenge facing Prime Minster Justin Trudeau as he continues to claim that the Liberals can accommodate environmental concerns while also grow the economy. The environment minister will have to account for new sources of greenhouse gas emissions like Frontier, even as his office has declined to raise its carbon tax over the $50 per tonne threshold.

A report by the Parliamentary Budget Office, meanwhile, estimates that Ottawa would have to introduce various carbon levies of a combined $102 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet its environmental goals. By its own projections, the Liberal government is currently set to fall well short of meeting its Paris targets.

Various environmental policies under Trudeau have been met with intense criticism by some voters, particularly those in oil-rich Western provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Critics of the policies argue that carbon emissions reduction should come entirely through technology, rather than taxes placed on households.

Wilkinson has said his office would conduct an early review of the carbon tax in 2020 and a second review in 2022, where it will consider further increases above the $50 threshold. Trudeau recently laid out directions in his mandate letter for Wilkinson, which included strengthening existing environmental policies while seeking to exceed Canadas 2030 targets.

A spokesperson for Wilkinson said Ottawa would close the gap on its emissions reduction shortfalls by planting two billion trees, subsidizing electric vehicles, retrofitting homes, and subsidizing clean technologies through a separate $5-billion fund.

Environmental groups broadly agree that Ottawa needs to raise its carbon tax well beyond $50 per tonne, and that it should be more open about the pace of that increase in order to give families and businesses time to plan for the additional costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency in how this is applied, said Josha MacNab, director of policy at the Pembina Institute, an environmental group.

What weve heard from business and industry consistently is that changing the rules of the game, rolling back policy, introducing new policy, not being clear about whats happening its not helpful.

Industry groups, meanwhile, have long claimed that Ottawa could continue to approve emissions-intensive projects like oilsands facilities, while achieving emissions reductions through other measures.

Oilsands producers have managed to make strides in reducing emissions in the past 20 years, largely through technological investments that they claim will continue to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency

The Frontier project has been called one of the last major oilsands mines that will be built in northern Alberta, largely because producers are increasingly using steam-driven production methods as a way to target deeper-lying bitumen formations.

A November report by Canadas Ecofiscal Commission found that carbon taxes would have to reach as high as $210 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet the countrys targets, a move that it said might prove politically challenging. The increase would raise costs of gas by roughly 40 cents per litre, the report estimated.

The report said that the alternative to rising carbon taxes could be achieved through regulations, which it said was an even more costly option. People both opposed and supportive of carbon taxes have warmed to the more expensive regulatory option, as it is often hidden from sight and less likely to raise a political fight.

Under the Harper government, Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Trudeau promised in September to implement legally binding policies that would bring Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050 if re-elected.

View original post here:

Liberals in dilemma over carbon taxes, greenhouse gas emissions and a $20B mine in Alberta - National Post

One of the idealistic hopes that arose during the recent Israeli political wrangling was the possibility that centrist Benny Gantz would end the Netanyahu era by forming a minority government of 44 Jewish members of Knesset on the center-left with the outside support of legislators who would keep the government from being voted out. The outside bloc was ten or more Palestinian members of Knesset and eight seats held by rightwinger Avigdor Lieberman.

The Palestinian political leader Ayman Odeh implored Gantz to rise to the moment and make such a coalition, based on the idea of equality of Palestinians and Jews. In a stirring speech at J Street in October, Odeh explained that this was what Yitzhak Rabin had done in 1993: formed a governing coalition with the outside support of Palestinian parties, and it had allowed him to pursue the peace process.

Rabin led a minority government supported from the outside by the Arab and Arab Jewish parties Without [Palestinian leader Tawfik] Ziad there would have been no Rabin coalition, no negotiations, and no peace process. This is a time for bravery once again I am calling on Benny Gantz. Be brave like Rabin was in 1993 and it would be my honor to be brave like Tawfik Ziad. In the words of the great America poet Lin Manuel Miranda, history has its eyes on us. Our demand is nothing more and nothing less than a basic agenda for equality.

