Menu

Forums



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/16/2016 5:23:00 PM

Man on parole for child abuse kills infant after growing ‘frustrated,’ officials say

Alexa Coria and daughter Raelynn Martinez. (GoFundMe)Alexa Coria and daughter RaeLynn Martinez. (GoFundMe)

When Juan Canales-Hernandez was arrested last week after police say he swung a chair at an infant and killed her, it wasn’t the first time the 24-year-old was accused of harming a child.

Canales-Hernandez, of Fort Collins, Colo., was on parole for a child abuse conviction when he was left to care for his girlfriend’s daughter, 11-month-old RaeLynn Martinez, the Coloradoan reported.

According to an arrest affidavit, Canales-Hernandez told detectives that he became “frustrated” with RaeLynn, so he hit her with a chair. RaeLynn died Friday, two days after she was taken to the hospital.

Canales-Hernandez was charged with first-degree murder on Tuesday, nearly three years after he was accused of beating a previous girlfriend’s son, according to court records.

In the 2013 case, the boy was found with more than 100 bruises and several bite marks on his body, according to an affidavit. His liver was bruised and his pancreas was torn in half. Canales-Hernandez told detectives at the time that he and the boy were wrestling and rough-playing, and that he didn’t hurt him intentionally.

The boy survived. Canales-Hernandez, who is not related to the victims in either case, pleaded guilty to child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury.

He was sentenced to four years in prison, the Coloradoan reported and was later placed on parole.

Explanations varied about how RaeLynn was injured.

After police responded to a call of an injured child on Sept. 7, Alexia Coria, the girl’s mother, told investigators that she was in the bathroom when RaeLynn fell while trying to climb up her high chair, according to the affidavit. The child was bleeding from the mouth and became “dangly” as her arms hung at her sides, Coria told detectives on Sept. 7.

Canales-Hernandez told police that he was in another apartment two doors down when Coria called and texted him, telling him that RaeLynn was hurt, the affidavit said.

Coria said she spent about 30 to 45 minutes trying to keep RaeLynn awake by placing her in water, according to the affidavit. When the child’s condition didn’t improve, Coria and Canales-Hernandez took her to the hospital.

RaeLynn went into cardiac arrest and had a severe brain injury that was not consistent with Coria’s explanation to police, the affidavit said.

The child died two days later.

Juan Canales-Hernandez. (Colorado Department of Corrections)Juan Canales-Hernandez. (Colorado Department of Corrections)

On Sept. 8, the day after RaeLynn was injured, detectives were given a different explanation.

Coria said she was out picking up her other child from school when she got a call from Canales-Hernandez, telling her that something happened to RaeLynn, the affidavit said.

Canales-Hernandez confessed that he was left alone with RaeLynn while Coria was out. He told police he was playing with the child by tossing her in the air when she fell and hit her head, the affidavit said.

RaeLynn started crying, Canales-Hernandez told detectives, so he tried to feed her and then placed her on a high chair.

The child was not seated properly, and Canales-Hernandez said he became “frustrated,” according to the affidavit. He picked up a chair and swung it at RaeLynn, knocking the child off her high chair.

While talking to detectives, Canales-Hernandez said he knew he made a “mistake,” according to the affidavit. He also admitted that he asked his girlfriend to tell police that RaeLynn accidentally fell off her chair because he didn’t want to go back to prison.

In addition to the murder charge, Canales-Hernandez is facing charges including child abuse resulting in death, a second-degree felony, and attempt to influence a public servant, a fourth-degree felony.

According to the Coloradoan, investigators are still determining whether Coria will face charges.

The mother of three defended herself during a candlelight vigil Sunday, saying she hadn’t been told the “real truth.”

“I love each and every one of you for coming out here and showing me that you guys love me and my babies,” Coria said,according to the Coloradoan.

In 2012, state and local child protective services nationwide received about 3.4 million reports of children being abused or neglected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A majority of them, 78 percent, were victims of neglect, while 18 percent suffered physical abuse.

RaeLynn and her father, Isaac Martinez. (GoFundMe)RaeLynn and her father, Isaac Martinez. (GoFundMe)

About 80 percent of perpetrators were parents, according to the CDC, while 6 percent were relatives other than parents. Four percent of perpetrators were the parents’ unmarried partners.

