EXPOSED: How The Obama Administration Whitewashes Iran’s Violations Of UN Sanctions

On June 2nd, a United Nations panel of experts released a damning report on Iranian violations of the UNSC sanctions imposed against the regime of Ayatollah Khamenei.

The report was finally published on Tuesday.

Bloomberg reported that the UN experts said that “governments reported no new incidents of Iran violating Security Council sanctions against its nuclear program, even though some have unfolded in plain sight.”

“The current situation with reporting could reflect a general reduction of procurement activities by the Iranian side or a political decision by some member states to refrain from reporting to avoid a possible negative impact on ongoing negotiations,” the experts wrote in the report.

The UN experts suggested that some countries, including the United States, may have deliberately ignored sanctions violations by Iran.

These countries knew, for example, that General Qassem Suleimani, commander of the elite Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, repeatedly violated a UN-mandated travel ban when he traveled to Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Suleimani’s illegal activities in Syria and Iraq were also reported by Western Journalism most recently on June 2nd, when Suleimani was in western Syria to oversee the war effort by Assad’s army and Shiite and Iranian forces.

Bloomberg interviewed Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who has advised Congress on expanding sanctions. He said the following about the behavior of the U.S. government and its allies:

This is a clear political decision not to publicize these examples of sanctions evasion in order to ensure that public reporting on this doesn’t in any way jeopardize the talks or harden congressional resolve. The Obama administration has bent over backwards to try and whitewash Iranian violations both on the nuclear side and also on the sanction-busting side.

The UN experts gave two examples of Iranian violations of the UN sanctions regime when the Obama administration was negotiating with Iran about a framework agreement.

Here’s the first example:

An Iranian procurer approached a company in January 2015 to supply Howden CKD compressors. The stated end user was suspected to be a false end user for the goods, which were in fact to be exported to Iran. The procurer and transport company involved in the deal had provided false documentation in order to hide the origins, movement and destination of the consignment with the intention of bypassing export controls and sanctions, specifically United Nations Security Council resolution 1737 (2006).

And here’s the second example:

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC). The Panel notes that KEC is designated under Security Council resolution 1737 (2006).

The report also revealed that two governments informed the UN that Iran made illegal financial transactions through banks outside Iran that were related to nuclear procurement.

The publication of the UN report comes a week after the Washington Free Beacon published a summary of a Pentagon report about the Iranian development of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads during the negotiations with the six world powers.

“The report was due to Congress in January but was not sent to the Armed Services Committee as required by law until this month. Analysts said the delay appeared designed to avoid upsetting Tehran and the nuclear talks,” the Free Beacon reported.

Earlier, the Free Beacon had reported that “North Korea supplied several shipments of missile components to Iran during recent nuclear talks and the transfers appear to violate United Nations sanctions on both countries, according to U.S. intelligence officials.”

“Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in charge of monitoring sanctions violations,” according to the Free Beacon.

CIA director John Brennan made proper analysis of Iran’s behavior during the current negotiations virtually impossible when he told Harvard’s Institute for Politics in early April that “anyone who both knew the facts surrounding the Obama administration’s framework agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and said that it provides a pathway for Iran to a bomb, was being wholly disingenuous.”

Suppressing the truth regarding Iran’s behavior was also visible in the latest Worldwide Threat Assessment, an annual report that the director of national intelligence presents to Congress; it was released in February.

“Beginning last year, the assessment’s focus shifted away from Tehran’s efforts to expand its regional hegemony and toward describing Iran as a protector of oppressed Shiites that seeks to reduce sectarian violence,“ wrote the Washington Institute.

The Worldwide Threat Assessment showed “a marked shift in tone regarding Iran and its proxies. While past editions portrayed Tehran as a malign influence and state sponsor of terrorism that was actively seeking to undermine the United States and its allies, the most recent assessments cast a different light,” according to the Washington Institute.

Israel Project director Omri Ceren responded to the latest revelations about Iran’s deceit and the ignorance of the U.S. and its allies.

He wrote the following to Western Journalism in an e-mail:

The obvious point from the skeptics’ camp will be that if the West is willing to look the other way on Iranian activity while they’re trying to seal a deal, they’ll be even more inclined to ignore Tehran’s destabilizing and sanctions-busting activities after a deal, when everyone’s credibility is on the line.

Judging by the reports that have already been withheld, looking the other way means tolerating Iran’s march across the Middle East and any nuclear-related work it’s doing that’s not covered by the final deal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu didn’t directly respond to the UN report, but he addressed the Iranian nuclear threat during a speech to the annual Herzliyah conference on Tuesday.

Here’s what he said:

I know I’m often portrayed as the nuclear party pooper. And that would be okay if I was the only voice against the impending deal with Iran. But I speak with quite a few of our (Arab) neighbors, more than you think, and I want to tell you that nobody in this region believes this deal will block Iran’s path to the bomb or, as I said, to many bombs. And it’s worth noting that no one from this region, except Iran, is at the negotiating table.

Somebody once said: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” The states with the most at stake are not even in the room.

To those who say this deal will change Iran, I say – You’ve got it backwards. First, Iran should change. Then make the deal. Only then should you reward it with technology and money.

So, with the greatest respect, I say to our American friends – and we have no better friends and America has no better friends than Israel – I say, if Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.”

Meanwhile, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey appeared to criticize the willingness of the Obama administration to relieve sanctions on Iran. During a visit to Israel, Dempsey showed understanding for the Israeli position that a nuclear deal will increase Iran’s funding of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and will put more resources in its own military.

“I share their concern, If the deal is reached and results in sanctions relief, which results in more economic power and more purchasing power for the Iranian regime, it’s my expectation that it’s not all going to flow into the economy to improve the lot of the average Iranian citizen.” Dempsey said.

Dempsey’s comments were made before AP journalists Matthew Lee and Bradley Klapper revealed that “the Obama administration may have to backtrack on its promise that it will suspend only nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran as part of an emerging nuclear agreement.”

The AP story reveals that sanctions that were imposed on Iran to block illicit finance and ballistic missile development will be rolled back too. 23 out of 24 currently sanctioned Iranian banks will be delisted, including the crucial Central Bank of Iran.

The White House fact-sheet describing the joint plan of action that was released after the framework agreement between Iran and the six world powers in Lausanne stated that “U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Ouch! Former Top UN Climate Scientist Just Dropped A Devastating Truth Bomb On Al Gore

It hasn’t been a very good few weeks for progressives intent on forcing Americans to believe in the imminent threat of climate change, thus making massive action to combat “global warming” a centerpiece of their political action agenda.

Take a look at the movies. Despite liberal fantasies that Disney’s big-budget flick Tomorrowland — with its preachy-teachy theme that mankind is greedily warming the planet to a self-destructive temperature — would be a hit, the flick has proven to be a miss. That, no doubt, is a huge disappointment for The Daily Beast author Kevin Fallon, who welcomed the message of the $190 million film that he hailed as “George Clooney’s Global Warming Shaming.”

“George Clooney’s new summer blockbuster shames us for our roles in global warming and a potpourri of other earthly calamities.,” wrote Fallon. In truth, however — based on disappointing opening-weekend ticket sales — Tomorrowland is closer to bust than blockbuster. The shame would, therefore, seem to lie more with the Hollywood hotshots and other liberal activists who thought the movie-going public would simply bend over for a science-fiction scolding for their supposed climate-change sins.

Speaking of science and fiction, a new study just issued by a former top climate scientist for the United Nations could send Al Gore and others warning of the perils of global warming into a deep freeze of depression. The Daily Caller reports that the researcher who once took the lead on the U.N’s vaunted climate change advisory has done some critical recalculation — indicating that natural causes, and not man-made pollution, could be responsible for climate variations.

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.

Dr. Lloyd observes that most temperature changes recorded in the 20th century — changes that Gore and others have said prove mankind’s responsibility in heating the planet — are probably not man-caused.

“…’there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.’”

And then there’s the recently reported failure of the global-warming crowd to persuade young voters that America needs to make drastic changes in how people live, work and play in order to combat climate change. The Harvard University Institute of Politics a few weeks ago released the results of a significant survey of young Americans’ attitudes toward such issues as climate change. This poll of 18-29 year olds found that young adults are no more likely to believe in man-made climate change than older Americans. These findings challenge liberal assumptions about the strength of the millennial generation’s views on planetary warming.

As noted on the website EENews: “The poll found that 20 percent of young adults say climate change is ‘a proven fact’ but that it’s caused by natural forces, not human-induced emissions. An additional 23 percent say it’s ‘a theory that has not yet been proven.’”

The EENews article also quotes a university expert on climate change communication:

“It’s a common misperception that young Americans are more attuned to climate change than their older counterparts, said Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication.

“‘Absolutely, that is the perception. But it diverges from reality,’ he said. ‘It’s shocking. It’s absolutely shocking. But every time we’ve looked at it, the answer comes back no.’”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Vatican Adviser Says America’s Founding Document Is Outmoded, Reveals Global Game Plan

Top Vatican adviser Jeffrey Sachs says that when Pope Francis visits the United States in September, he will directly challenge the “American idea” of God-given rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

Sachs, a special advisor to the United Nations and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is a media superstar who can always be counted on to pontificate endlessly on such topics as income inequality and global health. This time, writing in a Catholic publication, he may have gone off his rocker, revealing the real global game plan.

The United States, Sachs writes in the Jesuit publication, America, is “a society in thrall” to the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But the “urgent core of Francis’ message” will be to challenge this “American idea” by “proclaiming that the path to happiness lies not solely or mainly through the defense of rights but through the exercise of virtues, most notably justice and charity.”

In these extraordinary comments, which constitute a frontal assault on the American idea of freedom and national sovereignty, Sachs has made it clear that he hopes to enlist the Vatican in a global campaign to increase the power of global or foreign-dominated organizations and movements.

Sachs takes aim at the phrase, which comes from America’s founding document, the United States Declaration of Independence, that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These rights sound good, Sachs writes, but they’re not enough to guarantee the outcome the global elites have devised for us. Global government, he suggests, must make us live our lives according to international standards of development.

“In the United States,” Sachs writes, “we learn that the route to happiness lies in the rights of the individual. By throwing off the yoke of King George III, by unleashing the individual pursuit of happiness, early Americans believed they would achieve that happiness. Most important, they believed that they would find happiness as individuals, each endowed by the creator with individual rights.”

While he says there is some “grandeur in this idea,” such rights “are only part of the story, only one facet of our humanity.”

The Sachs view is that global organizations such as the U.N. must dictate the course of nations and individual rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. One aspect of this unfolding plan, as outlined in the Sachs book, The End of Poverty, involves extracting billions of dollars from the American people through global taxes.

“We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes,” he wrote. “A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin. Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity’s climate-deforming overuse of fossil fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods.” Sachs has estimated the price tag for the U.S. at $845 billion.

In preparation for this direct assault on our rights, the American nation-state, and our founding document, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon told a Catholic Caritas International conference in Rome on May 12 that climate change is “the defining challenge of our time,” and that the solution lies in recognizing that “humankind is part of nature, not separate or above.”

The pope’s expected encyclical on climate change is supposed to help mobilize the governments of the world in this crusade.

But a prestigious group of scholars, churchmen, scientists, economists, and policy experts has issued a detailed rebuttal, entitled, “An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change,” pointing out that the Bible tells man to have dominion over the earth.

“Good climate policy must recognize human exceptionalism, the God-given call for human persons to ‘have dominion’ in the natural world (Genesis 1:28), and the need to protect the poor from harm, including actions that hinder their ascent out of poverty,” the letter to Pope Francis states.

Released by a group called the Cornwall Alliance, the letter urges the Vatican to consider the evidence that climate change is largely natural, that the human contribution is comparatively small and not dangerous, and that attempting to mitigate the human contribution by reducing CO2 emissions “would cause more harm than good, especially to the world’s poor.”

The Heartland Institute held a news conference on April 27 at the Hotel Columbus in Rome to warn the Vatican against embracing the globalist agenda of the climate change movement. The group is hosting the 10th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C., on June 11-12.

However, it appears as if the Vatican has been captured by the globalist forces associated with Sachs and the United Nations.

Voice of the Family, a group representing pro-life and pro-family Catholic organizations from around the world, has taken issue not only with the Vatican’s involvement with Sachs, but with Ban Ki Moon, describing the two as “noted advocates of abortion who operate at the highest levels of the United Nations.”Sachs has been described as “arguably the world’s foremost proponent of population control,” including abortion.

Voice of the Family charges that environmental issues such as climate change have become “an umbrella to cover a wide spectrum of attacks on human life and the family.”

Although Sachs likes to claim he was an adviser to Pope John Paul II, the noted anti-communist and pro-life pontiff, Sachs simply served as a member of a group of economists invited to confer with the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace in advance of the release of a papal document.

In fact, Pope John Paul II had worked closely with the Reagan administration in opposition to communism and the global population control movement. He once complained that a U.N. conference on population issues was designed to “destroy the family” and was the “snare of the devil.”

Pope Francis, however, seems to have embraced the very movements opposed by John Paul II.

Sachs, who has emerged as a very influential Vatican adviser, recently tweeted that he was “thrilled” to be at the Vatican “discussing moral dimensions of climate change and sustainable development.” The occasion was a Vatican workshop on global warming on April 28, 2015, sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Roman Catholic Church. Sachs was a featured speaker.

The plan going forward involves the launching of what are called “Sustainable Development Goals,” as envisioned by a Sustainable Development Solutions Network run by none other than Jeffrey Sachs.

“The Network has proposed draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which contain provisions that are radically antagonistic to the right to life from conception to natural death, to the rights and dignity of the family and to the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children,” states the group Voice of the Family.

In July, a Financing for Development conference will be held, in order to develop various global tax proposals, followed by a conference in Paris in December to complete a new climate change agreement.

Before that December conference, however, Sachs says the pope will call on the world at the United Nations to join the crusade for a New World Order.

Sachs says, “Pope Francis will come to the United States and the United Nations in New York on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, and at the moment when the world’s 193 governments are resolved to take a step in solidarity toward a better world. On Sept. 25, Pope Francis will speak to the world leaders—most likely the largest number of assembled heads of state and government in history—as these leaders deliberate to adopt new Sustainable Development Goals for the coming generation. These goals will be a new worldwide commitment to build a world that aims to harmonize the pursuit of economic prosperity with the commitments to social inclusion and environmental sustainability.”

Rather than emphasize the absolute need for safeguarding individual rights in the face of government overreach and power, Sachs writes that the Gospel teachings of humility, love, and justice, “like the teachings of Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius,” can take us on a “path to happiness through compassion” and “become our guideposts back to safety.”

Writing elsewhere in the new issue of America, Christiana Z. Peppard, an assistant professor of theology, science, and ethics at Fordham University, writes about the “planetary pope,” saying, “What is really at stake in the collective response to the pope’s encyclical is not, ultimately, whether our treasured notions of theology, science, reality or development can accommodate moral imperatives. The real question is whether we are brave enough and willing to try.”

The plan is quite simple: world government through global taxes, with a religious face to bring it about.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Vatican Facilitates Russia’s Designs On The Middle East

Pope Francis has formally recognized a Palestinian state, even though it does not exist. While the media have noted that the Vatican’s curious action has created some controversy, there has been little discussion of whether “Palestinians” actually do exist, where the modern-day concept of a “State of Palestine” came from, and which major power benefits from the creation of a nation under the control of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the Middle East.

American-Israeli political commentator and journalist Sha’i ben-Tekoa told Accuracy in Media, “Starting with Chapter 2:1 of the Pope’s own Holy Writ, Christian Scripture refers to Judea 42 times, Samaria 11 times, never to ‘Palestine,’ ‘Palestinians’ or the ‘West Bank.’ The Arabs in Judea and Samaria meet not one of the international legal requirements for statehood.”

He is referring to Matthew 2:1, which refers to Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Judea.

Many commentators, with little or no access to major U.S. media, argue with justification that the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are squatters, with no legal right to even be there.

“Most of the so-called ‘Palestinians’ are in fact interlopers and squatters from Syria—and other places—mostly in the 1920s and 1930s who simply took possession of pieces of land in Israel,” says commentator Rockwell Lazareth. William Mayer, editor and publisher of PipeLineNews.com, says, “the so-called Palestinians” are in fact “Arab colonial squatters” who have been used to wage war against Israel.

Commenting further on the Vatican’s recognition of a so-called Palestinian state, Ben-Tekoa tells AIM, “This business of recognizing a phantom state for a phantom nation that screws the Jews is an outrage. It is this generation’s version of Jew-hatred. The Pope should lead, not follow the enemies of Israel.”

Ben-Tekoa’s book, Phantom Nation: Inventing the ‘Palestinians’ as the Obstacle to Peace, argues that “Palestinians” are an “invented” people whose purpose is to serve as the means through which the destruction of Israel and the Jews will ultimately be achieved.

If so, the fingerprints of the old Soviet Union and today’s Russia are all over the plan.

In his scholarly paper, “Soviet Russia, Creator of the PLO and Inventor of the Palestinian People,” Wallace Edward Brand documents how the term “Palestinian People” was concocted by the “Soviet disinformation masters” in 1964 when they created the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO.

Soon, the United Nations adopted the cause. Dr. Harris Schoenberg’s 1989 book, A Mandate for Terror: The United Nations and the PLO, describes how the world body came to endorse and embrace the terrorism campaign of the PLO. The UN General Assembly voted in 2012 to recognize Palestine as a non-member state, giving it the same status as the Vatican. The only countries voting against this initiative were Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, and the United States.

Earlier this year, the International Criminal Court (ICC) accepted “Palestine” as a State Party to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty. The court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, is currently probing alleged Israeli war crimes during last summer’s war in Gaza with the Hamas terrorist group.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, who is scheduled to meet with Pope Francis on May 16, is widely considered to be a key Russian asset in the Middle East.

Abbas speaks fluent Russian as a result of his KGB training at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University, where he wrote a report claiming that there was no Holocaust, and that the Jews who were murdered during World War II were actually killed by Zionists working with the Nazis. It is now called the People’s Friendship University.

Former KGB officers and intelligence analysts say that the PLO’s long-time chairman, Yasser Arafat, was also an agent of the Soviet intelligence service.

The links between various Arab and Islamic terrorist groups and the Russians are said to continue. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking defector from the former Soviet bloc, says KGB dissident Alexander Litvinenko, who was living in London, was assassinated by the KGB in 2006 because he spilled the beans on how Soviet intelligence spawned Islamic terrorism and even trained al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

Marius Laurinavičius, Senior Policy Analyst in the Policy Analysis and Research Division of the Eastern Europe Studies Center, argues in his paper, “Do traces of KGB, FSB and GRU lead to Islamic State?,”  that it is impossible to understand the rise of the Islamic state without paying attention to the links between the Russian secret services and Arab/Muslim terrorists, including in the Russian region of Chechnya.

Nevertheless, it seems that the PLO has been successful in its campaign, as even the United States government, first under President George W. Bush and now under President Barack Obama, has accepted a so-called “two-state solution” of Israel and a Palestinian state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2009 that he was prepared to recognize a “demilitarized” Palestinian state of some kind, subject to security conditions and their recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. However, a document outlining the approach of Netanyahu’s new coalition government did not include any intention of establishing a Palestinian state.

The publication Foreign Policy says Obama has decided to review the “diplomatic protection” it has offered Israel in the United Nations against anti-Israel resolutions as a way to pressure the Jewish state, and that “There is a growing movement at the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution outlining a roadmap for future peace talks.” Such a “roadmap” would force Israel to accept a Russian-influenced Palestinian state.

The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, has already announced that Russia will back a resolution calling for a Palestinian state.

With the Vatican endorsing statehood for Palestine, the Russians, working with Obama, may see their chance to put more pressure on Israel.

This will likely work out to the benefit of Russia and its Palestinian agents, not the United States or Israel.

In his 1971 book, Red Star Over Bethlehem: Russia Drives for the Middle East, former diplomatic envoy Ira Hirschman argued that the Soviet Union voted in the U.N. to establish the state of Israel in 1947, only to oust “the last vestiges of British power in the land-bridge area linking Europe, Africa, and Asia,” and that its strategic objective has been to make possible the long-awaited dream of Catherine the Great to establish Russian warm-water ports in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Has Just Thrown His Own Country Under The Bus At The UN, Inviting International Ridicule

When President Obama launched what critics widely called his “apology tour” shortly after his first inauguration, he made highly publicized speeches in a number of other countries in which he repeatedly pointed the finger of blame at the United States for its supposed past transgressions. For instance, he traveled to another country and chastised his own nation for having “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.

As Karl Rove wrote in an April 2009 commentary for The Wall Street Journal, “President Barack Obama has finished the second leg of his international confession tour. In less than 100 days, he has apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors.”

Now, once again, the president has shown he is more than willing to paint the U.S. in a very bad light. He has put his stamp of approval on a report from the State Department to the United Nations in which the administration cites what it claims are widespread human rights violations within the U.S. itself. Breitbart News notes that the alleged violations cited in the report to the U.N. Human Rights Council include a number of so-called abuses which many say Obama and his radical policies have caused or worsened:

– Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
– Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
– Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
– Predatory lending in home mortgages
– Suspension of black children in schools
– Women earning “78 cents on the dollar” (a false statistic)

And what’s been the reaction from other member countries of the United Nations — countries in which human rights abuses have often been documented? Breitbart says the U.S. has come under withering criticism from a “variety of dictatorships,” including Pakistan, Russian, China, and Iran.

“Iran, for example, complained about racial discrimination in the United States, among other criticisms, calling on the U.S. to ‘protect the rights of African-Americans against police brutality.’”

Following the Obama administration’s report to the U.N., the headline on the Middle East-based Al Jazeera network blared: “US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights.” In fact, as the Al Jazeera report does not make clear, it was the President of the United States himself, through his own State Department, who condemned his own country’s human rights record and subjected America once again to scorn and ridicule in a troubled world where Obama’s “apology tour” supposedly elevated other nations’ opinion of the United States.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth