Mediaboss Marketing

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. (* 21. Januar 1951 in New York City) ist ein US-amerikanischer Jurist und Politiker der Demokratischen Partei. Am 18. November 2008 wurde er von US-Prsident Barack Obama als Attorney General of the United States (Generalbundesanwalt der Vereinigten Staaten) und damit faktisch als Justizminister nominiert; die Besttigung durch den Senat der Vereinigten Staaten erfolgte am 3.Februar 2009.[1] Eric Holder ist der erste Afroamerikaner, der diese Spitzenposition erlangt hat. Am 8. November 2014 wurde Loretta Lynch von Prsident Obama als Nachfolgerin fr den scheidenden Eric Holder nominiert. Nach einer langen Verzgerungspause durch die Republikanische Partei wurde Lynch am 23. April 2015 vom Senat als Holders Nachfolgerin besttigt.[2]

Eric Holder wurde 1951 in New York City, Stadtteil Bronx, geboren. Die familiren Wurzeln seiner Eltern weisen in die Karibik. Holders Vater, Eric Himpton Holder, Sr. (19051970) wurde im Parish St.Joseph im Westen der Insel Barbados geboren und wanderte 1916 in die Vereinigten Staaten aus. Holders Mutter Miriam R. Yearwood wurde in New Jersey geboren; auch ihre Eltern waren aus Barbados, Parish Saint Philip, in die USA ausgewandert.

Holder wuchs in Queens auf und ging zur Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan und zur Columbia University, wo er den B.A. 1973 und den J.D. 1976 erhielt.[3] Nach der Columbia Law School arbeitete Holder von 1976 bis 1988 beim US-Justizministerium. Er wurde von Prsident Ronald Reagan als beigeordneter Richter (Associate Judge) an den Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Washington, berufen.[4]

1993 wurde Holder durch Prsident Bill Clinton zum United States Attorney (Bundesstaatsanwalt) fr Washington, D.C. ernannt. Clinton nominierte ihn 1997 als stellvertretenden Generalbundesanwalt der Vereinigten Staaten;[5] im September 1997 leistete Holder seinen Amtseid.[6]

2001 wechselte Holder in die Privatwirtschaft, wo er bis 2009 in Washington D.C. fr die renommierte Anwaltskanzlei Covington & Burling ttig war. Covington & Burling hat u.a. aus der Finanzwelt einflussreiche Kunden wie Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo und Deutsche Bank.[7]

Im Vorfeld der Prsidentschaftswahl 2008 gehrte Holder zum Kampagnenteam von Barack Obama und arbeitete dort unter anderem mit Caroline Kennedy und James A. Johnson zusammen.

Bei der Ansprache vor beiden Husern des Kongresses im Jahr 2009 war Holder Designated Survivor. Er wre im Falle eines Anschlages auf das Kapitol der hchstrangige berlebende gewesen und htte die Nachfolge von Barack Obama als Prsident angetreten.

Holder kndigte am 25. September 2014 seinen Rcktritt an. Er blieb jedoch bis April 2015 im Amt, nachdem Loretta Lynch nach einem langen politischen Tauziehen zwischen Prsident Obama und der republikanischen Senatsmehrheit vom Senat besttigt wurde.[8]

Holder lebt mit seiner Frau, der rztin Sharon Malone, und seinen drei Kindern in Washington.[9]

In einem CNN-Interview im Januar 2002 verteidigte Holder die Klassifizierung von Terroristen als Ungesetzliche Kombattanten statt Kriegsgefangene.[10]

Befragt zum Fall Goldman Sachs, gab Holder an, dass seine Aufgabe nicht darin bestehe, Flle zu gewinnen, sondern der Gerechtigkeit zum Siege zu verhelfen. Die Mittel, um komplexe Flle bearbeiten zu knnen, wurden aufgestockt, um die "technologische Lcke" zur Verteidigung schlieen zu helfen.[11]

Kurz nach seinem Amtsantritt als Justizminister hielt Holder in der American Academy in Berlin eine Rede zur Schlieung des Gefangenenlagers in der Guantnamo-Bucht.[12]

Im Oktober 2011 gab Holder Details eines von Iran geplanten Attentates bekannt, das in Zusammenarbeit mit mexikanischen Behrden verhindert wurde.[13]

Ende des Jahres 2011 musste sich Holder auf Grund der Praktiken des Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bei der Bekmpfung des Drogenkriegs in Mexiko vor dem Justizausschuss des Senats verantworten. Die Bundespolizeibehrde hatte in groem Umfang illegal Waffen an Drogenkartelle geliefert und sich erhofft, auf diese Weise den Weg der Waffen, u.a. Maschinengewehre, verfolgen zu knnen. Allerdings verlor man die Spur bald. Im Dezember 2010 wurde ein US-Grenzschtzer mit den von der ATF geschmuggelten Waffen gettet.[14]

Go here to see the original:
Eric Holder Wikipedia

From the May/June 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard Part 1 Economy and Investment (1971) Latin America is the Cinderella of world politics. In comparison with Africa and Asia it has been neglected, as a glance at the shelves in the libraries and bookshops will show. Penguin paperbacks, for example, have published a whole African Library but nothing comparable on Latin America, and even the left wing have been relatively silent on the subject. Why is this? The main reason is that while Afro-Asias struggles of national independence are either current or very recent, Latin Americas similar struggles occurred over a century ago. And while the left has seen socialism in just about every Afro-Asian state, Latin America has been a United States colony, ridden with rightist governments and dictators. The Cuban revolt caused a momentary flutter but interest soon waned when the whole continent didnt follow Cubas example and when the inevitable degeneration set in. The rise of the Tupamaros plus Allendes electoral victory have produced a reawakening of interest, so it would be a good opportunity for us to assess the situation in Latin America and the prospects for the growth there of socialist ideas. And what a task this is! We are dealing with 14 per cent of the worlds land mass containing 7 per cent of its population and with greatly varied technology and culture. A continent dominated by a mountain range which severely restricts communications, a continent with the world's greatest jungles and even a desert, and yet with an extremely high level of urbanisation and great cities on the scale of London, Paris and Milan. Alongside this are remnants of feudalism in the rural areas with master and serf relationships, not to mention those pockets where people are still living in primitive tribal societies. The modern history of Latin America starts with independence from Spain and Portugal at the beginning of the 19th century. The continent was, and to a lesser degree still is, ruled by landowning oligarchies. America, Britain and France soon made it an area of investment and a market for their manufactures. Today, America has largely ousted the others and made the continent its own preserve. Of course American domination has tended to keep Latin America industrially backward in order to maintain it as an outlet for exports. Even now, when American big business sets up large scale industry, such as car factories, it does so only to protect existing markets from foreign rivals and local entrepreneurs. It is this situation which has thrown up the growing bourgeois and military nationalists plus the would-be imitators of Castro and Guevara, all determined to end Yankee Imperialism. The major problem for Latin America is, how can it become industrialised to the extent that is required? The need is for the accumulation of capital to finance expansion carried out by one means or another through military juntas as in parts of Afro-Asia; through revolutionaries using highly centralised government action as in the communist world; or through a home-grown recognisably capitalist class perhaps utilising some of the methods of the other two groups. The first two groups have already made their presence felt in Peru and Cuba respectively, and the signs are that the last group is at long last coming through. Whichever aspirants come to power in whatever country their most important task must be to tackle the antiquated and inefficient methods of agriculture caused by the system of landowning. Until now this system has severely hampered industrialisation. The big landowners often trace their ancestry back to the conquistadors and regard wealth through feudal eyes as ownership of land providing, above all, social status. As a result the land is often badly and underused so agriculture remains static with too many people producing only enough and usually not even that for themselves. Consequently, there can be no surplus for investment in industry nor a rural population with any money to become emergent industrys consumers. Undoubtedly Latin Americas system of landowning is archaic. Land is owned mainly in large estates (latifundios) and the rest in dwarf holdings (minifundios). On the large estates can work wage slaves plus a variety of peasantry categorised as follows(1) Tenant Farmers: works part of landlords land for himself giving a money rent in return.(2) Sharecropper: gives part of produce in return.(3) Labour Tenant: gives personal service (labour) in return and is an out and out feudal throwback. [1]It is these three groups that the rural guerillas set their sights on. The following figures show the extent of big landowners holdings: Between 3 and 8 per cent of landlords own between 60 and 80% of the continents cultivable land. In Paraguay eleven lots cover 35% per the eastern region. In Chile 63% of arable land is owned by big owners, the remainder being dwarf holdings. In the Peruvian Highlands 1.3 per cent of estates control more than 50 per cent of land. [2] So agriculture must be modernised by getting it onto a capitalist basis in order to stimulate investment, free a major portion of the population to become workers in industry and commerce, and create the mass of consumers necessary for a home market. Right, but who is to carry out the role of accumulators? Obviously the Castro-type solution is out, as the guerilla movement where it even exists is being given short shrift by the U.S. trained Latin American military. Witness the experience of Guevara in Bolivia. Also, the peasantry is fatalistic in its outlook and will only join in a revolt after it is seen to be winning. Besides, any idea of splitting up the land amongst the peasantry is, in the long run, opposed to modernisation in that while it may produce happier peasants it does not lead to a surplus for investment. Can military dictatorships of a nationalist complexion fill the bill as in, say, Egypt, Indonesia, or Nigeria? This is likely in some of Latin Americas less developed nations where the bourgeoisie are still too weak or disunited, but in the more advanced nations a native bourgeoisie is emerging strong and determined enough and has been flexing its muscles of late, particularly in Chile and Venezuela. Of course their potential has always been there as was shown during the depression years when, paradoxically, a considerable degree of industrialisation was achieved. As the flow of foreign funds dried up then the state and local capital stepped in to fill the vacuum. And during world war two, when Latin Americas normal suppliers of manufactures were otherwise engaged in mutual mayhem, a profitable opportunity beckoned for home investors. Then there is the 5 billion dollars of Latin American capital which is invested overseas, [3] so its not as if there is simply nothing in the kitty. Given the right climate for home investment (political stability) the continents capitalists could be induced to plunge heavily. Until now the state has had to do the job of laying the foundations of industrialisation. In what is virtually Americas backyard 30 per cent of all investment is by the state! [4] Nationalisation, so beloved by the left, is embraced by conservative regimes easily enough. Oil, railways, steel, electricity, mining, are either wholly or partly state owned in many Latin American countries. And why not? It is often the logical way for an as yet economically weak owning class to run things by combining into a community of capital. So far we have been reviewing Latin Americas past and present. In the next article we shall be considering the prospects for the future. Part 2 Tomorrows prospects The modernisation of Latin America will be a fantastic task for whoever takes it on. Despite the existence of several nations with a more or less European culture and level of technology, the continent is generally appallingly backward. In the mid 1960s its industry accounted for only 24 per cent of the gross domestic product and employed only 14 per cent of the native population. Only half the population ever receives any primary education and in some parts the rate of illiteracy is 100 per cent. In 1965 the income of General Motors was 20.7 billion (thousand million) dollars which was more than the gross national product of any Latin American nation including Brazil. In case the message still isnt clear, one man, Paul Getty, owned more personal wealth than the yearly income of Ecuador. Moreover, many millions live outside a money economy: In Brazils north east alone 10 millions are reckoned to come into this category. The most awesome statistic about Latin America is that from a total of 226 million in 1965 the population is expected to be around 316 million by 1980, 40 per cent of whom will be under 15 years of age. This means that the vast majority will be non-producers. Here, rather than China or India, is where the so-called population explosion is at its worst and an annual increase of 3 per cent in the economy is required just to keep living standards as they are. In the face of all this can there really be any hope for Latin America? The answer is yes. In fact it is precisely this state of affairs which must galvanise capital into action, whether using the methods of democratic government or military juntas, for failure to act will ensure that the situation becomes utterly chaotic, and that cant be good for business. What use is a continent seething with discontent and crawling with guerrillas in the countryside and in the cities? We dealt last month with the poor prospects of the rural guerrillas. As for their imitators in the cities, they