Archive for August, 2014
Kerry Aims For Coalition Of The Willing At NATO Summit to Target ISIS
Posted by Content in American News, International affairs, Middle East Politics, World Politics on August 31, 2014
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States will use a NATO summit next week to push for a coalition of countries to beat back incursions in Syria and Iraq by Islamic State militants who are destabilizing the region and beyond.
“With a united response led by the United States and the broadest possible coalition of nations, the cancer of ISIS will not be allowed to spread to other countries,” Kerry wrote in an opinion piece published in The New York Times on Saturday.
Public anger over the beheading of American journalist James Foley has led President Barack Obama to consider military strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria. So far, the United States has limited its actions to the group’s forces in Iraq.
The militant group, also referred to as both ISIS and ISIL, has seized about a third of each country and declared a caliphate, a reference to an Islamic state ruled by a caliph, which indicates a successor to the Prophet Mohammad, with temporal authority over all Muslims.
Kerry said he and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will meet with their European counterparts to enlist support for a coalition to act against Islamic State militants. “The goal is to enlist the broadest possible assistance,” he wrote.
Hagel and Kerry will then travel to the Middle East to shore up support from countries directly affected by the Islamic State threat, he said.
Islamic State fighters have exhibited “repulsive savagery and cruelty” as they try to touch off a broader sectarian conflict, Kerry wrote, and the beheading of Foley “shocked the conscience of the world.”
“Already our efforts have brought dozens of nations to this cause,” he said. “Certainly there are different interests at play. But no decent country can support the horrors perpetrated by ISIS, and no civilized country should shirk its responsibility to help stamp out this disease.”
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have called for lawmakers to vote on whether the United States should broaden its action against Islamic State.
Two prominent Republicans criticized Obama on Saturday for saying the United States has not yet developed a strategy for confronting Islamic State in Syria.
In an opinion piece also published on the op-ed page of Saturday’s New York Times, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham called Obama’s statement on Thursday “startling” and “dangerous” and said the threat from Islamic State requires “a far greater sense of urgency” than the administration is showing.
McCain and Graham, in an essay headlined “Stop Dithering, Confront ISIS,” suggested revising the Authorization for Use of Military Force so it could be used for evolving terrorism threats like Islamic State.
That would negate any need for members of Congress to approve specific military action against the group, or suffer the consequences of such a decision.
Prime Minister Cameron Warns Against Britain’s Greatest Ever Terror Threat
Posted by Content in UK Politics on August 30, 2014
Taking a lead on the ISIS threat British Prime Minister said more armed police will patrol Britain’s streets to counter the threat posed by fanatics returning from Iraq and Syria.
He warned that the return of hundreds of murderous extremists posed a greater threat to our security than Al Qaeda or the IRA ever did.
His comments came as Theresa May announced the official terror threat level had been raised to ‘severe’ the second-highest state for the first time in three years.
Mr Cameron said the public could expect to see an increase in high-profile police patrols, including the greater use of armed officers, particularly at airports and major railway stations.
He called for the public to be vigilant but added they should not panic, saying Britain had shown ‘resolve’ in the face of terror before.
He also pledged to introduce ‘uncompromising’ new laws to plug ‘gaps in our armoury’ in dealing with the threat posed by Islamic State extremists, including enhanced powers to remove the passports of radicalised Muslims seeking to join the fighting in the Middle East.
Proposals to remove the passports of extremists who have already gone abroad are also being examined.
The Home Secretary said the intelligence services now believe a terror attack in Britain is ‘highly likely’, although she stressed there was no information about any specific plot.
‘The increase in the threat level is related to developments in Syria and Iraq where terrorist groups are planning attacks against the West,’ Mrs May said. ‘Some of those plots are likely to involve foreign fighters who have travelled there from the UK and Europe to take part in those conflicts.’
British intelligence officers believe at least 500 British citizens have travelled to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad, of which about half have returned to this country. Some experts believe the true figure may be far higher.
