Category: Wars and Rumors of War


‘It made him look like a butler’: Retired general blasts President Obama for ordering U.S. Marine to break military rules by holding an umbrella

  • The President unwittingly forced two U.S Marines to break protocol and regulations as he ordered them to use umbrellas
  • Former United States Air Force Lieutenant Thomas McInerney criticized the President for making the officers look like butlers
  • Came as he was assailed by questions over three scandals engulfing White House during Rose Garden press conference with Turkish Prime Minister
  • Answered questions on Benghazi where no marines guarded ambassador Chris Stevens despite his repeated requests for better protection

By David Martosko In Washington, James Nye and Daniel Bates

|

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

 

 

President Obama humiliated the marine who he asked to hold his umbrella by making him ‘look like a butler’, a respected military general claimed today.

Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’ by making the soldier shelter him from a shower.

He also said that the President has plenty of aides so did not understand why one of them could not have held the umbrella.

Scroll Down for Video

Hoping for a break in the storm

Hoping for a break in the storm: Obama faced a barrage of questions over three simultaneous scandals engulfing his administration

Broken Regulations

Broken Regulations: US Marines hold umbrellas during light rain for US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The President caused a stir when he summoned over two marines to keep him dry at a press conference in the Rose Garden.

The marines held an umbrella over the President and the Turkish Prime Minister individually as Obama made jokes about the weather.

However, for some the move was not a laughing matter particularly as it is a breach of protocol for marines to hold umbrellas while in uniform.

Lt Gen McInerney told MailOnline that he found it particularly insulting how the President at one point his his hand under the marine’s arm ‘like he wasn’t doing a good job or something’.

He said: ‘The President has stood in the rain before without an umbrella and a marine would generally stand there without holding an umbrella.

‘He isn’t some kind of butler or something.

‘It makes the other guy (the other marine) look like a butler too.’

‘I think it’s a lack of respect for the marine, that’s what I think.’

‘I don’t understand why one of his aides could not have held the umbrella. The marine is a warrior but the aides are not.’

Lt Gen McInerney, 76, served in Vietnam and fought with NATO and was commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska before retiring.

He said: ‘If I was his (the marine’s) commander…I’d say good job, you did what he wanted you to do but you can’t, really he has to keep his comments to himself because if you say anything you’re going to get in trouble.’

‘Any time a marine has said something…one general who spoke out, he got fired, he got canned from his job.’

Lt Gen McInerney also lashed out at the President for not doing enough to support soldiers when they return home from combat.’

He said: ‘The President talks a good line but he doesn’t follow a good line. These guys are coming home and they’re not getting what they are supposed to get.’

‘The guy’s (Obama) got to get real and he’s got to start doing stuff the right way and answering questions in the right manner, not changing subject in the middle of the interview.’

According to Marine Corps regulations, not even the President of the United States can request a Marine to carry an umbrella without the express permission of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corp Manual, which is the bible for all soldiers serving, specifically states that a soldier’s uniform dress code does not allow the carrying of an umbrella and ‘no officer or official shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.’

Indeed, male Marines are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training.

Regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3, rules out any use or carrying of an umbrella while a Marine is in uniform.

However, female Marines ‘may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered.’

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President's actions

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President’s actions

 

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Many commentators found the use of the marines to be particularly insensitive, given the President was answering questions on Benghazi.

The lack of marines protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Libyan consulate and the failure to deploy marines to protect him amid the outbreak of violence has come under fire ever since last year’s attack on September 11.

Usually a marine guard would be in force at an overseas diplomatic compound but in Benghazi the government opted to use a private Libyan security team.

Stevens had made repeated appeals for improved security at the Libyan base but to no avail.

Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a CIA security team stationed a mile away who heard gunshots and intervened to try and help Stevens. They were also killed in an attack on their compound.

When violence broke out there were also delays sending in marines to assist.

A rapid response team were twice told to stand down amid the chaos while reports at the time said the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team was delayed because the state department ordered them to deplane and change into civilian clothing.

Answering questions on Benghazi, President Obama said the government was ‘ continuing to review our security at high-threat diplomatic posts’ in light of the attack. 

At the press conference originally intended to be a victory lap for the United States’ relationship with Turkey, Obama stood alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and fielded questions which quickly shifted to the trio of scandals that are engulfing his administration.

Critical: Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ¿lack of respect¿

Critical:Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to 'learn the lessons of Benghazi' but he called it an 'incident' rather than a terror attack

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to ‘learn the lessons of Benghazi’ but he called it an ‘incident’ rather than a terror attack

He also dodged questions about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and said ‘I offer no apologies’ for the Department of Justice’s secret seizure of reporter’s phone records in search of a classified intelligence leak.

He has been under growing pressure over these issues and Benghazi in recent weeks.

It has emerged that his State Department political appointees intervened in the aftermath of the 2012 terror attack, in a process that resulted in a misleading set of talking points which ignored terrorism in favor of a more muted explanation, in the midst of a re-election campaign.

About these ads

 

 

Image source

********************************************************************************************

Friday, 17 May 2013 09:22 PM


 

  • 0
    Share
Sheriffs of 54 Colorado counties sued Governor John Hickenlooper, challenging recently enacted state laws that ban ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds and require background checks for gun sales and loans.

The sheriffs, in a complaint filed today in federal court in Denver, said the ammunition law bans most magazines of any size in an attempt to prohibit those that can be converted to hold more than 15 rounds. They also alleged that compliance with the background checks will be practically impossible.

The effect of the ammunition law’s “various provisions is the widespread ban on functional firearms,” according to the complaint. “The prohibition of so many box and tube magazines of any size, and the prohibition of magazines greater than 15 rounds, directly and gravely harm the ability of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for lawful purposes, especially self- defense.”

The lawsuit is based on claims under the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms and due process.

Lawmakers in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and Maryland passed laws limiting firearms ownership after 20 children and six educators were shot to death Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

Read Full Article Here

Piers Morgan: Now I see U.S. Government Tyranny (Video)

(Photo by Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images)

Piers Morgan (Photo by Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images)

by Chelsea Schilling
WND
May 17, 2013

Is British CNN host Piers Morgan finally admitting gun advocates have a point when they say the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from tyrannical government?

Morgan has made headlines for many months as he loudly trumpeted the cause of gun control, even to the detriment of his shows ratings.

Since the Sandy Hook massacre last year – in which Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 students and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. – Morgan has made advocating for gun-control legislation a frequent topic of his program, clashing with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or rocker and National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent, for example, and calling Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt “an unbelievably stupid man” for disagreeing with him.

Following reports of his vitriolic attacks, a petition was started on the White House “We the People” website demanding Morgan be deported back to England – and it now has more than 109,000 signatures.

As WND reported, despite his avid criticism of guns, Morgan protects his own personal property with signs warning that it is guarded by “Armed Response Security Systems,” according to a recent investigation by self-described “guerrilla journalist” James O’Keefe.

And on March 11, Morgan insisted that, “people need the nanny state occasionally.”

Now – after learning of the Obama administration’s involvement in the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups and its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records – the CNN host admitted to guest Penn Jillette that perhaps gun advocates were right about creeping tyranny after all:

 

Read Full Article Here

 

 

 

Finian Cunningham (SCF),- Turkey’s prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in Washington to drum up more direct NATO intervention in Syria’s conflict. The visit came in the wake of a twin car-bombing in the Turkish town of Reyhanli on 11 May in which more than 50 people were killed.

 

Tayyip ErdoganThe background suggests that the Turkish government may have had a hand in that bombing in a desperate attempt to get NATO to extricate Ankara from a failed, and criminal, tactic of regime change in Damascus.

 

Within hours of the double car-bombing in the Turkish border town of Reyhanli, Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan laid the blame for the atrocity emphatically on Syrian state forces. In an angry tone of defiance, Erdogan vowed that his country would not be “dragged into the quagmire” of the war in Syria.

 

But the truth is that Turkey is already deeply embroiled in Syria’s more than two-year bloody conflict that by some estimates has claimed over 80,ooo lives.

 

In a forthright denial of any involvement in the Reyhanli massacre, the Syrian government pointed out with fair reason that the Turkish authorities should take responsibility for its belligerent foreign policy towards its southern neighbour.

 

The Erdogan government has indeed allowed its border crossings with Syria to become logistical hubs for NATO-backed militants to launch attacks against the Syrian army of President Bashar al-Assad.These militant groups, which comprise so-called jihadist mercenaries from several Arab and other countries, are also accused of targeting civilian populations with atrocious acts of terrorism, including no-warning car bombs in urban neighbourhoods.

 

Yes, it is true than hundreds of thousands of Syrians have fled for sanctuary in Turkey, where the Ankara government is providing humanitarian relief. Some 400,000 Syrian refugees are estimated to be residing in Turkey since the conflict erupting in March 2011, in border towns like Reyhanli in Hatay Province, at a total cost of $50 million a month to Ankara.

 

Nevertheless, the Erdogan government has permitted porous borders for the free flow of weapons and fighters into Syria. Infuriatingly for Damascus, these militants are allowed to retreat back into Turkey by the Ankara authorities in order to regroup and re-arm.

 

Credible reports also say that the American CIA and other Western military intelligence agencies are providing the Syrian mercenaries with training and logistics from the NATO Incirlik base in Turkey’s Hatay Province…

 

In addition, Turkish military officers have been captured or killed in battles with the Syrian army over recent months, according to Syrian state media.

 

There are also claims that chemical weapons have been supplied from Turkish territory to the mercenaries in Syria. The latter claim, if proven, has a certain irony, since Turkey’s prime minister Erdogan has been one of the most vehement voices among NATO and regional allies accusing the Assad forces of deploying chemical weapons in March near the northern city of Aleppo.

 

In short, Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership is already bogged down in the Syrian quagmire. Moreover, Erdogan’s government has, through its policy choices and actions, largely created this appalling quagmire.

 

But the problem for the Turkish leader is that the evident NATO agenda of regime change in Damascus has not gone to plan. Instead of a relatively quick covert campaign of destabilization, as in Libya, the Assad regime has proven to be surprisingly recalcitrant. Indeed, the evidence is that the Syrian authorities are increasingly gaining the military upper hand against the NATO-backed mercenaries, despite the carnage and mayhem unleashed on that country.

 

This protracted regime-change operation has rebounded most harmfully for Turkey out all of the NATO protagonists. The refugee crisis is reckoned to have cost Ankara $1.5 billion so far; and with the numbers of refugees in Turkey alone projected to double by the end of the year that is placing an unsustainable burden on Turkey’s once bustling economy.

 

The mercurial Syrian conflict is also rebounding to destabilize Turkey’s internal security problems with the long-running Kurdish separatist insurgency in its southern regions.

 

Read Full Article Here

Sgt. John Russell pleaded guilty as part of a deal with prosecutors

UPDATED 6:42 PM CDT May 16, 2013

 

 

Troops in Fallujah, Iraq
DoD Image

(CNN) —A U.S. Army sergeant was sentenced Thursday to life in prison without parole for gunning down five fellow service members at a combat stress clinic in Iraq.

The sentence handed down at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma, Washington, came after Sgt. John Russell pleaded guilty to the killings in a deal in which prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty.

Russell pleaded guilty to the May 11, 2009, killings at Baghdad’s Camp Liberty, telling a military court last month that he “did it out of rage.”

The only question facing the judge, Col. David Conn, was whether Russell committed the slayings with premeditation, which the 48-year-old soldier disputed.

During a brief sentencing hearing, Conn ruled Russell killed with premeditation,” meaning the sergeant could not be given a lesser sentence.

Read Full Article Here

 

*****************************************************************************

May 16, 2013 19:23

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicles sit in a row on the Camp Liberty MRAP fielding site, Feb. 20, 2009. The day marks the introduction of the 10,000th vehicle into the Iraq theater of operations. Photo Credit: U.S. Army, Spc. Christopher Gaylord.

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicles sit in a row on the Camp Liberty MRAP fielding site, Feb. 20, 2009. The day marks the introduction of the 10,000th vehicle into the Iraq theater of operations. Photo Credit: U.S. Army, Spc. Christopher Gaylord.

LOS ANGELES (AFP) – A U.S. soldier convicted of killing five of his colleagues in Iraq in May 2009 was sentenced to life behind bars Thursday and dishonorably discharged.

Army Sgt. John Russell was convicted earlier this week over the murders at a clinic for soldiers suffering from war-related stress at Camp Liberty, the largest U.S. base in Iraq.

Russell, who previously denied responsibility, admitted the killings last month in a plea deal to escape a death sentence, worked out by his lawyers at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), in the northwestern U.S. state of Washington.

On Thursday he was jailed for life, reduced to the rank of private and given a dishonorable discharge from the military, military spokeswoman Barbara Junius told AFP.

At the time of the Camp Liberty killings, the incident represented the single deadliest toll on U.S. forces in a month in Iraq, and came at a sensitive moment in the US military’s occupation of the country it invaded in 2003.

Russell was on his third tour of duty in Iraq, and his unit was preparing to leave the country.

Due to concerns over Russell’s mental state, his commanding officer had ordered about a week before the shooting that his weapon be confiscated and that he get counseling.

After pleading guilty last month, Russell gave an account of the killings for the first time. The victims were three soldiers receiving care at the clinic and two medical officers.

“I just did it out of rage, sir,” he told the military judge, Col. David Conn, describing how he walked from room to room firing at mental health workers and patients.

“I was upset. I do not remember being angry, but I know that everyone who witnessed me outside the combat stress clinic said I looked angry,” the Los Angeles Times quoted him as saying.

Read More Voice Of Russia Here

*****************************************************************************

Flag of U.S. - Israeli - Saudi Allegiance photo Flagofamericanisraelisaudiallegiance_zpsef286a11.jpg

Flag of U.S. – Israeli – Saudi Allegiance  

~Desert Rose~

*****************************************************************************

In Wake of US-Israeli Attack on Syria, UN Reveals Terrorists Not Government Used Sarin Gas

So-called “red line” both drawn and then crossed by US-Saudi-Israeli axis and their terrorist proxies. 

May 6, 2013 (LD) – The reasoning behind recent US-Israeli attacks on Syria has been undermined further as the UN reveals Western-backed terrorists, not the Syrian government, deployed sarin gas during the 2 year conflict. Reuters reported in their article, “U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator,” that:

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

Why the Small Amounts of Sarin Cited by Washington, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv are a Set Up 

The small amounts of sarin gas reportedly used would defy any tactical or strategic sense had they been deployed by the Syrian government to tip the balance in the destructive 2-year conflict. According to the US military’s own assessments of chemical weapon use during the 1980′s Iran-Iraq War, only under ideal conditions and with massive amounts of chemical agents can tactical and strategic outcomes be achieved – and that conventional weapons were still, by far, superior to chemical weapons of any kind.

A document produced by the US Marine Corps, titled, “Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War” under “Appendix B: Chemical Weapons,” provides a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the devastating 8 year Iranian-Iraqi conflict. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial, not mass casualties.

The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):

Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.

We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.

Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as “a poor man’s nuclear weapon.” While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.

Clearly, the minute amounts of sarin the West has accused the Syrian government of using, makes no tactical, political, or strategic sense. However, these small amounts of sarin gas, now suspected to be the work of Western-backed terrorists, would have been perfect for establishing a pretext for Western military intervention, and in fact, have been in part cited by the US and Israel in their latest, unprovoked aerial assault on Damascus.

The terrorists operating in Syria possess the means and motivation to carry out such an operation, as do their Western sponsors.

Where Did Western-backed Terrorists Obtain Sarin? 

A number of methods could have lent sarin gas to terrorists operating in Syria – from Turkey, Israel, and the US simply handing select units the chemical agent in a clandestine operation, to Libyan terrorists confirmed to have been flooding into Syria for the past 2 years, bringing looted chemical stockpiles with them after NATO’s disastrous invasion in 2011 left them in the hands of a sectarian extremist regime.

Image: (via the Guardian) “Chemical containers in the Libyan desert. There are concerns unguarded weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist militants. Photograph: David Sperry/AP”

….

Indeed, Libya’s arsenal had fallen into the hands of sectarian extremists with NATO assistance in 2011 in the culmination of efforts to overthrow the North African nation . Since then, Libya’s militants led by commanders of Al Qaeda’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) have armed sectarian extremists across the Arab World, from as far West as Mali, to as far East as Syria.

Libyan LIFG terrorists are confirmed to be flooding into Syria from Libya. In November 2011, the Telegraph in their article, “Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would report:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

Another Telegraph article, “Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels,” would admit

Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested “assistance” from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.
“There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,” said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.”

Later that month, some 600 Libyan terrorists would be reported to have entered Syria to begin combat operations and have been flooding into the country ever since.

Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as “foreign invasion.” 

….

In Time’s article, “Libya’s Fighters Export Their Revolution to Syria,” it is reported:

Some Syrians are more frank about the assistance the Libyans are providing. “They have heavier weapons than we do,” notes Firas Tamim, who has traveled in rebel-controlled areas to keep tabs on foreign fighters. “They brought these weapons to Syria, and they are being used on the front lines.” Among the arms Tamim has seen are Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, known as the SAM 7.

Libyan fighters largely brush off questions about weapon transfers, but in December they claimed they were doing just that. “We are in the process of collecting arms in Libya,” a Libyan fighter in Syria told the French daily Le Figaro. “Once this is done, we will have to find a way to bring them here.”

american-empire-2

                                                               American Empire

US Prepares to Overthrow Malaysian Government

 

Key to encircling and containing China, US sets proxies in motion for color revolution in Malaysian streets. 

 

Image: US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim leads a Bersih rally in Malaysia. While Bersih has attempted to claim it is “independent” and simply pursusing “fair and clean elections,” it is clearly a vehicle for returning Anwar Ibrahim back into power. Additionally, Bersih shares the same ties to the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as its crypto-leader Anwar Ibrahim – representing a dangerous and seditious conflict of interest.

 

….

 

May 15, 2013 (AltThaiNews) – US-funded opposition fronts have vowed to overthrow the Malaysian government via disruptive and potentially violent street protests in the wake of general elections that saw their leader Anwar Ibrahim soundly defeated despite massive support from Western media, NGOs, and direct government intervention. Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported in their article, “‘BN will be toppled this year’,” that:

Pro-Pakatan Rakyat groups have vowed to overthrow the Barisan Nasional government this year through a massive street rally.

Speakers at a forum held yesterday unanimously agreed that waiting for five years until the next
general election was too long, and vowed to overthrow BN this year through “force”.

FMT also added that:

Electoral watchdog group Bersih 2.0 steering committee member  Hishamuddin Rais pointed out that it was useless to take their unhappiness to the courts as he claimed the justice system was being controlled by the government.

“That is why we must take to the streets. We have to come out. What Najib likes is wrong, and what he doesn’t like is what we have to do,” he said.

“We will mobilise a big group and rally on the streets. This is not a threat, this is a promise,” he stressed.

Bersih, of course, is a US State Department-funded opposition front aimed to bolster US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim, formerly of the IMF and World Bank, and a frequent visitor to the insidious National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington D.C. It is in fact, NED that funds Bersih through its subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).
The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan:

“…admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march.”

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.

Photo: NDI’s website before taking down any mention to Malaysia’s Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)

….

In addition to Bersih, other faux-electoral monitors are also directly funded by the US government. While the Western media attempts to portray such organizations as “independent,” the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, for example, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED.

Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy’s “Democracy Award” and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony – the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called “independent” election monitor Merdeka – paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.

 

Read Full Article Here

It’s  amazing  how little the liberal  rhetoric  has  changed.  Whenever there is  an  issue  with  policy  or Federal encroachment on State  sovereignty .  They drag  out the  worn out race  card and  insults.

The  amusing  point to all this  is that they  believe  themselves  so  intelligent  and  have  such  lofty  impressions of  themselves  that  they  do not take the  time  to look at   the  people  they are insulting.  WE  are  made  up of minorities,  disillusioned   Democrats,  fed  up environmentalists, disgusted working class  Americans.  And  yet  we  are  all ignorant  rednecks  with a  racists  agenda.  LOL!!

The lines  are getting old  and the only thing  they  have  accomplished is to expose  their ignorance  of  the   Law of  The  Land.  Perhaps,  they  need a memorable  lesson to assist  in the assimilation  of  the necessary  information  to  permeate those  thick  skulls.  Not  to mention  a  bit  of  air  let  out of  those  over bloated  egos would be in  order……

~Desert Rose~

***************************************************************************

A Basic Civics Lesson for Pseudo-Historians

Posted by

i-will-learn-my-lessonI need a civics lesson.

This according to the keepers of acceptable opinion at two divergent publications.

Both The Economist and the Montgomery Advertiser recently ran opinion pieces skewering nullification, specifically state efforts to block unconstitutional federal gun laws in Kansas and Alabama. Interestingly, both the author of  The Economist piece and the editorial board over at the Alabama newspaper used the same strategy. They both try to make their readers believe anybody who actually views nullification as legitimate must not be too bright. Their implication? “The federal government enjoys absolute supremacy and  a bunch of dumb racist, rednecks who don’t know anything about the U.S. government want states to ignore laws they don’t happen to like.”

From the Economist: “It is remarkable that a civics lesson like this is necessary.”

The Montgomery Advertiser editorial board gets even snarkier.

“That body (the Alabama Senate) has taken a plunge into the past by revisiting and embracing the long-discredited practice of nullification, the notion — abandoned decades ago by most people who passed sixth-grade civics.”

Talk about groupthink. Federal supremacists apparently find the whole “civics lesson” theme clever. I have to admit – it does effectively create the impression that nullification supporters wander around in ignorance among the illiterate and uneducated. But the mockery would prove even more effective if the writers actually knew what in the hell they were writing about.

Here’s the problem: these amateur historians actually think the three things they leaned in their government school sixth-grade civics class make them some kind of experts. They might want to move on from pre-civics to basic civics before they try demeaning those of us who actually know the historical and the philosophical basis for nullification.

Let’s touch on a few basics, shall we?

1. Federal Supremacy – These wanna-be historians actually think the federal government stands absolutely supreme all the time, no matter what. They apparently never bothered to  put down the sixth-grade textbook and read the actual supremacy clause in the Constitution. If they did, they would find that only acts “in pursuance of” the Constitution stand supreme. Yes Virginia, federal supremacy actually has limits! Alexander Hamilton made this clear in Federalist 33.

“If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed….But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are  not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made  pursuant to the Constitution.”

2. The extent of federal power – While we’re on the subject of limits, our civics professors apparently need a reminder. The federal government can’t just do whatever it wants. It operates under strict limits. The feds can only exercise powers delegated to it in the Constitution.  James Madison described the extent of federal power in Federalist 45. He insisted that the powers delegated to the general government were “few and defined,” and those left to the states and people were “numerous and indefinite.” The ratifiers even insisted on a Bill of Rights “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”

3. Who decides constitutionality? - Federal supremacists sell you a load of crap. They want you to believe the people of the states created a federal government with limited, enumerated powers, insisted on further “declaratory and restrictive clauses” – the Bill of Rights -   and then left it to that government to decide the extent of its own power. This idea not only earns them an F on their civics test, they also fail their logic test. Basically, these geniuses want the Dallas Cowboy player to referee the Dallas – New York Giants football game. How do you think that would turn out for the Giants?

Fact: the  people of the states created the federal government in the first place. Therefore, the people of the states retain the right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of the powers they gave to the government they created. So yes, Kansas can determine what limits the Second Amendment places on federal regulation of firearms. Granted, this idea may fall into the realm of advanced civics, so maybe we should let a real expert explain it. How about we call on Madison, the “Father of the Constitution?”

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

Read Full Article Here

democracynow democracynow

Published on Apr 19, 2013

http://www.democracynow.org – In 1982, investigative journalist Allan Nairn interviewed a Guatemalan general named “Tito” on camera during the height of the indigenous massacres. It turns out the man was actually Otto Pérez Molina, the current Guatemalan president. We air the original interview footage and speak to Nairn about the U.S. role backing the Guatemalan dictatorship. Last week, Nairn flew to Guatemala where he had been scheduled to testify in the trial of former U.S.-backed dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, the first head of state in the Americas to stand trial for genocide. Ríos Montt was charged in connection with the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala’s Ixil region after he seized power in 1982. His 17-month rule is seen as one of the bloodiest chapters in Guatemala’s decades-long campaign against Maya indigenous people, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The trial took a surprising turn last week when Guatemala President Gen. Otto Pérez Molina was directly accused of ordering executions. A former military mechanic named Hugo Reyes told the court that Pérez Molina, then serving as an army major and using the name Tito Arias, ordered soldiers to burn and pillage a Maya Ixil area in the 1980s.

Exclusive: Allan Nairn Exposes Role of U.S., New Guatemalan President in Indigenous Massacres 2 of 2

democracynow democracynow

Published on Apr 19, 2013

http://www.democracynow.org – In 1982, investigative journalist Allan Nairn interviewed a Guatemalan general named “Tito” on camera during the height of the indigenous massacres. It turns out the man was actually Otto Pérez Molina, the current Guatemalan president. We air the original interview footage and speak to Nairn about the U.S. role backing the Guatemalan dictatorship. Last week, Nairn flew to Guatemala where he had been scheduled to testify in the trial of former U.S.-backed dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, the first head of state in the Americas to stand trial for genocide. Ríos Montt was charged in connection with the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala’s Ixil region after he seized power in 1982. His 17-month rule is seen as one of the bloodiest chapters in Guatemala’s decades-long campaign against Maya indigenous people, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The trial took a surprising turn last week when Guatemala President Gen. Otto Pérez Molina was directly accused of ordering executions. A former military mechanic named Hugo Reyes told the court that Pérez Molina, then serving as an army major and using the name Tito Arias, ordered soldiers to burn and pillage a Maya Ixil area in the 1980s.

**************************************************************************

Well if this vote  goes through  and  permission is granted to give  weapons to   the   Syrian Rebels  , who have been proven to be Al Qaeda operatives.  The  Conservatives  will be  as guilty  as the  liberals in  aiding and abetting  terrorists ! 

Proving  without a doubt that  the  War  on Terror has  been a  farce  all along.  No excuses……

~Desert Rose~
*************************************************************************

By Julian Pecquet 05/15/13 12:15 PM ET

A Senate panel is expected to vote next week on arming vetted Syrian rebel groups.

The vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would mark the first time lawmakers have voted to approve arming Syrian rebels and could increase pressure on the Obama administration to take action in the 26-month-old civil war.

The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations panel announced they had introduced the Syria Transition Support Act on Wednesday. A vote on the bill is expected as early as Tuesday afternoon.Panel Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) agreed to modify the bill he introduced last week in order to get ranking member Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on board. Such bipartisan action would send the strongest signal yet to the Obama administration that Congress is demanding stronger action while giving a boost to similar legislation that Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the equivalent House panel, introduced in March.

“It’s largely along the line of what I originally introduced,” Menendez told The Hill in a hallway interview, “but with a little bit of expansion, and we’re together on it now, and we’ve refined all the language.”

The bill would create a $250 million a year transition fund to assist the civilian opposition and sanction sales of weapons and oil to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“The future for Syria is uncertain, but the U.S. has a vested interest in trying to prevent an extremist takeover, which poses a very real risk for us and the region,” Corker said in a statement announcing his co-sponsorship.

Read Full Article Here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 712 other followers