have no basis of support among the working class class and can really only have nuisance value. A resumption of constitutional rights in Uruguay will undoubtedly cut much of the ground from beneath the Tupamaros. Indeed, the only possible contribution the guerrillas might be able to make is by prodding tardy regimes into some concessions that little bit sooner. The working class of Latin America has already been written off as the revolutionary force by the would-be emancipators at the meeting of the Latin American Solidarity Organisation (OLAS) in Havana in 1967. It is true that the continental working class is still very weak and is actually declining as a percentage of the population. There are only about 7 million members of the trade unions and these mostly in the more developed nations. But in Latin America, as elsewhere, the Socialist movement must be essentially working class. A popular explanation for the political backwardness of the Latin American working class is that it brings with in into the cities reactionary rural attitudes among which is the desire for a strong-man such as Peron was. In short, they look to a Patron to solve problems rather than their own political or industrial action (see S. Mander Static Society: The Paradox of Latin America). There is some truth in this explanation but it has to be seen against the fact that millions of city dwellers in Latin America arent, strictly speaking, workers at all. Each year destitute rural inhabitants drift citywards to end up in the shanty-towns such as the Favelas of Rio. Some drift back to the countryside for a variety of reasons but many of those who remain never really get involved in the relationships and disciplines of wage-labour, so the size and attitudes of Latin Americas working class cannot be accurately judged merely by looking at the urban populations. Nor will the idea of the Patron endure outside of the semi-feudal hangover which throws it up. As capitalist expansion really gets underway the workers will be forced by an intensification of the class struggle to look to unions for help and to the various political parties. This has been the pattern in Italy, Japan, and other countries which have recently undergone large scale industrialisation and it is no accident that Latin Americas trade unions are strongest in those countries where capitalism has already made considerable progress, such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Venezuela. The evidence is that Latin Americas capitalist class is awakening to the possibilities. Their theorists have long extolled the need to control foreign investment and interference, particularly American, and the current denunciations of the imperialists are belated recognition of this. Covering the election by the Chilean Congress of Dr. Allende as President, Lewis Duguid reported that . . . the bourgeois congressmen, some of them bitterly anti-American and convinced that Chiles problems are imported, have voted in a man who repudiates many institutions of Chile while glorifying its distinctiveness. Of Allendes alleged Marxism, Duguid quotes Allende explaining this as meaning "he accepts the Marxist interpretation of history. (Guardian 25 October, 1970) So what? This is purely academic and the fact remains that Allendes government is committed to and was elected on a mere ragbag of reforms, and far from opposing US investment is soliciting it, only this time for "fair returns. Meanwhile the government is forcing foreign companies which are wholly controlled from abroad to sell the majority of their shares to local investors. In Venezuela the bourgeois government is progressively increasing its share of the profits of the largely US owned oil companies and is extending its overall stake in the oil industry. This bourgeois confidence stems from the sure knowledge of their newfound unity. As we have already said, our interest in Latin America lies in the prospects for the growth of socialist ideas there. These ideas will go hand in hand with the strengthening of the conditions which have produced them elsewhere mainly the development of capitalism and all that stems from that, including its ever increasing problems and contradictions. Of course as socialist ideas grow in the rest of the world then, with the existence of todays sophisticated means of communication, Latin America cannot fail to be affected by this. Indeed, even if the continent continued indefinitely in its backward state it could not escape Socialism when the developed world put it into operation. It would fall in line with the superior social system, so we dont have to wait for every backward part of the world to be modernised before production for use becomes possible. The fact is that capitalism has come to Latin America and is rapidly expanding its techniques and relationships. We confidently look forward to the day when growing interest in our ideas will be reflected in the number of enquiries from Latin America. What should socialists there do in the meantime? Certainly not to engage in movements of "anti-imperialism, demands for agrarian reform and the like, but instead to propagate whenever possible the case for Socialism worldwide common ownership and democratic control of societys resources.

