US-Canada summit on N Korea: "Not the slightest legality", a "provocation" and failed to provide alternative to Russia-China deal

The Russian Foreign Ministry building


The joint US-Canada summit is just a “heavy-handed attempt” to undermine the decisions of the UNSC, Russia’s Foreign Ministry has said. It added that the meeting failed to provide an alternative to the Russian-Chinese initiative.

Participants at the Vancouver summit failed to provide any alternative to the existing Chinese-Russian roadmap for easing the Korean knot, the ministry said in statement. It noted that instead of coming up with any “constructive” results, the gathering demonstrated “absolute disrespect” for the authority of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

What’s more, the decision to consider imposing unilateral sanctions against North Korea that overstep the demands outlined by the UNSC resolutions are “absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive,” the statement added. The ministry said further that a situation, in which some countries adopt roles as interpreters of UNSC resolutions without any permission or mandate – thus undermining the role of the UN – is “absolutely inadmissible.”

Back in July 2017, Moscow and Beijing put forward a proposal known as the ‘double-freeze’ initiative that envisaged the US and its allies halting all major military exercises in the region in exchange for Pyongyang suspending its nuclear and ballistic missile program. The initiative was, however, turned down by Washington – which was reiterated on Tuesday during the Vancouver summit.

The same day, the Russian Foreign Ministry again drew attention to the fact that the initiative is aimed at “resolving the entire range of problems [around the Korean Peninsula] solely through the political and diplomatic means.”

The Vancouver meeting, on the contrary, did not contribute to the normalization of the situation on the peninsula and only exacerbated existing tensions, the ministry said. Notably, neither Russia nor China was invited to the gathering despite being major players in the region as well as immediate neighbors of North Korea.

Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that he was told Russia and China would only be “briefed” on the results of the meeting, calling such an attitude “unacceptable.” He also said that it would be a “great result already” if the meeting merely avoided leading to anything “counterproductive.”

Beijing also slammed the summit by saying that it had “not the slightest legality and representativeness.” It also accused the meeting participants of evoking Cold War ghosts. Pyongyang denounced the Vancouver summit as a “provocation” which is not helping the talks between North and South Korea.

In the meantime, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard noted that it was the US regime change policy that prompted Pyongyang to develop its nuclear and missile arsenal in the first place. She turned to Twitter to call on Washington to put an end to such practices as well as to cast away “unrealistic preconditions” that the US government has been setting for decades to negotiate with North Korea.

Source Article from

AZ Breakfast Club Sat 01-06-18 — Update Morpheus Hearing; Anarchapulco 2018; Freedom Summit


THE PRICE FOR THE MEETING IS $10 – The food is free!

Join us for the January 6th, 2018 meeting of the Arizona Breakfast Club held at the Hancock’s from 8-10 am AZ/MOUNTAIN TIME. Discussion will include an update on Morpheus’s hearing, Anarchapulco 2018, Freedom Summit 2018, Predictions, etc…



The Arizona Breakfast Club

The Arizona Breakfast Club first came together, in 1969, founded by Harry Everingham. Harry had been a conservative activist since World War II, publishing the American Patriot and leading We The People, a national organization.

Harry came to Arizona from Chicago, and had been discussing the issues of the 1968 election campaign with friends over coffee. The discussions were good, and a decision was made to create a club for political discourse. The Arizona Breakfast Club opened its first public meeting in January of 1970 to fight for freedom in a patriotic forum where our faith in God, our constitutional republic, and productive economy would be championed. The club was to rally conservatives and to educate people about the state of the nation and their American Heritage of liberty.

Senator Barry Goldwater, Arizona’s Statesman, and often one of our guests at the podium, best outlined our desires for good government when he said: “I have little interest for streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Source Article from

‘Putin-hosted summit represents major breakthrough for Syria, but obstacles remain’

Russia on Wednesday hosted a three-way summit in Sochi between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, and Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani. The primary goal of the meeting was to find a solution for ending the civil war in Syria.

