Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Biden explains why he dropped out of presidential race

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By

President Joe Biden explained to reporters Tuesday in more detail his rationale for suddenly ending his reelection bid earlier this year.

Biden told reporters that his race against former President Donald Trump would have been close and that he “could have won.” Biden said he wasn’t “that far behind” but that he was worried that he would hurt Senate and House Democrats running for their seats.

“What have happened though, if the discussion had been, was I going to cost seats for Democrats, that would have been the whole subject matter for the remainder of the campaign,” Biden told reporters at Chicago O’Hare International Airport before boarding Air Force One. “You’d have to cover it, that would be the issue, and it would give him an advantage.”

A reporter asked Biden if he was angry with Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who reportedly helped lead the pressure to push Biden out of the race. Several news outlets have reported that leading Democrats forced Biden out because of his poor polling.

“No, I haven’t spoken to Nancy at all,” Biden said. “I mean, look, I made — no — no one influenced my decision. No one knew it was coming. What I decided to do was — I didn’t want to — to the extent that the party thought they’d lose Senate seats or House seats, it — that would have been the topic you would have had to cover the entire remainder of the campaign, and it wasn’t worth it.”

Biden’s campaign implosion began after his disastrous performance at the presidential debate against Trump in June. Biden fumbled, faltered, trailed off and at times was incoherent at the debate, prompting Democrats in Congress, traditionally liberal media, and a range of political pundits to call for Biden to step aside.

Biden initially remained defiant but after a few weeks Biden announced on social media that he was stepping out of the race. He endorsed his Vice President Kamala Harris, who is expected to receive the nomination at the Democratic National Convention this week.

Biden spoke at that convention Monday night where he received a standing ovation, and Harris thanked him.

Biden’s comments Tuesday about his concern for losing House and Senate seats are a new, more revealing admission from the president. In a speech last month where Biden addressed the nation to explain his departure and endorse Harris again, he focused on touting his record in office and “passing the torch” to Harris to “save our Democracy.”

Biden’s remarks Tuesday show that the down-ballot fears played a much larger role. Polling before Biden’s withdrawal showed Trump leading Biden nationally by about 3 points but leading with much larger margins in several key swing states. In fact, Trump was dominating Biden in the swing states before Biden’s withdrawal.

Former President Donald Trump has publicly attacked Democrats for switching out Harris for Biden, who did win the delegates in primary states only to have those delegates endorse Harris.

“The Democrats staged the first ever ‘Coup’ in America,” Trump said in a statement Monday. “Crooked Joe Biden was told, ‘Sorry Joe, you’re losing to Trump, BIG, and you can’t beat him – You’re Fired.’ So now, for the first time in American history, I’ll have to beat TWO Candidates, the second being a Radical Left Marxist, Comrade Kamala Harris. It’s not fair, perhaps even another form of Election Interference, but the good news is that she should be easier than to beat than Crooked Joe in that the USA will never allow itself to become a Communist Country. THE DEMOCRATS ARE, ‘A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY?’”

When asked about those coup comments, Biden made a quip questioning Trump’s “stability” and later added that no one “took me out.”

D.C. Bureau Reporter

 

Daily Caller

New York City Reportedly Seeking 14,000 Hotel Rooms For Migrants, To Spend Over $2 Billion As Crisis Rages On

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Jason Hopkins

“The taxpayers can’t pay for this indefinitely” …

Spending on migrant services for the next three years will reach a total of $5.76 billion… The average cost to house illegal migrants per room is $352 per night.

New York City officials are reportedly looking to keep thousands of hotel rooms available for illegal migrants as the crisis in the Big Apple rages on, according to the New York Post.

The city’s Department of Homeless Services is seeking a contract with local hotels to provide roughly 14,000 rooms in order to shelter migrants through 2025, according to a report from the New York Post. The city anticipates spending on migrants in need of housing for the current fiscal year and the past two years combined will surpass $2.3 billion, with a significant amount of these costs going toward hotel rent.

“The taxpayers can’t pay for this indefinitely,” Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute think tank, said to the Post. “We should stop using hotels as shelters by the end of the year.”

Spending on migrant services for the next three years will reach a total of $5.76 billion, with around 150 hotels currently sheltering migrants, according to the Post. The average cost to house illegal migrants per room is $352 per night.

A spokesperson for New York City’s Department of Homeless Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Well over 200,000 migrants have overwhelmed New York City since the spring of 2022, according to city officials. The influx of illegal migrants forced Mayor Eric Adams to declare 5% budget cuts in September 2023 for government programs and services in order to pay for their housing and other services, and in August of that year he said the city was reaching a “breaking point” from the sheer volume of migrants.

Spending on migrant housing forced city leaders to cut back on how long people could remain in the shelter system. Adams had said that the city’s right-to-shelter laws were never intended for large-scale migrant populations.

Migrants living in city shelters were ordered to leave after 30 days with no ability to reapply, although some exceptions for medical conditions or “extenuating circumstances” were made, per a decree from the mayor in March. Migrants under the age of 23 were given 60 days to remain in the shelter system, and other exceptions were made for migrant families.

“This issue will destroy New York City,” Adams said during a September 2023 town hall. “Every community in this city is going to be impacted. We have a $12 billion deficit that we’re going to have to cut – every service in this city is going to be impacted.”

When addressing the public last month after being indicted on alleged bribery charges, Adams claimed he had been targeted by the Justice Department ever since he began speaking out about the city’s immigration crisis.

New York City has several sanctuary laws in place that restrict how federal immigration authorities can cooperate with local law enforcement. While some moderate lawmakers have attempted to roll back these laws in the wake of numerous high-profile incidents involving illegal migrants, those efforts have so far fallen flat with the City Council.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Robbing Western Canada’s Farmers to Pay for Eastern Canada’s Car Batteries

Published on

From the C2C Journal

By Gwyn Morgan

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character

If one were to rank contenders in the global trade wars, Canada would likely sit somewhere between pint-sized and pipsqueak. Then why would such a nation’s government choose frontal assault against the world’s biggest and most ruthless economic combatant, one wielding a range of weapons and tactics to organize a counter-attack? Yet this is just what the Justin Trudeau government has done in imposing massive import taxes on electric vehicles from China, writes Gwyn Morgan. And worse, Morgan notes, Trudeau & Co. are sacrificing farmers from western Canada on an altar dedicated to eastern auto workers – while taxing those farmers to help pay for the vast subsidies needed to keep the auto workers employed.

October 1 the federal Liberals’ new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) kicked in. Announced in late August and echoing a U.S. move three months earlier, the surtax comes on top of an existing 6.1 percent import tariff and doubles the landed price of those considerably less expensive EVs made across the Pacific Ocean. (New tariffs are also being imposed on imported Chinese aluminum and steel products.) China wasted no time in striking back where it would hurt most, launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola. Since there’s no evidence Canada’s agriculture sector is engaging in this anti-free-trade practice – which technically involves selling a product in a foreign market at a lower price than domestic buyers pay in the producing country – there’s a very high likelihood China’s investigation is a procedural pretext to halting imports of Canadian canola.

China’s move on the versatile oilseed was predictable given what happened following Canada’s arrest of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou, in 2019. Along with arresting two innocent Canadian expatriates and triggering the infamous “two Michaels” imbroglio, the Communist regime  also blocked imports of canola from two major Canadian export handlers. Canola producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba lost an estimated $1.5-$2.4 billion in revenue as a result of that year-long boycott.

Striking back where it hurts most: Following the Justin Trudeau government’s (top left) new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), China wasted no time in launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola, Canada’s second-most important farm crop. Shown at bottom right, Chinese President Xi Jinping. (Sources of photos (clockwise starting top-left): ©Kyodonews via ZUMA Press; Ethan Llamas, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0Paul Kagame, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0Paul Howard Photo, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Canola seeds are Canada’s second-most widely grown agricultural commodity, generating a critical 25 percent of the nation’s farm crop receipts, totalling $13.6 billion last year (agricultural prices fluctuate significantly). China has long been Canada’s biggest foreign canola buyer – importing 4.5 million tonnes worth nearly $4 billion last year – and was expected to purchase 70 percent of this year’s bumper crop.

The Justin Trudeau government’s initial press release described Chinese EVs as an “extraordinary threat” to Canada’s auto workers. (There aren’t any Chinese EV brands for sale in Canada yet.) But the reality is that Canada produces almost no EVs and there are few projects on the table to do so. The genuine long-term threat to Canada’s auto workers is the Trudeau government’s “mandate” that the auto industry phase out the manufacture of internal combustion engine-powered cars and light trucks by 2035.

Much of the global auto industry has been sliding into a state approaching panic over such national mandates, which are now regarded even by some of the industry’s most established and storied brands as an existential threat. Some countries are showing signs of abandoning the 2035 changeover or at least extending the timeline. Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, for example, recently termed the European Union’s phase-out policy “self-destructive”, while her energy minister has urged the EU to lift the impending ban on gasoline/diesel-powered engines.

“Self-destructive”: While the Trudeau government continues to push for the phaseout of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035 in order to force Canadians entirely into EVs, some European leaders are beginning to question similar mandates, including Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni (bottom left). (Sources of photos: (top right) DealerOn; (bottom left) AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski; (bottom right) FaceMePLS, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

But not Canada, at least not under the current government. What is on the table are subsidies – some $52.5 billion as of April, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer – to Honda, Swedish battery maker Northvolt, Ford, Stellantis, Volkswagen and General Motors to build EV battery plants in Ontario and Quebec. The total government support exceeds what the private-sector manufacturers are themselves investing. The labour forces at these facilities will thereby represent some of the costliest jobs ever “created” in Canada, and it is entirely guesswork whether any of these plants will ever recover their prodigious expense.

There are valid reasons for great concern about the importation of Chinese-made EVs. One is the recently voiced allegation that the regime is having EV manufacturers embed technology in the cars’ computers so that China’s military could one day remotely turn them off en masse, causing chaos in the targeted countries. But Canada’s options as a trade warrior are severely limited. A crude response like the one Trudeau has attempted – levying a “surtax” steeper than anything that was ever imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump, the man Trudeau probably despises more than anyone else in the world – is definitely not one of them. Canada’s canola exports – our country’s number-one item sold to China – offered China an easy target for a punishing tit-for-tat response.

That’s because the American situation is substantially different from Canada’s. While the U.S. does manufacture EVs, the U.S.-China trading relationship is more complex and involves multiple large industries. This means there is no obvious single target for China to strike. And this makes Trudeau’s mimicking of the American tariff profoundly irresponsible. China holds the top cards at this trade table. Late last month, for example, China initiated further steps towards retaliation when its Commerce Ministry announced a three-month-long “anti-discrimination” investigation into Canada’s new tariffs.

Not-so-mighty trade warrior: With canola being Canada’s primary export to China, Trudeau’s crude “surtax” on Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum opened the country to a foreseeable – and foreseeably punishing – tit-for-tat response. (Source of graph: Janice Nelson)

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character. The Trudeau Liberals have a long record of making decisions or imposing policies that harm the West – and western farmers in particular.

Data from the Agricultural Carbon Alliance show that during just one month in 2023, livestock farmers paid an average of $726 per month each in carbon taxes, field crop farmers $2,024 and greenhouse operators $17,173. A sampling of 50 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in just that one month. With the tax rate rising inexorably every year, within a few years those same 50 farms will be paying nearly $900,000 per month – $11 million in 2030 alone. There are 190,000 farms in Canada. The carbon tax has become yet another inter-regional financial transfer that skims wealth generated in the West to be spent on subsidy-dependent industries in Laurentian Canada.

A sampling of just 50 of Canada’s 190,000 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in one month, an amount projected to triple by 2030 – while battery manufacturers based in eastern Canada are to receive $52.5 billion in subsidies. Shown at bottom, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau observe an assembly line at an event announcing plans for a Honda electric vehicle battery plant in Alliston, Ontario, April 2024. (Sources: (graph) Agriculture Carbon Alliance; (photo) The Canadian Press/Nathan Denette)

The harmful new 100 percent EV tariff comes at a time when the entire Canadian farming sector’s future is in doubt. A study sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada predicts that by 2033, 40 per cent of Canadian farm operators will retire. A shortfall of 24,000 general farm, nursery and greenhouse workers is expected over that period. “These gaps loom at a time when Canada’s agricultural workforce needs to evolve to include skills like data analytics,” the study states. “To meet our medium and long-term goals, we’ll need to build a new pipeline of domestic operators and workers.” Every new policy move that adds to the agriculture sector’s woes makes such a metaphorical pipeline as unlikely as the physical pipelines that the Trudeau government’s other policies have killed, from Energy East to Northern Gateway. Ruinous policies such as the carbon tax need to go, and new policies that place agriculture at risk must be avoided.

The most perverse aspect of this lengthening saga is that the future of those battery plants that the Liberals intend to subsidize with $52.5 billion and counting, raised through carbon taxes and additional debt we cannot afford to incur, is itself in serious jeopardy. That is because the grandiose global plan to transition the world to EVs is looking increasingly like a house of cards, as we have long warned (please see herehere or here). As this has seeped into public consciousness, the once-exponential growth in EV sales has flattened.

As Forbes magazine recently reported, “Fully-electric passenger car demand is softening, fast. Unsold inventories have been clogging dealers’ lots. Manufacturers – from the biggest brands down to the smallest startups – are cutting back on production and investment plans.” Some prospective EV builders – like Apple – are dropping out entirely. Even before the U.S. and Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs, reports and images came out of China showing fields packed with unsold (and possibly abandoned) EVs, a problem that lately is being “exported” as tens of thousands of Chinese EVs clog ports and shipping hubs in destination markets.

How does the future of Canadian EV manufacturing relate to the future of farming? The answer is that the first cannot exist at all without gigantic taxpayer-funded subsidies, while Canada’s farming sector – despite being an innately risky undertaking at the mercy of fickle Mother Nature and unpredictable market swings – is generally self-supporting and on balance profitable, at times highly so. What it needs above all is to be relieved of debilitating policies – first and foremost the carbon tax. We should not be robbing Canadian farmers to pay subsidies to battery-makers.

Global house of cards: With consumers awakening to the profound shortcomings of EVs, tens of thousands of unsold battery-powered cars have been clogging Chinese ports and shipping hubs (top right) – a problem now being “exported” to destination markets including Canada’s auto dealerships (bottom right). (Source of bottom right photo: Golden Shrimp/Shutterstock)

Instead, we need to encourage young people to enter the farming industry and provide them with the skills needed to “build that new pipeline” of agricultural workers. A country that can’t fuel and feed itself is a vulnerable country even in good times, and a starving, freezing one in bad. We Canadians are fortunate to have the natural resources needed to both fuel and feed ourselves plus create wealth by exporting the products that we derive from those resources. Canada’s oil, natural gas, coal, forests, fisheries and soils represent natural advantages that Canadians long ago became adept at leveraging into livelihoods and prosperity.

We have every reason to be outraged at a government that spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing an entirely artificial industry in which our country has no innate economic advantage, while imposing heavy taxes on an industry that is absolutely vital to thousands of rural communities and to the food security of us all.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Source of main image: bill barber, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

Continue Reading

Trending

X