Vic Vanni

Read more:
World Socialist Movement

When terrorists have struck during his presidency, Obama has typically reacted cerebrally, trying to ensure that reason triumphs over the fear and emotion of the moment even as critics such as Donald Trump assail it.

On Thursday in Orlando, Obama had to yet again console Americans grieving from a mass shooting -- and on this occasion he had to also reassure Americans reeling from the dawn of a new era of mass casualty, lone wolf, homegrown terrorism that authorities have long feared.

There is a method to Obama's analytical response, namely that he believes it is the best way to neutralize a threat that preys on emotion and paranoia. While he typically offers prayers for the victims and their families and warns he will hunt terrorists wherever they are, the President often makes the point that terrorism in some form is an inevitable fact of modern life.

"I've said before, these lone actors or small cells of terrorists are very hard to detect and very hard to prevent. But across our government ... we are doing everything in our power to stop these kinds of attacks," Obama said Tuesday, leveling with the nation about the reality of homegrown terrorism. "We work to succeed 100% of the time. An attacker, as we saw in Orlando, only has to succeed once."

But this intellectual response to terrorism has also created a political opening that his opponents are exploiting, none more than the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

With that in mind, Obama also used his speech on Tuesday, delivered after meeting National Security Council officials, to launch a fiery denunciation of Trump's much more visceral response to the tragedy, which called for banning Muslim migration in to the U.S.

Indeed, Obama has steered clear of emotive displays following terror attacks, though he has expressed more impassioned responses to mass shootings such as the one at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, and a church in Charleston, South Carolina.

In Orlando on Thursday, Obama vowed that the United States would do whatever it took to pursue ISIS abroad, but said it was not just the military that had to be involved. He quickly turned from terrorism to focus on gun control, issuing a fresh demand for Congress to take action to keep the most lethal weapons from being used in mass killings that have occurred over and over during his presidency.

His remarks, betraying his frustration at the failure of lawmakers to act, had more in common with his response to gun massacres than his more intellectual approach to talking about terrorism.

"Our politics have conspired to make it as easy as possible for a terrorist or even just a disturbed individual to buy extraordinarily powerful weapons, and they can do so legally," Obama said after meeting families of the 49 victims of the shooting.

"Today, once again, as has been true too many times before, I held and hugged grieving family members and parents, and they asked, 'Why does this keep happening?' And they pleaded that we do more to stop the carnage. They don't care about the politics. Neither do I."

Vice President Joe Biden joined Obama in Orlando, as did Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio in a show of bipartisan unity.

In Obama's mind, the logical reaction to terrorism is to deprive the terrorists of what they want, to stay firm to American values and not to indulge in theatrical vows for vengeance and bloodthirsty rhetoric.

"We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us," Obama said in the seminal speech of his administration about terrorism at the National Defense University in 2013.

Terrorism, as he sees it, is by definition is a tactic designed to create the maximum fear, emotion and panic in the populace, to lure the target into taking irrational responses that highlight the terrorists' cause, impugn its own values and lead to a spiral of chaos and ruin.

At times, as with Orlando Sunday, after the Paris attacks last year, or after the Boston bombings, Obama has seemed to do a better job explaining the reasons for the attacks and the concept of terrorism itself than empathizing with Americans suddenly confronting the prospect of death and destruction being unleashed on the homeland.

It's an approach that lacks the cathartic emotion that a politician like Trump can summon among supporters with claims that America is "weak" and needs to start getting "very tough" with terrorists.

And Trump reacted to the roasting he received from Obama Tuesday by noting that the President seemed "more angry at me than he was at the shooter."

Moreover, his rhetorical style is mirrored by a policy approach that is designed to ensure the United States does not overreact to the terror threat -- by waging new foreign ground wars of compromising its own values in balancing liberty and security.

But that has also offered an opening to critics who say he has played down the terror threat and, while still on a victory lap after the killing of Osama bin Laden, failed to anticipate the rise of ISIS.

His comment in 2014 that ISIS was a "JV" team will haunt his legacy, and his frequent comment that ISIS is not an "existential threat to us" -- though perhaps factually correct -- plays into critiques that he has minimized the group's reach.

Critics argue that his decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq and to sit on his hands as Syria imploded directly contributed to ISIS' seizure of parts of the fractured nations to form its so-called caliphate.

Republican Sen. John McCain on Thursday said Obama was "directly responsible" for the Orlando attack because of the withdrawal from Iraq, in remarks that quickly caused an uproar. The Arizona senator later partly walked back the comments, saying he had misspoken by implying the President was personally responsible for the attacks. But he maintained that Obama's policies were to blame for ISIS.

Obama fires back that the U.S. and allied operation to pound the group in its heartland has taken dozens of terrorists off the battlefield, deflated its resources and trimmed the land it controls.

But the group's success in becoming a rallying call for terrorists everywhere -- including lone wolf operators who struck Americans in Orlando and San Bernardino, California -- tends to obscure the battlefield gains, and sheds doubt on their sufficiency.

There is, however, one aspect of his counterterror approach in which Obama does display the more heightened emotion he otherwise shuns: when making the case that his domestic critics could increase America's vulnerability to terrorism.

On Tuesday, he delivered a jeremiad against Trump's proposals to ban Muslim migration into the United States and his claim that thousands of Muslims already here were consumed by hate for this country, calling them an affront to the idea of America itself that could help ISIS win more recruits.

"If we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire region, then we're doing the terrorists' work for them," Obama said on Tuesday.

He also laid into critics like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who contend that his reluctance to use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" is proof that he does not understand the nature of the threat, let alone how to confront it.

That language too, he argued, can be counter-productive as it plays into terrorists' desire to see a civilizational struggle with the West and see the alienation of Muslims in America.

And he suggested those who still believe he does not get the nature of the threat talk to U.S. Special Forces soldiers he has deployed to war zones or law enforcement officers on U.S. soil or intelligence officers out in the field.

"They know full well who the enemy is," Obama said, pointedly noting that among those they are keeping safe are "politicians who tweet and appear on cable news shows."

Read more here:
Obama's cerebral reaction to terror tested in Orlando ...

The European Union (abbreviation: EU) is a confederation of 28 member countries in Europe, started in 1957 as the European Economic Community (EEC). It has created a common economic area with Europe-wide laws allowing people to move and trade in other EU countries almost the same as they do in their own. Nineteen of these countries also share the same type of money: the euro.

The Treaty of Lisbon is the most recent treaty that says how the Union is run. Every member state signed to say that they each agreed with what it says. Most importantly, it says which jobs ('powers') the Union should do for the members and which jobs they should do themselves. The members decide how the Union should act by voting for or against proposals.

The objective of the EU is to bring its member states closer together with respect of human rights and democracy. It does this with a common style of passport, common rules about fair trading with each other, common agreements about law enforcement, and other agreements. Most members share a common currency (the euro) and most allow people to travel from one country to another without having to show a passport.

After World War II, the countries in Europe wanted to live peacefully together and help one another's economies. Instead of fighting for coal and steel, the first member countries (West) Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg created one European Coal and Steel Community in 1952.

In 1957 in the Italian city of Rome, the member countries signed another treaty and made the European Economic Community. Now it was a community for coal, steel and for trade. Later it changed the name to the European Community.

In 1993, with the Treaty of Maastricht it changed its name to the European Union. Now the member countries work together not only in politics and economy (coal, steel and trade), but also in money, justice (laws), and foreign affairs. With the Schengen Agreement, 22 member countries of the EU opened their borders to each other, so people can now travel from one country to the other without a passport or identity card. Now already 16 member countries have replaced their national currencies with the euro. 10 new countries became members of the EU in 2004, 2 more became members in 2007, and 1 more in 2013. Today there are 28 member countries altogether.

A person who is a citizen of a European Union country can live and work in any of the other 27 member countries without needing a work permit or visa. For example, a British person can move to Greece to work there, or just to live there, and he or she does not need permission from an authority in Greece.

In the same way, products made in one member country can be sold in any other member country without any special permissions or extra taxes. For this reason, the members agree rules on product safety - they want to know that a product made in another country will be as safe as it would be if it had been made in their own.

The Council of the European Union is the main decision-making group. The cabinet ministers of the member countries meet (Ministers for Foreign affairs, for Agriculture, for Justice, etc...) and discuss issues that are important to them.

Before the Treaty of Lisbon (written in 2007, implemented in 2008) each member state takes a turn at being President of the Council for six months. For example, from January 2007 until July 2007, Germany held the presidency. The six months before that, Finland held the presidency. Now the President of the European Union chairs the council summits. The President of the Council is the organiser and manager and is voted into office for a duration of two and a half years. He or she does not have the power to make decisions about the European Union like the President of the United States does for that country.

Member countries with a large population (Germany, France, United Kingdom, etc.) have more votes than countries with small populations (Luxembourg, Malta, etc.) but a decision cannot be made if enough countries vote against the decision.

Twice a year, the heads of government (Prime Ministers) and/or the heads of state (Presidents) meet to talk about the main issues and make decisions on different issues. This meeting is different and not as formal. It is known as a European Council.

The European Commission runs the day to day running of the EU and writes laws, like a government. Laws written by the Commission are discussed and changed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

The Commission has one President and 27 Commissioners, selected by the European Council. The Commission President is appointed by the European Council with the approval of the European Parliament.[17]

The Commission operates like a cabinet government. There is one Commissioner per member state, though Commissioners are bound to represent the interests of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.

The Parliament has a total of 785 members (called Members of the European Parliament, or MEP). They are elected in their countries every five years by the citizens of the European Union member countries. The Parliament can approve, reject or change proposed laws. It can also sack the European Commission. In that case, the entire commission would have to give up their jobs.

There are many discussions in the EU about how it should develop and change in the future.

The main reasons why European countries came together are political and economic:

In 1951, six countries made the European Coal and Steel Community, a basic version of what the EU is now. These six then went further and in 1957 they made the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community. The UK and others decided not to join, and then when the UK changed its mind it was stopped from joining by French President Charles de Gaulle. When he was no longer President, the UK and others started to join. Today there are 28 members but the idea that more should join is not seen as a good one by everyone.

Serbia, Montenegro, the Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Iceland are "candidate countries", they are being considered for membership. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo are expected to follow.

United in diversity (or together with many types of people in Simple English), is the motto of the European Union.

The motto in other languages:[19]

Follow this link:
European Union - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The country's Ministry of Intelligence released a statement Monday saying it had unearthed "criminal plans" by "Takfiri Wahhabi" for a series of bombings across Iran specifically targeting religious events planned for coming days.

"But thanks to the efforts of the unnamed soldiers of Imam Zaman (intelligence officers) in Tehran and other provinces, the satanic efforts of the takfiris were neutralized, the terrorists were arrested and a great deal of explosives were confiscated," the statement read.

A "Takfiri" is a derogatory term used to describe a Muslim who accuses another Muslim of being a non-believer, while Wahhabism is a strict form of Sunni Islam, with followers that include ISIS and al Qaeda.

Iran, with its largely Shiite population, has been helping the governments in neighboring Iraq and Syria fight ISIS, which considers Shiites to be apostates.

The U.S. military estimates that at least 1,000 Iranians are on the ground in Syria.

Last week, the troops from the Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps were involved in clashes with "terrorist cells" in the northwest of the country, killing several militants, according to the semi-official FARS news agency.

Visit link:
Iran: 'Ramadan terror plot' on Tehran foiled - CNN.com