Reason #137: Why we don't like the EU

EU could BREAK UP the US: Juncker in jaw-droppingthreat to Trump over support for Brexit

EUROPEAN Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker this afternoon issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States, saying he could campaign to break up the country in revenge for Donald Trump’s supportive comments about Brexit. 

By Nick Gutteridge, Brussels Correspondent

 

UPDATED: 16:52, Thu, Mar 30, 2017

In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if the Republican president does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU. 

The remarks are diplomatic dynamite at a time when relations between Washington and Brussels are already strained over Europe’s meagre contributions to NATO and the US leader’s open preference for dealing with national governments. 

They are by far the most outspoken intervention any senior EU figure has made about Mr Trump and are likely to dismay some European leaders who were hoping to seek a policy of rapprochement with their most important ally. 

Speaking at the centre-right European People Party’s (EPP) annual conference in Malta this afternoon, the EU Commission boss did not hold back in his disdain for the White House chief’s eurosceptic views. 

He said: “Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same. 

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.” 

Mr Juncker's comments did not appear to be made in jest and were delivered in a serious tone, although one journalist did report some "chuckles" in the audience and hinted the EU boss may have been joking. The remarks came in the middle of an angry speech in which the top eurocrat railed widely against critics of the EU Commission. 

They will be seen as totally inexplicable at a time when EU-US relations appeared to be on the mend, with Vice-President Mike Pence having completed a largely successful trip to Brussels and the commander-in-chief himself significantly softening his tone towards the EU project. 

Mr Juncker did not criticise Britain at all during his speech, and only made reference to Brexit in relation to Mr Trump and the opportunities it presents for Europe to reform itself. 

#Juncker: if President #Trump will continue to praise #Brexit, I will call for independence of #Ohio and exit of #Texas from US.

 — Siegfried Muresan (@SMuresan) March 30, 2017

If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US

He told the audience in Malta: “Brexit isn’t the end of everything. We must consider it to be a new beginning, something that is stronger, something that is better.” 

Speaking before him, EU Council president Donald Tusk was less reserved in his remarks about the UK vote as he tore into the populist politics which led to Brexit. 

The Polish eurocrat said the argument over sovereignty - epitomised by the Vote Leave slogan ‘take back control’ - was “a view that is both foolish and dangerous” and that the EU guaranteed countries’ strength of the world stage.

He also accused populist politicians, such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen, of promoting “organised hatred” with their views on immigration. 

However his conservative colleague Antonio Tajani, the EU Parliament president, received a rapturous ovation as he launched an impassioned defence of Europe’s “Christian values”. 

In a series of thinly veiled comments about immigration, a major political issue in his homeland and Malta, the Italian official said Europe should do more to defend its historic identity. 

He said: “We shouldn’t be ashamed of saying we’re Christian. We’re Christian, it is our history. 

“If we leave our identity we will have in Europe all identities but not European identities. For this we need to strengthen our identity. 

“It is impossible to win without identity, without our values. Of course we are different, many languages, many ideas, but we are united on the values and this is the most important content.” 

Pope: Stick to Matters of Faith. You are Wrong About Eveyrthing Else.

In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that “the ecological crisis is real.”

“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.





Dear Pope Francis,

Stick to matters of faith, where you are infallible.  On all others, please refrain from your terribly ignorant stances.

The greatest threat to Christianity comes from Islamic terror, not the environment.

Global Warming/Cooling and Change: DiCaprio and the Rest of the Useless Lot

The facts are in and the strange thing about facts is, no matter what you may believe, facts are facts and no rational person can disagree with facts - we can all have an opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts ...

- global warming, climate change is occurring and no responsible scientist believes otherwise.


I really do like their argument strategy. 

First, state something we all agree with - facts are facts and we are entitled to an opinion but not our own facts.

Second, phrase the statement in such a way that disagreeing with it places you at odds with: reason, science, logic, intelligence, responsibility, decency, humanity ...

