In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama reflected on his visit with the families of the victims of the Orlando terrorist attack. He reiterated that we will always stand with those impacted by the Orlando attack – and we will do everything in our power to stop homegrown terrorism attacks and ultimately destroy ISIL. With Father’s Day coming up, the President emphasized the responsibilities we have to each other – particularly to our children. Too often, events like these have been followed by silence and inaction. President Obama said in order for us to raise our children in a more loving, safer world, we must speak up for it. Whether it’s speaking up about the risks guns pose to our communities, or why tolerance and equality matter, our children need to hear us respond to these events and lead our lives with love.

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
Weekly Address
The White House
​June 18, 2016

It’s been less than a week since the deadliest mass shooting in American history. And foremost in all of our minds has been the loss and the grief felt by the people of Orlando, especially our friends who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. I visited with the families of many of the victims on Thursday. And one thing I told them is that they’re not alone. The American people, and people all over the world, are standing with them – and we always will.

The investigation is ongoing, but we know that the killer was an angry and disturbed individual who took in extremist information and propaganda over the internet, and became radicalized. During his killing spree, he pledged allegiance to ISIL, a group that’s called on people around the world to attack innocent civilians.

We are and we will keep doing everything in our power to stop these kinds of attacks, and to ultimately destroy ISIL. The extraordinary people in our intelligence, military, homeland security, and law enforcement communities have already prevented many attacks, saved many lives, and we won’t let up.

Alongside the stories of bravery and healing and coming together over the past week, we’ve also seen a renewed focus on reducing gun violence. As I said a few days ago, being tough on terrorism requires more than talk. Being tough on terrorism, particularly the sorts of homegrown terrorism that we’ve seen now in Orlando and San Bernardino, means making it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on assault weapons that are capable of killing dozens of innocents as quickly as possible. That’s something I’ll continue to talk about in the weeks ahead.

It’s also part of something that I’ve been thinking a lot about this week – and that’s the responsibilities we have to each other. That’s certainly true with Father’s Day upon us.

I grew up without my father around. While I wonder what my life would have been like if he had been a greater presence, I’ve also tried extra hard to be a good dad for my own daughters. Like all dads, I worry about my girls’ safety all the time. Especially when we see preventable violence in places our sons and daughters go every day – their schools and houses of worship, movie theaters, nightclubs, as they get older. It’s unconscionable that we allow easy access to weapons of war in these places – and then, even after we see parents grieve for their children, the fact that we as a country do nothing to prevent the next heartbreak makes no sense.

So this past week, I’ve also thought a lot about dads and moms around the country who’ve had to explain to their children what happened in Orlando. Time and again, we’ve observed moments of silence for victims of terror and gun violence. Too often, those moments have been followed by months of silence. By inaction that is simply inexcusable. If we’re going to raise our kids in a safer, more loving world, we need to speak up for it. We need our kids to hear us speak up about the risks guns pose to our communities, and against a status quo that doesn’t make sense. They need to hear us say these things even when those who disagree are loud and are powerful. We need our kids to hear from us why tolerance and equality matter – about the times their absence has scarred our history and how greater understanding will better the future they will inherit. We need our kids to hear our words – and also see us live our own lives with love.

And we can’t forget our responsibility to remind our kids of the role models whose light shines through in times of darkness. The police and first responders, the lifesaving bystanders and blood donors. Those who comfort mourners and visit the wounded. The victims whose last acts on this earth helped others to safety. They’re not just role models for our kids – their actions are examples for all of us.

To be a parent is to come to realize not everything is in our control. But as parents, we should remember there’s one responsibility that’s always in our power to fulfill: our obligation to give our children unconditional love and support; to show them the difference between right and wrong; to teach them to love, not to hate; and to appreciate our differences not as something to fear, but as a great gift to cherish.

To me, fatherhood means being there. So in the days ahead, let’s be there for each other. Let’s be there for our families, and for those that are hurting. Let’s come together in our communities and as a country. And let’s never forget how much good we can achieve simply by loving one another.

Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there, and have a great weekend.

At least 12 people have been arrested overnight during anti-terrorist operations across Belgium on suspicion of plotting attacks, the federal prosecutor said. Reports emerged that one of the suspects worked at Zaventem Airport and had previously contacted a Brussels suicide bomber.

Three of the suspects have been charged with attempting to commit terrorist acts, while nine were released, according to the prosecutor, RTBF reports.

According to the prosecutor, a Brussels judge specializing in terrorism placed Samir C., Mustafa B., and Jawad B., under arrest. All three are Belgian citizens.

Earlier on Saturday, the prosecutor stated that “in connection with a criminal investigation concerning terrorism… 40 people were taken for questioning. Twelve of them were arrested.”

Some 40 addresses were searched during the raid.

The anti-terrorism operation was carried out in 16 areas, according to RTBF. Apart from Brussels, these sites included Molenbeek-St-Jean, Schaerbeek, Anderlecht, Koekelberg, Sint-Agatha-Berchem, Evere, Forest, Watermael-Boitsfort, Ganshoren, Zaventem, Ninove, Wemmel, Fleurus Tubize and Liège.

“Evidence was gathered [and] as part of the instruction [we] needed to intervene immediately,” the federal prosecutor said in a statement.

No weapons or explosives have been found during the raids so far.

The suspects were planning to carry out attacks in the areas of events linked to Euro-2016 in Brussels this weekend, Flemish-speaking VTM broadcaster reported.

The broadcaster added that the attacks could have been targeted the festive events linked to Saturday’s Euro-2016 match.

One of the suspects arrested Friday evening was reportedly working at Brussels’ Zaventem Airport, local media reported, citing sources. Man who was identified by the media as Youssef E.A, 29, was allegedly a childhood friend of Khalid El Bakraoui, one of the suicide bombers in Brussels’ Maelbeek metro station on March 22.

The man had direct access to the planes, local media said. Police reportedly found messages on his computer allegedly sent to El Bakraoui which state that planes from US, Russia and Israel take off every Tuesday from Zaventem.

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel announced that Euro 2016-related events would go ahead as planned in the country, but with extra security measures.

“We want to continue living normally… The situation is under control,” he said at a news conference. “We are extremely vigilant, we are monitoring the situation hour-by-hour and we will continue with determination the fight against extremism, radicalization and terrorism.”

Belgium has been on high alert since twin suicide bombings hit Brussels’ Airport and Maelbeek Metro station on March 22. The Metro station was not far from the building housing the EU Commission and the Council of the European Union, as well as NATO headquarters.

With a population of about 11 million people, Belgium has been the source of more Islamic State (IS formerly, ISIS/ISIL) recruits per capita than any other country in Europe, according to the United Nations Working Group.

Numerous raids have been held in the mainly Muslim area of Brussels called Molenbeek, which is often referred to as an “Islamist hotspot.” Many of the suspects involved in the Paris attacks grew up and lived in Molenbeek, including terror mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the Abdeslam brothers, and Mohamed Abrini, who was also involved in the Brussels attacks.

Earlier in June, reports emerged that Belgium’s capital may once again see terror attacks beginning this month, as schools, hospitals and public places where people gather for Euro-2016 related events may be targeted by extremists during the Islamic Ramadan holiday.

In May, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) called on its followers to carry out terror attacks in the US and Europe during Ramadan. The message said that June should be made into a “month of calamity” for unbelievers all over the world.

On September 9, 1971, prisoners incarcerated at the Attica state penitentiary in New York rose up in rebellion. After a four-day long insurrection 33 prisoners and 10 prison employees lay dead. The name Attica still resonates as a symbol of the inhumane treatment that America metes out to 2 million of its people.

Americans love to think of themselves as “democratic,” “developed,” “advanced,” or “civilized” when comparing themselves and their nation to the rest of the world. The self-serving deception is typical but preposterous in the country with the largest percentage of its population and the largest number of people overall locked away in prisons.

The response to the liberation movement of the 1960s and early 1970s was the creation of a gulag stretching from sea to shining sea. Despite the Attica rebellion, New York state was no exception. Democratic governor and liberal icon Mario Cuomo created 30 additional prisons by using funds meant to build low income housing. Not only has the number of prisoners expanded around the country but so has the number of ways in which they can be exploited.

The image of prisoners breaking rocks or making license plates is a relic of old movies. Now they are exploited in for-profit prisons and forced to work for corporations or the prison system itself for little or no pay. The 13^th Amendment, which ended slavery, deliberately excluded imprisonment from the ban on involuntary servitude. The exploitation of prisoners is enshrined in the Constitution. If the call center voice on the phone isn’t from India it is probably coming from a prison right here in America.

The corporate media ignore the prison protests which have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. Work stoppages began in Georgia in 2010, and continued in Alabama in 2014 and in Texas and Ohio this year. Not only are prisoners used to fatten the bottom line for corporations by making uniforms for McDonald’s employees or car parts for Honda, they and their families must pay exorbitant rates to make phone calls. They are charged for substandard medical care. Incarcerated women are limited in the amount of feminine hygiene products they can use and are shackled while giving birth.

The list of oppression is a long one and that is why incarcerated people themselves have issued a “Call to Action Against Slavery in America” to take place on September 9, 2016 (*link 9/9). They hope to damage the profit making apparatus of the prison system by refusing to work.

It is up to truly advanced and civilized people to help make the struggle known. A cursory glance at any American city or town shows people of all races walking about freely, working or spending leisure time. But the insidious nature of the prison system hides the worst and most persistent inhumanity in this country. Half of the people locked away are black and they are out of sight and thus out of mind. But they have courageously called for the work stoppage and remind us why our efforts are so important.

“…we need support from people on the outside. A prison is an easy-lockdown environment, a place of control and confinement where repression is built into every stone wall and chain link, every gesture and routine. When we stand up to these authorities, they come down on us, and the only protection we have is solidarity from the outside.”

One of the founders of the Free Alabama Movement is Robert Council. He has steadfastly maintained his innocence despite serving more than 20 years for murder. Still in solitary confinement after leading the 2014 work stoppage, he explains the importance of the tactic. “We were begging [officials] to please follow the rules. Please have mercy on me. We’re asking some people to have mercy that just don’t have any mercy. That revelation brought us to the fact that you can’t appeal to the moral [part] of a system that doesn’t have morals.”

The mass incarceration system is inherently merciless and immoral and it must be exposed. There should never again be a call to lock more people away or to further criminalize any violent or non-violent offenses in this country. Racist hysteria about dead beat dads, drug kingpins and super predators has been used to ruin thousands of lives and make money for governments and big business. The call to action must be heeded and the people fighting against the worst cruelty in the country must be supported.

By Mohammad Khajouei*

The US Department of State has recently released its “Country Report on Terrorism 2015” in which it has put Iran on the top of the list of countries allegedly sponsoring terrorism. Therefore, mentioning the following five points seems to be necessary in this regard:

1. The US Department of State has declared Iran as a major sponsor of terrorism in 2015 at a time that Iran has been a pioneer in fighting the main symbol of terrorism in the Middle East, which is the Daesh terrorist group, during the same year. Under conditions when frequent reports have denoted that certain regional countries, which happen to have profound and strategic relations with the United States, are helping some terrorist groups in the region, Iran has stood against major terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, not only in slogans, but in the real theater of war, and has suffered heavy costs in this regard, including the loss of a large number of its military commanders and soldiers.

The bitter irony of this story is that American officials, who have now put Iran’s name on top of the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, have frequently talked about the role played by Iran in the fight against Daesh. Less than two months ago, US Secretary of State John Kerry, said in an interview with the New York Times that Iran is really seeking to destroy Daesh. He had also expressed hope that Washington would be able to join hands with Iran in fighting terrorists in Syria.

It seems that this clear contradiction between the words and deeds of American officials will, more than anything else, cast doubt on their credibility.

2. During the same year that the US Department of State claims Iran has topped the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, Saudi Arabia has been attacking its southern neighbor, Yemen, and as evidenced by international institutions, has embarked on massacring Yemeni civilians, especially children. Of course, due to pressures from Saudi Arabia and Riyadh’s threat that it would cut financial contribution to the UN, its name was taken off the blacklist of countries killing children in war, but this issue does not change the main case. The question is “why the name of this country, which embarks on such clear acts of terrorism, is not on the American list of countries sponsoring terrorism and instead, another country which has been spearheading the fight against Daesh in the region, is viewed as the main culprit in supporting terrorism?

Another interesting and of course bitter point is that the recent report released by the US Department of State comes amid hot debates about the role played by senior officials of Saudi Arabia in the terrorist attacks that hit New York on September 11, 2011. Meanwhile, the 9/11 terror attacks have been frequently introduced in recent years by various American officials as the most obvious symbol of terrorism. Now, one must wait and see whether the effort made to hide Saudi Arabia’s role in these terrorist attacks has had anything to do with Riyadh’s petrodollars as was the case with the recent measure by the UN to remove the name of Saudi Arabia from the list of violators of the rights of children?

3. As time goes by and many countries, including the United States, distance from human ethics and principles, and at a time that many issues are looked upon as tools to achieve ends, the logic underlying the release of numerous lists like this on such issues as terrorism and human rights is at best in doubt. There are many signs indicating that such lists are mostly used as tools and are a function of relations among countries. The most important issue, however, is that such significant terms as the fight against terrorism and advocating human rights are increasingly losing both their credit and meaning. This development would not benefit the world politics in the long run.

4. Repetition of some unconstructive policies, including the recent measure by the US Department of State, seizing USD two billion of Iran’s assets in the United States, or some measures in the past such as including Iran in the so-called “Axis of Evil” (under the former US President George Bush Jr.), all of which were taken after adoption of an interactive and positive policy by Iran, can only increase distrust toward the United States among Iranian officials and people. This distrust will, in turn, serve as a major obstacle to reduction of the existing tensions in relations between Tehran and Washington and will slow down the march toward normalization of these relations. Many people in Iran are of the opinion that adoption of an interactive and constructive approach in the face of the United States would be futile in the long run, because past experience shows that Washington will not show a positive reaction to adoption of this approach by Tehran.

5. The recent measure taken by the United States is in line with Washington’s unchanging policy of taking advantage of pressure tools concurrent with diplomatic efforts, especially with regard to the nuclear issue. However, it must not be forgotten that under conditions when the nuclear deal is still at its beginning, such measures will intentionally or unintentionally deal drastic blows to this important agreement. Such hostile measures will further trigger fears about possible rekindling of tensions in bilateral relations, which may in turn lead to new problems. As a result, they increase conservatism and caution on the part of foreign companies and banks that are willing to reestablish relations with Iran. This is in contrast to the fact that according to the nuclear agreement, such obstacles were supposed to be done away with. Naturally, under such conditions, these measures may elicit Iran’s reaction and if such instances continue, the nuclear deal will gradually turn into a piece of scrap paper and nothing more. However, failure of the nuclear deal, which was clinched by all involved parties after many years of discord, would be detrimental to all of them.

*Mohammad Khajouei
Senior Middle East Analyst

Researchers of Aalto University have developed surfaces where oil transports itself to desired directions. Researchers’ oleophobic surfaces are microtextured with radial arrays of undercut stripes. When oil drops fall on these surfaces, drops move away from the landing point to the direction set by asymmetric geometrical patterning of the surface. The surfaces open new avenues for power-free liquid transportation and oil contamination self-removal applications in analytical and fluidic devices.

“We developed surfaces that are able to move liquid oil droplets by surface tension forces. Droplets from anywhere within the pattern will spontaneously move to the center of the pattern,” said Post-doctoral Researcher Ville Jokinen.

“Although surface engineering facilitates effective liquid manipulation and enables water droplet self-transportation on synthetic surfaces, self-transportation of oil droplets posed a major challenge because of their low surface tension, ” added Post-doctoral Researcher Xuelin Tian.

New surfaces are also able to move low surface tension liquids other than oil. They work for water, wine and even pure ethanol.

Directional liquid transportation of water is also found in nature, for instance, in cactus needles and the shells of desert beetles. Researchers see a range of industrial applications.

“The droplets position themselves very accurately at the center of the pattern. This could be used to deposit arrays of functional materials. We envision the patterns being used the other way around as well, for instance, to transport unwanted stray droplets away from critical areas of devices, such as to prevent clogging of nozzles in inkjet printing,” said Professor Robin Ras.

Researchers studying bone artifacts discovered in the Kuumbi Cave, Zanzibar, have found evidence to suggest that bone tools were used for hunting, and even as poison arrow tips. The findings, published in the journal Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, suggest that bone technology was a central element to the Kuumbi Cave’s inhabitants over 13,000 years ago.

Bone technology – such as its use as an arrow tip – was essential to a Stone Age man’s lifestyle and has been shown to have been in use 60,000 years ago. The majority of the evidence to support this has been found in sites in southern Africa, but now the artifacts found in the Kuumbi Cave show that this technology was being adopted in eastern Africa as well.

The researchers investigated seven bone artifacts recovered from the Kuumbi Cave, five bone projectile points, a bone awl, and a notched bone tube. By analyzing the artifacts with a camera and microscopes, they were able to compare the manufacture techniques and wear to previous discoveries and to attempts to replicate this technology in the laboratory.

Their findings showed that the bone projectile points are likely to have been used for poison arrows, partly due to the slender and short nature of the arrow heads, and partly supported by a previous discovery of charcoal from the Mkunazi plant, which is known to have poisonous fruit.

The use of poison-tipped arrows by a Stone Age man is thought to have stemmed from a lack of technology and stone-tipped arrows often lack the power to directly kill larger animals, such as zebra or buffalo. Previous work has estimated that poison-tipped arrows may have been used as far back as 24,000 BP (years before present), and the researchers conclude that this technology, better known from southern Africa, may also have been used 13,000 BP in eastern Africa.

By Mary Rezac

The story of Sister Teresita Castillo and the supposed Marian apparitions of Lipa City, Philippines reads something like a mystery novel.

A negative judgement from the Vatican on the apparition most likely drove the visionary nun out of the convent.

Years later, some bishops involved in the disapproval of the case allegedly came forward with deathbed confessions, saying they only ruled against the apparitions on threat of excommunication.

A document from the 1950s that would further clarify the case is still being kept secret in the archives of the Vatican.

Last month, the local Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles announced that the Holy See had reiterated its negative judgement on the supernatural nature of the apparitions. The reiteration was a rebuttal to the archbishop, who had a few months prior announced (without Vatican approval) that the apparition had been reapproved as supernatural.

The exchange was just the latest in a decades-long ping-pong match between the Vatican and the local clergy over whether or not the popular local devotion should be officially approved.

As it currently stands, the apparitions of Mary in Lipa – known as Mary, Mediatrix of all Grace – are officially considered “not supernatural in nature” by the Holy See.

The highest recognition that the Catholic Church gives to an alleged miracle is that it is “worthy of belief.” If investigations determine an event to be fraudulent or lacking in supernatural character, a rejection may be issued.

Alternatively, the Church may declare that there is nothing contrary to the faith in a supposed miraculous phenomenon – but without making a determination on whether a supernatural character is present.

However, in an unprecedented move in this case, the Lipa apparitions are not considered supernatural, but local devotion is still allowed.

“I believe it to be the singular case in history where you have a negative judgement, but the devotion is allowed,” Michael O’Neill, a Catholic miracle researcher and author who runs the website miraclehunter.com, told CNA.

Visions in gardens and rose petals from heaven

This unique, mysterious and still-contentious case all began with a young nun in a quiet convent garden in 1948.

Sr. Teresita, also known as Sr. Teresing, was just 21 years old when allegedly, Mary began appearing to her in the garden of her Carmelite convent in Lipa City. On September 12, 1948, the young nun was outside praying when one of the garden vines began to shake. She then heard the voice of the Virgin Mary, who asked Teresita to kiss the ground and return to the same spot for fifteen days.

Sr. Teresita returned, and Mary reportedly appeared to her on a cloud, dressed in simple white robes with a small belt, hands clasped, and a golden Rosary hanging from her right hand.

According to the visionary nun, throughout her 19 appearances that year, Mary stressed humility, penance, prayers for the clergy and the Pope, and to pray the Rosary. Teresita reported that there was one secret for herself, one for the Carmel convent in Lipa City, one for China, one for the entire world from the Blessed Mother.

At her final appearance on November 12, 1948, Mary reportedly called herself by the title “Mediatrix of All Grace,” a title derived from the Second Vatican Council document “Lumen gentium.” Also associated with the apparition are rose petals that seemed to fall from heaven, and appear to be emblazoned with images of Jesus, Mary and the Saints.

The mysterious negative ruling

Fast forward three years later, to 1951. Sr. Teresita left the convent sometime in 1950, likely because of all the controversy surrounding the apparitions.

The local bishop, Alfredo Verzosa y Florentin, had approved the veneration of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace, and the devotion easily grew in popularity in the already-Marian spirituality of the Filipino faithful.

Despite the approval from the local bishop, a committee of Church hierarchy in the Philippines declared on April 11, 1951, that “there was no supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings including the shower of rose petals in Lipa.”

The statement also contained the contentious phrase “until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See”.

Bishop Rufino Santos, who became apostolic administrator after the decision, ordered that no petals be given to anyone by the Lipa Carmelite community; and that the statue of Our Lady, Mediatrix be withdrawn from public view.

Veneration of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace remained officially disallowed for decades after the judgement of the committee, until February of 1990.

On February 11, 1990, the nephew of Bishop Cesar M. Guerrero, one of the signers of the 1951 negative judgment, swore in an affidavit that his uncle signed the document under duress and was a believer in the authenticity of the apparitions, according to a book about the Lipa apparitions by June Keithley. The Catholic Bishops Conference in the Philippines did not respond by press time to requests for comment on the matter.

Local devotion grows

Later that year, a sister at the Lipa Carmel convent requested on her deathbed that the statue of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace be brought back for veneration. The community obliged, and the statue was displayed in the convent chapel the next day.

Soon after, Msgr. Mariano Gaviola, Archbishop of Lipa at the time, lifted the ban from Bishop Rufino Santos and allowed the statue to be displayed.

In 2005, Most Reverend Ramon C. Arguelles, the new and still-current Archbishop of Lima, kicked off a campaign to further spread devotion and to place a statue of the Mediatrix of All Grace in parishes throughout the country, and publicly professed his personal devotion and belief in the apparition on numerous occasions.

The ping-pong match continues

Archbishop Arguelles felt so passionately about the devotion that on Nov. 12, 2009, on the 61st anniversary of Mary’s alleged final appearance to Sister Teresita, he officially lifted the 1951 ban on public veneration of the image, and formed a new commission to re-examine the apparition and related phenomena.

Once again, about a year later, the Vatican shut it down.

“We, the undersigned Archbishops and bishops, constituting for the purpose a special Commission, having attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimonies collected in the course of repeated, long and careful investigations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the above mentioned evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings – including the shower of petals – at the Carmel of Lipa,” they said in a statement.

But Archbishop Arguelles’ personal faith in the devotion did not budge. After declaring in another homily his personal devotion and belief in the apparitions, he released an official statement of approval of the apparitions on Sept. 12, 2015 declaring “that the events and apparition of 1948 also known as the Marian phenomenon in Lipa and its aftermath even in recent times do exhibit supernatural character and is worthy of belief.”

Which brings the saga to last month, when the archbishop once again had to revoke his statement of official approval of the supernatural nature of the apparitions.

It’s likely the first time ever that the Vatican and a local bishop have had so much back and forth over a supposed apparition, O’Neill said.

“This is completely historic that the archbishop flipped over a Vatican confirmation of a previous judgement, and historic that the Vatican has come back over and flipped back a statement of the local bishops; those two things have never happened before,” he said.

What’s the problem?

What makes the alleged apparitions and related phenomena – the rose petals – so contentious?

O’Neill said that while it is not known for sure, there are a few reasons that the Holy See may be hesitant to declare the apparitions as supernatural.

One of these reasons, he said, may be because Sr. Teresita’s first mystical experience was actually an encounter with the devil.

“There has always been the question of whether the devil was disguised in further apparitions,” he said.

Another issue could be the complexity of the various related phenomena surrounding the apparition, O’Neill said, including the shower of rose petals and a claim from several children who said they saw the statue come to life.

“So when you look at this – do you approve the whole thing? Or do you approve just the apparitions? Or what’s true or what’s a hoax? It’s a little bit of confusing territory when you have to deal with these many different types of mystical phenomena,” O’Neill said.

So many mysteries remain with this supposed apparition.

Where are these affidavits of the supposed deathbed confessions of bishops who claim they were coerced into the negative judgement? How thoroughly did the original committee of bishops examine the case – and what led them to the negative judgement? Archbishop Arguelles, as well as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

If the document surfaced that confirmed Pope Pius XII’s approval of the negative judgement in 1951, there would be no way to reopen the case. But such a document, if it does indeed exist in this case, would be in the archives of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which only releases documents to the public, with few exceptions, once they are more than 80 years old.

On a recent visit to Lipa, O’Neill said he was able to visit the convent where Sr. Teresita supposedly had visions of Mary.

The sisters there, he said, remain privately devoted to Mary, Mediatrix of all Grace. Though they remain obedient to the Holy See, they, as well as many of the faithful, quietly hope the case could be reconsidered in the future.

In a country with 33 canonically recognized icons of Mary, the country’s Marian devotion is “incredible,” O’Neill said.

“So there’s a great amount of disappointment among the people of the Philippines who followed this devotion, but they remain obedient to the Holy See.”

The anti-Muslim, extreme right-wing, Britain First party, has disavowed any connection to Thomas Mair, the man who has been charged with murdering British MP Jo Cox.

When Mair appeared in Westminster magistrates court in London today, he answered the judge’s request to confirm his name by saying: “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”

The Guardian also reports:

The prosecution told the court that Mair told police he was “a political activist” as he was being arrested moments after the fatal attack. This assertion was repeated in a summary of crime released by the prosecution.

Mair also allegedly said “this is for Britain” and “keep Britain independent” as he stabbed and shot the MP for Batley and Spen, prosecutors said both in court and in their printed outline of the case.

Police searching Mair’s property found newspaper articles related to Cox, as well as far-right and white supremacist literature, they claimed.

Whatever assessment is made of Mair’s mental health, there seems to be no question that this was a politically motivated murder.

Witnesses to the murder reported that Mair shouted “Britain first” while attacking Cox.

The photograph above (which is circulating on social media) shows members of Britain First’s Northern Brigade in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, just three miles away from Birstall where Cox was murdered. Whether the man in the baseball cap is indeed Mair remains unknown. But there is mounting evidence of Mair’s long-standing ties to right-wing extremism in the form of Nazi regalia found in his home along with literature on how to construct homemade guns and explosives.

Britain First recently organized an “activist training camp” in North Wales where its members “learned things including self-defence, martial arts, knife defence,” according to a report at WalesOnline.

In March, Britain First made clear its deadly hostility to EU supporters:

Deputy leader, Jayda Fransen, admonished their “pro-EU, Islamist-loving opponents” for “ruining our country”.

She added: “They think they can get away with ruining our country, turning us into a Third World country, giving away our homes, jobs and heritage, but they will face the wrath of the Britain First movement, make no mistake about it!

“We will not rest until every traitor is punished for their crimes against our country.

“And by punished, I mean good old fashioned British justice at the end of a rope!”

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir has described the visit of Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to Washington as fruitful and positive.

Responding to questions from journalists after the deputy crown prince was hosted by US President Barack Obama at the Oval Office on Friday, the foreign minister said the meeting was constructive and aimed at strengthening bilateral ties.

“Bilateral talks have covered regional issues and several other files,” he was quoted as saying by local media on Saturday.

Al-Jubeir stressed that the Kingdom’s position on Syria coincided with that of Washington, indicating that the two countries agree on a political solution to the crisis in that country and the need to remove Bashar Assad.

Saudi Arabia is seeking to preserve Syrian territorial integrity and protect state institutions, for which it has repeatedly called for military intervention, he said. “The crisis will end, provided Bashar Assad relinquishes power, either through political process or by force,” he asserted.

On Yemen, Al-Jubeir said the coalition led by Saudi Arabia is making every effort to reduce losses, reaffirming that the UAE is a key state in the alliance for the restoration of legitimacy in Yemen.

“We want a political solution in Yemen that would lead to the launch of a transitional phase, followed by the reconstruction phase,” he said.

Al-Jubeir accused Iran of trying to destabilize the region, saying: “Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of neighboring countries and is exporting terrorism. There is no change in the position of Riyadh toward Tehran.”

Iran is a “country seeking to export its revolution, supporting terrorism and trying to destabilize security and stability, in the region,” he said.

“Tehran ignites sectarian strife in the region and pursues aggressive behavior,” he said, urging it to respect the principles of good neighborliness and non-interference in the affairs of other countries.

Al-Jubeir said the delegation accompanying the deputy crown prince held several meetings in Washington with businessmen, representatives of American companies, members of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and a group of ministers, in addition to Saudis studying in the US.

The meetings with US officials were aimed at strengthening strategic relationship between the two countries and explaining Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 to the Americans.

“The response from the American side was very positive, and underscored that the relations between the two countries are historical, strategic and mutually beneficial,” he added.

By Thomas Burri*

(EurActiv) — The foundational treaties of the European Union certainly allow the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Union. This much is clear, at least since the Treaty of Lisbon introduced article 50 into the Treaty on European Union, one of the foundational treaties. Yet, leaving the Union would not be smooth. A large number of issues would have to be settled. That is why article 50 requires that withdrawal be negotiated between the Union and the member state having given a clear exit signal.

One of the issues to be tackled is the existing migration already having taken place within the Union. Over the years, many nationals of the member states have migrated to the United Kingdom. Vice versa many citizens of the United Kingdom have migrated to other member states. All of them have done so as European citizens – EU citizenship being a status that the foundational treaties confer upon any national of a member state of the Union. (To be precise, most of them have done so as workers; the status of worker confers more solid rights under Union law than EU citizenship, but for simplicity let us focus on the latter.)

Legitimate Expectations

Indeed, part of the reason why the discussion about withdrawing from the Union is occurring in the United Kingdom in the first place is the allegedly large number of incoming EU citizens who, it is said, are exploiting generous British social benefits.

To be clear, the law of Union citizenship does not grant anyone the right to migrate in search of social benefits. Quite the contrary, it requires Union citizens either to work in the host state or to have sufficient resources not to become a burden to it. It is up to the host state, in this case the United Kingdom, to enforce this rule.

So, if British benefits flow too freely, the discussion should be about the British legal order and the way it enforces rules, rather than about leaving the Union or amending/renegotiating its rules of free movement. Yet, here we are, required to discuss migration with the United Kingdom, mainly because some politicians were unable to resist the temptation to pander to populist instincts.

So, the migration issue eventually to be settled by exit negotiations involves the Union citizens who are currently present in the United Kingdom. It is to their situation, and to their situation only, that the rest of this text is devoted. (Clearly though, the situation of British citizens in the Union after withdrawal of the United Kingdom would also merit more attention than it is currently being given.)

These Union citizens had come to the United Kingdom with certain legitimate expectations. I deliberately use the term legitimate expectations. EU citizens cannot have the same trust in the law that they could have otherwise had. But trust in legislative acts is not protected by the law. (For simplicity, I treat the foundational treaties as legislative acts.) Legislative acts can be changed. Article 50 of the Treaty says just that. One may entertain the hope that a legislative act will not be changed, but if it is, the hope does not generally, absent special circumstances, translate into a claim protected by the law.

The structural guarantee of the ‘new legal order’

Yet, legitimate expectations are more than mere hopes. What makes them more is the ‘new legal order’ the Court of Justice of the European Community, now of the European Union, proclaimed in Van Gend en Loos in 1963. It is a legal order protected by ‘the rule of law’ at the heart of which is a ‘constitution (al charter’, Les Verts, 1986) that is protected by the Court of Justice itself. It is a legal order at the centre of which the Court put the individual as a trader (Dassonville, 1974), worker (Bosman, 1995), fundamental rights holder (Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970), and Union citizen (Martínez Sala, 1998).

This ‘new legal order’ – which by now is quite old – implies a structural guarantee given to the individual, namely that its rights cannot be unilaterally altered by a member state. And if they were, the Court of Justice would see to it that any alteration would be undone.

It is this structural guarantee that is important here. An entire legal machinery was constructed to remove the rights of the individual from the grasp of the member states. This legal machinery is embedded in a constitution (al charter) that is the most solid and unalterable in the entire world.

The foundational treaties can only be changed, if all – all – member states agree unanimously. Even the Charter of the United Nations, a classic treaty of international law that is respectful of the sovereignty of the member states of the United Nations, is amended more easily than the Union treaties. (It requires a two thirds majority of the member states, including the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.) Constitutions of true federations are flexible by the standards of the Union. The constitution of Switzerland, for example, is amended by a double majority of both the people and the cantons.

Rights depending on the whim of others

This solid legal ‘Überbau’ of the Union has engendered the legitimate expectation on the part of EU citizens that they have exercised their rights, that these rights will not only be honoured but also not suddenly depend on the whim of a specific state. For this is what would happen if the United Kingdom withdraws from the Union. The rights of EU citizens currently living in the United Kingdom would ultimately depend solely on the United Kingdom (even if negotiations preceded a withdrawal). Gone would be the old legal order with the Court of Justice that would have safeguarded their rights. In its place British institutions would step in, whimsical as they apparently are.

How could these legitimate expectations be handled in case that the United Kingdom really did withdraw? Bilateral treaties concluded with every single member state and/or the Union are a potential substitute, though a poor one. Even if these treaties were entrusted to the Court of Justice to safeguard the rights of Union citizens in the United Kingdom – an option that would hardly satisfy the need, at the heart of the withdrawal debate, to reassert British sovereignty – such bilateral treaties would likely depend more on unilateral acts of the United Kingdom than the foundational treaties of the Union.

What is more, they would create a sort of ‘super citizen’ who would hold ossified rights which no one else could any longer attain. Clearly, this would beget envy, if not rise issues of constitutional equality.

‘The unexpected precariat’

Alternatively, the Union citizens present in the United Kingdom could be granted British citizenship as per the United Kingdom’s withdrawal. However, even this solution, generous on the face of it, has drawbacks. Depending on home state regulation, it would require certain EU citizens to abandon their home state citizenship. The solution would not benefit from the structural backbone Union citizenship has (had), either, though it admittedly would avoid inequalities under constitutional law.

By way of conclusion, a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union would necessarily have the effect of frustrating certain legitimate expectations of Union citizens. They would then become what Caroline Sawyer, a researcher, recently called ‘the unexpected precariat’.

No easy way to avoid this frustration is in sight. While it would not necessarily entail legal consequences, other states – and individuals – would certainly think twice in the future before they would trust the United Kingdom’s word.

*Thomas Burri is professor of international and European law at the University of St Gallen in Switzerland.

There is a long history of social critics and progressive thinkers offering critiques of human society.

Among those who are better known, Karl Marx offered a critique of capitalism, anarchists have critiqued the state, Mohandas K. Gandhi offered a critique of industrial society, Sigmund Freud and Herbert Marcuse offered critiques of civilization, and feminists have critiqued patriarchy. In addition, critiques of colonial/industrial society by indigenous people, critiques of white society by people of color, critiques of modern industrial society by environmentalists and cultural historians as well as critiques of technocratic society by a succession of scholars have been presented.

While these and other critiques have much to offer, if we want to trace the origin of the dysfunctional and violent human behaviours that now threaten human extinction, I believe it is necessary to examine what has been happening since the Neolithic (agricultural) revolution some 12,000 years ago.

From the evolution of homo sapiens until the Neolithic revolution, human beings lived as hunter-gatherers following the seasonal round. During this long period, virtually all activities from hunting and gathering food to a multiplicity of social and cultural activities were simply manifestations of a felt desire to do something functional, meaningful and enjoyable. While some aspects of socialization during this period were undoubtedly designed to control individual behaviour towards what was seen as beneficial for the group, the damage from this was limited for society as a whole (if not for the individual).

However, with the discovery that seeds could be collected, stored, transported, planted and nurtured, settlement became possible. And activities of a different nature, which we now call ‘farming’, emerged. In many ways, of course, farming activities of this nature were still functional, meaningful and enjoyable. And there was probably a higher level of security in some contexts, at least, although there was also a decrease in security from a new range of threats including diminishing soil fertility (requiring effort to replenish it).

So my central questions are these? Is there a point at which a human activity ceases to be volitional – ‘functional, meaningful and enjoyable’ – and becomes something that is socially controlled, what we might now call ‘work’? And what are the implications of this transition?

For the purposes of this article, I define ‘work’, rather broadly, as the mental and physical activity of undertaking any task that is directed and controlled by others for the benefit of others (which means that it is not possible for the individual to be adequately compensated for the effort expended and time lost). In some contexts, if the work is conducted for the exclusive benefit of others it is called ‘slavery’ which, incidentally, now involves more people than at any previous time in human history.

Why do I say that, by working, ‘it is not possible for the individual to be adequately compensated for the effort expended and time lost’?

The human organism is genetically programmed to follow their own Self-will. A human being is not genetically programmed to obey the will of another, whether they be parent, teacher, religious figure, political leader or anyone else. An individual’s Self-will manifests through such mental functions as thoughts, feelings and conscience. It is this Self-will that the individual is meant to follow throughout their life (just as non-human individuals of all species still live this way if they are not imprisoned, enslaved or domesticated by humans).

However, while the Neolithic revolution occurred spontaneously in several parts of the world, some of the Neolithic societies that emerged in Asia, Europe, Central America and South America resorted to increasing degrees of social control in order to achieve a variety of social and economic outcomes, including increased efficiency in food production. Civilizations, which emerged just over five thousand years ago and were characterized by towns or cities, efficient food production allowing a large minority of the community to be engaged in more specialized activities, a centralized bureaucracy and the practice of skilled warfare, were then built on this higher degree of social control.

So how was this social control achieved? The same way that social control is achieved today: by terrorizing children into obedience. If you want control it is better to start when the individual is very young.

Of course, the nature of modern society requires a phenomenal level of terrorization to prepare children for what constitutes ‘life’ in the modern world: an endless series of hurdles that must be jumped so that we are channeled into one or another version of socially-approved behavior, including work.

But the cost to the individual and, ultimately, society of this terrorization process is enormous. Terrorizing a child into suppressing their awareness of the feelings that should help guide their Self-will so that they ‘learn’ to behave (especially by doing ‘work’) in violation of that Self-will causes enormous behavioral dysfunctionality including violence against themSelf, others and the Earth.

And once we have been terrorized into submitting to the will of adults during our early childhood, which also means that we are terrorized out of feeling and expressing how we feel about this submission – invariably some combination of fear, anger, emotional pain and sadness – we must unconsciously suppress our awareness of how we feel about doing what others want rather than doing what we want. For a fuller explanation of this, see ‘Why Violence?‘ and ‘FearlessPsychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice‘.

For this reason, and in modern society within a year of starting school (the work place of children), children cease to be free to do what they want and they become slaves to the will of others (with virtually none of their time left to use as they wish).

Moreover, having been terrorized into surrendering their time to be controlled (by doing work directed) by others, by adolescence they have both deeply suppressed any awareness of their own Self-will and become addicted to the compensation – represented ultimately by money – to buy caricatures of freedom (a consumer item, some entertainment, a holiday) for use in their ‘spare’ time (that is, that little time left over after doing all of the work required by others). And because they have been terrorized into suppressing awareness of the feelings that would tell them otherwise, they learn to rationalize and justify what they are doing in terms of what is ‘sensible’ in the modern world. For example: ‘I work to pay off the mortgage on my house.’

As adults, they then participate in terrorizing another generation into doing what other people want.

If you think my critique sounds simplistic, I offer you a simple test of its validity: If you feel free to choose precisely what you do each and every moment of your life, what is the list of things you would like to do during the next week? And during each week for the rest of your life? Are you now going to do these things? If not, the odds are high that you have also been terrorized into believing that not doing what you want is ‘behaving responsibly’: a wonderful way of obscuring what has taken place.

But what of structural and cultural violence you say? What about the way patriarchy, the industrial revolution (with its enclosure of the commons), capitalism and a whole host of other structures as well as cultural practices limit or even deny us opportunities and choices?

Well these are obviously important too. I am just saying that if we want to understand their origin and why they still survive, we must consider the implications of terrorizing children into doing what adults want. You cannot expect terrorized and powerless individuals – whether they lived historically or live now – to create cultures and structures of freedom or to resist violence or even their own exploitation.

Moreover, some of these terrorized and powerless individuals who are particularly badly damaged now wreak havoc all over the planet: starting and conducting wars, exploiting other people ruthlessly, ravaging the environment … all in pursuit of those caricatures of freedom mentioned above. However, even their great wealth can never compensate them for their loss of Self.

Anyway, if any of what is written here resonates with you, you might like to do something about it by participating in ‘The Flame TreeProject to Save Life on Earth‘ and/or by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World‘.

Most fundamentally, you might like to ponder what happened to you during your own childhood. And to ponder what that might mean about your own treatment of children. For a start, you might consider this: ‘My Promise to Children‘.

In summary: You can do what others want. Or you can live your own life. For most of us, our fear will decide.

Our political economy – a wonderfully embracing phrase much used a century ago – has three main components: The electoral/governmental powers, the marketplace, and the civil society, which is composed of we the citizens.

It is well known that when “we the people” get lax about our consumer rights and our voting choices, both the companies and the politicians turn their backs on us and look out for themselves and their fat-cat donors. The civil society’s energy or apathy has a profound role in shaping how the other two sectors function, and can either safeguard our democracy or drive it into the ground.

All this is by way of saying that increasingly commercializing our elections every four years is devastating to the freedom and justice produced by a functioning democratic society. Our presidential and congressional elections this year represent a commercial conglomerate profit center.

There are the corporate Super PACs and the billionaire patrons who manipulate their sponsored candidates, who in turn make explicit or implicit promises to their paymasters to keep the money flowing into their campaigns. The corporate mass media thrives on the high ratings generated by the mud fights (recall the Republican presidential primary led by Trump). The media moguls charge high advertising rates and make more profits than ever from elections.

Taken together, commercializing elections means that everything is for sale – unless you opt out Bernie Sanders style and refuse corporate PAC contributions and super-rich funding.

When elections are for sale, you know who is most likely to win the auctions. You know how much less your votes and your views count. You know how cleverly sleazy will be the flattery that politicians send your way so as to obscure who really owns them.

As the election business worsens, the civil community—those neighborhood, local, state and national nonprofits that work to reduce many injustices and defend our civil rights and liberties under law—are ignored, side-lined and disrespected.

Whether by the mass media interview shows or on the daily campaign trail, citizen activists and citizen group leaders are rarely asked for their views, for their experience, for their horizons as to what is long overdue and possible.

But the bloviating pundits are regularly featured on the political talk shows; so are the garrulous political consultants to the candidates. But the bedrock of our democratic potential—the real experts, the movers and shakers, who start and continue decade after decade the difficult march toward a better society—are treated by the media bookers as off-limits or as interlopers.

One result of this two-party, for-sale tyranny is that most issues on people’s minds are not debated or discussed inside the electoral arena. In 2008, I listed over a dozen such proposals—many with majoritarian support—that both the Republican and the Democratic Parties took off the table (see votenader.org).

Another result of commercial elections is that, by cordoning off its political dances while flattering “the American people,”  they lull the electorate into complacency. When enough people get indignant they act and take back control by vigorous engagement in the election process before the choices and pathways are narrowed by the two-party duopoly.

Sure, some people get steamed but it is rarely enough to combat the tendency to revert back to cynicism, withdrawal or proud apathy.

Last month we convened the greatest number of accomplished citizen groups on the largest number of reforms and redirections ever brought together. One after another on the stage of historic Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. they spoke of the entrenched power and greed that they overcame over the past half-century to improve America.

These are the citizen champions who, for example, led the fight for safer and nutritious food, less harmful medicines, cleaner air and water, more secure pensions, a freer media, more open government, waging peace instead of war, securing indigenous peoples’ rights, safer transportation, the well-being of children, insurance industry accountability and great advances for people with disabilities.

Will you ever see or hear them on national TV or radio broadcast by companies using our public airwaves so profitably for free? Unlikely. Go to the website breakingthroughpower.org to see them and dozens of other leaders who too often get shut out by our rulers.

We invited every member of Congress to attend this event by delivered mail and some by repeated phone calls. Not one of these 535 Senators and Representatives (nor their staff), who spend so much time raising campaign cash, saw fit to go a couple miles from Capitol Hill to this unprecedented convocation.

One percent or less of the voters, organized in every Congressional District, can civilize these commercialized elections, because that is what the vast majority of the citizenry want.

Do those few people have enough dedicated time for the basic patriotism of making their country more lovable?

Your replies are welcomed at nader.org.

By Jayshree Sengupta*

In every way, the self-made flamboyant billionaire Donald Trump is an enigmatic and puzzling personality. His rise to becoming the presumptive Republic Presidential nominee makes him all the more watchable and interesting. Does he really mean what he is saying or is he going to change his stance once he enters the Oval office? On some occasions he has been positive about India, saying “India is doing great” and on others, he has slammed India as taking away American jobs. He even mimicked the Indian accent of a credit card data processor from India, with whom he talked regarding his credit card account, to drive home the fact that a huge amount of outsourcing to India is taking place. Basically, he is targeting all the countries that he thinks are taking away jobs from America. ‘Jobs’ is the main election issue for Trump and ‘making America great again’ is Trump’s own slogan to increase his mass appeal. The job growth has indeed been disappointing in April 2016 at 160,000 and much less than predicted by the Wall Street. In May, only 38,000 jobs were created when the expectation was 162,000 jobs.

Every leader aspires to make his country great, especially at the time of elections! America doesn’t have to aspire to be great because it is already the most powerful country in the world in terms of financial and military might. At least that is what Americans think of their country themselves. In a recent survey by Washington based Pew Research institute, 72 percent of Americans say that US is the leading military power and 54 percent believe that US is the world’s leading power. Only 34 percent think China is important. So, instead of harping on the existing reality regarding what Americans think of the USA’s position in the world, he is fanning up people’s fears of job losses to Indians and Chinese and America becoming poor as a result.

Nevertheless, Trump’s fears about China and the retaliatory measure that he will take if and when he comes to power against the flood of imports from China are appealing to many Americans. But, the truth is that the average American has greatly benefited from trade with China and outsourcing services from India. Trade in goods and services between US and developing countries is saving Americans millions of dollars. Americans would have to pay much more for services currently outsourced to India compared to what they would pay if they were to be rendered at home by Americans simply because wages are much lower in India. Similarly, China’s supply of cheap goods to US has kept its economy afloat and Americans have been able to enjoy a high standard of living and low inflation.

Indians who go to the US on H1B visas are also serving the US very well because they are hardworking and diligent as well as much cheaper than local American technical and other personnel. Apart from many other jobs that H1B workers perform, a small number of employees of India based IT companies also go to US to work on American companies’ sites to help them roll out the software and systems they have built. It is true that Indians are clamoring to go to the US on H1B visas and the numbers applying far outnumber those who got them. In April 2016, a cap of 85,000 H1B visas was quickly filled.

Most Indians want to improve their incomes by migrating to the US even on a temporary visa which can be up to six years because with their frugal ways, they are able to save a big proportion of their incomes and send money back home to their families. Most Indians who have gone to the US also try to settle there. This has been the pattern for all who migrated to US in the past from all over the world — it is a country of immigrants.

Migration to the US of Indian doctors and engineers reached its peak in the 1980s and there was much talk about brain drain. In China too, the same pattern could be observed. But in recent years, there has been a reverse brain drain from the US to China as professional Chinese have shown a preference to return home.

The Indian diaspora in US is politically visible and financially strong because most are professionals with high educational backgrounds. Their contribution to the US economy has been recognised by various US presidents in the past. Even though Trump is targeting Indians, he is still being supported by many Indians — perhaps because of his views on Muslims and Pakistan. Bobby Jindal has claimed to be a supporter of Trump.

But, the reports about growing resentment towards Indian techies and others employed in big companies is bad news. Apparently in many big companies, the Americans staffers themselves have to train their H1B replacements and they resent it greatly. Trump is fanning up such resentment. Trump in the White House may bring about reforms aimed at increasing H1B prevailing wage so that the Indian workers cannot be used as cheap labour. Also, he can make it mandatory for employers to recruit American workers first and only when they fail to do so, they may opt for hiring H1B workers. If there are stricter laws for hiring and higher visa costs, it will impact on the profitability of Indian IT companies and their businesses in the US because it accounts for 60 percent of software exports from India.

If Trump wins, he could even initiate a strategy of greater automation in American IT industry which will lower the demand for outsourcing from Indian companies. Thus to be on the safe side, the Indian outsourcing industry should reboot itself and focus on developing higher value added services for export and for domestic market.

*Jayshree Sengupta is a Senior Fellow working with ORF’s Economy and Development Programme. Her work focuses on the Indian economy and development, regional cooperation related to the SAARC, BRICS, ASEAN and EU groupings, social sectors like health, education and unemployment, and women and development.

The Iranians, heirs to the ancient civilization of Persia which stretches back into the mists of time, have inherited both its ruthless and its subtle and devious ways of achieving its purposes. Persia was once the superpower of the ancient world, and Iran’s current repressive Islamist rulers seek again the hegemony the nation once enjoyed. Undeterred by apparent reversals of fortune, they are relentless in their pursuit of their objectives – jihad against western values in general, and the US and Israel in particular; jihad against Sunni states and peoples whom they regard as apostates against the true faith of Islam, namely the Shia tradition of which they claim to be the standard-bearers; and jihad against any of their own citizens who challenge or flout the repressive Islamist way of life they have established in their country.

In their single-minded determination to achieve their aims, the current Iranian regime continuously initiates, facilitates or supports, regardless of the death and destruction caused, a succession of terrorist activities. This ruthless and amoral single-mindedness brings results, at least in the short term. Time and again Iran seems to triumph in the face of adversity, and bounce back from reversals of fortune.

Just consider its position in world politics in mid-2016. Uniquely, Iran has succeeded in running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Not only is Iran courted and deferred to by the United States and much of the West who are dedicated to removing Syria’s President Bashar Assad from power, but it is an active battlefield ally of Russia fighting to support Assad’s bid to regain power. Moreover, it is benefitting from a highly advantageous trade deal with Russia which guarantees it delivery of the long-range S-300 missile system – the most advanced in the world.

As far as the US in concerned, Iran’s current “favored nation” status, unreciprocated though it is, is the result of nifty Iranian footwork in the diplomatic area.

The evidence is now pretty overwhelming that President Barack Obama came to the presidency in 2009 with a pre-determined strategic plan for the Middle East, based on ideas contained in the final report of the Iraq Study Group, a congressional commission co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

At the time the major jihadist enemy of the West was al-Qaeda. The report advanced the clever-clever notion that if the US made allies of Iran and the Assad regime in Syria – the heartland of Shia Islam – America could step back, and those states could be relied on to combat the Sunni-led threat to the world, al-Qaeda. The Study Group’s conclusions lined up very well with Obama’s declared intention of reducing America’s direct involvement in the Middle East.

Obama began his presidency with a great weight of guilt on his shoulders. He renounced the concept of America as the world’s champion of democracy and freedom, prepared to fight if necessary to maintain its values. Early on he asserted that any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail; that “problems must be dealt with through partnership”. His new doctrine emphasized diplomacy to promote its aims, and downplayed military might; it aimed at adopting a more humble attitude in state-to-state relations, and playing a more restrained role on the international stage.

It is certain that none of this escaped Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. He undoubtedly perceived the golden opportunity this new approach provided for Iran to advance its own interests.

The good times started in June 2013, with the election as President of the candidate blessed by Khamenei – the self-styled “moderate”, Sayyed Hassan Rouhani. Also blessed, without a doubt, was the deliberate change of tactics from the confrontational stance of ex-President Ahmadinejad, during previous attempts by the UN to induce Iran to control its nuclear program. Henceforth all was to be charm and sweet reason – and indeed, immediately after his election, Rouhani immediately agreed to start substantive talks with world leaders about Iran’s nuclear intentions.

World leaders swallowed the bait. A succession of negotiations followed, but with Iran convinced that the Obama administration had discounted any sort of military confrontation aimed at preventing Iran achieving its goal – a deal allowing it to produce nuclear weapons in the fullness of time. That was precisely the eventual outcome, while in return for simply talking, Iran was rewarded with the progressive lifting of financial sanctions.

The authors of the Iraq Study Group report were either ignorant of some of the realities that rendered their conclusions basically flawed, or deliberately chose to ignore them. They set aside the fundamental philosophy underlying the Iranian Islamic Republic – to oppose, and eventually destroy, Western political and cultural values, and to achieve political and religious dominance in the Middle East.

For the past eight years the Obama administration has ignored Iran’s clearly signalled political priorities, and has failed to respond adequately to its continued terrorist activities and its support for terrorism. Instead, it has engineered a deal which has enormously enhanced Iran’s clout and alienated, or at least disillusioned, its erstwhile allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Egypt, all of whom have good reason to regard Iran as their prime antagonist.  Washington may well have initiated a nuclear arms race in the region, for it is unlikely that Saudi Arabia, for instance, would stand idly by while Iran turned itself into a nuclear power.

Has Obama’s placatory approach resulted in any softening of Iran’s visceral hatred of the “Great Satan”?  Not one jot. “The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’,“ proclaimed Ayatollah Khamenei just after the nuclear deal was announced, “have resounded throughout the country…. Even after this deal, our policy towards the arrogant US will not change.”

For the moment Iran seems to hold a winning hand, but the recent concatenation of circumstances which have favored it are unlikely to last indefinitely. It faces formidable political and religious foes in the Sunni world led by Saudi Arabia, as well as jihadist opponents such as Islamic State (IS). Much of the Western world seems to have woken to the dangers posed to its way of life by IS, but seems unaware that Iran is as implacable an enemy. One can only hope that realisation does not dawn too late.

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

The Lebanon-based militant group, Hezbollah, has been active in the region since the early 1980s. It has had locked horns with Israel several times and these days it is heavily involved in the Syrian conflict, on Bashar Assad’s side.

It surprises many analysts that the losses Hezbollah has so far suffered in the Syrian crisis outweigh all it had faced during its tussles with Israel.

With continuous draining of strengths, the most optimistic estimations place Hezbollah’s loss at a thousand members of its elite, while other estimations speak of the loss of at least 3,000 members.