Odehs hope soon died. Gantz failed to form any kind of coalition, including a minority one. As the New York Timesand other media told us, it was because Avigdor Lieberman refused to have anything to do with Palestinians, labeling them a fifth column, and Gantz needed Liebermans eight seats.

Well, not really.

Yesterday I was shocked to learn something I should have known weeks ago: The reason the possibility of a minority government led by Benny Gantz in Israel did not go forward was that members of his own centrist party refused to sit with Palestinians.

Evan Gottesman and Eli Kowaz discussed the minority government idea on the Israel Policy Forum podcast (Dec. 12th):

Gottesman: It didnt seem like it was torpedoed by Lieberman even though in the public reaction to it, Lieberman had to take the role of saying, You know I would never sit with the Arabs, and taking on his typical bellicose stance. But it looked like that sort of initiative was actually most controversial within Kahol Lavan [Blue and White] itself, that there were some of the rightwing MKs within Kahol Lavan opposed to a narrow minority government that would be supported from the outside by the Joint List.

Kowaz: So from my understanding, it didnt even get to the point of inviting Avigdor Lieberman to be part of that government because of what you just noted about the Kahol Lavan MKs talking about, on the right. Kahol Lavanencompasses a lot of different political viewpoints.

Gottesman: That was Zvi Hauser and Yoaz Hendel I believe.

Kowaz: Exactly. Those are members of Bogie Yaalons Telem faction in Kahol Lavan.

This important point has not come out in the American press. The New York Times has repeatedly sanitized it. (Marc Schulman of Newsweek acknowledged it in passing but gave equal blame to Lieberman.)

You can find this point in the Israeli press, but over there, racism is ho-hum news. Gantz was reported last month to be angry at the racists. Because of Yoaz Hendel and Tzvika Hauser, Im not Prime Minister, he said.

But no problem. Gantz is now keeping the two men on his Blue and White list for the March elections. Even though Yoaz Hendel explicitly opposed Palestinian political participation, per the Israeli press last summer:

Blue and White will establish a broad and state-oriented nationalist unity government, Hendel said. We respect the Arab citizens of Israel and see them as citizens entitled to all rights, but we will not sit with the Arab parties, which fundamentally deny the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Period.

The issue here is American liberals, our liberal press and liberal Zionists. Benny Gantz is a hero to liberal Zionists. They see him as the man who can take down Netanyahu. An Opening for Hope, the New Israel Fund said of Gantz getting the opportunity to form a government just last month.

[S]omething is changing for the better in Israel.

If Israels Jewish electorate said anything clearly, it was a clear no to Jewish extremists who incite against Arab citizens. And Israels Arabs citizens turned out in large numbers to vote for the Joint List, a party that the first time in a quarter century has reached out to Jewish parties to build political partnership.

Now look why that didnt happen. Because of racism inside the Blue and White Party. Liberal Americans who are connected to Israel ought to be denouncing this racism and putting pressure on Gantz to purge open racists from his party. Its not happening. Kowaz and Gottesman of Israel Policy Forum dont seem to regard this news as problematic. No, once again Israeli political culture has revealed itself to be deeply racist; and American friends of Israel walk on by.

Read the original here:

Blue and White party liberal Zionist heroes refused to cut deal with Palestinian legislators - Mondoweiss

The New Democratic Party is sitting in fourth place after the fall's divisive federal election and its leader Jagmeet Singh says he is not interested in partnering with the Conservatives to overwhelm Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal minority.

In a year-end interview with The Canadian Press, Singh acknowledged there could be political expediency in having his New Democrats turn to the Conservatives to either defeat or dominate the Liberals.

But Singh has no plans to go down that road.

"When it comes to the values that I have and have been pushing for, I don't see an alignment with the values the Conservatives have pushed forward," he said.

The NDP and Liberals found themselves in a war of words during the fall election campaign to prove which party was more progressive, especially after the New Democrats lost many of the seats they gained in the 2011 "orange wave" to the Liberals in 2015

In general, a weakened Liberal party is good for both the New Democrats and the Conservatives.