Finally, make your claim.

Link them all together and ta da ... who can possibly disagree.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Mr. Earth himself, although I think Mr Gore needs to turn over that mantle to Leo first ... made the following statement at a UN awards ceremony on 12/16/16:

"There are a few, very prominent people that still deny the overwhelming conclusions of the world's scientists that climate change is largely human-caused and needs immediate urgent attention."


Well.  Hmm.  Let's see.

NO ONE I HAVE EVER HEARD OR READ STATEMENTS BY, denies climate change.  No one.  Not even Mr. Trump, although listening to the leftists and their agents for change, you'd think he actually has and did.

Once more - NO ONE denies climate change is occurring.

However, that fact does not equal - human causation.  It's a trick and easily done when you don't pay attention.  We all believe human beings are the top of the chain - every chain, we believe we can make life, control time, space, and gravity ... we have the ability to be gods ... so we must also be able to change the climate on the planet.  If we can't, then we are not the gods we believe we are.

So overwhelming consensus ... I don't know much, but I do know when I want to know something I find the least biased party (and it can be done) and read / listen to what they have to say.

The Father of the Gaia Theory, the original, the first to start us down this path ... the scientist renowned for his work, without which we would just be starting ... I think his analysis and thoughts are especially worth paying attention to. 

If you check back under LABELS and search global warming, you will find the larger article on this subject.  For now, a brief synopsis -

James Lovelock, a British scientist known as the Father of the Gaia Theory argues that approximately 550 gigatonnes of toxic emissions are released into the atmosphere each year.

(A gigatonne is a billion tons, or 550 billion tons)

That is a LOT of toxic emissions or emissions of any kind that contribute toward climate change.

We certainly should cut that down.

Then Lovelock goes on to add ... if every human, car, building, plane, factory, or product built by man was to disappear off the planet tomorrow, that would reduce the total output by 30 gigatonnes.

Climate change cannot be stopped.  It cannot be prevented.  It is an immutable fact - it will occur and there is nothing humans can do to change it.  We play a very small role in the larger order of climate change.

Even if Lovelock is off by 10-20%, human causation is very much in doubt, and any reasonable human being understands that.  What is not in doubt is change will happen as it has since earth's origins.

Lovelock doesn't say give up, instead he suggests we help those people who will be displaced by the rising oceans and temperature changes.

That is something DiCaprio and others haven't figured out yet.

I cannot imagine why they can't or haven't.  It seems self-evident to me.

Dear Everyone -

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Trump: The Reckless Excuse for Yesteryear

What is the attraction to Trump's campaign.  What could possibly propel this man into the White House against all odds, all efforts by the media, all polls, and all conventional wisdom ...

for a moment, I imagine it is possible, as the world collapses for Hillary -

- the 'basket of deplorables', all 48% of the American people don't want to give up our borders.
- they do not want to surrender sovereignty to Mexico or Hillary
- they don't want free immigration across our borders
- they don't want a supranational entity directing our future
- they don't want billionaires colluding and determining what is best for 300 million people
- they do not want the atmosphere of corruption that surrounds the poster child of corruption, Hillary
- they do not want the media dictating what is and is not important to them
- they do not want the culture of corruption that surrounds the Clinton Family Inc
- they do not want politicians who say one thing to the wealthy and elite and say something different to the masses of people.

They want honesty and that is something Hillary can't do if her life depended upon it.

Donald Trump bothers the elite, bothers the media, bothers academics and all the special snowflakes because ... he simply doesn't live according to their design.  He is not politically correct.  He hugs women and maybe at some point grabbed their butt, maybe held them a little longer than a customary 4 seconds ... Donald Trump is a poster child for the masculine male of the 70s ... and he was never changed as times changed.

The Republican party has distanced itself not because what he did was immoral or unethical or wrong, but because they have bought into the idea that masculine is bad, and if they didn't deny him ... they would lose the votes of special snowflakes and women.  But what they didn't realize was the disdain so many people have for the culture of snowflakes.  And a yearning for some medium between Trumps masculine extreme and an effeminate future.