Mr Cameron gave few details of the planned crackdown to combat this threat, which will be revealed to MPs on Monday.
He insisted he would not introduce ‘knee-jerk’ measures in response to the threat. But he said existing powers to strip radicalised Muslims of their passports will be beefed up, to prevent more travelling to the region to fight. Rules introduced last year have so far resulted in the removal of just 23 passports.
The Prime Minister said he also wanted to see more action to prevent extremists returning from the region. However, he gave few details, saying only that police needed powers to deal ‘decisively’ with those who have returned.
Experts speculated that this will mean strengthening Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, designed to make it easier for police to keep tabs on terror suspects. Critics say the measures, introduced after draconian control orders were thrown out by the courts, are too weak to be effective.
Mr Cameron is considering whether to add a requirement for suspects to remain at a known address, subjects could even be ordered to attend de-radicalisation sessions.
Ministers are also examining whether to revive plans for the so-called Snoopers’ Charter, which would allow the intelligence services to log details of every phone call and email, despite opposition from civil liberties campaigners and Nick Clegg.
In addition, Mr Cameron is pushing for new EU laws to require countries to share air passenger data, to make it easier to track and intercept suspected extremists heading for Syria.
The Prime Minister told a press conference in Downing Street that Britain is facing a ‘generational battle’ against ‘poisonous’ Islamist extremists which is likely to last for decades.
He said IS was unlike any previous terrorist threat because it had effectively established a state from which it could eventually mount attacks on the West.
‘In Afghanistan the Taliban were prepared to play host to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organisation. With [IS] we are facing a terrorist organisation not being hosted in a country but seeking to establish and then violently expand its own terrorist state.
‘With designs on expanding up to the Turkish border, we could be facing a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a NATO member.’
Despite this warning, he played down the prospect of joining the US in direct military action.
President Putin May Now Be Seeking to Establish New Statelet in Eastern Ukraine
Posted by Content in European Politics, International affairs, World Politics on August 30, 2014
Russian strongman Vladimir Putin first used “Novorossiya” the loaded Tsarist-era name for what is now southern and eastern Ukraine just after annexing Crimea from Ukraine in March, sparking outrage in Kiev.
The Kremlin made a reference to the term again on Friday when it released Putin’s address to Ukraine’s pro-Russian separatists, pointedly calling them defenders of “Novorossiya” (New Russia).
For analysts, this marks a significant development in nearly five months of conflict engulfing eastern Ukraine, with Putin sending a clear message of his determination to carve out a new statelet at all costs.
Putin has definitively decided for himself the issue of Novorossiya, he believes that Novorossiya should exist and there can be no doubt that Moscow will be working on defining borders for the next few months of the planned territory.
Putin’s first mention of Novorossiya came in a televised call-in show with Russians in April when he argued that eastern and southern Ukraine were once part of Russia but were then transferred to Ukraine by the Bolsheviks in the 1920s.
“Why they did this, only God only knows,” he said, recalling the lands had been won by Russia in famous battles led by Catherine the Great.
Putin used similar logic to justify Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March, saying Moscow was simply righting the wrong by returning a peninsula which was part of the Soviet republic of Russia before 1954.
His spokesman defended the use of the word in the Kremlin statement issued Friday.
“That is how the territory has been called historically and if you look at history it has been called Novorossiya in the course of several centuries,” Dmitry Peskov said on radio.
“This is an absolutely Russian name of this territory. This is how in Russia these lands were and are called.”
Putin’s latest use of the term comes amid a dramatic counter-offensive in east Ukraine, where rebels have snatched swathes of southeastern territory from government forces in recent days, halting the advance of Kiev’s troops.
The West and Kiev say Russian troops are not only behind the lightning operation but are also fighting on the ground alongside ragtag formations of Kremlin-backed separatists against Kiev’s forces, claims which Moscow has repeatedly denied.
Independent political analyst Maria Lipman said the latest developments are a clear message from Putin to the West: “I am ready to go very far and you?”