Vladimir Putin said Syria has a real chance to end its six-year civil war. At the summit in Sochi, it was also agreed to hold inclusive all-Syrian talks.

RT:  How crucial are today’s trilateral talks?

Seyed Mohammad Marandi: They are very important and the very fact that for the first time this process is being moved forward largely without the US and its allies, I think, is one reason why it has achieved so much. The Astana talks, as well as the current talks in Sochi, have pushed the process a great deal forward.

Of course this comes alongside the achievements made by the Syrian Arab Army, alongside with the help of the Russians, the Iranians, Hezbollah and Iraqi, Afghani and Pakistani volunteers, who’ve all struggled for years to push back the extremists that were funded by the Wahhabi extremists, that were funded by Saudi Arabia, and unfortunately the US, as we know from documents that have been revealed – the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] of 2012, WikiLeaks documents.

We know the US has coordinated the movement of extremists and bringing them into the country of Syria. Things have shifted and changed enormously on the ground, and hopefully, these talks will help to pave the way for the conflict to come to an end … It looks good on paper, but I am sure it is going to be very complicated in the weeks and months ahead.

Prof. Maged Botros, chairman of the Political Science Department, at Helwan University: “What I can see now is a breakthrough of getting the rivals to sit together. I wouldn’t for a second believe that Iranians would like to sit with the Turkish side for conflicting purposes. Turkey insists that Assad has no future role, while Iran insists that Assad has a sustainable role. Now, Putin has a great political leverage of getting them together… Russia has much more leverage in Syria than the US…The US can’t get all those parties because they know that what is happening now cannot be resolved – the cards are not in the hands of the US. That is why the diplomatic settlement phase will happen in Geneva, Russia or Uzbekistan, no other place. Not in Washington, D.C.”

RT:  How difficult will it be to implement what was agreed on today?

SMM: It will be difficult. One of the difficulties is – what about the groups that have aligned themselves and continue to be allies of Al-Qaeda? We know that many of these people have committed horrific crimes; they continue to exist, they continue to terrorize people in different parts of Syria. Who is allowed to participate and who isn’t allowed to participate is very important. And will the US pull out of Syria?

The Americans have occupied significant portions of Syria without the permission of the Syrian government – that is a violation of Syrian sovereignty. Also, foreign governments have to stop providing assistance to extremists and terrorists. There is a lot to do, and it is not clear if the Americans and their allies are going to help this process move forward, or whether they are going to impede it.

But I think what is very positive is that these countries seem to be determined. Obviously, all three of them have their own opinion. But I think the very fact that they are getting together and they are making these statements public show that there is a strong degree of determination…

RT:  How will America react to the proposal of inclusive constitutional elections in Syria?

SMM: This is one of the extraordinary issues that has led to so much destruction in Syria – that the US and its Western allies, and the Saudis tried to impose their will upon the Syrian people. In 2012 when Kofi Annan put his plan forward, Iran accepted the plan. It was basically a call for free and fair elections with international supervision, and that President Assad and his allies could participate. The Americans rejected it out of hand. They prevented it from happening.

If they had accepted that back then, which they should have because it is a sovereign country and it is not for the US to dictate its terms to the people. Then hundreds of thousands of people would not have been killed and millions of would not have had to flee their homes, and hundreds of billions of dollars of damages wouldn’t have occurred.

Now we have to see if they [US] are going to accept this and if they are going to accept it in reality. The US often says one thing- as we Iranians have learned through the nuclear deal and the nuclear negotiations – they agree to something on paper, and in reality, they do something quite different…

RT:  Do you think the talks have boosted the prospects of Syrian stability?

SMM: I think they are very important. Before we know that the Turkish government had very sharp differences with Iran and Russia. The convergence of those three countries is important. The very fact that President Assad also had negotiations with President Putin, I think is a positive sign.

We’re hopeful that the Turks will move closer toward Syria, toward some sort of rapprochement as well, that the Turks are very concerned about the northern part of Syria and the terrorist groups that they believe are threatening Turkish sovereignty. So it is in their interest to move closer to the Syrian government and to the Iranians.