Despite this and despite the fact the NDP often struggles to differentiate itself from the Liberal party in its policies, Singh said he still couldn't imagine teaming up with the Conservatives even under a new leader, with Andrew Scheer's recent resignation.

"My goal isn't to defeat the Liberals. My goal is to push them to do better," he said.

Singh said he wants progressive laws that he believes are priorities for many Canadians, including to create national programs to cover drug costs and dental care.

However, Trudeau would be wise not to presume his offer of political help comes without strings, Singh said.

"The frame that I take is the Liberals need to work with somebody. They have 13 votes that they need in this minority government. So they need to get that support from somewhere. I put it out there that I am willing to be that person that supports them," Singh said.

But if the Liberals' goal is to simply "cruise along" and hold onto power, Singh said he's out.

"My leverage and my encouragement comes from if you need something passed that's meaningful, I'm right here. I'm ready to do it. But I'm not going to be taken for granted. I'm not going to support them blindly if it's not good for people."

Singh and his New Democratic Party had a roller-coaster of a year, beginning with Singh spending much of his time in British Columbia in a bid to win a seat in the House of Commons. He won his Burnaby South seat in a February byelection, but appearances in question period and the halls of Parliament did not translate into an immediate bump for the party.

The New Democrats struggled with fundraising after finishing 2018 with nearly $4.5 million in negative net assets the party's worst balance sheet since 2001.

A mass of recognized and well-respected NDP MPs retiring dealt further blows to party morale.

The NDP wasn't able to match the Liberals' and Conservatives' advertising during the campaign, thanks to its smaller war chest, and also only chartered a campaign plane for the last 12 days of the race.

Many pundits were predicting the NDP could lose official party status, thanks to these factors and low polling numbers at the start of the campaign.

However, Singh was able to turn his infectious, seemingly bottomless enthusiasm into upward momentum mid-race. Polling numbers started rising, crowds at his rallies started getting bigger and the spotlight started shining more positively in Singh's direction.

But the momentum didn't translate into enough votes to keep the NDP from losing seats.

The party was reduced to fourth place in the House of Commons behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Qubcois after winning just 24 seats, down from the 39 it held before the Oct. 21 vote.

The party's losses were especially deep in Quebec, where it lost all but one of 16 seats the party had held onto in 2015.

Singh attributes this to his being new to the federal scene. This election was his "introduction to Canada" and to Quebec, "where I had the biggest introduction to make," he said.

The campaign also saw heated debate among federal leaders over Quebec's controversial law banning religious symbols like hijabs, turbans, kippahs and prominent crucifixes for some civil servants a law that is widely popular among Quebec voters.

Watch: The NDP leader talks about working with the Liberals

Singh admits the law, known as Bill 21, could have played a part in his party's major losses in the province. Singh is a practising Sikh known for his brightly coloured turbans and he wears a symbolic knife.

"I think it was divisive as a bill and I think divisive bills will encourage or create more division. And that might impact me as someone, on first glance if there is something promoting division, because I look different."

Many people face discrimination based on race, gender or country of origin, Singh said, and he hopes to be a voice for those people and show he's willing to take a stand against it and to try to win over the "hearts and minds" of Quebecers.

Looking to 2020, Singh says he hopes to work with the Liberals to implement a universal, single-payer pharmacare program and national dental coverage and to see Indigenous communities finally given access to clean drinking water, housing and equitable child-welfare funding.

He says that even though Canada may be experiencing divisive politics and policies, he believes there is reason to hope.

"While we live in a beautiful place, it's an incredible country. There's so much more that unites us than divides us and there's this real, strong belief that people want to take care of their neighbours. And I want to build on that feeling of camaraderie."

View original post here:

From fourth place, Singh says he'd rather push Liberals than work with Tories - CBC.ca

Moodys Capital Markets Group Chief Economist John Lonski, Democratic strategist Capri Cafaro, GOP pollster Lee Carter and FOX Business' Neil Cavuto discuss the severity of America's debt and why Americans should be concerned.

