Justin Trudeau’s UN Address was a Meaningless Speech to a Worthless Body

Rex Murphy: Telling it like it is

    Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesPrime Minister Justin Trudeau addresses the United Nations General
    Assembly at UN headquarters, Sept. 20, 2016 in New York City.

Given the chance to address, say, the local numismatics society, or even the rotary club, the wise citizen would gladly choose either of these over the opportunity to speak in front of the ill-named United Nations. The stamp collectors and the Rotarians at least have the virtue of being what they say they are, and when they offer the podium to an outsider, they do so with the honest belief that the speaker will have something interesting or useful to say, and that he or she will actually be listened to.

The United Nations, on the other hand, though it is nothing if not diverse (dictators and kleptocrats rub shoulders with democratic presidents and prime ministers), it is so crosshatched with rivalries, intrigue, devious diplomacy and hypocritical posturing, that to speak of it as “united” is a contradiction in terms.

Consider its Human Rights Council, on which some of the most gruesome theocracies and grinding dictatorships on our tormented planet have held sway, thus undermining the supposed reason for its existence. Once in a while, the body does manage to come to an agreement, but only when its members unite to condemn the state of Israel (the detestation of Israel being something of a ground bass for UN sanctimony).

When the UN, with its posturing and deal-making, is not actively making things worse, or turning a blind eye to atrocities, it does have moments of pure play-acting and harmless diversion. At such moments, it takes on the atmosphere, minus the dignity, of the Ted Talks. These usually coincide with visits from the leaders of the world’s democracies. It is a favoured venue of U.S. President Barack Obama, for example.

Obama favours this meretricious chamber because it allows him to smugly lecture the rest of the world on being on the “right side of history” and the “moral arc” of our times. Meanwhile, the ravages in Syria continue unabated and North Korea, under its sovereign tyrant, Kim Jong-un, continues ramping up its nuclear program. The truly wretched of the Earth grow more wretched and the world, as they say, marches on.

This week, it was our dewy-fresh prime minister’s turn to address this esteemed body and, either out of vanity or innocence, he didn’t turn down the invitation. As to the substance of his effusion, one would need an intellectual Geiger counter to find any. The speech was described by the National Post’s John Ivison as “thin as soup made from the carcass of a starving pigeon.” And that’s being generous.

The address easily could have been passed off as a high-school valedictorian speech: it was trite, without being testy, and full of false equivalencies. It bore the now-ineluctable stamp of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s compulsion to hymn, yet again, the all-ranging virtues of diversity.

Fluffing a pillow in front of the UN delegates

would have had more of an impact

This word “diversity” has something of a clamp on Trudeau’s brain. He seems to think that merely to pronounce it out loud is to add to the sum of human insight, that its four flat syllables compress all the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount, Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address and the best of Norman Vincent Peale into one handy little word. Yet fluffing a pillow in front of the UN delegates would have had more of an impact.

It’s a pity that, even in that forlorn venue, Trudeau was unwilling to let go of that rhetorical Linus blanket and say a few things about what is really going on in the world. He could have offered some meaningful analysis on the situation in Syria. He could have uttered some truths to those who rarely hear them. Instead, it was the usual mush about “modest Canada” and how we’re back and ready to help.

It really is time to stop bragging about how modest we are, as one cannot honestly brag about being modest. And besides, it’s unseemly. Let other countries pay testimony to our worth if they are so moved to do so. And as for diversity, yes it is a fine virtue as far as virtues go, but so are unity, coherence, national identity, fiscal competence and the rule of law. Saying the word “diversity” is not like waving a magic wand that somehow rids us of all tribulation and want. Nor is it, by any test, the only metric for a healthy and admirable society.

But it was a UN session, and perhaps it is understood that to scatter anything but clichés and self-congratulations before that august convocation would be a breach of its worthless protocols.

National Post

‘What if There is No God?’ Duterte Promotes Death Penalty as Certain Means of Serving Justice

President Duterte, don't give up your day job;

you are no theologian!

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. © Ted Aljibe / AFP

The Philippines’ president said that growing influence of atheism and agnosticism leads to people disrespecting laws and committing heinous crimes. And “if there is no God,” capital punishment is the only way to make sure justice is served.

The first sentence is most definitely true; the second, I'm not too sure about. At any rate, there is a God so the statement is redundant. There is a difference between people who believe God exists, or may exist, and Christians who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The difference is the first group have never, or probably never really experienced God; the second has. 

To accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour results in the immediate invasion of the Holy Spirit into the believer. It is only by this Spirit that one can experience God and therefore truly know that He is. 

President Rodrigo Duterte has condoned the restoration of the death penalty in the Philippines “because the fear is not there” anymore. According to him, the previous presidents had given in to the pressure of the “bleeding hearts” and the Catholic Church who had been against the death penalty “because only God can kill”.

“The problem with that is, I ask you, ‘what if there is no God?’” Duterte said to reporters at the presidential palace in Manila.

“When a one-year-old, an 18-month-old baby is taken from the mother’s arms, brought under a Jeep and raped, and killed, where is God? And in Syria women and children, who don’t want to have sex with ISIS, they are burned. So where’s God? My God, where are you?” he addressed the creator directly.

God has restricted Himself to intervening in man's affairs only when He is asked or wanted. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as free will, and without free will, we could never come to love God, for which we were created. The horrors that man commits on the children of this world will not go unpunished and the suffering will not go without blessings in Eternity.

Previously, Duterte promised to personally deal with Islamic State jihadists by eating them alive in public.

Duterte professed that he personally believes in God, though existence of God have been a “perpetual question” for him, seeing “heartaches, sorrows and agony.” According to the Philippines’ president, the state needs a means to punish wrongdoers, without a need to wait for “the end of the world, when he [God] will judge the living and the dead”, since growing atheism and agnosticism mean people lack fear and do not respect the law.

“That is why, I said give me back the death penalty,” concluded the president, saying he has “always been a hardliner when it comes to the penal laws.”

On Friday Duterte made a similar comment, while giving a speech to police officers about illegal drugs and a set of rules to deal with drug criminals.

“Maybe God doesn’t want all these killings. But never mind, God is not my enemy. I’ll talk to him when I get there,” said Duterte to the officers. “I'll ask him, 'If you are really God, you didn't do anything, and the Filipinos are going crazy.'”

I would strongly advise you sort that out before you get there!

During the election campaign, Duterte promised to re-establish capital punishment as part of an ongoing ‘war on drugs’. Since he took office in the end of June, some 3,500 people have been killed during ‘the war’, while more than 600,000 people reportedly turned themselves in.

600,000 drug dealers in one country? Astonishing!

President Duterte is well-known for his harsh comments littered with profanities against world leaders. He has been facing criticism for his bloody war on drugs recently and responded to it in a rather questionable manner.

The Philippines president called his US counterpart Barack Obama “son of a b**ch,” earlier this month after hearing that the latter was to address the country’s ‘war on drugs’. The outburst led to the cancellation of scheduled talks between the two leaders. Later, Duterte stated that his comment had not been directed towards Obama, while doing that he somewhat managed to redirect the insult to the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, calling him “a fool”.

Last week Duterte invited Ban Ki-moon and EU officials to investigate the methods of the nationwide drug crackdown. He managed, however, to insult the UN Secretary-General once more in process.

“I am inviting the United Nations’ Ban Ki ... what's the name of that devil? ... Ban Ki-moon,” Reuters quoted Duterte as saying.

OMGosh!

Mind you, it is odd that Moon and Obama are so concerned about the summary executions of reprobates in the Philippines and not at all concerned about the many beheadings and other executions in Iran and Saudi Arabia. But then, the Philippines don't have any oil and aren't buying much in terms of weapons. If they were, Moon and Obama would be a lot quieter.

Glick: Obama's Greatest Achievement

On August 4, during the course of a press conference, Obama

gave his interim assessment of his nuclear agreement with Iran

“It worked,” he insisted.

Commentary   Caroline Glick 

The time for complaining about President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has passed. The time has come to overcome the damage enormous damage his signature foreign policy accomplishment has caused.

To understand why this is the case, it is important to understand the breadth and depth of Obama’s failure.

On August 4, during the course of a press conference, Obama gave his interim assessment of his nuclear agreement with Iran.

“It worked,” he insisted.

A year after the deal was signed, Obama argued, events have proven that he was right and the deal’s critics were wrong.

“You’ll recall that there were all these horror stories about how Iran was going to cheat and this wasn’t going to work and Iran was going to get $150 billion to finance terrorism and all these kinds of scenarios, and none of them have come to pass,” he proclaimed.

Obama then snidely swiped at the deal’s opponents saying that it would be “impressive” if the people who criticized the deal would own up to their mistakes and admit that it worked.

As it works out, everything that Obama said about the deal with Iran during his press conference was a lie.

Some of his lies became apparent within hours.

For instance, Obama falsely claimed that Israel now “acknowledges this has been a game changer and Iran has abided by the deal and they no longer have the sort of short-term breakout capacity that would allow them to develop nuclear weapons.”

Hours later, the Defense Ministry issued a stinging rebuke of Obama’s claim, parroted more diplomatically by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Obama’s press conference took place the day after The Wall Street Journal reported that in January 2016, the US sent an unmarked plane to the Tehran airport filled with $400 million in cash, on the same day Iran released four US hostages.

Obama angrily rejected allegations that the cash payment was a ransom payment for the hostages’ release. He insisted that the US had made the payment as the first installment of a $1.7b. payment the administration made to settle an Iranian government lawsuit against America.

Obama claimed that the administration agreed to the settlement at the urging of the Justice Department.

He said his administration was able to settle the dispute only due to the nuclear deal which placed US officials in direct contact with their Iranian counterparts for the first time in decades.

Within a day, Obama’s claims were exposed as lies. It turns out that Justice Department lawyers opposed the cash payout to Iran.

One of the hostages released in January told the media that the Iranians refused to allow the hostages to leave Iran until the airplane with the cash landed in the airport.

The Iranians, for their part, contemptuously mocked Obama, and stated openly that the $400m.

was a ransom payment for the hostages.

Two weeks later, Obama’s State Department admitted that the $400m. was a payment for the hostages.

Obama’s principle claim is that due to his deal, Iran no longer has a short-term nuclear breakout capacity. He also says that in accordance with the deal, Iran has shipped its nuclear materials out of the country. These claims are both untrue and misleading.

On Thursday Reuters reported that Iran did not ship the quantities of low-enriched uranium out of the country in the quantities the deal required.

Last January, when the deadline arrived for Iran to comply with the deal’s clauses calling for it to move its uranium enriched to 3.5 percent and 20 percent out of the country and so enable the US and its European colleagues to cancel UN sanctions against it, it worked out that Iran had failed to comply.

Rather than acknowledge Iran’s failure and maintain the sanctions in accordance with their deal, the Americans and Europeans decided to move the goalpost closer to Iran.

They secretly decreased the amount of uranium the Iranians were required to part with. They then announced triumphantly that they were canceling UN sanctions because Iran had complied with the agreement.

Reuters reported that much of the low-enriched uranium Iran did remove from its territory wasn’t actually removed from its possession. Instead it was transferred to neighboring Oman, where it is held under Iranian guard and control.

Obama of course knows all of this. So his claims that the agreement “worked” are nothing more than a card trick meant to trick the American public.

Obama’s assertion that Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear arsenal has been slowed as a result of his deal is similarly a stretch of the imagination. The Iranians have suspended much of their prior centrifuge spinning. But that is only because they are now directing their efforts to developing and deploying more advanced centrifuges that will be able to enrich uranium to bomb grade material far more rapidly than the centrifuges they were required to retire.

Experts have already placed Iran’s post-deal nuclear breakout time at a mere six months. And Iran can leave the agreement – which it never actually signed or officially agreed to – anytime it wants.

While developing their next generation centrifuges, the Iranians are expanding the range and precision of their ballistic missiles, deploying them and increasing the size of their arsenals. Despite the fact that these actions are prohibited under US law and breach what was initially claimed about the ever-changing nuclear deal, the Obama administration has refused to impose sanctions against Iran, insisting that its actions merely breach the spirit, rather than substance, of the deal.

The administration has had a similar response to Iran’s recent deployment of Russia’s S-300 missile defense battery around its military nuclear site at Fordo. On Sunday Iranian television showed footage of the missiles being set up around the formerly secret site.

As Omri Ceren of the Israel Project noted this week, Iran’s deployment of the S-300 system places it in breach of three US sanctions laws. Despite this, the White House announced on Wednesday that it has no intention of enforcing US law and applying sanctions on Iran. The S-300 missiles can be used both as a defensive system and as an offensive one.

On Tuesday, Tehran announced that it will be launching three satellites in the coming months.

Satellite launches are widely viewed as a means through which Iran is covertly developing a longrange ballistic missile capability. Rather than censure Iran for its actions, the Obama administration insists that such actions, as well as Iran’s recent long-range rocket tests, do not violate the nuclear deal or warrant US action.

Taken separately and together, Iran’s actions since the nuclear deal was officially concluded make clear that it continues to pursue its nuclear program, and indeed, has become more brazen in its nuclear operations than it was before the agreement was announced last year.

In other words, not only has the deal not worked, contrary to Obama’s claims, it has been a colossal failure on every level. The deal’s opponents were entirely right about the dangers it posed and Obama was entirely wrong.

This is true as well in relation to the administration’s qualified promises that the deal would lead to better relations between the US and Iran. As Shoshana and Stephen Bryen noted last week following the Iranian naval assault on the USS Nitze in the Strait of Hormuz, with its repeated harassment of US naval ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is clearly practicing its tactic of swarming US naval craft as a preparation for a real strike against them.

The main reason that Iran’s nuclear program is such a grave concern for Israel and for other Middle Eastern states is that the Iranian regime has hegemonic ambitions. It seeks to destroy Israel and dominate the entire region.

Since it concluded the deal with Washington, Iran has surged its forces and massively expanded its power projection throughout the region.

On Thursday the Daily Mail reported that the commonly held belief that Iran commands 16,000 troops in Syria is wrong. According to the National Council of Resistance in Iran, the regime actually commands 60,000 forces in Syria, deployed throughout the country. The entire Syrian army today numbers a mere 50,000 men.

On August 4, Obama mocked claims that Iran would spend its windfall profits of $100b.-$150b.

from the sanctions relief the nuclear deal offered to fund terrorism. Yet, according to the Daily Mail report, to date Iran has spent $100b. on the war in Syria.

The implications of the report are blood curdling.

They mean that despite Obama’s denials, the funds Iran has received as a result of the sanctions relief he brought about through his nuclear deal have paid for Iran’s war in Syria. That war has caused the death of nearly half a million people and forced more than 11 million people to flee their homes.

Obviously, it is important for Americans to know the truth about the Iran deal and its consequences as they consider their votes for Obama’s replacement.

One of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s top candidates for secretary of state is Wendy Sherman.

Sherman was the chief negotiator of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

For Israel, the question of what to do about Iran now is far more urgent than it is for Americans.

Today more and more commentators are voicing concern over the prospect that Obama will support an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council as a parting shot at Israel.

But any such resolution will be small potatoes in comparison to the strategic devastation his nuclear deal, which is his main foreign policy legacy, has caused.

The rapidity of Iran’s advance makes clear that there is no justification for waiting to act until Obama has left office. If it doesn’t act soon, Israel is on the fast track to waking up one morning and discovering it has no means of thwarting the threat.

Indeed, with each passing month, its options for action become more and more limited.

After Israel’s security leadership undermined Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to attack Iran’s nuclear installations in 2010 and 2012, Netanyahu settled on a strategy of blocking Obama’s moves to appease Tehran.

That strategy of course failed last summer. Since then, Netanyahu has worked to build an anti-Iranian alliance with the Sunni Arab states. His efforts in this area have clearly met with some measure of success, as witnessed by public statements from prominent Saudis and others.

Whatever that success may be, and whatever the status of that burgeoning alliance of spurned US allies, the fact is that it’s time Israel and its new allies do something more than send signals. Time is a-wasting.

Last spring Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said, “Today the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are more present than ever before.”

Thanks to Obama, he may be right.

It is time for Israel to make him eat his words.

Philippines Leader Calls Obama ‘Son of a B****,’ Rejects Lecturing from US on Human Rights

One would think the President of the United States would know

not to irritate a coiled snake

The reference to the war in Syria in the video is a good example of the difference in philosophy between the two presidents. The US and it's allies seemed content to keep the fighting to a level where no side was in danger of winning. It wasn't until Russia stepped in that the US suddenly decided that maybe they should actually try and win.

Duterte is trying to stop the devastating effects of drugs on the Filipinos. It seems the U.S. would rather he keep the status quo. The murders on the streets is a terrible violation of human rights, but in the end may produce a country that is much better off for it as long as the killing ends when the drugs do.

In an acid comment, Philippines leader Rodrigo Duterte called Barack Obama a “son of a b****,” warning the US president against lecturing him over the Philippines’ human rights record in its brutal war on drugs at a global summit in Laos, where the two are set to meet.

“Son of a b****, I will curse you in that forum," the acid-tongued Duterte said before departing for Laos, where the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is hosting a meeting of global leaders, including the US and Russia.

The statement came in reaction to the information President Obama was to address the alleged extrajudicial killings during the anti-drug campaign in the Philippines that has already claimed 2,400 lives.

Speaking to journalists on Monday, Duterte insisted he was “a president of a sovereign state” and that his country has “long ceased to be a colony of the United States."

“I do not have any master except the Filipino people, nobody but nobody,” Duterte went on to say, also cautioning other world leaders about addressing the issue of the anti-drug campaign in his country.

The Philippines president was set to meet Barack Obama on Tuesday, but it appears the talks are now in jeopardy. The US leader has now ordered his team to look into whether a “constructive, productive” dialogue is possible under the current circumstances.

"I always want to make sure if I'm having a meeting that it's actually productive and we're getting something done," Obama told reporters in a press conference following the G20 summit in China.

"The issue of how we approach fighting crime and drug trafficking is a serious one for all of us. We've got to do it the right way," the US leader went on to say. He noted that in case the meeting takes place, the “topic will be raised.”

After the arrival in Laos on Monday, Duterte said he would still consider talks with Obama. “Maybe, if I feel good. I don't want to quarrel with him.”

Rodrigo Duterte came to power in May, promising to wipe out drug dealers and put an end to the problem in his country. According to the latest police figures cited by AFP, since June law enforcers have killed 1,011 suspected criminals, with an additional 1,391 “deaths under investigation.”

The approach gained vast support among the average public, however raising concerns from political opponents, human rights groups and the US in particular.

"More people will be killed. Plenty will be killed until the last pusher is out of the streets. Until the [last] drug manufacturer is killed, we will continue and I will continue," Duterte said Monday.

The Philippines leader is notorious for his inflammatory comments. On one occasion he also called Pope Francis “a son of a b****.”

During the presidential election campaign that brought him to power, Duterte also lashed out at the US ambassador to the Philippines, calling him a homosexual.

Breedlove’s War: Emails Show ex-NATO General Plotting US Conflict with Russia

"Putin must be confronted"

Breedlove, or is it Strangelove?

Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Phillip Breedlove © Olivier Hoslet / Reuters

Hacked private emails of the US general formerly in charge of NATO reveal a campaign to pressure the White House into escalating the conflict with Russia over Ukraine, involving several influential players in Washington.

The emails, posted by the site DCLeaks, show correspondence between General Philip M. Breedlove, former head of the US European Command and supreme commander of NATO forces, with several establishment insiders concerning the situation in Ukraine following the February 2014 coup that ousted the elected government in favor of a US-backed regime.

Breedlove served as the NATO Supreme Commander between May 2013 and March 2016. His personal email incorporated his Air Force call sign “Bwana” – a Swahili word for “boss.”

The hacked emails reveal his frequent and intense communications with retired General Wesley Clark, as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and involving a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, State Department official Victoria Nuland, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.

Clark, who commanded NATO during the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, reached out to Breedlove in April 2014. On April 8, he forwarded “intelligence” obtained by Anatoly Pinchuk and Dmitry Tymchuk, activists close to the new regime, claiming a Russian invasion was in the works.

    NATO Supreme Allied Commander, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove. © Jonathan 

The information was conveyed by Phillip Karber, an ex-Marine and president of the Potomac Foundation, whom Clark calls a “colleague” and “our guy.” Karber wrote about observing the Russian border from inside a Ukrainian tank, and eagerly transmitted Tymchuk and Pinchuk’s calls for support. Contacted by The Intercept on Friday, Karber confirmed the authenticity of several emails in the leaked cache.

Reporting on his meeting with Ambassador Pyatt on April 6, Karber wrote: “State is the one trying to be pro-active and recognizes need to do more faster,” while General Martin Dempsey – at that point the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – was “dragging his feet in order to save [military] relations with Russians.”

In an email dated April 12, Clark referred to his exchange with “Toria” Nuland – the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, who personally backed the Ukrainian revolution – pushing for open US support for the regime in Ukraine to use force against protesters in the east. Prior to the coup, Washington had strongly warned Kiev not to use force against the anti-government demonstrators in the city.

Kiev’s summer “anti-terrorist operation” ended in crushing defeat in August, and the first armistice between the government and rebels was signed in Minsk in September. Meanwhile, the so-called Islamic State jihadist group arose in Iraq and Syria, drawing US attention away from Eastern Europe with gruesome beheadings of Westerners. Frustrated by the White House’s reluctance to back his belligerent agenda in Ukraine, Breedlove reached out to Powell, a retired general and former secretary of state.

“I seek your counsel on two fronts,.... how to frame this opportunity in a time where all eyes are on ISIL all the time,... and two,... how to work this personally with the POTUS,” Breedlove wrote to Powell in September 2014. Powell’s response was not made available.

Breedlove was introduced to Powell by Harlan Ullman, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the author of the “shock and awe” doctrine used by the Bush administration in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In October 2014, Ullman urged Breedlove to reach out to Vice President Joe Biden. Aside from Powell, Ullman wrote, “I know of no better way of getting into 1600,” referring to the White House’s address on Pennsylvania Avenue.

In November, Ullman also suggested Breedlove should get together with David O'Sullivan, the new EU envoy to Washington. Noting that Europe “seems to be a six letter expletive in the White House,” Ullman adds that “perhaps quiet collaboration between him and NATO (SecGen) as well might be useful.”

“Obama or Kerry needs to be convinced that Putin must be confronted,” Ullman wrote in February 2015, before the ‘Minsk II’ talks.

He also gave Breedlove pointers on getting into the good graces of Ash Carter, the new Defense Secretary. “I would take or pretend to take careful notes.  Ash is an academic. And he is trained that students who take good notes rise to be A grades.  This may be maskarova.  But it is useful maskarova,” Ullman wrote, misspelling the Russian word for camouflage (maskirovka).

Washington did approve hundreds of millions of dollars in “non-lethal” aid to Ukrainian troops, including the notorious “volunteer battalions,” in the 2016 military budget.

Breedlove continued to push for more aggressive US involvement, claiming a heavy Russian troop presence in Ukraine – which was later denied even by the government in Kiev. In March this year, the general was telling US lawmakers that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

Breedlove was replaced at the helm of EUCOM and NATO in May, and officially retired from the military on July 1. He was replaced by US Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, whose public statements suggest a similar level of hostility for Russia.

It has always been my contention that it is anything but a coincidence that the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia started just a couple months after much talk about the usefulness of NATO. With the cold war ending it seemed like an expensive exercise with little value. Then suddenly there's a war and NATO comes to the rescue, sort of.

Russia's Views on American Exceptionalism

‘Obama’s US exceptionalism statements rival Hitler quotes’ – top Russian judge

Russian Constitutional Court Chairman Valery Zorkin © Vladimir Fedorenko / Sputnik

The chairman of the Russian Constitutional Court has said that Barack Obama’s statements about American exceptionalism were very similar to propaganda used by Nazi Germany and equally dangerous to world peace.

“The idea of specialness, exceptionality and unique rights of the American state and American people has been used in US internal political rhetoric for quite a while, but in the recent years it is being actively and persistently offered in US foreign policy documents and public speeches on international politics delivered by US officials,” Judge Valery Zorkin said at the St Petersburg international legal forum on Thursday.

“Any unbiased and educated person would see that this statement by Obama is an almost exact copy of leading politicians and propaganda specialists of the Third Reich, including Adolph Hitler… In essence, Obama is using the exact same thing that Nazi bosses said about the German exceptionalism when they started the world war,” he added.

The judge also said that in his view the exceptionalism concept had direct influence on the modern US concepts of military planning and these concepts see the main objective of all activities as reaching such degree of military might that the United States remains out of reach of other nations, on land, sea, in air and in space.

According to Zorkin, the same applies to the US doctrines on development of mass media and electronic communications – the US authorities see their goal as establishing absolute global domination of their country in the global information space. This idea also constantly appears in Obama’s public speeches.

“Obama says that Americans and the USA are an exceptional people and an exceptional state and thus they can pretend for much more than any other people or state. In other words, he follows the plot of James Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ dystopia and, while formally not rejecting the principle of equality of sovereign states and peoples, fixed by the UN Charter, he still declares that Americans and America are ‘more equal’ than any other country and the rest of the planet’s population,” RIA Novosti quoted the judge as saying.

Zorkin also told his colleague at the forum that he considered such approach to be a blatant violation of international legal norms.

Russian politicians and officials have repeatedly addressed the topic of American exceptionalism when talking on bilateral relations with the US and of international politics in general. In particular, in mid-2015 President Vladimir Putin said in his speech before the UN General Assembly that attempts to influence internal politics of sovereign nations should not be tolerated regardless of where they are taking place and who are making such attempts.

Except, of course, Russian intervention in Crimea.

“It seems that some nations are not learning from others’ mistakes, but keep repeating them. The export of so-called ‘democratic’ revolutions continues.” Putin said.

“I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation, ‘Do you realize now what you have done?’” he said. “But I am afraid the question will hang in the air, because policies based on self-confidence and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.”

I have no major difficulty with American exceptionalism and the current administration. My concern is when someone who actually believes in it so much that he/she makes major decisions based on it. I'm also concerned that the idea is a matter of pride and, as the Bible tells us, 'pride goes before a fall'!

Republicans - For God's Sake Stop It!

’I’d check the podium for onions’: 

Fox pundit questions Obama’s ‘raw’ emotions

President Barack Obama teared up as he announced his plan to use executive action to expand background checks for gun ownership. However, Fox News host Andrea Tantaros was more interested in theatrics than the substance of his speech.

During the announcement on Tuesday, Obama brusquely brushed away tears as he mentioned Chicago’s gun violence problems as an example of the need for tighter background checks.

However, the Fox panel was not buying it.

“The tears that he wiped away, again and again, you want that – I mean, we feel frightened about what’s going on with ISIS,” said Fox News co-host Melissa Francis.

And you are not frightened that 30 Americans are being killed every day? What is wrong with your heads? Were there 30 Americans killed by terrorists last year, 30 out of 10,000? That's 0.3%! Melissa is frightened of ISIS and completely ambivalent to the 99.7% who are killed in American activities like robbery, murder, and mass murder. Does that make any sense to you?

“He’s almost at the end of his term and you haven’t heard him go to Chicago and really speak out about this issue,” said co-host Andrea Tantaros.

At the end of October, Obama traveled to Chicago to discuss gun control and the importance of extending background checks. Between January 1, 2015 and May 30, 2015, there were 161 murders in 151 days in Chicago and 2,783 illegal guns recovered during that six-month period, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Tantaros said that she would “check that podium for like a raw onion or some No More Tears.”

Andrea, just because you are apparently incapable of feeling any emotions over the murder of children, doesn't mean the everyone else is faking it. If you were half as emotional over the death of innocent children as you are over the non-existent threat of losing your guns, you couldn't have made that crass remark. You ought to be ashamed.

Obama did not appear to be slicing onions on the podium, however. No More Tears is a Johnson & Johnson line of bath products designed to prevent babies from crying if they get soap in their eyes.

Tantaros and Fox News were not the only ones who weren’t impressed with Obama’s plan. A lot of the internet didn't seem to get the message, with presidential candidates, the National Rifle Association and gun owners alike taking to Twitter and getting all “up in arms.”

Ted Cruz ✔ @tedcruz
Fight back against @BarackObama's unconstitutional #2A executive actions! #ComeAndTakeIt https://www.tedcruz.org/l/second-amendment-rights/ … 

Gunning for 'drama-queen' Mr Cruz?

In the wake of Obama’s announcement, gun rights supporters began using the #comeandtakeit hashtag, which has its origins in the Battle of Gonzales in 1835, when Texas was part of Mexico.

Gun sales hit record highs in the lead-up to Obama's announcement, the Washington Post reported. While the gun lobby protests against stricter regulations, people’s fears that their continued ability to purchase such weapons is under threat leads to an upsurge in gun sales.

Tim Dickinson @7im
this is legit terrifying from Ted Cruz, holy hell 

Terrifying? It's terrifying that mentally ill people should be prevented from purchasing assault weapons? What's really terrifying, Mr Dickinson, is that you want them to have access to assault weapons!

Your 'terror' almost certainly comes from the fear that the government is going to take your guns away from you. That is stupid beyond belief! It's a lie that the NRA and gun manufacturers and merchants hype so that you will be opposed to a simple, innocuous executive order that will certainly save the lives of many people, including children. 

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and other Republican presidential candidates promised that, if elected, they would reverse any executive orders.

Carly Fiorina called for Obama to enforce existing gun laws. The former HP CEO has said those on the Terror Watch List should be able to buy guns. “If somebody is a suspected terrorist on a watch list, they can be indicted at any time, and once you’re indicted, you cannot own a firearm,” she told MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ following the San Bernardino attack.

NRA ✔ @NRA
No other organization in the world has done more to promote firearm safety than the  #NRA #2A  #Obamapresser
9:10 AM - 5 Jan 2016

If that's not the most ridiculous statement ever made on the planet, I don't know what is. Tell me you were not behind the Dickey Amendment that prevents the federal government from funding research into gun violence in America! How is that promoting safety? How is opposing an order to qualify all gun purchasers promoting safety. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans is on your hands - you could at least try to wash them once in a while.

The National Rifle Association boasted about its good work. The NRA's Chris W. Cox released a statement on Tuesday accusing Obama of attempting "to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack."

Paul Ryan ✔ @SpeakerRyan
My statement on President Obama's Executive Order to Undermine Second Amendment → http://spkrryan.us/1Sxzn1k  #2A 

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) issued a statement saying that Obama's word does not trump the Second Amendment.

I take it back; this could be the stupidest statement ever made on this planet. Background checks are mandatory in most gun purchases now; how is extending that to all gun purchases any different? If the existing policy of background checks does not undermine the 2nd Amendment, how can extending it do that? That's completely irrational!

There have been 147 gun-related deaths in the US in the first five days of 2016. None of them were committed by terrorists! Americans need to stop worrying about militant Islam and start worrying about the terrorist who lives on your street, the one who will walk into a school this month or next month and murder your children. That is a far, far more likely event than any serious Muslim attack.

America will never be defeated by Islam through any military assault. Islam is patient. Islam is watching America destroy itself from within. Islam will wait until America explodes in insane violence and then just walk in and take it.

The arguments made by 'outraged' Republicans are hyperbolic, inflammatory, and often have nothing to do with the executive order. Too many Republicans cannot bring themselves to speak the truth - they are political cowards; dishonest, disingenuous cowards. And most of these people will call themselves Christians. There is nothing remotely Christian in any of the quotes above; so please stop selling yourselves as such. You are not Christians, and you make me sick!

Obama's Plea for Gay Rights Summarily Rejected by Kenya

Kenya Rejects Obama's Gay Rights Lecture

By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter

President Barack Obama is in Ethiopia Monday, the first sitting American president to visit East Africa's second most populous nation. He's holding talks with Ethiopian and African Union leaders on counterterrorism, human rights, and regional security.

President Kenyatta, you're my hero today

Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta and President Obama

Obama wrapped up a two-day visit to Kenya Sunday, where he urged leaders in his father's homeland to root out corruption, treat women and minorities as equals, and protect the rights of homosexuals.

"I've been consistent all across Africa on this," the president said. "I believe in the principle of treating people equally under the law, and that they are deserving of equal protection under the law and that the state should not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation."

But in a tense exchange, Kenya's president rejected Obama's message on gay rights, saying it was one value Christian Kenya does not share with the United States.

"The fact of the matter is that Kenya, the United States, we share so many values, but there are some things that we must admit we don't share -- our culture, our society don't accept," President Uhuru Kenyatta said.

"This is why I repeatedly say that for Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue," he continued. "We want to focus on other areas that are day-to-day living for our people."

In Kenya, homosexual relations carry a punishment of imprisonment. In this overwhelmingly Christian nation, many residents shrugged off the U.S. president's lecture on gay rights.

"Of course, the way President Obama talked about gays and what have you, lesbianism or transgender, whatever, according to him, you know, we took him as an American. He was answering like an American," Nairobi resident Ibrahim Lincoln said. "But according to our African cultures, the Christian beliefs -- we say no."

The world gets crazier everyday. Now we have African countries appearing more moral and Christian than the United States. Weird, eh? Kudos to President Kenyatta for not being intimidated by President Obama.

.......What Goes Around Comes Around.......

Gulf leaders back out of Camp David summit in 'snub' to Obama

Last week Russian President Putin held a great parade - and nobody came, well, no-one important.

This week US President Obama is holding a middle east summit of Islamic leaders and the most important leaders are staying away. Israel wasn't invited, of course, because....well you know why. President Obama is getting a taste of how President Putin felt.

President Obama met Saudi King Salman in Riyadh in January

From BBC US & Canada
Many Gulf heads of state have said they will not attend the summit of US and allied Arab leaders at Camp David later this week.

Their substitution with more junior leaders is being seen as a rebuff to President Obama's negotiations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

King Salman of Saudi Arabia announced on Sunday that he would not attend.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Saudi Arabia has not raised concerns about anything on the summit agenda.

The talks in Camp David near Washington were designed to reassure the Arab allies of US support on a number of issues including talks with Iran and instability in several Arab states.

They will now be largely attended by leaders at the ministerial level.

The official reason for the Saudi leader's absence is that the summit coincides with a humanitarian ceasefire in Yemen, where a Saudi-led alliance is battling Shia Houthi rebels.

An armed Yemeni tribesman sits on a tank

"I know there had been some speculation that this change in travel plans was an attempt to send a message to the United States," Mr Earnest said.

"If so, that message was not received, because all the feedback that we've received from the Saudis has been positive."

The White House later said that President Obama had spoken by phone to King Salman on Monday and they had discussed preparations for the Camp David summit.

At Saudi Arabia's embassy in Washington, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told reporters the move was not related to any disagreement.

But diplomatic experts say it is a clear signal of Saudi displeasure with the US president and his negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme.

"I don't think they have a deep respect, a deep trust for Obama and his promises. There is a fundamental difference between his vision of post-nuclear-deal Iran and their vision," Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science at Emirates University told the Associated Press news agency.

"They think Iran is a destabilising force and will remain so, probably even more, if the sanctions are lifted."

This genuine fear of Iran and its regional ambitions leads to some very interesting dynamics with respect to Israel. Most of the Gulf States leaders are probably very grateful for Israel right now. Israel is the only country, other than the US, with the capability of seriously damaging Iran's nuclear facilities. Since the US has no desire to do so, and has allowed themselves to actually believe that Iran will live up to a negotiated agreement, Israel becomes the last resort. There may even be some clandestine co-operation between Israel and the Gulf states. Strange bedfellows make for interesting dynamics.

President Obama had planned to meet with the Saudi King Salman Wednesday

The BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner, said King Salman has never quite forgiven President Obama for cancelling the missile strikes on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the 11th hour in September of 2013, when King Salman was defence minister.

Separately, the tiny island kingdom of Bahrain, whose leadership has close ties to the Saudis, said that it would be sending its crown prince, Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, to the meeting.

A source familiar with the talks told the BBC that the Sultan of Oman and the President of the United Arab Emirates are both known to be very ill, and do not travel for non-medical purposes - and were not expected to attend.

USS New Orleans arrives at Mina Salman pier March 2009
The US Navy's 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, and serves as the US's main
maritime counterbalance to Iran

The Kuwaiti emir, Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, will attend the summit and has already arrived in the Washington area.

Qatar's emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, is expected to attend as well.