Barack Obama

While the US President, Donald Trump has decided to move forward in pulling out of the Iran deal, clearly former US President Barack Obama is not happy with the pulling out by Trump, and another punch to some of his legacy work, and had decided to write a statement, few minutes after the announcement was made.

Obama shared this on his social media pages;

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

After long expectation and series of argument at the UK house of Common about Donald Trump official visit to the UK, the US President  today announced today via Twitter he would not be visiting the UK after all.

While citing reasons for his decision, Trump said he is not happy with the Obama administration moving the US embassy from where it was in a bad deal, only to build a new one at an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Though report last might has said that Trump was not going to the UK because he was concerned about his popularity among the UK populace, he was concerned he was not going to be well received at the country.

He wrote;

Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for “peanuts,” only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!

This is another Trump tweet that is directed to past Obama administration to show complete disdain for his predecessor, because the decision to move the embassy from its previous location to the current place was done in the Bush's administration, with the administration citing security reasons.

This was done in October 2008, and according to the website of the embassy, "The project has been funded entirely by the proceeds of the sale of other US Government properties in London, not through appropriated funds."

Donald Trump has appointed Rex Tillerson to go to the opening of the new embassy instead.

The opening of the building was seen as the British government has a time the US President would want to make his first state official visit., after he was invited by the Prime minister, Theresa May on her official and first head of state to visit US President Donald Trump.

Trump has repeatedly said he would not visit the UK if he will be facing mass demonstrations, but the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan has always called out Donald Trump, and both the Mayor and the US President in the past has exchanged words over Trump's comment, including when Trump retweeted some fake videos from the leader of a group led by Jayda Fransen in UK known to harass Muslims and immigrants.

When the UK prime minister, Theresa May told Mr Trump not to retweet the anti-Muslim video, Trump responded that the PM should focus on radical Islamic terrorism ravaging the country, and not him.

There has been calls by the oppositions in the UK to cancel Trump's visit, and one of the plans for his state visit was to meet the Queen, but it was later downgraded to just "working visit" which is much less prestige.

The recent GOP health care bill has unmuted former President Barack Obama, who before now has not commented on the Donald Trump presidency, or any of Trump previous allegations. The reason Obama is coming out now is to speak against the current released GOP health care bill.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump disagree over the cost and insurance rates of the new health care bill for Americans. This also includes argument over the world mean.

In a long Facebook post by Obama, the rushed-through Republican health care bill "would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid as we know it," he then added "Small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation."

Trump during his interview with his favourite TV cable network, Fox and friends, confirmed that he also denounces the GOP health care bill, and said he had told that "I want to see a (health care) bill with heart."

According to Trump's secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price while speaking to CNN, said that the goal of the new Trumpcare goal is to decrease premiums, even though few republicans believes this is not feasible under their new proposed plan.

Read Obama write up here;

Our politics are divided. They have been for a long time. And while I know that division makes it difficult to listen to Americans with whom we disagree, that’s what we need to do today.

I recognize that repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has become a core tenet of the Republican Party. Still, I hope that our Senators, many of whom I know well, step back and measure what’s really at stake, and consider that the rationale for action, on health care or any other issue, must be something more than simply undoing something that Democrats did.

We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain – we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course.

Nor did we fight for it alone. Thousands upon thousands of Americans, including Republicans, threw themselves into that collective effort, not for political reasons, but for intensely personal ones – a sick child, a parent lost to cancer, the memory of medical bills that threatened to derail their dreams.

And you made a difference. For the first time, more than ninety percent of Americans know the security of health insurance. Health care costs, while still rising, have been rising at the slowest pace in fifty years. Women can’t be charged more for their insurance, young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, contraceptive care and preventive care are now free. Paying more, or being denied insurance altogether due to a preexisting condition – we made that a thing of the past.

We did these things together. So many of you made that change possible.

At the same time, I was careful to say again and again that while the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America, it was not perfect, nor could it be the end of our efforts – and that if Republicans could put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we made to our health care system, that covers as many people at less cost, I would gladly and publicly support it.

That remains true. So I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that there’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse.

But right now, after eight years, the legislation rushed through the House and the Senate without public hearings or debate would do the opposite. It would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid as we know it. That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analyses, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that 23 million Americans would lose insurance, to America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals on the front lines of our health care system.

The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. Those with private insurance will experience higher premiums and higher deductibles, with lower tax credits to help working families cover the costs, even as their plans might no longer cover pregnancy, mental health care, or expensive prescriptions. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions could become the norm again. Millions of families will lose coverage entirely.

Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.

I hope our Senators ask themselves – what will happen to the Americans grappling with opioid addiction who suddenly lose their coverage? What will happen to pregnant mothers, children with disabilities, poor adults and seniors who need long-term care once they can no longer count on Medicaid? What will happen if you have a medical emergency when insurance companies are once again allowed to exclude the benefits you need, send you unlimited bills, or set unaffordable deductibles? What impossible choices will working parents be forced to make if their child’s cancer treatment costs them more than their life savings?

To put the American people through that pain – while giving billionaires and corporations a massive tax cut in return – that’s tough to fathom. But it’s what’s at stake right now. So it remains my fervent hope that we step back and try to deliver on what the American people need.

That might take some time and compromise between Democrats and Republicans. But I believe that’s what people want to see. I believe it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that appeals to Americans across party lines. And I believe that it’s possible – if you are willing to make a difference again. If you’re willing to call your members of Congress. If you are willing to visit their offices. If you are willing to speak out, let them and the country know, in very real terms, what this means for you and your family.

After all, this debate has always been about something bigger than politics. It’s about the character of our country – who we are, and who we aspire to be. And that’s always worth fighting for.

According to a US official involved in arms transfers, the US is in the middle of sending a precision-guided missile technology valued at $300 million, and also  a F-16 fighter jet valued at $4 billion to Bahrain.

The new resumption of arms deal is signed between the US and kingdom’s involvement in its neighbour’s ongoing civil war.

Former President Obama in his last month in office blocked the sale of precision munitions in Riyadh because of the airstrike's killing civilians in large-scales in Yemen.

The US has been supporting Saudi Arabia with logistics and surveillance support in its military aggression and operation in Yemen.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s approved the sale this week, but this will also need to go through the White House.

The Obama-led administration approved the sales of Tank to the Saudi government, but did not give a final go ahead to precision-guided missile technology.

I have read every now and then on how the US state department, led by Hillary Clinton, and the former US President Barack Obama ordered the killing of the Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi. The comments have always appeared on Twitter and Facebook and most people rejoicing after Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump.

This is not an article to sway your mind away from your beliefs, but instead to show you a new angle of the issue, and how African leaders have not only failed their people with basic human infrastructures, but how they can cowardly leave their allies hanging,and also fail us all.

And before you decide to relieve yourself with a sigh, I should also let you know that, although African leaders might have failed us, but you Libyans, and other African citizens actually killed Muammar al-Gaddafi, and if you had loved him so much as you had always claimed on your social media writing, maybe he would still be alive.

In this age of social media, we can't deny the horrible events that have happened in Syria, after the US claims that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons on his own people, and because of this genocide, the Bashar al-Assad regime was told it will be overthrown by the US government, for a better democratic government that will lead the people of Syria with transparency.

Of course, the world will react, and to make this effective, the media won't stop letting you see dead bodies, and to see reasons why the US need to overthrow Assad government. The same tactics that was used in Iraq to justify waging war against Saddam Hussein that killed him, no WMD was found, and while this article does not justify the genocide committed by the Sadam regime, killing him only turned Iraq into a country nobody wanted to visit anymore.

Now back to our Gaddafi story. A lot of Africans have debated on his plans in making sure he restores Africa to his glory. A lot has praised the man that despite the allegation of corruption levied against him, Libyans were able to afford good meal, and there was work availability.

One of the reasons he was killed was because he was about to create a "Gold-backed currency," a plan that might replace France dominancy in theFrancophone region, and even though there was a French-led U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 creating a no-fly zone over Libya, when it profits the French, they used NATO to topple Gaddafi.

illiteracy And Disloyalty And Greed

Nobody is perfect, and it is no news that Gaddhafi pro outweigh its cons, and most Libyans know that, but when he initiated that he would start getting gold for his oil, insurgents started rising against him in his own home, and this people will go ahead and kill him.

The people of Libyans were covered in their own foolishness, Africans around him will not support him, as they prefer to listen to CNN and read the news on the current situation of Libya. A man that wanted to turn the continent with his pan-Africanism agenda was killed.

Why I am angry with people that keeps screaming Obama and Clinton was because it is high time Africa as a continent stands up for itself now and stop acting as a puppet to Western countries. 

The reasons why there was African-Americans today is because some old senseless men back then decides to exchange their fellow Africans for gunpowders, golden wristwatches, Mirrors and cash. Till this moment, a lot of Africans still blame the Westerners for slavery.

Until people start realising that they hold more power than the government of the day, we will remain the same way, and even they we won't get the masters identification mark as slaves, or whipped to death for disobeying orders, we will still keep getting orders from the masters, maybe this time with a drone over our head.

Africans or the Arab states could have saved Gaddafi if they had risen against the western countries domination in Libya or speak against it. 

In a Youtube video before his death, Gaddafi was speaking to leaders of the Middle-East about how Saddam Hussein was captured, and Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad was smiling when he was criticizing the Americans for invading Iraq on the pretence of WMD, when they were actually trying to cripple the Iraqi government because Hussein was also asking for gold before he could sell them oil.

Why the Obama administration via Clinton might have sponsored the killing of Gaddafi, I believe the illiteracy, disloyalty among his people, the Arab states literally killed him. If they had all stood by him, and reject the brainwashing tactics of the Western power, then some parts of Libya might be destroyed, but Gaddafi will be alive.

Bashar al-Assad government was also about to be crippled recently, but he had most of his people fighting, and with the help of Russians who are now tired of what happened in Libya and Iraq, and decided to stop the re-occurrence again, because the toppling of the government that has been done in the past have only resulted in new terrorist organizations, and more rebel in such country.

The toppling of Sadam Hussein and Gaddafi is the reason for ISIS today, and who is suffering now?  The people of Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

You have probably witnessed the Vietnam war, and heard how Vietnam, a small country with no nuclear power, or best armoury or tanks was able to form resistance against the US government, and people that betrayed the government at the time was either killed or sent out of the country.

At some point, the people decided not to break into North or South Vietnam, but instead One Vietnam, and when US sees they were never going to win, they label the rebels different names, assasinated their character, but they pay no mind, until American soldiers was forced to leave their country.

The unity and oneness of a country/continent is bigger than nuclear power or heavy armours.

Africans won't fight, or speak out on what is right, instead they sell out, and speaks too much of the Queen's English.

Ask yourselves, who are your leaders? Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe, the man that looks like a walking ghost? or Uganda president that won't leave after 30 years, and turns the position to a kingship, or Yahya Jammeh that won't leave until he was disgraced out of the country, or Nigerian president that came to presidency and put his country into recession.

Africans willneed to fights its own demon, before it can stand shoulder to shoulder or invited to the table of decision, if ever that would ever happen.

Trump Icing On The Cake

The recent US administration led by Donald Trump had said whenever he assumed office, he will make sure to ban refugees from some Muslim countries. Last week, Trump decided to do what he had promised to Americans via one of his executive orders by banning people from  Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Does that country sounds known to you? Iran and Iraq, was destroyed by whom? Syria was destroyed by whom? Libya was destroyed by whom?

I am not asking you not to fight your government or stage a revolution, but think deep about what you are doing, and make sure you are no influenced by external bodies, because when real issues hit the fan, you will have no country to live.

So before you post any new comment criticising the Westerners again like your ancestors have been doing, remember Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama Or CIA Did Not Kill Muammar Gaddafi, I Did, and you did.