Several rounds of Western sanctions have delivered a blow to Russia’s faltering economy but have not deterred Putin who has ordered a virtual embargo on EU and US food imports.
His tough stance has been met with approval at home, with his domestic approval ratings soaring to record highs after the annexation of Crimea.
Some suggest that Putin may now be seeking to mould Ukraine’s rebel-held regions into a statelet similar to Moldova’s breakaway region of Transdniestr.
Putin appeared driven by a visceral desire to punish Ukraine after the ex-Soviet country chose to sign political and trade deals with the EU, a move seen as a snub to Moscow.
The analyst described the Ukraine crisis as Putin’s mission to vindicate himself and prove he is “the only leader with steely determination and conviction.”
Hyper-Democracy And Progressive Oligarchy
Posted by Content in Uncategorized on August 29, 2014
When will the silent, discontent, and disengaged majority awaken to the reality that the peace they’ve been promised is a political mirage?
According to conventional wisdom, Americans start paying closer attention to elections after Labor Day. The reality they will return to after their summer vacation from American politics is highlighted by popular unrest (centered, for now, in Ferguson, MO) and elite partisanship (featuring an indictment in Austin, TX, and lawsuits and impeachment talk in Washington, DC). In other words, they’ll return to a political setting much the same (with different flash points) as the one they left behind in late May.
These headlines and the apparently perpetual problems they highlight represent an unpleasant distraction from the already overwhelming busyness of daily life, and thus promise to keep a good portion of the American public on the political sidelines, and an even larger group of Americans questioning the direction of the country. A stale inertia seems to be the norm, a political game without a clear-cut winner and many a participant injured along the way.
Upon closer examination, however, one finds, as we argued last week, that the reverse is true: that there is a dynamic force in American politics producing a consistent winner capable of putting the dynasties of the Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens, and Steelers to shame: Progressivism and its champion, the DC Oligarchs, whose worst season still rewards handsomely its dedicated if dependent fan base.
How is it that in a hyper-egalitarian age a purportedly democratic ideology has produced the seemingly-intractable oligarchic ruling class that dominates American politics?
Alexis de Tocqueville provides a clue in Democracy in America: “Democratic nations often hate those in whose hands the central power is vested, but they always love that power itself.” Whereas democratic equality promised to make men free and independent, Tocqueville argues that it eventually empowers collective institutions rather than individuals, as democratic peoples love “public tranquility”–and no power promises to secure a more stable peace than the centralized state.
Political victory in a democratic age requires partisans to present a vision of peace acceptable to the multitude and to demonstrate thereafter that they are best prepared to keep the peace. Progressive oligarchs have been wildly successful on both fronts, promising a peace like no other–prosperous and perpetual–and employing the accumulated resources of the United States to carry out their program, all the while winning many of the rhetorical battles with pleasing slogans that appeal to the vanity, prejudices, and passions of the people. While following a banner promising more liberty and freedom, individuals find themselves more powerless against the vicissitudes of life, and more willing to exchange their liberty for security.
The American founders were very much aware of this paradox of democratic politics, as James Madison demonstrates in Federalist 58. Although sympathetic to those wishing to see the House of Representatives grow with the American population, Madison warns that the larger the assembly, “the greater the ascendancy of passion over reason”–and the “the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings.” He continues:
The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.
Perhaps no two sentences could better summarize the political consequences of Progressivism as they have unfolded over the last century. Popular election of senators, universal voting rights for women, state-level tools like initiative and referendum: all were democratizing measures advocated and enacted with energy by Progressives in the first two decades of the 20th century. And yet, a century later, the individual citizen has a smaller share in his own governance, less confidence in less accountable leaders, and less control over his daily life than at any previous point in our nation’s history–and every instinct of the ruling class promises to make things even worse.
Consider an important parallel between the lawsuit against President Obama and the recent indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry.
A month ago, President Obama was all but begging House Republicans to impeach him, cynically calculating, it would seem, that nothing would raise money for the fall election campaign or energize otherwise dispirited Democratic voters like a good impeachment. Speaker Boehner, of course, demurred, fearing perhaps that President Obama’s calculations might be correct, and instead hoping a stern lawsuit might keep more spirited Republican voters energized. However this plays into the midterm election campaign, one result is assured: that a political dispute over executive power has been turned over to the non-political branch of government for proper expert disposal.
Ditto the ongoing struggle between Austin and the rest of the state of Texas, which resulted in Governor Perry’s indictment on extremely flimsy abuse of power charges. “If you can’t beat them, indict them” is an ugly mode of politics, but it is also the negation of politics–another deferral to the experts, of sorts.
Democratic passions beget a trump-card style politics and oligarchic management. Is there any feasible alternative?
James Madison did not expect that the American republic, if properly constructed, would inaugurate an era when reason reigned unchallenged. In fact, given human nature, he didn’t even advocate that. “[T]he most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side,” he argued in Federalist 49. What he cautioned against, rather, was liberating passion from any responsibility to right.
In Federalist 49, that meant cultivating a “veneration” for the good government created by the Constitution; buttressing the conclusions of “enlightened reason” with the “prejudices of the community.” In Federalist 58, he showed how calculations of personal honor and interest–and the House’s control over government spending–could be used to move the reluctant to support “every just and salutary measure.” Republican politics, as Madison described (and practiced) it, is fundamentally about persuasion toward the good–not the coercive passion of the mob or the coercive decree of the functionary.
Madison knew very well what Aristotle had taught 2000 years before–that persuasion is an art involving the reason and the passions of the audience, as well as the character of the speaker. Republican government respects the dignity of the individual not only by protecting his fundamental rights, but by addressing him as a whole, mature human being, not as an animal to be controlled or a child to be commanded–and not as a hyper-rational Vulcan, either.
In different ways, this is equally absent from the Boehner lawsuit, the Perry indictment, and more or less any speech by President Obama. Speaker Boehner could make the public case against the president’s lawlessness in pressing for impeachment or by invoking Madison’s favorite tool, the power of the purse–perhaps persuasively, given the merits of the case. Governor Perry’s opponents could make their own argument about executive abuse if they dare or look for a more plausible line of complaint. President Obama could engage real opponents rather than strawmen and real arguments rather than caricatures. All would then be forced to lead in a truly republican manner, grappling publicly with justice in a more responsible and meaningful way in order to win the assent of the people at large.
But they haven’t and therefore they didn’t. The question that remains is whether that will matter. Those checking in after a summer away from politics can as easily check out again. The minority planning to vote in November can vote their bum back in and hope everyone else throws theirs out. The wheel will turn; the breathless analysis will be written; Washington will yawn, as the Oligarchs win again.
Or the silent, discontent, and disengaged majority will awaken to the reality that the peace they’ve been promised is a political mirage, and that only through their active life-long engagement is regime change possible in the United States. A republic, if you can keep it; a republic if you can reclaim it.
David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and Matthew Parks an Assistant Professor of Politics at The King’s College, New York City.
The Federalist Link: http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/25/hyper-democracy-and-progressive-oligarchy/
Governor Perry’s Legal Team File Motion to Dismiss
Posted by Content in 2016 Presidential race, American News on August 27, 2014
The two-count indictment against Gov. Rick Perry defies common sense and should be dismissed “immediately if not sooner” as a violation of the U.S. and Texas constitutions, Perry’s legal team told the trial judge.
The wide-ranging attack argued that Perry’s criminal charges were based on state laws that are unconstitutional or, at the very least, were misinterpreted constituting an improper attempt to criminalize politics and limit gubernatorial power in “intolerable and incalculable” ways.
“Continued prosecution of Governor Perry on the current indictment is unprecedented, insupportable and simply impermissible,” said the 60-page filing by defense lawyer David Botsford.
The charges, stemming from Perry’s veto last year of state money for the Travis County district attorney’s office, also violate the Texas Constitution’s separation-of-powers clause by improperly inserting the courts into the functions of the executive and legislative branches, the petition said.
“Allowing a criminal prosecution of a political decision where there is no allegation of bribery or demonstrable corruption undermines the basic structure of state government,” Botsford wrote. “It is no fault of the court that it has been asked to intrude on a political dispute; dismissal is the proper way to ensure that the judiciary plays no part in the separation-of-powers attack.”
The document filed Monday was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus designed for constitutional challenges but rarely filed before a trial.
Special prosecutor Michael McCrum will be given time to respond no deadline has been set and Senior District Judge Bert Richardson can schedule a hearing to gather additional evidence or rule based on the legal briefs.
Either way, the losing side can and most likely will appeal Richardson’s decision to the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin, which is comprised of five Republican justices and one Democrat. The Court of Criminal Appeals, with an 8-1 advantage in Republican judges, also can be asked to review the 3rd Court’s decision.
Even with a request for expedited rulings, the appellate court process will take weeks, probably months, to navigate.
If Monday’s petition fails to void the criminal charges against Perry, Botsford indicated that he will file a motion to dismiss the indictments for failure to adequately state a violation of state law.
“Those arguments will not be addressed now, because pretrial habeas corpus is not the remedy for factual inadequacy, even when that inadequacy is as blatant as it is here,” Botsford told Richardson in the petition.
A Travis County grand jury indicted Perry 10 days ago on felony charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of official capacity.
He is accused of threatening to withhold $7.5 million in state money to the Public Integrity Unit unless District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg resigned after her high-profile arrest for drunken driving. Perry carried out that threat when Lehmberg did not step down
Governor Perry and Senator Rubio Hit South Carolina with 2016 in Mind
Posted by Content in 2016 Presidential race, American News on August 26, 2014
While Iowa, the state that kicks off the presidential caucus and primary calendar, and New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s first primary, have seen numerous visits this summer by many of the potential 2016 candidates, things have been quiet in South Carolina.
But that changes on Monday in the state that holds the first southern nominating contest.
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida headlines a major fundraiser for Rep. Jeff Duncan in Anderson. Duncan’s fourth annual Faith and Freedom barbeque is a big draw with many of the Palmetto State’s top Republicans expected to attend. This is Rubio’s first visit to South Carolina in the 2016 presidential cycle.
Last year, another potential GOP White House contender, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, was the main attraction at Duncan’s “Upstate” event. It was one of two trips Paul made to South Carolina last year.
Paul’s also back in the state on Monday, about 120 miles to the east of Rubio. He’ll headline a fundraiser in Rock Hill for Mick Mulvaney, another Republican congressman up for re-election this November.
On Wednesday, Rick Perry pays a visit to South Carolina. The longtime Texas governor, who made a bid for the 2012 Republican nomination and is flirting with another run in 2016, will help raise money in Columbia for the state GOP. The next day Perry will attend the SEC’s college football opener, pitting his beloved Texas A&M Aggies vs. the University of South Carolina Gamecocks.
This is Perry’s second swing through South Carolina this year. He joined Gov. Nikki Haley, who’s up for re-election in November, on the campaign trail in early July.
This spring South Carolina enjoyed a bunch of visits from potential Republican White House contenders such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, as well as two previous GOP presidential candidates who may run again: former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
But the action moved to Iowa and New Hampshire this summer. This week’s trio of visits is putting 2016 spotlight back on South Carolina.
“These are three folks with solid conservative records who should have some built-in appeal in South Carolina. So they all have an opportunity to succeed here. The question is who is going to the best job over the next couple of years in convincing South Carolinians they’re the best person for the job, and a couple of years is an eternity in presidential politics,” longtime South Carolina GOP consultant Joel Sawyer said.
While the state has seen some GOP traffic over the past 18 months, visits by potential Democratic presidential candidates have been more sparse.
Vice President Joe Biden gave the commencement address at the University of South Carolina in May, and last year he keynoted the state Democratic Party’s Jefferson/Jackson dinner and showed up at longtime Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn’s annual fish fry. And early last year, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley spoke at a Democratic Party event in Charleston.