And we’re also standing with our veterans and all the men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States. And we restored accountability to the VA. (Applause.) We’re finally giving our heroes access to the world-class healthcare they earned in the uniform of the United States. Veterans Choice is here! (Applause.)
And in this administration, we’re also standing every day with the brave men and women of law enforcement, and we’ve been giving all those who stand on the Thin Blue Line the resources and the respect they deserve every single day. (Applause.) And that includes the courageous men and women of Customs and Border Protection — (applause) — who put their lives on the line every single day. Under this President and this administration, we will never abolish ICE. (Applause.)
You know, as the President has said many times: If you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country. And since day one of our administration, we’ve been working to remove dangerous criminals from our streets in record numbers, enforcing our immigration laws, and working to secure our border. And we’ve already started to build that wall. (Applause.)
And I’ll make you a promise: Before we’re done, we’re going to build it all. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Build that wall! Build that wall! Build that wall!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, we’re building it. (Laughter.) As the President often says, “Don’t worry about it.” (Laughter.)
Make no mistake about it, folks: No matter what you hear from the Democrats and their allies in the media, we have a crisis at our southern border, and it’s like nothing we’ve ever seen before.
So today we call on every member of Congress: Stand up for border security, stop playing politics with the security of the American people, and stand with President Trump for a stronger and safer America. (Applause.)
With his renewed commitment to law and order, this President has also been busy seeing to our judicial branch. President Trump has appointed more men and women to our federal courts in the last two years than any administration in American history. And they are all conservatives, like Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh! (Applause.)
And they’re conservatives who will uphold all the God-given liberties enshrined in our Constitution, like the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. (Applause.)
You know, the freedom of religion is not just enshrined in our Constitution; it’s enshrined in the hearts of the American people. But make no mistake about it: Freedom of religion is under attack in our country. Lately, it’s actually become fashionable for media elites and Hollywood liberals to mock religious belief.
So today we call on every member of Congress: Stand up for border security, stop playing politics with the security of the American people, and stand with President Trump for a stronger and safer America. (Applause.)
With his renewed commitment to law and order, this President has also been busy seeing to our judicial branch. President Trump has appointed more men and women to our federal courts in the last two years than any administration in American history. And they are all conservatives, like Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh! (Applause.)
And they’re conservatives who will uphold all the God-given liberties enshrined in our Constitution, like the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. (Applause.)
You know, the freedom of religion is not just enshrined in our Constitution; it’s enshrined in the hearts of the American people. But make no mistake about it: Freedom of religion is under attack in our country. Lately, it’s actually become fashionable for media elites and Hollywood liberals to mock religious belief.
My own family recently came under attack just because my wife Karen went back to teach art to children at a Christian school. Let me say, before all of you, I couldn’t be more proud of my wife. (Applause.) She’s a Marine Corps mom. She’s a great schoolteacher. And Karen Pence is a great Second Lady for the United States of America. (Applause.)
But let me be clear on this point: This is not about us. It’s about all of you. It’s about the sincerely held belief of millions of Americans who cherish their Christian faith and Christian education. And so I’ll make you a promise: Under this President and this administration, we will always stand with people of faith. We will always defend the freedom of religion of every American of every faith, so help us God. (Applause.)
And as we reflect on our God-given liberties, I got to tell you, I couldn’t be more proud to serve as Vice President to the most pro-life President in American history. (Applause.)
Since the first days of this administration, President Donald Trump has stood without apology for the sanctity of human life. In one of his very first acts, the President reinstated the Mexico City Policy, preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortion or abortion providers around the world. And here at home, President Trump signed a law to allow all 50 states to defund Planned Parenthood. (Applause.) Life is winning in America once again.
But for all the progress we’re making — tragically, at the very moment that more Americans than ever before are embracing the right to life, leading members of the Democratic Party are embracing a radical agenda of abortion on demand.