Also, we see that huge progress has been made on the ground. And things in Iraq are much better than before: the Iraqi government has retained sovereignty over the whole country. I think for the Syrian people things are looking quite good, despite all the horrific events of the past…

Source Article from

[WATCH] Summit Metro Parks Ranger Terminated After Roughly Arresting Elderly Couple Who Honked Their Horn at Him

AKRON, Ohio – A Summit Metro Parks ranger has been terminated after being accused of following an elderly couple home, assaulting them and arresting them after they honked their horn at him.

The couple, Carl and Margaret Wilson, say they previously hired an attorney in the matter.

Lisa King, executive director of Summit Metro Parks, released a statement on the matter Thursday:

“Summit Metro Parks has terminated the employment of Jeffrey Axner, a park ranger responsible for a serious off-park-property incident that occurred September 27 and involved a senior couple near Goodyear Heights Metro Park in Akron. The termination became effective October 25.

The incident began at the Newton Street entrance of the park when the couple honked at the ranger, who was making a turn into the park. The ranger changed course and pursued the couple’s vehicle to a residence on Darrow Road, and handcuffed both individuals after an altercation.

The park district immediately placed the ranger on paid administrative leave and launched an investigation.

The district determined that Mr. Axner violated park ranger procedures, exceeded his authority resulting in a series of poor decisions, and used excessive force. These are unacceptable violations of our employee conduct standards, and in keeping with district polices and our contract with the Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (OPBA), Mr. Axner’s employment with Summit Metro Parks was terminated.”


If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY


(function(d) {
var params =
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://” + qs.join(‘&’);

Filming Cops

Source Article from

MSNBC Panel Sees Racism ‘Code’ in ‘Take the Country Back,’ Values Voters Summit

ALI VELSHI: Presidents don’t usually go to the Values Voters Summit even though it’s a good place — candidates actually often go to them — run by the Family Research Council which is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center largely because of their anti-homosexual tendencies.

JOAN WALSH, THE NATION: Right, very extreme.

VELSHI: They actually put out a pamphlet — a book about homosexuality called The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals. I really can’t get my head around it, but I understand why candidates sometimes want to court this kind of an audience. But, as the President of the United States, this is not a — this is not a broad-ranging group.

WALSH: No, but this is his base, Ali. I mean, I think one of the central mysteries of last year’s election — and there are many, many of them — but one of them is: Why did white Christian evangelicals go overwhelmingly for this guy who’d been married three times, four bankruptcies, accused of sexual harassment at minimum by 14 plus women, why was this libertine — the candidate of these folks rather than somebody like, say, Ted Cruz who seemed much more along the lines? What about Ben Carson? Why was it Trump?

And I think, you know, that clip that you played right before the break where he said, “Times have really changed, but we’re changing them back,” is so illuminating — it was such a great gift to us because, what polls have found is that these Christian voters, they went for Trump not thinking so much about his morality, not keying in on, you know, maybe Ted Cruz has obeyed Christian dogma more, but that they believed Trump really was going to bring us back to a place where men are men, women know their place, people of color know their place, gays —

VELSHI: And people say Merry Christmas to you when you walk into the store.

WALSH: And people say Merry Christmas to you, that he’s going to turn the clock back. And he sees it. He gets that that’s what they want, and he’s telling them that he’s done it already.

VELSHI: Jonathan, there are some who say it’s nostalgia, and there are some who say that’s all code. “Things are changing back.” Something as innocuous and benign as “They’re going to say Merry Christmas again” really means something different.

JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Mm-hm. Yeah, it’s code. Remember “Make America Great Again”? The people who gravitated to that phrase are the ones who were saying around the time of the rise of the Tea Party in 2010 that they wanted to “take their country back.”

And, of course, Joan and I — we’ve always asked this question: Take the country back from whom? We know what’s going on here. There are people in the President’s base who are very uncomfortable with the demographic changes that are already under way in the country, and so they’re very nostalgic about a time they were central to the political life and concerns of this country.

And, you know, if we are ever going to get anywhere in terms of solving all the economic issues and things like that, we’ve got to come to terms with the fact that everyone who is in this country right now wants to be an American. The ones who are citizens are Americans, and we’re all here to foster and move along this great experiment that is America. And there are a lot of people who are supporting the President who think that America is for them. And to be perfectly blunt, Ali, America is a white Christian nation. That’s what a lot of the President’s base thinks.

VELSHI: Joan, America is a prosperous place, and, as a result, prosperous nations have fewer children — we don’t have a good worker replacement rate. We have an aging population, so we use our immigrants to do what any country that wants to economically grow does. We — it creates a work force. I know Donald Trump talks endlessly about this unachieveable economic growth number, but you can’t even achieve that if you wanted to without immigration. So it’s not just DACA, it’s the legal immigration that the President wants to stop, and Stephen Miller again painted that in terms of English-speaking better immigrants. Again, it’s code. It’s not actually economically sound.

Source Article from

‘Return to sanity’: Gorbachev calls for US-Russia summit amid fears of nuclear treaty collapse

“This December will mark the 30th anniversary of the signing of the treaty between the Soviet Union and United States on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles…” the former Soviet leader wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post, referring to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. 

He went on to note the merits of the deal, citing the fact that Russia and the US reported in 2015 that 80 percent of the nuclear warheads accumulated during the Cold War had been decommissioned or destroyed.

However, Gorbachev – who led the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991 – said the agreement is now “in jeopardy.”

“It has proved to be the most vulnerable link in the system of limiting and reducing weapons of mass destruction. There have been calls on both sides for scrapping the agreement,” he wrote.

Gorbachev stated that both Russia and the US have “raised issues of compliance, accusing the other of violating or circumventing the Treaty’s key provisions…”

“Relations between the two nations are in a severe crisis,” he said, noting the importance of establishing “a dialogue based on mutual respect.”

The former Soviet leader said that it is up to US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to “take action,” and called on both countries to hold a summit to focus on “the problems of reducing nuclear weapons and strengthening strategic stability.” 

Once again noting the importance of the INF Treaty, Gorbachev warned that scrapping the deal could result in a collapse of the “system of nuclear arms control,” which would lead to “disastrous” consequences.

Gorbachev referred to today’s “troubled world” and said it was “disturbing” that US-Russia relations have “become a serious source of tensions and a hostage to domestic politics.” 

“It is time to return to sanity,” he wrote.

Signed at a 1987 summit meeting between Gorbachev and then-US President Ronald Reagan, the INF Treaty obligated both sides to eliminate their short- and intermediate-range missiles. It came into force on June 1, 1988.

The Treaty allowed for hundreds of nuclear-tipped missiles that were deployed in Europe to be scrapped amid the Cold War arms race.

The editorial comes just days after former US Defense Secretary William Perry warned that relations between Washington and Moscow have entered a “new Cold War,” and that current conditions could lead to global conflict. 

Source Article from

Re: The real reasons behind the cancellation of Israel – Africa Summit

It is another bad September for Israel in Africa. Sixteen years ago in Durban, Israel suffered a political blow at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances. The conference ended up with a walk out by Israel and the US after the draft declaration equated Zionism to racism.

Similarly, the NGO Forum of the conference was equally critical of Israel. The conference was regarded as a serious drawback against the pro-Israeli forces at the conference.

On 11 September 2017, the organisers of the first Israeli – Africa Summit which was scheduled to take place in Togo in October announced that the conference had been “postponed indefinitely”.

The controversial conference has been very divisive since its announcement, many criticised it for undermining the African Union (AU). Those critical of the conference argue that any pan African political gathering should involve and take queue from the AU not a particular country.

Secondly, African countries reject the idea of legitimizing Israel, hosting a conference of such nature would have certainly legitimised the Israel. Israel has been engaged in an aggressive charm offensive in Africa under the slogans “Israel is returning to Africa”.

