Mediaboss Marketing

Serious efforts are required to overcome the severe damage done to US-Russia relations under Barack Obama, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Austrian magazine Profil, adding that the need for dialogue, voiced by Donald Trump, gives hope for improving ties.

Of course, we kept close tabs on what Donald Tramp said about Russia on the campaign trail and after the elections. The stated stance of the need to build a good dialogue between the two countries gives some hope for positive developments in our bilateral relations, Lavrov said in an interview with Austrian weekly news magazine Profil.

As President Putin repeatedly stressed, we are ready to go our part of the way for the recovery of our relations with the United States. Their degradation in recent years is not our fault but a result of purposeful actions of the previous administration in Washington. For our part, we have always stayed open to development of predictable cooperation, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and consideration of each other's interests.

Read more

Improving bilateral ties could prove to be a real challenge, Lavrov said.

We realize that serious efforts from both sides are required to overcome the severe damage done to our relations under Barack Obama. Its probably still too early to talk about how work on specific issues will go with the [new] Republican team. It is necessary to wait until the key officials of the new administration feel comfortable in their seats and clarify their foreign policy priorities. After that it will be possible to draw conclusions for the future.

In their first phone conversation that lasted nearly an hour late last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin and new US President Donald Trump outlined their intent to cooperate on issues ranging from defeating Islamic State to mending bilateral economic ties.

Both sides expressed their readiness to make active joint efforts to stabilize and develop Russia-US cooperation on a constructive, equitable and mutually beneficial basis, as well as build up partner cooperation on a wide range of international issues, according to a Kremlin statement following their discussion.

The White House also acknowledged that the positive conversation was a significant start to improving the relationship between the United States and Russia that is in need of repair.

Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that after todays call the two sides can move quickly to tackle terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern, the official US statement added.

Lavrov said Moscow and Washington can jointly attempt to resolve some of worlds most pressing issues.

Read more

We are convinced that wherever there is mutual interest, Russia and the United States can definitely move forward in resolving bilateral issues and make a joint contribution to the effective resolution of the key problems of today. Especially in demand is the [joint] coordination of our countries efforts in the fight against international terrorism.

On top of it, we have a big untapped potential of mutually beneficial cooperation in trade, investment, innovation and technological spheres. Its a good sign that despite the sanctions and pressure from the Obama administration, the majority of US companies did not want to leave the promising Russian market. It has proved to be very profitable for them. Were also interested in expanding cultural and humanitarian exchanges.

I repeat: it is possible to establish effective cooperation between Russia and the United States, but only on the basis of mutual respect and interests, the top Russian diplomat said.

When asked under what conditions Russia could lift its sanctions against the EU, Lavrov replied: This question should not be addressed to me. We didnt initiate the sanctions, its not up to us to lift them, the Russian FM said.

We have imposed [our] sanctions as a countermeasure for one simple reason. European sanctions restrict the ability of our banks to receive loans for the financing of agriculture, which would mean that the EU farmers would benefit from conditions of unfair competition on the Russian market. We had to do everything possible to stay honest. That's all.

READ MORE: Putin & Trump signal new Russia-US partnership with 1st phone call on ISIS, trade & Ukraine

Speaking of Austrias upcoming presidency at the OSCE, Lavrov expressed hope that it will primarily help in settling the Ukrainian crisis.

Speaking of Syria, Lavrov described the negotiations that took place on January 2324 in Kazakhstans Astana as an important and a whole new step in the peace-making progress.

We managed to strengthen the ceasefire regime introduced in Syria under the December 29 agreement At the same time, we do not plan to replace the Geneva talks with those in Astana, Lavrov said, adding that Astana has given an additional momentum to the Geneva process.

Excerpt from:
Lavrov: Undoing Obama-inflicted damage to Russia-US ties will take great effort - RT

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The political bias of the establishment media has never been more outrageous than what we see in the presss double standard for covering President Donald Trump. For contrasts that will make your head spin and your heart ache, compare Trumps treatment to the presss idolatrous treatment of President Obama.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The medias fan-club attitude toward Obama was unprecedented in the modern era. Not even handsome Jack Kennedy or war hero Eisenhower got the kids-glove treatment that Obama got. Obamas frequent goofy statements and embarrassing gaffes were either overlooked entirely or treated as amusing sidebars.

Will any historian ever catalog Obamas frequent misstatements of elementary facts? How many do you remember? Here are few of the gems liberal historians will overlook:

Such historical ignorance and efforts at personal myth-making were routine for Obama - and never challenged by the working press.

Obamas hilarious mispronunciations and stupid asides were a regular feature of his speeches and interviews, at home and abroad. And yet, they did not tarnish his reputation in the White House press corps as a great intellectual and perhaps the smartest man to ever sit in the Oval office. Oh, really?

Now, compare the worshipful treatment of Obama to what Trump has experienced since winning the election on November 8. The establishment press wont even accept the legitimacy of Trumps election, much less the strong points of his policy initiatives. They wont let go of the popular vote versus the Electoral College. That is not ignorance of Civics 101; it is part of a political strategy to demonize and delegitimize the entire Trump program.

The media has openly joined the campaign by the Democratic Party and the Social Justice left to deny that President Trump has any policy mandates whatsoever. The narrative is this: since his presidency is illegitimate to begin with, it is okay to use violence to obstruct him at every point.

Trump is justified and very smart to communicate with the American people directly and not expect the media to convey his messages fairly. Too many of them have become angry partisans in the lefts demonization strategy, and they need to be short-circuited.

Conservatives and constitutionalists have seen media bias for half a century, and America has survived it. Yet, never has that bias and that vituperation been so uniform and vicious as what we see waged against President Trump. When it is coordinated with the near-uniform cultural bias in the entertainment and educational institutions, a triad of treachery emerges to challenge the very foundations of civic order.

See the rest here:
Tancredo: The Disgusting Media Double Standard Between Obama and Trump - Breitbart News

Barack Obama as a student at Harvard law school in 1990. The campus was a place that was politically divided at the time.

When Barack Obama and Neil Gorsuch were contemporaries at Harvard law school as the eighties rolled into the nineties, they found themselves on a tense campus riven with ideological discord.

Debates were fierce, fellow students and professors who knew the two budding brilliant minds recalled.

There was disagreement over the fundamental politics of left versus right but also issues such as the lack of diversity among Harvard faculty, principles of affirmative action for student admission and lofty ideals of jurisprudence and whether the law should be a neutral, technical tool or a means to advance political objectives.

The campus was a place that was politically divided at the time and there was a lot of sometimes uncivil discussion about jurisprudence and other issues. Barack Obama and Neil Gorsuch were obviously on different sides of those issues, Brad Berenson, a Boston-based corporate litigator who was one of Harvard laws class of 1991 alongside the former president and the new supreme court nominee, told the Guardian.

Even though a typical Harvard law class is a sea of 500-plus ambitious, scholarly faces, Berenson said both Obama and Gorsuch stood out for some contrasting but also similar reasons.

They were both well-liked across the ideological spectrum and they were not obnoxious. I enjoyed being around them. Both were reserved, genial and respectful, but with a sense of humor. And they were both conspicuous talents at the time, in terms of legal intellect, but it was very clear then that Barack was a philosophical liberal and Neil was a conservative, much more straight-laced, a straight arrow, he said.

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe called Gorsuch a very, very bright judge whom he also recalled from his university days was not just learned but very personable.

He says he knew Obama better at the time, as he was his research assistant, and got to know Gorsuch better later on, after he became a judge. Tribe also taught current supreme court judge Elena Kagan, class of 86, who went on to become Harvard law schools first female dean.

He recalls the young man who became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and then Americas first black president as an incandescent intellectual, who was much more articulate than almost any student I have had in over 40 years. Obama drew attention as one of just a handful of minority students, of course, but Tribe said he was such a distinctive character and intellectual luminary that he would have stood out at Harvard regardless of skin color.

And while famous images of the young Obama slouching against classical Ivy League columns, hands in pockets, or smoking cigarettes in a bomber jacket, with a sultry expression, gave the impression of a rebel, Tribe demurs.

People make it seem like he was more like James Dean than he was; he wasnt really the rebel, the flamethrower, he was very elegant and thoughtful, Tribe said.

Obama could have gone on to clerk for a circuit judge, and certainly had invitations, and made his way up that ladder, but he was determined to return to Chicago and his vocation as a political organizer. He had such deep convictions about social justice and was so eager to get back to his community work, said Tribe.