In state legislatures across the country, Democrats have endorsed late-term abortion. The Democrat governor of Virginia openly defends infanticide. And just four short days ago —
THE VICE PRESIDENT: — Democrats in the Senate, including every Democratic senator running for president, voted against a bill that would prevent newborn babies who survived failed abortions from being killed.
You know, I’ve long believed that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable: the aged, the infirmed, the disabled, and the unborn.
With Democrats standing for late-term abortion, infanticide, and a culture of death, I promise you this President, this party, and this movement will always stand for the unborn. We will always defend the unalienable right to life. (Applause.)
So we’ve restored American strength and security at home, and we’re doing the same thing around the world. And today, under the leadership of President Trump, the United States of America is once again standing proudly as leader of the free world — (applause) — like when this President kept his promise to our most cherished ally and moved the American embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel! (Applause.)
So we’ve stood with our allies and we’ve stood up to our enemies. We’ve taken the fight to radical Islamic terrorists on our terms, on their soil.
In Iraq and Syria, thanks to the courage of our armed forces and our coalition partners, the ISIS caliphate has been decimated, and our troops have liberated 5 million men, women, and children. (Applause.) To see the extraordinary progress they’ve made in liberating millions from the vicious grip of ISIS, I say with conviction, again, what has been said throughout history: The Armed Forces of the United States are the greatest force for good in the history of the world. (Applause.)
NRATV認証済みアカウント @NRATV https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/1102639039184818177
"Part of what [we've] talked about all week is what makes America great. And the answer to that is simple: it's freedom." —@ChrisCoxNRA #CPAC2019
＿＿＿
It’s undeniable: Around the world, nationalism is on the march, and the media and reigning political elites would have you believe this is a dangerous disaster in the making. So, why is Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, unafraid? Watch to understand.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h
Britain votes to leave the European Union. The United States elects a president who says he’ll put “America First.”
Around the world, nationalism is winning elections. Many see this nationalist revival as the great danger of our time, fearing that nationalism will take us back to a more primitive and racist past.
But it wasn’t long ago that great political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, David Ben-Gurion and Mahatma Gandhi, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher recognized what I call the virtue of nationalism.
So, what is this virtue?
A nationalist believes that the world is governed best when nations are free to chart their own independent course, cultivating their traditions and pursuing their interests without interference. Nationalism is not about racism. All nations are internally diverse. And it isn’t about isolationism.
Of course, nations can a pursue a variety of different policies in diplomacy and trade. Nationalism is the opposite of imperialism—or globalism or transnationalism—which are all names for the attempt to bring peace and prosperity to the world by uniting mankind under a single political authority.
The debate between nationalists and globalists, then, is over whether we should aspire to a world of many independent nations—or to be one unified super-state, like the enlightened “Federation” of the Star Trek movies. A case can be made for both sides of the argument. But for the last 30 years—really, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Soviet Union—the “one world“ side has been dominant.
Today, this is changing. Maybe not among elites, but among ordinary citizens—or, as they are known in America, “the deplorables.” It turns out that a lot of people still think good borders make good neighbors.
It’s hardly surprising that people want to preserve the way of life they and their ancestors built up over centuries, the way of life they believe is best. It’s human nature. Our strongest loyalties are to those who are closest to us: to our family; then the larger community or “tribe”, and finally, to the nation.
Mention the Korean War today and most people will look at you with a blank stare. At the time it was fought, just five years after World War II ended, everyone recognized it as a world-shaping conflict, a stark confrontation between the forces of democracy and communism.
It began on June 25, 1950 when Soviet-backed communist North Korea crossed the 38th parallel and invaded its US-backed anti-communist South Korean neighbor. Within weeks the communists had nearly absorbed the entire country. The United States at first was confused over whether it should—or even could—respond. America had slashed its military budget after the end of World War II and was short both men and equipment. It still had not awakened fully to the expansionist threat of Soviet Russia.