He stands a chance.  Pennsylvania.  N Carolina.  Nevada.  Arizona.  - he can take it if he gets these states.

And Nevada is doable and so is Arizona.  Pennsylvania is a state affected by the loss of manufacturing - they are the people Hillary holds in greatest disdain - and West Virginians.

It is possible.  And in the next 8 days as more shit tumbles out of her corrupt closet ...

Israel has no enemies

No nation has said they are at war with Israel.  No army has launched an attack on Israel.

Therefore, Israel's problems all stem from pesky criminals who act in a criminal manner.

Well, that would be true if the Mayor of NY and Governor of NY, and for that matter many other people in government today were right ...



.... they are not.


But, these useless idiots who tell us all is well, nothing to fear, no organized nothing to see, all is well - they aid those who would cause us harm in their ignorance and willful refusal to admit the reality.

Bill Maher: Not funny and Still the Village Idiot (albeit with lots of money like the 1%).

What a sexist pig.  Women everywhere should be condemning this man.  A boycott should be started by the women in PINK and the NOW should be marching on the network that provides him with a home.

(Btw, will you release your tax returns so we can all see how generous you have been with your money and the generous taxes you have paid)



On Friday's "Real Time," Maher double down on Hilary Rosen's controversial statement that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life" by saying that, "what she meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work."

"No one is denying that being a mother is a tough job," said Maher. "I remember that I was a handful. Okay, but there is a big difference in being a mother, and that tough job, and getting your ass out of the door at 7am when it’s cold, having to deal with the boss, being in a workplace, and even if you're unhappy you can’t show it for 8 hours, that is a different kind of tough thing."












idiots on parade

Krugman: Worthless Human Being (WHB)

You sir are a quaga.  Indisputably one of the worst quaga, but a quaga none the less.


Oh, but I am name calling and that is so like any of those Retardicans or Conservatives, isn't it.  Sure.  Unlike you, the leftists - 'George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror' - would never do such a thing, for name calling is a trait of the right, and truth is the bastion of the left.


Mr. Krugman, you are a perfect example of what is wrong - of why we are so divided, of the fact we are divided and it is not simply a spirited debate we are having today, but a life or death struggle. 

The center and right in this country have not gone quite because we realized it was shameful, but because we do not play victim every year to the evil we saw on September 11, and sit around and moan about how government needs to help us.  We quietly recognize the evil, resolve to defeat it, and continue living.  Your 'shame' is that we do not roll in the aisles or cry while walking the baby, or fall over in grief ... as if that is the legitimate, and living our lives while reflecting quietly is somehow an indicator of an illegitimate purpose. 

You are making a judgment you are not only unqualified to make, but you have mistaken the quite certitude of the American people for shame, when it is much more - a resolve to defeat an evil you fail to recognize as existing, led by a president who will and does blame everyone but those responsible for the evil of September 11.

Bush rushing to capitalize on the evil ?  I thought the attack was Bush was no where to be found for the first day.  How was he capitalizing on something he was hiding from.  I assume he capitalized on it immediately thereafter?  You are a pillar of stupidity aren't you?  Or are you just acting for political purposes? 

In 1986, Jessica McClure fell into a well in Midland Texas.  I remember hearing the media ask Vice President Bush what he thought about the baby falling into the well.  I remember the media following up, during the ordeal, with Bush as to his feelings on the matter.  I remember the media asking President Reagan for his thoughts.   I remember wanting to throw up.  Neither man wanted to, nor needed to comment on a tragic event, but the media fixated on them and on a need to get a comment regarding the incident, as if it was worthy of a presidential comment.  Everyday a child is hit by a car, gets lost, is kidnapped by a family member or a stranger, and we don't consult with the president.  he is not our father or grandfather and that office should remain outside of the events we call life.   The media swarmed Bush and Reagan about the baby - and it was not a life changing event for the country and world.

