Monthly Archives: July 2022

Dont get it twisted, in terms of the progressive silence on the new Cold War. For nearly a century, commentators have closely associated liberalism with progressivism. For instance, in a 1931 piece in The New Republic, Edmund Wilson identifies the latter as that which which has generally become known as liberalism to contemporaries. Liberal philosophy also contains what its supporters would consider a benevolent nationalism, that is, a system to both export self-determination to indigenous peoples and produce abundance at home. This abundance would be spread out benignly enough, thanks to an American spirit strong enough to compel Capitalism to restrain itself. Of necessity, then, the liberal makes the moral assumption of an underlying harmony of interests, in which, in the phrase of C. Wright Mills, greed and ruthlessness are reconciled with justice and progress.

On the other hand, journalist Gerard Colby-Zilgalso identifying progressivism with corporate liberalismdefines the first as an instrument of conservatism, in the sense that it is the rationalization of the old order to meet the needs of the new monopolistic order. This radical view presupposes a psychological derivation of the idea of progress in terms of political ideology, as in Karl Polanyi: Hopethe vision of perfectibilitywas distilled out of the nightmare of population and wage laws, and was embodied in a concept of progress so inspiring that it appeared to justify the vast and painful dislocations to come. This interpretation locates a cynicism at the heart of the modern liberal project, a dark twin to its much-vaunted idealism, and would therefore read the original progressive rhetoric for empire as textbook delusions of grandeur. These delusions would be leveraged to crush indigenous initiatives toward self-sufficiency around the world while hiding behind platitudes of support for the self-determination of all peoples.

Consider that the archetypal elements of American Third World thuggery emerge fully formedlike Athena from the head of Zeusin the period 1898-1901, between the dust-up to the Spanish-American War and the defeat of the Filipino insurrection:

* The inevitably debunked pretext for a declaration of war

* American dismissal of natives capacity for self-governance

* Hints of treason against dissenters over American war dead

* The rhetoric of disinterested dedication to the regeneration of humanity

This last is suddenly flipped into barbaric atrocities once met with native resistance, which presumably does not feel the need to be regenerated. Thus, resonating across a whole century is the U.S. Senate Investigating Committee on the Philippiness conclusion on Aug 29, 1902 that the destruction of Filipino life during the war has been so frightful that it cannot be explained as the result of ordinary civilized warfare. Let us find other explanations, then.

The unexamined gargoyles that lay between what Henry Cabot Lodge called the world-redeeming work of our imperial race and his anticipation of a vast future trade and wealth and power through Chinas illimitable markets, lead us off the psychological grid, and here, rusticating, lurk those primordial American delusions of grandeur. Sen. Albert Beveridge, in an iconic speech on the Senate floor in 1900, reveals the basis for the expansionists rhetoric of historical mission:

It is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation. He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction. He has made us adepts at government that we may administer government among savage peoples. He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America.

The delusions of grandeur at the root of the progressive campaign for an overseas empire presume an unquestioned morality of war which, of necessity, refuses to acknowledge a legitimate basis for dissent; a built-in, hermetically-sealed intolerance prefiguring the paranoia that would drive the moral repugnance of both the war hysteria and the Red Scare a generation later, and the Cold War beyond. In his speech, Beveridge draws the association, with subtle misdirection, between dissent and treason: The Filipinos do not understand free speech, he begins, explaining that when the anti- expansionist critique was revealed to the natives, their takeaway was that our President is in the minority or he would not permit what appears to them such treasonable [emphasis added] criticism.

The presumptionand, eventually, the paranoiaof a conspiracy lurking behind dissent, sinister and beholden to alien interests, is mere psychological projection. What is it that supporters of the wars of empire cant bear to hear? At the heart of the civilizing mission lies the necessity for the dispossession of others, a job made easier through the psychological mechanism of dehumanization. A grotesque distortion of the humanity of others. Those seeking to unmask the hypocrisy behind the platitudes mustanother necessitybe simply unhung traitors, as TR referred to the anti-imperialists of his day.

The disproportionate revenge meted out against Filipinos in the Balangiga Massacre of 1901, in which Gen. Jacoby Smith declared that he would accept no prisoners, like the gay moral imbecility of indiscriminate napalming of Koreans later documented by I.F. Stone, and, most famously, the atrocities at My Lai, for which, as Noam Chomsky reports, charges were dismissed on the grounds that this was merely a normal operation in which a village was destroyed and its population murderedthese supposedly rogue, yet persistent, atrocities suggest an inscrutable linkage between hypocrisy and slaughter.

Even before the outbreak of the First World War, the Nationalist Progressives at the New Republic viewed war as a regenerative crusade, and put indecisiveness or pacifism down to an abject moral failure, writes Randolph Bourne. Historian Jackson Lears observes that they considered the conflagration to be a great lab for social engineering; the ultimate marriage of management and morality. As he concludes, War permitted the realization of the management dream: an administrative state that would supervise and cooperate with Big Business.

Since World War I, modern liberals have displayed a natural ability to transpose universal moral ideals onto arguments that align unquestioningly with the war aims of the American empire. In 1917 Bourne remarks that these youngish war liberals acquiesced so naturally that it seemed as if the war and these men had been waiting for each other. In fact, they carried themselves with conspicuous unease when outside the patina of powerEdmund Wilson remarks that in the extreme illiberalism of the 1920s liberals felt increasingly conscious that no one was paying any attention to them.

Bourne was the first critic to note the moral squishiness of modern liberals. He perceived in real time the well-appointed critical abilities of liberals like Herbert Croly at TNR and eminent philosopher John Dewey vaporize in the face of the rising War Hysteria. Bournes disenchantment with the eminent liberals of his day crystallized into radical misgivings about the warp-speed mobilization of the American war machine not least because he was documenting the freshly-sprouted tentacles of the modern surveillance state.

A generation later TNR exhibited no hesitation whatever in differentiating between the airborne terror of the Allies and the Germans, its editors glibly announcing that the robot bomb [used by the Nazis to terrorize Britain] is far more savage than our saturation bombing of German cities. And according to historian Richard Pells, in The Liberal Mind in a Conservative Age, already by World War II the liberals at TNR were prepared to inflate even the most questionable operator [like Chiang Kai-shek] into a visionary leader as long as he attached himself to the Allies.

Subsequent wars, like those in Korea and Vietnam, contained important motifs directly related to the ambiguity between Americas moral conceits and her actual material ambitions. The liberal establishment was instrumental in developing, shaping, presenting and defending these war policies and somehow their cynicism and ambiguity managed to go over for a few generations as cold-blooded expertise.

The maintenance of tension was a prime objective of Trumans foreign policy, writes I.F. Stone, in The Hidden History of the Korean War. The peace talks were regarded by these leaders as a kind of diabolic plot against rearmament. The Establishment dreaded the consequences that peace would have on the economy, namely shutting off its inflationary narcotic. Essentially Truman wished to perpetuate a climate of fear in order to maintain rearmament and thus full employment by a pose of brinksmanship that would nevertheless try, as Stone describes it, to halt at measures short of [nuclear] war.

Stone reveals another aspect of the presidents indecision: Just as Truman opposed war but wasnt quite sure he wanted peace, so while crusading for democracy he wasnt quite sure he wanted to take the risk of permitting free elections if peace came. The palpable fear that the communists would win the elections led Truman to support the program of a man he ought to have despised, Syngman Rhee. This plan was based upon a naked gerrymandering that would have allowed the Southern regime to supervise the election, bringing the North under its jurisdiction. Subsequently, U.S. unwillingness to tolerate free elections would become widely recognized, infamously in Vietnam and literally all across Latin America.

When OnContact host Chris Hedges interviewed Professor of International Law Richard Falk regarding his experience with the power elite in the early days of the Vietnam War, Falk recalls that since it was important to the liberal sensibility of the day to reconcile foreign policy with international law, it became necessary for policymakers to stretch and manipulate its interpretation rather than to acknowledge that their geopolitical strategies transcended law. Dr. Falk goes on to comment that it was customary among his liberal Ivy League colleagues to sell their souls to centers of power, and he emphasizes their inability to resist being useful in these circles by remarking that they were waiting for the phone to ring.

***

In 1957, I.F. Stone castigated American liberals for having abdicated their responsibility in dealing with military spending. A report by liberals in response to Eisenhowers proposed budget had treated the Pentagon as a sacred cow and produced statistics arguing that real military spending as a percentage of total national production had fallen by 31 percent. The report concluded by asking, wink-wink, whether we are risking our lives by these slashes. Stone concludes: It is a melancholy day for American liberalism when its leading spokesmen act as a sounding board for the military budget makers. Yet there they were. Today, we recognize the penchant of liberals to give more to presidents for defense budgets than they actually request as a ritual de lo habitual.

See the rest here:

Liberalism and the Morality of War - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

TUCKER CARLSON The American economy is currently a disaster Continue reading

C'MON, MAN, IT'S REAL Commerce Department confirms recession -- Team Biden can run, but they can't hide Continue reading

REP. MICHAEL McCAUL The China threat is enormous and America must win the next great global competition...Continue reading

WEAPONIZING TIK-TOK Biden has failed to hold China accountable for a disaster Continue reading

GREG GUTFELD Is trading the 'Merchant of Death' for WNBA star Brittney Griner the most unequal deal? Continue reading

DORM DILEMMA Your daughter's next college roommate may be a man thanks to Biden Continue reading

KELLEY PAUL Our liberal media love rage politics and endanger my husband and others who won't back their woke agenda Continue reading

SUMMER OF RAGE I'm a pro-life physician -- here's what it's like to be targeted by left Continue reading

VIDEO OF THE DAY Laura Ingraham says, the Biden administration is trying to spin gold out of goose poop... Watch now...

MIKE POMPEO It's time to ditch communist China's technology, or else Continue reading

INFLATION CURE? Want to curb inflation? Here's how we do it Continue reading

CHARLIE KIRK The college industry is a waste of money, time and talent... Continue reading

CARTOON OF THE DAY Reimagine Disaster. Check out all of our political cartoons...

Reimagine Disaster 07.29.22

This article was written by Fox News staff.

See the original post:

China threat, Ron Paul's wife on dangerous liberal media and more Fox News Opinion - Fox News

If there is one thing Treasurer Jim Chalmers hates, its neoliberalism. Which is why it might come as a surprise to some that in his economic statement to parliament this week, he showed signs of developing into the type of treasurer the Australian Liberal Party has yearned to produce since Peter Costello.

Naturally, nobody pays too much attention to what politicians say while theyre in opposition. Communiques from exile are, of necessity, chiefly directed at colleagues. But these notes from the political underground can reveal a lot about what is going to happen once the pale creatures of the shadow ministries unfurl as they assume power.

Labor treasurer Jim Chalmers. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

During the bitter years, Chalmers laid out the ideas that would inform his current role. Neoliberalism is broken, he told the progressive Australia Institute. But the answer to neoliberalism is not permanent big-state socialism, he argued in The Write Stuff, a 2020 book of essays penned by voices of unity on Labors future.

There are few Coalition politicians who would disagree with either of those statements. Conservatism has been moving away from neoliberalism because its ultimate logic led away from community and tradition, removed the borders of the nation state, and sent the individual into the competitive world, naked and loveless. Brexit and other right-wing populist movements were the reaction of the right against the doctrinaire ism which came to summarise laissez-faire excesses.

But, like Chalmers, most conservatives dont see the answer to neoliberalism in yet another ism the socialism of the big state. That is not just a philosophical stance; a good chunk of the conservative/liberal drift away from the former government at the last election was a result of the perception that prime minister Scott Morrison and treasurer Josh Frydenberg had become addicted to bribing the electorate with handouts and expanding government.

While Chalmers had no choice but to go along with the handouts in the lead-up to the election, lest the Australian public vote to remain attached to the taxpayer teat, he signalled then, as he is signalling strongly now, that a weaning is imminent.

Loading

Chalmers challenge since the election has been to prepare Australia for the fiscal restraint he knows is necessary in a way that wont leave Labor voters with buyers remorse. Upholding tradition, he has discovered a fiscal black hole. New governments always find these and they are always used to explain why election commitments will have to be modified or delayed. But in Chalmers case there really is one.

It is moot that the Liberals trillion dollars of debt was run up with the support of Labor during the pandemic the truth is it exists and Chalmers is the kind of guy who believes its a problem. So he has committed to addressing waste and rorts (hint: these are endemic to governments and unlikely to yield the dividends he will ultimately claim they have) and, more importantly, he is being upfront with the Australian people.

View post:

Chalmers, the kind of treasurer the Liberals longed for - Sydney Morning Herald

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

On November 8, 2017, I spent the day caring formy husband Kentucky Sen. Rand Paulas he struggled to breathe.Rand had been brutally assaulted by a Trump-hating former neighbor while he was doing yard work on our property. He was wearing noise-canceling headphones and never saw or heard the man coming. His six broken ribs, three displaced and shattered at the ends, tortured him with each inhale.He had developed the first of two pneumonias that damaged his lung, eventually requiring surgery. It was excruciating to see him in such terrible pain.

As I prayed, cried and tried to help him recover, a friend sent me the vicious, hateful headline from the days Courier-Journal: "Rand Paul a less than perfect neighbor..."This tells you everything you need to know about the bias and motivations of the Courier-Journal.Even now, more than four years later, I cannot write this without shaking in anger.

Kelley Paul and her husband Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul

It has been a year of violent political attacks by left-wing extremists such as the shooting at mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg by former Courier-Journal writer Quintez Brown, the brutal assault on Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher at a parade, the attempted assassination ofSupreme CourtJusticeBrettKavanagh, ongoing terrorizing of conservative Supreme Court Justices at their homes, and the attempted stabbing justlast weekofNew York Republican gubernatorialcandidateRep.Lee Zeldin at a political rally.

CALIFORNIA MAN INDICTED FOR ATTEMPTING TO ASSASSINATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE KAVANAUGH

Just last week, the liberal media came after my husband again. That sameKentuckynewspaper chose to prominently feature an op-ed that continues to blame Rand for the blindside attackby the felonfound guilty in both civil and criminal courts, a man who admitted under oath that he had not communicated with Rand in over a decade, nor had ever had an unkind word or filed a complaint against him.(Not that it should matter, unless like the Courier-Journal and its op-ed writers, you seek to justify violent attacks in the case of disagreements.)

The man who attacked Rand in 2017, however, had violent and graphic anti-Trump posts on his social media. The liberal newspapers op-ed writers omitted all of those facts, of course, in order to frame Rand as a human being somehow deserving of pain and suffering.

LEE ZELDIN ATTACK SUSPECT ARRESTED ON FEDERAL ASSAULT CHARGE

The writers of the op-ed not only lied about and justified Rands assault, but claimed that our mob attack in Washington, D.C.in 2020was the equivalent of being "yelled at."

There are over nine minutes of live-streamed video ofthe two of usbeing literally held hostage behind only two brave police officers as we were surrounded, spit on, threatened, pushed and splattered with liquidsfollowing President Trumps speech at the Republican National Convention.We were completely immobile, unable to move out of the maelstrom of hatred and threats.

FLASHBACK: SEN. RAND PAUL: MY WIFE AND I WERE ATTACKED BY A MOB DEMS WOULD WORSEN PROBLEM BY BOWING TO RIOTERS

The police desperately radioed for reinforcement and it was only after four more officers arrived to forcibly push back the mob with bikes that we were finally able to move within their protective phalanx to safety.

Thisencounterhas been shown on video worldwide. Yet the liberal media continues tospread demonstrablyprovable falsehoods in its ongoing effort to discredit people like my husband and other conservatives who dont toe the liberal line.

So many of the liberal media outlets are everything they purport to despise.They foment rage-politics and refuse toallowa civilized airing of both sides of a debate.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

They encourage juicy, false narratives of conflict that in turn stoke violence of the kind that has resulted in Rand being shot at by a far-left lunatic; weekly death threats to his office; and terrorist tactics such as fake anthrax powder and death letters sent to our home.

FILE -- Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul appears on "Hannity" on October 5, 2021 (Fox News)

Even once reputable news sources likethe Associated Press (AP)have lowered their journalistic standards to accommodate the woke mob, trading objectivity for partisan minimization.

AfterRand and I were mobbed outside the RNC, the AP headline was: "Rand Paul claims, without evidence, that he was mobbed in DC." Despite literal video evidence, theAP felt compelled to write such a lie in order to minimize violence againstconservatives. Responding to the video images of a police officer nearly knocked to his feet as he pressed back against the mob, the AP described the police officer as being merely "jostled." Downstreammediaoutlets then repeated the lie.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Democrats are cultivating a dangerous political environment by waging their culture war through once trusted staples of American media. Local news used to be an institution Americans trusted, but too many outlets in Democrat-run cities and elsewhere have abdicated their duty to responsible journalism and eroded that faith."

Liberal media outlets that continue to traffic in hatred and misinformation endanger my husband, my family, and countless other peoplewho serve in public office. And that should alarm every American.

Kelley Paul and her husband, Senator Rand Paul reside in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where they are members of Broadway United Methodist Church. She and Rand were married in 1990 and are the parents of three sons. In April 2015, Kelley published "True and Constant Friends." In her book, Kelley celebrates the inspiration and love we receive from the women in our lives through essays about her lifelong friendships, her mother, and her grandmother, who immigrated to America from Ireland in 1929.

Kelley was the co-author of Rands 2019 best-selling book, "The Case Against Socialism." On their national book tour, Kelley and Rand gave joint presentations about the book both in the national media and to audiences across the country, including such diverse venues as The Reagan Library and Columbia University.

See the original post here:

Our liberal media love rage politics and endanger my husband and others who won't back their woke agenda - Fox News

The personal transformation entailed by the adoption of a Communist outlook is a disruptive one. When you make a commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of the entire social order, you always live in conflict with the ideas of the ruling class that control the majority of the people. Such discordance with widely accepted notions results in social humiliation and the precarization of survival. When you boldly refuse to conform to the dehumanizing norms of capitalism and demand the creation of new criteria for the valuation of humanity, you are blocked from the symbolic system of recognition and consigned to the zone of deplorability. This largely negative reaction to the progressive agenda of Communism is an effect of the temporal contradictions that inevitably afflict any Marxist militant. At the same time as you strive for the ruthless abolition of capitalist relations, you cant help but start the struggle from the muck of the here and now. The future has to be created within the womb of the present.

As Vijay Prashad writes: The communists who emerge out of [capitalist] worlds are often talented and bright those who could make lucrative careers and could be the shining lights of their communities. Yet, they chose to go to the trenches of political battle. They refuse to leave their world, but in adopting the transformative social agenda of communism they remain within at a curious distance unwilling to conform to conservative social trendscommunists live a double reality fighting against this world to make a better future, and living in this world within ones social order. To inhabit the present and the future is a stern burden on a communist.

As an Indian student who has embraced Communism, my experiential encounters with the educational universe of neoliberal capitalism have included the difficult task of maintaining a balance between careerist pressures and revolutionary principles. When I had not yet gained political consciousness, I used to enjoy being regularly crushed by the hyper-competitive education machine run by the Indian bourgeoisie. Saturated in the consumerist dystopia brought about by neo-imperialist globalization, I was intensely aspirational, always wanting to faithfully imitate the toppers whose images I saw on the billboards of coaching centers. What defined that period of my life was a sick preoccupation with the urge to do something extraordinary, something that would earn me accolades from the honchos of my local status quo. This strong desire to gain social recognition was closely tied to neoliberal ideology, which worships competition, delegitimizes cooperation, boosts ambition, and attaches personal worth to professional achievement. A society governed by this systemic logic of perfectionism promotes judgmental values and constant anxiety. In the words of Meagan Day, the youth is trapped in the feeling of paranoia and anxiety engendered by the persistent and not entirely unfounded sensation that everyone is waiting for you to make a mistake so they can write you off forever. This hyper-perception of others impossible expectations causes social alienation, neurotic self-examination, feelings of shame and unworthiness, and a sense of self overwhelmed by pathological worry and a fear of negative social evaluation, characterized by a focus on deficiencies, and sensitive to criticism and failure.

The social norms of perfectionism practiced by todays students are an ideological corollary of the material changes unleashed by neoliberalism. Through the destruction of the welfare state, late-stage capitalism has destroyed the socio-institutional bases of collective solidarity. This massive attack on working class gains has corporatized education, creating an environment where competition, and standardized testing have come to be the major determinants of educational outcomes; these educational outcomes, in turn, are fundamental to ones future market price i.e. to the possibility of maintain a stable livelihood. Given these very real facts of educational and economic instability, it is no wonder that students consider perfectionism and selfishness the sole rational means to deal with issues of career. As Thomas Curran notes, It is how they are coping to feel safe, connected and of worth in a culture that prizes individual accomplishment over everything else. Whenever I challenged this structurally rooted curtailment of student imagination through conversations with teachers and students I was usually met with a fierce defense of the elite discourse. Perceived as a nuisance to the exam-centric pedagogical dynamics that dominate Indian classrooms, I was ignored and scorned. What took precedence was the question of economic survival and social esteem. No one was willing to come together and engage in critical dialogue about the system that compels us to compete against each other. On top of this discouraging response from others, I no longer found myself capable of engaging in the great rat-race of endless exams. Communism made me cognizant of the irrationality of such efforts to quantitatively assess students through restrictive marking schemes. I realized that exams were disconnected from our intellectual capacities and learning processes and only served to select few and eliminate others. However, this exposure to the truth of capitalist education made me unfit for being a successful student.

To properly participate in a mad system, you have to be mad. But I was no longer mad. I was critically thinking about the sheer brutality of the totality of Indian education, its socio-cultural inequalities and political conservatism. No longer steeped in the stupor of commodities, I was amazed by the fact that humans created such an inhumane order!

Avijit Pathak articulates the monstrosity of the society in a lucid fashion: What kind of society have we created! For us, religion is nothing but loud and demonstrative ritualism a sort of identity marker; patriotism is a violent gesture towards the invented enemies of the nation; mainstream politics is devoid of the slightest trace of ethics, and gross inequality is normalized. As creative dissenters are sent to jail, everything is turned into its opposite: Vice into virtue, ugliness into beauty, or narcissism into humility. A society of this kind has to kill all emancipatory ideals and practices of education. The incongruity between my social consciousness and the one necessitated by the functional imperatives of neoliberal education marred my social standing, making me look like a ridiculous idealist to other serious people. A Communist will invariably be subject to such shame. What matters is resisting those politico-cultural hindrances and resolutely moving forward toward the path of liberation through revolutionary praxis.

Read more from the original source:

Being A Non-Conformist In The Era Of Neo-Liberal Education OpEd - Eurasia Review

A senior Mountie testified Thursday he believes political inference was behind RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki's determination to have police release details on the guns used in the Nova Scotia mass shooting.

Chief Supt. Chris Leather made the comment at the public inquiry into the rampage that took 22 lives on April 18-19, 2020, during cross-examination by Tom MacDonald, a lawyer who represents two family members of victims.

MacDonald asked if Leather believed, after the officer participated in a teleconference with Lucki followingthe shootings, that the commissioner's comments reflected political interference in the criminal probe underway at the time.

"That's my impression," Leather responded. He said he came to that conclusion after gathering the facts about the "lead-up" to the meeting with Lucki.

RCMP Chief Supt. Darren Campbell has alleged that during a meeting on April 28, 2020, Lucki said she promised the Prime Minister's Office that the information on the guns would be released in connection with the Liberal government's "pending gun control legislation."

The Liberal government was in the midst of drafting fresh gun control measures to reduce access to semi-automatic weapons in the weeks following the mass shooting. Campbell and Leather both testified this week that releasing the information on the guns would have interfered with the ongoing investigation into who provided the killer with the semi-automatic weapons.

Leather, who is the head of criminal operations in Nova Scotia, testified on Wednesday that he had received a call from Lucki on the evening of April 22 three days after the mass shooting and that she had asked him to send her details about the guns. The superintendent has said that a list of guns he had sent to Lucki was for internal purposes only.

Leather's statement about the April 22 call with Lucki, and about a series of emails that followed, hadn't come up in a July 6 interview with inquiry lawyers.

During cross-examination Thursday by Michael Scott a lawyer who represents the majority of the victims' families Leather said he hadn't discussed the call with Lucki or the emails on July 6 because lawyers with the federal Department of Justice had suggested he take "a reactive posture."

"The advice I received was not to proactively disclose the conversation [with Lucki]and the emails leading up to the meeting on April 28, [2020]," Leather testified.

"I knew from my notes and emails I had prepared and submitted that it was obviously relevant to what would become the infamous phone call of April 28and was troubled by that and wanted their advice and was advised to take a reactive posture."

Lori Ward, a lawyer for the federal Justice Department and the RCMP, told commissioners Thursday she believed there had been a "misunderstanding" from Leather about that advice. She said she and another federal lawyer had understood that Leather had a document relevant to the April 28, 2020, meeting with Lucki that they needed to review because it might contain privileged information.

"At no time did we advise [Chief Supt.]Leather not to speak about it and not to speak the truth," she said.

Ward said the document in question, which she didn't describe in detail, will be disclosed to the inquiry soon.

Lucki has denied interfering in the police investigation. She testified Monday before a House of Commons committee that she didn't recall telling then-public safety minister Bill Blair that she had "promised" to have the details on the guns released. She said she remembered using different words with Blair.

Read more from the original source:

Mountie has 'impression' Liberal government interfered with N.S. mass shooting probe - CBC.ca

Thompson, a Queensland MP whose wife, daughters and mother-in-law are all Indigenous, said he had spoken to his family regularly about the proposal but no one can give me any details.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese today mentioned that he wants everyone to support a Voice to parliament - well, tell us what it is so we can discuss it and I can talk to my family and say will this actually benefit Aboriginal people in this country, or is it virtue signalling? he said.

I took my two daughters into the House today. I want them to have a strong, positive, inclusive future but in the same breath people say support a Voice but you havent told us what it is.

Pasin, a South Australian MP, said we dont know what the proposal is, the first obligation of those pursuing this initiative is to clearly and carefully enunciate in detail what the Voice is, how it will operate and what it proposes to achieve by way of outcomes. Until then, its really hard to support.

I stand with [Liberal Indigenous senators] Jacinta Price on this and Kerrynne Liddle, outcomes are what matter.

Loading

Chandler, a Tasmanian senator, said she shared Prices concerns regarding the Voice.

I think Senator Price gave a fantastic speech with some very important observations and perspectives which deserve to be listened to, she said.

Just eight of 44 referendums have ever succeeded in Australia and, without a bipartisan consensus in favour of the Voice, the plan to enshrine a Voice in the constitution faces an uphill battle.

While former prime minister Scott Morrison was opposed to a referendum on the Voice, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has not rejected the possibility of bipartisan support for a Voice and some Liberals, including senator Andrew Bragg have long backed it.

Following her speech on Thursday night, Price told the Herald and The Age she would campaign against the Voice inside the Coalition party room.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during a Welcome to Country ceremony at Parliament House on Tuesday.Credit:Alex Ellnghausen

Yes, I think I will [campaign against it] because as I mentioned in my speech, does it mean then that our elected Indigenous voices within parliament, do we suddenly become redundant? That is the democratic Westminster system ... we are a successful nation because of this system.

Myself and Kerrynne will be very vocal in our positions on these issues. Weve got a lot of understanding between the two of us.

In question time on Thursday, Albanese predicted that creating a Voice to parliament and enshrining it in the Constitution was, like the National Apology in 2008, something that after it happened everyone will wonder why we didnt do it beforehand and a chance to recognise in Australias national birth certificate that Australia didnt begin in 1788.

Loading

Its not a matter of doing that or Closing the Gap. Its not a matter of some symbolism as some people would see it. What its a matter of is empowerment. Giving people respect is a first step to overcoming some of the challenges that are there, he said.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was endorsed by hundreds of Indigenous leaders and the Voice it proposed would operate as an advisory body to parliamentarians, enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to provide advice on laws and policies that impact them.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.

See more here:

Liberal MPs opposing Voice to parliament because of a lack of detail - Sydney Morning Herald

Former Liberal heavyweight Mathias Cormann has for the third time in a week refused to address his role as the mastermind of a group of party powerbrokers that called themselves The Clan.

The ex-Federal finance ministers high-profile speaking tour of Perth concluded on Thursday night when he rubbed shoulders with business figures invited by businessman John Poynton at a cocktail function at Frasers in Kings Park.

But he again refused to answer questions from The West Australian about his part in The Clan, which has been blamed for contributing to the downfall of the WA Liberal Party at consecutive elections.

Thats despite his return from Paris, where he leads the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, coinciding with a State conference considered the most crucial in the partys history.

Liberal members will vote on reform that proponents claim will ensure the best people are selected to contest the 2025 Federal and State elections not just those supported by powerbrokers.

Until now, Mr Cormann had largely escaped scrutiny for his leadership of The Clan, which WhatsApp messages showed had co-ordinated a takeover of party branches to control preselections and key appointments.

Upper House MPs Nick Goiran and Peter Collier were left to carry the can after the extraordinary leak but Liberal insiders described the pair as lieutenants of Mr Cormann during his time as a WA senator. Having brushed off questions at two lunch events in the past week, the OECD Secretary-General again on Thursday avoided The West Australians attempts to ask him about his Clan days.

With barrister wife Hayley Cormann at his side he hurried inside the restaurant where he delivered yet another speech on the global economy but avoided any mention of Australian politics and didnt take questions.

The function was hosted by Mr Poynton and his business partner Chris Stavrianou, who together run corporate advisory firm Poynton Stavrianou. Guests included Mr Poyntons wife Di Bain, who is Perths Deputy Lord Mayor as well as chair of Tourism WA.

Also seen arriving were Tourism WA managing director Carolyn Turnbull, Nine Perth boss Clive Bingwa, Rio Tinto iron ore chief executive Simon Trott, developer Ben Lisle, former Woodside CEO Peter Coleman, REIWA chief executive Cath Hart, Infrastructure WA chair Nicole Lockwood and WA Business News journalist Mark Beyer.

Inaugural Fremantle Dockers coach Gerard Neesham, Docker-turned-executive James Clement, ex-West Coast Eagles chairman Dalton Gooding and former Australian rugby player John Welborn were among the sports figures spotted.

One-time WA Liberal leader Mike Nahan earlier this week labelled Mr Cormann the head of The Clan and said his former party colleague had left a mess behind when he moved to Europe.

Writing in todays The West, WA Liberal senator Dean Smith said a push for sweeping reform that would untangle the grip of powerbrokers had been frustrated, an inquiry into unethical membership behaviour whitewashed and revelations of illegal cash reimbursements had gone unaddressed.

He said a plebiscite model for Lower House preselections put forward by WA Liberal president Richard Wilson had been watered down but was a start and called for the overhaul to extend to Upper House preselection.

Mr Wilson urged members in an email to embrace reforms in order to show the community we have the ability to undertake difficult but necessary internal changes.

Go here to read the rest:

Former top Liberal Mathias Cormann still refusing to talk about mastermind role in The Clan - The West Australian