Obama visits Saudi amid tensions with historic ally

RIYADH - US President Barack Obama lands in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday to intensify the struggle against jihadists and efforts to end wars in Syria and Yemen, while trying to ease tensions with Riyadh.

In Saudi Arabia US President Barack Obama will consult Washington's Gulf allies on the crises in Yemen and Syria, but he is unlikely to receive a warm reception

After his early-afternoon arrival in the Saudi capital, Obama is to hold talks with King Salman, 80, who has presided over a more assertive foreign policy since acceding to the throne last year.

On Thursday, the president will attend a summit with the six Gulf Cooperation Council monarchies, joined by US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter and Secretary of State John Kerry.

They will gather in an atmosphere of bitterness with regional leaders offended by Obama's tone and actions, particularly what they see as his reluctance to get involved in Syria and other regional problems, as well as his tilt towards Iran.

The Sunni Gulf monarchies are worried after the lifting this year of international sanctions against their regional rival, Shiite Iran.

Riyadh and its neighbours fear the US-supported international deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme will embolden the country, which they accuse of interference throughout the Middle East.

Mustafa Alani, a senior adviser to the Gulf Research Center, said Obama's presidency has been "100 percent negative" for the region, a legacy of "keeping his distance".

But the White House has emphasised the strength of an alliance that has endured more than 70 years, seeking to minimise the frictions.

"There have always been complexities in the US-Saudi relationship. There's been a core to that relationship in which we cooperate on shared interests like counterterrorism," said Ben Rhodes, a close adviser to Obama, who is in the final months of his mandate.

Saudi-US ties are founded on an exchange of oil for security.

"The Saudis are frustrated. They have the impression, probably rightly so, that the White House does not really understand their concern of the Iranian threat", said Lori Plotkin Boghardt, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

- An outspoken president -
Saudis reacted with outrage to comments by Obama published in the April edition of US magazine The Atlantic.

He said the Saudis need to "share" the Middle East with their Iranian foes, saying that competition between Riyadh and Tehran has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Obama spoke of "free riders", suggesting that certain states had not assumed their share of responsibility for regional security.

"I think the US has had long, longstanding concerns about the way the Saudis are behaving in the region. And this president has been more vocal than any about raising that", said Frederic Wehrey, of the Middle East Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Also clouding this visit is congressional legislation that would potentially allow the Saudi government to be sued in American courts over the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Nearly 3,000 people were killed.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens but no official Saudi complicity in the Al-Qaeda attacks has been proven.
The kingdom has never been formally implicated.
Saudi Arabia has reportedly warned it could sell off several hundred billion dollars' worth of American assets if the bipartisan bill passes.
"If Saudi Arabia participated in terrorism, of course they should be able to be sued," Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said.
On the eve of his departure from Washington, Obama stated his opposition to the bill.
He hopes the talks in Riyadh will concentrate on the fight against the Islamic State (IS) group of Sunni extremists, and how to end the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.
Saudi Arabia has assigned warplanes to a US-led coalition fighting IS in Syria.
Riyadh leads a separate Arab military coalition that for 13 months has supported Yemen's government in its battle against Iran-backed Shiite Huthi rebels.
The rights group Amnesty International asked Obama to place human rights at the centre of his discussions. It said opposition voices in the Gulf are systematically "stifled" under the cover of national security.

Killing of Minusca peacekeeper in CAR may be a war crime says UN Security Council

Elsa Buchanan

UN peacekeepers stand guard as voters wait outside for the opening of polling stations in Bangui on 14 February 2016 to take part in the country's delayed elections

Issouf Sanogo/AFP/Getty Images

The United Nations (UN) has condemned the killing of a Moroccan peacekeeper from the Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (Minusca) on Sunday (17 April) in the town of Rafai, near the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The UN said that

attacks against peacekeepers may constitute war crimes.

The UN confirmed the peacekeeper was killed by unknown gunmen when he was shot in the town of Rafai, located in the country's south-east Mbomou prefecture, as he was responding to an attack on the nearby village of Agoumar.

CAR militia use rape to punish women suspected of speaking to the enemy

The attack was allegedly carried out by elements of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group led by Joseph Kony that originated in Uganda in the 1980s. The peacekeeper

succumbed to his wounds on Sunday afternoon.

"The secretary-general reiterates that attacks against those who are working towards peace and security in the Central African Republic are unacceptable," the statement said.

"He calls on the newly elected government to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was quoted as saying by his spokesman.

Soldiers from Minusca patrol in the area where sporadic gunfire and improvised barricades closed the access to some districts of Bangui on 10 December 2015.

Marco Longari/AFP/Getty Images

Attacks against Minusca are 'war crimes'

Members of the UN Security Council also condemned attacks and provocations against Minusca by armed groups, adding that attacks against peacekeepers may constitute war crimes.

After reminding all parties of their obligations under international humanitarian law, members of the council called on the CAR government to investigate the attack and hold the perpetrators to account.

Council members repeated their support for Minusca to assist President Faustin Archange Touadera's newly-elected government to bring to justice those responsible for the peacekeeper's death. However, the council members insisted Touadera's government bears the primary responsibility to protect its population, and the people of the CAR in their efforts to bring lasting peace and stability to their nation.

Touadera was sworn into office in late March, becoming the first elected leader following years of sectarian violence.

The central African nation

was thrown into chaos in early 2013 when Muslim Seleka rebels toppled the

then-president François

Bozize's government. Christian militias responded to abuses by the Seleka rebels by attacking Muslims.

Nearly one million people were displaced by the violence, which left the country divided along ethnic and religious lines.

Who are the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)?

The LRA rose up against the government in northern Uganda under the leadership of warlord Joseph Kony in the late 1980s and is notorious for having abducted tens of thousands of children to serve as fighters and sex slaves and has killed and wounded thousands of civilians.
Having earned a reputation for carrying out massacres and mutilating civilians, the LRA left Uganda about a decade ago and has roamed across parts of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Sudan and CAR since then, eluding efforts to defeat them.
"The LRA is a notoriously brutal force that for decades has attacked civilians across a wide swath of East and Central Africa," said Elise Keppler, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The most feared commander of the LRA, Dominic Ongwen, was due to start a five-day pre-trial hearing at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague on 21 January.
The 40 year old is charged with 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in northern Uganda, and initial charges focus on alleged crimes committed in 2004, and include murder, torture, enslavement, and pillage as part of attacks on four internally displaced people (IDP)'s camps in Uganda: Pajule, Odek, Abok and Lukodi camps.
In September 2015, the prosecutor added the charges of persecution, sexual and gender-based crimes, conscription and use of child soldiers.

Royal India tour: Kate Middleton and Prince William 'appalled' after rhino slaughtered during tour

Priya Joshi

A one-horned rhino crosses a path during the royal couple's safari

Heathcliff O'Malley

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have expressed their sense of outrage after learning that a rhino was shot dead by poachers at an Indian park, on the same day the royal couple toured the area to highlight conservation.

Less than 10 hours after Prince William and Kate Middleton went on a jeep safari in Kaziranga National Park during their six-day

royal tour of India and Bhutan

, poachers killed the animal and removed its horn.

Forest rangers discovered the male rhino's carcass, along with almost 100 shell casings from an AK-47 on Thursday (14 April) morning. It's believed to be the sixth rhino to be killed by poachers in Kaziranga in Assam this year.

Kaziranga divisional forest officer Subhashis Das told the Indian Express newspaper: "One adult male rhino was killed near the Patahi Beel water-body under the Borghop anti-poaching camp in the Burrapahar range. The incident occurred at around 11.10pm on Wednesday.

"Our forest guards who rushed to the spot on hearing of gunshots were engaged in an exchange of fire with the poachers, but the culprits managed to escape under the cover of darkness." Footage obtained by ITV News

shows the adult greater one-horned rhino covered in blood and with its horn hacked off.

The royal couple were staying in a lodge around 12 miles away from the spot where the animal was killed. They had earlier visited the nearby Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation (CWRC) where the Duchess fed bottled milk to an orphaned rhino calf, describing the experience as a highlight of her trip to the world heritage site. William and Kate also spotted several fully grown rhinos during the jeep safari.

The Duchess of Cambridge feeds a young rhino

Adnan Abidi/Reuters

The killing of the endangered species shocked the royal couple, with Prince William said to be "appalled" by the reports. A Kensington Palace spokesman said: "The Duke and Duchess were angry to hear about the killing of this rhino during their visit. They hope their time in Kaziranga encourages others to support the brave rangers that are protecting animals that are so important to the communities that surround the national park."

Kaziranga is home to over 2,400 one-horned rhinos. Last year, 20 rhinos were killed there by poachers for their horns which are sold on to customers in China, Vietnam and other countries where people incorrectly believe that the ground rhino horn can treat rheumatism and impotence. Poachers can earn up to £212,000 a kilogram for the substance.

Kensington Palace told ITV News that the Duke of Cambridge is planning to fund training and equipment for rangers, through his charity United for Wildlife.

Peanut Butter and Jelly Causes Racism?

Educators have discovered the root cause of racism in America:  the peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
“The Klan, school bombing and slavery.  These were all caused by peanut butter and jelly” declared the head of the Pacific Education Group, which is spearheading the move to ban the PB&J from all public schools.

Think of the shame a black, Hispanic or Somali child must feel if he is forced to eat the white man’s food at school.  I need not remind people that peanut butter and jelly is often served on “white” bread, or bread of non-color as I like to call it.  These black, Hispanic and Somali children might not eat sandwiches.  I don’t know what they eat.  I’m rich enough to afford not to live in one of their neighborhoods, thank god.  Those neighborhoods are dangerous.  But that doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.  I have thrown out all my white bread in solidarity.

In keeping with the Pacific Education Group’s desire to end racism in America all students will now be taught that our founding fathers ate peanut butter and jelly while formulating the Constitution.

Come on.  Limited government? Lower taxes?  Paying off one’s debt?  These are racial code words.  It only makes sense that our white so-called founding fathers were stuffing their white man faces with peanut butter and jelly.

When told that peanut butter was invented in the 19th century by George Washington Carver, a black man, the director of the Pacific Education Group called Carver a “self-loathing racist.”

First off I deny your so-called facts.  Peanut butter was invented by Thomas Jefferson so he could have something to spread on his slaves when he wanted to get his kink on.  And even if George Washington Carver did invent peanut butter what does that prove?  Only that he was working for the man to keep his people down.

The Pacific Education Group’s goal of eliminating racism in America does not end with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches however.  Other traditionally white concepts such as self-reliance, the belief that hard work leads to success and rational, linear thinking have also been attacked as racist concepts.

The white man likes to tell people that hard work is the key to success.  But the system is rigged against the people of color.  They will not succeed.  The white man also likes to adhere to time schedules, as if time could be controlled.  We here at the Pacific Education Group feel that asking students of color to show up to school on time is a travesty.  Peoples of color are incapable of following a rigid time structure.  I mean, I don’t know any peoples of color.  I’m rich enough to live in a white, gated community as I mentioned before but I heard someone mention this once and it rings true.

To celebrate the end of racism the Pacific Education Group will be holding a free social event at its headquarters which will prominently not feature peanut butter and jelly.
The event begins at 1 pm.  However all guests are asked to show up at the time “their conscience tells them to.”
Breaking news:  The director of the Pacific Education Group has been arrested for shoplifting.  Discovered on her were ten cans of peanut butter and jelly and three loaves of white bread.
“I’m such a hypocrite” she told the arresting officers.  “But god I love peanut butter and jelly.  Just kill me now.  Kill me!”

 

Hungry Girl: How to Lighten Up a Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwich

Courtesy Lisa Lillien

Lisa Lillien is the author of the popular Hungry Girl website and email newsletter, featuring smart, funny advice on guilt-free eating. She is also the author of ten books, six of which debuted at number one on the New York Times Best Sellers list. Read her PEOPLE.com blog every Monday for slimmed-down celebrity recipes and more.

Peanut butter and jelly is a perfect combo that will never go out of style. But your average PB&J is pretty high in calories, fat, and sugar. Here are some of my favorite ways to feed a craving… guilt-free!
RELATED: Hungry Girl: Get My Recipe For Guilt-Free Chicken Nuggets
The best ways to lighten up a peanut butter & jelly sandwich? Powdered peanut butter and low-sugar preserves. Powdered peanut butter is pretty much a miracle product. It’s made from defatted peanuts, which saves you a lot of calories. Just mix it with water, and you’re good to go! Get more info on it here. Plus. low-sugar preserves have so much fruity flavor, you’ll never miss the extra sugar. Try ‘em in strawberry or grape. (I’m team strawberry!) And to really keep things light and healthy, go for thin-sliced whole-grain bread.

Store-Bought Snacks
Yup Brands B-Jammin’ PB&J Bar: This is a standout snack bar. It’s like a PB&J spin on a jumbo Fig Newton! Only 180 calories and 6g fat, it’s loaded with fiber and protein –11g fiber and 12g protein, to be exact!
Chobani Greek Yogurt Flip PB&J: I flipped when I first tasted this new variety from Chobani. It’s strawberry yogurt topped with PB clusters, granola, and honey-roasted peanuts. Wow! 200 calories and 6g fat, plus 12g of filling protein.
RELATED: Hungry Girl: How to Eat Clean in the Real World
Easy DIY Treats
Grilled PB&J: This is like the love child of grilled cheese and a peanut butter & jelly sandwich. So good!
PB&J Yogurt Parfait – Skip the bread entirely, and layer up your PB&J with yogurt! Peanut butter cereal is a great way to get your PB fix – I love the version by Jif.
‘Til next time… Chew the right thing!
 

Why do brides wear veils on their wedding day?

Why do brides wear veils? (Picture: Getty)

Okay, so we’ve found out why men get down on one knee to propose, why we wear diamond engagement rings, and why brides wear white dresses.
Now’s clearly the time to work out why brides wear massive sheets of chiffon on their head.
We are, of course, talking about the veil. The dramatic, elegant, but probably very irritating in practice veil.
Why do we wear them? What do they mean? And when did they become a thing that all traditional brides would wear?
The truth is, no one’s entirely sure. Veils came into practice at different points in different cultures, and have seen dips and increases in their popularity. But here are the main reasons and theories behind a bride’s NEED to wear a veil.

1. Brides wear veils to ward off demons

(Picture: Getty)

Wedding veils started being a thing in Roman times, when brides were covered from head to toe in a massive red veil called ‘flammeum’.
Why? Because Romans were scared of evil spirits popping into the ceremony to curse the couple. They thought that making it look like the bride was on fire would scare them off. Makes sense.
This belief eventually progressed into using the veil to confuse spirits, which makes a bit more sense than the fire thing. The Romans figured that by covering up the bride’s face, the spirit wouldn’t be able to make their attack as they wouldn’t be sure who the bride actually was.

2. Brides wear veils to hide their damn face

(Picture: Getty)

From the ashes of the spirit confusion theory rose a new preference for veils being used to hide the bride’s identity. But this time, she wasn’t protecting who she was from spirits – she was trying to keep her face a secret from her groom.
In early weddings when marriages were arranged entirely through fathers, with the bride given away in exchange for money and goods, dads giving away their daughters wanted to hide their face until the last possible minute, so that a less attractive bride wouldn’t spoil the agreement. How sweet.
This eventually got transformed into the ‘cute’ tradition that decrees that men can’t see their bride before the wedding. Romantic, huh?

3. Brides wore veils so they couldn’t run away

(Picture: Getty)

Bustle notes that veils and trains were used to weigh down the bride and prevent them from running away when they met their new husband for the first time.

4. Brides wear veils to symbolise their virginity

(Picture: Getty)

And their ‘purity’. Agh.
It’s all to do with being covered, and the veil being a thinly veiled (pun intended) reference to the hymen. Veil intact, virginity intact. So you can go right ahead and get wedded.

5. Brides have their veils lifted as a sign of ownership

(Picture: Getty)

Think about it this way: whoever unwraps a present is the owner, right?
So through the ages, tradition has stated that the father of the bride must lower the veil on his daughter’s face, in order to ‘gift’ her to her new husband.
Once they’re about to get married, the husband can then lift the veil, symbolising his new ownership of his bride.

6. Brides wear veils to show that their love is more than skin-deep

(Picture: Getty)

If you still want to wear a veil purely for the prettiness factor, don’t stress. There’s another, non-horrifying reason behind the tradition.
In the Jewish faith, veils are meant to act as a public display that the groom isn’t just marrying his bride because of how she looks.
He’s basically saying ‘I love you so much, I would marry you even if I can’t see your face.’ Aww.