UPdate rules under review – “Mexican soldiers were making a political statement” when they DETAINED US soldiers on US soil. Put on notice

April 23, 2019
This is utter nonsense 
There are protocols in place

US military rules under review after soldiers surrendered pistol to Mexican troops on American soil

SUBMIT
A senior defense official says the Pentagon is reviewing how U.S. soldiers responded during an incident this month in which Mexican troops detained and disarmed Americans on Texas soil.

The standoff between two U.S. soldiers and as many as six Mexican military officials on April 13 is believed to be the first of its kind, according to the senior defense official from Northern Command, or NORTHCOM. “This is the first incident that we’re aware of that the two militaries came together,” the official told the Washington Examiner.

Two Army soldiers from Washington state were sitting in an unmarked Customs and Border Protection vehicle south of the U.S. barrier but north of the international boundary near Clint, Texas, when Mexican troops moved in on them.

The Mexican soldiers, each carrying FX-05 Xiuhcoatl rifles, detained, disarmed, and questioned the U.S. troops. One soldier’s Beretta M9 service pistol was taken from him and temporarily confiscated.

The Pentagon is now investigating the incident, which the official said “will help us modify any instructions that we’re giving the troops” about how to deal with such a situation.

Troops deployed to the U.S.-Mexico boundary go through joint readiness staging, or training on how to handle dangerous situations in the area. The official said he could not recall anything similar to last Saturday’s encounter having taken place during a previous active-duty troop deployment.

No official protocol exists for how to navigate a run-in with a foreign military, but the senior official said the soldiers were trained to “de-escalate” the situation. By surrendering at least one gun, they followed existing protocol, though it left them unarmed.

The NORTHCOM official also defended the U.S. soldiers being in the location. The pair had been assigned by Customs and Border Protection to be at those coordinates on the U.S. side of the border. The two soldiers were one of 150 teams serving on mobile surveillance missions who had been assigned that specific location to stake out and monitor surveillance feeds.

Mexican soldiers spotted the pair and did not recognize their unmarked vehicle. The U.S. troops did not recognize the unmarked truck. There was mutual confusion about why either party was at that location.

“That area of the border is kind of confusing,” a second NORTHCOM official told the Examiner. “It may have been difficult for them [Mexican forces] to know if they didn’t know the area as well or were new or something. I don’t think — it definitely wasn’t trying to overtake the U.S.”

Much of the physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border does not sit on the international boundary and is located a few dozen to a few hundred feet north of it.

In areas such as southwestern Arizona and eastern Texas, rivers serve as the official border, but in other regions, it can be more difficult to determine the official line in the sand.

The language barrier further complicated the situation. “There was a U.S. Army soldier that was one of the two that spoke Spanish. That was about when they came to realize they were Mexican military,” the official said.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/us-military-rules-under-review-after-soldiers-surrendered-pistol-to-mexican-troops-on-american-soil


 

They KNEW where they were, because the soldiers have their orders and maps down to the millimeter.   They have NOT apologized.  This was a CLEAR message to our soldiers.  US soldiers put on NOTICE!!!

 

Mexican soldiers detain American soldiers on U.S. soil. Government response: ?

 · April 22, 2019
   

US and Mexican flags

ronniechua | Getty Images

The Mexican government is powerless to control the cartels at our border. But somehow when it comes to belligerently confronting our own soldiers on our own soil, the Mexicans seem to muster the personnel and temerity to defend their side of the border. Moreover, they apparently have the unbridled impudence to complain about armed American citizens defending our border, while they have permanently transformed our country in the worst way imaginable through their disrespect of our sovereignty. This is clearly no longer about immigration, but about a pure invasion that requires a military buildup.

On April 13, at around 2 p.m. Central Time, a group of five or six suspected Mexican soldiers approached an unmarked vehicle of two U.S. soldiers stationed at the border in El Paso County, Texas, and ordered them out of the vehicle. According to Newsweek, which obtained the “serious incident report,” the soldiers were in fact active duty members of B Battery, 1st Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment, not from a National Guard unit. The Mexican soldiers disarmed one of the U.S. soldiers and placed his sideaerm in the U.S. vehicle.