September 11, 2001, was a life-changing event for the country - we needed to see the president and hear from him.  We did not need people like you or pathetic individuals like Chomsky.  We needed a president to hold us together, to unite the country at a time when the stock market was collapsing faster than Obama's support, when fear around the globe over further attacks, when world leaders were moved from their usual places of residence and business to more secure facilities, where police and intelligence units around the globe became more visible - all in the hours following the attacks of September 11.  We needed someone to charge forward and unite us.  And Bush did.  The American people saw that and responded.  

Now you seek to erase that fact, with your ramblings.  There is no shame, except by the left - shame they could not capitalize on the events until several weeks later when they began attacking Bush and every action he took, only to turn around and use the same events for their political gain.  Bush acted to unite the country, to show strength and unity to the world - not for political gain for the Republican party.

It is a shame.







The CONSCIENCE OF A LIBERAL
Paul Krugman
New York Times
September 11, 2011, 8:41 am




The Years of Shame

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.






















liberals

Why entitlement is not a four-letter word

AUG 25, 2011 14:41 EDT

Reuters

Mark Miller

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words,” wrote George Orwell in 1984. And so it is with a mangled word that is central to the 2012 presidential race and the work of the Congressional deficit-cutting Super Committee: entitlement.

In the context of federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare, the word entitlement refers to a benefit you are granted by law. You are entitled to the benefit not because it is welfare, but because it is a program you have paid into over time. You can count on it because it is insurance that isn’t subject to the judgment of a case worker or the spending priorities of budgetmakers.

This original – and accurate – meaning has been under attack ever since the days of the Reagan Revolution. One of the first shots was fired by David Stockman, the Reagan Administration budget director who famously called Social Security closet socialism and a “coast-to-coast soup line.” Stockman’s comment preceded Ronald Reagan’s proposal to slash Social Security benefits in 1981, a political debacle that ultimately led to the compromise reforms of the bi-partisan Greenspan Commission in 1983.

But the word entitlement has been under sustained and successful assault ever since, with the result that most Americans now understand it as a four-letter pejorative term connoting welfare—handouts for people who don’t pull their own weight. It’s used that that way by all Republicans, many Democrats and nearly all Beltway media.

Do entitlements play a role in our national debt problem? Yes and no.

Social Security doesn’t contribute directly to the deficit. The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) runs an enormous surplus – and despite what you hear, the program is cash flow positive if you include interest on SSTF bonds and income taxes paid on benefits by high-income recipients. Social Security does face a long-term imbalance around the year 2035, when the SSTF will be exhausted, but that problem can be remedied easily by eliminating the cap on income subject to payroll taxes (See: Warren Buffett.)

Social Security adds pressure on the deficit only in the sense that the SSTF surplus is invested in a special form of Treasury note that is owed back to the fund. But that obligation is no different than any other Treasury debt.

Rapidly escalating healthcare costs are a major driver of the deficit, but Medicare reflects that inflation; it isn’t a direct cause of it. What’s more, Medicare delivers far more healthcare for the buck than private insurance; the notion that we can cut costs through privatization just doesn’t hold water.

When pollsters ask the public about Social Security and Medicare, the response is clear: keep both programs intact. These responses are consistent across party lines and age groups. For example, a survey by progressive pollster Celinda Lake for the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare shows that Americans overwhelmingly reject the suggestion that Social Security contributes to the national deficit, or that benefits should be cut to reduce the debt.

But ask the public about entitlements, and the response is different. “Americans are less group-oriented and more individually oriented,” says Lake. “And entitlement sounds like something that is given to a group. When you describe this as an ‘earned benefit or a guaranteed benefit that you paid into,’ that sounds like something that is individualistic.”

One of the ironies here is that the architects of Social Security and Medicare took great pains to distinguish the programs from welfare. Instead, they were designed to be social insurance programs, which pool risk broadly. In the case of Social Security, you pay for protection while you’re working, so that you and your family will be protected when you can’t work.