The so-called Hezbollah has reportedly lost many of its notable commanders. Fawzi Ayoub, a Lebanese-Canadian Hezbollah commander, who was also wanted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation was killed in Daraa, southwestern Syria; Hassan Hussein Al Hajj, another elite commander reportedly killed in Idlib battles; Khalil Mohammed Hamed Khalil, another Hezbollah prominent figure reported dead in Homs; Ali Fayad, killed in Aleppo; Hezbollah’s crème de la crème Khalil Ali Hassan, also killed in Aleppo earlier June; last but not the least, Hezbollah’s top leader Mustafa Baddreddine was reportedly killed last May.

All of the above mentioned fell at the hands of Syrian opposition fighters or at the hands of other militias in Syria. Hezbollah had long kept its losses confidential. The question is that whether or not these losses eventually influence Hezbollah’s presence as a local Lebanese force or even as an external annex militia to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)?

Unlike Iran, Hezbollah cannot forcefully recruit Shiite youth in Lebanon, nor does the group enjoys the means to persuade the youngsters to join its ranks —knowing that most of the group’s recruitment is devised by exploiting religious content, political publicity and materialistic temptations.

The so-called Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, had promised to terminate all Takfiris in a few months. However, it has been over five years since the eruption of unrest in Syria and so far the picture continues to remain murky and a solution remains elusive. The question is: How long could Hezbollah continue to take part in the Syrian conflict?

The poorest move taken by the group is that Hezbollah’s exhaustive contribution surpassed the embattlement in Syria; following Iran’s bidding, the group now deploys recruits to Iraq, while already dealing with a state of ongoing alertness in Lebanon.

At another level, Hezbollah expended far more than blood and funds, the group had spent all Arab’s world support, tarnishing its reputation, which was built on fighting Israel. Should the Iranian venture fail in Syria, the lethal aftermath will not be restricted to affect Hezbollah rather than the whole of Lebanon. The group will perceive danger within its supportive sect as well; Hezbollah has grown accustomed to justify its defeat by arguing to have thwarted Israel’s ultimate goals — such was the case in the war against Israel in 2006.

If Hezbollah fails in Syria, it would face extreme pressure at the domestic level. It would then be unable to garner support of Lebanese Shiites.

Fighting on behalf of Iranian interests, have reduced Hezbollah fighters’ into mercenaries working for Iran.

Offering resistance to Israel has become a distant dream, especially with Iran signing the nuclear deal with the West. Hezbollah’s weakened military existence also plays a part. Hezbollah’s position as a Lebanese institution is now considerably challenged.

If Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is to step down from power, it would translate to Hezbollah’s expiry in Lebanon. The price that Hezbollah is paying in Syria is exactly what it had always tried to dodge in its long confrontation with Israel.

Between 2000 and 2001, California experienced the biggest electricity crisis in the US since World War II. Exactly how it happened, however, is complex. New research now reveals insights into the market dynamics at play, potentially helping regulators standardize the market and prevent future crises.

An energy market is complicated because electricity must be generated and distributed in real-time — all under the constraints of existing infrastructure, reliability requirements and physics. Despite a confluence of factors affecting supply and demand, and thus the price of electricity, the energy demand on the grid is usually correlated with the price in a normal market. But in 2000, when electricity prices in California spiked to $1,200 per megawatt-hour (several tens of times the average price at the time), the price was no longer correlated strongly with the energy load.

To analyze what happened, Fang Wang of Hunan Agricultural University in China studied the differences between the normal market in 1999 and the one in crisis during 2000. Wang explored the relationship between prices and energy loads before and during the crisis, developing a new statistical measurement to quantify the asymmetry in how the prices and loads were correlated.

If the correlation is different when the prices are increasing compared to when the prices are decreasing, then the correlations are asymmetric. Understanding this asymmetry, Wang says, reveals deeper insights that explain why the correlation between prices and loads differed before and during the crisis.

“The results from this work uncover the truth of the power crisis from the new point of view of asymmetry between the prices and loads,” he said. His results, published this week in the journal Chaos, from AIP Publishing, showed that the asymmetry was weak in 1999, but strong in 2000 during the crisis.

Measuring this asymmetry could help power companies and government regulators prevent future crises by better understanding the market and predicting whether prices will rise or decline. For example, Wang found that if the correlation between prices and loads are stronger during the periods when the prices are declining — that is, both the prices and loads are dropping — then prices will likely continue to decrease in the near future. That’s the scenario Wang found to be the case in 1999.

If this situation were to happen again, companies running the power grid could sign fewer contracts, since they know electricity will be cheaper in the near future. Companies that generate electricity, however, may want to sign more long-term contracts to lock in current prices.

Wang showed that the reverse situation happened in 2000, that the correlations were stronger when prices were increasing: Both prices and loads rose in a strongly correlated fashion. In a similar future scenario, this trend suggests that prices will continue to rise, and in response, companies can pursue the opposite approach. Power-grid companies may want to sign more contracts while power-generation companies may sign fewer.

In either case, Wang’s new approach could help achieve a better balance between prices and loads to avoid asymmetries — and future crises.

A microchip containing 1,000 independent programmable processors has been designed by a team at the University of California, Davis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. The energy-efficient “KiloCore” chip has a maximum computation rate of 1.78 trillion instructions per second and contains 621 million transistors. The KiloCore was presented at the 2016 Symposium on VLSI Technology and Circuits in Honolulu on June 16.

“To the best of our knowledge, it is the world’s first 1,000-processor chip and it is the highest clock-rate processor ever designed in a university,” said Bevan Baas, professor of electrical and computer engineering, who led the team that designed the chip architecture. While other multiple-processor chips have been created, none exceed about 300 processors, according to an analysis by Baas’ team. Most were created for research purposes and few are sold commercially. The KiloCore chip was fabricated by IBM using their 32 nm CMOS technology.

Each processor core can run its own small program independently of the others, which is a fundamentally more flexible approach than so-called Single-Instruction-Multiple-Data approaches utilized by processors such as GPUs; the idea is to break an application up into many small pieces, each of which can run in parallel on different processors, enabling high throughput with lower energy use, Baas said.

Because each processor is independently clocked, it can shut itself down to further save energy when not needed, said graduate student Brent Bohnenstiehl, who developed the principal architecture. Cores operate at an average maximum clock frequency of 1.78 GHz, and they transfer data directly to each other rather than using a pooled memory area that can become a bottleneck for data.

The chip is the most energy-efficient “many-core” processor ever reported, Baas said. For example, the 1,000 processors can execute 115 billion instructions per second while dissipating only 0.7 Watts, low enough to be powered by a single AA battery. The KiloCore chip executes instructions more than 100 times more efficiently than a modern laptop processor.

Applications already developed for the chip include wireless coding/decoding, video processing, encryption, and others involving large amounts of parallel data such as scientific data applications and datacenter record processing.

The team has completed a compiler and automatic program mapping tools for use in programming the chip.

By Oscar Silva-Valladares

Whether the United Kingdom is able to manage its internal affairs better within or outside the European Union seems to be the crucial discussion topic ahead of the coming referendum on June 23. If this is the case, the key matters to consider are immigration, defense, and the economy.

On immigration, beyond all the arguments put in favor or against Brexit, it is patently clear that Britain would have superior immigration policies benefiting itself if those policies reflect the needs of the country and not what the average EU member wants. Nobody except Britain can understand better what its labor market needs in terms of number of foreign workers and their ideal qualifications. This is why proposing a British tailored immigration policy, similar to the Australian work permit qualification system, is the smartest argument so far put forward by the Brexit camp.

The issue concerning non-economic immigrants, particularly those arriving from outside the EU, is a different one and borders with internal security, defense, and the economy. How this issue entered into the Brexit discussion and how the EU is imposing its diktat on this matter (for instance through proposed heavy fines to countries refusing to accept the quotas set in Brussels on immigrants) reflects the metamorphosis of the EU into something beyond economic union, a silent change that nobody imagined just a decade ago. But even we accept non-economic immigration as a matter debatable within the Brexit discussion, it is extremely difficult to believe that average rules imposed by a supra-national institution in Brussels would be greater for Britain than ones imposed from Whitehall, unless Britain surrenders its better grasp of the country to outsiders.

On defense, it is important to distinguish two key areas, one dealing with intra-state affairs and the other with internal security (i.e. defense against international terrorism). Intra-state defense affairs affecting Britain are mostly covered by an international treaty that has nothing to do with the EU, i.e. NATO. NATO membership is not under discussion within the Brexit debate. While this seems obvious, the defense argument has been smuggled into the Brexit discussion by the In camp, mainly because the EU has transformed itself into a Leviathan with geopolitical ambitions beyond its original goals.

The economic discussion is far more complex and is the field where most salvos have been shot. The Remain camp started with a barrage of arguments alerting against the adverse economic impact on growth, employment, pensions, the pound, house prices, and international trade if Britain leaves the EU, ignoring the fact that it would take at least two years to finalize Britain’s divorce from the EU if the Brexit camp wins the referendum. Each bombardment under this barrage has been inconsistent with the previous one just shot, so it seems it is turning out to affect the In camp more than the Leave one as friendly fire sometimes does. Certainly there are important benefits arising from the European common market in terms of free movement of goods and services. This was the original intention of the EU’s preceding structures, but Parkinson’s law one more time proved to be right, with the caveat that work within the EU bureaucracy not only has expanded to fill time, but also to fill space and use wasted resources. That explains, for instance, the numerous bureaucratic rules that have proliferated and which negatively affect international trade within the EU, particularly preying on small and medium businesses.

It is important to highlight which forces, broadly speaking, are driving the Remain side of the debate. British corporations with transnational aims are clearly leading the In effort, as standardization and globalization helps them achieve their paramount goal of minimizing production costs irrespective of nationalities; their lobbying power to achieve their aims works better within the EU. Part of the political establishment is also in the Remain side not only because of links to big business but also because the EU supranational legal structure will always be a convenient scapegoat when needed as it protects politicians from accountability. There is a more ominous ally of the In camp, to the extent that it does not and cannot have British interests at heart; I am referring to the governments of the U.S., Germany, and France, among others. For the U.S., handling Europe as a whole for its own political, economic, and defense purposes is a much far easier task at a supra-national than at a country level. As the EU took a geopolitical overtone, for instance in the case of the economic sanctions against Russia, this convenience is even more evident. Last but not least, the EU grand elite, self-obsessed with total integration as recently admitted by the President of the European Council, also plays a key role as the potential ‘domino effect’ on other countries if Brexit wins the day is the nightmare scenario that awakes them every night.

As the 5th and 2nd largest economy in the world and Europe, respectively, Britain is not the average EU country. Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria receive annual worker remittances from abroad in excess of 3% of their economy, whereas in the UK this is just 1/5 of 1%. Poland, 1/3 of Britain’s economy, receives more than Britain in these remittances. The UK has lost 8% of its population through emigration (mostly pensioners who don’t create major burdens to host countries), against 19.9% (Lithuania), 19.5% (Bulgaria) and 17% (Romania). The latter countries have been using the EU structure as a disposal mechanism for their population for whom they are incapable of creating jobs, perpetuating a dependence and a safe valve that are very convenient tools for incompetent politicians, much alike the case of Mexican immigration to the US.

At the end of the day, non quantifiable arguments also count, perhaps even more. As an immigrant, I remember vividly my first exposure to British resilience during the IRA bombing in Bishopsgate in April 1993 that seriously damaged the building where I was working. As my employer was a Japanese financial institution and, as the bombing happened on a Saturday morning, we needed to activate our back up office within 24 hours to start operating before Tokyo’s opening time equivalent to our Sunday evening. I saw an amazing non-stop collective effort from my British colleagues to enable us to keep working without hiccups, which reminded me of the determination during the Blitz and increased my admiration for this country that ultimately gave me citizenship. Of course there will be short-term challenges if Britain leaves the EU, but whoever is trying to instil fear on the population to win the argument is denying the inner strengths that this country has shown along its history.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has reiterated its call for the release of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, who was arrested four years ago, and urges the Saudi authorities to show clemency for the month of Ramadan.

Countless messages of solidarity have been posted on social networks drawing attention to Badawi’sordeal. Convicted in May 2014 of insulting Islam, the blogger and co-founder of the “Liberal Saudi Network” was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes, as well a heavy fine and a ten-year ban on foreign travel after serving the jail term.

“The authorities are still resisting the pressure of the international community’s appeals for the release of Raif Badawi, who has become a symbol of the suppression of criticism in Saudi Arabia,” said Alexandra El Khazen, the head of RSF’s Middle East desk. “Keeping him and other journalists, both professional and non-professional, in detention highlights the lack of freedom of information in this country.”

According to Badawi’s wife, Ensaf Haidar, who heads the international campaign for his release, he began a third hunger strike on 10 June in protest against the denial of medical care for his back pain in Dhahran prison. She said he called off the strike two days later after getting permission for a medical examination on a still undetermined date.

Badawi’s imprisoned lawyer, Saudi Observatory for Human Rights founder Waleed Abou Al Khair, also began a hunger strike on 7 June in protest against the way he is being treated in Jeddah prison. He resumed eating on 10 June after being promised better treatment, including hospital access and access to the prison library.

The winner of the 2014 RSF Press Freedom Prize in the Netizen category and the European Parliament’s 2015 Sakharov Prize, Badawi was convicted under the 2007 cyber-crime law for criticizing Saudi Arabia’s religious leaders. He was subjected to an initial session of 50 lashes on 9 January 2015, but subsequent sessions were suspended following a wave of international outrage.

His lawyer, Al Khair, was arrested in April 2014 and was sentenced in July of the same year under the newly adopted anti-terrorism law to 15 years in prison and a 15-year ban on foreign travel on completion of the jail term.

The charges on which he was convicted include “disobeying and breaking allegiance with the sovereign,” “lack of respect for the authorities,” “contempt of court,” “preparing, storing and circulating information that undermines public order,” “inciting rebellion,” “publishing false information with the aim of harming the state” and “creating an NGO without permission.”

A total of 10 professional and non-professional journalists are currently detained in Saudi Arabia, which is ranked 165th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

The language chosen by leaders to discuss terrorism and extremism has the power to shape and (de)legitimise particular strategic responses. Politically incorrect discourse will only lead to politically incorrect decisions.

By Cameron Sumpter*

Reactions to the Orlando night club massacre have sparked debate in the United States over official terminology used to discuss terrorism and the actors employing the tactic. One side is accused of alarmist rhetoric designed to win support by spreading fear through the electorate; the other is criticised for being disingenuous about the role of religion in motivating such acts of indiscriminate violence. How important are the labels used by politicians to discuss terrorism and what effect do they have on counterterrorism strategies?

Shortly after publicly congratulating himself for being “right” about the Orlando massacre, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump maligned President Obama for not using the term “radical Islam” when addressing the nation after the attack. Trump believed the president’s failure to utter these words was grounds for resignation, and warned that America “can’t afford to be politically correct anymore”.

Mind Your Language

President Obama responded by stating the language employed by his administration had “nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with defeating extremism … If we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with an entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them”, he said.

Considered word choice in terrorism discourse is not a recent priority. In 2007, the US Department of Homeland Security consulted American Muslim leaders to learn how senior government officials could use language more respectfully and strategically. The resulting memorandum in January 2008 stressed that terminology “should avoid helping the terrorists by inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of their ideology” and “must be properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam”.

The European Union has also reflected on appropriate use of vocabulary. In 2006, the organisation imposed a ban on the phrase “Islamic terrorism” from its public lexicon. The move was an attempt to “be aware of the sensitivities implied by the certain use of language” and to avoid “terminology that would aggravate the problem” of violent extremism.

Australia witnessed a sea change in official discourse on terrorism and extremism when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott in September 2015. The former leader was notorious for statements such as: “I’ve often heard western leaders describe Islam as a ‘religion of peace’. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it”.

When Turnbull took office there was a clearly audible adjustment in tone, which was neatly summarised in early 2016 by the chief executive of the Arab Council of Australia, Randa Kattan: “His collaborative and inclusive language has created a space for the community to engage on solutions, rather than continue to push back against the demonising and fear-mongering narrative that has featured strongly over recent years.”

Building Bridges

President Obama’s careful phrasing when discussing home grown extremism reflects his administration’s increasing emphasis on community engagement and initiatives aimed at Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). Since January 2016, renewed CVE strategies and recommendations have been released by the White House, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, USAID, and the Department of Homeland Security.

None of these publications features reference to religion. A common theme is the need to empower civil society organisations to work on creative approaches to community-based CVE programmes. The US Government’s “local partners” are considered uniquely qualified to counter the pulling power of extremist groups and address the complex mix of emotional and contextual factors that facilitate radicalisation to violence.

Key to the success of this counterterrorism strategy is the fragile trust hanging precariously between US state agencies and American Muslims in the post-9/11 paradigm. Critics of the CVE project accuse the government of securitising Muslim communities and establishing programmes more concerned with collecting intelligence than steering individuals toward more positive pathways.

Building honest relationships between the government and communities is crucial and requires effective dialogue and appropriate language. The US Homeland Security Advisory Council published recommendations on CVE in June 2016 that stressed the importance of “tone and word choice” among government officials. “Often without knowing it”, the authors point out, “we have constructed language in daily use that promotes an ‘us and them’ narrative of division”.

Burning Bridges

Donald Trump excels at promoting this kind of division. In a speech following the Orlando attack, he repeatedly referred to “radical Islam” and “radical Islamic terrorism” (as if some forms of terrorism were not radical). He also denigrated Hillary Clinton for believing that “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people”.

Just as the Obama administration has adopted language that facilitates its nuanced approach to addressing home grown extremism, Trump wilfully employs “politically incorrect” terms to both render CVE initiatives nonsensical and normalise his own totalitarian views on appropriate counterterrorism measures.

In late 2015, Trump infamously called for a complete ban on Muslims seeking to enter the US, and the establishment of a database for all American Muslims so the government could track their movements. On Monday, he stated that if elected he would increase the powers of security agencies, ensure that Americans had enough guns to protect themselves, and “suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies”.

The well-researched, inter-agency CVE infrastructure that the Obama administration is developing would surely be torn down if Trump were to become president. His preference for an oppressive security-centric approach to countering terrorism would alienate millions, seriously threaten democratic values, and breed the kind of hatred which remains for generations.

Trump warned: “When it comes to radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss – it’s deadly”. If the Republican hopeful makes it to the Oval Office, we may see how deadly ignorance can be.

*Cameron Sumpter is a Senior Analyst at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.