While the soldiers were parked south of the border fence near Clint, Texas, they were north of the Rio Grande riverbed, which placed them “appropriately in U.S. territory,” according to Maj. Mark Lazane, a spokesman for NORTHCOM. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Defense (DOD), after inquiring of the Mexican government, were informed that the Mexican soldiers thought that the Americans were south of the border. “Throughout the incident, the U.S. soldiers followed all established procedures and protocols,” according to NORTHCOM.

NORTHCOM confirmed that there are approximately 2,800 service members assigned to the border mission. “This includes approximately 1,200 on the Mobile Surveillance Camera mission, plus about 1,000 service members hardening ports of entry in Texas and New Mexico. There are approximately 200 personnel as part of a crisis response force, with the remainder being headquarters and logistics personnel supporting the mission.”

When I asked both NORTHCOM and the State Department if our government had conveyed our concerns to Mexico and asked for an apology, both departments declined to comment.

Zach Taylor, a retired 26-year veteran of the Border Patrol who has formed a group of retired border agents to better educate the public on the border, told CR that he is convinced these Mexican soldiers were making a political statement. “At the reported location the Rio Grande River is distinct and easily identified in relation to the actual international boundary,” asserted Taylor, who still lives near the border in Arizona. “That one of the supposed Mexican soldiers took one sidearm from an American and put it in the American vehicle is curious, as if the Mexicans knew exactly who they encountered, where they were encountered, and were simply making a statement. What the purpose of that statement was is open to broad speculation, but on the face of it, this was probably political – as in showing that to Mexico, borders mean nothing.” Taylor confirmed that he regularly saw this behavior during his time in the Border Patrol.



We have tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in other parts of the world fully equipped for war and with at least manageable rules of engagement. Why are the soldiers at our own border too few, so lightly armed, and seeking to “de-escalate a potentially volatile situation” of Mexican aggression rather than deterring it?

What is particularly disturbing about this incident is that one could defend Mexico’s powerless response to this border crisis and the robust cartel and smuggler activity as a lack of resources to secure its own border from non-state actors. But why is it that the Mexican government suddenly has the ability to cross into our own country and detain our own personnel, but is seemingly powerless to deal with the cartels on its own side of the border?

What is also disturbing is the lackluster response from our own government, juxtaposed to its aggressive posture against private militia groups seeking to secure our border. Our government refuses to hold the line at the border and defend the ranches from cartel activity by placing the military there in meaningful numbers and with a heavy deterrent. They certainly are not deterring the migrants. Just last week, 12,500 more illegals were released into our country with no regard for the public charge, safety concerns, or potential contagious diseases. That is literally the number one job of our federal government, as distinct from a state government. While nobody wants to see vigilantes patrolling our border, they are clearly not the problem, but a symptom of the lack of government control over our sovereignty.

Yet it appears that the FBI has arrested a leader of one New Mexico militia that recently detained a group of illegal immigrants until Border Patrol was able to get to the scene. On Saturday, the FBI arrested Larry Hopkins, the “national commander” of the United Constitutional Patriots, on firearms charges two days after the ACLU complained about the presence of this group at Sunland Park, New Mexico. According to Reuters, this is a group of mainly military veterans who have detained as many as 5,600 aliens until Border Patrol was able to arrive.

Why is it that our government, which appears unable or unwilling to deal with Mexican aggression, the cartels, or illegal immigration, is suddenly pursuing a zero-tolerance policy for American militias seeking to do a job the federal government won’t do? Failing to secure our borders is a breach of the social contract of government, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and if there is anything that would ever justify the citizenry to take action, it is this issue. It’s not something we want to see, but where is our own government in dealing with the problem?

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Ministry expressed its “deep concern” that these militia groups would “drive human rights abuses of people who migrate or request asylum or refuge in the United States.” That’s a pretty rich statement from a government that evidently refuses to apologize for stepping on our soil and detaining our own soldiers.

It’s also self-evident from this statement that Mexico, rather than working with us to stop this bogus asylum-seeking, is helping encourage it.

The president would be wise to announce a buildup of the military in Texas and New Mexico and change the rules of engagement. He should also renegotiate NAFTA while making border and immigration issues the main sticking points.

If our government would only go after those violating our sovereignty with as much rigor as they do those American veterans trying to defend it, justifiably or not, this entire issue would go away. As Trump often says, either we are a country, or we are not.

Mexican soldiers detain American soldiers on U.S. soil. Government response: ?