Two GoFundMe accounts have been set up to cover hospital, funeral and other expenses. One of the accounts was created on behalf of RaeLynn’s father, Isaac Martinez. The other one wascreated for Coria. About $4,500 has been raised.

According to the GoFundMe page created for Martinez, he will use the funds to help pay for legal fees to ensure he gets custody of his two other children with Coria. RaeLynn is the youngest of their three children.

A spokeswoman for the Larimer County District Attorney’s Office said the agency could not comment because of the ongoing investigation.

Canales-Hernandez, who is being held without bail in the Larimer County Jail, is scheduled to appear in court Friday, online jail records show.


(The Washington Post)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/16/2016 5:46:44 PM

YouTube Has Quietly Begun “Censoring” Journalists Who Criticize Government

SEPTEMBER 15, 2016


By Alice Salles

Earlier this month, YouTube, the behemoth video-sharing website was accused of censoring users.

Claiming some of their videos had been barred from making money through the company’s ad services, YouTube hosts like Philip DeFranco spoke out against the policy, claiming over “a dozen of his videos had been flagged as inappropriate for advertising, including one dinged for ‘graphic content or excessive strong language.’“

In a video entitled “YouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I’m Not Sure What To Do,” DeFranco called YouTube’s policy “censorship with a different name,” since users touching on what the company considers to be controversial subjects end up losing money. “If you do this on the regular, and you have no advertising,” DeFranco added, “it’s not sustainable.”

While YouTube has already confirmed its policy regarding what it considers unfit for monetization hasn’t changed, the issue might lie elsewhere now that the company seems more efficient in enforcing its own rules. As a matter of fact, the content policy changed in 2012, when YouTube first introduced its “ad-friendly” guidelines.

But while an algorithm is allegedly used to spot and “de-monetize” videos that break the company’s rules, many continue to accuse the company, currently owned by Google, of having “vague” descriptions of what its leadership considers ad-friendly.

YouTube rolled out its monetization tool in 2006, when ads consisted of videos that would pop up at the bottom of the user’s screen. If the user did not click on it, it would roll for about ten seconds before going away. But as ad executives pressured YouTube to “to do a better job at promoting its creators,” the relationship with its advertisers changed. As better and even more intrusive ads were added to YouTube videos, the company allegedly became more concerned with the content.

Those who are affected often complain about copyright claims, but some complain about another type of targeting — one that involves power players.

YouTube Content Creators Speak Out

Derrick J. Freeman, the host of FR33MANTV, told Anti-Media that he monetizes all of his videos, “and every day some video — even much older ones — gets slapped with some kind of warning or another because of music playing in the background somewhere. Usually a public place.”

While Freeman’s work is often political in nature, he hasn’t seen any of his videos being flagged for breaking YouTube’s rules concerning subjects related to war or political conflicts.

Mat Bars, another YouTube user, also complained about copyright claims.

Asked about the alleged censorship problem, Bars toldAnti-Media that “what it really most likely comes down to is advertisers not wanting their ads to be associated with certain things.” To the YouTube host, the company is “mostly blameless in this. The site isn’t even profitable, so letting advertisers push them around like this suits their best interests.” Instead of complaining about censorship, Bars added that what affects him personally is “the copyright system.”

But to more radical political figures who gather a considerable number of followers on YouTube, things are slightly different.

To Luke Rudkowski, the man behind the popular channel We Are Change, YouTube’s policy of nixing monetization on some of his most popular videos has been a problem for a long time.

“For years,” he told Anti-Media, “I have monetized and still get f*cked from it.” Especially, he continued, “[when I launch a video about] Hillary, or war and foreign policy.” When his videos touch on drugs or guns, however, he says ads remain in place.

“When the videos only have ‘Hillary Clinton’ they do fine,” he added, “however, when we add ‘FBI’, that’s when YouTube” springs into action.

Anti-Media journalist and senior editor, Carey Wedler, got her start on YouTube and has had a similar experience with her channel.

She explained the first time she realized the site had singled out her videos was “a couple of weeks” after she “posted a video about how America’s culture of militarism is an underlying contributor to domestic mass shootings.”

She continued:

The video was released shortly after the Orlando shooting, which occurred in June. By July 6, I had received an email saying the video was not ‘advertiser friendly.’ Two days later, I received another email about a video I released at the beginning of June — before I released the mass shooting video. This video, which pointed out inconsistencies in Bernie Sanders’s record and questioned his ‘revolutionary’ status, was also stripped of monetization.

While the mass shooting video’s monetization has been restored without her appealing the company’s decision, her Sanders video remains ineligible. The Sanders video focused largely on his record of supporting war and the military-industrial complex.

Her other videos affected by YouTube’s policy include “What Every American Needs to Know About Radical Islam,” a video “that challenged rampant Islamophobia and jingoism right after the Paris terror attacks last November,” and “Why I’m “Ready for Hillary!,” which the creator claims to be an “extremely sarcastic indictment of Hillary Clinton published before she announced her candidacy early last year.”

Other videos by Wedler that suffered the same fate include “How America ‘wins’ the wars in Syria & Iraq” and “How I became a “self-hating Jew.” All of the de-monetized videos contain anti-war sentiments.

According to the prolific writer and vlogger, YouTube only bothered to email her notifications regarding the changes in monetization for the Sanders and the mass shooting videos:

I noticed the [other] videos had all been stripped of monetization when I logged into Youtube to check out the two that had been officially flagged. However, when I checked my settings following receipt of the two emails regarding mass shootings and Bernie, my overall monetization setting had been switched off — meaning none of my videos were monetized.

She claims to have “never selected that option” prior to learning about the issues with the videos mentioned previously, yet when she turned the monetization option back on, “the monetization reactivated — but only for videos that hadn’t been specifically flagged.”

“I also noticed that my videos before the self-hating Jew video hadn’t been rejected for monetization at all,” she said.

In cases involving YouTube’s decision to flag her videos that included notifications, Wedler added, YouTube failed to give her “a specific reason as to why the videos were stripped of monetization. I’ve seen some screenshots of those emails from other Youtubers … and some contain reasons. Mine didn’t, though it’s pretty clear to me that in my case, it’s because they are considered ‘controversial.’ Some discuss war and some contain images of war, and they are always questioning military violence.”

While Wedler agrees that this type of policy is “not direct censorship … it does amount to an implicit attempt to discourage me and others from saying controversial things.”

She added that while YouTube is a “privately owned company that can decide which content is appropriate for its advertisers, … if they are deciding [which of] my videos shouldn’t be allowed to generate revenue, they are effectively removing much of my incentive to continue producing content on the platform.”

Despite the company’s policy, Wedler vows to continue making these videos simply because the message is what matters.

Google and Its Addiction to Buying Influence

As Wedler stated, YouTube is a private company and it has the right to set its own policies. But it’s undeniable that the site’s owner, Google, has, on a number of occasions, shown its favoritism through lobbying, prompting many to highlight the company’s appearance of favorable bias toward Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Google went from spending $80,000 on lobbying in 2003 to over $16 million in 2014. After 2014, Google, Inc. became Alphabet, and in 2015, Alphabet invested over $16 million in lobbying. To date, the company has spent over $8 million on Washington politicians.

Alphabet’s top recipient this election cycle is, unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton.

But despite its knack for influence buying, Google has, over the years, created relationships with think tanks that would have criticized the tech giant’s crony capitalist ways under different circumstances.

According to the Washington Post, Google has embarked on a quest to woo free market organizations by populating “elite think-tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation” with its fellows, including “young lawyers, writers and thinkers paid by the company.”

From the Post:

To critics, Google’s investments have effectively shifted the national discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the company’s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire, those critics say.

Claiming to be defenders of privacy, Google successfully waged an aggressive lobbying campaign within Washington to defeat a congressional effort that could have put Google in the middle of a very nasty antitrust fight.

After supporting the European Union’s antitrust prosecution of Microsoft, Google found itself the target of the same type of scrutiny, being accused of unfairly discriminating against users.

With the excuse of going after companies like Google for antitrust law violations, Congress came up with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill disguised as an anti-online piracy fix that would have allowed the federal government to target “illegal copies of films and other forms of media hosted on foreign servers.” The bill would have hurt Google the most because the search engine would have several results deleted from its database, requiring “ISPs to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked,” Google chairman Eric Schmidt said.

Just one month before SOPA was unveiled by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Schmidt appeared beforeCongress during a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hearing where a Republican senator “accused the company of skewing search results to benefit its own products and hurt competitors.” As this hearing took place and Google was grilled by lawmakers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America lobbies pushed Congress to pass harsh anti-privacy legislation, accusing companies like Google of giving users access to pirated music and movies.

Afraid of the backlash caused by the hearing, Google feared the Hollywood lobby would end up hurting many of its partners, as well as smaller organizations directly tied to Google. But the search engine giant had a way out — its aggressive lobbying and partnership building skills.

As SOPA appeared poised for passage, Google and several other tech firms stood in oppositionand the bill finally failed.

While SOPA was, indeed, a farce — and privacy advocates in Washington were happy the billdidn’t see the light of day — it’s important to note how hard Google worked to keep it from becoming a reality, putting the Silicon Valley giant closer to powerful institutions that, in theory,are against crony capitalism.

But after SOPA, the FTC went back to the drawing board, threatening to investigate Google’s alleged antitrust violations further. At the time, the “company’s rivals, including Microsoft and Yelp, were aggressively pressing arguments that Google was exploiting its dominance in the search business.”

Reaching out to another partner, George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center, Google and the university put together “the first of three academic conferences at the GMU law school’s Arlington County campus,” which, according to the Washington Post, helped to shape the FTC’s approach to the Google probe from then on.

At the third academic conference held at GMU, Google remained present as a silent partner. As “[a] strong contingent of FTC economists and lawyers were on hand for the May 16, 2012, session,” the Washington Post reported, research financially backed by Google was presented by GMU lawyers and economists. And “[i]n January 2013, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and a half, the FTC settled the case with Google, which agreed to give its rivals more access to patents and make it easier for advertisers to use other ad platforms.”

From the publication:

But when it came to the charges that Google biased its search results to promote its own products, the five FTC commissioners all voted to close the investigation, saying there was no evidence the company’s practices were harming consumers.

As Google became more involved with politics, other lobbying opportunities would arise.

More recently, Google got involved in yet another powerful lobbying effort, which started when the company hired the former administrator of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to serve as the company’s Director of Safety for Self-Driving Cars, proving the revolving door that presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to nix is still alive and well. The effort paid off, and personal injury attorneys are now concerned that Google may try to push still more regulations, forcing regulators to stick the human driver with the blame for crashes and getting Google’s autonomous driving system off the hook.

Whether YouTube’s ad policy has anything to do with its parent company’s politics is impossible to determine. But as we analyze Google’s influence in Washington, it’s important to note that, whether you agree with the tech giant on none, some, or all issues, governments create the incentives for companies like Google to continue rent-seeking.

As the economist David R. Henderson puts it, individuals “are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena. … licensed electricians and doctors [for instance] often lobby to keep regulations in place that restrict competition from unlicensed electricians or doctors.” Companies like Google are champions of this practice, which has helped to protect the brand’s popularity by keeping competitors at bay.

So it’s not a surprise to see many claiming their content is being censored by Google’s YouTube. After all, with the amount of power the company holds in Washington, it’s as if Google — or Alphabet — is an actual wing of the government.

This article (YouTube Has Quietly Begun “Censoring” Journalists Who Criticize Government) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commonslicense with attribution to Alice Salles and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article toedits@theantimedia.org.


(activistpost.com)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/16/2016 6:02:39 PM

Huge Global Speech Control Network Forming To Silence The Common Man

Posted on September 16, 2016 by

global shut up

This article was posted originally under the title of “Internet Censorship Plot – MSM, Facebook, Twitter, Google – Form Content Control Group, End Free Speech.” It lasted about five minutes on Facebook before they made my point for me once again and took it down.” Shares have been suppressed completely on subsequent posts. This is REAL folks, we have to get the word out, it’s happening now. Share by email to the direct link at RickWells.US if need be as once Facebook discovers it’s been republished they’ll surely censor us again.

The end of our freedom of speech, particularly on the Internet is coming together at breakneck speed, with dictatorial outrage building upon outrage.

For about the last year or so, Facebook and Twitter have been engaged in online censorship of content. Basically anything that opposes the globalist agenda is at risk of being choked out of circulation, pulled down from groups, taken down from pages and their authors sanctioned. The penalties for expressing opposing views can be severe, including having your account completely cancelled. In Europe there can be lengthy jail sentences and fines.

Recently Obama announced he’s handing our internet over to the enemies of American self-rule and our survival as a free nation, his globalist comrades under the UN. He has no authorization from Congress to be giving away what belongs to the American people. He’s just like a shoplifter filling his pockets as he heads out the door, throwing a big bone to his co-conspirators while he still can.

Now the next shoe to drop has been announced by the same corporate information controllers that have been targeting free speech, both here and particularly aggressively in Europe, Facebook and Twitter. These two monopolies on information sharing that are already in violation of anti-trust laws and should be broken up, are now further consolidating their strangle hold on our ability to communicate our views freely among one another.

Global Social Media And MSM Forming Communications Cartel To Strictly Control Internet Speech

They announced on Tuesday they were forming a partnership with news organizations, including Agence France-Presse to “create a coalition of media and technology groups seeking to filter out online misinformation and improve news quality on social networks.” Someone will be determining what is acceptable according to their subjective standards, to an even greater degree than is already being done in a semi-covert manner. It is the definition of censorship.

Those seeking to eliminate our right to speech and freedom of assembly through membership in this coalition are: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, The New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, CNN, ABC News of Australia, ProPublica, AFP, The Telegraph, France Info, Breaking News, Le Monde’s Les Decodeurs, International Business Times UK, Eurovision News Exchange and Al Jazeera Media Network.

And they added a few other communists to their ranks just for the sake of “diversity and inclusion,” includingAmnesty International, European Journalism Centre, American Press Institute, International Fact Checking Network and Duke Reporters’ Lab.”

Who and what gives them the right? Their global ambitions. From an American perspective, our freedom of speech and our freedom of assembly are being impacted. In Europe they already have their freedoms compromised to a greater degree but it still is significant. Hate speech laws will likely be the justification for more draconian censorship as they have been already throughout Europe. In Germany Angela Merkel has allied herself with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to actively target those speaking out against her destructive, suicidal open border policies.

They are simply making the move to eliminate our ability to speak out and thereby provide themselves with cover for their treasonous attacks. Breitbart News reported, “First Draft News, which is backed by Google, announced Tuesday that some 20 news organizations will be part of its partner network to share information on best practices for journalism in the online age.”

These will not be the benign “best practices” that they claim they are. They will be what conservative patriots are already faced with on a daily basis, censorship standards that, if not met, will result in content being disallowed. If patriotic speech is not allowed, those views will disappear from the dialogue and the result will be a population that increasingly shares the globalist outlook.

The reason for the creation of the internet in the first place may have been to manufacture an environment for global communication that is heavily relied upon and which can be easily manipulated and controlled. The push is on to bring Africa online with Zuckerberg, Google and others. The objective now clearly seems to be worldwide participation in a global system that is rooted in the world socialism perspective.

Jenni Sargent, managing director of First Draft, said “Filtering out false information can be hard. Even if news organizations only share fact-checked and verified stories, everyone is a publisher and a potential source.” Here’s three questions for you, Ms. Sargent. What gives you the right to decide which ideas people are allowed to be exposed to, do we also have the option of shutting down your blog or your alliance? If not, why not?

She said, “We are not going to solve these problems overnight, but we’re certainly not going to solve them as individual organizations.” But as a global monopoly, they can’t help but succeed.

The Internet Nazi said the coalition will develop training programs and “a collaborative verification platform,” as well as a voluntary code of practice for online news. It will be voluntary to the extent that people will choose to comply if they want access to an audience.

Training and collaboration by a big brother entity are not necessary and are counterproductive. If someone is putting out bad product, the marketplace will take care of it. But the objective isn’t improvement, it’s about uniformity, compliance, power and control.

As if the mainstream media is an indicator of success and what is desirable in truth in reporting, Sargent said, “We live in a time when trust and truth are issues that all newsrooms, and increasingly the social platforms themselves, are facing.” Again, who the Hell does she think she is?

“Each partner is committed to sharing knowledge, developing policies and devising training in how journalists use the social web to find and report news.” All of those “goals” are pointless without a system of enforcement and mandated compliance, which is where this is headed.

It was not something that could have been accomplished while the Internet was under American control. Now that the UN criminals are taking over, our protections afforded under the Constitution are vanishing right before our eyes. Our rights to free speech and assembly will no longer exist.

It would be a horrific enough development regardless of who is determining what content is acceptable but a look at the coalition is undeniable proof that it is a conglomeration of leftist global government control freaks. The leftest of the left are seeking to stifle speech that exposes their opposition to our freedoms. This has to be stopped.

(rickwells.us)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/16/2016 6:29:02 PM

U.N. Chief Also Slams Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Comment, While Failing to Address the Substance

By Patrick Goodenough | September 16, 2016 | 4:30 AM EDT

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. (Photo: AP)

(CNSNews.com) – U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Thursday joined a chorus of criticism directed at Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s provocative assertion that the Palestinian Authority insistence that no Jews be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state is tantamount to “ethnic cleansing.”

“I am disturbed by a recent statement by Israel’s prime minister portraying those who oppose settlement expansion as supporters of ethnic cleansing,” Ban told the U.N. Security Council. “This is unacceptable and outrageous.”

“Let me be absolutely clear,” he continued. “Settlements are illegal under international law. The occupation, stifling and oppressive, must end.”



Netanyahu’s comments, in an online video message posted last week, earlier drew an earlier State Department reprimand and widespread ridicule from his critics.

But undisputed is the fact that if P.A. chairman Mahmoud Abbas had his way, half a million Israeli Jews living in areas he wants for an independent state – the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem – would have to leave.

At the same time, 1.77 million Palestinian Arab citizens make up 20.8 percent of the Israeli population, according to Central Bureau of Statistics figures released last May. That marked an annual growth rate of 2.2 percent for Israeli Arabs, compared to 1.7 percent for Israeli Jews.

No mainstream Israeli politician has ever suggested that those Arabs move to an envisaged Palestinian state under the “two-state” solution promoted by the U.S., European Union and broader international community.

Yet Abbas has declared unambiguously that no Jews will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state

“In a final resolution [of the conflict], we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” Abbas said during a visit to Egypt in 2013.

The following year, Abbas’ top negotiator Saeb Erekat reiterated that stance.

“No settler will be permitted to stay in a Palestinian state, not one, because the settlements are illegal and the presence of settlers on occupied lands is illegal,” he was quoted as saying.

When Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip in 2005 as part of its undertakings under the Oslo peace accords, its government uprooted all 9,000 Israelis living there in the process.

Those accords signed in 1993 left the question of Israeli communities in the West Bank unresolved – a matter for later “final status” negotiations.

Every Israeli government since, on the right and left, has indicated that it expects a negotiated final agreement will leave at least major blocs of Israeli settlements intact in the area known by Israelis as Judea and Samaria, the country’s biblical “heartland.”

Netanyahu’s video message tackled the issue in his trademark direct manner, challenging not just Abbas but unnamed foreign governments as well.

“I'm sure many of you have heard the claim that Jewish communities in Judea Samaria – the West Bank – are an obstacle to peace. I’ve always been perplexed by this notion,” he said.

“Because no one would seriously claim that the nearly two million Arabs living inside Israel – that they’re an obstacle to peace. That's because they aren’t – on the contrary.

“Israel’s diversity shows its openness and readiness for peace,” Netanyahu continued. “Yet the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews.”

“There’s a phrase for that: It’s called ethnic cleansing. And this demand is outrageous.



“It’s even more outrageous that the world doesn’t find this outrageous,” he said. “Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”

‘Inconvenient truth’

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau slammed Netanyahu’s comments, calling them “inappropriate and unhelpful.”

“We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank,” she said.

Trudeau repeated U.S. government policy that ongoing Israeli settlement activity is “an obstacle to peace.”

While she called Netanyahu’s terminology “inappropriate and unhelpful” Trudeau – like Ban Ki-moon on Thursday – did not address the P.A. demands that no Jews be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. She merely repeated the position that “settlements are a final status issue that must be resolved in negotiations between the parties.”

Trudeau also said the administration was “engaging in direct conversations with the Israeli government” about the comments.

Anne Bayefsky president of Human Rights Voices and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, called Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansing charge “the quintessential inconvenient truth.”

The State Department went on offense because they have no defense,” she wrote in an op-ed. “Playing the settlements card and advocating for a Jew-free Palestine is not a move to promote peaceful co-existence. It’s an intrinsic part of a 67-year old xenophobic attempt to wipe the only Jewish state off the map.”

-- In a letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004, President George W. Bush recognized that any final peace agreement with the Palestinians would likely take into account the reality of at least some Jewish communities remaining in place in the West Bank.

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” Bush wrote.

He added, notably, that “all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”

“It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities,” said Bush.

The president read out key excerpts of that letter during a joint appearance with Sharon at the White House. The substance of the letter was subsequently endorsed in resolutions by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.


(cnsnews.com)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/17/2016 12:30:06 AM

In leaked emails, Colin Powell says Israel has 200 nukes

While discussing Iran nuclear deal, former secretary of state apparently reveals extent of Jewish state’s alleged atomic arsenal

BY JUDAH ARI GROSS September 15, 2016, 10:09 pm







In this photo taken Sept. 3, 2014, former Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks at the State Department in Washington. (AP/Carolyn Kaster)

In this photo taken Sept. 3, 2014, former Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks at the State Department in Washington. (AP/Carolyn Kaster)

Former US secretary of state and four-star general Colin Powell alleged that Israel possesses some 200 nuclear weapons, in an email apparently leaked by Russian hackers this week.

Discussing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 2015 speech to Congress about the dangers posed by the Iranian nuclear deal, in an email he sent to US Democratic party donor Jeffrey Leeds, Powell wrote that he doubted the Iranian regime would use an atomic bomb even if it could get one, since “the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200, all targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands.”

The email was published by the LobeLog foreign policy website.

Israel maintains a policy of so-called nuclear ambiguity, neither publicly confirming nor denying the existence of an atomic arsenal.


The Nuclear Research Center NEGEV, located in Dimona. (screen capture: YouTube, via Channel 10)

According to a 2014 report by the Federation of American Scientists, however, the Jewish state is believed to possess between 80 and 400 nuclear weapons, though that document’s authors estimated the figure was closer to 80.

Illustrative: B61 nuclear bombs on a rack. (Courtesy US Department of Defense)

Powell’s email, sent on March 3, 2015, more than doubled that approximation. As a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, his figure of 200 nuclear weapons would appear to carry more weight than the approximations of the “news media reports, think tanks, authors, and analysts” cited in the FAS report.

A trove of Powell’s emails was posted on the website DCLeaks.com and first reported by Buzzfeed News late Tuesday. Powell, 79, did not deny the emails’ authenticity when asked for comment by Buzzfeed.

The emails, which run from March 2015 through last month, offer rare insight into the unvarnished opinions of the respected retired US Army general, who was secretary of state under President George W. Bush.

DCLeaks.com has been alleged to be an outlet for hackers tied to the Russian intelligence groups. The website, which says it intends to expose the misuse of political power, has previously released emails from other Washington political figures.

In the leaked emails, Powell also bashed both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and spoke frankly about a number of issues related to the US government.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks about Iran during a joint meeting of the United States Congress in the House chamber at the US Capitol on March 3, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images/AFP)


However, his March 3, 2015, email dealt specifically with the Iranian nuclear deal and Netanyahu’s controversial speech to Congress that day about it.

Powell told Leeds, his business partner, that he had watched “parts of it,” and that is was “well done, but nothing new. I could have mouthed it.”

He challenged some of the assertions made by Netanyahu in the speech. According to Powell, the Iranians “can’t use [a nuclear bomb] if they finally make one,” because of Israel’s overwhelming arsenal.

Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in July 2013 (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)

Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in July 2013 (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)

“As Akmdinijad (sic) [said], ‘What would we do with one, polish it?'” he wrote, referring to former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Powell said that while all his “buddies” in Abu Dhabi wanted an Iranian nuclear deal and had been working for over a decade to reach one, he was unconvinced.

“I don’t trust Iranians — almost went to jail over Iran-Contra,” he wrote, referring to a political scandal in the United States in the late 1980s, in which American officials were caught facilitating weapons sales to Iran, despite an arms embargo.

Powell also cast doubt on the amount of time that Netanyahu and others estimated that it would take Iran to develop a nuclear bomb.

“Bibi likes to say ‘a year away,’ as do our intel guys. They say it every years (sic),” Powell wrote.

AP contributed to this report.


(timesofisrael.com)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1


Mobile Site | Stores | Contact Us | Testimonials | FAQ Privacy | Terms | About Us
Copyright 1998 - 2025, All rights reserved.