What if Chinese or Russian Troops were stationed on a base in Texas?
Archive for December, 2011
By W J Anthony
Many sincere Americans regularly read and accept the interpretations of important issues, when they are presented in articles that alert the readers to dangers of national importance. In recent months, trusted writers have commented on the details of the National Defense Authorization Act bill that has been passed in both houses of Congress by over a two-thirds majority, which then awaited the presidential signature of Barack Obama to become law.
In the months before the final passage of the NDAA bill, those writers were warning their readers that the language of the bill would give the President the absolute power to order the Military to arrest any person, that the President, Barack Obama, chose to detain indefinitely, without enabling such a person to defend him or her self in a court of law, with the claim of habeas corpus, or the right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers in a court of law, as provided by the US Constitution.
The original language of the NDAA bill did not impose American citizens to be subjected under the NDAA law, but Obama intervened with Congress and insisted that he would veto the bill unless both houses of Congress changed the bill, so that American citizens could also be arrested by the Military and detained as terrorists indefinitely in some maximum security prison, where water-boarding torture almost drowns a prisoner to force whatever confession the guards require. The same torture could force American citizens to confess to crimes of terror, which they did not commit. That is still done, to force false confessions from captured men of Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries without any right to a civilian trial under US Constitutional Law.
The issue is immensely important, and the new reports do not say if Obama had signed or allowed the legislation to become law. If he did not sign the legislation, after 10 days it could have become law under ‘the pocket veto’ provision of the Constitution that governs the enactment of laws.
Ordinarily, most bills would cause little concern, but the NDAA bill should alert all American citizens to demand the answer to who is Barack Hussein Obama?
WHY has Barack Hussein Obama refused to allow any of his college records or his genuine official birth certificate to be revealed to America’s voters? Most politicians would be happy to show those documents to American voters. The US Constitution requires candidates for the Presidency to be a natural born citizen. Obama has been pressed to provide evidence that he is a citizen, but he refuses to tell the truth. If Obama is not a legitimate “natural born” American, and his sponsors know that, what are they trying to accomplish by having him deceitfully pretend to be a “natural born” American?
With that in mind, consider the power that the Congress passed in its recent NDAA legislation that gives the President the power to order the US Military to arrest and detain any American citizen indefinitely in a maximum security prison system, such as the US Marine base on the island of Cuba, to be stressfully detained there for as long as America is in a war on terror, without permitting the American citizen to be tried in a civilian court of law by a jury of peers.
The NDAA law allows the President to impose the NDAA fate on any and on as many American citizens as he chooses, whether it be you or me.
But, you may scream, “I’m not a terrorist! I will demand my Constitutional rights!” That won’t matter, because the law does not permit, much less require, any American court to intervene in your behalf as a citizen or even as a human being. With that in mind, consider what is stated in the following video.
If Obama is not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be President, then all the things that he did in making appointments, signing treaties, signing bills into law, etc. are illegal. This is precisely presented in the article that precedes this essay.
“OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”
Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?
Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders.”
In a matter of days, the fourth year of America’s journey of confusion will begin the final chapter that reveals the truth, inasmuch as the legitimacy of the Presidency of its US Government depends upon the truth and eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the powers of that position.
Since the upcoming days of the year 2012 will hold the Primary and National elections for the Presidency, the issue of Obama’s eligibility and legitimacy will be the foremost concern of this new election year and the years afterwards.
History will show if the proof of eligibility and legitimacy of Obama’s election in 2008 has been proved or deliberately neglected, and the upcoming days from here on through 2012 must be filled with the greatest scrutiny in US history demanding the proof of truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth – that Obama’s election in 2008 was valid without evasion or that Obama had falsely presented himself to be a valid natural born American citizen and committed a high and grievous crime, deserving the full extent of punishment under the laws of the US Constitution.
We suggest that the reader read the remainder of this illuminating article at the following link to find a precise and powerful strategy that will show how we the American people of this nation should determine if Barack Obama met the requirements to run for the Presidency in 2008 and in 2012.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
US State Department now races to find a new home for US State Department-listed terrorist organization.
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
In a move that almost defies belief, is so brazen and hypocritical many will not believe it no matter how many State Department officials confirm it, the US has been guarding a terrorist training camp inside Iraq with US troops and is planning to relocate them, possibly in a freshly abandoned US military base in Iraq, while D.C. lobbyists work feverishly to have them de-listed, armed, and sent to conduct terrorist operations in Iran.
MEK. Admittedly a terrorist organization, listed by the US State Department as being such, it is fully funded, armed, and backed by the United States, based in France and US-occupied Iraq, and allowed to conduct terrorist operations against the Iranian people. The “War on Terror” is a fraud.
Foreign Policy Magazine has reported in their article, “State Department scrambling to move the MEK — to a former U.S. military base?” fully admits that Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) is a terrorist organization used by Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in the ’80s and was responsible for the death of US military personnel and civilians. Foreign Policy reports that efforts by the Iraqi Army to evict MEK has resulted in armed clashes.
Foreign Policy then reports the United Nations “Assistance Mission in Iraq” (UNAMI) is working with the US State Department to relocate the terrorists within Iraq and possibly at a US military base near Baghdad’s airport.
Despite being listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department (#28 listed as “Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization”), its leadership is harbored in Paris, its rank and file harbored by US troops in Iraq, and the US State Department itself overseeing their continued existence and the continuation of their armed terrorist campaign.
Foreign Policy also notes a huge lobbying movement in Washington working to de-list MEK as a terrorist organization, including:
Congressman John Lewis (D-GA),
former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell,
former FBI Director Louis Freeh,
former Sen. Robert Torricelli,
Rep. Patrick Kennedy,
former CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano,
former National Security Advisor James Jones,
former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean,
former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani,
former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers,
former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card,
Gen. Wesley Clark,
former Rep. Lee Hamilton,
former CIA Director Porter Goss,
senior advisor to the Romney campaign Mitchell Reiss,
Gen. Anthony Zinni,
former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge,
former Sen. Evan Bayh
Indeed, warmongering Islamophobist cheerleader Rudolph Giuliani is taking money from a genuine terrorist organization and lobbying the US government to have it removed from the US State Department list. Tom Ridge is also listed as coddling MEK terrorists, ironically after being named the first “Homeland Security Secretary” from 2003-2005. Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, is perhaps the most alarming name listed, as it casts serious doubts over the objectivity, integrity, and veracity with which he conducted his “investigation” of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Though it isn’t money alone that motivates this eager throng of traitors to remove MEK from the US State Department Foreign Terrorist Organization list, it is their desire to see MEK worked with more closely — armed, trained, and sent into Iran — with open, rather than covert American support, just as Saddam had done decades ago to conduct a campaign of terror against the Iranian people.
MEK has been considered by the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution as a prime candidate for US-backing in an effort to undermine and remove the Iranian government. In Brookings’ 2009 report, “Which Path to Perisa?” it is stated:
Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.
In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.
Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.
Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations. page 117-118 of “Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution, 2009
Readers may also be shocked to find out that not only has this been proposed, but long ago approved. This was revealed in Seymour Hersh’s 2008 New Yorker article “Preparing the Battlefield,” which stated:
The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. ‘The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.’ He added, ‘The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.’
And as moves are being made to get MEK de-listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department so that even more aid can be rendered to this admitted terrorist organization, Seymour Hersh in an NPR interview also claims that select MEK members have already received training in the US.
Quite clearly this reveals that not only is the “War on Terror” an absolute fraud, but so are the politicians, policy wonks, and military “leaders” who have promoted it, pinned medals on their own chests for “fighting” it, and have made immense fortunes and power grabs while burying the American people in unprecedented debt, tyranny, and economic catastrophe in the process. Let’s not forget the thousands of dead US troops duped into fighting this war and the hundreds of thousands maimed and broken, both physically and mentally, for what was essentially a gimmick to justify ravaging and looting the Middle East — a campaign that is still ongoing.
And while the new gimmick is utilizing terrorist groups like MEK or Libya’s LIFG to sow violence within a target country and then send NATO to “rescue” them from the nation’s attempt to defend itself, the “terrorist” card is still in play regarding Iran.
It is clear then, that America’s greatest threat is its own “leadership,” bought and paid for by Wall Street and London’s corporate-financier interests and pursuing their agenda at the cost of the rest of humanity. We must identify these interests, boycott them out of business, and replace them entirely with local, pragmatic solutions.
Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at
Land Destroyer Report.
Your Prime Minster Harper has agreed to allow President Obama to apprehend and commit YOU to indefinite detention, in the maximum prison at Guantanamo, as a terrorist … without trial … or even choose to kill you … instead!
Check this link:
Bottom of Form
Posted on: December 17, 2011
Top of Form
Source: GRTV Backgrounder
End of Nations: Canada, the US and the “Security Perimeter”
And check this link:
It is Now up to each of US !
Never before in the history of the United States of America, has there been a dangerous threat to each person in the United States and each person in other countries of the world, as there will be if the National Defense Authorization Act becomes law. The US Senate and the House of Representatives have each passed the bill and it now awaits the decision of President Obama to sign the bill or Veto it.
The bill provides funding for the military troops, and it has been attached with a rider bill that provides President Obama with the authority to have the military apprehend, imprison and detain indefinitely or kill any person that the President thinks is a terrorist.
The bill does not require President Obama to state or file charges against the person and does not allow the person a Constitutional right to defend him or her self against charges and be tried in a court of law by a jury of his or her peers. If it becomes law, no defense plea will be honored by any court of law, because the person can be held in indefinite detention for the rest of his or her life.
The bill is now in the hands of President Obama. He can sign it or veto it. If he does neither, it will become law by a Pocket Veto when ten weekdays have passed since Congress sent the bill to President Obama.
If you have any doubt about what danger is about to occur, WATCH this Video:
What can we do? The second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence tells what we the People must do:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Those words of instruction and warning have come to US … Now!
May almighty God, our Creator, …. be with US.
- W J Anthony
Newsman, Keith Olbermann interviews NY senator who said Obama will not veto the indefinite detention bill.
Tell US the truth, Mr. Obama . . .
Should we be concerned?
“40 members of Congress have sent an urgent letter to House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders protesting provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, as the revised version of the bill heads for a final vote on Thursday.
The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military,” states the letter.
Opposition to the bill has been bipartisan. While the letter is signed mostly by Democratic members of Congress, Republican representatives like Justin Amash, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul have also been vocal in their opposition.
After a weekend of secret meetings, the final version of the bill emerged on Tuesday morning and is set to be voted on before the end of the week. Issues the Obama administration had with the bill, which had nothing to do with indefinite detention (indeed it was the White House itself which removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031), now appear to have been settled.
Both the ACLU and Human Rights Watch point out that the final version does nothing to protect American citizens against indefinite detention.
Congressman Carl Levin said on TV that you had insisted that the bill be stripped of the provision that US citizens would not be subject to the arrest and detention.
From Wikipedia we learn what we may expect from you as President.
“Article I legislative role
The first power the Constitution confers upon the president is the veto. The Presentment Clause requires any bill passed by Congress to be presented to the president before it can become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the president has three options:
- Sign the legislation; the bill then becomes law.
- Veto the legislation and return it to Congress, expressing any objections; the bill does not become law, unless each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
- Take no action. In this instance, the president neither signs nor vetoes the legislation. After 10 days, not counting Sundays, two possible outcomes emerge:
- If Congress is still convened, the bill becomes law.
- If Congress has adjourned, thus preventing the return of the legislation, the bill does not become law. This latter outcome is known as the pocket veto.
In 1996, Congress attempted to enhance the president’s veto power with the Line Item Veto Act. The legislation empowered the president to sign any spending bill into law while simultaneously striking certain spending items within the bill, particularly any new spending, any amount of discretionary spending, or any new limited tax benefit. Once a president had stricken the item, Congress could pass that particular item again. If the president then vetoed the new legislation, Congress could override the veto by its ordinary means, a two-thirds vote in both houses. In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such a legislative alteration of the veto power to be unconstitutional.”
Which of the three options do you, as President, intend to use?
If you choose option Number 1 and sign the bill, voters would know this bill violates the U.S. Constitution and will oppose you in the election next year.
Every person in the entire world would have reason to fear that you, as President, might commit “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” and they would realize “it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” as people are advised to do in the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence.
If you choose option Number 2 and Veto the bill, many U.S. voters might believe you would honor the U.S. Constitution, and many might vote to keep you as president.
Also, some people in other countries of the world might again trust you, despite their recent memory of your criminal military attack on Libya.
If you choose option Number 3 and allow the Pocket Veto to kill the bill, some voters may regain their trust in you, but many would then ask, “Why didn’t you Veto the bill immediately instead of waiting for a Pocket Veto?”
Your Veto of the bill might persuade the people in other countries to trust that you will not be a future tyrant if, some day, you become a leader of the United Nations.
Would your Veto nullify your guilt in starting the unlawful war against Libya without a Congressional Declaration of War? Only God will determine that. May God bless you.
- W J Anthony
Monday, December 12, 2011
Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
In a clear act of censorship, after a video was uploaded to the official Facebook page for the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) which exposed the highly manipulated ABC interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the page was removed by Facebook.
The video was of a press conference held by the spokesman for the Syrian Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ministry, Jihad Makdessi, showing how the ABC interview was deceitfully edited.
“The conference showed how the US TV channel ABC manipulated the content of their interview with President Bashar al-Assad and distorted it through editing and omission,” writes SANA.
Syrians on Facebook have apparently already created a new page dedicated to the Syrian TV station, but this instance of Facebook controlling the narrative is hardly something which can be ignored.
The entire interview, conducted by Barbara Walters, is an exercise in Western propaganda which is completely divorced from objective reality and instead based solely on pulling the heart strings of viewers in hopes that they will not go through the effort of verifying any of the claims.
In this article we will also explore just how Walters goes about misrepresenting the truth and misleading the viewer during the interview.
Why you shouldn’t trust the Western media’s picture of Syria
First off, as Tony Cartalucci aptly points out, the United Nations Human Rights Council report on Syria was based on no independently verified information whatsoever.
The report was solely based on so-called evidence gathered from “victims and witnesses of events” who were found via “A public call … to all interested persons and organizations to submit relevant information and documentation that would help the commission implement its mandate.”
In total, “223 victims and/or witnesses, including personnel who defected from the military and the security forces, were interviewed.”
Clearly, they were seeking out “relevant information and documentation that would help the commission implement its mandate,” showing that they were only looking for information that would further their narrative and justify foreign military intervention in Syria.
To make matters even worse for those who would like to point to the report as a legitimate investigation, the three so-called experts who were assigned to the commission: Paulo Pinheiro (the Chairperson), Yakin Ertürk and Karen Koning AbuZayd, all had clear conflicts of interest.
Paulo Pinheiro has prime globalist credentials, including heavy involvement with the corrupt, unaccountable United Nations and membership in several so-called “civil society organizations” as you can see in his 2004 curriculum vitae.
Yakin Ertürk sits on the board of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) which is “an official partner of several online knowledge portals, including the South-South Learning Gateway and OpenDemocracy,” which is not only funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute but has also featured writings of Soros as well.
Karen Koning AbuZayd is on the board of directors of the Washington-based “think tank” Middle East Policy Council, where she serves alongside former CIA agents; the former commander of U.S. Central Command; the former chairman of ExxonMobil, Saudi Arabia, Inc.; a former senior fellow of the National Defense University; the President of the U.S.-Qatar Business Council; former Defense Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia; a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress; and more.
This clearly makes AbuZayd as compromised as the rest of the team, as her association with the Middle East Policy Council makes her anything but objective.
The Center for American Progress shills for the Obama administration, as I have previously shown, and the U.S.-Qatar Business Council includes corporations that greatly benefit from the type of unrest we are seeing throughout the Middle East, while all of the other members also have conflicts of interest themselves.
The United Nations and the Western establishment media rely on people not actually looking into who is behind these reports and how they are compiled, and many people don’t go that far.
Thankfully there are independent researchers who can connect the dots and prove that these reports are just as fraudulent as all of the manufactured reasons we are brought to war.
The report perfectly served exactly what Western nations like the United States have been pushing for, which is wholly unsurprising when one investigates the providence of the report.
The Walters interview is based on a wealth of false pretenses on top of the UN report, including the demonstrably false assertion that the protesters are peaceful.
As I have exposed in the past, there are many heavily armed and violent elements of the uprising which have been murdering Syrian security forces and attacking government compounds and vehicles.
I always must point out that if any protest were to turn violent in the United States, those involved would be slaughtered without hesitation.
Yet, for some reason, people in the West seem to think that when it happens in Syria it is some kind of special case that is completely different from the rest of reality.
It is also worth noting that Abdulhakim Belhadj, the head of the Tripoli Military Council and former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department, met with senior members of the Free Syrian Army last month.
He was dispatched to meet with them on the border with Turkey and in Istanbul at the request of the interim Libyan president Mustafa Abdul Jalil.
Clearly the NATO-backed Libyan rebels are attempting to help yet another Middle Eastern country overthrow their leader in order to install more globalist-friendly regimes.
The Western-backed assault on Syria is far from a new plan. As General Wesley Clark revealed in 2007, the scheme to attack Syria has been in the works for some time now.
This was emphasized once again in 2002 when Syria was added to the so-called “Axis of Evil” along with Libya, which has already been taken over by Western interests, and Cuba, which was under covert attack at the hands of the United States for years (and arguably still is).
Furthermore, after The Washington Post published WikiLeaks cables in April of this year, which showed the State Department’s funding of Syrian opposition groups, projects, and anti-government TV channels, State Department spokesman Mark Toner attempted to marginalize these activities in an article published by CNN.
The article, which was posted the day after The Washington Post published the WikiLeaks cables, quotes Toner as saying, “We’re not working to undermine that government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”
Toner’s claims are laughable at best, given the fact that Americans have been directly interfering with Syrian domestic affairs and undermining the Syrian government.
This was exemplified by U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford openly criticizing the Assad government and even meeting with prominent opposition figure Hassan Abdel-Azim in September.
The people of Syria aren’t happy about Western meddling in their affairs, as shown by the assault on Ford’s motorcade on route to the meeting with Abdel-Azim and the attempts to break into the office where they were meeting.
Just like all of the pro-Assad protests are either glossed over or ignored entirely by the Western media, these incidents are treated selectively in order to further the manufactured narrative.
Armed with the above facts, the interview with Barbara Walters and Bashar al-Assad should be quite clearly skewed, and in the rest of this article I will detail just how dishonest it really is.
Exposing the deceitful interview between Bashar al-Assad and Barbara Walters
It is even more ridiculous when one thinks about the fact that she was invited to interview Assad by the man himself, and despite her claim that Syria is in a state of total bedlam, she was able to make it to the interview unscathed.
“You don’t have the support of your people,” Walters said, and quickly realizing that this is completely untrue she corrects herself and says, “Of all of your people.”
By Walters’ logic, President Obama (with a 44% approval rating according to a CBS poll) and our Congress (with a 9% approval rating according to a New York Times poll) should be currently faced with violent uprisings, but of course her thinking is so myopic that it can only extend to situations which she decides it can apply to.
“But you have people who are against you who are protesting every day,” Walters says, once again showing that she either supports violent revolution in the United States or only thinks that protests count in Arab countries.
I guess the Occupy Wall Street protesters and their allied movements across the nations don’t count?
Once again, Walters betrays her own myopia and proves she is either so divorced from reality that she doesn’t think people are protesting in the United States on a daily basis, or only thinks that leaders need to listen to the people in foreign countries.
When Walters says that people don’t want to wait until 2014 for the next Presidential election, she yet again shows that she either a) supports violent revolution or b) doesn’t understand the democratic process.
If the people of the United States decided tomorrow that we want to hold the elections next month and not in 2012, it wouldn’t matter.
Is Walters really naïve enough to think that we have the power to demand a Presidential election whenever we want in the United States?
Or is she again applying her double standard in which other nations have to follow rules which the United States doesn’t?
Hilariously, Walters cites the uprising in Egypt as a case where a leader was overthrown. Does Walters not realize that the military junta put in place after Mubarak was ousted is arguably even worse than before?
When Walters asks if mistakes were made in the crackdown on protests, Assad nods replies, “Self-evidently yes, for one reason, because when you don’t prepare yourself for new situations you’re going to make mistakes.”
“Have the people who made the mistakes been found accountable? Have they been punished?” Walters asks.
“Some of them, yes, according to the evidence. But you cannot punish anyone according to rumors or allegations. So this judicial committee – independent judicial committee – it’s its job to detain people if they are guilty and to send them to the court for prosecution,” Assad replied.
Walters then goes on to cite the completely illegitimate United Nations human rights report, which Assad points out is totally devoid of names of people who have been raped and tortured.
People can make allegations all they like, but without evidence which can be investigated, there is nothing that can be reliably proven by independent parties.
When Assad points out that they did not provide any names to substantiate the claims, Walters reverts to saying, “They have issued this report. They have accused you and your regime,” at which point Assad interjects, “According to what?” to which Walters responds, “Well according to what they said is 225 people. Witnesses, men, women, children, who they interviewed and identified. And that’s when they called it crimes against humanity.”
“As long as we don’t see the documents and the evidence, we cannot say yes. That’s normal. We cannot say just because the United Nations – who said that the United Nations is a credible institution, first of all?” Assad retorted.
“We know that you have the double standard in the world. In the United States policy, in the United Nations that is controlled by the United States and the West, so it has no credibility,” Assad said.
Walters then seems completely taken aback and asks, “You do not think that the United Nations is a credible organization?”
“No, for one reason. They haven’t implemented – they never implemented any of the resolutions that related to the Arab world. For example, to the Palestinians, to the Syrian land. Why don’t they? If they talk about human rights, what about the Palestinians suffering in the occupied territory? What about my land and my people that left their land because it is occupied by Israel? Of course it’s not,” Assad said.
Walters then repeats the question as if she is going to get a new answer or that his last answer wasn’t detailed or legitimate, which it clearly was.
He points to the fact that the entire region does not see the United Nations as legitimate, and I might add that many outside of the region, like me, do not see the United Nations as a legitimate or credible institution.
When Walters asks Assad about the defections in the military, Assad says that defections are a relatively common occurrence but he says that they are indeed happening more often now.
However, he points to the fact that the majority of Syria is stable as evidence that most of the military is not defecting as the Western media is portraying.
Despite the picture Walters is trying to paint in the interview, even she has to admit that since they had been in Damascus it was “business as usual.”
When Walters claims that most of the world is against Assad and he confronts her on this question, she points to nations like Turkey and the members of the Arab League as proof that he is losing favor even among his neighbors.
In response, Assad rightly points out that these countries don’t care about the Syrian people, they have their own agendas.
The fact that Walters would make such an absurd statement while the members of the Arab League crack down on their own domestic protests once again shows she is either wildly ignorant or a propagandist.
When Walters presses Assad to say what exactly the agenda is, he tells her to go ask them as they will tell her that they have an agenda themselves.
“You should ask them. I cannot talk about their will, I don’t know about their will, to be frank,” Assad said.
He then said that they would indeed allow monitors dispatched by the Arab League, so long as they respected Syria’s sovereignty and cooperate with the Syrian government.
Assad added that they are currently discussing the conditions on which monitors will be allowed in Syria.
Walters then asked if foreign journalists would be allowed, claiming that they had been blocked, when in reality Webster Tarpley, a foreign journalist, was allowed in Syria and was featured in an interview on Syrian TV just last month.
When Assad asks if in the two days Walters had been in Syria if she had been told where she could and couldn’t go, she just ignores the question entirely.
Walters then boldly lies and claims that Assad has not let any foreign correspondents into Syria, which is clearly untrue as Tarpley has proven.
Assad emphasizes the fact that the crackdowns were not a product of Syrian policy, but instead the product of mistakes made by a few people.
However, he does say that they have an official policy of fighting militants and points to the fact that the United States sent the National Guard, the Army and the Marines to put down the 1992 riots in Los Angeles.
Walters erroneously claims that in the United States people are not killed which is, once again, untrue as 10 people were murdered by law enforcement and the National Guard during the 1992 riots.
Furthermore, the recent violence at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations doesn’t paint the glorious picture of American law enforcement Walters seems to be pushing.
Assad said he did not give the order to attack protesters and that whenever military forces used machine guns against protesters they were breaking the law.
He further said that most of the civilians who have been killed are in fact pro-government and not anti-government protesters as the media has portrayed
“Our view is that there are peaceful protesters, they were killed, some were tortured, it was a brutal reaction. Are we wrong in thinking that?” Walters asked.
“Every brutal reaction was by individuals, not by institutions. That’s what you have to know,” Assad said.
“Done by the military or done by whom?” Walters asked.
“We don’t know everything. In some cases done by the police, some cases done by civilians. Civilians who support the government, not by police,” Assad replied.
“But not by your command?” Walters asked.
“No. No one’s command. There was no command to kill or to be brutal,” Assad said.
“Do you feel guilty?” Walters asked, even though he repeatedly said throughout the interview that he didn’t order any acts of brutality.
“I did my best to protect the people, so you cannot feel guilty when you do your best. You feel sorry for the lives that have been lost, but you don’t feel guilty when you don’t kill people. So it’s not about guilty. You do your best and you have to do your best. You have to fight terrorists to protect other civilians in Syria,” Assad answered.
I am very curious to know what was so damning in the press conference footage to justify Facebook removing the page in a blatant act of censorship.
Clearly the interview was rife with leading questions, presumptions, and the repetition of questions but I would love to know how the footage was manipulated as it is almost impossible to tell what the original was when watching the end product.
I also wonder how Facebook will respond, if at all, to clear attempt to steer the narrative in the direction preferred by the West.
Hopefully this action taken by Facebook will serve to wake more people up and make them start looking into the Syrian issue with a more critical eye; if not, we could likely see much of the West get suckered into another Libya.
This article originally appeared at End the Lie
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com