 


Gen. James C. McConville – nominated to become the Army’s next chief of staff.

March 31, 2019

Yet another General nominated to a department position.

 

Army Four-Star Nominated as Next Chief of Staff

U.S. Army Gen. James C. McConville, 36th Vice Chief Staff of the Army, visits Erbil, Iraq, in October 15, 2017. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tracy McKithern)
U.S. Army Gen. James C. McConville, 36th Vice Chief Staff of the Army, visits Erbil, Iraq, in October 15, 2017. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tracy McKithern)

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Monday night received President Trump’s nomination of Gen. James McConville to become the Army‘s next chief of staff.

McConville has been one of the key architects of the service’s bold plan to modernize the force by 2028. If confirmed, McConville, the Army’s current vice chief of staff, would replace Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. President Donald Trump has nominated Milley to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

McConville took over as the Army’s vice chief in June 2017. Since then, he has played a pivotal role in its new modernization strategy, which focuses on six priorities: long-range precision fires, next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift, a mobile network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality.

The news of McConville’s nomination was publicly announced Tuesday by retired Gen. Carter Ham, president and CEO of the Association of the United States Army, at the annual AUSA Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.

“That is great news for General McConville and his family; it’s even better news for the United States Army and for the United States of America,” Ham said, calling him “a great leader” and a “great soldier.”

McConville commanded the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), where he also served as commander of Combined Joint Task Force-101 during Operation Enduring Freedom. He also commanded 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to his published bio.

He held several staff-level assignments, including Army deputy chief of staff for G-1, executive officer to the vice chief of staff of the Army, and J5 strategic planner for U.S. Special Operations Command, his bio states.

The vice chief is a seasoned aviator, qualified to fly several aircraft, including the AH-64D Longbow ApacheOH-58 Kiowa Warrior and AH-1 Cobra.

McConville is a native of Quincy, Massachusetts, and a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York. He holds a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and was a National Security Fellow at Harvard University in 2002, according to his bio.

— Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/26/army-four-star-nominated-next-chief-staff.html

US War Hero –Army Sgt. Derrick Miller – To Be Released from Leavenworth Prison

March 21, 2019

Army Sgt Derrick Miller, a US war hero has been sitting in a prison cell at Ft Leavenworth where he has been serving a life sentence for killing a terrorist. The bad news is that he never should have been there in the first place. It’s time to weed out the military of snowflake officers, like the ones who sent Miller away. There were only two witnessesd of the shooting and one of them had initially testified on Miller’s behalf, but changed his story when the military prosecutors threatened to charge him with being an accessory to murder. The second witness was offered permanent legal status in the United States if he would testify against Miller. So he did.

From The Gateway Pundit

Sgt. Miller shot and killed an Afghan civilian following the civilian attempting to grab Sgt. Miller’s weapon during a period of intense questioning. The Afghan civilian was a suspected insurgent that was walking through Sgt. Miller’s “platoon defensive perimeter observing their defensive positions”.

Following the shooting, Sgt. Miller’s unit was attacked horrifically on all sides and the Afghan National Army fighters that were assigned to stay with the platoon disappeared prior to the onset of the firefight. They hid behind a building.

Sgt. Miller was embroiled in a firefight the night he killed the Afghan man. The Afghan man was an insurgent and yet no one in the military wants to say this and directly confront the duplicitous Afghanis. The firefight was not instigated by American soldiers; the firefight was meant to kill American soldiers, and Afghan National Army fighters were nowhere to be found.

On Wednesday news broke that Sgt. Derrick Miller will be released from Leavenworth.

This is wonderful news for all the patriots who worked to free this American hero.

My book is here!  And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

BOOK – Why I Couldn’t Stay Silent

Thank you @RealCandaceO for writing the foreword for it!!! #BLEXIT #Woke#WeTheFree #WalkAway

From <https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/great-news-us-war-hero-army-sgt-derrick-miller-to-be-released-from-leavenworth-prison/>

 


FOX NEWS – Netanyahu’s Answer to Obama’s ’67 Borders

May 22, 2011

Vodpod videos no longer available.

FOX NEWS – Netanyahu’s Answer to Obama’s ’67 Bo…, posted with vodpod

Obama should not be President – Obama is setting Israel up for a WAR and the same logic would lead to a WAR in the US – He is setting a DANGEROUS precedent

May 21, 2011

This President is dangerous to the US.  The logic that started the war in Libya has nothing to do with Gadhafi, per se.  It has to do with setting the stage.  This president is not a leader.  He IS an actor.  The stage is being prepared by others.  He is only the lead role at the moment.  And this is WHY he is dangerous.  Nothing is REAL.  It’s all staged.  No one that is a REAL player gets hurt, according to the globalists.

I’m convinced that there is a fracturing in the Globalists clique.  Some of them are Global Capitalists and others are Global Communists.  There is an ideological strife a foot. The reason I believe that is because there are leaks of information surfacing that would otherwise NOT be there.

Be that as it may, the other agents in play are the Muslims.  They are outmaneuvering the Globalists on some fronts and the Globalists are making hasty errors in judgement.  They are forced to move more quickly, but some have already made deals with the other side.  Those, I believe, are the Capitalists, because they have only one goal, money, but not money in that they have paper or stuff like that, but money in terms of true wealth and that is Control driven.  They have to get CONTROL of the commonly accepted currency, because in the end, that is their only truest commodity.

So, how does that correlate to Gadhafi and how does that set the stage for a war that the US be subjected to?

It’s the Logic.  The UN is the Global GUN.  The reason that Gadhafi was attacked is to begin to set the precedent and NO other reason.  The next casualty will be potentially Syria, in my opinion.  The following, and this may not occur until AFTER the election, is Israel.  And the reasoning is nice outlined below, in Gaffeney’s article.  However, I would take it a step farther.  The same situation is setting itself up here too, in the US.  The next casualty, may indeed be, the US.  Hezbollah and Hamas have set up shop in South America and Mexico.  They are taking over the cartels.  They got their FEET in the door by selling weapons and training the Cartels.  Now, they are tenured within those “armies.”  The same situation is setting itself up.  What difference is there in logic?  It is the same.  The Palestinian’s cry that they were removed from their land.  The Mexicans cry the same.  US children are being taught toward sedition and outright treason of their own country by “teachers” whose agenda is to overthrow the state that they teach.  Even the methods are the same between the Palestinians and what they are doing to Israel and what the “Mexican’s”  are doing to the US.   The similarities should not go unnoticed.  The fish ALWAYS stinks from the HEAD.

<thanks to Mandy for the Gaffney article.>

I would also like to mention that Obama sitting as the head of the UN security council is a direct violation of the nobility clause in Article 9 of the US CONSTITUTION.

The Senate Armed Services Committee should convene immediately to prevent Obama from using our people in his and the NWO’s war. The military should stand down.

The ATF who’s under the Homeland security, which the CIA is also under, is headed by a CZAR.  This agency is NOT steered by an elected official.  This is an appointment by the PRESIDENT.  These CZAR headed agencies have taken control of legitimate agencies and are run by executive fiat.  This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How is it that they have been allowed these POWERS?  These agencies have seized control of America.  They overrule the Constitutional limitations of power.

Communist China may be bad, but America is going to be much worse, if this continues unchecked.

The Gadhafi precedent: Could attack on Libya set the stage for action against Israel?

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama administration has just undertaken in its war with Col. Moammar Gadhafi. How it will all end is just one of them.

Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gadhafi precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the council’s recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians’ gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a “mammoth force” of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as first lady.

This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as all of the other nonpermanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”

With a stroke of the U.N.’s collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its long-standing position: The sovereign territory of Palestine must be rid of all Jews.

The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” now on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish state itself.

Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine. There, as in Gaza – and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called “Arab awakening” – the winner likely will be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian franchise is Hamas.


The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” its land. As with the Gadhafi precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.

Turkey, which is still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, is joined by Britain and France – two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel – in applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the U.N. Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.

Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Power and Ms. Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify and are prepared to enforce the president’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his personal hostility toward Israel. The concerns of Mr. Obama’s political advisers about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland.

Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ long-standing role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts in accordance with the Gadhafi precedent. He warns Israel that it must take steps immediately to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized state of Palestine lest it face the sort of U.S.- enabled “coalition” military measures now under way in Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the “will of the international community.”

Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired endgame, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gadhafi precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome from the two-state “solution”: Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with possible worldwide repercussions.

At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of the Gadhafi precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests. Even if a positive outcome somehow is forthcoming there, should Mr. Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisers be allowed, based on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they surely would precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, the United States and freedom-loving people elsewhere.

A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney032211.php3

– Here’s another article as food for thought –

WHY THE FRAMERS INCLUDED THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” CLAUSE

by Tom Deacon


The greatest defeat of the American Revolution was the fall of Charleston, SC to the British in 1780

(May 16, 2010) — Section 1 ofArticle II of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Try to understand this: At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were no “natural born Citizens” (no country yet = no citizens, period?), so yes, the Founders wrote in a “grandfather” clause to allow those present (already born) at the time the Constitution was signed to qualify to be president.  However, if you weren’t born yet when the Constitution was adopted (that includes Obama), then you had to be a “natural born Citizen,” meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. It is amazing how tough this is for some people to understand. The reason Congress “investigated” McCain was because he was not born in the USA. They concluded in their report that that was OK, because his “parents” (notice the plural form of “parents”) were both U.S. Citizens.  This is not true for Obama, and he clearly was not held to the same standard.

The Constitution says you must be a natural born Citizen, or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Founders wanted the president to be a natural born Citizen, but they recognized that there were NO natural born Citizens until after the Constitution was adopted. They didn’t know that 200+ years from the signing, the education system would have dumbed down the USA’s population to the point that understanding it was an endangered ability.

Some may believe the natural born Citizen clause isn’t fair. The Founders of our nation believed it was the right thing to do because they had just fought a war with those who had allegiance to a country other than the one they were fighting to create….that country was the one they left to come to America, namely, England.  The Founders did not want to elect a newborn to the office of the president, nor did they want to wait 35 years for a natural born Citizen to meet the age requirement to be president. So they grandfathered themselves in with the statement “or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” No doubt they trusted themselves and their children who were born prior to the signing of the Constitution to be loyal only to the USA, fighting a war with England would have had that effect on them.

Obama is the “poster child’ who proves once again that the wisdom of America’s Founders was impeccable.

You can make up excuses till the earth fries from global warming, but you can’t change the truth.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/16/note-to-obama-supporters-even-a-birth-in-hawaii-is-not-enough/


Obama Should Not Be President – OUR PRESIDENT has just called for the ETHNIC cleansing of the JEWS from their own land. This is not a “border” issue. This is ETHNIC CLEANSING

May 20, 2011

The arguments are the same.  The logic is equivalent.

If it is logical that Israel should give up their land then, the US should release the WEST to Mexico.

If the AZTECS want to CEDE from Mexico, because it was the SPANISH who came to Mexico, then should Mexico give up that portion of territory to them?  It was the Spaniards who unified a country of INDIANS and then settled it.  Doe that sound familiar?

Since the Jews would be cast out of their lives in their own country, then would that not indeed be the SAME as what occurred in Europe to the Czechs? and many other places where Jews and gypsies were driven out?

That is called ethnic cleansing.

OUR PRESIDENT has just called for the ETHNIC cleansing of the JEWS from their own land.

wiki defined ethnic cleansing:

Ethnic cleansing “is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)”.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

This presidents logic, if transposed on our own situation, would create an ethnic cleansing here.  If he didn’t follow the SAME logic, then the WORLD would see America as a hypocrite.  Which, would not be favorable to all you appeasers out there.  It’s a LOOSE / LOOSE LOGIC.

This argument WILL come up and be used.  Mark my words.

Rabbi: ‘The President of the United States is Asking for Ethnic Cleansing’

Thursday, May 19, 2011
By Fred Lucas

Obama taxesPresident Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has made an unprecedented demand on Israel, Jewish leaders said Thursday, after the president called for Israel to redraw its borders to where they were in 1967 before the Six Day War. One rabbi said Obama was, in essence, asking for “ethnic cleansing” of thousands of Jewish families.

“It’s immoral in that basically the president of the United States is asking that 500,000 people who live, work, and raise families around Jerusalem – Jewish families – that they be uprooted, resettled, deported from their homes, have their families broken,” Rabbi Aryeh Spero, founder of Caucus for America, told CNSNews.com.

“The president of the United States is asking for ethnic cleansing,” said Rabbi Spero.  “It’s ironic that the president, who speaks in humanitarian tones regarding the Palestinians, doesn’t have any humanitarian concerns toward 500,000 Jewish people and families that will be uprooted and deported from their homes.”

Obama made the demand on Israel during a speech on the Middle East, delivered at the State Department on Thursday, as a way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Spero believes Obama was not being honest.

“Every time Israel relinquishes land on the altar of peace, it gets not peace but rockets,” Spero said. “This has been played over and over by the Palestinian Authority, then with Yasser Arafat, with Hamas. He knows what will happen with the Israelis, and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him.”

“I’m just very disappointed that my president seems to be so indifferent to the plight of the Jewish people in Israel,” he said.

Though Israel has given up land to Palestinians in the past because of pressure from the United States, no U.S. president has asked this much, said Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, director of the Rabbinical Alliance of America.

rabbi aryeh speroRabbi Aryeh Spero

“It’s par for the course, but not to this extent,” Tannenbaum told CNSNews.com. “In other words, other presidents have also pressured Israel with the hope of achieving some kind of peace. But considering the history and considering facts on the ground, no president has been as severe as President Obama.”

However, Tannenbaum thinks the proposal is a non-starter primarily because the borders have never been the issue.

“The suggestion is going to die, this is not going to work,” he said. “It won’t go anywhere. If you notice, there was an attack on all the borders of the state of Israel. There was an attack on the 1967 borders. The problem with Israel for the Palestinians is the very existence of the state of Israel — not its borders — but that it exists at all. They will not rest until there is no Israel.”

But Spero is not so sure the proposal will just go away, even without support from Congress.

“While he [Obama] can’t force the Jewish people out of their lands, he can certainly pressure Israel to the point where it finds itself in a very insecure state of affairs,” said Rabbi Spero. “He could without certain military weapons and parts that are needed for Israel’s defense. So, it’s a tremendous amount of intimidation and pressure.”

Israel expanded its territory after the Six Day War defeating Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel gained the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula (the Sinai was returned to Egypt in a deal brokered in 1978). Since 1967, and most notably in the early 1990s, Israel gave up significant amounts of land for peace to the Palestinians. The conflict has nevertheless raged onward.

“The reason Israel today is bigger than it was in 1967 is because the Arab countries united in an attack against Israel,” Tannenbaum said. “Miraculously, Israel fought them off and won. Now Israel has returned a majority of the West Bank and Israel has returned the Gaza Strip. There still is no peace. So at this point, returning more land is counterproductive and is not the answer. And the president is wrong in his plan.”

IsraelIsrael

On the eve of a visit to the U.S. by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the timing of the announcement seemed calculating, said Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America.

“I’m not a political Zionist,” said the rabbi. “I have my problems with the state of Israel and the things that they do that flies in the face of our religious traditional heritage. Nevertheless, in terms of security for human beings, one has to be totally concerned. I have many family members and extended family members and fellow Jews in Israel and I’m concerned for their safety.”

“I’m just prayerful that the Congress of the United States will respond to the Jewish people and residents of Israel that the position of one human being as president does not reflect what the country feels,” Levin said.

Obama recognized the negotiations would be a challenge because of the agreement between the Fatah, the leading Palestinian political party and the terrorist group Hamas, but he reaffirmed America’s relationship with Israel.

Still the speech has sparked concern and widespread coverage.

“We welcome the president’s recognition of Israel’s security needs and that Hamas cannot be a partner in the peace process, but a call to a return to 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations, even with ‘land swaps’ is a non-starter, when at least half of the Palestinian rulers are committed to Israel’s destruction,” said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in a written statement. “The road to peace has been clear for a long time — direct negotiations between parties who recognize each other’s legitimacy.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), in a statement released after the president’s speech, said: “This proposal is a slap in the face of our friend and democracy’s only ally in the Middle East: Israel. As a nation, we should support and promote freedom and democracy in the region, but we should not do so at the expense of Israel.  That land belongs to Israel – period.”

“Based on archeological evidence and historical right, that land belongs to Israel,” said Inhofe. “As I have outlined several times before, Israel is a strategic ally to the United States that acts as a roadblock to terrorism.  Every other country in that region hates Israel and would stop at nothing for Israel’s destruction just as they would stop at nothing to see our own destruction.”

“President Obama’s speech today kowtows to the very forces that hate us,” said the senator. “I will try to address all these issues on the Senate floor next week to refute President Obama’s message today.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rabbis-respond-obama-speech-ethnic-clean


Middle East – the “Democratic” uprising is really a CIVIL WAR between Sunni and Shiite

May 7, 2011

No only is the uprising in the ME NOT Democratic, it’s a sort of CIVIL WAR.

I say civil war, because if one looks at the entire area as PERSIA and Muslim, then the area and issue becomes VERY clear.

Iran is not the head.  There is no HEAD.  The HEAD is ISLAM.

The wars are over control of the region.  The issue is who will be the leader of the coming LARGER fight.  Who wins here is who will take the baton of ISLAM to carry it forward in to the NEW MILLENNIAL.

2011 is 1432 H in Islam.

Bahrain Sees Hezbollah Plot in Protest

 BahrainBahrain

In Report to U.N., Government Says Lebanese Militant Group Has Been Working to Overthrow Ruling Khalifa Family

by Jay Solomon

Bahrain At Night

Bahrain At Night

Bahrain has accused the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah with seeking to overthrow the island-state’s ruling family, in a report to the United Nations, escalating the growing cold war between Sunni Arab states and Shiite-dominated Iran.

The confidential report, sent to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week, alleges that Hezbollah has been training Bahraini opposition figures at camps in Lebanon and Iran. Bahrain’s government also accuses Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and other senior members of the Islamist Lebanese organization of directly plotting with Bahrain’s largely Shiite opposition on how to challenge the ruling Khalifa family.

Iran, Hezbollah and Bahrain’s opposition movement deny …

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703907004576279121469543918.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Below is a good understanding of the ME.  Look at each countries -“Constitution and the Rule of Law .”  This will give a good feel for each.

Analysis: How will the Mideast dominoes fall now?

Hizballah to pull its heavy missiles from Syrian safekeeping
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 1, 2011, 9:30 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  Bashar Assad   Hizballah   Israel   missiles   Syrian uprising 
Syrian army tank in Daraa

The Lebanese Shiite Hizballah has obviously decided the Assad regime is sinking.DEBKAfile’s military sources report the organization is preparing to pull its heavy, long-range weapons out of storage in Syrian military facilities – no longer sure they are safe there – and risk transporting them to Lebanon.

Last year, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to store Hizballah’s incoming Iran-made Fatah-110 surface missiles and its Syrian equivalent the M-600 and the mobile SA-8 (Gecko) anti-air battery which holds 18 warheads with a maximum range of 12 kilometers. Tehran paid for the upkeep of the Hizballah hardware on Syrian side of the border after Israel threatened to bomb these potential game-changers if they crossed over.

Deployed at Hizballah bases in Lebanon, the Fatah-110 and M-600 would place almost every corner of Israel within range of bombardment, while the SA-8 would seriously restrict Israeli Air Force operations over southern Lebanon and Galilee.
However, as the uprising against Assad rolls ever closer to Damascus, Hizballah see a very real threat of it infecting the Syrian army and has decided that now might be its last chance to get hold of the core arsenal it has standing by for war with Israel before events get out of hand in Syria.

Hizballah’s headquarters in Dahya, Beirut, became alarmed when they heard about strong resentment building up in the Syrian 11th Division over the Assad crackdown against the dissidents – among officers as well as other ranks.
The 11th Division, which is camped outside Aleppo, is the best trained and organized of all Syrian army units, equipped as its strategic reserve with the most advanced weaponry. If the unrest has reached this elite unit, Hizballah reckons there is no time to losing for pulling its missiles out of Syrian military safekeeping.

Meanwhile, top Hizballah and Iranian offices in Tehran are working on the best way to transport the missiles into Lebanon without exposing them to Israeli attack, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report. Some of them calculate that Israel would not venture to strike them while still on Syrian soil because it would lay itself open to interfering, or even getting in the way of, the revolt against President Assad and playing into his hands.

A security emergency might well take the wind out of protest movement’s sails.
But already, Tehran’s Lebanese surrogate is beginning to distance itself from Bashar Assad, its longtime strategic partner and arms supplier, having decided he has his back to the wall.  April 28, the Hizballah-controlled Lebanese Al Akhbar newspaper started criticizing the Assad regime on its op-ed pages.

http://debka.com/article/20891/


%d bloggers like this: