LibertyVoter.Org

By Richard W. Rahn

Richard W. Rahn

Stockholm, Sweden — Last week, there were reports in the Swedish and Finnish press about what was presumed to be a Russia submarine probing the harbors in both Stockholm and Helsinki. This was not viewed as a serious Russian threat but merely an extension of the general and low-level harassment the Russians have displayed against their European neighbors, particularly the Baltic nations.

The European Union is not the first free-trade and defense bloc to arise in Europe. Six hundred years ago, the Hanseatic League held both economic and military sway in an area that at its farthest extent went from Novgorod in northern Russia to trade zones near London. The league was centered in the German city of Lubeck on the Baltic. Members of the league included towns and cities in modern-day Germany, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium. The Hanseatic League established free trade among its members, who agreed to a basic charter. It also established its own navy and defense force to protect its cargos, and it succeeded in largely eliminating pirates from the Baltic.

“Strong international alliances build both prosperity and longevity.”

The first trade alliances that evolved into the league began after the end of the Viking era in the 12th century and lasted until the rise of the Swedish Empire, which gained control over most of the Baltic Sea in the 16th century. Many of the members of the league were “free cities and towns,” and others were controlled by local princes. It was the merchant class that was the driving force behind the league in that the rise in trade became highly profitable to them and greatly increased the prosperity of those living in the league trading area. Over the centuries, cities dropped in and out of membership as circumstances changed.

The EU faces many of the same types of pressures that the league faced. Not all members of the league abided by the rules all of the time — read Greece — but the league endured. Some members were harassed or even attacked by neighboring kingdoms — read Russia — but the league endured for more than three centuries.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been engaged in a low-level campaign to harass and intimidate some of its neighbors for very understandable political and economic reasons. Mr. Putin has been clear in his goal to recreate the Russian Empire as his legacy, thus he claims the right to protect Russians, even when they live outside of Russia. More than a quarter of the population of Estonia is Russian. The Estonians are bombarded with Russian propaganda through …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow

Former governor and imminent presidential candidate Michael Huckabee issued a clarion call for young Americans not to join the military if he or virtually any Republican wins the presidency in 2016. Well, that’s not exactly what he said. But it was the obvious implication of his remarks.

Huckabee declared: “I’d wait a couple of years, until we got a new commander-in-chief, that will once again believe one nation under God and believes that people of faith should be a vital part of the process of not only governing, but defending this country.” It was an oblique, even confusing attack on President Barack Obama. Apparently the former Baptist pastor was upset about Pentagon restrictions on proselytizing within the armed services.

It’s a fair area for debate since the Obama administration sometimes has taken a careless, even hostile, stance toward religious liberty. But there’s no evidence that the president doesn’t want people of faith joining the military (or being involved in “governing,” whatever that means).

However, Huckabee inadvertently raised a far more important issue. Should Americans join the military if the next commander-in-chief of the armed services is an irresponsible war-hawk? Patriotic young men and women want to serve their country, challenge themselves, and more. Many of America’s best and brightest join the armed services. But with the U.S. constantly at war joining is a life or death decision, dependent on the judgment of whoever sits in the Oval Office.

There is much to criticize in President Obama’s foreign policy. He is too aggressive—twice increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, and recently prolonging the U.S. presence; going to war in Libya; making the Islamic State’s sectarian conflict America’s own; putting combat and training personnel in a number of smaller conflicts, including Uganda and Ukraine; backing Saudi Arabia’s aggression in Yemen. The administration’s execution also often suffers; sadly, the word incompetent comes to mind.

“What’s a patriotic potential service member to do? Pine for Ronald Reagan.”

Nevertheless, the president apparently is thoughtful and thus reluctant to loose the dogs of war. In contrast, ever-angry 2008 presidential candidate John McCain urges war in virtually every circumstance. He ignores the consequences of bombing or invading other nations. One would be a real risk-taker to join the military under such a commander-in-chief.

President George W. Bush demonstrated a different set of faults. By all accounts he knew little about the countries he was invading and peoples he was …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Ilya Shapiro

Ilya Shapiro

By now anyone who would be reading this will know that last week the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment’s speech protections are weaker in the context of judicial elections than in other kinds. In effect, the five-Justice majority found that a state’s interest in preserving public confidence in its judiciary extends beyond preventing the “appearance of corruption” that’s at play in the context of candidates for legislative or executive office. Accordingly, states — or, as in this case, state bar associations — can limit political speech that aims to raise money for judicial candidates.

I think the Court got it wrong: while I don’t like the idea of judicial elections — though they’re better than any alternative but the federal model — if you’re gonna have em, the Constitution doesn’t allow you to pick and choose between the salubrious and unseemly parts of democracy. But at this point I don’t have any novel analysis beyond the dissenting opinions and the coverage provided in this symposium.

Accordingly, rather than go over well-trodden ground, I’ll pick out an excerpt from each opinion that epitomizes the point being made and offer a brief comment.

1. Chief Justice John Roberts, for the majority (joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in full, and by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg except as to the part saying that strict scrutiny applies)

“The Florida Bar faces a demanding task in defending Canon 7C(1) against Yulee’s First Amendment challenge. We have emphasized that ‘it is the rare case’ in which a State demonstrates that a speech restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Burson v. Freeman … (1992) (plurality opinion). But those cases do arise. See ibid.; Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project … (2010); McConnell … (opinion of KENNEDY, J.); cf. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña … (1995) (“we wish to dispel the notion that strict scrutiny is ‘strict in theory, but fatal in fact’”). Here, Canon 7C(1) advances the State’s compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and it does so through means narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessarily abridging speech. This is therefore one of the rare cases in which a speech restriction withstands strict scrutiny.”

“We have an unsatisfying opinion that may do damage to both political speech and the application of the strict scrutiny test (whatever its merits).”

I think the Chief Justice goes on to make a hash of …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow

President Barack Obama plans to remove Cuba’s official designation as a terrorist state. Congressional hawks are grumbling, but they can’t stop him. The move is long overdue—and is a good argument against those who want to put North Korea back on the list.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) remains a most troublesome country. Delisted in 2008 by George W. Bush in an attempt to reach an agreement over nonproliferation, the DPRK has continued its policy of brinkmanship highlighted by occasional missile and nuclear tests. Ruled by the grandson of the North’s founder, North Korea has become the world’s first Communist monarchy. The country is also a human-rights horror.

President Barack Obama never believed there was much chance of changing Pyongyang’s behavior. The administration attempted to ignore first Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-un. The North made that difficult, staging missile and nuclear tests, sinking a South Korean naval vessel and bombarding a South Korean island, and arresting American visitors for various alleged crimes. Even then, Washington made little effort to pursue serious negotiations, especially after Kim fils shot off a rocket shortly after agreeing to freeze missile and nuclear development in the so-called Leap Day deal of 2012. The North is not alone at fault in the dreary history of U.S.-North Korean relations, but the administration’s pessimism is well justified.

“Calling North Korea a terrorist sponsor might offer emotional release, but won’t make the claim true.”

Ideas for dealing with Pyongyang range from initiating diplomatic relations to tightening sanctions to enlisting China to “solve” the problem. None look particularly promising in changing the DPRK.

Gaining renewed attention is the idea of relisting Pyongyang as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” or SSOT. North Korean attacks on the South in 2010 led to calls to put the North back on the terrorism list. The campaign was revived by the hacking of Sony Pictures last fall, apparently by North Korea.

The administration eventually responded by tightening some sanctions, but did nothing substantial enough for the DPRK to notice. In practice, it is difficult to make the North pay a high price, so long as China insulates Pyongyang from outside pressure. While the Xi government appears irritated, even angry, with its small neighbor, Beijing is not yet willing to risk its relationship with North Korea, or the latter’s stability, by ramping up the pressure.

In January, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced …read more

Source: OP-EDS