Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue, Clinton could easily lose

July 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton appears to have a substantial lead over Donald Trump in many polls (though there are some polls which puts them quite close). His uninspiring choice of running mate does not bode well either (for him). But, paradoxically, it is “black lives matter” and the mood it inculcates of it being “open season” on the police, which might give Trump an unbeatable edge.

It is not just in Dallas, or now in Baton Rouge, that policemen (some of them black) are being killed by murderous black men. The LA Times (which is virulently anti-Trump), reports:

When five police officers were killed and nine wounded in an attack during a protest march in Dallas on July 7, it rattled the nation. Ten days later, three officers were killed and three injured in Baton Rouge, La., as they were responding to a call about a suspicious person with an assault rifle.

Between the two attacks, law enforcement officers from Georgia to Michigan were shot in incidents that drew far less attention but have added to the growing sense that it’s a dangerous time to be a cop. With the Dallas shootings, 31 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty so far this year, compared with 18 officers who had died at this point in 2015, according the statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. 

…… “As we see increases, it becomes very concerning, particularly when you see increases in the cases of the nature of Dallas,” Breul said. “Certainly there is a climate now — and the Dallas case indicates that there is a climate now — that certainly should have police on guard,” he added. 

Supporters of “black lives matter” were not slow in celebration of the deaths and in commending the police killers both after Dallas and after Baton Rouge. (Not unlike the Islamic teenagers celebrating after the terrorist truck attack in Nice). Donald Trump responded immediately and was quick to draw a picture of the break-down of law and order and the lack of leadership. Hillary Clinton, however, took almost 8 hours to respond very cautiously to the Baton Rouge killings. Sarcastic comments suggested she was waiting for her focus group to tell her what to say.

“Immigration” is the issue that has probably helped most – so far – to fuel Trump’s support among those who feel it has gotten out of control. However there is a significant amount of support for the pro-immigration position as well, which accrues – by default – to Hillary Clinton.  “Law and Order” as an issue is different to “immigration”. There is only a “pro” position here. It is not possible to be “against” law and order. If “law and order” becomes a key issue then it becomes the candidates’ credibility to promote “law and order” that count.

And here, I think, Hillary Clinton could lose very heavily. There is no conceivable way she can present herself as being in favour of, or of being able to restore, or even manage “law and order”. It is not so much that Trump will have any more in the way of solutions than blank support of the security forces, but Clinton does not even understand the problem. Her perceived pandering to “black lives matter” means not just zero credibility regarding “law and order”, but actually a huge negative that she must first overcome. Clinton would lose rather than that Trump would win.

Trump’s best chance now to win against Clinton probably depends upon “immigration” and “law and order” becoming the key issues in November. If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue then Clinton will self-destruct.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue, Clinton could easily lose

Something fishy with the “attempted coup” in Turkey

July 17, 2016

The attempted coup was pretty inept and not at all representative of the skills and organising abilities of the Turkish army. It could have been that it was just a small group involved. But the purge that Erdogan is now carrying out against Hizmet and supporters of Fethullah Gülen (3000 military and 2500 judges detained so far) begins to give weight to the theory that the failed, inept, coup was stage-managed by Erdogan, just to have an excuse to move against Hizmet.

Fethullah Gülen (image Reuters/ BBC)

Just another conspiracy theory. Perhaps. But as conspiracy theories go, this is a rather simple intrigue by the standards of intricate, Byzantine plots. It could be that Erdogan is just being an opportunist and is using  a “genuine” coup attempt to now crack-down on Gülen supporters. But, I would not be at all surprised if it had all been orchestrated by Erdogan.

Reuters: 

U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, whose followers Turkey blames for a failed coup, said on Saturday the attempted overthrow may have been staged, and he urged the Turkish people not to view military intervention in a positive light.

“There is a slight chance, there is a possibility that it could be a staged coup,” Gulen told reporters through a translator in Pennsylvania, where he resides. “It could be meant for court accusations and associations.”

Gulen said democracy cannot be achieved through military action. He criticized the President Tayyip Erdogan’s government. “It appears that they have no tolerance for any movement, any group, any organization that is not under their total control,” he said.

Whether staged or not, Erdogan wins. He is obsessed with Fethullah Gülen and his supporters and what he calls their “parallel state”. It is not a coincidence that Gülen’s supporters tend to be much better educated than the mass support that Erdogan so successfully mobilises.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Turkey | Comments Off on Something fishy with the “attempted coup” in Turkey

Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologises to Trump

July 14, 2016

It is untenable for a Supreme Court Justice to support the independence of the judiciary while involving herself in a political, election campaign. I thought she was being exceedingly stupid in coming out with anti-Trump statements but was somewhat amused at the intellectual contortions of the loony-left media (Huffington Post) in trying to justify her outbursts. She was providing the political establishment a perfect excuse for interfering with the judiciary.

But she has finally seen some sense (or has had it pointed out to her) and has apologised (sort of) to Trump:

Reuters: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg ‘regrets’ Trump criticisms

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday said she regrets making critical comments about Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court.

Ginsburg, the 83-year-old senior liberal member of the high court, inserted herself into the U.S. presidential election in recent days by making negative remarks about Trump in a series of media interviews. Her earlier remarks prompted criticism from Trump, who said she should resign. In one of a series of Twitter posts, he also said Ginsburg’s “mind is shot.”……..

Legal ethics scholars also questioned Ginsburg’s actions, saying Supreme Court justices should stay out the political fray in order to maintain their judicial integrity. The New York Times and the Washington Post chided Ginsburg in editorial articles.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg said.

In a CNN interview posted on Tuesday, Ginsburg called the presumptive Republican nominee “a faker.”

In a separate interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg joked about moving to New Zealand if Trump wins the White House.

Under a code of conduct that federal judges – but not Supreme Court justices – are required to follow, judges are forbidden from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.

image

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologises to Trump

Hillary Clinton being “extremely careless” passes the test for criminal “gross negligence”

July 6, 2016

This is the Director of the FBI about a Secretary of State

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

By any standard of exercise of professional competence this is tantamount to a description of gross negligence.

The Legal Dictionary: Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. 

Clinton Free Pass

That Hillary Clinton gets away with gross negligence can only confirm for those of the anti-establishment persuasion that the system is rigged and plays right into Donald Trump’s narrative. In this case receiving no formal censure can actually be worse for Hillary Clinton than being formally charged with some relatively trivial misdemeanour.

As always with a case amounting to gross negligence – in any field – it is a matter of incompetence.

Andrew Mccarthy writes in the National Review:

There is no way of getting around this:

According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

There are two take-aways here:

  1. Hillary Clinton has been given a “free pass” by the establishment for a clear case of a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18), and
  2. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton displayed incompetence.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton being “extremely careless” passes the test for criminal “gross negligence”

Bangladeshi militants are trying to “prove” themselves to ISIS

July 4, 2016

Sunni Muslim fanatics from Bangladesh come very low within the racial hierarchy that is inherent within ISIS. They are considered inferior fighters and in Iraq and Syria they are never given any command responsibilities. “They are usually housed in groups in small barracks and are paid less than the Arab fighters and are provided inferior equipment”  but they provide convenient “cannon fodder” (suicide missions), The racial hierarchy within ISIS (all Sunni) seems to be:

  1. Arabs from the “home countries” (S. Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Gulf states)
  2. North African “Maghrebian” Arabs ( Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt)
  3. “Light skinned” Muslims from central Asia (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan….)
  4. South Asian Muslims (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia..)
  5. African (dark-skinned) Muslims (Somalia, Nigeria …)

The Bangladesh government insists that the spate of Islamic atrocities and the hacking to death of foreigners, intellectuals, hindus, christians and secularists are not being “directed” by ISIS. Some think this is denial on the part of the government, but I think the government is probably correct. ISIS may be vaguely aware of the activities of these maniacs and gives them some encouragement but probably does not “direct” them. ISIS is not that concerned or interested in Bangladeshi affairs. In fact the “disinterest” shown by ISIS in the Bangladeshis is probably a key part of their motivation to get some attention from ISIS.

france24: Eighteen of the 20 civilians who were killed in the Holey Artisan Bakery were foreigners. Nearly all were hacked to death with machetes, even though the hostage-takers had plenty of firearms. The attack was even more shocking as it came on the final weekend of Ramadan, with survivors describing how the hostage-takers made clear their targets were non-Muslims, separating locals from the foreigners.

Around 90 percent of Bangladesh’s 160 million people are Muslims but the state is officially secular. “By hacking people to death… they wanted to show the world that they can go to any extent for jihad,” said K G Suresh, a senior fellow at New Delhi’s Vivekananda International Foundation think-tank. “Once they attack a restaurant popular with foreigners on a Friday night their message is clear who they want to go after. By sparing Muslims, they wanted to send out the message that they are only against Westerners.”

According to the monitoring group SITE, the Islamic State organisation claimed responsibility for the attack which it said had targeted “citizens of crusader states”. But Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s secular government has long insisted neither IS nor Al-Qaeda have gained a foothold in Bangladesh despite both groups claiming many previous attacks.

I suspect that Bangladeshi Muslim fanatics are going for increasingly “spectacular” atrocities, where their “success” is measured by how much attention they manage to get from ISIS. Ultimately their atrocities are driven by their own perception of racial inferiority to their Arab role-models.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Religion | Comments Off on Bangladeshi militants are trying to “prove” themselves to ISIS

Corbyn on a string – or two

July 2, 2016

I wish I could draw.

My crude attempt to show what the once admirable Labour party has become after it has been hijacked by the loony left who have no other home to doss down in.

Jeremy Corbyn was put in there by the rabble and they are still pulling all his strings.

Squatter’s rights I suppose.

corbyn on a string or two

 

Tags:
Posted in Politics, UK | Comments Off on Corbyn on a string – or two

Only a vote in parliament can trigger Article 50 say constitutional experts

June 27, 2016

Brexit is not going to happen any time soon.

If it happens at all.

It seems according to constitutional law experts that any government with any Prime Minister will need a vote in parliament to give authority to an Article 50 notification of intention to withdraw from the EU. Once triggered, withdrawal is inevitable and time-bound. But there is no majority in the current parliament for leaving. And it could be the best part of a year before such a vote in parliament can even be held. For any chance of such a vote being passed it will need a General Election fought on precisely such a question and that the party or parties in favour of an exit win such an election. But it is also possible that such a vote can not, in the reasonable future, be passed.

A new report from Nick Barber, a fellow at Trinity College, Oxford, Tom Hickman, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and reader at University College, London, and Jeff King, a senior law lecturer at UC, write for the UK Constitutional Law Association:

In this post we argue that as a matter of domestic constitutional law, the Prime Minister is unable to issue a declaration under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.  Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of Article 50 itself.

There are a number of overlapping reasons for this. They range from the general to the specific. At the most general, our democracy is a parliamentary democracy, and it is Parliament, not the Government, that has the final say about the implications of the referendum, the timing of an Article 50 our membership of the Union, and the rights of British citizens that flow from that membership. More specifically, the terms and the object and purpose of the European Communities Act 1972 also support the correctness of the legal position set out above.

The authors argue that a Prime Minister and his government alone cannot trigger Article 50 without the explicit authority of a parliamentary vote. David Cameron’s resignation statement where he said “it is right that this new Prime Minister takes the decision about when to trigger Article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU” does not specify the legal authority under which a Prime Minister alone could make the call:

The Prime Minster did not specify the legal authority under which he believed he or his successors might invoke Article 50, but the typical answer will be obvious to constitutional lawyers: it is the royal prerogative, a collection of executive powers held by the Crown since medieval times, that exist unsupported by statute. …… 

One of the earliest limits on the prerogative was that it could not be used to undermine statutes; where the two are in tension, statute beats prerogative.  In one of the seminal cases of the common law, The Case of Proclamations,(1610) 12 Co. Rep. 74 Sir Edward Coke declared:

“..the King by his proclamation… cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm…”

A more recent statement of this principle can be found in the Fire Brigades Union Case[1995] 2 AC 513 in 1995, where Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that:

“…it would be most surprising if, at the present day, prerogative powers could be validly exercised by the executive so as to frustrate the will of Parliament as expressed in a statute and, to an extent, to pre-empt the decision of Parliament whether or not to continue with the statutory scheme…”

…… The wider principle is that it is not open to Government to turn a statute into what is in substance a dead letter by exercise of the prerogative powers; and that it is not open to the Government to act in a way which cuts across the object and purpose of an existing statute. In our view the wider principle correctly states the law and is particularly apt here, as we are concerned with a constitutional statute upon which an extensive system of rights is founded.

They conclude

Our analysis leads to the possibility that the process of extraction from the EU could be a very long one indeed, potentially even taking many years to come about. Of course, the EU Member States have made clear that they will only negotiate once the Article 50 exit provisions have been triggered and are pressing the UK to pull the trigger “as soon as possible”. It is also clear that uncertainty is itself undesirable. But uncertainty needs to be weighed against other imperatives, such as the need to comply with the UK’s constitutional requirements and the need to ensure that Brexit is effected consistently with the national interest. A quick pull of the Article 50 trigger is unlikely to be feasible under the UK’s constitutional arrangements and may well not be desirable for any UK Government or Parliament, even one committed to eventual withdrawal from the EU.

Brexit is the most important decision that has faced the United Kingdom in a generation and it has massive constitutional and economic ramifications. In our constitution, Parliament gets to make this decision, not the Prime Minister.

Nick Barber, Fellow, Trinity College Oxford.

Tom Hickman, Reader, UCL and barrister at Blackstone Chambers

Jeff King, Senior Lecturer in Law, UCL

Citation: N. Barber, T. Hickman and J. King, ‘Pulling the Article 50 ‘Trigger’: Parliament’s Indispensable Role’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (27th Jun 2016) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/)

It seems to me that whether Brexit is initiated or not (and therefore happens or not) is entirely dependent upon a majority vote in parliament.

(It occurs to me that if Nicola Sturgeon wants to postpone, if not block, Brexit she should get the European Court of Justice to rule on whether or not a parliamentary vote is needed to give authority to a government to invoke Article 50. Even EU bureaucrats can not quibble with that).

 

Tags:
Posted in European Union, Politics, UK | Comments Off on Only a vote in parliament can trigger Article 50 say constitutional experts

An independent Scotland could probably not join the EU until 2030

June 25, 2016

Scotland’s desire to remain a part of the EU is not so easily satisfied even if a new independence referendum is carried out rapidly. Three different timetables (which can partly be in parallel) have to mesh.

  1. Exit process for UK from EU
  2. Independence process for Scotland from the UK
  3.  Application and accession process for an independant Scotland into the EU.

Looking at these 3 timetables, I reckon the earliest an independent Scotland could enter the EU in its own right would be around 2030.

Brexit now sets in motion an exit process for the UK from the EU. The only deadline is that the process will be completed 2 years after the UK invokes Article 50. However it is up to the UK to invoke Article 50. So the start point is flexible and is solely in the control of the UK government of the day. Even if Cameron is replaced by another Prime Minister, it will be up to his new government and the UK parliament to decide when they are comfortable enough to start the ball rolling (because then the 2 year deadline will apply). There is no reason for the UK to give up too early its current time pressure advantage which will pass to the EU once Article 50 has been invoked. I see the earliest that a UK government is prepared for this will be around March 2017. That would give an exit being effective in March 2019.

March 2017 is probably the earliest a new referendum on the independence of Scotland could be held. Using the timetable put forward by the SNP for the 2014 referendum, it would then be March 2019 before Scotland was an independent nation. This may be a little too optimistic both for when the referendum could be held and for the time required for the legal measures necessary. Whether the UK parliament could be handling the bills necessary for exiting the EU simultaneously with passing the bills for Scotland’s exit from the UK is also doubtful. Nevertheless I assume a referendum could be held by March 2017.

To apply for EU membership, Scotland would need to have, and be able to show, a “stable” economy and stable, established institutions. With the best will in the world, this is going to require at least 3 years (and probably more) as an independent nation. Assume anyway that Scotland can submit an application for membership sometime around 2022/2023. The minimum time needed for accession of a new member has been the 3 years for Finland and Sweden. It is more usually of the order of 10 years with countries with weaker economies taking longer. It is not unreasonable to assume that a newly independent Scotland would need 7 years for accession.

Accession times to the European Union (pdf)

And that would take us to 2030 for an independent Scotland’s accession to the EU.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in European Union, Politics, UK | Comments Off on An independent Scotland could probably not join the EU until 2030

The election is Hillary’s to lose

June 21, 2016

Does Donald Trump really have a chance to win the Presidential election in November? It is – still – improbable but it is not impossible. Both Hillary Clinton and Trump have such high negatives that I suspect this is becoming an election which will be lost by someone rather than be won by anyone.

It is not difficult to imagine blunders by Trump which can increase his negatives. His support is driven by attacks on him perceived to be from the “establishment”. His negatives could multiply quite easily to make him unelectable.

But what could Hillary Clinton do that would increase her negatives? I can think of the following:

  1. Choosing another woman as her VP pick. An all woman ticket will win some but will probably lose more. More importantly it may lose her more support among traditional Democratic, blue collar, and minority groups. Muslims and some of the other ethnic groups who are now for Clinton, would have second thoughts if it was an all-woman ticket.
  2. Go too soft on immigration. Legal immigrants are not at all keen on the too-easy rationalisation and ratification of the status of illegal immigrants. It devalues the effort and hardships they have had to endure and overcome. The problem for Clinton would be that even a small defection – or even abstention – of her assumed “captive voters” could have a major impact on her vote.
  3. No message for the young. Bernie Sanders has enthused some of the young in a way that is alien to Hillary. With no clear message for the young beyond the usual cliches, she could see a large abstention of the millennials. The young voting surge seen in 2008 has peaked and is already on the way down. A lack of any clear and uplifting message would only exacerbate this trend.
  4. Clinton is indicted for emails or Libya or something. Many of Clinton’s negatives are based on her perceived dishonesty and deviousness. A formal indictment will only cement such perceptions and – if serious enough – could even make her unelectable.
  5. Revelations that Hillary “allowed” or “covered-up” Bill’s sexual transgressions. Hillary is already on shaky ground when it comes to her “feminist” credentials. If it is perceived that she actually helped Bill in his predatory behaviour with young women, then she could lose all her support from Republican women voters and and a good chunk of her Democratic female support.
  6. Revelations that the State Department under Hillary actively supported the groups that have now become ISIS. To some extent this is already “out there”. But memos or the like linking, first, US support for these extreme groups in Syria and second, those groups with what is now ISIS, could be debilitating in its own right. It could also provide Trump with some serious ammunition.

It is difficult to see either Clinton or Trump coming with positive messages which command enthusiasm and which can mobilise the electorate in their support. It is quite possible to see them alienate further groups and increase their own negative perceptions such that they mobilise voters only against themselves (#stoptrump or #stopclinton).

It is still a long way to November but it is an election that will, I think, be lost by someone.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on The election is Hillary’s to lose

Obama has a new strategy against ISIS – he’s going to edit them out of existence

June 20, 2016

Everything else having failed, Obama will now edit ISIS out of existence (and note that Politico is more than a little Obama friendly).

There is denial and there is Denial …. and then there is Barack Obama. At some point the denial is an expression of cowardice (when your actions are subordinated to your fears). The governing fears here are the fear of upsetting Saudi Arabia and the fear of being called an Islamophobe.

Politico: 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Monday assailed the Justice Department’s decision to redact the Orlando shooter’s declaration of allegiance to the Islamic State in transcripts of 911 calls from the June 12 shooting as another example “of not focusing on the evil here.”

“This is evil, this is ISIS. It’s radical Islam. At some point, we lost 49 lives here and we lost a journalist who was beheaded by ISIS,” the Republican governor told Fox News’ Bill Hemmer on “America’s Newsroom,” referring to the shooting last Sunday and the 2014 beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff, who was from Florida. “We need a president that’s going to say I care about destroying ISIS.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch reasoned to CNN Sunday that the reason for the edits “is to avoid re-victimizing those people that went through this horror,” adding that it “will contain the substance of his conversations.”

“I have no idea what she means. But I can tell you what: I have gone to funerals, I’ve sat down and cried with the parents. I’ve gone and visited individuals in the hospitals. They are grieving. Now, they want answers. If it was my family I would want answers. We all would like answers. She should release everything that doesn’t impact the investigation. I can understand if it impacted the investigation until this is finished, I get that. But she is not saying that. It doesn’t make any sense to me. We have to get serious about destroying ISIS.”

The federal government’s decision did not sit well with other Fox News guests on Monday morning, either. “That would mean during the Second World War if I called up and said ‘I am part of the Nazi movement, I’ve joined here in the United States, and I’m going kill 49 Americans and we left out ‘Nazi movement,'” Rudy Giuliani said Monday on “Fox & Friends.”

The redactions represent a “degree of denial” for the United States, Giuliani said, adding that it “helps to cause the terrorists to be encouraged to commit more attacks.”

If you stop mentioning them, maybe they will go away.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Obama has a new strategy against ISIS – he’s going to edit them out of existence

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »