Tag: Donald Trump

  • The Western Assault on Innocent Life

    The Western Assault on Innocent Life

    Walt Garlington

    President Trump got a lot of cheers when he said the following during his State of the Union address:

    There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.

    These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.

    And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth — all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.

    —Nicole Fallert, https://www.vox.com/2019/2/5/18212533/president-trump-state-of-the-union-address-live-transcript

    But are the sentiments expressed here about protecting innocent life, about affirming the truth that man is made in the image of God, consistent with the aspirations and history of the American project, or with non-Orthodox Western civilization in general?  Unfortunately, they are not.

    Charles in Charge of the West

    No, not that Charles:

    This one:

    Since Western Europe first began to conceive of herself in the eighth century as an entity apart from the worldwide Orthodox Christian Empire, the innocent have suffered greatly.  This process began when Charlemagne (742-814) set up his heretical version of the Christian Empire in Aachen, heretical because he denied the validity of the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s teachings on the necessity to venerate the holy icons of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Most Pure Mother, and the other saints and angels; and because of his addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed.  Given this auspicious beginning, it is unsurprising to find in the history of his reign that he caused much blood to flow in the expansion of his ‘Holy Roman Empire’, including the 4,500 Saxons slaughtered at Verden:

    —http://www.medievalists.net/2014/02/was-charlemagne-a-mass-murderer/

    Yet this is the same Charlemagne whom Pope Benedict XIV saw fit to beatify in the 18th century.  The Roman Catholic faithful are to address him as ‘Blessed Charlemagne’:

    —https://catholicsaints.info/blessed-charlemagne/

    Roman Catholic West

    That beatification by the Pope is quite fitting, however.  For with Charlemagne’s death in 814, his false empire collapsed, and the next attempt at Western self-exaltation, at setting up a false Christian Empire in opposition to the Orthodox Empire, came from the bishops of Rome themselves, beginning officially in 1054 and lasting to this very day.  Following this sundering came, predictably, more needless bloodshed.  The Roman Catholic Norman Invasion of the Orthodox kingdom of England took place in short order (1066) with the blessing of Pope Alexander II.  William the Conqueror’s own words tell how grisly this early attempt at papal conquest was:

    I have persecuted the natives of England beyond all reason. Whether gentle or simple  I  have  cruelly  oppressed  them;  many  I  unjustly  disinherited; innumerable  multitudes  perished  through  me  by  famine  or  the  sword  …  I fell on the English of the northern shires like a ravening lion. I commanded their  houses  and  corn,  with  all  their  implements  and  chattels,  to  be  burnt without  distinction,  and  great  herds  of  cattle  and beasts  of  burden  to  be butchered   wherever   they  are  found.  In  this  way   I  took  revenge   on multitudes  of  both  sexes  by  subjecting  them  to  the calamity  of  a  cruel famine,  and  so  became  the  barbarous  murderer  of  many  thousands,  both young and old, of that fine race of people.

    William’s death-bed confession, according to Ordericus Vitalis, c. AD 1130

    —Quoted in Fr Andrew Phillips, Orthodox Christianity and the Old English Church, p. 23 of PDF,

    Fr Andrew continues,

    It has been estimated that during William I’s reign up to one in five of the English population died by the sword or in famineslxii. This does not include the deaths of the non-English population in Wales or Scotland, nor the civil war deaths in the reign of Stephen, nor the deaths resulting from the Papally-sponsored Norman invasion of Ireland, nor those of the One Hundred Years War which was provoked by the territorial claims to France of the Anglo-Norman kings. Even if the figure of one in five is exaggerated and it can be halved, one in ten is equivalent today to over five million deaths – fifteen times the number of British deaths resulting from the Second World War. The account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is unambiguous: ‘And they built castles far and wide throughout the land, oppressing the unhappy people, and things went ever from bad to worse’. ‘Only amongst the monks, where they lived virtuously was righteousness to be found in the land.’ Of William ‘the Bastard’, the Chronicle says the following: ‘Assuredly in his time men suffered grievous oppression and manifold injuries … he was sunk in greed and utterly given up to avarice. He was too relentless to care even though all might hate him … Alas! That any man should bear himself so proudly and deem himself exalted above all other men.lxiii’ Of the tortures inflicted on captives and the gruesome account of William’s funeral, when his stomach burst open in stinking putrefaction, one can read elsewhere (pgs. 25-6).

    Not too long after the Norman Invasion, the Crusades were launched by Pope Urban II in 1095.  Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) justified the killing this way in his work In Praise of the New Knighthood:

    To be sure, precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his holy ones, whether they die in battle or in bed, but death in battle is more precious as it is the more glorious (Ch. I, section 2).  . . .

    BUT THE KNIGHTS OF CHRIST may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight.

    The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ’s profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth.

    I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity (Ch. 3).  . . .

    —https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344bern2.html

    Note the utter dehumanization by Bernard of the Muslims.  They are no longer men but simply ‘evil’ itself, confounding person and attribute.  No wonder that upwards of 1,000,000 are estimated to have died in the Crusades ).  This sort of mindset has remained typical of the post-Schism West in her wars of righteousness against those she believes to be ‘evildoers’.  And let us also recall that Bernard has been not simply beatified like Charlemagne but fully canonized as a saint of the Roman Catholic congregation.

    —https://catholicsaints.info/saint-bernard-of-clairvaux/

    Protestant West

    When the peoples of Western Europe democratized the papist principle (that one man, instead of a council of bishops guided by the Holy Ghost, can determine what is and is not the True Faith), applying it to themselves one and all, then the Protestant Reformation was born, and the shadow which lay across that part of the Eurasian land grew darker.  Delusional apocalyptic fervor grew, and along with it the flow of blood.  A couple of ensamples will suffice.

    The actions of Martin Luther, who began the Reformation in earnest in 1517, during the Peasants’ War in Germany is the first.  He wrote,

    I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgment (quoted in Archpriest Josiah Trenham, Rock and Sand, Newrome Press, 2015, p. 98).

    Fr Josiah goes on to relate the consequences of such statements:

    On May 15, Müntzer’s forces were slaughtered by the nobility at Frankenhausen.  Some 6000 peasants were killed, with only some six casualties on the side of the princes.  Müntzer was captured and beheaded twelve days later.  In upper Germany alone, it is estimated that some 130,000 peasants were slaughtered.  . . .  Luther was sharply criticized by many for his position, and was called “the hammer of the poor” by Hermann Mühlpfort, the mayor of Zwickau (Ibid.).

    The next, which would decisively cripple what was left of Christianity in Western Europe, is the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48), which was fought between various Roman Catholic and Protestant countries for the supremacy of their creeds over Western Europe.  There were upwards of 8,000,000 casualties due to the fighting of these ‘Christian nations’, which included death by hunger and disease of many civilians ).

    During the Thirty Years’ War, many of the contending armies were mercenaries, many of whom could not collect their pay. This threw them on the countryside for their supplies, and thus began the “wolf-strategy” that typified this war. The armies of both sides plundered as they marched, leaving cities, towns, villages, and farms ravaged.

    —https://www.britannica.com/event/Thirty-Years-War

    Enlightenment West

    From here onwards, Western Europe and her children became the breeding ground for all manner of utopian (i.e., demonic) ideologies meant to replace the simulacrums of Christianity they had experienced, but sometimes still masquerading in the costume of Christianity.  But this would not end the bloodletting in the West, but only increase it exponentially.  From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, from the War of Northern Aggression against Dixie to the War on Terror, Western wars of ideology have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions, with millions more suffering besides.

    Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s famous quote about sanctions on Iraq from 1996 show that the Western soul hasn’t much changed since Bernard’s propaganda of the 12th century:

    Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, “We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and, you know, is the price worth it?”

    Madeleine Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”

    —https://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/30/democracy_now_confronts_madeline_albright_on

    The U.S./NATO bombing of Serbia during the holy seasons of Easter and Pentecost in 1999 shows the same:

    According to the estimates of the government of Serbia, at least 2,500 people, of whom 89 children, were killed during the attacks (according to some sources, the total death toll was nearly 4,000), while more than 12,500 people were wounded and injured.

    . . .

    Almost every town in Serbia had been targeted during the 11 weeks of the air strikes.

    The bombing destroyed and damaged 25,000 housing units, 470 km of roads and 595 kilometers of railways.

    The attacks also damaged 14 airports, 19 hospitals, 20 health centers, 18 kindergartens, 69 schools, 176 cultural monuments and 44 bridges, while 38 were destroyed.

    During the aggression NATO carried out a total of 2,300 airs trikes on 995 facilities across the country, while 1,150 combat aircraft launched nearly 420,000 missiles.

    NATO also launched 1,300 cruise missiles, dropped over 37,000 cluster bombs, which killed some 200 people and wounded hundreds, and used prohibited ammunition with depleted uranium.

    A third of the electrical power capacity of the country was destroyed, two oil refineries, in Pancevo and Novi Sad bombed, while NATO forces used the opportunity to for the first time deploy the so-called graphite bombs to disable the power system.

    . . .

    —https://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2016&mm=03&dd=24&nav_id=97466

    This same grisly barbarity is still on display by the Most Christian Country, The Holy Republic of America, the greatest country that ever was, is, or is to come.  Venezuela is a telling example:

    This is unprecedented—Bolton publicly announcing a military coup (usually with hundreds if not thousands of deaths). He deliberately showed off his notebook with scribbled invasion plans, so there would be no question about the agenda.

    But that’s how the neocons operate. Lies, falsifications, grandiose claims, and invasions to forcibly install “democracy,” which is nothing of the sort.

    Bolton’s “democracy” is doublespeak in action. It’s a thinly disguised euphemism used to obscure the actual objective—the destruction of entire nations, cultures, and societies at the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. Untold millions of lives have been destroyed by the sort of “democracy” Bolton is talking about.  It was put into action when Bolton was a toddler.

    Let’s get real. Bolton doesn’t care about the people of Venezuela. If he did the US would not be imposing harsh sanctions that are resulting in malnutrition and starvation. Bolton is using the age-old technique of starving and depriving people so they will overthrow the government (this tactic rarely works—leading me to believe it is inflicted out of pure sadism—leading to the exact opposite reaction).

    —Kurt Nimmo, https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/02/no_author/john-boltons-plan-to-starve-millions-of-venezuelans-into-submission/

    One could substitute ‘Iran’ or ‘Yemen’ for ‘Venezuela’ and have largely the same essay.

    All of this seems to sit just fine with the Evangelicals in the States (just listen to Frank Gaffney sometime, ; Thomas DiLorenzo offers this description of them, together with some of their backstory:

    These are the people whose churches are littered with gigantic American flags that dwarf any Christian icons; who routinely ask anyone who owns a military uniform to wear it to church; who sing the state’s war anthems at their services; who divert their Sunday offerings away from the poor and needy in their communities so that the money can be sent to grossly-overpaid military bureaucrats; and who can never stop thanking, thanking, thanking, and thanking “soldiers” for their “service” in murdering foreigners and bombing and destroying their cities – if not their entire societies – in the state’s aggressive, non-defensive, foreign wars.

    Where did this very un-Christian “religion” of violence come from?  The answer to this question is that it first developed as a part of New England’s neo-Puritanical “Yankees” in the early and mid-nineteenth century.  It reached its zenith in the 1860s when, finally in control of the entire federal government, the New England Yankees waged total war on the civilian population of a large part of their own country, mass murdering fellow Americans by the hundreds of thousands, and then singing a “religious” song that described it all as “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

    As Murray Rothbard described them in his essay, “Just War”:

    The North’s driving force, the ‘Yankees’ – that ethnocultural group who either lived in New England or migrated from there to upstate New York, northern and eastern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois – had been swept by . . . a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism driven by a fervent ‘postmillenialism’ which held that as a precondition of the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-year-Kingdom of God on Earth.  The Kingdom is to be a perfect society.  In order to be perfect, of course, this Kingdom must be free of sin . . . .  If you didn’t stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved.

    This is why “the Northern war against slavery partook of a fanatical millenialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle,” wrote Rothbard.  They were “humanitarians with the guillotine,” the “Jacobins, the Bolsheviks of their era.”

    Clyde Wilson described these neo-Puritanical zealots in a similar manner in his essay, “The Yankee Problem in America”:

    Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural rights.  It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America’s driving mission to establish Heaven on Earth . . . .  [M]any abolitionists expected that evil Southern whites and Blacks would disappear and the land repopulated by virtuous Yankees” (emphasis added).

    —https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/thomas-dilorenzo/the-american-religion-of-violence/

    And here we are, awaiting still the final grand unveiling of the Yankee/Western Millennium.

    The Genocide of the Saints

    As horrendous as the foregoing has been, there is still a crime of the apostate post-Schism West that we have not yet spoken of which we consider more hideous than all of that:  the desecration of the saints, whether their bodily relics, representations, or shrines.  More depraved than the slaughter of innocent children?  Yes.  A little child does indeed bear the image of God and is innocent of any purposeful wrongdoing, has not yet known the fall into the knowledge of evil.  The saint, on the other hand, while retaining the image of God, has nevertheless cooperated with the Grace of God to such a degree that he has attained the likeness of God as well (see Gen. 1:26), overcoming his fallen, sinful nature and uniting with the Holy Ghost.  Therefore, the saints are the most innocent, the most guileless, moreso than even children.

    But this did not matter to the West.  In her self-righteous zeal she sought to brutalize the saints as well.  We have already mentioned very briefly Charlemagne’s effort at this.  His rejection of the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s command to venerate images of the saints is already a rejection by the West of the Holy Ghost, Who resides in the images and shrines of the saints, and also especially in their incorrupt relics, with which He remains united as a foretelling to man of the Resurrection to come.

    The Roman Catholic Normans who invaded Orthodox England in 1066 went further.  Fr Andrew Phillips writes,

    The record of the losses of Old English art and architecture is heart-rending. Today we have little more than fragments of Old English architecture. Of course much was built of wood and could not have lasted, but nevertheless the story of the Norman destruction of Old English church buildings is too much like barbarian vandalism to be excused. When they came to demolish the Cathedral in Worcester in 1086, the saintly Bishop Wulfstan remarked: ‘The men of old may not have had stately edifices, but they were themselves a sacrifice to God, whereas now they pile up stones, but forget the soul’lxiv. It is more distressing to read of the destruction of the European treasurehouse of church art which Old England was. If the churches were razed, leaving us with a pitiful idea of what the former architecture was really like, then, what can we say of Old English Art?

    ‘Nowhere in Europe, even in Byzantium itself, was there a more advanced conception of manuscript illustration and decoration than in Britain. Nowhere, even in Persia, were finer textiles embroidered; nowhere was finer sculpture in stone executed nowhere were finer ivories carved … they are all quite easy to distinguish as English. They stand out, moreover, by virtue of their quality.’ So speaks the art historian, Talbot-Ricelxv. Indeed the English were renowned for the quality of their embroidery and we know of a school of embroidery at Ely, though doubtless there were many others. The Winchester School of manuscript illumination was widely known and represented the spiritual and artistic flowering of the tenth century English Renaissance.

    The destruction of nearly all of this heritage makes lugubrious reading. ‘In the spring of the year (1070), the King had all the monasteries in England plunderedlxvi’. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries there are unending lists of gold crucifixes, vestments of woven gold, silver and gold sacred vessels and censers, chalices and patens, shrines and altars with their embroidered hangings, silver and gilt ewers of Byzantine work, Gospel-books adorned with precious stones, gold reliquaries and the holy relics contained within, silks and precious hangings, ornaments which in the words of William of Poitiers, ‘Byzantium would hold very dear.’ In the twelfth century he wrote: ‘A Greek or Arab visitor would have been carried away by delight’ at the sight of the treasures melted down or sent to France by William. From one church alone he stole treasures worth £6,000, a colossal sum in modern termslxvii.

    All this was pillaged; the Old English Church was raped and ravaged. The depths of blasphemy and sacrilege were reached when the Norman clergy began burning the relics of the Old English saints to see if they were authentic; their doubts sometimes seem to have been founded merely on the Norman inability to pronounce the Old English names. Such barbarian acts were not to be seen again until the sack of Christian Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Later we shall see the Old English connection even here. The accounts of the sack of Old English art are among the most shameful in Western history. After William and his descendants, then the fires of the Middle Ages, followed by the syphilitic frenzy of greed of Henry VIII and the outbursts of the Puritans, then the vandalism of the Victorians, it comes as no surprise when we realise that what we possess of a half-millennium of Old English Art and Architecture is nothing but a single crumb from a huge but ever lost royal banquet. It is an immensely sobering but nonetheless true fact that there is a part of human nature that delights in the destruction of everything beautiful, be it the creation of God or of man.

    Orthodox Christianity and the Old English Church, pgs. 26-7

    As Fr Andrew indicates, the Protestants too would take part in this genocide against the holy saints and their memory.

    Motadel writes that,

    “The prototype of all modern forms of iconoclasm [Noyes] found in Calvin’s Geneva and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Mecca. Sixteenth-century Geneva witnessed one of the most devastating waves of religious image-breaking in history. Incited by a group of charismatic theologians – among them John Calvin himself – mobs raged against objects associated with miracles, magic and the supernatural, destroying some of the city’s most precious pieces of Christian art. Invoking the Second Commandment, they denounced these works as idols, and as remnants of a rural, feudal and superstitious world, a world corrupted by Satan.” The Western Assault on Innocent Life  

    Nor was Geneva unusual. In Basel in 1529, widespread iconoclastic riots destroyed virtually all the material tokens of traditional Catholic worship and devotion in the cathedral and the city’s leading churches. Even these German and Swiss manifestations were dwarfed by the devastating Storm of Images (Beeldenstorm) that swept over the Netherlands in 1566.

    This movement was directed against any and all Catholic material symbols — against stained glass windows, statues of the Virgin and saints, holy medals and tokens.

    Such stories of image-breaking (iconoclasm) are familiar enough to anyone who knows about the Reformation, and there are plenty of scholarly studies.

    Recent works, though, highlight two features of the movement that often get underplayed:

    1. Iconoclasm was central to the Reformation experience, not marginal, and not just a regrettable extravagance.

    Historians of the Reformation tend to be bookish people interested in books, so they focus on aspects of literacy and translation, with the spread of the vernacular Bible as the centerpiece of the story. The idea of the Reformation as a “media revolution” is common enough.

    Yes, we do read of outbreaks of destructive violence and iconoclasm, but these are usually presented as marginal excesses, or understandable instances of popular fury against church abuses. Once we get those unfortunate riots out of the way, we can get back to the main story of tracing the process of Bible translation.

    That’s very misleading. For anyone living at the time, including educated elites, the iconoclasm was not just an incidental breakdown of law and order, it was the core of the whole movement, the necessary other side of the coin to the growth of literacy. Those visual and symbolic representations of the Christian story had to decrease, in order for the world of the published Bible to increase. The Western Assault on Innocent Life  

    In terms of the lived experience of people at the time, the image-breaking is the key component of the Reformation. In the rioting and mayhem, a millennium-old religious order was visibly and comprehensively smashed.

    In words adapted from the Vulgate version of Job, the Calvinist motto proclaimed, Post Tenebras Lux: After darkness, Light. (And that is still Geneva’s motto).

    . . .

    —Philip Jenkins, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/07/the-breaking-of-images/

    One would think such crimes as these might cause Protestants to have some hesitation about judging the sins of others, but it has not.  Regarding China, for example, they say,

    WASHINGTON — The Chinese government is supervising a five-year plan to make Christianity more compatible with socialism in which there will be a “rewrite” of the Bible, a prominent religious freedom activist has told Congress.

    The Rev. Bob Fu, a former Chinese house church leader who immigrated to the United States in 1997 and founded the persecution watchdog organization China Aid, provided great detail during a House hearing Thursday about a plan enacted by leading state-sanctioned denominations in China to “Sincize” Christianity.

    As China’s crackdown on religion has seen many house churches demolished and thousands of crosses removed from churches nationwide, Fu warned upfront that what is happening right now in China represents the highest degree of persecution for independent faith groups the country has seen in decades.

    —Samuel Smith, https://www.christianpost.com/news/china-trying-to-rewrite-the-bible-force-churches-sing-communist-anthems-227664/

    Yet in all three areas they raise in criticism of China – rewriting the Bible, tearing down churches, and destroying Crosses – Protestants are guilty themselves.  The Protestants removed several books from the Old Testament canon of the Bible, and Martin Luther himself added ‘alone’ to his translation of Romans 3:28 (‘man is justified by faith alone’) and also wanted to throw out the Book of James because it contradicted the theological system he created.  See, e. g.,

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

    Of the other two, it is enough to recall Mr Jenkins’s article just above as well as the quote of Bishop Joseph Hall shown in the linked section of this article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm#Reformation_era.

    This in no way excuses China’s repressive measures, but the Protestant hypocrisy is extraordinary.  For these children of the Chinese Communist revolutionaries (and their forebears in France, Russia, etc.) are, in the end, only carrying on the legacy of the Protestants (and the Roman Catholic popes) by overturning the received traditions and replacing them with new, self-created ones.

    The Future of the West

    How does one even begin to close an essay like this, cataloguing such inhuman evil in the West?  Only one word seems appropriate:  Repent.

    Most popular


    Mar 4, 2019 1:00 am 13309 The Western Assault on Innocent Life  

    Mar 5, 2019 3:39 pm 11403 Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 1  

    Mar 6, 2019 1:00 am 9630 Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 2  

    Mar 6, 2019 5:19 am 7038 More Than Half of Americans Say Trump Is Dishonest Author: Walt Garlington

  • “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    Mehmet Perincek

    “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming” is the name of a comedy film (1966) that reflects the fear of Western people from the Soviet threat during the Cold War. The main point of the film is the mockery of Westerners’ panic at that time.

    It’s not known whether this fear of the USSR was justified or exaggerated–that is a topic for another article. However, today if they were to make a film, not a comedy, but a horror flick in Europe with the name “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming,” it wouldn’t be surprising.

    Yes, you read that right. Neither in the Middle East, nor in Russia, nor in China, nor in Venezuela or in Africa, but in Europe. Europeans’ fear of the United States and the attentive attitude of European capitals towards Washington is very clearly shown by recent polls and the semi-official European media.

    Let’s have a look at some examples over the past year:

    – Data from a controversial Pew Research Center study, which was published in February 2018, showed that the two allies, Germany and the USA, face the threat of separation. More than half of Germans (56%) described German-American relations as bad. And the common defense effort is considered urgent by only a small proportion of Germans (16%). (https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article174067166/Bilaterales-Verhaeltnis-Entfremdung-zwischen-Deutschland-und-den-USA.html)

    – The results of a public opinion poll conducted by the Allensbach Institute for the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine on May 16, 2018 showed that the German population follows the course of the United States with growing concern. The U.S., which for decades has been the Germans’ most important and most reliable ally and friend, is suddenly becoming foreign, even threatening. The overwhelming majority have the impression that Europe and the United States are drifting apart; for decades this was the opinion of a minority in Germany; now 70% are convinced of it. German-American relations are perceived as profoundly disturbed. Just under two-thirds of the population ranked relations as good or very good three years ago; now it is only 20%; 71% consider German-American relations to be tense. At the same time, more and more Germans treat the United States as a state that is “ruthless” in pursuing its interests. Five years ago, 24% of respondents negatively assessed the influence of Washington on events in the world; in the beginning of 2018 – 54%. (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/allensbach-umfrage-zeigt-entfremdung-deutscher-von-amerika-15593293.html)

    – The results of a Politbarometer poll, conducted by the research group “Elections” (Wahlen) from May 15 to 17, 2018 for the TV channel ZDF showed that according to 82% of respondents, the United States is not a trustworthy partner for Germany when it comes to political cooperation. Only 14% viewed the United States as a reliable partner. )

    – The German Der Spiegel of May 28, 2018 depicted the relationship of the Trump administration to Europe with this cover:

    “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    – A YouGov survey in July 2018, commissioned by the German Press Agency DPA, found 42% of respondents want U.S. troops out, while 37% want them to stay and 21% are undecided or didn’t answer. Nearly one in two Germans want U.S. troops to retreat. (https://www.stripes.com/news/poll-42-of-germans-want-us-troops-out-of-country-1.537230) According to a YouGov poll in June 2018, the majority of Germans (59%) and French people (51%) negatively evaluate the U.S.

    – A survey of 25 nations, conducted between May and August 2018 by the Pew Research Center, showed that America’s image continued to deteriorate in many countries during Trump’s first year in office, particularly in Europe. Only 30% of Germans have a favourable view of the United States, down five points from the previous year–the lowest score in the entire survey after Russi (26%). Only 38% of French said they had a positive view of the United States, down from last year. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-image-survey/americas-image-worsens-under-trump-idUSKCN1MB3V9)

    – A representative study carried out by Atlantik-Brücke and Civey in Germany in November and December 2018 shows the dwindling confidence in transatlantic cooperation and the USA. In the representative survey of 5,000 people who attended the panel, 85% rated the relationship as negative or very negative. In addition, a significant part of the respondents believes that now China is a more reliable partner for the Federal Republic of Germany than the United States and that it is necessary to distance itself even more from American partners. (https://www.atlantik-bruecke.org/wp-content/uploads/AtlantikBrueckeUmfrage2019.pdf)

    – According to a poll conducted and published in February 2019 by the Pew Research Center, 49% of Germans (in 2013 — %9, in 2017 — 35%) and French (in 2013 — 20%, in 2017 — 36%) see the U.S.’s power and influence as a greater threat in 2018. )

    – The Security Report 2019 of the Center for Strategy and Higher Leadership, which was published in February 2019, shows that the Germans see the U.S. as the biggest threat to peace. “The Security Report 2019 clearly shows that there is a central factor of uncertainty among Germans that scares them. And that is the USA under the leadership of Donald Trump” said Professor Klaus Schweinsberg of the Center for Strategy and Higher Leadership. (https://www.sicherheitsreport.net/wp-content/uploads/PM_Sicherheitsreport_2019.pdf)

    The recent picture of the last Munich Conference confirms the above facts. Deutsche Welle, referring to the former president of Estonia and one of the old-timers of the Munich security conference Toomas Hendrik Ilves and the head of the Munich Conference Wolfgang Ischinger, writes the following:

    “‘The division lines between the Atlantic have become more rigid,’ the politician said in an interview with DW. The Munich Conference is, first of all, a demonstration of what is called the transatlantic partnership of the United States and Germany, as well as the United States and the European Union. But the partnership that developed after World War II was started to be questioning from the beginning of Donald Trump presidency. ‘The current administration has destroyed the basic trust in the United States,’ says Ilves. ‘It will have to be built in a new way.’

    Similar, although more restrained statements were made by the head of the Munich Conference, Wolfgang Ischinger. ‘If we called our conference ‘To the brink of the abyss and back,’ in previous years, it might be an exaggeration we would think, now, after many conversations, the majority of the participants say that there really is a problem,’ the former German diplomat said summing up the meeting.” (https://www.dw.com/ru/%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8-%D0%BC%D1%8E%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/a-47556723)

    And the results of the conference are reported by Der Spiegel in the following way:

    “America does not lead, it retreats. Others are pushing into the vacuum left by Trump’s erratic ‘America First’ policy. China, Russia but also Iran. And the U.S. does not lead, they give instructions.” )

    As we can see from these examples, the whole world suffers from Washington’s aggression. It is not just Asia, Middle Eastern countries, Russia, China or Venezuela. The U.S. used to isolate other countries with its aggressive policies; now it’s isolating itself. It’s losing its closest allies. The reckless and barbaric aggression of the U.S. has been a problem for Europe too. The U.S. has no respect for its so-called allies Germany and France.

    In the film “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming,” the main idea was expressed in the words of the sailor Alexei Kolchin, who told a local girl: “I do not want to hate.” But the whole world has begun to hate the American aggressors. Thus, restraints on the U.S. relieve everyone.

    Author: Mehmet Perincek
  • What U.S. troops are actually doing on the Mexican border,

    What U.S. troops are actually doing on the Mexican border,

    Pentagon Chief Weighs Broader Approach to Border Security

    The military considers how best to use the 6,000 troops sent to the U.S.-Mexico border, who cannot legally stand in for CBP.

    Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, center, fires a modified paintball gun that shoots pepper balls during a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border at Santa Teresa Station in Sunland Park, New Mexico, on Feb. 23. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

    The U.S. military is sending an additional 1,000 troops to the border with Mexico, bringing the number of U.S. military personnel there—both active-duty and National Guard—to about 6,000, a senior defense official told reporters at the Pentagon on Feb. 22.

    That’s a significant chunk of military resources going toward a mission that can only legally be performed by domestic law enforcement such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers: border security. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S. military is prohibited from taking any direct role in law enforcement—including search, seizure, apprehension, or arrest.

    So what, then, are those 6,000 troops actually doing there? So far, the U.S. military has functioned primarily in a supporting role—installing concertina wire, transporting law enforcement officers by air, providing medical services to migrants, hardening points of entry, and helping with surveillance. In addition to stringing another 140 miles of concertina wire, the troops will be supporting the CBP officers between the points of entry, as well as installing ground-based detection systems, the senior defense official said.

    The goal is “freeing up agents and putting them in a law enforcement role instead of administrative duties,” according to the official.

    Despite their restricted role, it now seems like the troops on the border are there for the long term. As the Trump administration trumpets the so-called national security crisis of border security—and seeks to divert billions of dollars in military funding to building his long-promised border wall—the Pentagon is reassessing the role of the U.S. military in securing the border.

    Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan indicated on Feb. 23 during a surprise trip to the border—which, as is more common for trips to combat zones, was kept secret until his arrival—that the U.S. government needs a broader, more holistic approach to border security instead of a short-term solution.

    “Let’s not do triage. Let’s really solve the fundamental problem,” Shanahan told reporters during the trip. “I think of it as: This is an opportunity, as we’re addressing this issue, to recommend solutions that are systemic and major and not a triage solution.”

    “I don’t want to just add resources and not fix the problem long term,” Shanahan stressed.

    As part of that holistic strategy, a U.S. military presence at the border could become the new normal. Shanahan said he and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed a two- or three-year support role. For example, the troops could potentially take on more of the monitoring and detection mission in order to free up the CBP officers for other aspects of their mission.

    Arguably, as long as the troops stick to the support mission, the deployment does not run afoul of the law, said Andrew Boyle, who works as counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. However, an increased military presence in the border communities does raise concern about the possibility of violent cross-border incidents, he said.

    “It does raise alarm bells in regards to the militarization of the domestic sphere,” he said.

    But William Banks, an emeritus professor at Syracuse University’s College of Law and Maxwell School, believes there is no “clear, positive legal authority” for active-duty U.S. troops to be at the U.S.-Mexico border. The surveillance and detection role could pose a particular problem, he added.

    The laws allowing U.S. military forces to conduct surveillance in support of CBP officers dates back to the “war on drugs” in the 1980s and were specifically designed for counter-drug activities, Banks explained.

    That means that any surveillance the U.S. military is conducting that is not directly related to drug trafficking—for example, monitoring the border for illegal crossings—could be challenged in a court of law.

    “If a federal lawsuit is brought challenging the scope of the military’s activities at the border, it remains unclear how a court would rule on such a challenge when drug trafficking is not remotely the issue,” Mark Nevitt, a Sharshwood fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote in November 2018.

    Either way, it doesn’t look like these troops will be heading home anytime soon.

    “What’s the core issue that has to get addressed?” Shanahan said. “How do we get out of treating the symptoms and get at the root of the issues?”

    meksika sapka

    Lara Seligman is a staff writer at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @laraseligman

  • Newly-Elected House Democratic Majority Will Paralyze Trump’s Presidential Powers

    Newly-Elected House Democratic Majority Will Paralyze Trump’s Presidential Powers

     
    The midterm elections held on November 6, 2018, will significantly restrain Pres. Trump’s rule of the United States as a dictatorship.
     
    In the first two years of his presidency, Trump often abused his powers by signing Executive Orders and by controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. government through the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. During this period, Pres. Trump made many outrageous statements and acted as he pleased disregarding any politically, legally and morally correct behavior.
     
    However, the President’s free ride has come to an end! With the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, Pres. Trump will no longer be able to do as he pleases. He will be unable to propose any bills without the consent of the House Democrats who will investigate the illegal actions of the President and his cabinet members, as well as protecting the Special Prosecutor’s Russia collusion probe in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. The new Democratic majority in the House will be able to subpoena Pres. Trump’s campaign associates which the previous Republican majority had blocked, and will also demand the release of the President’s tax returns which he has adamantly refused to disclose, hiding his business dealings in foreign countries.
     
    This new state of affairs will have two concrete consequences. The U.S. government will be in gridlock for the next two years. Hardly any new bills initiated by Pres. Trump will be approved by the House. Secondly, frustrated by the House blocking his actions, Pres. Trump will lash out at the Democrats even more harshly than before. The President has already declared that if the Democrats investigate him, he will investigate them in return! This means that Pres. Trump’s anger and hostility will rise to new heights, leading him to send more insulting tweets and deliver more outrageous speeches at his political rallies.
     
    During the next two years, Pres. Trump will be so busy attacking his political rivals that he will be unable to pay full attention to domestic and foreign policies which will hopefully limit his mischief in the United States and around the world!
    Armenian-American Candidates in the Midterm Elections
     
    On the positive side, at least eight Armenian-Americans won local, state and federal political seats during the Nov. 6, 2018 midterm elections.
     
    Armenian-American Anna Eshoo (Dem.-CA) won reelection to the House along with Jackie Kanchelian Speier, another Democrat from California. Armenian-American Anthony Brindisi (Dem.-N.Y.) is 1,293 votes ahead of the incumbent Republican Congresswoman Claudia Tenney as of election night, pending thousands of votes yet to be counted. If Brindisi wins, he will be the third Armenian-American serving in the U.S. House of Representatives.
     
    In the history of the United States, there have been only seven Armenian-Americans elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. They are:
    — Thomas Corwin (1831-1840; 1859-1861), Republican from Ohio.
    — Steven Derounian (1953-1965), Republican from New York.
    — Adam Benjamin (1977-1982), Democrat from Indiana.
    — Charles Pashayan (1979-1991), Republican from California.
    — Anna Eshoo (1993-now), Democrat from California.
    — John Sweeney (1999-2007), Republican from New York.
    — Jackie Speier (2008-now), Democrat from California.
     
    Incredibly, Thomas Corwin, of Armenian and Hungarian descent, was a highly-accomplished politician and diplomat. He is the only Armenian-American who became a U.S. Senator (1845-1850), a Republican from Ohio. Besides his service in the House and the Senate, Corwin was the Governor of Ohio (1840-1842), and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1850-1853). In addition, he served as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico (1861-1864).
     
    Danny Tarkanian, Republican congressional candidate from Nevada, lost his election bid on Nov. 6, running against Democrat Susie Lee. Tarkanian trailed with 43.4% of the vote to Lee’s 51.4%.
     
    Johnny Nalbandian, Republican congressional candidate from the Glendale, CA area, lost his election bid to incumbent Democrat Cong. Adam Schiff. Nalbandian had 23.5% of the vote to Schiff’s 76%.
     
    Democrat Adrin Nazarian from the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles won reelection against Republican challenger Roxanne Hoge for the California State Assembly. Nazarian won 77.9% of the vote to Hoge’s 22.1%.
     
    Elizabeth Warren (not to be confused with U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren), granddaughter of Armenian Genocide survivors, lost her election for the California State Assembly to fellow Democrat Tasha Boerner Horvath.
     
    Republican Rita Topalian lost her race for the State Senate against Democrat Bob Archeleta, who won by 65% of the vote.
     
    Outside of California, Mari Manoogian, 26, Democratic candidate for Michigan State House, defeated her opponent former Michigan GOP chair David Wolkinson, with 57% of the vote vs. Wolkinson’s 43%. Manoogian was endorsed by Pres. Barack Obama, Sen. Gary Peters, and Governor-Elect Gretchen Whitmer.
     
    Another Armenian-American candidate, Sara Gideon, a Democratic member of the Maine House of Representatives, was reelected.
     
    Anna Astvatsaturian Turcotte was re-elected to Ward Three on Westbrook, Maine’s City Council. Turcotte, a refugee from Baku, Azerbaijan, is a strong advocate for Artsakh’s independence.
     
    Finally, Lorig Charkhoudian, a Democratic candidate for Maryland’s House of Delegates, was elected to become the first Armenian-American to serve in the Maryland State legislature.
     
    Most Armenian-Americans, who ran for political office on Nov. 6, won. The same is true for many non-Armenian supporters of the Armenian-American community. The Armenian National Committee of America reported that 92% of the congressional candidates it endorsed won their seats. This is great news!
     
    On the other hand, Armenian-Americans are pleased that Cong. Pete Sessions (Rep.-Texas), co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey, lost his reelection bid, despite contributions to him by pro-Turkey donors!




  • Trump’s National Security Adviser Tries To Distance Armenia from Russia and Iran

    Trump’s National Security Adviser Tries To Distance Armenia from Russia and Iran

     
     
    John Bolton, the National Security Adviser of Pres. Trump, visited Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia in October, conveying the White House position on regional and international issues. Bolton is known as a hawk on foreign policy and is often described as a warmonger for his extremist positions!
     
    In his meetings with Armenian officials, Bolton spoke about U.S. sanctions on Iran which may affect third countries, including Armenia. He also made a surprise offer to sell American weapons to Armenia and discussed Armenian-Turkish relations, and the resolution of the Artsakh conflict.
     
    It became clear that Bolton tried to distance Armenia from its strategic ally Russia and key trading partner Iran, since the border with Armenia is blockaded by neighboring Azerbaijan and Turkey.
     
    Even though serious concerns were expressed by many Armenian commentators and particularly Russian officials regarding the policies advanced by Bolton, Acting Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, was surprisingly upbeat and told the Armenian Parliament: “I’ve met with Bolton. There wasn’t even the slightest nuance during this meeting which can cause disturbance in Armenia and among the Armenian people. I consider this meeting to be a major diplomatic achievement for us, I will say in the future as to what is the reason that I am saying so.”
     
    The Acting Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan added: “The dialogue [with Bolton] was very successful, and the US understood the logic of our relations with the Russian Federation, Iran, our position on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, relations with Turkey, etc.”
     
    Putting a positive spin on his meetings in Armenia, Bolton tweeted: “Yesterday I had a nice visit to Armenia, an important friend in the region. I enjoyed productive conversations with the [Acting] Prime Minister and his national security team.”
     
    Despite the heated relations between the United States and Russia, Armenia has to maintain a delicate balance between the two superpowers. On the one hand, Armenia relies on Russia for its critical needs: weapons, energy, and trade, and therefore, cannot afford to antagonize its strategic ally. On the other hand, Armenia has maintained friendly relations with many other countries, particularly Western Europe and the United States.
     
    Proposed Sale of Weapons to Armenia
     
    Bolton surprised his Armenian hosts by offering them to purchase American weapons by stating that they are superior to those of Russia. However, he did not mention how impoverished Armenia would be able to pay for these weapons. As we know, Russia supplies the bulk of Armenia’s weapons either by providing loans or at discount prices. Pashinyan responded by stating that Armenia will consider the American offer, while Acting Defense Minister Davit Tonoyan told NEWS.am that there was no need to purchase U.S. weapons at this time.
     
    By acquiring American weapons, Armenia would risk antagonizing Russia, its main source of arms. Secondly, the United States may be using its offer to Armenia as a cover to sell multi-billion dollars of advanced weapons to Azerbaijan, something it can afford to purchase, while Armenia cannot.
     
    Bolton’s other illogical statement was that the Russian sale of weapons to Armenia and Azerbaijan has hampered the settlement of the Artsakh conflict. Ironically, this is exactly what Bolton is proposing by offering to sell U.S. weapons to both countries. In my opinion, the United States and all other countries should refrain from selling weapons to both Armenia and Azerbaijan! Pouring more weapons into a conflict zone can only to lead to increased violence and deaths on both sides.
     
    Armenian-Iranian Relations
     
    In response to Bolton’s statement that the United States will enforce sanctions against Iran “very vigorously” and for that reason the Armenian-Iranian border is “going to be a significant issue,” Pashinyan stated that Armenia as a landlocked nation does not have diplomatic relations with either neighboring Turkey or Azerbaijan, so it must retain “special relations” with its other two neighbors — Iran and Georgia — which are Armenia’s only “gateways” to the outside world. Pashinyan optimistically told the Armenian Parliament: “I think that the position of Armenia was clear, comprehensible and even acceptable to representatives of the U.S. delegation.”
     
    Rather than pressuring Armenia to disrupt its critical trade relations with Iran, the United States should be urged to pressure Turkey and Azerbaijan to open their borders so Armenia can trade more easily with and through all four of its neighbors. Pashinyan correctly pointed out that the Republic of Armenia has its own national interests which do not always coincide with the interests of other countries. In my view, the United States has no right to demand that third countries comply with its misguided sanctions on Iran. Furthermore, since the United States is exempting Turkey from implementing U.S. sanctions on Iran, why shouldn’t Armenia be also exempt from these sanctions? Besides, Bolton acknowledged that the United States does not “want to cause damage to our friends in the process.”
     
    Relations with Turkey
     
    Bolton declared that the resolution of the Artsakh conflict would help open Turkey’s border with Armenia. Pashinyan responded by stating that Armenia is ready to establish relations and have open borders with Turkey, however, without any preconditions which Turkey tried to impose by linking the opening of the border with the Artsakh conflict. To counter Turkey’s precondition, I suggest that Armenia impose its own precondition by linking the opening of the border with Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide!
     
    Resolution of Artsakh Conflict
     
    Bolton suggested that the December 9 Parliamentary elections, during which Pashinyan’s political party is expected to win the majority of seats, will give him a strong mandate to take decisive steps in the resolution of the Artsakh conflict. Bolton did not seem to be aware of Pashinyan’s repeated statements that “the ones who determine whether to resolve or not resolve the Karabakh conflict are the Armenian people, and specifically the people of Armenia, the people of Artsakh and in this case also the Diaspora, because this is a Pan-Armenian issue.”
     
    As Armenia is facing both internal and external uncertainties, it is mandatory that Armenians worldwide support their homeland and join forces against their common adversaries!






  • Trump Administration Cancels Two More International Treaties

    Trump Administration Cancels Two More International Treaties

    I wrote an article in September criticizing the Trump administration’s dismissal of the International Criminal Court. I considered the U.S. action to be a lack of respect for justice and the rule of law.

    Last week, the Trump administration took two more scandalous actions further flouting international law and avoiding the peaceful option of legal recourse to conflict resolution.

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States was terminating the Treaty of Amity signed in 1955 between the U.S. and Iran, after a unanimous ruling on October 3, 2018, by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, that the United States had to resume the export of humanitarian goods and spare parts for civil aviation safety services to Iran, despite U.S. sanctions. This was certainly a victory for Iran as it had sued the United States in the World Court. The U.S. withdrawal from the treaty made it look like a sore loser!

    President Trump renewed the U.S. sanctions after withdrawing this May from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and several other major powers. The sanctions covered dollar transactions, food exports and sales of aluminum and steel. In November, the U.S. will add new sanctions against Iran’s oil sales, energy and shipping sectors and foreign financial transactions.

    After the verdict, ICJ President Abdulqawi Yusuf announced that “the court’s order applies to medicines and medical devices; foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and spare parts, equipment and repair services for civil aviation. The United States must also ensure that licenses and authorizations are granted and that payment for such goods and services are not subject to any restrictions,” the Washington Post reported.

    Although the rulings of the International Court of Justice are binding, they are not enforceable. U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton, during his appearance at the White House press briefing on Oct. 3, stated that Iran had “made a mockery” of the Amity Treaty. In response, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the United States “an outlaw regime.”

    Ironically, the United States files cases against other countries in the International Court of Justice when it suits its interests. Back in 1979, the United States sued the government of Iran after the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants. The U.S. won that case and the ICJ ordered Iran to release all American hostages and pay compensation. It is strange that the United States government is now cancelling its treaty with Iran and not in 1979 during the hostage crisis!

    The Washington Post reported that “during meetings at the United Nations last week, Trump, Pompeo and Bolton railed against Iran and berated various other member states and U.N. bodies for not bending to American interests. Their approach elicited an icy reaction. At a Security Council session chaired by President Trump, every other member of the U.N.’s most powerful body scolded Washington for its rejection of the nuclear deal, an agreement the council had endorsed.”

    On Oct. 3, 2018, Bolton also announced that the United States would withdraw from the “optional protocol” under the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations. This decision was prompted by the filing of an ICJ complaint in September 2018 by the Palestinian Authority against the United States for moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

    The Vienna Convention is an international treaty which sets out diplomatic relations between states and provides immunity to diplomats. Ironically, Bolton stated: “the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention.”

    Bolton further announced that the United States will review all other international agreements to safeguard U.S. sovereignty. In less than two years of Trump’s presidency, the United States has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran, the global climate agreement, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, threatened to distance itself from NATO, left the UN Human Rights Council, and cut off funding to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) which has been providing humanitarian aid to millions of Palestinian refugees for the past 70 years!

    Constitutional lawyers may question the legal right of the Trump administration to abrogate international treaties which are ratified by the U.S. Senate. Shouldn’t the Senate give its consent to the White House before it withdraws from such treaties? In the first 189 years of America’s history, 40 treaties were abrogated after both houses of Congress agreed to do so. Just two treaties were abrogated by the Senate only, after a vote by two-thirds of its members. Unfortunately, in recent years, due to congressional ineptitude and historical inactivity, the Executive Branch has taken the initiative of unilaterally abrogating international treaties. This is an issue that the U.S. Congress should review, particularly if Democrats win the majority, in order to restrain Pres. Trump’s arbitrary decisions which embarrass the United States in the eyes of the world.

    Hopefully, the next more responsible U.S. President will reverse Trump’s deeply flawed decisions on international agreements and other vital issues.