The Soviets—buoyed by their own recent development of an atomic bomb and Mao Zedong’s communist victory in China—sensed America’s lack of resolve and encouraged the North’s aggression. Yet within weeks President Harry Truman rushed troops to save the shrinking Allied perimeter at Pusan on the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula. And by late September, 1950, General Douglas MacArthur had successfully completed the Inchon landings and launched counter-attacks
He quickly reclaimed the entire south and sent American-led United Nations forces far into North Korea to reunite the entire peninsula—only to be surprised when hundreds of thousands of Chinese Red Army troops crossed the Yalu River at the Chinese border and sent the outnumbered Americans reeling back into South Korea.
Thanks to the genius of General Matthew Ridgeway, who arrived to assume supreme command in South Korea in December 1950, over the next 100 days US led UN forces pushed the communists back across the 38th Parallel. The fighting was fierce. Seoul, the capital city of South Korea, exchanged hands between communist and US led forces five times before it was finally secured.
During the years 1952 and 1953, the war grew static, neither side able to deliver a knockout blow. Eventually the conflict ended with a tense armistice in July 1953. For over the next 60 years, a cold war persisted between the Stalinist North and what, by the 1980s, had evolved into the democratic, economic powerhouse of South Korea.
Over 35,000 Americans died in the Korean War. The war marked the first major armed conflict of the Nuclear Age, and one in which the United States had not clearly defeated the enemy and thus not dictated terms of surrender. Was fighting the Korean War and restoring the South—without uniting the entire peninsula—worth the huge cost in blood and treasure?
The natural dividend of saving the South was the evolution of today’s democratic and prosperous South Korea that has given its 50 million citizens undreamed of freedom and affluence—and has blessed the world with topflight products from the likes of Hyundai, Kia, LG and Samsung.
South Korea is a model global citizen and a strong ally of the U.S.—and stands in sharp contrast to the communist regime in the North that has starved and murdered millions of its own people and caused untold mischief in the world community. Had it not been for U.S. intervention and support to the South, the current monstrous regime in Pyongyang would now rule all of Korea, ensuring its nuclear-armed dictatorship even greater power and resources.
JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I don't agree at all that it was a failed summit. I think the obligation of the president of the United States is to defend and advance American national security interest and I think he did that, by rejecting a bad deal and by trying again to persuade Kim Jong-un to take the big deal that really could make a difference for North Korea. As the president said, sometimes you have to walk away and I think he made a very important point to North Korea and to other countries around the world about negotiating with him.
He's not desperate for a deal, not with North Korea, not with anybody -- if it's contrary to American national interest.
WALLACE: Well, I want to pick up on that, though, because apparently it had become clear in the negotiations over the preceding weeks and finally days before Hanoi that the North Koreans were asking for a much greater sanctions relief in the president was willing to give. Under those circumstances, did it make sense to even hold the summit?
BOLTON: Well, you never know what the North Koreans are actually going to come with or if they're going to adhere to it. A big part of the problem here in all these discussions were the experts are saying, well, the North Koreans will give a part of their program and the U.S. will release some of the economic sanctions that has bedeviled prior administrations if the problem of incommensurability, that we are talking about things that don't have common measurements. And what North Korea has done consistently in the past is promised to denuclearize and then, by the way, not do it, to get economic benefits, which provide their economy a lifeline, get them out of the trouble they are in and then allow them to go back to the nuclear program.
That kind of mistake is exactly what President Trump said he would not permit in his administration and he did not do it.
WALLACE: You didn't really answer my first question, I'm now realizing, which is where do things stand and what does the president -- what does he want and what's he willing to give?
BOLTON: What he has said from the beginning, that North Korea, if it makes a strategic decision to denuclearize, can have a prospect of a very, very bright economic future. The president held the door open for North Korea and Singapore. They didn't walk through. He held it open for them again in Hanoi, they didn't walk through it.
He is ready to hold it open again, no fixed date for a third summit but he's turned traditional diplomacy on its head and after all in the case of North Korea, why not, traditional diplomacy has failed in the last three administrations.
WALLACE: But would you agree that so far this move with Kim has failed?
BOLTON: I don't think we are in any worse shape than they were in past demonstrations. I think in fact we are in a stronger position because the maximum pressure campaign, as it's been called, of putting tighter economic sanctions on North Korea and enforcing those sanctions more effectively is what brought them to this point. And that program of maximum pressure will continue and I think have a real impact on Kim Jong-un.
WALLACE: I want to ask you about exactly that because before Singapore, the president said that he would not accept North Korea as a nuclear power and here's what you told me last April.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Is there any possibility that the U.S. would accept North Korea as a nuclear power and allow them to keep some of their infrastructure?
WALLACE: But this week the president kept saying over and over again, there's no rush for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, to give up its missiles, the key is no testing and according to intelligence reports, U.S. intelligence reports, in the last year while they have not tested, North Korea has produced enough nuclear fuel for five to seven more nuclear weapons.
So I guess the question is, in effect, despite what you said, despite with the president said, aren't you accepting North Korea as a nuclear power, and haven't you, in fact, given a big concession, which is that in return for no testing, you've agreed to cancel major joint exercises with the South Koreans?
BOLTON: I don't think the president sees it that way at all. The objective of making sure that North Korea denuclearizes is still the policy of the administration. And I think --
BOLTON: That the fact is that at the moment, the leverage is on the side of the United States, the economic sanctions continued to take hold.
There's no doubt over a protracted period of time, that the time does work in favor of the proliferator. But I think our judgment right now is that time works in the favor of the president's position as North Korea sees the effective of these sanctions taking greater effect.
Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America (英語) ペーパーバック – 2017/8/15
Qiao Liang (著), Wang Xiangsui (著)
More relevant than ever, this interesting handbook on modern all-enveloping warfare was first published in China in 1999. Re-digitized from the 2004 Filament Books edition, this new edition contains specific methods for American troops, government, academia, and business circles for dealing with unrestricted warfare. Coauthored by Major General Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, the book has been required reading at West Point. The People’s Liberation Army manual for asymmetric warfare details the waging of war, strategically and tactically, using weapons not limited to bullets, bombs, missiles, and artillery shells. The two PLA officers who advocated the strategy set forth in the following pages argue that modern warfare, in ways not too dissimilar from Sun Tzu’s Art of War, is about impeding the enemy’s ability to wage war and to defend itself against a barrage of attacks against its economy, its civil institutions, its governmental structures, and its actual belief system.
This is not a manual for achieving an overnight victory. Rather, it is a recipe for a slow but inexorable assault on an enemy’s institutions, often without the enemy’s knowledge that it is even being attacked. As Sun Tzu once wrote, “If one party is at war with another, and the other party does not realize it is at war, the party who knows it’s at war almost always has the advantage and usually wins.” And this is the strategy set forth in *Unrestricted Warfare,* waging a war on an adversary with methods so covert at first and seemingly so benign that the party being attacked does not realize it’s being attacked. In the age of the worldwide internet, what seems like the free flow of information is also an open door policy for one country to insert its propaganda into the thinking and belief systems of its enemy.
Do we consider Vladimir Putin’s Russia to be a friend to the United States? Are we really that naïve? Voting constituencies might have very legitimate reasons to support the politicians of their choice, but when those choices are based on the flow of absolutely false information inimical to the best interests of that population, it is an example of the success of asymmetric or unrestricted warfare, in essence, propaganda war. The Russians have been experts at this since the days of the czar, and since the experiments of Pavlov and his dogs have mastered the art of getting the responses they want from the stimuli they inject into their subjects’ thought patterns. In this past election cycle, it worked. As you read the following pages, a manual for the military humbling of the United States through nonmilitary means that most Americans will not even realize, you should understand that this is not just a “what if,” but a reality. It is happening now even as North Korea’s Kim blusters about sending missiles towards Guam and Donald Trump responds by rattling his own saber in its scabbard.
China, meanwhile, watches while its enemy is engaged with a tiny country that has the means to send nuclear tipped ICBMs to American cities. If North Korea attacks Guam or Pearl Harbor and the United States responds, who benefits? Not North Korea, not South Korea, not the United States. China benefits when U.S. Naval facilities on Guam or at Pearl Harbor are damaged so that the American presence in the Pacific is diminished to the point of incapacity. Readers, therefore, should take this little manual as a dire warning. Complacency cripples. Hubris kills. And blindness without guidance usually leads one into the nearest wall if not hurtling down a flight of stairs. Thus, although this book was written almost twenty years ago, it should be regarded as the playbook for the destruction of not only the United States, but of western democracies in general.
Everyone who has lived through the last decade of the 20th century will have a profound sense of the changes in the world. We don’t believe that there is anyone who would claim that there has been any decade in history in which the changes have been greater than those of this decade. Naturally, the causes behind the enormous changes are too numerous to mention, but there are only a few reasons that people bring up repeatedly. One of those is the Gulf War.
One war changed the world. Linking such a conclusion to a war which occurred one time in a limited area and which only lasted 42 days seems like something of an exaggeration. However, that is indeed what the facts are, and there is no need to enumerate one by one all the new words that began to appear after 17 January 1991. It is only necessary to cite the former Soviet Union, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, cloning, Microsoft, hackers, the Internet, the Southeast Asian financial crisis, the Euro, as well as the world’s final and only superpower—the United States. These are sufficient. They pretty much constitute the main subjects on this planet for the past decade.
However, what we want to say is that all these are related to that war, either directly or indirectly. However, we definitely do not intend to mythicize war, particularly not a lopsided war in which there was such a great difference in the actual power of the opposing parties. Precisely the contrary. In our in-depth consideration of this war, which changed the entire world in merely half a month, we have also noted another fact, which is that war itself has now been changed. We discovered that, from those wars which could be described in glorious and dominating terms, to the aftermath of the acme of what it has been possible to achieve to date in the history of warfare, that war, which people originally felt was one of the more important roles to be played out on the world stage, has at one stroke taken the seat of a B actor.
A war which changed the world ultimately changed war itself. This is truly fantastic, yet it also causes people to ponder deeply. No, what we are referring to are not changes in the instruments of war, the technology of war, the modes of war, or the forms of war. What we are referring to is the function of warfare. Who could imagine that an insufferably arrogant actor, whose appearance has changed the entire plot, suddenly finds that he himself is actually the last person to play this unique role. Furthermore, without waiting for him to leave the stage, he has already been told that there is no great likelihood that he will again handle an A role, at least not a central role in which he alone occupies center stage. What kind of feeling would this be?
Perhaps those who feel this most deeply are the Americans, who probably should be counted as among the few who want to play all the roles, including savior, fireman, world policeman, and an emissary of peace, etc. In the aftermath of “Desert Storm,” Uncle Sam has not been able to again achieve a commendable victory. Whether it was in Somalia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, this has invariably been the case. In particular, in the most recent action in which the United States and Britain teamed up to carry out air attacks on Iraq, it was the same stage, the same method, and the same actors, but there was no way to successfully perform the magnificent drama that had made such a profound impression eight years earlier. Faced with political, economic, cultural, diplomatic, ethnic, and religious issues, etc., that are more complex than they are in the minds of most of the military men in the world, the limitations of the military means, which lad heretofore always been successful, suddenly became apparent. However, in the age of “might makes right”—and most of the history of this century falls into this period—these were issues which did not constitute a problem. The problem is that the U.S.-led multinational forces brought this period to a close in the desert region of Kuwait, thus beginning a new period.
At present it is still hard to see if this age will lead to the unemployment of large numbers of military personnel, nor will it cause war to vanish from this world. All these are still undetermined. The only point which is certain is that, from this point on, war will no longer be what it was originally. Which is to say that, if in the days to come mankind has no choice but to engage in war, it can no longer be carried out in the ways with which we are familiar. It is impossible for us to deny the impact on human society and its soul of the new motivations represented by economic freedom, the concept of human rights, and the awareness of environmental protection, but it is certain that the metamorphosis of warfare will have a more complex backdrop. Otherwise, the immortal bird of warfare will not be able to attain nirvana when it is on the verge of decline: When people begin to lean toward and rejoice in the reduced use of military force to resolve conflicts, war will be reborn in another form and in another arena, becoming an instrument of enormous power in the hands of all those who harbor intentions of controlling other countries or regions. In this sense, there is reason for us to maintain that the financial attack by George Soros on East Asia, the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy by Osama Bin Laden, the gas attack on the Tokyo subway by the disciples of the Aum Shinri Kyo, and the havoc wreaked by the likes of Morris Jr. on the Internet, in which the degree of destruction is by no means second to that of a war, represent semi-warfare, quasi-warfare, and sub-warfare, that is, the embryonic form of another kind of warfare.
But whatever you call them, they cannot make us more optimistic than in the past. We have no reason for optimism. This is because the reduction of the functions of warfare in a pure sense does not mean at all that war has ended. Even in the so-called postmodern, post-industrial age, warfare will not be totally dismantled. It has only reinvaded human society in a more complex, more extensive, more concealed, and more subtle manner. It is as Byron said in his poem mourning Shelley, “Nothing has happened, he has only undergone a sea change.” War which has undergone the changes of modern technology and the market system will be launched even more in atypical forms. In other words, while we are seeing a relative reduction in military violence, at the same time we definitely are seeing an increase in political, economic, and technological violence. However, regardless of the form the violence takes, war is war, and a change in the external appearance does not keep any war from abiding by the principles of war.
If we acknowledge that the new principles of war are no longer “using armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will,” but rather a “using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military or non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.”
This represents change. A change in war and a change in the mode of war occasioned by this. So, just what has led to the change? What kind of changes are they? Where are the changes headed? How does one face these changes? This is the topic that this book attempts to touch on and shed light on, and it is also our motivation in deciding to write this book. (Written on 17 January 1999, the 8th anniversary of the outbreak of the Gulf War.) 🌳
After almost 50 years of Tibetan uprising, where does the Tibet issue stand today? That’s the key issue Karan Thapar asked His Holiness Dalai Lama in an exclusive interview on Devil’s Advocate.
Karan Thapar: Your Holiness, it’s almost been 30 years since you adopted the middle way, giving up Tibet’s claims of independence and instead accepting meaningful autonomy within China. The problem is that Chinese have shown no flexibility, no willingness to accommodate you and on the other hand, the Tibetan Youth Congress is calling for a more strident, assertive policy. Are you falling between two stools?
Dalai Lama: Firstly, we are fully committed about democracy. So, among our community, there are different views, even very serious criticisms of certain policies. However, our position is not seeking independence, but trying to achieve genuine autonomy that Chinese Constitution also provided. I think that though concrete research has not yet come, the Chinese intellectuals and educationists are showing genuine support and appreciation for our approach.
Karan Thapar: Let’s explore that Your Holiness. The Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, on March 16, laid down conditions that he says you have to accept before the Chinese prepare to talk to you. He says first of all you must abandon all support for Tibetan independence and must accept that Tibet has always been, since antiquity, an inseparable part of China. Are you prepared to accept that?
Dalai Lama: Now, I think the whole world knows that I am not seeking independence. As far as history is concerned, I always make clear – past is past. It’s not a political decision. It’s up to the historian or the legal expert…
Karan Thapar: Can I interrupt, Your Holiness? The Chinese say that in fact you may claim that you have accepted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, but many of your statements suggest otherwise.
For instance, in statement on Tibetan Uprising Day on March 10, 1995, you said, ‘The reality of today is that Tibet is an occupied country under colonial rule.’ In you famous five points you said ‘Tibet was a completely independent state in 1949 when the PLA entered’. Now the Chinese say these statements prove that you don’t accept that Tibet has always been a part of China. They, in fact, prove you still want independence.
Dalai Lama: I think, even among Chinese the opinion about history differs. Some time ago, the Chinese government said Tibet was a part of China since seventh century because of marriage. Then eventually, they dropped it and insisted it was since 13th century. Now even on that there are differing views among the Chinese scholars. Anyway, past is past. When PLA came to Tibet, at that time according to legal experts, Tibet was a de facto independent nation. So, according to that view, we consider Tibet an occupied land. But that does not mean that we are seeking independence because the world is changing. The reality is changing. Tibet is a backward country, economically and materially. Spiritually we are very advanced that everyone knows. Therefore, for our own independence and for material growth, we want to remain within People’s Republic of China
CNN認証済みアカウント @CNN https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1103791435340566528
JUST IN: The House passed a resolution broadly condemning hate and intolerance, including anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim discrimination, in the wake of controversy over comments made by Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar. The vote was 407-23. https://cnn.it/2TzABkv
The Dalai Lama Has Been the Face of Buddhism for 60 Years. China Wants to Change That
By Charlie Campbell | Photographs by Ruven Afanador for TIME
March 7, 2019
Morning has broken on the cedar-strewn foothills of the Himalayas. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama sits in meditation in his private chapel in Dharamsala, a ramshackle town perched on the upper reaches of North India’s Kangra Valley. Rousing slowly, he unfolds his legs with remarkable agility for a man of 83, finds the red felt slippers placed neatly beneath his seat and heads outside to where a crowd has already gathered.
Around 300 people brave the February chill to offer white khata scarves and receive the Dalai Lama’s blessing. There’s a group from Bhutan in traditional checkered dress. A man from Thailand has brought his Liverpool F.C. scarf, seeking divine benediction for the U.K. soccer team’s title bid. Two women lose all control as they approach the Dalai Lama’s throne and are carried away shaking in rapture, clutching prayer beads and muttering incantations.
The Dalai Lama engages each visitor like a big kid: slapping bald pates, grabbing onto one devotee’s single braid, waggling another’s nose. Every conversation is peppered with giggles and guffaws. “We 7 billion human beings — emotionally, mentally, physically — are the same,” he tells TIME in a 90-minute interview. “Everyone wants a joyful life.”
His own has reached a critical point. The Dalai Lama is considered a living Buddha of compassion, a reincarnation of the bodhisattva Chenrezig, who renounced Nirvana in order to help mankind. The title originally only signified the preeminent Buddhist monk in Tibet, a remote land about twice the size of Texas that sits veiled behind the Himalayas. But starting in the 17th century, the Dalai Lama also wielded full political authority over the secretive kingdom. That changed with Mao Zedong’s conquest of Tibet, which brought the rule of the current Dalai Lama to an end. On March 17, 1959, he was forced to escape to India.
In the six decades since, the leader of the world’s most secluded people has become the most recognizable face of a religion practiced by nearly 500 million people worldwide. But his prominence extends beyond the borders of his own faith, with many practices endorsed by Buddhists, like mindfulness and meditation, permeating the lives of millions more around the world. What’s more, the lowly farmer’s son named as a “God-King” in his childhood has been embraced by the West since his exile. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and was heralded in Martin Scorcese’s 1997 biopic. The cause of Tibetan self-rule remains alive in Western minds thanks to admirers ranging from Richard Gere to the Beastie Boys to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who calls him a “messenger of hope for millions of people around the world.”
