Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump doesnt do diplomacy. He hurls broadsides.

Calling out unstable North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is a recipe for disaster. Thats how you tumble into a war. Nothing good can come from Trump lashing out at Kim on a whim, three times in the last week alone.

But our question is this: Where are voices of prudence within the presidents own party? Where are the Republicans, especially in Congress, who are prepared to call out Trump for his irresponsibility, putting our country first?

EDITORIAL

On Friday morning, Trump put Kim on notice via Twitter. Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely, he tweeted. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!

Earlier in the week, with the same schoolyard bluster, Trump told reporters, North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.

And a few days later, Trump doubled down rather than calmed down. If anything, he said, maybe that statement wasnt tough enough.

And what did the United States get for all that? Kim, another man-child, promised to launch test missiles near the American island of Guam.

Any hope that Trumps new chief of staff, the respected Marine Gen. John Kelly, could restrain the president evaporated quickly. And Secretary of State Rex Tillerson doesnt have the presidents ear.

The job falls to the Republicans in Congress, who have the power of the bully pulpit, to put at least a rhetorical check on Trump.

Sen. John McCain came closest, warning Trump on Tuesday of the dangers of his fire and fury tweet. I take exception to the presidents words because you got to be sure you can do what you say youre going to do, McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told a Phoenix radio station.

Congress should dust off legislation proposed in January by Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Ted Lieu of California, both Democrats, to prevent Trump from preemptively launching a nuclear strike. The president would not be limited, however, in using nuclear weapons to respond to a strike against the United States.

The United Nations Security Council voted this month to hit Pyongyang with new sanctions, yet Trump still has wasted no time launching his own verbal assault. This is a time for restraint, and for standing up to the president.

Send letters to: letters@suntimes.com

View original post here:
EDITORIAL: Why won't Republicans call out Trump on North Korea? - Chicago Sun-Times

Al Sharpton Published 4:25 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2017

Al Sharpton(Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)

When Jesse Jackson ran for president during the 1980s, as when I ran in 2004, there were progressives in America. Those progressives were well-meaning individuals and politicians who believed in what we believed in.

Despite this progressive political presence, our presidential campaigns were necessary because the voices of black, brown and poorer white voters were not heard by the elites in politics and government. There was a great deal of talk back then, but no real action. That same dynamic holds true today.

Its a supposed fact that the Democratic base is riled up and activated by the state of play in America. This assessment ignores the most important segment of that base: the African-American voter. We are not motivated by anyone right now.

While Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did a remarkable job in the 2016 primaries and went further than anyone thought possible, he did so without the African-American vote, losing among blacks by more than 50 percentage points.

While that progressive coalition purported to speak for the African-American voter, it did not talk to African Americans. The Hillary Clinton base, while crushing Sanders, attracted fewer black voters to turn out than in recent primaries. And in the general election, with Clinton running against a novice, the black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling 7 percentage points compared with 2012.

Arguably, that disinterested black vote cost Clinton the presidency.

It would be unfair to claim that leaders like Clinton and Sanders do not care about issues important to people of color. They do. However, it is equally inaccurate to claim that the progressive movement is fueling African-American participation or interest in our political process. It is not.

Blacks largely sit on the sidelines while the game of politics is being played around us. In the post-Obama era, there is the sense Democrats feel that people of color African Americans in particular have had their chance, and that we should now take a back seat to new leadership. Such sentiment is foolhardy and wrong.

The 21st century version of the rainbow coalition lacks vision and color. Remarkably, blacks still need to fight for a seat at the table and are too often simply stage props for allied elected leaders to make their points.

Consider this: In 2016, when Sanders ran as a Democrat, there was one black chief of staff in the Senate working for a Republican, and none for Sanders or the Democrats.

Perhaps it is time for another African-American presidential campaign to fuel black voter interest. Perhaps its time to remind people that progressive politics cannot be advanced without results and a fully vibrant rainbow of colors working to make that difference.

Two things are certain: African Americans will not be taken for granted again, and progressives invite failure yet again if they try.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is president of National Action Network.

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2fzLO2h

Read the rest here:
Progressives will fail if they sideline black voters - NorthJersey.com

Last year, dueling panels at Netroots Nation, the annual gathering of progressive activists, mulled the role of the federal courts in the progressive mission. One panel argued that the liberal fixation on protecting the courts contributed to a general apathy in off-cycle elections if federal judges can protect everything, whats the point of any other election? The other issued an urgent call to remember that the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance and Justice Kennedy is playing coy with the fate of civil rights in America.

One year later, after an emotionally deflating electoral collapse, Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice began another edition of her annual courts panel at the conference. The Trump era has brought the outline of a dialectical synthesis to these competing visions of the role of the judiciary. A realization that maybe theyve fundamentally had this judiciary thing wrong all along.

The panel, featuring Professor Kimberl Crenshaw of Columbia, UCLA, and the African American Policy Forum, Anisha Singh of the Why Courts Matter project at the Center for American Progress, and Sean Carlson from Revolution Messaging didnt say as much, of course, but the deeper they got into the discussion with Aron, two big themes stood out that challenged the way left-leaning people have talked about courts for years and, in the process, bridged the gap of those competing visions from last year.

First, the judiciary cannot be a progressive issue in and of itself all other progressive issues must be framed through the courts. Rather than say courts are important, activists need to seize on issues that are already stirring people, and then connect those issues to the courts. Singh specifically pointed to the health care fight as proof that theres an enthusiasm to fight for issues that people feel impact them directly. The problem is harnessing that same passion when the threat to health care (or any other issue of importance) is indirect, like in a judicial confirmation fight. Carlson agreed, explaining that progressives have a tremendous problem when they cannot make a connection between the courts and the issues the public cares about.

This bridges the gap that divided the panels last year, upholding the idea that the fight to control the judiciary holds critical importance without lionizing it as a vanguard against all threats. Instead its one building block in a larger struggle.

Second, Professor Crenshaw pointed out the elephant in the room: the Federalist Society set out years ago to create a platoon of ideologues to populate the judiciary that would be capable of passing any neutral test of qualifications. As Democrats strive to appear bi-partisan, these qualifications are used as a cudgel to peel off Democrats to support nominations because, after all, theyre qualified. She described the Clarence Thomas nomination and the reluctance of civil rights organizations before the Anita Hill testimony, of course to oppose Thomas out of the gate. That failure to get ahead of the narrative allowed right-wing activists to sell Thomas before his actual vetting. The fact that Democrats are starting to recognize that rsums cannot salvage people deeply unsuited for the bench is a testament to nominees like Judge John Bush of the Sixth Circuit and Damien Schiff and if you havent watched their hearings, you really should treat yourself.

This failure to embrace a coherent progressive judicial ideology was indirectly highlighted when Aron reminded the audience that Trump campaigned on a list of judges hed consider putting on the Supreme Court. But the real point is that this list existed before Trumps candidacy. The Heritage Foundation had its cast list of ideological purity drawn up already. Progressives have no companion list that the movement can fervently rally around.

Professor Crenshaw explained this Democratic discomfort with ideology carries over to their nominations. Republican nominees have cult-like adherence to their intellectually facile doctrines of textualism and (situational) originalism, while there is no such thing as a coherent left-leaning judicial ideology.

Crenshaw argued that until the left gains comfort with the courts as an ideological question until they create a new language for judicial expertise that cant be hacked by just throwing a Harvard diploma on it the left is playing gentlemans tennis while [conservatives are] dropping bombs.

Aron left the crowd with the prediction that a Kennedy vacancy would spark the biggest mobilization of progressives in the judicial arena. This year, it seems that if that retirement were to happen, progressives know how to harness that mobilization.

Earlier: The Liberal Argument Against The Supreme Court

Joe Patriceis an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

Here is the original post:
In Wake Of Trump, Liberals Start To Realize They've Had The Judiciary All Wrong - Above the Law

The Free Democratic Party (FDP) could be the comeback storyof the upcoming German election. The party is seen as the preferred coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, but it could also play kingmaker to a center-left government by pairing up with the Social Democrats and the Greens. Polls suggest the party will return to the Bundestag this election. Just four years ago, many commentators had pronounced the FDP dead when it was unable to collect the 5 percent of the vote necessary to enter Germany's parliament.

But when Germans have to explain to foreigners what the party stands for, they often face a conundrum: How to translate the German "liberal" into English.

German liberals lean right

In German, the term "liberal" is unambiguously tied to the FDP's pro-business, pro-civil liberties tenets. "Liberals in Germany want the state be confined to providing safety for the people and a stable environment, but not meddle around with people with overabundant regulation," explained German political scientist Michael Dreyer. The FDP, led by 38-year old former business consultant Christian Lindner, espouses progressive stances on social issues such as gay marriage, but these issues often take a backseat to the party's "pro-business" economic platform, which is why the partyand German liberals in generalare often perceived as right of center.

Chancellor Merkel would reportedly prefer to form a coalition with the FDP, led by Christian Lindner

US liberals lean left

Especially in the United States -whose media tends to dominate international political coverage - "liberal" is often considered synonymous with left-leaning members of the Democratic Party:pro welfare state, pro minority rights, pro economic regulation.

Part of the problem is that "liberal" does not fit nicely on one side of the political spectrum. While, for example, the British and Canadian liberal parties are both moderate leftist parties, the Australian liberal party is staunchly conservative.

"Since 'liberal' is one of the oldest political terms in the Western repertoire, it has a whole variety of meanings, and it also encompasses a lot of different wings," Dreyer pointed out.

The Free Democrats are hoping to re-enter the German Bundestag in the September election

Liberalism as a political philosophy emerged and gained popularity in Europe during the Age of the Enlightenment in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. British philosopher John Locke is often credited as its founding father, going back to his "Two Treatises of Government," published in 1689, in which he argued that the state should protect every citizen's right to life, liberty and property.

What unites liberals today is the quest for individual freedom, says Professor Karl-Heinz Paque, co-chairman of the FDP-affiliated Friedrich Neumann Foundation. "Being liberal means that the individual must be at the foreground of politics. So liberals do everything to enhance individual freedom and responsibility."

Where different schools of liberalism differis in which circumstances they believe state intervention can enhance - or curtail - people's freedom.

Shaped by other parties

Liberal parties have been shaped largely through the strength or weakness of the left- and right-wing parties in their respective countries.

"One of the reasons why liberal has become synonymous with left of center politics in the United States is the fact that there has never been a development of a successful workers' party," says political scientist Dreyer. Liberals were considered the most progressive political group before the surge of socialist and communist movements in the late 19th century -and have remained the strongest progressive force in the US by incorporating some of the left's central demands.

In the US, progressive politicians such as Elizabeth Warren are referred to as 'liberals'

Germany, meanwhile, has a long tradition of a strong Social Democratic Party, one of the oldest political parties inthe world, on the left, and has had socialist andcommunistparties for nearly a century. According to Karl-Heinz Paque, Germany's Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens have pushed liberals to see themselves primarily as the protectors of citizens and companies from an overreaching welfare state.

So is the FDP libertarian?

Presumably to avoid the ambiguity of "liberal,"some English-language mediause "libertarian" to describe the FDP. Employed primarily in the US, the term refers to an ideology that favors a laissez-faire approach to the economy and endorses "whatever floats your boat" social policies .

German FDP politicians have very little in common with US libertarians like one-time presidential candidate Gary Johnson

While both German liberals and US libertarians want a smaller state, most FDP members reject the notion they are libertarians because the term is often associated with radically anti-government views. "I don't bend down to American terminology, it is not historically adequate," Paque said. "Just like I don't call football 'soccer'just because Americans call it that."

Germans generally favor a much stronger welfare state than most Americans, which is why even the platforms of Germany's moderatelyright-wing parties - the FDP and the conservative CDU/CSU -overlap more with those of the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party, which has a strong libertarian wing, or the Libertarian Party itself. FDP members point to the example of health care to illustrate the difference between German liberals and US libertarians: While the FDP is in favor of state-sponsored health care, US libertarians want to see "Obamacare" abolished.

View post:
What sets Germany's 'liberal' FDP apart - Deutsche Welle

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region A number of liberal politicians in Sweden are urging their government to welcome Kurdistan Regions decision to hold an independence referendum in September, citing the failed Iraqi government, Kurdistans protection of minority groups, and the right to self-determination under international law.

We liberals see that Iraq has become a so-called failed state and we think it would be better for all of its entities if Iraq and Kurdistan went separate ways such as Czechoslovakia in 1992 were divided into both the Czech Republic and Slovakia, reads the collaborative statement co-signed by eight Swedish politicians.

The opinion article was first published in Svenska Dagbladet, a daily newspaper. The politicians believe a peaceful separation from Iraq is a practical one.

If the people of Iraq cannot coexist within one and the same national boundary, they should, for democratic reasons, be able to proclaim independence and then live as good neighbors, it read.

They argued The central government has repeatedly shown inability to provide protection and care for the whole country. The new Iraq has been shown to pursue the same pan-Arabic policy towards Kurdistan that has always and undeniably failed.

The politicians highlight the defense of the Kurdistan Region against ISIS militants by a multicultural Peshmerga, pointing out the protection of minority groups in Nineveh province including Assyrians, Syriacs and Chaldeans, who also should be given the right to self-government.

They say they are optimistic about the future of various groups in Kurdistan, which has hosted more than 1.5 million displaced Iraqis since 2014.

We look forward to a Kurdistan where the various ethnic and religious groups continue to live in unity and with fundamental rights just as they do today in the autonomous region, read the article.

The Swedes believe that the right to self-determination is central.

We all shall be entitled to decide on our own future, they added. There are principles under international law and we support the Kurds' right to self-determination and the process that ensures this.

Liberal support in Sweden for Kurdistan is deeply rooted, the politicians noted, citing expressed support and work by their party since 2010.

Liberals have a long tradition of solidarity with the people of Kurdistan, and we therefore welcome the outcome of the referendum and look forward to the fact that the world is gaining a new state and the Middle East another democratic state, they concluded.

The op-ed was co-signed by the Swedish Liberals Birgitta Ohlsson (MP, Foreign Policy Spokesman); Cecilia Wikstrm (European MP); Fredrik Malm (MP, Migration Policy Spokesman); Maria Leissner (Ambassador and former Party Chairperson); Olle Schmidt (Substitute city council in Malm, former MEP and vice president of ALDE); Joar Forssell (Federal Chairman of the Liberal Youth League, Sukr Demir (2nd Vice Chairman of the International Committee of Solna); Sirwan Dabagh (Preparation for Democracy, Equality & Human Rights, Malm).

Translations by Biza Barzo

Continue reading here:
Swedish Liberals: Let Iraq and Kurdistan go their separate ways - Rudaw