Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Goodbye to Joe Biden, and Whoever Was President the Last Four Years

Published

6 minute read

From Racket News

By Matt Taibbi

The “Invisible Presidency” is an all-time criminal, and must not be allowed to flee

I saw His Majesty myself about half past twelve o’clock. His conversation was so hurried, and, though not unconnected or irrational, so unlike his ordinary manner that I certainly should not have thought it proper to have taken his signature or his pleasure to any Act.

— Spencer Perceval, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an 1810 letter about King George III

King George III went mad as a March hare, talking until he foamed at the mouth, writing 400-word sentences, threatening to “befoul himself,” holding conversations with imaginary people, and insisting he had power to reanimate the dead. Contemporary notes often describe him “in restraint” and “lost in reverie.” His last, worst phase began in 1810, his 50th in power, a jubilee year requiring constant public appearances. The Last King of America by Andrew Roberts shows it can be done:

No fewer than 650 public events — parades, receptions, luncheons, bonfires, firework displays, illuminations and the like — took place in England alone; there were many more across the rest of the United Kingdom and in the empire beyond.

Joe Biden said goodbye to America Wednesday night. The most controversial part of an otherwise weirdly half-assed address (maybe his writers have stopped caring?) was a warning. “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence,” he said, a “tech industrial complex” that “literally threatens our entire democracy.”

Biden always loved the word “literally.” He’s been misusing it for decades, from “we literally can’t survive” four more years of Bush policy, to the 2008 election winner having an opportunity “literally to change the direction of the world,” to Barack Obama’s story being “literally incredible,” to saying he’s “literally rebuilding our entire nation,” and on and on. With Bidenterms like look, here’s the deal, let me tell you, I promise you, and C’mon, Biden says “literally” often enough to make “Word Crimes” singer Weird Al Yankovic want to “literally smack a crowbar upside your stupid head.” Here, it’s at least a sign that Biden might have added to the speech on his own.

Most all Biden speeches are acknowledged (LincolnObama) or unacknowledged (Neil KinnockJohn Kennedy) homages to other politicians. This last one Biden attempt at an Eisenhower impersonation is backward. We’re warned about an “oligarchy,” which Webster’s defines as “a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.” He tries to tag disobedient billionaires like Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen and Mark Zuckerberg (as opposed to Reid Hoffman, Bill and Melinda Gates, Steven Schwartzman, etc.) as this new oligarchy, but there’s one even closer to home, which Biden later in the speech referenced:

In the years ahead… it is going to be up to the president, the presidency, the congress, the courts, the free press and the American people… I still believe in the idea for which this nation stands… Now it’s your turn to stand guard.

Biden’s possibly ad-libbed distinction between “president” and “presidency” was the most inspired line of his political career. America just went through four years in which the public was conned into viewing two stories as one. The first was about Joe Biden the human being, a disintegrating flesh-and-blood patsy, conscripted to such a miserably slapstick public regimen that it was impossible not to feel sorry for him. The second was about the presidency, which for years now has been like the eponymous Claude Rains villain in The Invisible Man: an unseen monster.

For four years, while Buster Keatonesque videos of stumblingtumbling Biden filled social media, just a handful of clues leaked about the ethereal “Presidency” running the American superpower. The latter existed separate from Biden and is scheduled to slither aside Monday. It exits on a bitter note, blaming an “avalanche of misinformation and disinformation” (not enough censorship) for its inability to be re-elected while strapped to a corpse. It hopes to get away unseen and probably will, as reporters prepare to chase the great baited hook that is Donald Trump. It’s too bad James Whale is dead, since this monster’s story will make a great horror movie someday.

Here are two sincere notes of farewell, to the hapless shrinking man Joe Biden, and to his more powerful partner, the “Presidency” :

2025 Federal Election

‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang

Published on

“There were Chinese officials following Bob Saroya around.” The Bureau investigates claims of voter intimidation in the Toronto-area riding now at the centre of Canada’s election.