Congress and the media obsess endlessly over whether President Trump should be impeached.

Both ignore $23 trillion of bigger problems.

That's how deep in debt the federal government is now, and because they keep spending much more than they could ever hope to collect in taxes, that number will only go up. It's increasing by $1 trillion a year.

IS AMERICA'S $23 TRILLION NATIONAL DEBT A PROBLEM?

Shut up, Stossel, you say. Youve been crying wolf about Americas debt for years, but were doing great!

You have a point.

(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

For many years, Ive predicted that government, to fund freebies both parties want, would print boatloads of money. That would cause massive inflation. I bought silver coins so I might afford a loaf of bread while the rest of you haul suitcases full of nearly worthless paper currency to the bakery -- or go hungry!

Clearly, that inflation crisis hasnt happened.

Thanks to Trumps contempt for the deep states love of endless regulation, businesses are hiring and stock prices are up. America isdoing great.

But while our deficits havent yet created a crisis, they will. You can stretch a rubber band farther and farther. Eventually, it will snap back -- or break.

We cant pay off our increasing debt -- unless were willing to tell the government to stop stationing soldiers in 80 countries, stop sending checks to poor people and old people, and stop paying for free health care for people like me. If the government did stop, the public would revolt.

Voters scream if theres even talkof cuts to Medicare or Social Security. But the programs are unsustainable. Social Security was meant to help the minorityof people who outlive their savings. When Social Security was created, most Americans didnt even reach age 65. Now its an entitlement for everyone.

USMCA WILL CARRY AMERICAN ECONOMY FORWARD: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CEO

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care spending account for about half of the federal budget, and because we old people rudely refuse to die, these entitlements consistently grow faster than the tax revenues meant to fund them.

Anyone serious about giving our kids a future has to be willing to make big cuts to those programs, or at least privatize them and let individuals make our own decisions with our own money.

But good luck to any politician who proposes that.

By contrast, voters dont get stirred up as we just quietly sink further and further into debt.

So politicians demand even more spending.

Earlier this monthSenate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said appropriations bills wont get passed by the end of the year unless Republicans agree to spend significant resources on fighting the opioid epidemic, gun violence, child care, violence against women, election security, infrastructure, etc.

With a Democratic House consumed with impeachment, there is very little appetite for the sorts of common-sense fiscal policies that could rein in our out-of-control deficits and debt, says Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

That implies that if Republicans were in charge, they would restore fiscal order. But theres little evidence of that. Republicans talk about spending cuts and responsibility but rarely cut anything.

Democrats want new social programs. Neither party wants to reduce the military budget. Trump wants his wall and tariffs. Farmers, once proud independent capitalists who criticized welfare, now get 40 percentof their income from the government.

The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, says Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

No matter who you vote for and no matter what speeches they make, none of them is doing anything to put us on a sustainable course. Its too bad.

Fortunately, thanks to the inventiveness of American entrepreneurs, our economy keeps creating new wealth for politicians to grab.

That might mean Congress wouldnt have to cut spending for America to gradually grow our way out of this terrible debt. All theyd need to do is make sure spending goes up slower than the rate of inflation.

They wont even do that.

John Stossel is the author of No They Cant! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

The rest is here:

John Stossel: Trump impeachment -- Congress, liberal media obsess while $23 trillion in problems is forgotten - Fox Business

Alexander Heffner, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Dec. 16, 2019 | Updated 10:51 a.m. ET Dec. 16, 2019

The Trump impeachment is spotlighting the Founders' fears of foreign influence on US security and leaders, and turning liberals into originalists.

There is one indisputable fact about the impeachment of President Donald Trump that should be clear to all Americans: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making the Constitution great again. Furthermore, she is charting a path forward for the Democratic Party to once again be the guardians of civil society and democracy and to make the liberals on the Supreme Court, and on the streets of America, the true originalists.

Last week Pelosi told the public and her congressional colleagues that she would not be trying to corral House votes on impeachment. "People have to come to their own conclusions," she said. "They've seen the facts as presented in the Intelligence Committee.They've seen the Constitution.They know it. They take an oath to protect and defend it.

That is the point. Abuse of power and obstruction are the cumulative law breaking and corrupt actions of the Trump years, from the Russian and Ukrainian affairs to Trump's violations of the emoluments clauses,relentless attacks on the First Amendment and authoritarian fantasyabouttearing up the Constitution and serving for 29 years.If you think these are Trumps jokes on the media, "Demagoguery and Democracy" author PatriciaRoberts-Miller reminds us that World War II Axis villains started their wars against humanity masking autocratic dystopian dreams in comedy.

By contrast, Pelosi has revived the Founders original intent, their established textual concern about foreign interference, bribery and influence adversely affecting the welfare of American citizens. Trumps violations are unbecoming a president of the United States.

Not only was this concern about foreign powers fortified constitutionally, Americas first president, George Washington, reiterated in his Farewell Address that his successors must never become subjected to the dictates of foreign governments. Had Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madisonor any of the framers heard an American presidential candidate and then president implore adversaries to hack our own American institutions, they would have considered that treason.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

There has been a bogus contention over too many years that the textualist view of the Constitution is only the 18th century ratified document instead of the text as it organically and authentically matured. This has always been a false choice. You are an originalist by reading the document, in its entire meaning and its entire body of precedent over decades and centuries.

This is what Pelosi has done, and her timing is preempting what could well be partisan Supreme Court decisions that deny the authority of Congress to subpoena witnesses and shield the presidents taxes from congressional and public scrutiny.The impeachment articles defend both federalism and the separation of powers, in which the Republicans believed until Trumps authoritarianism cannibalized them.

Impeach and remove: An election is no solution when Trump, Russia and Republicans are determined to steal it

Now there is reason for Pelosi to fear these faux textualists will ignore the original document of which they have feigned infatuation and rule in Trumps favor.This fear is justified.In the Senate, McConnell's decision to coordinate an impeachment defense with the White House and Graham's refusal to be an impartial juror are, like Trump's conduct, the opposite of the checks and balances the Founders envisioned.

Trump appointees to the bench have been proven retrograde, refusing to acknowledge many historicalconstitutional protections, and even the legal authority of Brown v. Board of Education. Roberts and company have also ruled against the centerpiece of American life: Voting. After deciding that Ohio can remove citizens from the rolls for not voting, the Supreme Court has emboldened disenfranchisement in Wisconsin, Georgia and elsewhere. The framers would laugh that anti-democratic outcome out of town. And theyd be appalled at the ruling to uphold a Muslim travel banthat excluded Saudi Arabia, the country that deployed the hijackers against us on 9/11 and to whichTrump has business ties.

Too serious to ignore:USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Impeach President Trump

Pelosi and her new originalists know it is past time for jurists and elected representatives to assert this basic truth: The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, reflects the norms and laws by which we live. It is Trump and Attorney General William Barr who behave like third-world autocrats and want to undermine the literal meaning of the Constitution of the United States. But Pelosi is determined not to let them.

A republic if you can keep it, Pelosi said, quoting Benjamin Franklin,when she opened the impeachment inquiry in September. Thats also the title of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuchs book. But the mantle of the Founders does not belong to Gorsuch, or to Chief Justice John Roberts, or those farcically pretending to be textualists.Pelosi is rightfully reclaiming it for the American people, a majority of whom voted against Trumpin 2016, and half of whom nowfavor his removal from office.

Impeachment is the beginning of liberal originalism to safeguard law and order in America. And we'll haveSpeaker Pelosi to thank for it.

Alexander Heffner is host of "The Open Mind" on PBSand coauthor of A Documentary History of the United States.Follow him on Twitter: @heffnera

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-nancy-pelosi-revives-constitution-column/2657025001/

Read the original here:

Trump impeachment: Pelosi reclaims the Constitution for liberals and today's America - USA TODAY