The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution officially condemning President Donald Trump’s racist comments against four minority Democratic congresswomen.

The resolution passed on Tuesday denounces Trump for his “racist comments that have legitimized fear and hatred of New Americans and people of color.”

Referring to Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib Michigan and Ayanna Pressley Massachusetts, Trump wrote on Twitter Sunday, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……

Three of the four Representatives were born in the United States, but all are US citizens. Omar, a Muslim congresswoman, was born in Somalia’s capital Mogadishu and immigrated to the US as a refugee.

Speaking on the House floor prior to Tuesday vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to “join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets.”

“To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.”

Meanwhile, a growing number of Republicans, after initial hesitation, began to openly criticize Trump.

Texas Representative Will Hurd, for example, described Trump’s tweets as “racist and xenophobic” and “unbecoming of the leader of the free world.” Also, after one Ohio Representative, Mike Turner, called Trump’s words “racist,” four other Republicans from the same US state joined him in condemning the comments.

Nonetheless, some other Republicans continued to support Trump, with Representative Dan Meuser, Republican of Pennsylvania saying, “What has really happened here is that the president and his supporters have been forced to endure months of allegations of racism.”

“This ridiculous slander does a disservice to our nation,” Meuser said.

Trump, in response to the vote, said on Twitter that “those Tweets were NOT Racist,” adding, “I don’t have a Racist bone in my body!”

Source: Presstv

A new opinion survey shows that US President Donald Trump trails the Democratic Party’s most-talked-about presidential aspirants, ex-vice president Joe Biden, senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

The poll was conducted between July 7 and 9 among 800 registered voters. It was undertaken jointly by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal.

Clashing head to head, Biden would beat Trump 51 to 42 percent in the next election, while Sanders would overtake him ​​​​50 to 43, the poll showed.

Warren would also beat Trump outside the poll’s 3.5 percent margin of error by 48 percent against the president’s 43.

Sen. Kamala Harris will be successful too, but winning over Trump 45 to 44.

The hopefuls attend a heated televised debate on a monthly basis, which bears heavily on their respective popular image.

The competition is gaining momentum amid continued controversy surrounding Trump’s 2016 victory.

The furor concerns the country’s Electoral College system, and ongoing accusations of foreign meddling in the elections.

The system overrides the popular vote, which gives the victory to the candidate winning the most ballots. It instead makes 538 electors across different states, who are chosen based on each state’s representation in Congress, liable for electing the chief executive. Therefore, if a contestant secures at least 270 of the electoral votes, they have won the presidential race.

In 2016, the mechanism handed the presidential election’s victory to Trump over Hillary Clinton, although the voters had given the latter three million more votes.

The accusations of foreign intervention relates to claims that Russia conducted a campaign, including through various social media accounts, in order to positively influence the public opinion in Trump’s favor. Both Moscow and the president roundly rejects the claims.

Britain’s ambassador to Washington resigned Wednesday after Donald Trump labelled him “stupid” and “wacky” following a leak of confidential diplomatic memos in which the envoy said the US president’s administration was inept.

The shock resignation of British Ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, a day after a Conservative Party leadership debate sparked accusations that frontrunner Boris Johnson had thrown the envoy “under the bus”.

At a Tuesday night debate, Johnson and Jeremy Hunt — the two contenders for the prime minister’s post – were asked if they would support Darroch if they were prime minister.

While Hunt replied in the affirmative, Johnson evaded the question and gave a banal response on the importance of US-UK bilateral relations.

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy. He should speak to his country, and Prime Minister May, about their failed Brexit negotiation, and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was…

“It was the make-or-break moment,” explained Philip Turle, FRANCE 24’s international news commentator. “Reports are coming in that Sir Kim Darroch watched that debate and because Boris Johnson is the favourite to take over as prime minister after Theresa May, he [Darroch] knew that if that was the case he would not receive the support from Boris Johnson to remain in the job. That’s what pushed him to hand in his resignation.”

‘Johnson’s comments may have prompted resignation’

‘Impossible’ to carry out ambassador’s role

The resignation followed days of embarrassing headlines and tweets which were sparked by a leak of British diplomatic cables that included Darroch’s assessment that the Trump presidency was inept.

The US president responded with a series of withering tweets, branding Darroch “very stupid” and May “foolish”. As the spat intensified, Trump said he would no longer deal with Darroch.

Citing reasons for his resignation, Darroch said his position had become untenable. “Since the leak of official documents from this Embassy there has been a great deal of speculation surrounding my position and the duration of my remaining term as ambassador,” said Darroch, who was due to step down at the end of the year.

“I want to put an end to that speculation. The current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.”

May backs Darroch

In his confidential memos dating from 2017 to the present, Darroch, 65, had said reports of in-fighting in the White House were “mostly true” and last month described confusion within the administration over Trump’s decision to call off a military strike on Iran.

“We don’t really believe this Administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction-riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept,” Darroch wrote in one cable.

May told parliament that ministers had expressed their backing for Darroch, a career diplomat who was due to leave his post anyway at the end of the year.

“I have told him it is a matter of great regret that he has felt it necessary to leave his position as ambassador to Washington,” she said. “The whole cabinet rightly gave its full support to Sir Kim on Tuesday.”

May supports Darroch’s ‘full and frank advice’

The souring of relations between Britain and the United States comes at a particularly unwelcome time for London, which is mired in the details of how and when to leave the European Union, a departure currently scheduled for October 31.

Britain is hoping to strike a major post-Brexit trade deal with Washington as one of the upsides of leaving the bloc.

May herself is due to step down as prime minister by the end of July and while one of the two contenders to replace her, foreign minister Jeremy Hunt, had said Darroch should keep his job, the other, frontrunner Boris Johnson, had pointedly declined to do so.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP and REUTERS)

A new poll shows nearly half the United States population believes that President Donald Trump should be impeached over his performance at the White House while the majority, 53 percent, say he should not.

The new Gallup poll released Wednesday shows that 45 percent of Americans want US Congress to take action and impeach the commander in chief.

The figure involves seven percent of Republicans, 46 percent of Independents and 81 percent of Democrats.

The poll was released as Democrats in control of the US House of Representatives were wondering whether they should confront Trump with impeachment.

Support for impeachment, however, has exceeded former Presidents Clinton and Nixon at the during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and at the beginning of the Watergate controversy respectively, according to Gallup.

Calls for impeachment of Trump have grown among politicians in the United States in the wake of the special counsel’s final statement at the conclusion of the so-called Russia probe.

In his last statement, the special counsel neither cleared the president nor charged him, throwing the ball into the Congress’ court.

Mueller argued that the decision not to charge Trump was made based on the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges against a sitting president.

Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committee on July 17.

The Gallup poll also showed that the president is still enjoying a low favorability, fluctuating between 40% and 43% since early May.

Source: Presstv

Former US Vice President Joe Biden, who is considered the favorite Democratic candidate to face President Donald Trump in the 2020 race for the White House, has lost some of his supporters following a weak showing in the first presidential debate last week, a new poll shows.

The CNN survey released Monday showed that Biden’s popularity among Democratic voters slipped to 22 percent after the debate on Friday, a whopping 10 percent drop since late May.

The veteran politician, who served as former President Barack Obama’s VP, still polled the highest among the two-dozen contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Biden’s loss was largely due to a surprisingly strong showing by Senator Kamala Harris, a California Democrat whose exchange with Biden on racial discrimination has been described by many as the highlight of the debate.

Harris, who aims to be the first black female US president, ranked a relatively close second to Biden with 17 percent support in the poll.

A separate poll by Politico/Morning Consult on Saturday returned similar result, with Biden’s support dropping to 33 percent from 38 percent before the debate.

This is while Harris doubled her support as she climbed to 12 percent from six percent pre-debate.

Tying with Harris at 12 percent was progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren in that poll. Warren shadowed Harris in the CNN poll with 15 percent support.

The poll also recorded declining support for leftwing Senator Bernie Sanders, who dropped to 14 percent from 18 per cent before the debates.

The Politico/Morning Consult poll however did not register any changes in Sanders’ and put him in second place after Biden.

Pete Buttigieg, the young mayor of South Bend, Indiana, came in fifth place in both polls, scoring four percent in the CNN poll and six percent in the Politico/Morning Consult survey.

Despite the drop in support, voters still saw Biden as the strongest candidate in the field, with 43 percent saying he was the only Democrat with a chance to unseat Trump.

Only 13 per cent believed Sanders could do the job, while Harris managed to convince 12 per cent of voters.

US President Donald Trump has confidently spoken about his intention to sweep the country’s upcoming presidential polls, playing down poll returns that have cast doubt on his reelection chances in some key states.

CNN and other American media outlets have reported that the US president is behind key Democratic hopeful and former vice president Joe Biden in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Trump, however, said, “I’m probably not too prepared to lose. I don’t like losing. I haven’t lost very much in my life.”

The head of state has also ordered firing of several pollsters in reaction to the unwelcome statistics.

In 2016, a mechanism called the Electoral College system, which overrides the popular vote making 538 electors across different states liable for electing the chief executive, handed the presidential election’s victory to Trump over the Democratic Party’s Nominee Hillary Clinton. This is while voters had given the latter three million more votes.

Still, Trump claimed he did not “believe” in the validity of “a lot” of votes cast which showed he had lost the popular vote to Clinton.

“I’ll say something that, again, is controversial. There were a lot of votes cast that I don’t believe,” he said on NBC.

Trump, though, hailed Clinton as “a great candidate,” saying, “She was very smart. She was very tough. She was ruthless and vicious.”

He suggested that he would find running against Biden to be much easier than having to contend against Clinton again. “[Biden’s] sleepy. She was not sleepy.” 

The US president formally launched his re-election campaign on June 18.

“We are going to keep America great again,” Trump told a packed arena in Orlando, Florida, distancing himself from his trademark 2016 election slogan of “Make America Great Again,” which had invited him much controversy.

He sidestepped the issue of a consistent unfavorable performance in popularity votes, which has dogged him ever since he took office, and took credit for a strong economy.

The US economy has grown to some extent under Trump. Economists, however, put the growth down to his cutting the country’s contribution to various international accords and humanitarian funds as well as huge increase in the American arms exports to flashpoint areas across the world under the president.

Source: Presstv

US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reiterated that if investigations of President Donald Trump find significant wrongdoing, the chamber would have to move to impeach him.

“If the goods are there, you must impeach,” Pelosi said to reporters on Wednesday at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Pelosi’s remarks were in response to a question on whether there was an alternative option of simply voting to censure the president.

The speaker said such an alternative was not under consideration.

She noted the importance of the Department of Justice’s agreement to provide Congress with a less-redacted report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 US presidential election and 10 instances in which Trump tried to interfere with Mueller’s investigation.

Pelosi’s remarks came as former top Trump aide Hope Hicks appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in a closed session to answer questions about potential obstruction of justice by Trump and related matters.

Hicks was mentioned in Mueller’s report multiple times. In saying Trump “must” be impeached if that is warranted by House investigations, it was not clear whether Pelosi was moving in that direction after months of talking about the divisiveness of impeachment.

At one point earlier this year she even said that Trump was “not worth” impeaching.

“If we’re going to go down this path … we have to make sure the public has an understanding of why,” and senators understand their constitutional duty to hold Trump accountable for any wrongdoing, Pelosi said

Pelosi had said that she preferred to see Trump sent to prison rather than be impeached.

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said at a meeting earlier this month.

US media outlet reported Pelosi as saying that she preferred to see Trump go to jail after losing the 2020 presidential election.

Democrats believe Trump is guilty of breaking the law by allegedly seeking to obstruct investigations into Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 US election.

Trump is also accused of violating constitutional prohibitions on presidents receiving financial benefits from foreign governments, and also paying pre-election hush money to two women who claim to have had affairs with Trump.

Source: Presstv

Russian President Vladimir Putin says relations between Moscow and Washington are getting “worse and worse” due to the current US administration’s sanctions against Russia.

Putin made the remarks in an interview with Russia’s Mir TV channel published on Thursday, ahead of a G20 summit in Japan later this month at which he might meet US President Donald Trump.

Our relations “are going downhill, they are getting worse and worse,” the Kremlin quoted Putin as saying in the interview.

“The current administration has approved, in my opinion, several dozen decisions on sanctions against Russia in recent years,” he added.

“We really hope that common sense will prevail in the end,” said Putin.

“That with all of our partners, including our American partners… we can reach some decisions in the framework of the forthcoming G20 that will be constructive and create the necessary stable conditions for economic cooperation,” the Russian president stated.

Trump said on Wednesday that he would meet the Russian leader at the G20 summit in Japan, a day after Moscow said the idea for the meeting was “hanging in the air” and that there were no discussions on specifics yet.

The US president also expressed hope that his country would have “a great relationship with Russia,” while at the same time pledging to deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland.

Relations between the two countries remain strained over such issues as Syria and Ukraine as well as allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, which Moscow denies.

The Russian leader contrasted Moscow’s troubled relationship with Washington with what he referred to as ts blossoming ties with China, a deepening strategic friendship that has alarmed the US.

Putin also expressed certainty that his country will eventually restore its relations with Ukraine.

Source: Presstv

Cameroon is teetering on the brink of a human-rights catastrophe in a linguistic conflict that has already killed at least 1,850 people, and bilingual Canada must bolster international efforts to avert disaster, according to a report co-written by Canadian human-rights lawyers.

A government campaign in francophone-majority Cameroon against English-speaking minority rights has devolved into an armed conflict between security forces and 10 armed secessionist groups, according to the report published on Monday.

The government is on a repression campaign, burning hundreds of villages, murdering rebels, dissidents and civilians alike and raping and torturing women, according to the report, which was published by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, based in Montreal, and the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa, in Cameroon. Rebel groups have committed their own atrocities, the report says.

The report concludes “reasonable grounds” exist to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed and a concerted international effort is required to prevent the violence from spiralling.

“I don’t think it’s too late,” said Pearl Eliadis, a Montreal human-rights lawyer and senior fellow at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre, who co-authored the report. “I’ve worked in Rwanda, East Timor and Sri Lanka before the civil war. In those cases, it was often too late. Cameroon is a rare case study where there is a moment to intervene. “But Cameroon is a historically stable country that’s on the way to being dismantled.”

Ms. Eliadis said diplomatic pressure, trade incentives, supporting local civil-society organizations and a strong push for investigating crimes could all still work on a conflict that has largely flown under the international radar.

Canada could play an effective role, she added, as a bilingual country with both civil- and common-law legal systems similar to Cameroon. Canada does not have the same colonial baggage as Britain and France, the two powers that created Cameroon along with its linguistic divisions in the 1960s. Cameroon is one of Canada’s oldest allies in Africa and has been among the biggest recipients of Canadian aid in Africa since the 1960s. “Canada, I think, has something unique to bring to the table,” Ms. Eliadis said.

According to the latest numbers from the International Crisis Group published in the report, close to 1,000 separatists, at least 650 civilians and 235 security forces personnel have died in the past two years. The report says 206 villages have been burned so far in 2019, compared with 106 in all of 2017.

Paul Biya has been President of Cameroon for 37 years. His country of 25 million includes about five million English speakers, mostly in the northwestern and southwestern parts of the country. Mr. Biya has also been waging war against Boko Haram in the north. Western countries see him as an ally against Islamist terrorism. In November, 2016, lawyers protested a government move to impose civil law on common-law regions and the lack of effort to implement basic bilingualism. Later that month, teachers joined the protest over plans to impose French in schools.

Security forces cracked down on the protests, shooting and beating dozens and jailing more than 100. Cameroonian barrister Felix Nkongho, who co-wrote the report and led research efforts on the ground, was among them. He was supposed to participate in unveiling the report Monday, but was hiding after receiving death threats.

About 25,000 people of Cameroonian origin live in Canada, about two-thirds of them in Montreal. Olivia Leke, a Southern Cameroonian who lives in Montreal, says many of her family members have fled their homes as violence has escalated.

When she saw the 2016 arrests, she says she “thought it was a joke.” Since then, an uncle’s home was burned and another uncle was kidnapped. Her grandmother died in their home village, and her mother buried her and then fled on a motorcycle to join her father, who saw the school where he served as principal burned to the ground.

“The people who have fled into the bushes have no voice,” Ms. Leke said, adding that the Cameroon government is sensitive about its international image. “Canada must act loudly and clearly to compel the Cameroon government to do what needs to be done.”

Source: The Globe and Mail

As the US announced plans on Friday to send 1,500 more troops to the Middle East amid hostilities with Iran, analysts say the ultra-hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton has driven much of the escalation in tensions between the two countries.

More than two weeks after the US announced a strengthening of its military presence in the Middle East in response to Iranian “threats”, relations are still fraught between Washington and Tehran.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has expressed an array of conflicting positions, from saying he wants dialogue with the Islamic Republic to making luridly vengeful threats, such as his May 19 tweet: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”

The central figure behind America’s increasingly belligerent stance towards Iran is, however, not the US President but John Bolton, a consistent advocate of regime change in Iran.

‘To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran’

Bolton had been pouring forth warlike rhetoric against Iran for several years before his appointment as national security adviser in April 2018, in paid speeches, opinion columns and as a talking head on Trump’s favourite TV channel, Fox News. “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”, implored the headline of his opinion piece in The New York Times in 2015, when the Obama administration was negotiating the nuclear deal from which Trump would go on to withdraw in May 2018.

In 2017, Bolton gave a speech at a conference in Paris organised by the People’s Mujahedin of Iran – a militant opposition movement detested by the Iranian regime and classed as a terrorist group by the US and EU. He declared at this event that the Islamic Republic of Iran would “not last until its 40th birthday” (April 1, 2019).

In his role as national security adviser, Bolton asked the Pentagon to draw up military options for an attack on Iran – provoking considerable disquiet amongst senior officials. On February 11 2019, the 40th anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Bolton used the White House’s official Twitter account to tell the Ayatollah Khamenei: “I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.”

Such “extremely belligerent rhetoric” has caused heightened concern because there is a “shared interest amongst several leaders – those of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and indeed the US – in ramping up the antagonism towards Iran,” Karim Sader, a Middle East specialist and former researcher at the French ministry of defence, told FRANCE 24.

“The US has returned to the anti-Iranian reflex of the George W. Bush era, and the Trump administration – especially its national security adviser – is obsessed with the Iranian threat,” he continued.

It remains to be seen how far Bolton will get with his ferociously hawkish views on Iran. Despite his aforementioned moments of vitriolic fervour against the Islamic Republic, Trump ran for the White House as a non-interventionist candidate, and analysts say that his instincts are broadly isolationist.

Is Bolton ‘manufacturing a crisis’?

However, the recent developments in US-Iran relations seem to suggest Bolton’s influence is growing. Indeed, the national security adviser is reportedly taking advantage of the void left by James Mattis, the internationalist defence secretary who resigned in December. Mattis’ successor, the low-key and little-known Patrick Shanahan, is still waiting for the Senate to confirm his appointment.

Bolton was the first US official to announce the dispatch of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to “send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime”, in a statement posted on the White House website.

He also lobbied successfully for the Pentagon to produce a plan to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American soldiers or accelerate its nuclear weapons programme, The New York Timesreported on May 13. Trump denied it, speaking to journalists the next day: “I think it’s fake news, ok? Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that.”

“I think this is manufactured by Bolton to try to justify the administration’s very harsh policy toward Iran despite the fact that Iran has been complying with the nuclear deal,” Barbara Slavin, an Iran specialist at the Atlantic Council think-tank in Washington DC, told AFP.

“Given Bolton’s record,” she continued, “I wouldn’t put it past him to try to manufacture a crisis here.”

American officials and diplomats have been at pains to argue that the US is not trying to provoke a conflict with Iran. Trump’s strategy – as seen with North Korea – may well be to impose harsh sanctions on Iran and then try and negotiate from a position of strength. “If they call, we would be certain to negotiate,” the US president told journalists on May 20.

“Going back to sanctions and threats against Iran is counter-productive,” Sader warned. “It is the best way to strengthen the most extreme factions within the Iranian state.”

Trump ‘tempers’ Bolton

Described as “tenacious” by Condoleezza Rice (secretary of state during Bolton’s brief, controversial tenure as US ambassador to the UN under Bush from 2005 to 2006), Bolton seems to regard the notion of diplomacy with distaste.

The US president himself said last week that he is a moderating influence on Bolton. “I actually temper John,” Trump said.

The influence of a national security adviser who makes Trump look moderate has even prompted anxiety amongst Republican legislators. Senator Rand Paul – a maverick non-interventionist on foreign policy, but broadly supine in the face of Trump’s decisions – called Bolton “a malign influence on the administration”.

“I think the most important thing is to put the administration on notice that they do not have congressional permission to go to war with Iran and we need to make sure we’re not involved in anything that is provocative enough to encourage a skirmish that leads to a bigger war,” Paul continued.

It could be that Trump agrees with Paul. The president lambasted his advisor for pushing forward the US’s hardline stance on Nicolas Maduro, which hasn’t lived up to its promise of forcing the Venezuelan president out of power. Trump said Bolton wants to get him “into a war”, The Washington Post reported on May 8.

Bolton certainly likes to play hardball on the world stage. But it’s a game that could have calamitous consequences for the Middle East.

France 24