As Canada’s snap election unfolds under the shadow of foreign interference—following the resignation of a Liberal MP accused of suggesting his Conservative rival could be handed to Chinese officials for a bounty—The Bureau has uncovered new allegations that Chinese agents attempted to intimidate voters and the Conservative incumbent in the same Markham–Unionville riding during the 2021 federal campaign. The revelations raise urgent concerns that similar tactics may be resurfacing in Toronto-area ridings with large communities of immigrants from China and Hong Kong.

Paul Chiang, a former police officer who unseated longtime Conservative representative Bob Saroya to win Markham–Unionville for Team Trudeau in 2021, stepped down as a candidate late Monday after the RCMP confirmed it was reviewing remarks he made to Chinese-language media in January. During that event, Chiang reportedly said Conservative candidate Joe Tay—a Canadian citizen wanted under Hong Kong’s National Security Law—could be taken to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to claim a bounty.

Tay, a former Hong Kong broadcaster whose independent reporting from Canada has drawn retaliation from Beijing, rejected Chiang’s apology, calling his comments to Chinese-language journalists “the tradecraft of the Chinese Communist Party.” He added: “They are not just aimed at me; they are intended to send a chilling signal to the entire community to force compliance with Beijing’s political goals.” His concerns were echoed by dozens of NGOs and human rights organizations, which condemned Chiang’s remarks as an endorsement of transnational repression.

There is no indication Chiang was aware of the intimidation campaign alleged by senior Conservative sources during the 2021 vote. He has described his January remarks as an ill-considered joke, a serious lapse in judgment, and emphasized that he intended no harm or wrongdoing.

According to multiple senior figures from Erin O’Toole’s 2021 Conservative campaign—who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of intelligence disclosures—O’Toole’s team was briefed by Canadian intelligence that Chinese officials were actively surveilling Saroya during the election. One source recalled being told that “there were Chinese officials following Bob Saroya around,” and that “CSIS literally said repeatedly that this was ‘coordinated and alarming.’”

“Bob lost because the Chinese vote abandoned him,” the source added.

When asked to respond, O’Toole—who stepped down after the 2021 loss—acknowledged awareness of voter intimidation reports but did not say whether CSIS had informed his team about alleged Chinese surveillance targeting Saroya.

“Our candidate Bob Saroya was a hardworking MP who won against the Liberal wave in 2015,” O’Toole wrote. “He won in 2019 as well, but thousands of votes from the Chinese Canadian community stayed home in 2021. We heard reports of intimidation of voters. We also know the Consul General from China took particular interest in the riding and made strange comments to Mr. Saroya ahead of the election. It was always in the top three of the eight or nine ridings that I believe were flipped due to foreign interference. The conduct of Mr. Chiang suggests our serious concerns were warranted.”

A third senior Conservative campaign source confirmed Chinese interference was a concern in multiple ridings. “The concern was related to China… we had candidates that were being intimidated,” the source said.

Speaking specifically to Saroya’s campaign, the source said that in the early stages of the 2021 election, Saroya and a close family member believed they were performing well. “He said he had never had such a good reaction at the doors, and he assumed he was getting the Chinese traditional vote,” they recalled.

But the campaign later learned from CSIS that Saroya was allegedly being followed by suspected Chinese security personnel. Intelligence assessments reportedly indicated that these actors were shadowing Saroya’s canvassing team and visiting the same homes shortly after campaign stops. While The Bureau has not confirmed CSIS’s exact conclusions, the conduct appears consistent with voter suppression tactics—paralleling public warnings issued this week by Canada’s SITE Task Force.

The source added that CSIS interviewed Saroya. “He was convinced he was being tailed at times,” they said. The Bureau has independently confirmed with two sources that Saroya was interviewed by CSIS.

Saroya has declined to comment.

While Saroya is not named among alleged victims, a January 2022 “Special Report” from the Privy Council Office—sourced from over 100 CSIS documents and reviewed by The Bureau—stated that a small number of MPs in 2021 reported concerns for their families, reputations, privacy, and re-election chances due to “targeted” CCP activity.

Another section of the report details threats and coercion strongly resembling the emerging picture in Markham. It stated that Chinese diplomats, public security officers, and intelligence officers had monitored Canadians, including one case in which agents threatened the parents of a student in Canada.

The Privy Council Office report also suggested that concerns about forced repatriations—or even covert renditions—of dissidents are plausible. It noted that in 2020, a Chinese police liaison worked with a Canadian law enforcement officer to repatriate an economic fugitive in the Fox Hunt campaign. Another coerced repatriation involved Chinese police bringing a fugitive’s brother and father to Canada, and the relatives could not return to China unless the fugitive returned with them.

The report also noted that “Chinese intelligence officers have discussed that Canadians can be ‘messed with’ in person and online because they are critical of China.”

Although SITE officials have not directly addressed Joe Tay’s statement that he contacted the RCMP for protection in relation to his candidacy, they acknowledged under repeated questioning from Canadian reporters Monday that the spread of Chiang’s comments through Chinese-language media fits a broader pattern of foreign interference aimed at silencing dissidents and influencing voters.

In a public statement, a SITE official said the task force is aware of ongoing efforts by authoritarian regimes to target dissidents, critics, journalists, and other members of diaspora communities. “Please remember two things. First, your vote is secret and secure—it will not be possible to find out who you vote for. And second, it is an offense to threaten someone so that they change their vote,” the official said Monday.

Canadians experiencing intimidation or threats were urged to write down the details—such as the person, location, and nature of the event—and report to local police or contact the RCMP National Security Information Network.

Though Saroya has not spoken publicly about the matter—despite repeated interview requests from The Bureau—parliamentary testimony suggests he raised his concerns within Conservative leadership. During a 2023 hearing of the House Procedure and Affairs Committee, Conservative MP Michael Cooper asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, Katie Telford:

“Ten weeks before the 2021 election, Bob Saroya, then member of Parliament for Markham–Unionville, received a cryptic and threatening text message from Beijing’s Consul General in Toronto, suggesting that he would no longer be a member of Parliament after the 2021 election. Were you, the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO briefed or otherwise have knowledge about that text message?”

Telford replied: “I can’t speak to that information.”

Meanwhile, a review of September 2021 campaign materials shows at least one controversial appearance in Markham featuring Paul Chiang, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and then–Public Safety Minister Bill Blair.

In a Facebook post, Chiang wrote: “Today I hosted Justin Trudeau here in Markham–Unionville. It’s time for Erin O’Toole to come clean with Canadians, and for Bob Saroya to do the same. Their commitment to re-legalize 1,500 models of assault-style firearms will put the safety of our community at risk.”

That message echoed attack ads against O’Toole displayed on a digital screen inside a Chinese grocery store in Toronto’s Scarborough–Agincourt riding, according to evidence presented at the Hogue Commission.

Even after Chiang’s resignation, Prime Minister Mark Carney has faced renewed scrutiny for expressing confidence in him just hours before the RCMP announced its investigation. Carney characterized the controversy as a “teachable moment.”

Dennis Molinaro, a former national security analyst and author of the forthcoming book Under Siege: Interference and Espionage in China’s Secret War Against Canada, criticized Carney’s handling of the issue.

“The threats the community faces are real and longstanding,” Molinaro said. “Carney’s reference to Chiang as a former police officer—as if that’s a valid reason for him to remain in the race—is ludicrous.”

“Carney has continually said next to nothing on China,” he added. “It’s one of the most significant political and geopolitical issues of our time, and he has nothing to say? Why? China is a major concern for the United States, and yet he remains silent—even after the execution of four Canadians?”

The Durham Regional Police Association—which represents officers in one of the three Ontario forces where Chiang served—issued a statement condemning Carney’s actions. “We are disappointed in the clear lack of integrity and leadership displayed by Mark Carney to stand by this candidate rather than act after such egregious actions,” the association wrote, adding that Chiang’s conduct “would be held to a higher standard for an active officer in Ontario.”

The group also rejected Carney’s defense of Chiang’s law enforcement background: “The fact that Mr. Carney used Chiang’s policing career as a shield for his actions undermines the great work our heroes in uniform do in their communities each and every day.”

Chiang’s policing career spanned nearly 30 years. He began with the London Police Service in 1992, later served with the Durham Regional Police, and retired in 2020 as a sergeant with York Regional Police. In 2013, he worked as a diversity officer in York’s Diversity and Cultural Resources Unit.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

For the full experience, please upgrade your subscription and support a public interest startup.

We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Trump Must Act to Halt the Tesla Terror Campaign

Published on

Christopher F. Rufo

The Left’s splintering violence threatens a veto over democratic power.

Elon Musk finds himself at the fulcrum of American life. His companies are leading the field across the automotive, space, robotics, and AI industries. His ownership of the social platform X gives him significant influence over political discourse. And his DOGE initiative represents the single greatest threat to the permanent administrative state. Musk is arguably the most powerful man in the United States, including President Trump.

The Left has taken notice. Left-wing activists have long practiced a tactic called “power mapping,” which entails diagramming the opposing political movement and identifying “chokepoints.” They have designated Musk as one such chokepoint. This month, activists claimed to have organized 500 protests against Elon Musk’s Tesla—dubbed the “Tesla Takedown”—with demonstrations outside sales lots and a series of incidents of vandalism, property destruction, and fire bombings. A pattern has also emerged of individuals scratching or spray-painting parked Teslas, looking to intimidate owners and potential owners or just to express hatred of Musk.

Precedents exist for this kind of escalation. In the 1970s, following the frustrations of the civil rights era, left-wing splinter groups launched targeted terror campaigns and symbolic acts of violence. They bombed the U.S. Capitol, assassinated police officers, and even self-immolated in imitation of Buddhist monks. We may be entering a similar phase today, as the collapse of the Black Lives Matter movement gives rise to radicalized left-wing factions willing to embrace violence. If so, Musk’s Tesla may be the Number One target.

What, exactly, motivates this campaign? At its core, the Left appears to be shifting from an “antiracist” narrative to an anti-wealth one—from a racial frame to an economic one. The sentiment driving the Tesla Takedown is rooted in economic resentment and a desire for leveling. Musk has become a symbol of everything progressives oppose: oligarchy, capitalism, wealth, and innovation. These, in their view, are marks of the oppressor. They scorn the futuristic Cybertruck, SpaceX rockets, and Optimus robots, believing that such creations should be dismantled and repurposed into chassis for public buses or I-beams for public housing.

A certain element of left-wing Luddism is at work here, but the greater part of these activists’ motives is resentment. Musk represents the triumph of the great man of industry, something the Left believes should not exist.

Unfortunately, the Tesla Takedown may succeed. The Left has likely identified Tesla as a chokepoint because it’s easier to dissuade consumers from buying a car they associate with a malevolent political cause—or fear might be vandalized—than it is to persuade them to buy one in support of Musk and DOGE. When it comes to purchasing a Tesla, fear among the average American is a more powerful motivator than enthusiasm among the MAGA base.

Some evidence suggests that the campaign has made an economic impact. Tesla stock peaked around the time of President Trump’s inauguration and since then has lost approximately 40 percent of its value. Musk has accumulated more power than any other American, but that means that he has more points of vulnerability. His wealth and power are tied to his companies—most importantly, his consumer car company, which depends on individual purchases rather than institutional contracts (like SpaceX).

Trump has signaled that he understands this dilemma. He appeared at the White House in a Tesla and has voiced support for Musk’s firms. Justice Department prosecutors—and their allies in state government—must translate this support into policy by identifying and punishing those who destroy property as a means of political intimidation.

The administration needs to make clear that radical left-wing factions cannot use violence to wield a veto over democratic governance. If the partnership between Trump and Musk is to produce meaningful results, it must be backed by the full protection of the law.

Continue Reading

Trending

X