As such, Obama and Gorsuch diverged upon leaving Harvard. Obama went back to the South Side, the conventional Gorsuch went off to clerk on the Washington DC circuit and then for supreme court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, before a stint in corporate law. Gorsuch also won a scholarship to Oxford University in 1992 and began his PhD, in a formative trip where he met his British wife and further crystallized his conservative views.

In later years, as a rising judge, Gorsuch would go to Tribe for suggestions for bright and independent-minded star students from the law school who would make good clerks for him.

The people I can think of that I have recommended in the last 10 years or so have enjoyed working for him a great deal and liked him and some of them were even liberal, Tribe said.

It was very clear then that Barack was a philosophical liberal and Neil was a conservative, much more straight-laced

He believes that the intellectual and political ferment at Harvard at the time made both Obama and Gorsuch stronger characters with more rigorous skills to examine their own ideas.

Keith Boykin, the author and commenter, studied with the two men and, perhaps unsurprisingly, as a budding progressive activist in the Black Students Association, he has stronger recollections of the liberal Obama, whom he recalls giving a stirring speech at an association rally.

But what Boykin does recall about Gorsuch is that, while some conservatives there were very outspoken in a negative way to me, he was not one of them.

It was a tense atmosphere on campus, a polarized environment, there were big issues being fought over like lack of diversity in the faculty and the new dean at the time [Robert Clark] was very conservative and pro-business, Boykin recalled. So Gorsuch was not amongst the loud anti-liberal provocateurs, but he was unmistakably, staunchly conservative.

At Oxford, he studied under John Finnis, the controversial Catholic conservative professor and strident proponent of natural law.

Thats telling, said Harvard law professor Charles Fried. Fried had taught Obama and knew Gorsuch because he was a prominent member of the Federalist Society at the university, of which Fried was a faculty adviser.

The Federalists later morphed to include lawyers and judges and such but it was a Harvard law thing at the time with a charter declaring itself conservative, libertarian and, specifically, moderate it was everybody but the left, basically, he said.

For his PhD, Gorsuch focussed his research on assisted suicide and euthanasia, coming out strongly against them and the kind of death with dignity laws that Oregon has had since the mid-nineties and now exist in five states. He has spoken out since about his strong belief in the inviolability of life, which has been taken as a signal, in addition to Donald Trumps repeated assertions that he intended to nominate a supreme court justice who is against Roe vs Wade, that Gorsuch is anti-choice.

I would suspect he would join opponents [of Roe vs Wade] that have chipped away at the edges of the abortion right. Maybe it will be a case of you have the right but you may not be able to get it [a termination] anywhere because of all the regulatory hurdles, said Fried.

Having said that, Texas tried that and the supreme court reversed it, he added.

Fried also pointed out that Gorsuch has been nicknamed Antonin Scalia 2.0 as a supposed reflection of his vivid style and staunch conservatism. But Fried drew contrasts.

Hes not like Scalia in that he writes very well but he does not there is not a sarcastic or aggressive remark from Gorsuch. He tries to ties things to precedent and isnt trying to make the newspapers with quotes. And there is no instinct to belittle or insult people who criticize him, said Fried.

He also pointed out that the two men are of opposite opinions on the so-called Chevron deference, which can easily come into play on the administration of immigration, health or environmental laws, for example.

Scalia firmly believed federal government agencies have the overriding power to interpret statutes and the courts should greatly defer to that, said Fried.

Gorsuch thinks thats wrong. And that is ominous, said Fried.

Read more here:
Class of '91: Obama and Gorsuch rubbed shoulders at Harvard, but their paths split - The Guardian

Sanctions levied against Iran after its recent ballistic missile test may reflect President Donald Trumps recent bellicose language, but its likely the work designating those targeted was begun under the Obama administration, according to experts.

The U.S. on Friday morning announced new punitive sanctions against individuals and organizations helping boost Irans ballistic missile program as well as its militant armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in response to a ballistic missile test conducted 140 miles east of Tehran on Sunday.

Trump appeared to portray the action as a major policy change. Iran is playing with fire they dont appreciate how kind President Obama was to them, he tweeted Friday. Not me!

Yet at least some of the work related to the sanctions likely began under Obama, which undertook similar measures against Iran.

Certainly, based on past precedent, designations can take time, said Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, in an interview. But its expected consistent with what the Obama administration has done in the past. Its not surprising given Iran has continued to test ballistic missiles.

