Tuesday, October 08, 2024

Elon Musk And Tucker Carlson Laugh Over Idea Of Kamala Harris Assassination

Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson shared a hearty laugh over the prospect of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris being assassinated. (Watch the video below.)

On Carlson’s X show posted Monday, Musk revisited his widely rebuked comment on social media last month that “no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala” after the apparent second attempt on Trump.

“I made a joke which, I realize, I deleted, which is like no one is even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it’s pointless,” Musk told Carlson as the two cracked up. “What do you achieve? Nothing. Just find another puppet.

“It’s deep and true,” the fired Fox News commentator said.

“Nobody’s trying to kill Joe Biden. That would be pointless,” the X owner followed.

Carlson continued the exchange by asking about the post, “You actually put that up?”

“People interpreted it as though I was calling for people to assassinate her, but I was like … doesn’t it seem strange that no one has even bothered to try?” Musk replied, laughing. “Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet.”

“That’s hilarious,” Carlson said amid more guffaws. (The Secret Service reportedly didn’t find it as funny as these two.)

“She’s safe,” Musk snarked.

Musk, who appeared at Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, tried hard to play billionaire provocateur in the interview. The X owner repeated his claim from the event that “it’s the last election we’re gonna have” if Trump loses because an influx of immigrants in swing states will eventually vote Democrat. He also pondered how long his imaginary prison sentence would be.

Fast-forward to 0:40 for their conversation about Harris:


Elon Musk makes it clear he’s got no regrets over Kamala Harris assassination post

“Why they want to kill Donald Trump?” the post read.

“And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” 


Joe Sommerlad
Tue 8 October 2024 

Elon Musk made it clear he has no regrets over his X post pondering why no one had tried to assassinate Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, when he sat down for an interview with Tucker Carlson on Monday night.

On Sunday September 15, the CEO of X, Tesla and SpaceX sparked outrage when he responded to a social media post about the second alleged assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

“Why they want to kill Donald Trump?” the post read.

“And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” Musk responded, followed by the pondering face emoji.

Musk joined former Fox News host Carlson on X on Monday, where he was asked about the scandal.

“I made a joke that no one’s even trying to kill Kamala because it’s pointless,” he said. “What do you achieve? Nothing. They’ll just put in another puppet.”

“It’s deeply true,” conservative commentator Carlson responded.

“Some people interpreted it as I was calling for people to assassinate [Harris], but I was like… doesn’t it seem strange that no one has even bothered to try,” Musk continued, laughing. “No one tries to assassinate a puppet.”

The tech mogul’s post came after accused would-be gunman Ryan Wesley Routh was caught allegedly pointing a rifle through the fence at Trump’s Florida golf course while the Republican presidential nominee was playing a round.

Elon Musk was interviewed by Tucker Carlson on X on Monday October 7 2024 
(Tucker Carlson/X)

Authorities said that Routh was spotted by Secret Service agents who opened fire, causing him to flee the scene. The suspect was apprehended soon after.

Musk later deleted his comment following uproar.

In a follow-up post, he added: “One lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on X.

“Turns out that jokes are way less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is in plain text.”

Musk came out in support of Trump earlier this summer following the first attempt to kill the former president at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13.

The endorsement cemented the tech entrepreneur’s personal shift towards the right since the Covid-19 pandemic and was followed by him conducting an X Spaces interview with Trump, who has, in turn, touted Musk as a future member of his potential second administration to be tasked with cutting inefficiency in the workings of the federal government.



Musk has said he would be “willing to serve” in a prospective second Trump administration and appeared alongside the candidate at his return to Butler on Saturday, announcing himself to the crowd in excitable fashion as a member of “Dark MAGA” and warning that the future of the country is at stake if Harris and Tim Walz win in November.

Having gone all-in on Trump, Musk admitted to Carlson on Monday that he is “f***ed” if Trump does not emerge victorious on November 5.

“It does seem that way,” the pundit laughed.

“I’m like, ‘How long do you think my prison sentence is going to be? Will I see my children?’ I don’t know,” Musk responded.

“I have no plausible deniability and I’ve been trashing Kamala non-stop!”

Elon Musk’s America PAC offers bounty for contact info of millions of registered voters in battleground states
Fortune · (Jabin Botsford—The Washington Post via Getty Images)


Christiaan Hetzner
 Mon, October 7, 2024

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is paying a bounty for voter registration data with the help of a petition as he seeks to return Donald Trump to the White House this November.

The world’s wealthiest entrepreneur confirmed his political action committee, America PAC, will offer a $47 reward for the name, address, and phone number of each registered voter in battleground states who signs an online statement in favor of rights already protected by the Constitution.


The amount, symbolic for the 47th presidency to which Trump aspires, will go to the person who refers the swing state voter.

“Goal is to get 1 [million] voters in swing states to show support for free speech & right to bear arms,” Musk posted on Sunday. “Easy money.”

Under the offer, which expires on Oct. 21, only individuals in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina stand to receive a reward.

Voters in Musk’s adopted state of Texas, for example, are not eligible for the reward even if they are registered to cast a ballot in the 47th presidential election—regardless of their support for the Constitution.

Since the petition is not affiliated with Trump's Republican Party, signatories are not directed to the RNC website. Instead they must enter their personal data—including name, postal address, email address, and cell phone number—directly into the America PAC database.

Eligible voters may only list one person as their referrer, and the PAC intends to make sure the info it bought is worth the money. "Before payment is made America PAC will verify the accuracy of all information of the referrer and referree," it stipulates.


Once that is done, Musk's political vehicle has all the relevant data it needs to deploy canvassers to their neighborhood to ensure voters do show up on polling day.

Neither Musk nor America PAC responded to a request for comment from Fortune.

The 1-million-voter target may not seem like much, but campaign experts often note that Biden won the electoral college and, with it, the presidency by a margin of just 44,000 votes in a handful of states that flipped from red to blue.

Set against that number, 1 million potential new Trump voters could easily affect the election outcome.
It could cost Musk millions

On Sunday, the Tesla CEO made his first campaign appearance alongside Trump in Butler, Pa., where a would-be assassin made an attempt on the life of the former president this summer.

That day in July also marked the start of Musk’s public endorsement of the former president.

“President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America,” he told the crowd.


Left in power, the Democrats would find a way to do away with Americans’ inalienable rights protected under law, he claimed.


Should Harris be declared the victor next month, Musk added, “this will be the last election—that’s my prediction.”

With his 200 million followers on X, Musk has become Trump’s most vocal and valuable champion. Yet his wholesale partisanship has driven a split within the Tesla community that broadly skews progressive.

“As you can see, I’m not just MAGA, I’m Dark MAGA,” Musk said at the rally, sporting a Make America Great Again baseball cap colored black instead of red.

In theory, America PAC’s move to buy voter data could get expensive for Musk.

Pennsylvania—the biggest battleground state prize on the electoral map with 19 electoral votes up for grabs—has nearly 8.7 million registered voters as of the start of this year, according to the latest official data.

Of that total, 40% are Republicans with another 15% unaffiliated with either of the two main parties. Musk could even end up paying for the contact info of registered Democrats.

If he only got 1% of the state’s total, it would cost him $4 million.

Should his PAC achieve the full 1 million to sign the petition in support of rights already guaranteed by the Constitution, that would be $47 million right there, assuming each signatory was claimed as a referral.
Musk stands to wield heavy influence in Trump White House

For Musk, it would nonetheless be a shrewd investment.

Biden’s administration has taken a robust approach to regulation in a number of areas, enraging Silicon Valley billionaires like Musk and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

By comparison, Trump has a record of weakening federal regulators, like the EPA, that bind businesses in red tape.

Not only has he praised Musk’s culling of the workforce at Twitter, he’s also considering granting Musk’s wish for widespread authority to cut the federal workforce as part of a potential new “Department of Government Efficiency.”

It’s possible that the entrepreneur would first target agencies that have vexed him and his business interests.

For example, Musk threatened last month to sue the Federal Aviation Administration over what he called “regulatory overreach,” and he’s already sued the National Labor Relations Board.

But with a relatively paltry amount of cash, Musk’s various companies stand to gain significantly from a second Trump administration.

Regulations mean little if they are not actively enforced—and Musk could wield considerable influence over agency resources like personnel.

Trump, who got elected in part thanks to a claim that he was rich enough not to be bought, is facing high legal costs and is now heavily dependent on Musk’s backing to mobilize voters.

Earlier this year, Trump installed his daughter-in-law as chair of the Republican Party, and ever since, he has pioneered the use of outsourcing—a common business practice—in political campaigning.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Trump Would Take a Chainsaw to Planned Parenthood, Vance Confirms

Will Neal
Mon, October 7, 2024 at 4:59 a.m. MDT·2 min read

Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images


Donald Trump would slash funding for Planned Parenthood if he wins the election next month, according to his running mate.

“On the question of defunding Planned Parenthood, look, I mean our view is we don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions,” JD Vance said on Saturday, according to NBC News. “That has been a consistent view of the Trump campaign the first time around. It will remain a consistent view.”

Vance has said before that he believes that the organization should be partially defunded, citing his belief that taxpayers should not front late-term abortions.

Figures this year from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 93.5 percent of abortions in 2021 were carried out either at or before 13 weeks, with less than 6 percent performed between 13 and 20 weeks, and less than 1 percent either at or after 21 weeks.

This Is What Vance Really Meant When He Spoke About Friend’s Abortion

Vance’s comments Saturday quickly provoked condemnation from Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign, with spokesperson Lauren Hitt saying his statement showed “a second Trump term is too big a risk for American women and their families.”

“The only way to stop an unchecked Trump and his MAGA allies from ripping away freedoms from American women is to elect Vice President Harris, who will defend women’s access to health care and reproductive freedom,” she added.

Vance’s remarks came ahead of the publication of a new book from Trump’s wife, Melania, in which the former first lady reportedly outlines a passionate pro-choice argument, having previously remained largely silent on a question considered one of the most controversial tenets of her husband’s political outlook.

Trump Throws JD Vance Under the Bus on Abortion During Presidential Debate

“Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body,” an extract from that book, obtained by The Guardian, reportedly reads. “A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes.”

Trump has previously taken credit for having been able to “kill” Roe v. Wade, which ended the constitutional right to abortion, having appointed three Supreme Court judges at the heart of the decision.

The former president has more recently made attempts to appear to soften his rhetoric on the contentious issue, even claiming in an X post last Tuesday that, if re-elected, he would veto a national abortion ban despite Democratic accusations to the contrary.

The Daily Beast.

Analysis: Hamas regenerates in Gaza, recruiting fighters despite Israeli defeat claims

Isabel Marques da Silva
EURONEWS
Mon, October 7, 2024

The Palestinian militant group Hamas, which carried out the attack on Israel on 7 October last year, is regenerating to continue the fight in the Gaza Strip, experts claim.

In addition to recruiting more fighters, the group which controls Gaza will continue to stake its claim over shaping the future of the territory.

"It is said, for example, that Hamas has lost 6,000 fighters, but it seems to be recruiting, or rather mobilising, around 6,000 members from its reserves," Hugh Lovatt, a political analyst at the European Council for Foreign Relations (ECFR) think tank, told Euronews.

"They certainly won't be as well trained as the initial group, but they're still capable of holding a gun and firing rocket launchers at Israeli tanks," the analyst added.

One year ago, Hamas militants killed 1,200 people and took 250 hostages in Israel a year ago, sparking a new war in the Gaza Strip.

The Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces, Herzi Halevi, said in a letter sent to soldiers Monday on the occasion of the first anniversary of the attack that the Israeli army had "defeated the military wing of Hamas" and was continuing to fight in a bid to wreck its capabilities to instil terror.

However, analysts interviewed by Euronews explain that not only has Hamas not been defeated, but it still has the capacity to regenerate itself in terms of recruiting fighters and rehabilitating underground infrastructure.

"I think it's very easy, in fact, to recruit and regenerate, simply because there are many orphans and groups like Hamas have always recruited those orphaned in previous Israeli attacks," Joost Hiltermann, a political analyst at Crisis Group, told Euronews.

"I think we can safely say that Hamas has been working to restore some of the damaged tunnels," Lovatt remarked.

Ismail Haniyeh, left, who was assassinated, and the new Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, at an event in 2019 - Khalil Hamra/Copyright 2019 The AP. All rights reserved.
New Hamas leadership is even more hardline

On the other hand, the assassination of Hamas' political leader Ismail Haniyeh on 31 July, while he was visiting Iran, might have been seen as a major blow to the movement.

Exiled in Qatar, Haniyeh was seen as pragmatic and relatively moderate in negotiations. But the new leader, Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the 7 October attack, is understood to be a hardliner who will want to maintain the armed struggle at any price.

"Decisions are taken by consensus in the Shura Council. Of course, Sinwar would always have a strong voice because of what happened on 7 October and the way he is seen within Hamas, and perhaps outside Hamas, as a strong leader," Hiltermann explained.

"And since he's holding Israeli hostages, that gives him a strong card."

Sinwar has no regrets about the 7 October attacks and believes that it is only possible to create a Palestinian state "by armed means", according to a Reuters report citing six political sources: four in Palestinian organisations and two in Middle Eastern governments.


A former Lebanese communist militant, Nabih Awadah, who was imprisoned with Sinwar in Ashkelon between 1991 and 1995, told Reuters that the Hamas leader saw the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as "disastrous" and a ploy by Israel, which would only give up Palestinian land "by force, not by negotiation".

Categorising him as "obstinate and dogmatic", Awadah said that Sinwar would light up with joy whenever he heard about attacks by Hamas or the Lebanese group Hezbollah against Israel. For Sinwar, military confrontation was the only way "to liberate Palestine" from Israeli occupation.

Diplomacy still unable to change the course of the conflict

The US and the EU classify Hamas as a terrorist group, but the movement remains crucial for negotiating a ceasefire, according to analysts.

Some Western countries could play a more important mediating role, said Hiltermann.

"Countries like Norway and Switzerland can hold talks with Hamas because they don't give them the political label of a terrorist organisation. It's a political decision," he explained.

"The lack of direct negotiating channels is a problem because Hamas is obviously a movement that fights the military occupation with violence," Hiltermann added. "But there needs to be more talk about solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which so far are not being promoted."


Destruction left by the Israeli air and ground offensive in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip - Abdel Kareem Hana/Copyright 2023, The AP. All rights reserved

A political solution to the conflict will have the Palestinian Authority (PA) as its main interlocutor under President Mahmoud Abbas.

The PA governs the West Bank and part of Jerusalem and might be called upon to govern the Gaza Strip, replacing Hamas, which has ruled there since 2007 after winning elections with its political arm.

However, analysts say that Hamas will have to be included in any decisions about the future of the territory, even though Israel's Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has promised to "wipe Hamas off the face of the Earth".

"Let's be clear, Hamas is not going anywhere, even though it has suffered so much," Lovatt.

"It will always have the possibility of opposing any external intervention in Gaza, whether it's an Israeli intervention, as is happening at the moment, or whether it's the intervention of the Palestinian Authority in the future or an international force."

Lovatt emphasised that the extension of the conflict to Lebanon and Iran's direct retaliations against Israel aggravate the crisis and are also a clear sign that Iran will continue to support Hamas on all fronts.

"Iran continues to be a major source of funding, although not the only one, but certainly the largest source of funding for Hamas. For strategic reasons, for potentially ideological reasons, but also for very pragmatic reasons, Iran will continue to do so," he explained.

"There doesn't seem to be significant room for diplomatic solutions, which always exist. But the path chosen for now is to use force to subdue the enemies, see where the chips fall and work from there," said Hiltermann.

The war in Gaza has killed more than 41,000 Palestinians and displaced almost two million, according to Gaza health authorities and UN figures.
Opinion

Granderson: Mexico's gun crisis is our fault. Victims deserve their day in U.S. court.

LZ Granderson
Tue, October 8, 2024 

When vigilantes and criminals face off in Mexico, both sides are armed with arsenals of U.S.-made military-style guns. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)


The Supreme Court is back at work this week, and among the more important arguments the justices are set to hear is a lawsuit filed by the government of Mexico against American gun manufacturers. A data leak from the Mexican military indicated that more than 90% of the firearms found at crime scenes in Mexico between 2018 and 2022 originated in the United States. We’re talking more than 78,000 guns seized in a country where only two stores sell firearms.

It’s clear American weaponry contributes to the migrant crisis in Central America and to the bloodshed at the U.S.-Mexico border, much in the way secondhand smoke affects the lungs of nonsmokers.

So for Mexico, this lawsuit isn’t a question of guilt but of accountability.

Read more: Granderson: 'Blame Mexico' won't solve the crises of guns and fentanyl

The gun-tracing data in the leak is so comprehensive that Mexican officials know Kentucky, a state roughly 1,300 miles away, produces one of the cartels’ favorite weapons: the Anderson Manufacturing AM-15.

Mexico is also able to identify Americans who have a bad habit of buying guns that end up in the hands of the cartel.

Read more: Opinion: The border crisis factor no one talks about: American guns

For example, of the 95 semiautomatic rifles purchased in a two-month span by one man in Texas, 66 ended up being seized in Mexico. That gun trafficker spent six months in prison for lying on his firearms forms. The families of those guns’ victims are left to spend the rest of their lives in anguish.

Mexico’s lawsuit seeks billions in damages, alleging that manufacturers knowingly supply the weapons in this ecosystem.

Read more: Guerrero: Don't shield U.S. gun makers from liability for Mexico's gun violence

Palestinian poet Mourid Barghouti famously said “it is easy to blur the truth with a simple linguistic trick: start your story from ‘Secondly.’ ” That is certainly a parlor trick modern Republicans turn to when it comes to migrants from Central America or the gun violence in Mexico. Notice, you never hear Donald Trump or his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, bring up the $30 billion in "reparations" the formerly enslaved in Haiti were forced to pay to France or the shambles created in that country by U.S. occupation.

While “the Supreme Court that Donald Trump built” has gifted the gun lobby with numerous favorable rulings, it isn’t clear whether the conservative justices will let the suit continue or not. Earlier this year, the court upheld a federal law banning domestic abusers from owning a firearm.

Read more: Op-Ed: For Mexico, taking a stand against gun trafficking is a moral imperative

Hopefully that display of common sense isn’t a one-off.

Allowing Mexico to sue manufacturers not only potentially helps victims and their families, but also provides the United States an opportunity to revisit the series of gun laws pushed through after Sept. 11 — a series that opened the floodgates to mass shootings right here at home.

Starting with the Patriot Act in 2001 — which allowed the federal government to collect personal information about just about anything except buying guns and ammo — the George W. Bush administration used our lingering fear of terrorism to shield the gun industry from accountability under the guise of national security.

In 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment made it illegal to share gun crime tracing data with the public and shielded gun shop owners from scrutiny. In 2004, a 10-year federal ban on assault rifles expired. In 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress and then-President George W. Bush shielded the industry from liability lawsuits. In 2006, Bush introduced Operation Wide Receiver, which allowed hundreds of American guns to “walk” into Mexico in hopes of catching traffickers.

It didn’t work.

And today — more than a decade later — Mexican law enforcement is still recovering weapons from that program, as well as a similar gun-walking program President Obama greenlighted called Fast and Furious.

As I said earlier, this case is about accountability.

U.S. active shooter data going back to 2000 found that shooters with a semiautomatic weapon wound and kill twice as many people as those with non-automatic weapons. Seems like common sense, but then again common sense would have led Congress to extend the 10-year ban on assault weapons. Instead, elected officials listened to the National Rifle Assn.

Today, many point to the ban expiring in 2004 as the turning point in gun violence in America. I agree with the year but not for the same reason. For me, it’s the $2.5 million that Bushmaster Firearms International was ordered in 2004 to pay to relatives of the 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., area. It was one of the largest settlements up to that point. Following the Columbine massacre in 1999, lawsuits against gun manufacturers became more common. The NRA had been lobbying Congress for shielding gunmakers from such lawsuits for years — arguing the payouts would bankrupt manufacturers — to no avail. However, with Bush in office, the manufacturers were finally able to get immunity. Though surely no one else feels immune to the harms of gun violence.

If the Supreme Court wants to make America great again, it could start by allowing Mexico its day in court.

@LZGranderso

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

WTF

Self-identifying Indigenous group got $74M in federal cash, Inuit leader wants change

Alessia Passafiume and Sarah Smellie
Mon, October 7, 2024 

As millions in federal funding flow into a Labrador group whose claims of Inuit identity have been rejected by Indigenous organizations across Canada, a national Inuit leader worries the Liberal government is putting the rights of Indigenous Peoples at risk.

Natan Obed, president of an organization representing about 70,000 Inuit across Canada, said he wrote to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over a year ago to express his concern about the NunatuKavut Community Council's ability to receive federal grants and fisheries allocations based on a "simple self-declaration of Inuit identity."

He said he has not received a response.

"The conversation is a defining feature of the future of Canada," the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami said in a recent interview. "Unless we revert to rights-holding First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments, and the decisions they make about citizenship … we're just in for another wave of dispossession based on non-Indigenous Canadians choosing to be Indigenous, to take what they feel is theirs."

The NunatuKavut Community Council has received nearly $74 million in federal funding for Indigenous programs or projects related to their claims of Indigenous identity since 2010, according to government data. The money includes more than $20.4 million for grants and contributions in which they were identified as an "Aboriginal recipient" and $29.2 million in "mandated or core funding" from Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.

The latest amount — $161,108 — was approved last month by Environment and Climate Change Canada for a project on conservation and species at risk that came from the department's Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk program.

"NunatuKavut is not Indigenous," Nunavut NDP MP Lori Idlout wrote on the X social media platform Wednesday in response to a tweet about the funding.

In June, the council received a "special allocation" in the newly reopened northern cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, allowing its harvesters a portion of this year's total catch.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada said in a statement it has a "well-established relationship" with the council "as an Indigenous organization." It also said the group has historically received various licenses and Indigenous program funding.

The NunatuKavut council says it represents some 6,000 self-identifying Inuit in southern and central Labrador. They aren’t recognized as Inuit by any other federally recognized, rights-holding Inuit collective, including the Nunatsiavut government in northern Labrador.

The council previously called itself the Labrador Métis Nation and the Labrador Métis Association. A 2006 provincial Supreme Court ruling said the Labrador Métis Nation had a "credible but unproven claim" to rights and recognition under the Constitution, and thus governments were obligated to accommodate those rights in some circumstances.

The ruling was upheld by the province's Appeal Court.

Until February, the group offered "alliance" memberships alongside its regular and non-resident memberships. According to a document that has since been removed from the council's website, an alliance membership could be granted to "an aboriginal person, ordinarily a resident in Labrador, who supports the objectives of NunatuKavut but who does not qualify for full membership."

Such members "may benefit from aboriginal representation, affirmative action" and "various government-sponsored services and programs," the document said.

NunatuKavut President Todd Russell said the council offered alliance memberships as a gesture of inclusivity to "non-Inuit" Indigenous people to give them supports and services. When the memberships became a source of confusion during rights and recognition negotiations with the federal government, the council got rid of them, he said in an interview.

All Indigenous groups have such discussions about who belongs and who doesn't, he said.

It is "lunacy" to oppose recognizing, funding and allocating resources to NunatuKavut as an Indigenous group, Russell added.

"We have always been an Indigenous organization … we have always represented Indigenous Peoples that otherwise had not found representation in other Indigenous groups within Labrador," he said. "Why would you want to take food out of the mouths of our people? Why would you want to hurt our people and our communities?"

Obed said his organization rejects the idea that a group can claim to be Métis and then "reconstitute themselves" as an Inuit collective.

Russell said Obed is not in charge of determining who is and is not Inuit.

"We know who our grandfathers are. We know where we come from," he said.

The Métis National Council said last year that it supports Obed's efforts to draw attention to what it called NunatuKavut's "fraudulent claims" of an Inuit identity. It also called on the federal government to end support for the group.

Russell said the Métis council holds that position because of a sustained "political campaign" waged by Obed.

The NunatuKavut council has long pointed to a 2019 memorandum of understanding it signed with the federal government which said the group is an “Indigenous collective capable of holding Section 35 Aboriginal rights."

In June, the Federal Court ruled the agreement doesn’t affect legal rights and does not recognize the NunatuKavut Community Council as an “Aboriginal people of Canada.”

The Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations said the agreement reflects the government's intention "to resolve pending questions" about any rights NunatuKavut may hold, and who may receive them.

The government has not entered into "substantive" negotiations with the group about whether it should have rights under the Constitution, spokesperson Pascal Laplante said in an email.

Laplante said NunatuKavut receives department funding under two programs: one for recognized Indigenous organizations, and one for "non-Indigenous organizations" currently in talks with the department.

Obed worries a risk-averse federal government does not want to be seen as judging who is and is not Indigenous. Instead, he said, it has been overly inclusive and seems unwilling to correct course.

"This new form of colonization where non-Indigenous Canadians become Indigenous and then take material advantage from Indigenous people is now a new and normalized thing," Obed said.

He also worries the current Liberal government cannot resolve the issue with Inuit "in good faith and expediently" because Russell was a Liberal member of Parliament from 2005 to 2011.

Russell dismissed the allegation, saying Obed enjoys "a very good, open relationship" with Ottawa.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 7, 2024.

Alessia Passafiume and Sarah Smellie, The Canadian Press


SCOTLAND

Union warns strike will close schools in John Swinney’s constituency

Katrine Bussey, PA Scotland Political Editor
Tue, October 8, 2024 


Union leaders have announced strike action that could close schools across Scottish First Minister John Swinney’s local area for two weeks.

Unison said it has given notice to Perth and Kinross Council for strike action by members in schools and early years centres.

The union, which is the largest local government trade union in Scotland, hopes targeting the action in Mr Swinney’s constituency will “bring home to him the importance of finding a fair settlement” to the council pay dispute.

It comes after the union voted against the latest pay offer from local government umbrella body Cosla, which will see staff receive an increase of either 67p an hour or 3.6%, whichever is higher.

Council leaders in Scotland have already voted to impose the deal despite Unison’s opposition, saying that two other unions – GMB and Unite – have accepted it.

However, Unison said that its members are angry that the pay deal they have been offered lags behind that of other public services – with nurses and other NHS staff being given a 5.5% wage hike.

The strike action could see schools and early years centres in Perth and Kinross closed for two weeks from October 21.

The union said however that with the action taking place immediately after the October holiday, schools could be closed to youngsters for four weeks in total.

Stuart Hope, Unison’s Perth and Kinross branch secretary, urged the First Minister to talk to union members on the picket line “to hear how undervalued council staff in his constituency feel”.

Unison urged First Minister John Swinney to speak to members on the picket line to ‘hear how undervalued council staff in his constituency feel’ (Andrew Milligan/PA)
Unison urged First Minister John Swinney to speak to members on the picket line to ‘hear how undervalued council staff in his constituency feel’ (Andrew Milligan/PA)

Mr Hope said: “Taking action like this is the last thing school and early years staff want to do.

“Employees are taking this first stand on behalf of all local government workers because they’ve seen a decade of pay cuts and they see other sectors being offered deals of greater value.”

He added: “A fair pay deal should have been in place from  April 1 but six months later it’s still not been agreed.

“Instead, the employer has imposed a wage rise rejected by a majority of the workers Unison represents. Yet again local government staff are being forced to strike to simply get fair pay.

“The Scottish Government needs to understand that council staff need more than platitudes. Ministers must tackle the severe decline in local government funding and start to value councils and their dedicated workforce as they do other areas of public services.”

But Finance and Local Government Secretary Shona Robison said: “While this government respects workers’ rights, no-one’s interests will be served by industrial action which will disrupt children and young people attending schools and nurseries in Perth and Kinross.

“The pay offer is better than that made to local government workers in the rest of the UK and will see the lowest-paid workers, including Unison members, receive a 5.63% pay increase.

“I hope that Unison members recognise the strength of this offer which has already been accepted by GMB and Unite.”

Meanwhile Cosla resources spokesperson, Councillor Katie Hagmann, said council leaders had agreed to implement the “strong” pay offer “in order to ensure all staff can receive their pay uplift and backpay without further delay”.
Ms Hagmann added: “The offer is worth 4.27% across the workforce and is aligned to the pay award for teaching staff, which has been agreed with the teachers’ panel and all other pay bargaining groups. ”

She insisted the pay rise “offers a fair, above inflation and strong settlement for all our employees” adding: “It is at the absolute limit of affordability in the extremely challenging financial – there is no further funding available to increase the value of the offer.”

She added: “We are aware that communities will be concerned about the detrimental impact industrial action would have, particularly for our children and young people.

“Industrial action is in nobody’s interests, and we urge Unison to reconsider the strong offer, which was accepted by both GMB and Unite. “

UK Government pledges £22bn for carbon capture to boost growth and cut emissions

Emily Beament, PA
Fri, October 4, 2024

The Government has pledged nearly £22 billion funding to develop projects to capture and store carbon emissions from energy, industry and hydrogen production.

It is hoped the funding for two “carbon capture clusters” in Merseyside and Teesside, promised over the next 25 years, will create and support thousands of jobs, draw in private investment and help the UK meet climate goals.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer claimed the move was “reigniting our industrial heartlands by investing in the industry of the future”, as he made the announcement with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) is a technology which captures the emissions from burning fuels for energy or from industrial processes such as cement production, and uses or transports them for storage permanently underground – for example, in disused oil fields under the sea.


It is seen by the likes of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Climate Change Committee as a key element in meeting targets to cut the greenhouse gases driving dangerous climate change.

It is also a key component in “blue” hydrogen, made from natural gas with the carbon emissions captured and stored to make it “low-carbon”, which can then be used as clean energy in power plants or industrial processes, although environmentalists warn blue hydrogen still requires a reliance on fossil fuels.

While it has long been championed as part of the solution – with Energy and Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband first announcing plans to develop carbon capture projects for power plants in 2009 during the last Labour government – and it uses well-tested technology, little progress has been made on it in the UK.

Funding of up to £21.7 billion over 25 years focuses on subsidies to three projects in Teesside and Merseyside, once they start capturing carbon from hydrogen, gas power, and energy from waste, to support the development of the clusters, including the infrastructure to transport and store carbon.


(PA Graphics)

The funding will also support the two transport and storage networks which will carry the carbon captured to deep geological storage in Liverpool Bay and the North Sea.

The Government said the move would give industry confidence to invest in the UK, attracting £8 billion of private investment, directly creating 4,000 jobs and supporting 50,000 in the long term.

It will also help remove 8.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, officials said, with the first carbon dioxide being stored from 2028.

It aims to pave the way for the first large scale hydrogen production plant in the UK and helping the oil and gas industry transition to clean energy with a workforce that has transferable skills.

Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband kickstarted the scheme with the last Labour government in 2009 (Peter Byrne/PA)

The move has been welcomed by businesses involved in developing the two carbon capture clusters, which are focused on capture and storage of emissions from industrial, hydrogen and energy production.

Independent advisers the Climate Change Committee also welcomed the move, saying the commitment to the necessary technology was “very reassuring”. However, Greenpeace criticised the support for hydrogen from gas as putting the country at risk of “locking ourselves into second-rate solutions”.

Sir Keir said: “For the past 14 years, business has been second-guessing a dysfunctional government – which has set us back and caused an economic slump.

“Today’s announcement will give industry the certainty it needs – committing to 25 years of funding in this ground-breaking technology – to help deliver jobs, kickstart growth, and repair this country once and for all.”

Mr Miliband said: “By securing this investment, we pave the way for securing the clean energy revolution that will rebuild Britain’s industrial heartlands.

“I was proud to kickstart the industry in 2009, and I am even prouder today to turn it into reality.

“This funding is a testament to the power of an active Government working in partnership with businesses to deliver good jobs for our communities.”

And Ms Reeves, said: “This game-changing technology will bring 4,000 good jobs and billions of private investment into communities across Merseyside and Teesside, igniting growth in these industrial heartlands and powering up the rest of the country. ”

Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of Energy UK described CCUS as a “tool in our armoury of technologies which we need to decarbonise parts of energy that we currently can’t do with clean electricity, such as major industrial processes”.

She said development of CCUS for industrial processes would unlock investment and help areas with a “proud history of engineering and industry pioneer the technologies of the future in the UK”.

And James Richardson, acting chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, said: “It’s fantastic to see funding coming through for these big projects.

“We can’t hit the country’s targets without CCUS so this commitment to it is very reassuring.

“It will no doubt provide comfort to investors and business about the direction of travel for the country.

And he said: “We know these projects will provide good, reliable jobs in communities that need them.

“It is important that prosperity for these parts of the country is built into a clean energy future.”

But Greenpeace UK’s policy director, Doug Parr, said £22 billion “is a lot of money to spend on something that is going to extend the life of planet-heating oil and gas production”.

While he acknowledged it was vital the Government commitment to industrial investment and job creation while tackling the climate crisis, “it needs to be the right sort of industries”.

“Carbon capture may be needed for hard to abate sectors, such as cement production; however, hydrogen derived from gas is not low-carbon and there is a risk of locking ourselves into second-rate solutions, especially as the oil industry could easily hoover up most of the money to continue business as usual.”

He called for the bulk of the money to be invested in creating new jobs in sectors such as offshore wind or rolling out a nationwide home insulation programme to cut bills.

The Tories accused Mr Miliband of overseeing a “mass deindustrialisation pathway”.

Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said: “Exceptional local leaders like Ben Houchen have worked on this for years and it’s thanks to the Conservatives that funding was already announced for these projects in the Spring of 2023.

“But whilst this is undoubtedly good news for Carbon Capture jobs, this will not make up for the mass deindustrialisation pathway that Ed Miliband’s costly net zero and energy policies are leading us to, with the devastating impact of his zealotry on jobs already seen in steel-making, refineries and in the North Sea
.”


UK Government faces criticism for £22 billion spend on carbon capture projects

Rhiannon James and Will Durrant, PA Political Staff
Mon, October 7, 2024

The Government has been criticised for spending billions on carbon capture and storage projects while it continues with its plans to means-test the winter fuel allowance.

Reform UK’s Richard Tice argued that millions of pensioners will view the decision to spend £22 billion on renewable energy as “absolutely extraordinary”.

Meanwhile, Tory former minister Andrew Murrison said the Chancellor’s decision to “magic” up money to fund the projects is surprising due to her recent focus on financial “black holes”.


Reform UK MP Richard Tice (Lucy North/PA)


This comes after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced the plans to develop projects to capture and store carbon emissions from energy, industry and hydrogen production at a glassmaking factory in Cheshire last week, alongside Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves.

On Monday, Mr Miliband told the Commons the use of carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technology signifies a “new era” of Britain’s “energy journey”.

CCUS captures the emissions from burning fuels for energy or from industrial processes such as cement production, and uses or transports them for storage permanently underground – for example, in disused oil fields under the sea.

It is seen by the likes of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Climate Change Committee as a key element in meeting targets to cut the greenhouse gases driving climate change.

In a statement on the projects, Mr Miliband said: “This Government is determined that as we begin the next stage of Britain’s energy journey, we create a new generation of good jobs in our industrial heartlands.

“That is why on Friday we began a new era, as Government and industry agreed the deals that will launch Britain’s carbon capture industry. This has been a long time coming.”


Tory former minister Andrew Murrison (Jonathan Brady/PA)

Mr Murrison, MP for South West Wiltshire, said: “Given the Chancellor’s rhetoric about black holes, it’s perhaps a little surprising that the Government has managed to magic £22 billion for this, but I wish the Secretary of State well in his plan, I hope it works.

“Can I ask whether he shares my concerns that in doing this we’re going to reduce the drive to decarbonise industries? Just like the use of waste incinerators has reduced the imperative to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste.”

Mr Miliband replied: “This is a long-term investment in the future of the country and I think the Chancellor is farsighted in seeing the importance of it.

“On the second part of his question, there are hard to obey industries that are just going to find it very hard without carbon capture to enter a decarbonised world, and we’ve got to protect those industries for the future.”

Mr Tice, who represents Boston and Skegness, said: “Ten million pensioners will find it absolutely extraordinary that this Government has managed to find over £20 billion, when they can’t find £1 billion to fund the winter fuel allowance. £20 billion, Secretary of State, in what you’ve admitted today is a risky technology.”

He added: “This is almost £1,000 per household Secretary of State, will this sum of taxpayers money, will it be added to general taxation when taxes are already at record highs or will it be added to our energy bills that you’ve promised will be brought down?”

Mr Miliband responded: “Here we have the party that claims to be the party of working people opposing jobs for working people right across the country, it says all you need to know about (Mr Tice).

“Outside of this House he pretends to be in favour of good industrial jobs for Britain, in this House he opposes them.”

SNP brands UK Government ‘clueless’ over carbon capture decision

Craig Paton, PA Scotland Deputy Political Editor
Fri, October 4, 2024 

The SNP has accused the UK Government of being “clueless” for favouring two carbon capture projects in England over one in Scotland.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced plans for two “carbon capture clusters” in Merseyside and Teesside, which will be developed over the next 25 years at a cost of almost £22 billion.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) is a technology which captures the emissions from burning fuels for energy or from industrial processes such as cement production, and uses or transports them for storage permanently underground – for example, in disused oil fields under the sea.




But a proposed facility in St Fergus, near Peterhead in Aberdeenshire, has again been overlooked.


The Acorn project was given reserve status after being passed over for funding in 2021 by the previous UK government.

Attacking the latest decision – announced by Sir Keir, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband on Friday – SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said: “This really isn’t that hard – if you want economic growth, if you want to create jobs, if you want to develop a domestic supply chain, and if you want to hit net zero, then you invest in the Acorn project.

“For years we’ve been waiting for the Tories to back this project and despite offering ‘change’, the Labour Government have followed the same path by prioritising projects in the North of England, offering the Scottish cluster no certainty at all.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, left, made the announcement alongside Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves (Darren Staples/PA)

“We’ve seen with Grangemouth what happens when you don’t invest in the energy transition and, at this point, Labour look desperate to repeat those mistakes with their absurd tax changes and failure to invest in CCUS here in the north east.

“We know that Ed Miliband and the Labour Party have lofty ambitions for net zero but their clumsy and clueless approach to the north east indicates that they have no idea how to actually deliver on their aims.”

Meanwhile, the Scottish Greens described CCUS as “a costly and unproven technology”, adding it is no substitute for increased investment in renewables.

Co-leader Lorna Slater said: “The billions of pounds that Keir Starmer is pouring into CCUS would be much better spent on cutting people’s electricity bills, investing in green skills and proven industries and boosting energy efficiency and public transport.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “Scotland is at the forefront of the drive towards net zero and clean energy, with Great British Energy’s headquarters to be located in Aberdeen.

“Our historic funding is just the first step in developing a self-sustaining market for carbon capture, usage and storage.

“Acorn has already received over £40 million for development and it is our firm ambition to proceed with the projects in the Track-2 club
Opinion

Donald Trump’s Increasingly Apocalyptic Campaign

Bruce Maiman
Tue, October 8, 2024 

Julia Demaree Nikhinson via Associated Press

Last month, I wondered if Donald Trump had jumped the shark.

“Jump the Shark,” you may recall, is an idiom referring to that moment when a TV show, brand or project has peaked and then gradually declines toward irrelevance.

Turns out, it may be worse than that.


As the 2024 election has drawn closer, Donald Trump’s rhetoric has increasingly darkened, amplifying insults, threats and false claims in his campaign speeches. At his rallies, he has called for using police violence as a tool to deter crime, repeatedly attacked Kamala Harris’ mental fitness, and promised to arrest political foes. His tone has become more apocalyptic, framing the election as a battle between good and evil, fearmongering about the future of America, and predictions of WWIII breaking out if his opponent prevails.

Donald Trump hasn’t “jumped the shark.” He has mutated into something demonic, desecrating all that is good, noble and decent solely to satisfy his own emotional needs.

It’s the type of tailspin one goes through when confronted by their worst fear, which, in Trump’s case, is losing. Losing is a reality he is incapable of accepting. It doesn’t matter that the race remains a dead heat in the states that matter. His language evokes the desperation of someone willing to say or do anything to stem the tide of some perceived slide into an abyss.

With this comes a delusion among voters that helps buoy Trump’s campaign prospects. Presidential candidates make big promises. But presidents are not kings. They can’t keep those promises without the help of Congress any more than they can control the economic forces that determine the price of eggs or a gallon of gas. Yet, presidents get blamed for higher grocery prices even though they’re hardly a president’s fault. And voters buy into those campaign promises only to blame presidents later when the promises go unfulfilled despite Congress being the reason why. How can voters not do that math, given that Congress consistently has historically low approval ratings?

It’s not worth engaging the MAGA faithful who gorge themselves on fake controversies and ginned-up rage, but there are plenty of smart conservative and independent voters who remain undecided while seemingly oblivious to the bigger picture. If Trump wins, pursues his promises, gives his Project 2025 puppet masters what they want, and Republicans win both houses of Congress (entirely possible), the last thing Americans will be worrying about is their grocery bill.

What strikes me as odd, what is so damned frustrating, is how tepidly the media covers Trump’s endless string of deranged tirades. I don’t know if it’s a misguided obsession with impartiality, a fear of being accused of bias, or just having become desensitized to where the continuous flow of extreme comments is a new normal.

We get “Donald Trump Sharpened His Criticism of Kamala Harris on Border Security,” instead of “Trump Seemed Unstable and Made Several Bizarre Remarks During a Campaign Speech.”

Or try “Trump Says ‘People Have To Remain Calm’ Amid Coronavirus Outbreak,” rather than “Trump Visits CDC During Pandemic, Asks About Fox News’s Ratings, Insults Washington Governor, Boasts About Trying To Extort Ukraine Into Digging Up Dirt On Joe Biden.”

Does this CNN account that Trump “accepted rules for September 10 debate” really reflect how Trump accepted them on his social media account? I can assure you: It does not.

This sanitizing of Trump’s ravings makes even his most incendiary comments seem lucid and levelheaded for the vast majority of Americans who have neither the time nor inclination to watch his rally rants live.

Historically, Trump has reacted to setbacks or threats to his power and ego by doubling down on combative and inflammatory language. However, if the polls remain tied (a negative to him), if he doesn’t get the attention he craves (Harris getting so much more since her entry into the race), he may feel even more cornered, leading to further unhinged ramblings and abstract warnings of societal destruction.

Yet, some voters remain reticent. Recently on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect,” New York Times conservative columnist Bret Stephens waxed on with a familiar critique: Kamala Harris’ failure to address specific policy questions she needs to answer to earn his vote.

Bollocks.

Yes, policy matters, but that sounds more like an excuse than a reason not to vote for a Democrat. Perhaps Mr. Stephens will approve of Harris’ recent media blitz, packed with appearances on “60 Minutes,” “The View,” “The Howard Stern Show,” and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

Or maybe Stephens needs to be hit over the head with a ball peen hammer.

“She’s running against Trump,” MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle told Stephens in that same HBO episode. “We have two choices. And so there are some things you might not know her answer to [from Harris], and in 2024, unlike 2016 for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy.”

Ironically, Trump’s continuing free-fall into madness can only inflame passions among his most devoted followers, making the campaign even less about policy and more about existential threats. If Trump slips further in the polls, we could see this trend intensify, with fewer discussions of policy and more calls to destroy alleged enemies of the state.

Trump, of course, responded to Maher’s program in typically venomous fashion, calling Ruhle a “dumb as a rock bimbo,” Stephens a “Trump-hating loser,” and in a steaming pile of irony, accused Maher of “sloppy and tired” attacks.

Such reactions to criticism — and they are always the same reactions — should tell undecided voters and insipid ditherers like Stephens everything they need to know about this election. It is an election entirely about character. That is the issue.

Or are vacillating voters and those who have decided not to vote comfortable having someone so childish and poisonous in the White House?

We should reframe the question for the vacillators and the indifferent: Given the kinds of things he says, the type of person he is, the type of person you readily concede that he is, would you say you are just like Donald Trump? Does Donald Trump represent the type of person you are?

Your answer will tell you why you have to vote. And for whom.