The Orwellian destruction of entitlement exploits public ignorance of this excellent concept.

“In areas where people people are unfamiliar with a concept, the best way to reach them is through analogy,” says Drew Westen, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

“An analogy moves you from a domain you don’t know to a domain you do understand. If the analogy for Medicare is entitlement, that makes people think of a handout. If the analogy is insurance that you pay for with your taxes, not only are you mapping to a domain people consider completely legitimate and appropriate, but you are reminding them that their taxes are going for something that is useful to them.”

Social Security and Medicare aren’t just useful – they’re essential pillars holding up the rickety roof of retirement security. Now, both will be subject to the work of the Super Committee, which will be dominated by Republicans and so-called centrist Democrats who could very well send entitlement cuts to the full Congress for an up or down vote. On the campaign trail, Republicans unanimously declare their readiness to cut entitlements, and President Obama seems ready to go along.

But here’s the good news: Orwell’s Newspeak aimed to supplant the English language entirely by the year 2050. So, there’s still plenty of time to stop the destruction of entitlements before it’s too late.




Entitlement – something you are owed or due. A more exact definition may be: the fact of having a right to something. The ‘something’ may well be very vague and varies at a given time to place, and even in purpose.


Set the entitlement aside for a moment and consider the median income in the US – about $50,000. About half below, about half above. Entitlements are for everyone – the half above and the half below, although a sizeable percentage of the half above, have resources beyond entitlements, to assist their living situations (whether medical or daily costs). It is the percentage below that discussions center on and about, even when they do not reference the group specifically. One point in any argument on this issue would be to keep it vague and do not limit terms or understandings to any given group. It makes it more applicable and Mr. Miller handles this argument tact quite well.


I looked back at my Social Security statement. That statement is several months out of date, but the numbers will not change and the date is not material. I selected 20 years of taxes and ‘contributions’ to the entitlement programs for comparison. I was quite young, starting work very young, no college degree – much like a majority of young people today. My total contributions (my portion of the payment) to social security were $10,614.00. My total contribution to Medicare was $7,594.00.


Of course, the payroll taxes have increased since I started to work, but the general argument is not in question. If I ‘retired’ at 62, and I lived until I was 82 (and I would hope I can manage a few more than 82 years), I would receive in Social Security $111,120. Slightly more than I paid in by over one hundred thousand dollars. If I retired at 67 and lived 20 additional years, I would receive $157,680 in social security payments. More than $145,000 above and beyond what I paid in to social security. If I quit working at age 70, and lived until I was 82, I would receive $117,360.


Entitlement.


Am I entitled to more than $100,000 beyond what I paid into the system? When I am 67, I will fall down, break my arm, and fracture my wrist. Broken arm – very least $2500. Wrist – no idea, but say $1000. $3,500 total without doctor’s costs and medication. Moreover, suddenly we have spent half of what I contributed to Medicare. Am I entitled to suck out the resources after my contribution limits have been reached?


Why?


The answer is quite simple – because we have spent a lifetime contributing to the ‘system’ and the system made us a promise and … not quite.


Social Security was never intended as a forever and ever and ever program to make you feel better. The original program had a life expectancy of 50 years and would wither away at that time. Social Security was intended as a safety net, in case you fall. Not as a cover, your living costs and allows you to have satellite or all 400 cable stations.


Furthermore, the program was always a pyramid scheme. Take from the workers and give to those retiring. This works excellent when you have workers. We do not. Those who are contributing, like my personal example, are NOT contributing anything to the system ($10,000 covers nothing, and $7500 covers less) and certainly not enough to cover the majority who are retiring. I am not exact on numbers but we have 1 worker for every 1.8 retirees, and soon we will have 2 retirees and 1 worker. HOW is that going to work. Where is that entitlement coming from and what insane person would continue to argue we maintain the status quo because we paid into it and that is that.


Insolvency comes to mind: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and France … there are not enough workers to make the payments we have made all along. We do not have the workers and before you argue that, we should bring in more immigrant workers, remember they are paid about what I was paid, and contribute enough to cover a manhole cover on the street, NOT the Social Security payments for retirees.


Entitlement? Our country is entitled to the support and defense by its citizens. Not only in time of war, but in time of need – we must sacrifice in war and in times when maintaining the current level of support is untenable without bringing the entire economic house down upon us. The answer is not to tax the rich more – we have seen what the ‘rich’ do when they are taxed – the move their corporations to Mexico, India, Pakistan, Indonesia … everywhere else but this country. If we fail, we not only destroy those entitlements Mr. Miller is supportive of, we undermine the economic and ultimately the military strength of this country.


I am entitled to be protected from the wolf and I don’t care if you have a broken arm. I do not want to be eaten and that is of primary importance to me, and to society.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
entitled

Libya and the Left: Peace, Democracy and all that crap

The Lefty Loons are out and will be out in the scores today, tomorrow, and in the following days and weeks smiling, laughing, and generally ecstatic over Obama's success in Libya.

There are several facts we conveniently 'forget', but then again, intellectual honesty is not trademarked by any ideology -

The US did not want to be involved and we resisted, even after the UN voted for a no-fly zone.  A curious thing that UN vote.  How do they go from a no-fly zone to supporting regime change?  A better question - how does the UN and US go from a no-fly zone to regime change?  Wasn't regime change bad in Iraq where a madman was not so mad, but in Libya where the bad man was never bad, just an annoyance - not like Kim or Amindinejad or Hussain.  Bad unless its good. 

So the US resisted and France took the lead.  The US waited.  France and Germany and England pressed ahead and the US waited.  Only when Europe made the US look weak and wilted did Obama step in and when he did he said our involvement would be 'hours' not 'days, or weeks' and when we enjoined the fight he again told us it was hours and days not weeks and months.  Over and over we heard that mantra.  Almost as often as we heard 'Get over it, we won'. 

And now, many many months later, hundreds of millions and several billions later, we come to an end.

And so we return to the cry of the left - how successful it has been.  The fact Obama sent in US special forces (against the law), spent billions on a war not supported or agreed to by congress (the only arm able to authorize war as we were told during the Iraq and Afghanistan action).  Liberals repeated the mantra that Bush was operating by fiat in waging war (despite the fact that from 2006 through 2008, a Democratic congress authorized the wars) unlike Obama (to be honest the Constitution does authorize the president to send troops into an action for a specified period of time, after which he must receive Congressional authorization to continue with the conflict).

So the left is ecstatic.  I am sure Jeanne Garofalo is in an orgasmic state - waiting for the sweets to be passed out on the streets of a now Democratic Libya.  Keith Obermann will probably look very seriously into the camera and give his top ten list with Libya being on the success side of the equation for Obama.  Liberals are usually driven by emotion and somewhat unstable (while on the other side Retardicans are simply incapable of tying a shoelace without instructions). 

I hate to interrupt their orgasmic orgy of joy, but I don't see or read much 'democracy' ...

Libyan Draft Constitution: Sharia is ‘Principal Source of Legislation’

Lachlan Markay

August 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm

The dust has not yet settled over the Libyan capital of Tripoli since rebels took control over the weekend. But already, a draft constitutional charter for the transitional state has appeared online (embedded below). It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult. There is also no way to know whether this draft or something similar will emerge as the final governing document for a new Libyan regime.


As both the Morning Bell and Washington in a Flash noted today, Heritage Fellow Jim Phillips recently pointed out that Islamist forces “appear to make up a small but not insignificant part of the opposition coalition,” and must be prevented “from hijacking Libya’s future.” Parts of the draft Constitution allay those fears, while others exacerbate them.


Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.

The entire DRAFT Constitution is available for reading here.

Libya