While Davenport couldnt be sure that the vetting had begun before President Trump took office, it would make sense, she said. The Obama administration left open the possibility of additional designations.

As part of the new sanctions, the Treasury Department placed 13 people and 12 companies on a list of specifically designated nationals meaning U.S. citizens and permanent residents cannot do business with them.

Eric Lorber, a senior associate at the Financial Integrity Network with experience advising clients on compliance with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, agreed the Obama administration had likely at least identified possible targets for future designation. It looks fairly straightforward, he told The Intercept during an interview.

Treasury uses certain tags to explain why people and organizations get added to the list. In this case, Treasury connected these new additions to terrorism, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and ballistic missile development.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is not currently listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department though lawmakers have tried to change that several times, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in early January.

The sanctions notably include not just Iranian individuals and corporations but Chinese ones, too. Weve seen this before, Lorber said. In China, certain companies and individuals provide services and equipment for Irans ballistic missile program.

By adding them to the list, the U.S. is discouraging Chinese participation in Irans escalating weapons testing, he said

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not directly confirm the sanctions had been worked on during President Obamas tenure, but said they had been staffed and approved and were in the pipeline for some time during a press conference on Friday afternoon. He noted the sanctions were a direct response to Irans ballistic missile test last Sunday.

The announcement also came after President Trumps national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, brazenly said Iran was put on notice a statement President Trump echoed on Twitter.

The days of turning a blind eye to Irans hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over, Flynn said in a statement.

According to Davenport, the United Nations Security Council will likely conduct its own investigation into whether or not the missile testing violated UN security resolutions. The council met on Tuesday to discuss the missile test at the United Statess request. At the time, the State Department was still determining whether or not the test violated security resolutions currently in place.

According to the State Department, the test involved a medium-range missile that was designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.

A State Department official confirmed to The Intercept that the United States considers the episode to be in defiance of the UN resolutions.This launch was a destabilizing factor in the region, the official said.

Top photo: A military truck carries a Sejil medium-range missile during the annual military parade marking the anniversary of the start of Irans 1980-1988 war with Iraq, on Sept. 21, 2016, in the capital Tehran.

More here:
Trump Is Following Obama Administration's Lead on Sanctions Against Iran - The Intercept

It took former President Obama 10 days from leaving the White House before he spoke out against President Trumps order to temporarily ban people from seven predominately Muslim countries.

The statement was from a spokesman, and it did not attack Trump directly. Rather it appealed to protesters.

President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country, Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, said in a statement. Citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.

Obama and his team are not ruling out a forceful challenge to Trump in the coming months, Politico, citing people in contact with the former president, reported.

There is debate on how to approach a Trump attack. There is fear that if Obama comes out too early against Trump it could lessen the effectiveness of the message. His team reportedly does not want Obama to be the face of the anti-Trump protests.

I wouldnt be opposed if he spoke out, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., told Politico. I just dont know what effect it would be.

He continued, In hindsight, I believe it was wrong for Barack Obama to normalize Donald Trump, he said.

Sources told the magazine that Obama is likely saving a more assertive challenge because knows he only gets one change at it being the first time that he takes on Trump himself.

Polls show Obama left the office both popular and trusted.He had appeared more cautious about diluting his influence by quickly second-guessing Trump. Doing so could make it easier for Trump to dismiss critiques as predictable partisan nitpicking. And becoming the face of Trump's opposition could make it harder for the next generation of Democratic leaders to emerge.

Obama said nothing Monday when Trump fired his former appointee Sally Yates, who was serving as acting attorney general. He also won't opine on Trump's announcement of a Supreme Court nominee, former White House aides in touch with Obama said.

When Trump's White House claimed Obama, too, temporarily banned Iraqi refugees, the ex-president's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes shot back: "This is a lie."

Obama loyalists said the expressions of opposition aren't part of an organized campaign. They reported being energized by a series of group text messages, Facebook groups and email chains in which some of the thousands of one-time Obama staffers are sharing their dismay.

One notably silent figure: Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has yet to criticize Trump since leaving office. An aide said Biden planned to speak out on matters he cares most about, such as foreign policy and women's issues. The aide wasn't authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity.

Read the original:
Obama may challenge Trump more forcefully in coming months ...