It is all about numbers, the 54 African countries matter when it comes to voting at various global political platforms. Israel has already a significant presence outside the government in many countries particularly in East and West Africa. These organisation are tasked with facilitating people-to-people interactions. Moreover, Israel – like many countries – is queuing up to exploit the African economic opportunities. However, the continued atrocities Israel commits in Palestine remain an obstacle to expand in Africa.

Read: Togo’s summit cancellation is “victory to African struggle,” says Hamas leader

The hosting of a pan African summit in a small country, with a long track record of dictatorship and sociopolitical instability, then call it “ Israeli – Africa Summit” is nothing short of arrogance by Israel. Indeed Africa often embraces a bloc position on difficult foreign policy issues; understandably most African countries are too small and weak to tackle big global political issues on their own. Israel is clearly trying to destroy that position.

It wants to exploit that weakness in Africa by courting smaller countries and forcing them to go against the political trend. The summit would have undermined the unity and seriousness of the African Union (AU). The AU is the only platform that can organise a summit of such a nature and magnitude with that kind of a title.

The Africa- Israeli conference in Togo has exposed a certain number of very important factors in the development of African politics. First, the rejection of this summit by most African nations had little to do with the influence of Arab – African relationship, it had a lot to do with a strong solidarity with Palestine. This is important to mention because the rejection of the Israeli – Africa Summit could easily be misinterpreted or credited to wrong political phenomenon.

Morocco’s efforts in discrediting the summit where by and large self-serving. It used the opportunity as a “public relations fanfare as it reenters the AU”. Many African countries remain committed to the struggle of the Palestinians, and it is that which made them assume a position against the summit.

It is common knowledge that the people-to-people relationships between Arabs and Africans have deteriorated over the years due to racism and the treatment of Africans, particularly African refugees and workers. The number of African leaders who were willing to attend the Israeli- Africa Summit also suggests a change even at the government level.


The conference’s postponement is certainly a diplomatic setback for Israel. However what has been surprising is the number of African countries who were willing to travel to Togo for the summit. Besides Nigeria, whose position was muted by the absence of its president, almost all members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had endorsed and were willing to attend the summit. Furthermore, there is already evidence that the disagreements that have occurred during the discussions leading up to the summit have created cracks and mistrust in Africa.

The biggest question is whether this is the last charm offensive attempt by Israel in Africa? If not, how is Africa going to react next time a big country like Israel makes similar attempts? Will the postponement strengthen the AU or are African countries going to begin overtly embracing standalone foreign policies? What will this mean to the AU’s ambition in maintaining a united position on African foreign policy?

The choice of Togo as the host country without consulting the AU was a serious miscalculation by Israel. Togo is going through political challenges of its own. It was political opportunism by Israel, taking advantage of a weak government hoping to be rescued from its own internal political challenge. The Togolese government was hoping to use Israel’s sociopolitical and economic pledges through the summit to stretch its political tenure, pacify political rumblings in the country and weaken the political opposition.

Source Article from

Key points from the G20 summit of world leaders

HAMBURG, Germany (AP) — Leaders of the Group of 20 rich and developing countries spent two days trying to come up with common positions on climate change, trade and migration at their summit in Hamburg, Germany.

Implementation depends on the will of national governments to take action, and compliance isn’t perfect. But a common statement of purpose sets the tone for policy and enables peer pressure.

Here’s a look at what the leaders did — and didn’t — agree on:



— To support free trade and open markets, a key promise from earlier summits aimed at helping the global economy grow in the wake of the Great Recession.

— To acknowledge that countries can use “legitimate trade defense instruments” to protect their companies if trade partners are taking advantage of them.

— To fight terrorism by, among other things, pushing internet providers to detect and remove extremist content.

— To make a renewed push to reduce excess steel production capacity — primarily in China — that has led to low prices and pressure on other producers.



— To unanimously support the Paris agreement on climate change; a paragraph was agreed in which the summit participants “take note” of the U.S. decision to withdraw. It says the other leaders agree the Paris agreement is “irreversible.”

— To pursue United Nations sanctions such as asset freezes and travel bans against criminals smuggling people from Africa and the Middle East to Europe. A European Union push for such sanctions ran into opposition from several countries.

Source Article from