President Duterte Joins Growing List Upset with the International Criminal Court
TWO WEEKS AGO PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE of the Philippines announced his intention to say goodbye to the United States, his intention to halt all military exercise with the United States, and his intention to buy weapons from China and Russia. Now he has announced plans to withdraw from the 123 member International Criminal Court (ICC), the international war times court situated in the Hague, Netherlands.
Duterte is especially upset by the court’s interference with his war against narcopolitics. Any authentically real attempt to actually defeat drug lords necessarily entails violence. Duterte is serious about defending his people and putting a stop to drug trafficking in the Philippines. Consequently, the drug lords, thugs, and narcopoliticians are feeling the actual pain of death carried out legally by the executive arm of the Philippine military and police under direct order of their president. Apparently the ICC does not appreciate strong arm tactics to end the evil of drug trafficking. Duterte insists that the heavy hand is necessary against so immense an evil. Consequently, he announced his intent to withdraw from the ICC complaining that the international court is a covert hand of the global liberal elite for exploitation of developing nations.
Duterte is not the first to renounce the ICC. On November 16, 2016, Vladimir Putin signed an executive order withdrawing Russia from its jurisdiction. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement explaining that the ICC “did not live up to the hopes associated with it and did not become truly independent (of global liberalism).”
Just a few weeks earlier, three African nations, Gambi, Burundi and South Africa, also announced their intent to withdraw from the ICC. The African nations are withdrawing because they perceive the ICC as a tool of Western imperialism. All three countries consider the ICC to be an “outside institution imposing its will on African nations without their input, perpetuating a history of Western intervention and African oppression.”
On October 19, Maite Nkoana Mashabane, South African Minister of International Relations formally withdrew his country from the ICC. Masganbane indicated that the ICC is overreaching its authority by forcing compliance on issues that violate the sovereign rights of the nation, specifically the ICC mandate to arrest Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan during a state visit to South Africa.
Interestingly, Israel and the United States did not sign to the “Rome Statute” that gave birth to the ICC. Some have speculated that this is due to the US being the military fist behind liberalism. Since the US is not an ICC member, it cannot be brought before the ICC for any war crimes it allegedly committed in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. Thus, nations like the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Burundi, and Gambi have had enough of what they perceive to be unjust treatment, undue meddling in their internal affairs, and unwarranted policing by Western politicians as if they occupied some type of “moral high ground” for accusing others of crimes against humanity, while getting away with crimes themselves (see video).
The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has threatened government leaders in the Philippines who she says condone killings and encourage police and military to act “with lethal force.”
“Let me be clear: any person in the Philippines who incites or engages in acts of mass violence including by ordering, requesting, encouraging or contributing, in any other manner, to the commission of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC is potentially liable to prosecution before the Court.”
Nonetheless, Duterte insists that lethal force is absolutely necessary: Narcopolitcians and national and international drug lords have created a culture of death that must be met with lethal force if they are to be successfully combated and not battled with mere political lip service. Duterte has been accused of encouraging extrajudicial (vigilante) killings. His Communications Secretary, Martin Andanar, insists that drug-related killings and vigilante killings are “not State-sanctioned.”
The Duterte administration has repeatedly denied condoning extrajudicial killings. According to Andahar,
“They are useless, those in the international criminal (court). They (Russia) withdrew. I might follow. Why? Only the small ones like us are battered”.
President Duterte is so upset with ICC accusations against his war on drugs that he has indicted total dissatisfaction with Western Liberalism and the need for new global leadership.
“You know (he said), if China and Russia would decide to create a new order, I will be the first to join.”
Euroskeptic Pro-Christian Party Emerges in UK Leader Already Meets with Trump
THE UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENT PARTY (UKIP), an anti European Union or Euro-skeptic party, has recently emerged in the United Kingdom as similar parties are emerging all over Europe, most prominently in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia Greece and France.
The UK story has extra merit since Nigel Farage, a founding member of UKIP is the first foreign leader to arrive on US soil to meet with president-elect Donald Trump. Farage’s visit comes on the heels of a warning and potential snub delivered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel who immediately set liberal conditions on her relationship to the new president and by extension to America itself. In her congratulatory communication to Trump, Merkel stated:
Although, the British Prime Minister Theresa May simply congratulated Trump, without the inclusion of any implicit or veiled threat, she is in an awkward position. As Prime Minister she, not Farage, a mere Member of the European Parliament (MEP), should be the one making the visit – in short, protocol has been violated and the prime minster upstaged. To make matters worse, Trump “spoke to nine other world leaders in the 24 hours after his election win before speaking with May.”
According to Time:
“Many in Westminster are coming to terms with the fact a politician long seen as a fringe figure in British politics can command the attention of the leader of the free world. On his return, Farage reported that Trump and his aides are unhappy at the attacks leveled at the President-elect during the campaign by some government figures. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, he offered to “provide introductions and to start the necessary process of mending fences” between the two governments.
So Who is This Upstart Nigel Farage and What do We Know about His Party, UKIP
In 2013 Nigel Farage was ranked second among the 100 most influential conservatives in the UK, behind then Prime Minister David Cameron. Farage was also a founding member of UKIP. In September of 2016 (2 months before his recent November visit) Farage was in the US to speak at a Trump rally before 15,000 in Jackson, Mississippi. Introducing him, Trump stated:
“On 23 June, the people of Britain voted to declare their independence — which is what we’re looking to do also, folks! — from international government.”
Mirroring the Trump introduction, Farage told the Americans gathered in Mississippi to ignore the polls and to “stand up and fight the establishment.”
“You can beat the pollsters. You can beat the commentators… Remember, anything is possible if enough decent people are prepared to stand up against the establishment.” He added: “We can overcome the big banks, we can overcome the multinationals.” Later he stated “I wouldn’t vote for Hilary Clinton if you paid me….So many politcal representatives are politically correct parts of the liberal media elite”
Farage spent years advocating for a UK referendum to exit the EU (Brexit). His hard work paid off. By June 2016 the people of the UK voted to exit the EU. Thereafter, Farage became something of a global celebrity among right-wing conservatives including Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen of France. Clinton was correct when, after Farage’s speech in Mississippi, she linked him, as well as Donald Trump, to a conservative global movement, which she hates enough to inconsistently vilify by calling it on one hand “global” and on the other “national”.
“Clinton seized on Trump’s embrace of Farage in a speech a few days later, characterizing both men as “alt-right” figures who were part of a “rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world” (PBS News).
A movement cannot be both globalist and nationalist at the same time. Men like Trump and Farage share a set of universal values, of respect for human dignity, economic justice, fairness, family values etc. that transcend national boundaries and are truly global and universal. Hilary is caught in an imbroglio that name calling cannot fix. Nonetheless Clinton
“… went on to name Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism” (PBS News).
Clearly Ms. Clinton loathes UKIP, which was founded only a few years ago in 1991. In a short time UKIP comfortably won the 2014 European elections, received the third largest vote share in last year’s UK general election, and achieved its long-held goal of an EU exit by June’s Brexit referendum. With 22 members in The European Parliament, UKIP is the largest UK party in the European Parliament; it also has 488 councilors active in UK local government and has placed six of its members on the Welsh National Assembly.
Like other Christian based political parties emerging around Europe (and the world), UKIP has been slandered as racist and xenophobic, allegations which are as untrue as Clinton’s allegation of nationalism. UKIP represents healthy love for country and national patrimony. Since the national patrimony shared among European nations is a Christian Patrimony with regional and local cultural variations; it is therefore Catholic or universal. If universal, none of these parties can be nationalist, but they are patriotic and they do stand for love of God, for homeland and family – universal values that all men can agree upon without stooping to xenophobia, universal family values that are already part of their national patrimony unlike the global lgbt values being foisted by the liberal globalists that are not part of anyone’s patrimony but their own. The truth is, it is the liberal global crowd that are xenophobic – they aim at a one world culture and the overcoming of local regional and national cultures by one set of values for all (anywhere the liberals finally gain power), and disrespect for the rest – that is xenophobic. Since the veneer of toleration used by the left for themselves when they were a minority has worn off as they have gained considerable power, the global xenophobic values and the way they they are forcing these values on the world are no longer tolerable. It is their hypocrisy, their blatant violation of the “Golden Rule” to treat others as they want to be treated themselves; their disrespect for any values other than their own, that has led to the global movement, of which UKIP is the British example, so feared by people like Clinton.
It is probably true to say that UKIP and other emerging parties are populist, movements being fueled by the people, people everywhere who have experienced the hypocrisy and dehumanizing results of global liberalism and are rising against it. These parties represent a true democratic revolution, if by democracy we mean respect for human dignity and the common good. World wide people have simply grown tired of being told to tolerate others who refuse to tolerate them, of hosting minorities who can burn bibles and flags and get away with under protection of the law, then turn around and respond ferociously to anyone that would dare do such a thing to objects they hold sacred or dear, and this even in the host country. Frankly, the populist message is simple; “enough is enough.”
“Christianity plays a significant part in my vision for the future of Britain. I have been saying for a long time that we need a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution. This does not of course mean we should be disrespectful of other faiths, only that ours is fundamentally a Christian nation and so we believe Christianity should be recognised by Government at all levels (that is what New Era means by patrimony – the indigenous national ethos not a foreign imposition).”
“Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation’s faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy. Take the family, for instance. Traditional Christian views of marriage and family life have come under attack of late, whereas we have no problem in supporting and even promoting conventional marriage as a firm foundation for a secure and happy family.”
“We share with Christians a concern for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, and our policies provide a financial safety net for those who are unable to work, while encouraging self-reliance and eendeavorfor those who can. Our attitude to overseas development works in the same way: by re-focusing the foreign aid budget towards critical and essential aid for those in need and widening investment in free trade relationships, developing countries benefit more in the longer term from having a hand up, as well as a hand out. I believe UKIP has a lot to offer Christians, and we certainly value the participation of Christians in politics and in UKIP.”
Although UKIP does not represent the full spectrum of Christian values advocated by some, UKIP, is the British variant of a global phenomenon; it is moving in the right direction toward cultural rebirth, economic justice, service to the common good, and promotion of authentic human dignity, that are part of the Christian patrimony.
Anti EU Pro-Christian Party Emerges in UK Leader Already Meets with Trump
THE UNITED KINGDOM Independent Party (UKIP), an anti European Union or Euro-skeptic party, has recently emerged in the United Kingdom as similar parties are emerging all over Europe, most prominently in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia Greece and France.
The UK story has extra merit since Nigel Farage, a founding member of UKIP is the first foreign leader to arrive on US soil to meet with president-elect Donald Trump. Farage’s visit comes on the heels of a warning and potential snub delivered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel who immediately set liberal conditions on her relationship to the new president and by extension to America itself. In her congratulatory communication to Trump, Merkel stated:
Although, the British Prime Minister Theresa May simply congratulated Trump, without the inclusion of any implicit or veiled threat, she is in an awkward position. As Prime Minister she, not Farage, a mere Member of the European Parliament (MEP), should be the one making the visit – in short, protocol has been violated and the prime minster upstaged. To make matters worse, Trump “spoke to nine other world leaders in the 24 hours after his election win before speaking with May.”
According to Time:
“Many in Westminster are coming to terms with the fact a politician long seen as a fringe figure in British politics can command the attention of the leader of the free world. On his return, Farage reported that Trump and his aides are unhappy at the attacks leveled at the President-elect during the campaign by some government figures. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, he offered to “provide introductions and to start the necessary process of mending fences” between the two governments.
So Who is This Upstart Nigel Farage and What do We Know about His Party, UKIP
In 2013 Nigel Farage was ranked second among the 100 most influential conservatives in the UK, behind then Prime Minister David Cameron. Farage was also a founding member of UKIP. In September of 2016 (2 months before his recent November visit) Farage was in the US to speak at a Trump rally before 15,000 in Jackson, Mississippi. Introducing him, Trump stated:
“On 23 June, the people of Britain voted to declare their independence — which is what we’re looking to do also, folks! — from international government.”
Mirroring the Trump introduction, Farage told the Americans gathered in Mississippi to ignore the polls and to “stand up and fight the establishment.”
“You can beat the pollsters. You can beat the commentators… Remember, anything is possible if enough decent people are prepared to stand up against the establishment.” He added: “We can overcome the big banks, we can overcome the multinationals.” Later he stated “I wouldn’t vote for Hilary Clinton if you paid me….So many politcal representatives are politically correct parts of the liberal media elite”
Farage spent years advocating for a UK referendum to exit the EU (Brexit). His hard work paid off. By June 2016 the people of the UK voted to exit the EU. Thereafter, Farage became something of a global celebrity among right-wing conservatives including Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen of France. Clinton was correct when, after Farage’s speech in Mississippi, she linked him, as well as Donald Trump, to a conservative global movement, which she hates enough to inconsistently vilify by calling it on one hand “global” and on the other “national”.
“Clinton seized on Trump’s embrace of Farage in a speech a few days later, characterizing both men as “alt-right” figures who were part of a “rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world” (PBS News).
A movement cannot be both globalist and nationalist at the same time. Men like Trump and Farage share a set of universal values, of respect for human dignity, economic justice, fairness, family values etc. that transcend national boundaries and are truly global and universal. Hilary is caught in an imbroglio that name calling cannot fix. Nonetheless Clinton
“… went on to name Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism” (PBS News).
Clearly Ms. Clinton loathes UKIP, which was founded only a few years ago in 1991. In a short time UKIP comfortably won the 2014 European elections, received the third largest vote share in last year’s UK general election, and achieved its long-held goal of an EU exit by June’s Brexit referendum. With 22 members in The European Parliament, UKIP is the largest UK party in the European Parliament; it also has 488 councilors active in UK local government and has placed six of its members on the Welsh National Assembly.
Like other Christian based political parties emerging around Europe (and the world), UKIP has been slandered as racist and xenophobic, allegations which are as untrue as Clinton’s allegation of nationalism. UKIP represents healthy love for country and national patrimony. Since the national patrimony shared among European nations is a Christian Patrimony with regional and local cultural variations; it is therefore Catholic or universal. If universal, none of these parties can be nationalist, but they are patriotic and they do stand for love of God, for homeland and family – universal values that all men can agree upon without stooping to xenophobia, universal family values that are already part of their national patrimony unlike the global lgbt values being foisted by the liberal globalists that are not part of anyone’s patrimony but their own. The truth is, it is the liberal global crowd that are xenophobic – they aim at a one world culture and the overcoming of local regional and national cultures by one set of values for all (anywhere the liberals finally gain power), and disrespect for the rest – that is xenophobic. Since the veneer of toleration used by the left for themselves when they were a minority has worn off as they have gained considerable power, the global xenophobic values and the way they they are forcing these values on the world are no longer tolerable. It is their hypocrisy, their blatant violation of the “Golden Rule” to treat others as they want to be treated themselves; their disrespect for any values other than their own, that has led to the global movement, of which UKIP is the British example, so feared by people like Clinton.
It is probably true to say that UKIP and other emerging parties are populist, movements being fueled by the people, people everywhere who have experienced the hypocrisy and dehumanizing results of global liberalism and are rising against it. These parties represent a true democratic revolution, if by democracy we mean respect for human dignity and the common good. World wide people have simply grown tired of being told to tolerate others who refuse to tolerate them, of hosting minorities who can burn bibles and flags and get away with under protection of the law, then turn around and respond ferociously to anyone that would dare do such a thing to objects they hold sacred or dear, and this even in the host country. Frankly, the populist message is simple; “enough is enough.”
“Christianity plays a significant part in my vision for the future of Britain. I have been saying for a long time that we need a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution. This does not of course mean we should be disrespectful of other faiths, only that ours is fundamentally a Christian nation and so we believe Christianity should be recognised by Government at all levels (that is what New Era means by patrimony – the indigenous national ethos not a foreign imposition).”
“Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation’s faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy. Take the family, for instance. Traditional Christian views of marriage and family life have come under attack of late, whereas we have no problem in supporting and even promoting conventional marriage as a firm foundation for a secure and happy family.”
“We share with Christians a concern for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, and our policies provide a financial safety net for those who are unable to work, while encouraging self-reliance and eendeavorfor those who can. Our attitude to overseas development works in the same way: by re-focusing the foreign aid budget towards critical and essential aid for those in need and widening investment in free trade relationships, developing countries benefit more in the longer term from having a hand up, as well as a hand out. I believe UKIP has a lot to offer Christians, and we certainly value the participation of Christians in politics and in UKIP.”
Although UKIP does not represent the full spectrum of Christian values advocated by some, UKIP, is the British variant of a global phenomenon; it is moving in the right direction toward cultural rebirth, economic justice, service to the common good, and promotion of authentic human dignity, that are part of the Christian patrimony.
Bulgaria and Moldova Elect New Presidents who Promise Closer Relations with Russia
SUNDAY NOVEMBER 13, BULGARIA AND MOLDOVIA elected new presidents overtly friendly toward Russia. Rumen Radev, the new Bulgarian president decisively defeated the pro-Western candidate. Radev not only called for the EU to cease sanctions against Russia, he also announced his willingness to accept the Crimean referendum that made Crimea part of the Russian Federation. Nonetheless, he has also committed to maintaining Bulgaria’s commitments with the West
THE EU AND NATO have been vigorously courting Estonia, the North Baltic State of that borders Russia, into their liberal sphere of influence. Given the fact that ethnic Russians comprise roughly a quarter of Estonia’s population, the move toward Western liberalism has been strenuously opposed and the highly courted Estonian government has prematurely failed.
Prime Minister Taavi Roivas Reform Party received a vote of no-confidence from the Estonian parliament. Following the vote, the Center Party, a party that has a collaborative agreement with Putin’s United Russia Party, has surfaced as the new coalition leader. The Center Party has the support of the Russian minority and has indicated its commitment to continuing ties with Russia.
The Center Party’s agreement with United Russia states that the two share common goals and interests and should cooperate in the areas of information exchange relative to professional party building, legislative processes, financial professionalism, international relations, cultural exchange and work among youth. The agreement exists to deepen the “good-neighborly cooperation between Estonia and Russia.”
The document of collaboration was signed by Mailis Reps, current Deputy Chairman of the Center Party.