US STRENGTHENING BAHRAINS REPRESSION AND DICTATORSHIP....
 http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/bahrain/us-navy-to-reinforce-footprint-in-the-region-1.1261824
“Bahrain is going to suddenly emerge” in the eyes of the public and the Defence Department, he said.The US Navy is confirming its footprint in the Arabian Gulf by reinforcing its presence through short- and long-term plans. Telling Navy sailors at the US Naval Facility in Manama that Bahrain remained the best option for operating out of the region, Adm Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, described a plan to bring two more coastal patrol ships to the kingdom in the spring. The first littoral combat ships are expected to arrive in Bahrain in 2018 with rotational crews, Greenert told the US newspaper ...Greenert stressed Bahrain’s key role in the service’s Middle East presence, telling sailors that the base here would continue to be its “centrepiece” and denying there was a plan B.“We don’t have that kind of deep relationship with any other country that we have with Bahrain,” Greenert told Stripes.Bahrain has had a long, close cooperation with the US and was designated a Major Non-Nato Ally in 2002.
[ed notes:Meanwhile....However, various rights groups continue expressing abuses by the Bahraini government including “the growing threats against human rights defenders and the continued exploitation of the judicial system.” Bahrain Center for Human Rights continues to call for medical treatment for incarcerated political leader Abdulwahab Hussain....concern over the arrest of human rights activist Hussain Jawad who is accused of “inciting hatred against the regime,” and calls for the immediate release of Nabeel Rajab, a prominent human rights activist “jailed for taking part in an anti-government protest last year.” The Associated Press reports that a court denied Rajab’s request for an early release from his charge of “encouraging illegal gatherings,” which he was eligible for.

What archives? UK ordered destruction of ‘embarrassing’ colonial papers
http://endthelie.com/2013/11/30/what-archives-uk-ordered-destruction-of-embarrassing-colonial-papers/ 
Britain systematically destroyed documents in colonies that were about to gain independence, declassified Foreign Office files reveal. ‘Operation Legacy’ saw sensitive documents secretly burnt or dumped to cover up traces of British activities.The latest National Archives publication made from a collection of 8,800 colonial-era files held by the Foreign Office for decades revealed deliberate document elimination by British authorities in former colonies.
 [ed notes;click link for whole piece...anyway...cant blame them,how else could they hypocritically continue its imperial wars and expansionism in third world while spewing rethorically its all about democracy,not jewish international monetary plundering?

HONDURAN ELLECTIONS AFTER US OCCUPATION...MILITARIZATION AT THE BALLOTS!  http://quotha.net/node/2607 After a moment, when I had taken possession of my position as president of Voting Station 2686, in the Minerva School, there was a verbal altercation between the police officers and Mr. Pinto that reached the point where Mr. Pinto and his cronies ended up intimidating and kicking out the members of the community police force.Once we were without police protection, they began to threaten my compañeros and me, telling us we should leave the voting stations and the polling place. They confiscated the national identity card and electoral worker credential of one of my compañions by threatening to kill her, and they tried to intimidate me at gunpoint to sign the tally sheets and ballots before leaving the table, which I did not agree to, and finally they forced me to give them my electoral worker credential and national identity card.We managed to leave the community. In the door of the school there were people asking voters whom they planned to vote for, and if it was not for the National Party candidate they simply were not allowed to enter.
--------------------------
http://soaw.org/about-us/equipo-sur/263-stories-from-honduras/4162-novelections
Another issue is the financial incentives used by the National Party to get people to vote for them. For instance, just outside a large voting center in Danli, the National Party was distributing its “La Cachureca” discount card, shown in the photo at right. This card provides people who register with the National Party discounts for cell phone use, medical care, and other needs. The International Federation for Human Rights reported on how the La Cachureca card is used to shift votes to the National Party. We also have received reports of a government program that is supposed to provide aid to people in poverty being manipulated by the National Party, which is currently in power. One woman denounced that she had received one of these checks before the election that was dated the Tuesday after the election; she was told that there would only be funds to cash it if the National Party won.We are extremely concerned about statements by the US State Department that observers found the process to be "generally transparent." There are reports by numerous international observers of dead people able to vote, vote buying, and problems with vote counting, not to mention that the TSE has selectively tallied the vote reports while leaving many votes uncounted. The above examples is just part of what our delegation saw; delegations across the country reported fraud, including vote buying, which is described in the Honduras Solidarity Network preliminary report. http://www.hondurassolidarity.org/report1/
 The State Department's statement goes on to encourage Hondurans to "resolve election disputes peacefully through established legal processes" but fails to mention the fact that the ruling parties control the highly politicized Honduran justice system. Just a few months ago, the National party's presidential candidate, in his role as president of the Congress, led an extremely irregular process to name a new Attorney General in the middle of the night, stacking the Justice Department in his favor just prior to the elections. Prior to that, he also led Congress in the firing of 4 Supreme Court justices who had gone against his interests, and replaced them with 4 new Supreme Court justices.

World Bank Whistleblower Reveals How The Global Elite Rule The World http://www.globalresearch.ca/world-bank-whistleblower-reveals-how-the-global-elite-rule-the-world/5353130
Karen Hudes is a graduate of Yale Law School and she worked in the legal department of the World Bank for more than 20 years. In fact, when she was fired for blowing the whistle on corruption inside the World Bank, she held the position of Senior Counsel. She was in a unique position to see exactly how the global elite rule the world, and the information that she is now revealing to the public is absolutely stunning.According to Hudes, the elite use a very tight core of financial institutions and mega-corporations to dominate the planet. Karen HudesThe goal is control. They want all of us enslaved to debt, they want all of our governments enslaved to debt, and they want all of our politicians addicted to the huge financial contributions that they funnel into their campaigns. Since the elite also own all of the big media companies, the mainstream media never lets us in on the secret that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that our system works.Remember, this is not some “conspiracy theorist” that is saying these things. This is a Yale-educated attorney that worked inside the World Bank for more than two decades.

  Tailored for Sharks

Tailored for sharks (pdf, 560KB)

How rules are tailored and public interest surrendered to suit corporate interests in the WTO, FTAs and BITs trade and investment regime

The discourse of rules and fairness usually brings up ideas of equality, justice and upholding of rights. Therefore, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) describes itself as a “rules-based” system that treats all member countries fairly based on the principle of “non-discrimination”, it could be concluded that the WTO multilateral trading system is just and equitable.But if the WTO system were indeed equitable, then why has global trade become concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, indicating that only a few big corporate players benefit from the global trading system.Why is it that 80% of US exports are handled by only 1% of the largest exporters and 85% of EU exports are in the hands of only 10% of the big exporters? If the WTO rules based system were really non- discriminatory, equitable and just, then shouldn’t there be an equal distribution of economic benefits to all 159 Members countries?This Report contests some key assumptions about the rules based global trade and investment system. It addresses such questions as: Who are the real beneficiaries of the legally binding and enforceable agreements and rules of the WTO that ensures the smooth, predictable and free movement of trade flows?Who are the key players in global trade that would benefit from the breaking down of all trade barriers? And ultimately, whose trade organization is the WTO really and how is it related to the regime of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and International Investment Agreements (IIAs)?How is this elaboration of rules designed to privilege the unilateral operations of transnational corporations (TNCs) which maintains a sea of sharks and sardines?How does the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) work?Are all these rules designed as part of the neoliberal architecture of impunity protecting the privileges of these corporations?And in this environment, how is the public interest and national sovereignty surrendered?

Jose Saramago(literary nobel peace winner) - Where's the democracy? [Subs: EN, FR, DE, IT, HR,] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aWFQRcdChk
[ed notes: click cc captions for english!
  SARAMAGO, José. Portuguese Literature Nobel Laureate: "What is happening in Palestine is a crime that we can compare to what occurred in Auschwitz" & "[Israel's] aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian people" During a visit to Ramallah in March 2002 during the Second Intifada, Saramago compared the Palestinian city, which was blockaded at the time by the Israeli army, to concentration camps.During the 2006 Lebanon War, Saramago condemned in what he characterized as "a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation"

ANTONIO BANDERAS PRAISES CHAVEZ POLICIES TO COMBAT ECONOMIC CRISIS
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/antonio-banderas-chavez-ideas-will-solve-us-crisis/ 
 Antonio Banderas surprised CNN viewers when he criticized US President Barack Obama and suggested Europe and the US should apply the same economic policies as Venezuela’s late president Hugo Chávez.During his talk with Spanish journalist Ana Pastor, Banderas was asked several questions about the current financial crisis and possible solutions to it.The Malaga-born star pointed the finger of blame at “the markets, the lobbies, the big corporations” and suggested they didn’t have to take responsibility when countries and governments had problems.“We’re not being governed by the people we voted for,” he told Pastor. “How do you put a stop to that?” she asked. “You break it like Chávez did in his day, you get all these big corporations and you nationalize them,” answered Banderas in the midst of a deafening silence. “There was no other way out,” he added. The Hollywood actor also criticized the US’s President Obama for not fullfilling his promises during his two terms in office and succumbing to the pressure of big business and financial markets.

Colonial marketing
Inner City Press reports on the latest debates inside the UN’s decolonization committee:
“Friday afternoon in the Fourth Committee, after a week of speeches denouncing the UK for the Malvinas or Falkland Islands, UK Political Coordinator Michael Tatham spoke. He spoke of his country’s ‘modern relationship’ with its territories — if you want to stay, you can.Moments later Bolivia’s Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti said that the UK’s invocation of self-determination, for which generations fought, was now being used as ‘colonial marketing.’Llorenti also took on the United States, calling Puerto Rico a colony and long-jailed Oscar Lopez Rivera a political prisoner.…Papua New Guinea chided France for not turning over education in New Caledonia.”

Defense Industry Ties to Media Commentators and Think Tanks That Participated in Syria Debate
 The following report documents the industry ties of 22 media commentators, and seven think tanks that participated in the media debate around Syria. These individuals and organizations have strong ties to defense contractors and other defense- and foreign policy-focused firms with a vested interest in the Syria debate, but they were presented to their audiences with a veneer of expertise and independence, as former military officials, retired diplomats, and independent think tanks.This report details these ties, in addition to documenting the industry backing of think tanks that played a prominent role in the Syria debate. It reveals the extent to which the public discourse around Syria was corrupted by the pervasive influence of the defense industry, to the point where many of the so-called experts appearing on American television screens were actually representatives of companies that profit from heightened US military activity abroad. The threat of war with Syria may or may not have passed, but the threat that these conflicts of interest pose to our public discourse – and our democracy – is still very real.

  

Kenya terror attack: Putting the Westgate siege in context

Horace G Campbell (2013-09-26)The Somali militant group Al Shabaab has claimed responsibility for the September 21 attack at an upmarket shopping mall in Nairobi in which dozens of people were killed. Progressives must intensify their opposition to extremists who manipulate Islam, but also reject the imperial forces inside Africa and their alliesTHE FUTURE OIL BONANZA IN SOMALIA

In the past two years the news from Somalia has been dominated by the information that there could be as much as 110 billion barrels of oil and gas off the shores of Somalia. There is also likely to be vast natural gas reserves in Somali waters in the Indian Ocean. Fields containing an estimated 100 trillion cubic feet of gas have been found off Mozambique and Tanzania. British politicians and British oil companies have been the most active in seeking to corner the future exploration of this oil and it is not by accident that the most recent conferences on the future of Somalia has been held in London and hosted by David Cameron, the Prime Minister and head of the Conservative Party of Britain. One of the first companies to have signed a contract with the Government of Somalia is the front for British petroleum interests that is now registered as Soma Oil & Gas Exploration Ltd. This company was recently founded in the United Kingdom and its chairman is Michael Howard, a former leader of the Conservative Party. We are also informed that CEO Robert Sheppard has experience as an adviser for the U.K. oil company BP PLC (LON: BP) in Russia.

Very soon after the long transition and the more than fifteen meetings to organize a sensible form of governance in Somalia, the British moved in to muscle out an African as the Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) for Somalia. Nicholas Kay has emerged as the SRSG for Somalia at a moment when Britain is seeking to dominate the institutions and organizations that will have control over the decision making processes for the oil and gas exploration in Somalia. From the moment of the decomposition of the Somalia government and the manipulation of the military entrepreneurs by western forces, Britain had been cooling its heels working with the political elements in that section of Somalia that had been colonized by Britain after the Berlin Conference. During the colonial era Britain had used this region to provide meat for its troops in the Gulf and British Somaliland was governed from India.

British oil companies for decades had knowledge of the massive oil reserves off the coast of Somalia and the British teased the ‘leaders’ of Somaliland with the gesture that they would recognize this secessionist region as a breakaway state. Pan Africanists will remember that at the Berlin Conference in 1885 the peoples of Somalia were divided in to five areas (French Somaliland, -now called Djibouti, British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, the Ethiopian areas of Somalia –in the Ogaden and the Somalia peoples who were located in what came to be known as Kenya), There are up to 300,000 citizens of Somali extraction in Europe and while the racism of Britain alienates the more than 100,000 Somali youth, Britain is opportunist and when Mo Farah won the gold medal for the 10,000m at the London 2012 Olympics, the British press forgot the jingoism that alienated and confused many youth of Somali extraction who yearned for some purpose in their lives.

British newspapers and politicians had showered praises on the breakaway region telling them that this was a region of peace in a haven of violent Somalia. However, the British always had their eyes on the massive oil resources. Some foreign companies signed deals with the breakaway governments of Puntland and Somaliland but these entities were never recognized by the African Union.

For about ten years the British were waiting in Somaliland until they knew that Ugandans had cleaned up the situation and many Africans died. They were quite willing for Africans (Ugandans and Burundians) to die in the AMISOM operation while the western P3 members of the Security Council quibbled over how much money the UN should spend on the peacekeeping force in Somalia. Nicholas Kay, the new SSRG, has traveled to the General Assembly this week to lobby for more resources for AMISOM, presumably because it will be important to guard the British nationals who will be flocking to Mogadishu. Kay is by no means a small player in the British political establishment. Before he was deployed to Mogadishu as the SSRG he had been the Africa Director at the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Prior to this position at the FCO, he served as Ambassador to the Republic of the Democratic of the Congo and the Sudan from 2007 to 2010 and 2010 to 2012, respectively. He was also the United Kingdom’s Regional Coordinator for Southern Afghanistan and Head of the Provincial Reconstruction Team for Helmand Province from 2006 to 2007. In short, he has the experience of serving British interests in war zones. There are numerous other British elements in the interstices of the United Nations system working to ensure the ascendancy of British interests.

MOVING AGAINST AFRICANS AND MANIPULATING AFRICANS

The US form of warfare in Somalia had followed the new template of drones, local militia forces, private military contractors and third party countries. In the war in Libya, this form of warfare had been used with the army of Qatar acting as the third party country. In Somalia; Uganda had been the country most willing to serve imperial interests after the Ethiopians had invaded to oust the Union of Islamic Courts. The historic differences between Somalia and Ethiopia ensured that Ethiopia could not be a real force for peace, especially in the very undemocratic and repressive conditions inside Ethiopia. Ugandans deployed more than 6000 fighters to Mogadishu and hundreds lost their lives. The Ugandans and Burundians formed the bulk of the African Union Peace Keeping forces (AMISOM) that drove Al Shabaab out of Mogadishu

The reports from the families in Uganda were that hundreds, if not thousands of Ugandans lost their lives in the forms of battle that raged from street to street and alley to alley in Somalia. Reports of the fighting were that it was similar to the kind of warfare of 1914-1918. While this fighting was going on, the western countries were opposed to financing the AMISOM mission and were quite willing and ready to have Africans die in the streets of Mogadishu as it turns out now to serve the interests of western oil companies.

If Museveni was a front for the US military in Somalia, by the time the body bags were being flown back to Kampala, Museveni had his own interest in ensuring that the violent extremists in Somalia were decapitated. Museveni worked closely with Augustine Mahiga who had moved from the safety of Nairobi when he took up the position of SRSG in 2010. Both Mahiga and Museveni had worked closely with Nyerere and both had been on the periphery of the Dar es Salaam school in the era of Walter Rodney, Issa Shivji and the period when all operatives in Tanzania identified with the African liberation project. When Britain wanted to get the position of SRSG, the campaign of disinformation intensified about the diplomatic and military capabilities of their African allies such as Mahiga and Museveni.

After the Ugandans died in the hundreds, the Western military lobby moved against Augustine Mahiga the Special Representative of the Secretary General. Mahiga is a Tanzanian and he worked hard from Mogadishu while the European members of the UN team spend their time in Nairobi. There had been a struggle between Germany, Norway, Britain and South Africa to get this SRSG post that can be like the neo-colonial governor in Mogadishu. Kay won out using the British special relationship with the USA to succeed.

The Norwegians wanted the position of SRSG and promised $30 million in aid to the new Somalia government, but the British muscled out the Norwegians. The secessionist state of Somaliland had signed a production sharing agreement with DNO, a Norwegian oil and gas company, but British interests were working hard against Norway. Enter David Cameron who became the champion for the convening of conferences to reconstruct Somalia. This very same Cameron who had been attacking Somali nationals in Britain as the forces that ensured that multiculturalism does not work was the same who dispatched William Hague to Mogadishu in n 2012. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Edrogan had been the first leader of a foreign government to visit Mogadishu in 2011 and Britain wanted to be counted as a state that supported the people of Somalia. More recently in September 2013, there was the convening of a special EU New Deal for peace meeting in Brussels. The European Union pledged 650 million euros to help Somalia's peace and rebuilding process but after one read the fine print one could see that most of what was said amounted to pledges. The British Department for International Development (DFID) rolled out and published its own commitments made in the meeting but when the sums were added it did not come to the $30 that had been pledged by Norway and rejected by the Government of Somalia in favor of the British promises.


REGIONAL DIMESNIONS

The heavy fighting to remove Al Shabaab from Mogadishu had been undertaken by Ugandans and Burundians but in September/October 2011, the Kenya Defense Forces (KDF) invaded Somalia under the banner of Linda Nchi (Kiswahili for defend the nation). At the time of the Kenyan incursion in 2011, I had written in Pambazuka that the intended remilitarization of Africa will fail. I had written,


“The government of Kenya has declared that it will end its military campaign against Al-Shabaab in Somalia when it is satisfied it has stripped the group of its capacity to attack across the border. If one goes by the experience of the past 18 years, then this statement can be read that Kenya will be in for a long-term deployment to Somalia. The corollary to this is the reality that Kenya and its cities will be spaces of war, security clampdown and general destabilisation of the population. Since the Kenyan foray, there have been two grenade attacks at a bar and a bus terminal that killed one person and wounded more than 20 people in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. These attacks have already affected the tourism industry, one of the most important sources of revenue for the government of Kenya.”

From the books mentioned above we have read that the Kenyan incursion into Somalia had been planned long in advance by the KDF and that the Kenyans were looking for the most opportune time to justify the incursion into Somalia. The international media blitz about famine, refugees and Al Shabaab in 2011 provided the right background for the Kenyan people to support the KDF into Somalia. Kenyans had been lukewarm towards the military after the security forces had failed to protect innocent civilians after the violence of 2008.

The political leaders of Kenya had been working with French companies to map out the future of the recovery of oil resources in Kenya on land and offshore. There had been disputes between Kenya and the Federal Transition Government of Somalia over the Exclusive Economic Zones of Kenya and Somalia. Both countries had produced competing maps to lay claim to the EEZ off the coast of Southern Somalia. The Kenyan forces had collaborated with a questionable military entrepreneur of the Ras Kamboni group and the Ugandans were not happy that Kenya had intervened in Somalia after hundreds of Ugandans had already lost their lives.
[ed notes;click link for whole article..just citing few excerpts..

 EXPOSED: Indy “Newspaper” Funded by US Government 

Note: A copy of Prachatai’s recent disclosure can be found here.
Editor’s Addition: A conflict of interest occurs “when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.” Prachatai, in their own disclosure admits that such a conflict of interest indeed does exist, one they address by simply “giving us their word” their motivations are not corrupted.
This is before we even consider the extent to which Prachatai supports the talking points, agenda, and websites of other Soros-funded globalist organizations, like Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch which end up as posts and/or saturate Prachatai’s “links” column.
Bangkok, Thailand August 11, 2011 - After initially trying to downplay, obfuscate, and deny accusations that the Thai “independent, non-profit, daily web newspaper” Prachatai was in fact a US-funded propaganda front, a series of reports from Land Destroyer provided irrefutable evidence taken directly from the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy website.
Additional backpedaling, lying, and obfuscating prompted a follow-up report on Prachatai featuring several unlisted funding sources the duplicitous organization most likely thought were well buried.

Please click here for the video: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.jp/2011/08/exposed-indy-newspaper-funded-by-us.html

Video: Noam Chomsky in 1993 on the NED’s projects in Nicaragua: “It’s about what you would expect from a bipartisan democracy campaign – it’s an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures.”

….

Perhaps fearing a third onslaught, or in a desperate attempt to salvage its sagging legitimacy, just this week Prachatai has made a seemingly complete disclosure of their US government and US corporate foundation funding laying to rest its own supporter’s erroneous assumptions and defense that the organization was “just barely getting by.”
In fact, they are doing quite well and receive millions of baht consistently year to year from the US National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and more recently USAID.
In fact, an overwhelming 77% of Prachatai’s nearly 8 million baht in funding during 2011 has come directly from Uncle Sam – overt funding that would cut the legs of legitimacy out from under any alleged “news organization.”
Still, Prachatai’s utter contempt for both journalism and their readerships’ intelligence is best encapsulated in a cautionary reminder posted directly before their full financial disclosure which claims, “it is important to state here that none of our foreign donors has ever put up any demands connected to the funds they provided, nor did they ever interfere with our reporting.”
[ed notes:click link for whole expose

The American journalist Jeremy Bigwood reveals important data
News organizations linked to Miami entities form part of a coup against Latin American countries http://www.albatv.org/Organizaciones-de-prensa.html
Research by the American journalist, Jeremy Bigwood, reveals that the United States Government intervened in several of the coups d'etat perpetrated in Chile, Venezuela, Honduras, Peru and, probably, could intervene in the attempt of the coup in Ecuador on September 30, 2010. Bigwood, who was present, this Wednesday, the conversatorio destabilization and coups of State in Latin America, organized by the National Institute of high studies (IAEN), showed documents from The Church Committee Report to prove that "the CIA supported the most famous newspaper in Chile (mercury), so drop a democratically elected President (Salvador Allende)", explained the reporter during his speech. About Peru, Bigwood found documents, of the Department of Justice of the United States, about Wladimiro Montesinos, Adviser of former President Alberto Fujimori, "which shows that it is a corrupt officer". In the case of Venezuela against President Hugo Chávez in 2002, it was difficult to find information, but be declassified documents significant showing "that the CIA had full knowledge of the maturation of the coup". It also obtained documents of political opposition parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive funding from the Government of the United States. The journalist also investigated the case of Honduras, against former President Manuel Zelaya, in 2009, when there was also support and influence of various actors based in the United States. In these cases, according to Bigwood, certain categories of interference can be identified such as: news organizations with connections to entities based in Miami, very strong relationships in the United States of several entities of the U.S. Government, which have gotten into the internal affairs of other countries and the Agency of national security (NSA), the Central Intelligence Agency CIA of the United States Agency for international cooperation (Usaid)which are agencies of the Department of the State itself. In addition, several NGO's that have been influenced by means of scholarships. With this background, Bigwood mentioned that most of these organizations have worked in Ecuador, such as the NSA, the Agency which deals with all information as possible from all over the world, since they can do it by means of a satellite. On the attempt of coup d'etat in Ecuador, the journalist stressed "there is still much to investigate and discover the participation that may have had the United States in Ecuador, in 2010". Bigwood ended his speech with a fact that suggests the close relationship that has United States with press agencies and NGOs in Latin America and mentioned the question that Ricardo Restrepo made Jaime Mantilla, current President of the society interamericana de Prensa (SIP), "whether it should be legal that press is funded by the CIA, to make purchases of the State in Latin America"Mantilla did not deny it.

Guinea warns of ‘coup from outside forces’

 A Guinean government minister said on Wednesday the country was “in danger” from outsiders plotting against it amid media reports that a coup was being planned in the capital Conakry.Security Minister Madifing Diane made the comments in response to a story in the latest edition of Paris-based weekly Le Canard Enchaine which said it had seen French and American secret service documents “announcing a coup in Conakry”.[[[[Le Canard said the coup plot had been put together by “French, South African and Israeli mercenaries with links to Paris and Africa and backed by a diamond magnate”]]]].“The unrest could be triggered as early as next week,” the newspaper said.
“These are better organised services than mine, the CIA and the French secret services that are alluding to that,” Diane said in response to questions on the plot from the media.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) announced this month that two former central bank governors have joined the think tank.In early September, CFR announced that Stanley Fischer, former Bank of Israel Governor has joined CFR as a Distinguished Fellow.Last week, CFR announced that Mervyn King, former Bank of England Governor and Chief Economist, has joined CFR as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow.Those two are the newest addition to a variety of other high-profile scholars and practitioners on economics and geoeconomics at CFR, including:

• Robert Rubin, former US Treasury Secretary
• Timothy Geithner, former US Treasury Secretary
• Peter Orszag, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
• Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor at Colombia University

No way to keep U.S. arms out of (fake)enemy hands in Syria
[ed notes:of course not,because zionist ran us and allies are allowing and using its client regimes in  region to arm them,(wich make sthem freinds not enemies)knowingly,and keeping silent on that most pertinant fact!!!This gives zionist us plausible deniability,except everyone sees us (zionist ran)does not condemn or demand is proxy client regimes stop that aid in funds and arms going to extremists(who serve wests purposes, clearly!)
Some of the U.S. weapons flowing to rebels in Syria are bound to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists, say analysts and a retired Army general just back from touring the country.The prediction is based on at least two realities.First, the Syrian rebels’ Supreme Military Council, which Washington selected to distribute the weapons, includes various groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which wants to bring Islamic law to Damascus.
[ed note:u.s.(zionist ran) main ally turkey and qatar back mb,so us govt zionist ran obviousy hasnt stopped it nor does it want to.anyone ehar us protest it?no!!!
A report from a think tank at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., says the council’s top official, former Syrian armyGen. Salim Idriss, has no real control over rebel units, though Washington is trusting him to keep American arms from extremists.(while allowing saudis,qatar,turkey,kuwait,u.a.e. to arm extremists though)
Second, the council’s fighting group — the Free Syrian Army — operates brigades living and working with the Nusra Front, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group with about 6,000 members. Sometimes they fight among themselves; sometimes they cooperate.Reuters news agency reported Friday that two rebel groups, the Raqqah Revolutionary Brigades and God's Victory Brigade, had abandoned the Free Syrian Army and pledged loyalty to al Qaeda.

Retired ArmyMaj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who in late August (at time of chemical attacks,see http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2013/08/exposed-zionazi-lt-general-paul-e.html )
visited Free Syrian Army commanders in northern Syria, including the key city of Aleppo, said the two factions see themselves as allies, for now, and will share weapons.“In Aleppo, you see some of the al Qaeda units in some of the districts and you’ll see the Free Syrian Army,” Gen. Vallely said. “They are coexisting only to bring [President Bashar] Assad down. [ed note:whats amazing is how a zionist neocon general with close ties to israhell is among FSA and AL QAEDA deep inside Syria and noone abducts ,kidnaps or kills him,(journalists,civilians yes,him?no!obviously because hes directing the zionist project there,alongside both groups]
But the FSA have a plan. They will run al Qaeda out of the country, and they will form a new government.”Although Gen. Vallely vouches(directs) for the 40 Free Syrian Army commanders with whom he met, he picked up on a disturbing theme: The commanders are deeply skeptical of Gen. Idriss, who spends his days in Istanbul.Commanders told Gen. Vallely that they think the CIA-delivered arms will fall into the hands of the “wrong elements” before any reach secular Free Syrian Army brigades in and around Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and economic center.Brotherhood ‘pawns’ Frederic Hof, who was a special adviser on Syria to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, supports Gen. Idriss as the best way to get arms to the right people. He said food and medical aid have been delivered through the general’s staff. The U.S. has tracked the shipments and believes the supplies ended up in the right places.Still, Mr. Hof, now an analyst at the Atlantic Council, concedes: “There is no 100 percent guarantee that every single thing is going to get to its intended source. I don’t think even UPS can do that. These extremists are already armed to the teeth. I don’t want to sound blase about it. It is a big issue. We’ll shoot for 100 percent, but our chances of getting it in a situation like this are not too good.”James Russell, a former Pentagon official who focused on foreign arms sales, said history shows that when U.S. officials introduce weapons into a foreign war, those arms come back to bite them.“I don’t know how we could possibly categorically state that the arms we provide will only remain with the groups we are supporting,” said Mr. Russell, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “War is chaotic and confusing. We are not there to provide oversight.
Gen. Vallely founded the nonprofit group StandUpAmericaUS.org. One of its top projects is to persuade the Obama administration to order airstrikes to bring down the Assad regime, which launched a poison gas attack Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 in a neighborhood near Damascus. He has submitted a target list to the Pentagon.He said Free Syrian Army commanders told him that some factions under the Supreme Military Council are “pawns” of the Muslim Brotherhood. The murky Islamist network has made a top priority of capitalizing on the chaos in Syria, especially since military leaders in Egypt are trying to destroy the movement there through attacks and arrests.The oil-rich emirate of Qatar, which funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt, has sent huge cash payments to various rebel groups in Syria, Gen. Vallely said. Where one finds Qatari money, there is also the Muslim Brotherhood, he said.“The Muslim Brotherhood is a grand mafia,” he said. “They’re the smart guys. They’re planning everything. They’re getting the money.”
[ed notes:translation for the remedial...ziocons like vallely support ,back and direct FSA,but demonize mb rethorically because its hard to justify support to them openly on fox news after so many years of bashing them(rethorically of course) !demorat zionists on other hand support mushrikun brotherhood openly in this war,even though they dont explicitly name them,thats their camp!!!
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has studied the Free Syrian Army, and its latest analysis is not reassuring. Rather than anything resembling a cohesive armed force, the Free Syrian Army is a hodgepodge of fronts, militias and factions.
“The FSA has always been more of a brand name than an actual organization,” the report says.Of the year-old Supreme Military Council and Gen. Idriss, it says: “There is no evidence that it functions as a conventional military organization or that Idriss enjoys real control over member factions. To the contrary, member groups retain their separate identities and operational autonomy and proclaim loyalty to their own commanders.”The council’s single largest coalition is the Syria Islamic Liberation Front, which comprises more than 20 rebel groups. They include the Islamist Tawhid Brigade, which claims about 30 subfactions, the West Point study says.Another Supreme Military Council-sponsored fighting unit is the Durou al-Thawra Commission, which was set up in part by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
[ed notes;also see...Video- Leader of FSA Brigade-”We will Stand with US & Israel”
FSA terrorists using israeli occupied golan height
FSA Terrorists & Israel Join Forces
Syrian rebel leader hints at Israel peace

  PNAC's (war criminal)Donnelly,lets use Iraq model on Syria....Debate on U.S. intervention in Syria exposes clash of worldviews, audience opposition to military action http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2013/09/debate-on-u-s-intervention-in-syria-exposes-clash-of-worldviews-audience-opposition-to-military-action/
Researchers from two think tanks faced off in a debate on Monday over whether the United States should intervene in the ongoing Syrian civil war. The discussion included audience voting to gauge members’ progressing reactions. 
While 43 percent of the audience initially voted against intervention, this number increased to 61 percent by the end of the debate, all while the number of undecided votes decreased.Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argued that U.S. action in Syria would exacerbate the country’s civil war, promote regional instability and generate domestic pressure at home for ever-more-costly interventions.[[[[His remarks were consistently opposed by Tom Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who argued that an American exercise of power, following in the footsteps of the Bush administration’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, is essential to restore the regional balance of power and to end the slaughter of Syrian civilians.]]]]]
 [ed notes:War Criminal Thomas Donnelly is a ziocon,who was behind the project for new american century." Donnelly has written, co-authored, or edited several books, including most recently Lessons for a Long War: How America Can Win on New Battlefields (2010), which he coauthored with fellow AEI scholar Frederick Kagan...Before coming to AEI, he served as the director of strategic communications and initiatives at Lockheed Martin [2002]."Donnelly was deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (1999-2002)..besides that he authored following book ...[Operation Just Cause: The Storming of Panama!]...yes he justified and claimed invasion of panama was just!!(over 10 thousand innocent civilians killed!!) how just was it? see Panama Deception ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zMmITXwSts
also watch
War By Deception (9/11, Iraq, PNAC , All Roads Lead To Israel) 
 ------------------------- 
Audience members were provided with interactive mobile voting devices known as i>clickers. The i>clicker results showed opposition to intervention increased by the end of the debate, handing an easy victory to Friedman.Friedman cast U.S. military intervention in Syria as a serious policy blunder that could bog the United States down in a doomed democracy-building project and fail to promote political stability or liberalism in the Middle East.“It will not serve humanitarianism, it will not demonstrate U.S. credibility to carry out threats, to defend important allies or frighten enemies out of building nuclear weapons,” Friedman said. “It is more likely to exacerbate civil war and suffering in Syria, add to regional instability, further encourage Iran to build nuclear weapons and generate political pressure here for more costly action, which is also likely to fail.”Painting a scene of sectarian discord, violence and fractious infighting among rebel forces, Friedman said the United States lacked the power or resources necessary to install a stable, liberal political regime there and rejected the claim that intervention would improve humanitarian conditions for Syrian civilians.“U.S. military intervention is more likely to prolong Syria’s civil war than to end it,” Friedman said, noting that civil wars often result in harm to civilians by exposing them to direct violence, disrupting sanitation and health services and eroding national wealth. “And even if the rebels win, the chaotic outcomes I just described will not be conducive to human life in Syria. So I think if you want humanitarianism in Syria, you might advocate helping the Syrian government, because it is a government, and even a government that rules by appalling methods is better for life and health than the Hobbesian alternatives on offer.”He also disputed the claim — made both by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in speeches earlier this month — that failing to act in Syria would damage U.S. credibility in the eyes of the international community.“When it comes to reckless military action in that region, the United States’ credibility is strong to a fault, and that’s particularly true since the Iraq War. U.S. credibility also is not as brittle as our foreign policy elite in Washington like to say,” he said. “The credibility of our commitments is unlikely to be enhanced by piling up more dumb ones, especially the unpopular and intentionally, explicitly feckless military action that the president proposes for Syria, which may simply show the limits of U.S. resolve.”

The United States could help Syria in ways other than bombing the country, such as by harboring refugees, brokering a political settlement, pressuring Syrian leaders with sanctions or offering them safety if they do leave the country, Friedman added.
Dismissing Friedman as a “libertarian” in foreign policy matters and attributing current Middle Eastern dynamics to the “non-interventionist” policy of the Obama administration, Donnelly argued that the United States should intervene in Syria with ground forces to restore peace to a region that he claimed was unstable as a result of the ongoing American withdrawal from Afghanistan.“What I’d like to do this evening is to help you all get over your feelings of hostility toward George W. Bush and to think differently about the Iraq War and the Afghanistan war because if I look at the Middle East today, and I compare it to what it was in 2008, it looked a lot better to me in 2008 than it does now,” he said. “Syria is the poster child for that and the most obvious example of it, but it’s not the only example of it.”
Identifying the restoration of a favorable balance of power in the Middle East as a prime strategic objective, Donnelly said that intervention should involve the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an extended occupation, reconstruction and efforts to prevent rebel forces from killing the Alawite Shia minority to which Assad belongs. Such an effort would not cripple the American economy and would be worth the cost, he said.“I’m not going to tell you that intervening in Syria in a way that would really make things better, make things more stable, is going to be cheap and easy and quick,” he said. “[But] it’s not going to be a disproportionate cost, because the rewards, the benefits, are going to outweigh the cost by a lot.”In addition to securing U.S. strategic objectives, like general stability and secure energy flows, Donnelly said that U.S. intervention was imperative to preserve American credibility and to prevent Assad’s regime from permitting further atrocities.“I don’t need to repeat the moral arguments because the Secretary of State made them very well — not simply about the chemical weapons line, but about the original red line, the ‘Assad must go’ red line,” he said. “To allow this portion of the world to witness a slaughter of this magnitude, and to let it go on, calls our moral conscience into question.”
Their remarks, punctuated by two question-and-answer sessions, drew active participation from the audience. The debate, entitled “Should the U.S. Intervene in Syria?” took place in the Whig Hall Senate Chamber and was moderated by Wilson School professor Aaron Friedberg. The event was jointly sponsored by the University chapter of the Alexander Hamilton Society and the American Whig-Cliosophic Society.
[ed notes: That one of Iraqs war (for israhell) architects demands regime change in Syria,alongside other notable zionists ,like wolfowitz,cheney,kagan,richard perle,douglas feith,MG paul e vallely,albright,kissinger,daniella pletka,rumsfeld should be reason enough for any so called rational human being to oppose it,even if they hate Assad...meanwhile Syrias opposition gladly welcomes and works with that alliance ,whos shared goals are strengthening and setting up israhell as the primary undisputed power in region after its long sought goal of breaking up of resistance axis,and overthrowing Assad...

Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans – Versus – 115 Years of Yankee Imperialism and Colonialism

 By Professor Francis A. Boyle Address at the University of Puerto Rico,  September 20, 2013

 In order to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Columbus’s invasion of the Americas, in early 1992 I was asked by the Organizers of the International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the U.S.A. to serve as Special Prosecutor of the United States of America for committing international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nationalities, including and especially Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans.The Tribunal was initiated by the American Indian Movement (AIM) with the support of representatives of the Puerto Rican People, the New Afrikan People, the Mexicano People, and “progressive White North Americans.” Of course, I do not consider myself to be a “White North American.” I was born Irish. During the past 850 years of resisting one of the most brutal and cruel colonial occupations in the history of humankind, we Irish know what the denial of self-determination, genocide, and gross violations of our most fundamental human rights are all about in our beloved Ireland and abroad, which atrocities still continue as of today.  We Irish still fondly remember and greatly appreciate that Pedro Albizu Compos stood up for us at Anglophile Harvard a century ago.In my capacity as Special Prosecutor of the United States Federal Government, I drew up an Indictment under international law that was served upon the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney in San Francisco prior to the convening of the Tribunal in that city just before “Columbus Day” on October 2-4, 1992 with a demand that they appear to defend the United States government from the charges. I take it they saw no point in trying to defend the indefensible because no one showed up to defend the United States government, though they did publicly acknowledge receipt of our service of process. I will not go through all 37 charges of my Indictment here. But the proceedings of this pathbreaking International Tribunal have been recorded in a formal Verdict by the Tribunal; in a Video of the Tribunal; and in a Book on the Tribunal–all under the title U.S.A. On Trial: The International Tribunal on Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the United States.

Six months after the conclusion of these San Francisco Tribunal proceedings, I was the  Lawyer and Ambassador for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina arguing its case for genocide against Yugoslavia before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the World Court of the United Nations System. There I would single handedly win two World Court Orders overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnians on 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993. I treated the San Francisco Tribunal proceedings with as much care, attention, dignity, respect, and professionalism as I did the World Court proceedings for Bosnia.  And the results were the same: massive, overwhelming, crushing victories for my clients at both the World Court and the San Francisco Tribunal!

For the purpose of this Lecture, I want to briefly discuss the eight charges that I filed against the United States government for committing international crimes against the People and State of Puerto Rico. I believe that these eight charges succinctly state the fundamental principles of international law concerning Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. Obviously, these eight charges of my Indictment cannot answer all the questions the Puerto Rican People might have with respect to international law. But I do submit that these eight charges provide a solid foundation for providing guidance to the Puerto Rican People as to your basic rights under international law that can be used in the future in order to navigate problems and issues as they arise to confront you.

The distinguished Judges composing this International Tribunal consisted of seven independent Experts on human rights drawn from all over the world. In their Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of 4 October 1992, the Indigenous Peoples’ Tribunal did not accept all of the 37 charges that I filed in my Indictment against the United States government for perpetrating international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nations. But most strikingly, when it came to the Puerto Rican People, the International Tribunal accepted all of my charges against the United States government, and by a unanimous vote at that.  In its own words, the exact findings of this Tribunal on the People and State of Puerto Rico were as follows:

Puerto Rican People

With respect to the charges brought by the Puerto Rican People, the Defendant, the federal Government of the United States of America is, by unanimous vote, guilty as charged in: Since its illegal invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898, Defendant has perpetrated innumerable Crimes Against Peace, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes against the People and State of Puerto Rico as recognized by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles.The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Genocide against the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Genocide Convention.The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Apartheid against the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1973 Apartheid Convention.The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two aforementioned United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966.

The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the 1965 Racism Convention against the Puerto Rican People.The Defendant has denied and violated the international legal right of the Puerto Rican People to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations Charter, the two United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966, customary international law, and jus cogens.The Defendant has illegally refused to apply the United Nations Decolonization Resolution of 1960 to Puerto Rico. Pursuant thereto, the Defendant has an absolute international legal obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico immediately and to transfer all powers it currently exercises there to the Puerto Rican People.

The Defendant has illegally refused to accord full-scope protections as Prisoners-of-War to captured Puerto Rican independence fighters in violation of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. The Defendant’s treatment of captured Puerto Rican independence fighters as “common criminals” and “terrorists” constitutes a “grave breach” of the Geneva Accords and thus a serious war crime.As Special Prosecutor for the Tribunal, it came as no surprise to me that the Judges unanimously accepted all of my charges against the United States government with respect to the People and State of Puerto Rico. This is because the principles of international law with respect to Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans are incontestible, and thus so glaringly obvious for the entire world to see. I most respectfully submit that the Puerto Rican People must use this analysis and the Tribunal’s Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order in order to support, promote, and defend your basic rights under international law, including your right to self-determination and establish the independent state of Puerto Rico if that is your desire.

In the final section of its Verdict, the San Francisco Tribunal also rendered the following unanimous decision that directly concerns the international legal rights of the People and State of Puerto Rico:ADDITIONAL FINDINGS In light of the foregoing findings, this Tribunal also, by unanimous vote, finds the Defendant guilty as charged in paragraph 37, which, as amended, reads:In light of the foregoing international crimes, the Defendant constitutes a Criminal Conspiracy and a Criminal Organization in accordance with the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles and the other sources of public international law specified above, and the Federal Government of the United States of America is similar to the Nazi government of World War II Germany.This powerful Finding speaks for itself and requires no explanation by me.The Tribunal concluded its Verdict with the following Order to the United States government: “Now therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Defendant cease and desist from the commission of the crimes it has been found guilty of herein.” Pursuant thereto, I then filed a copy of this San Francisco Verdict with its Cease and Desist Order upon the Attorney General of the United States of America in Washington, D.C.In return, I later received a 5 February 1993 Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that acknowledged the receipt of the San Francisco Tribunal Verdict and its Cease and Desist Order against the United States government. This U.S. D.O.J Letter then advised me: “If you, or the Tribunal, have any evidence of the violation of federal criminal law, we ask that you provide that information to your local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”As I saw it at the time, and still see it as of today, historically this would be analogous to the Nazi Ministry of “Justice” advising a German lawyer representing the Jews to file his Complaint of criminal law violations by the Nazi government against the Jews with the Gestapo. The F.B.I is and has always been the American Gestapo — especially for all Peoples of Color living within its imperial domain. Nevertheless, the Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of this San Francisco Tribunal qualify as a “judicial decision” within the meaning of Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Pursuant thereto, this Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order constitute “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law” for international law and practice. Furthermore, the Statute of the International Court of Justice is an “integral part” of the United Nations Charter under Article 92 thereof. Hence the San Francisco Tribunal’s Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order can be relied upon by the International Court of Justice itself, by the International Criminal Court, by some other International Tribunal, or by any other Court in the world today, as well as by any People or State of the World Community — including and especially by Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. The Verdict of the San Francisco Tribunal still serves as adequate notice to the appropriate officials in the United States Federal Government that they bear personal criminal responsibility under international law and the domestic legal systems of all Peoples and States in the World Community for designing and implementing these illegal, criminal and reprehensible policies and practices against Indigenous Peoples and Peoples of Color living in North America, and especially against Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans.

Obviously, in my brief presentation here today, I do not have the time to go through each and every one of these eight charges; to discuss all of the factual evidence that supported these eight charges; or to provide you with an analysis of the international legal bases for each one of these eight charges. For that type of information, I refer you to the Video and the Book on the San Francisco Tribunal as well as to its Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order itself. But in the discussions that follow today, I will be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

  Thank you.

Bolivia to Sue US for Crimes against Humanity http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/09/23/bolivia-to-sue-us-for-crimes-against-humanity/

Bolivian President Evo Morales has decided to file a lawsuit against the US government for crimes against humanity, censuring its violation of international law.“I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against (US President) Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity,” said President Morales at a press conference in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz on Thursday.Morales branded the US president as a “criminal” who violates international law.He decried the US for its intimidation tactics and fear-mongering after the Venezuelan presidential jet was blocked from entering US airspace.Venezuela also announced that Washington refused to grant permission for the plane of President Nicolas Maduro to pass through US airspace, calling the move an aggression against the Bolivarian Republic.In solidarity with Venezuela, Bolivia will begin preparing a lawsuit against the US head of state to be taken to the international court.Furthermore, Morales has called an emergency meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States to discuss what has been condemned by Venezuela as “an act of intimidation by North American imperialism.”The Bolivian president has suggested that the members of the community withdraw their ambassadors from the US to send a message to the Obama administration.“The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights,” stressed Morales.