Latest news with #Trumpian
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
The Biden cover-up: a 'near-treasonous' conspiracy
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Is it possible to stage a political cover-up over something that's obvious to everyone? Weirdly, it is, said Alex Shephard in The New Republic. If you don't believe it, just read "Original Sin", the new book by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson about how Joe Biden's family and colleagues conspired to hide his growing frailty and confusion during his time in the White House. It was a vain effort in some respects, as Biden's decline was evident to anyone who saw him walk or talk. Poll after poll showed that voters were all too aware of the issue. Yet the White House succeeded in suppressing talk about it, at least until Biden's disastrous TV debate with Donald Trump. It used "tactics that can only be described as Trumpian – denying any and all accusations", and attacking the credibility of any reporter or politician who raised legitimate questions about the president's fitness. We can't let sympathy with Biden over his recent cancer diagnosis stand in the way of a "reckoning" for this cover-up, said Megan McArdle in The Washington Post. Thanks to "Original Sin", we now know that "the most powerful nation in the world and its nuclear arsenal were left in the hands of a man who could not reliably recognise people he'd known for years, maintain his train of thought or speak in coherent sentences". By late 2023, Biden's staff were apparently pushing as much of his schedule as possible to midday, when he was at his sharpest. Even for small meetings, he often relied on a teleprompter. The hiding of Biden's decline represents a "near-treasonous dereliction of duty" by his staff. Democrats and the liberal press have a lot to answer for, too. Biden and his backers were lying to themselves as much as to others, said Carlos Lozada in The New York Times. They were in thrall to the "Biden mythology" of the scrappy leader beating the odds. Because of their misgivings about Kamala Harris, and their hatred of Trump, they felt justified in concealing the truth. But Democrats now need to resist the temptation to pin the whole election debacle on Biden. If he'd dropped out of the race earlier, it's not clear that any other nominee would have done better than Harris. For too long, the Democrats have acted as the anti-Trump party, offering no positive sense of what they believe in. History won't be kind to Biden, but Democrats should be mindful that "it's easier to find a scapegoat than an identity".
Sydney Morning Herald
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Journalists' attacks on Ben Roberts-Smith unjustified
If Chris Masters were to apply the same standard of behaviour to himself as he does to Ben Roberts-Smith, he would not be defending his journalism by resorting to personal attacks on those who hold a contrary view to him about whether Roberts-Smith is a war criminal (' Roberts-Smith and his rabid band of supporters has an outspoken new member – Gina Rinehart ', May 25). There is no justification for describing such people as 'rabid'. As one of them, I'm offended by the characterisation. Masters claims there is 'profound evidence revealing Australia's most decorated living soldier is a war criminal' yet Roberts-Smith has never been charged, let alone found in a criminal trial to be guilty of murder. Why is that, one wonders. Until he is found guilty, accusations of wrongdoing by Roberts-Smith should properly always be qualified as 'alleged'. It is true that four judges 'have now found to a civil court standard that Roberts-Smith murdered four captives', that is, that he probably did so, though it is not beyond reasonable doubt that he did. This finding is only on the basis of the evidence before them in the civil defamation matter and applies only for the purpose of providing the defamers with a truth defence for their defaming of Roberts-Smith by calling him a war criminal. Most critics of Masters, his fellow journalist Nick McKenzie and the Herald and The Age for what they have published about Roberts-Smith are not rabid. Instead, they have a healthy and genuine concern for the man's right to his former good reputation and, too, for the upholding of the foundational legal convention that courts are to presume an accused person innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Surely this defence of a man found by a civil court to have murdered lets down the many thousands of people who have served in our military and complied with the rules. Australia has always been quick to stand up and condemn war crimes by other countries; apparently it is different when it is us. And what about the compensation recommended for those poor families whose husband and father Roberts-Smith was found on the balance of probability to have murdered? As far as I am aware that has never been paid – another great shame for Australia. It seems we have one rule for others and a different rule for ourselves. Michael McMullan, Avoca Trump's free ride The ethics surrounding Donald Trump's acceptance of an out-of-date replacement for his big boy's toy, aka Air Force One, are questionable to say the least ('Love at first sight – but Trump will have to wait to fly new Air Force One', May 25). Presidents past have coveted this obscene display of power and self-indulgent importance. Protect the so-called leader of the free world by all means, but why such a gas-guzzling, flying mini-White House? Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook Leyding the way Jacqueline Maley has helped me to see Liberal leader Sussan Ley in a new light (' Littleproud's Trumpian tactics showcased Ley's grace under fire ', May 25). After the monumental disaster for the Coalition that was the federal election, the break-up fiasco spearheaded by Littleproud, followed by its swift repudiation, has turned the Nationals into a laughing stock. Through it all Ms Ley has emerged with her credibility firmly intact. She must not now simply give in to the Nationals' demands, but rather concentrate on doing what she promised to do: respect, reflect and represent modern Australia in an honest attempt to listen and learn from past mistakes. Nothing less will return the Liberal Party to the capable opposition our country deserves. Meredith Williams, Baulkham Hills
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Ending birthright citizenship would create the United States of Stateless Babies
The birthright citizenship case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have nothing to do with citizenship and everything to do with injunctions. A win for Department of Justice attorneys would, in fact, limit federal district courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions. As a by-product, such an outcome may also transform our country into the United States of Stateless Babies. The case arose in response to an executive order by President Donald Trump that, on its face, precludes birthright citizenship for any baby born here if the parents are living here illegally or visiting on a temporary visa. The Constitution has a different take: It insists on birthright citizenship for all babies born on American soil, regardless of parentage. More specifically, the order contradicts the express language of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause providing that '[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' The amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868. Thirty years later, the Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the clause means just what it says: Anyone born in America is a citizen of America. That longstanding constitutional rule is reflected in the standard practice of bestowing neonatal citizenship in hospital maternity wards and birthing centers across the nation. The Trumpian citizenship scheme is not feasible. Denial of birthright citizenship to the infants of undocumented parents (and visitors on a temporary visa) would mean that absolutely no baby born in our country would enjoy automatic birthright citizenship, either. Each newborn's status as an American citizen would be indeterminate at birth and for as long as it would take to establish the citizenship of the baby's parents. That is, all babies born in the United States would automatically be stateless — until proven otherwise. During oral argument in the current case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh rightly asked: 'What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?' What, indeed! Nobody knows how much time or how many government employees would be involved in ascertaining parental citizenship. Approximately 10,000 babies are born in this country each day; in 2023, well over 3 million babies were delivered domestically. The immense undertaking of investigating and perhaps adjudicating the citizenship of masses of parents — usually two to a baby — would inevitably require establishing a sizable bureaucracy at taxpayer expense. There are concerning health ramifications, too. The World Health Organization recommends that, immediately following childbirth, women need rest and sleep to recuperate. Scientific evidence shows that maternal psychological distress may impair lactation and breastfeeding. So, even if ICE agents were not hovering over postpartum couples, babies' undetermined citizenship and ongoing investigations would be inconsistent with the relatively lulling conditions needed for new mothers and their infants. Moreover, automatic statelessness will trigger a cascade of additional adverse effects. For example, the government would be unable to assign Social Security numbers to stateless babies, thereby depriving them of access to medical care and other important benefits. These harms would be inflicted on all families with newborns, even though experts say just 7% of babies born in America have undocumented parents. The mayhem of unraveling birthright citizenship would not be the kindly welcome that a civilized society should extend to its tiniest, most fragile denizens. There is something profoundly sad about the Trump administration's willingness to devalue and diminish the well-being of these innocents for the sake of furthering its unthinking immigration agenda. Susan H. Bitensky is a constitutional law professor at Michigan State University College of Law. She has published extensively on the topic of children's rights under the Constitution. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: We should not become the United States of Stateless Babies | Opinion
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's military parade doubles as a birthday party
Washington is bracing for a massive military parade in the coming weeks, ostensibly to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary. But President Trump's presence is likely to loom large over the proceedings for a variety of reasons. The parade falls on the same day as his 79th birthday. He has a long-held fascination with ostentatious military displays. And the president's critics have raised concerns about both the cost and the optics at a time when Trump is facing accusations that he is ruling akin to a dictator. It's a manifestation of an idea Trump mused about during his first term but that never quite came to fruition. 'We're going to have a big, big celebration, as you know, 250 years,' Trump said Monday at Arlington Cemetery, speaking broadly of plans to celebrate the anniversary of the country's founding. 'In some ways I'm glad I missed that second term where it was because I wouldn't be your president for that.' The military parade is expected to overtake parts of the nation's capital on June 14 to mark 250 years of the U.S. Army. It will feature thousands of service members, dozens of military vehicles and an overall cost of up to $45 million, according to military officials. Service members in town for the event will stay in government facilities, such as a Department of Agriculture building. There will be a fitness competition on the National Mall. The main parade will take place from 6:30 p.m. EDT until 9:30 p.m. And of course, there will be Trumpian flourishes. The president will observe the parade from a viewing stand set up on Constitution Avenue near the White House. Paratroopers from the Army's Golden Knights are expected to land on the Ellipse and hand the president an American flag. And Trump will deliver remarks, which the White House said will celebrate 250 years of the Army's 'exceptional service, significant achievements, and enduring legacy.' Officials, including Trump, have downplayed the significance of the event falling on his birthday, noting it happens to be the same day as Flag Day and the Army's anniversary. An Army official said the celebration for the branch's 250th anniversary has been in the works for two years. The incorporation of the parade, which is more of a hallmark of Trump's gaudy and ostentatious style, is 'more recent,' the official said, though they would not specify where the idea came from. But one doesn't have to look far to see Trump's interest in such a parade. Trump attended Bastille Day celebrations in France in 2017, complete with military vehicles rolling down the streets while service members carry flags as government officials look on. Trump took an interest in having a similar event in the U.S. And while the idea was generally rebuffed during his first term by both federal officials and those in the District of Columbia, Trump did manage to organize a 'Salute to America' event on the Fourth of July in 2019. That event featured military tanks on display around the National Mall and flyovers that featured the Navy Blue Angels, other military aircraft and the plane that serves as Air Force One. It was capped by a Trump speech near the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. But in his second term — rid of officials like former Defense Secretary James Mattis who pushed back on Trump's impulses — the president is plowing full speed ahead with a more fulsome military display. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it,' Trump told NBC's 'Meet the Press' in an interview. Asked about the financial cost, Trump called it 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it.' The president and White House officials have boasted that Trump has returned the armed forces to readiness by getting rid of so-called woke ideology and practices. The Pentagon has moved to bar transgender people from serving and purged diversity, equity and inclusion policies in place at the department. The administration has also touted that the Army is on track to meet its annual recruiting goal ahead of schedule, an achievement officials credit to the leadership of Trump and his Defense secretary, veteran and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth. But where Trump sees military might and American exceptionalism, his critics see a wannabe strongman putting on a parade for himself. 'Donald Trump is not alone among world leaders in wanting a parade. In fact, I think he derives inspiration from other world leaders he emulates,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a recent video posted to social media, invoking military displays in North Korea, Russia and China. 'So why do all of these would-be dictators love a military parade?' Schiff added. 'Well they love a military parade because it sends a message to the country … that they are in charge of the military. That this is their military might to use as they would, externally or internally.' Samuels covers the White House for The Hill.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
The RBNZ Has Seen Enough To Cut More, But Not Enough To Do Enough
Press Release – Kiwi Economics The weakness in the economy is clear and demands more attention and less restriction. With all the risks offshore, think Trumpian tariffs, and the pain still felt onshore, theres a good argument to be made for taking policy into stimulatory territory. Another RBNZ meeting, another rate cut, and another forecast cut. Today's 25bps move to 3.25% is the sixth straight cut, and takes total easing to 225bps. And there's more coming. Although the path is highly uncertain. Policy is much closer to neutral now, but it is still not stimulatory. The RBNZ has lowered the forecast OCR track 25bps, from 3.1% to 2.85%, implying a good chance of another two rate cuts to 2.75%. It's another step in the right direction… and we continue to call for a move to 2.5%. The RBNZ has seen enough to cut again, and again, but not enough to do enough, in our view. We expect to see the OCR tracked lowered again in August towards 2.5%. The weakness in the economy is clear and demands more attention and less restriction. With all the risks offshore, think Trumpian tariffs, and the pain still felt onshore, there's a good argument to be made for taking policy into stimulatory territory. The RBNZ cut 25bps today. The cash rate sits at 3.25%. Were we surprised? Nope. Did we want more? Yes. There's no doubt that the Kiwi economy needs support. The risks to the growth outlook are tilted to the downside. As was revealed last week, the Govt's hands are tied (self-inflicted). So, we look to the RBNZ. In the current environment, with a future clouded by the tariff trade war, there's more for the central bank to do to support the recovery. Rightly so, the RBNZ is signalling more rate cuts. That's the key takeaway from the May MPS. The OCR track was lowered from a flat lined bottom of 3.10% to a 2.85% bottom in March 2026. So now another 25bps cut to 3% is fully baked into the cake. And from there, there's a 60% chance of another 25bps cut to 2.75%. Once again, we would love to have seen a bit more. We're still of the view that a 2.5% cash rate is what the Kiwi economy needs. And an OCR track bottoming anywhere below 2.75% would have signalled what we had hoped to see. But with each MPS, the terminal OCR has moved closer to our 2.5% view. Give them time, and they just might get there. But for now, such heightened uncertainty is making it harder for all policymakers to navigate. So, it's not surprising to see the committee err on the side of caution. The fact the RBNZ 'voted' 5-1, with one member voting for a pause to assess, throws some doubt on the timing of the next move, but not the direction. They are not on a 'pre-set course', and always data dependent. We think there's enough for them to cut again in July, but they may wait until August to cut again. It depends… on what? Everything. That seed of doubt caused a bit of a jolt in financial markets, especially short end interest rates. The pivotal 2-year swap rate rose 10bps, from 3.16% to 3.26%. It's not a big move… but it was one Governor Christian Hawkesby pushed back on. The telling comment from Hawkesby, when asked about the market reaction, was his reference to the new OCR track matching market pricing prior to the announcement. The RBNZ's OCR track matched market pricing of 2.85%. So they would not have expected much reaction at all. Again, we want to reinforce the key message of today's meeting is that the RBNZ is signalling more cuts.
