Now On Air

Liberty #MAGAOne Mix

Via MAGA One Mix

6:00 am 8:00 am


Upcoming shows
Real News

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Liberty #MAGAOne Mix

Via MAGA One Mix

6:00 am 8:00 am



Maga First News

Upcoming Shows

Join The MAGA Network on Discord

0 0

Wife defends Alabama man charged in '99 double killing

The wife of an Alabama man charged with capital murder in the slaying of two teenagers nearly 20 years ago says he's innocent.

Jeanette McCraney defended her husband, 45-year-old Coley McCraney, during a news conference Wednesday in Ozark.

Jeanette McCraney says her husband is a truck driver and minister who puts other people first.

She says authorities first began asking him about the slayings of Tracie Hawlett and J.B. Beasley a few weeks ago and he eventually gave authorities a DNA sample.

Officials say genetic testing provided the link that resulted in Coley McCraney's arrest last week in two killings that haunted southeast Alabama for almost two decades.

Defense attorney David Harrison is challenging the perception that DNA testing is infallible. He says Coley McCraney still deserves a fair trial.

Source: Fox News National

0 0

Virginia Democrat running for state legislature under fire for past anti-Semitic remarks

A Democratic candidate who has apologized after once saying that giving money to Israel was worse than donating to the Ku Klux Klan is looking to win a seat in the Virginia state legislature on Tuesday.

Ibraheem Samirah, a dentist and Chicago native who bills himself as a “second-generation Palestinian refugee,” recently made headlines when he denounced what he called a “slander campaign” that exposed a series of old social media posts that were viewed as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

“This slander campaign is using five-year-old Facebook posts from my impassioned college days, posts that upon my reflection and with the blessing of time, I sincerely regret and apologize for,” Samirah said in a statement on Friday.

“I am so sorry that my ill-chosen words added to the pain of the Jewish community, and I seek your understanding and compassion as I prove to you our common humanity. Please do not let those who seek to divide us use these words out of context of time and place to accomplish their hateful goals.”

PELOSI, DEM LEADERS CONDEMN REP. OMAR FOR 'ANTI-SEMITIC' LANGUAGE   

In addition to the remark about the Klan, Samirah has also said the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would burn in hell. In another post, he charged Israeli teenagers were using Tinder to “cover up the murders in their names."

Samirah is running in a special election for a vacated seat in Virginia's 86th district, a suburban area in Fairfax County. The conservative website Big League Politics first reported the story, which has been picked up by Israeli media.

Samirah’s apology hasn’t been accepted by critics who say he remains virulently anti-Israel. They note in particular that he has advocated on social media for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

BDS supports Palestinian rights and opposes Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Israeli officials say the BDS movement is anti-Semitic.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Samirah’s opponent in the race is Gregg Nelson, an Air Force Veteran whose campaign took up the issue after the story of the past posts broke.

“There is never a place for any hateful speech whether it’s in politics or daily life. Dr. Samirah owes it to the voters of District 86 to address his statement that sending money to Israel is “worse” than sending money to the KKK. The people of the 86th District look forward to hearing his response,” said a statement from Nelson’s campaign manager, Chad Brown, before the apology.

Source: Fox News Politics

0 0

Polish senator says nation should be ‘purged’ of unworthy

Critics of Poland's right-wing ruling party are voicing outrage after one of its senators said Poland should be "purged" of those "not worthy of belonging to our national community."

They say the language Grzegorz Bierecki used recalled that of fascist politicians of the 1930s.

Lech Walesa, the anti-communist leader and former president, was among those speaking out Thursday. He called Bierecki's words "scandalous" and said parliamentary leaders and other state institutions responsible for guarding civil rights "should take appropriate disciplinary and legal steps."

Bierecki said Wednesday: "We will not stop until we have fully purged Poland of people who are not worthy of belonging to our national community."

He spoke at a ceremony for the 9th anniversary of a plane crash that killed the Polish president and 95 others.

Source: Fox News World

0 0

Guaido vows to return soon to Venezuela to lead protests

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido says he'll soon return home and mobilize new protests against embattled socialist leader Nicolas Maduro.

Guaido spoke from Colombia on Tuesday after meeting with regional diplomats and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

He says that in the coming days he will announce the date of his return as well as actions aimed at galvanizing support among Venezuela's military and state workers.

Guaido has won recognition as Venezuela's rightful leader from more than 50 nations, including the United States, but has so far been unable to wrest power from Maduro.

Over the weekend, the opposition failed in its attempt to deliver several hundred tons of U.S.-supplied humanitarian aid after security forces loyal to Maduro fired tear gas at protesters. Four people were killed.

Source: Fox News World

0 0

Does Economic Stability Contribute to Growth?

During the period 1920 to 1960, we can observe that the annual growth rate of production was more volatile than between the period 1961 to February 2019.

During the first period the maximum growth rate stood at 62% and the minimum growth rate at minus 33.7%. Between 1961 to present, the maximum growth rate stood at 13.4% and the minimum growth rate at minus 15.3%, (see chart). One is tempted to conclude from this that this raises the likelihood that fiscal and monetary policies are currently more successful than in the past in stabilizing the economy.

For most economic experts the role of central authorities is to make the so-called economy as stable as possible. What do they mean by economic stability?

Economic stability refers to an absence of excessive fluctuations in the overall economy. An economy with constant output growth and low and stable price inflation is likely to be regarded as stable. An economy with frequent boom-bust cycles and variable price inflation would be considered as unstable.

According to popular thinking, stable economic environments in terms of stable price inflation and stable output growth acts as a buffer against various shocks. This makes it much easier for businesses to plan. In this way of thinking in particular, price level stability is the key for so-called economic stability.

For instance, let us say that a relative strengthening in people’s demand for potatoes versus tomatoes took place. This relative strengthening is going to be depicted by the relative increase in the prices of potatoes versus tomatoes.

Now to be successful, businesses must pay attention to consumers’ wishes as manifested by changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Failing to abide by consumers’ wishes will lead to the wrong production mix of goods and services and will lead to losses.

Hence, in our case, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, businesses are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes.

On this way of thinking, if the price level is not stable then the visibility of the relative price changes becomes blurred and consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions.

This leads to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Unstable changes in the price level obscure changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Consequently, businesses will find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable.

Based on this way of thinking it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will bring price stability i.e. a stable price level.

The Contradiction Inherent in Fed Efforts to Stabilize Prices

By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that at present policy makers must aim at keeping price inflation at 2%. Any significant deviation from this figure constitutes deviation from the growth path of price stability.

Observe that Fed policy makers are telling us that they have to stabilize the price level in order to allow the efficient functioning of the market economy.

Obviously, this is a contradiction in terms since any attempt to manipulate the so-called price level implies interference with markets and hence leads to false signals as conveyed by changes in relative prices.

By means of setting targets to interest rates and by means of monetary pumping it is not possible to strengthen economic fundamentals, but on the contrary, it only makes things much worse. Here is why.

Policy of Price Stability Leads to More Instability

Let us say that the so-called price level is starting to exhibit a visible decline in terms of growth momentum. To prevent this decline the Fed starts to aggressively push money into the banking system. Because of this policy the price level stabilizes after a time lag. Should we regard this as a successful monetary policy action? The answer is categorically no.

Given that monetary pumping sets in motion the diversion of wealth from wealth generating activities to non-wealth generating activities obviously this leads to the weakening of the wealth generation process and to economic impoverishment.

Note that the economic impoverishment has taken place despite price level stability. Also, note that in order to achieve price stability the Fed had to allow an increase in the growth momentum of the money supply.

The fluctuations in the growth momentum of money supply is matter here. It is this, that set in motion the menace of the boom bust cycle regardless of whether the price level is stable or not.

While increases in money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this need not always be the case. Prices are determined by real and monetary factors. If the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors, then it is possible that no visible change in prices might take place.

In other words, while money growth is buoyant prices might display moderate increases.

Clearly, if we were to pay attention to the so-called price level and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy.

On this, Rothbard wrote, in America’s Great Depression:

The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.

Money Neutrality Assumption Is at the Root of Price Stabilization Policies

At the root of price stabilization policies is the view that money is neutral. Changes in money only have an effect on the price level while having no effect whatsoever on the real economy. In this way of thinking changes in the relative prices of goods and services are established without the aid of money. For instance, if one apple exchanges for two potatoes then the price of an apple is two potatoes, or the price of one potato is half an apple. Now, if one apple exchanges for one dollar then it follows that the price of a potato is $0.5. Note that the introduction of money does not alter the fact that the relative price of potatoes versus apples is 2:1 (two-to-one). Thus, a seller of an apple will get one dollar for it, which in turn will enable him to purchase two potatoes.

In this way of thinking, an increase in the quantity of money leads to a proportionate fall in its purchasing power i.e. a rise in the price level. While a fall in the quantity of money results in a proportionate increase in the purchasing power of money i.e. a fall in the price level. All that, according to this way of thinking, does not alter the fact that one apple is exchanged for two potatoes, all other things being equal.

Let us assume that the amount of money has doubled and as a result, the purchasing power of money has halved, or the price level has doubled. This means that now one apple can be exchanged for $2 while one potato for $1. Note that despite the doubling in prices a seller of an apple with the obtained $2 can still purchase two potatoes.

We have here a total separation between changes in the relative prices of goods (how many apples exchanged per potatoes) and the changes in the price level. Therefore, it would appear that the only problem with inflation is that it obscures the visibility in the movements of the relative prices of goods thereby causing a misallocation of resources. Other than that, inflation is harmless. Why this way of thinking is problematic?

When new money is injected there are always first recipients who benefit from this injection. With more money at their disposal, the first recipients can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged. As money starts to move around the prices of goods begin to rise. Consequently, the late receivers benefit to a lesser extent from the initial monetary injections or may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods.

Increases in money supply lead to a redistribution of real wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money to the earlier recipients. Obviously, this shift in real wealth alters individuals’ demands for goods and services and in turn alters the relative prices of goods and services. Changes in money supply sets in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, changes in money supply cannot be neutral as far as relative prices of goods are concerned.

The Price Level Cannot Be Ascertained Conceptually

The whole idea of the general purchasing power of money and hence the price level cannot, be even established conceptually.

When $1 is exchanged for one loaf of bread, we can say that the purchasing power of $1 is one loaf of bread. If $1 is exchanged for two tomatoes then this also means that the purchasing power of $1 is two tomatoes. The information regarding the specific purchasing power of money does not however allow the establishment of the total purchasing power of money. It is not possible to ascertain the total purchasing power of money because we cannot add up 2 tomatoes to 1 loaf of bread. We can only establish the purchasing power of money with respect to a particular good in a transaction at a given point in time and at a given place.

On this Rothbard wrote,

Since the general exchange-value, or PPM (purchasing power of money), of money cannot be quantitatively defined and isolated in any historical situation, and its changes cannot be defined or measured, it is obvious that it cannot be kept stable. If we do not know what something is, we cannot very well act to keep it constant.

Now, the Fed’s monetary policy, which aims at stabilizing the price level, by implication, affects the growth rate of money supply. Since changes in money supply are not neutral, this means that central bank policy amounts to tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources. As a result, a policy of stabilizing prices leads to over-production of some goods and under-production of some other goods. This is, however, not what the stabilizers are telling us. For they believe that the greatest merit of stabilizing changes in the price level is that it allows free and transparent fluctuations in the relative prices, which in turn leads to the efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Economic Stability Has Nothing to Do With Stabilizing the Economy

True economic stability is not about keeping price fluctuations stable but rather keeping price fluctuations free from interference. Only in an environment free of government and central bank’s tampering with the economy can free fluctuations in relative prices take place. This in turn is going to allow businesses to abide by the wishes of consumers (i.e. will permit an efficient allocation of scarce resources). Fluctuations in prices are going to mirror changes in the relative supply-demand conditions.

For most economists, the key to healthy economic fundamentals is price stability. A stable price level, it is held, leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals. It is not surprising that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to pursue policies that will generate price stability. However, by means of monetary policies, the Fed’s objective of stabilizing the price level actually undermines economic fundamentals. The fact that the annual growth rate of US industrial production was less volatile during 1961 to 2019 versus 1920 to 1960 is not something to be proud about. It reflects relatively more suppressed side effects of the central bank and the government tampering with the economy.

It would appear that the ever-growing interference of government and the central bank with the working of the markets is moving the US economy towards the growth path of persistent economic impoverishment and drastically lower living standards as time goes by.



Here’s why politicians were no match for Candice Owens because she’s more authentic.

Source: InfoWars

0 0

EU impatient with Brexit, but resigned to delay

FILE PHOTO: British and EU flags flutter outside the Houses of Parliament in London
FILE PHOTO: British and EU flags flutter outside the Houses of Parliament in London, Britain January 17, 2019. REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne

March 19, 2019

By Thomas Escritt and Gabriela Baczynska

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – European Union governments are exasperated by British dithering over quitting the bloc but have little appetite for pushing it out on schedule next week without a divorce deal, senior figures said on Tuesday.

EU ministers in Brussels to prepare a summit with British Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday voiced frustration after the speaker of parliament threw up a new obstacle for her plan to get her Brexit deal ratified before the March 29 deadline.

“Our patience as the European Union is being sorely tested at the moment,” German Europe minister Michael Roth told reporters. “Dear friends in London, please deliver. The clock is ticking.”

But Roth also echoed comments in Berlin by Chancellor Angela Merkel, the EU’s pre-eminent leader, who said she would “fight to the last minute” until midnight (2300 GMT) on March 29 to ensure an orderly exit for the EU’s second-ranked economy.

He said Germany’s main aim was to avoid a no-deal Brexit, which would disrupt business across the continent.

However, after two defeats for the Withdrawal Agreement that May negotiated with the EU, and her difficulty in trying to get it through parliament on a third vote even before the speaker ruled that it must be substantially changed, it is not clear how May can avert this without asking fellow leaders for more time.

ALL DEPENDS ON MAY

Leaders expect to discuss such an extension at the two-day summit starting on Thursday afternoon. But if May has yet to make a concrete proposal on her next move then, then the summit can do little more than outline possible steps — such as a readiness to give her a couple of months, or maybe longer.

“If there is no move from London, the leaders can also decide to wait,” said Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders. “It really depends on what May will say at the summit.”

Diplomats said member states were still discussing options for extension — possibly only for two to three months, if May persuades them she can clinch a deal at home, or for much longer if May accepts that radical reworking is needed. But these would come with conditions and might not be agreed until next week.

Merkel said there was “far too much in flux” to forecast the outcome of the summit, but her foreign minister, Heiko Maas, told reporters in Finland: “If more time is needed, it’s always better to do another round than a no-deal Brexit.”

EU diplomats say it is highly probable that leaders will unanimously support some sort of extension rather than see Britain lurch out of the bloc in 10 days’ time — even though some governments are starting to argue for ending the uncertainty and trusting to arrangements already put in place to mitigate the effects of a sudden, immediate exit.

Aides to French President Emmanuel Macron, a powerful voice on the Council alongside Merkel, say the onus is on Britain to say what it would do with more time.

“This uncertainty is unacceptable,” his EU affairs minister Nathalie Loiseau said in Brussels on Tuesday.

“Grant an extension? What for? Time is not a solution, it’s a method — if there’s an objective and a strategy. And it has to come from London.”

(Writing by Alastair Macdonald; @macdonaldrtr; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Source: OANN

0 0

No majority in British parliament for second Brexit referendum: Reuters analysis

FILE PHOTO: British and EU flags flutter outside the Houses of Parliament in London
FILE PHOTO: British and EU flags flutter outside the Houses of Parliament in London, Britain January 30, 2019. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo

March 11, 2019

By Kylie MacLellan

LONDON (Reuters) – There is no majority in Britain’s parliament in favor of holding a second Brexit referendum, according to a Reuters analysis of public comments made by lawmakers.

Britain is due to leave the European Union at the end of this month, and with parliament yet to approve Prime Minister Theresa May’s exit deal, calls for a second referendum to break the deadlock, often dubbed a ‘people’s vote’, have intensified.

Last month, the opposition Labour Party broke new ground for one of the major parties by saying it would support a new referendum on May’s deal after parliament defeated its alternative Brexit plan.

Labour’s position could face its first test on Tuesday when May’s deal is brought back to parliament. Labour indicated on Sunday it would not put forward its own proposal for a second referendum at that time, but other lawmakers could force a vote on the issue.

While a majority of lawmakers voted to remain in the bloc in the 2016 referendum, a Reuters analysis of public comments found that only 219 have expressed a willingness to support another vote, and a further 65 have not made their views known.

This is well short of the 318 votes needed to guarantee approval of the amendment if there are no absences or abstentions.

A referendum would need to be approved by parliament and May has ruled out proposing one, saying it would deepen already ugly divisions over Britain’s biggest decision since World War Two and betray the 52 percent – 17.4 million people – who voted to leave the EU.

POLITICAL STATEMENT

While Tuesday’s votes on amendments are not binding on the government, they would be politically hard to ignore.

Those in favor of a new referendum include many Labour lawmakers, seven of May’s Conservatives, the newly formed Independent Group and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats. The Westminster leader of the Scottish National Party has also backed the idea of another vote, although at least one of his lawmakers has voiced concern.

In contrast, 245 lawmakers openly oppose the idea, 15 are deeply skeptical and a further 94 government ministers and whips, or parliamentary enforcers, would be required to vote in line with the government’s position against another referendum.

So far, 24 of Labour’s 245 lawmakers have said publicly they do not support another referendum, while a further 13, many of whom represent areas that voted strongly in favor of leaving the EU, have expressed reservations.

“I will not, shall not and cannot vote for a second referendum, regardless of how much lipstick is put on it and what it is called,” Labour lawmaker Gareth Snell told parliament after his party announced its backing for another vote.

“That is a distraction from the main purpose of our job, which is to find a deal.”

Labour lawmaker Caroline Flint has said as many as 60 or 70 of her colleagues oppose a referendum.

It is unclear what conditions Labour might attach to supporting a second referendum, and there is disagreement within the party over whether any referendum should include an option to remain in the EU.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who voted against joining the EU in 1975, has said his party would support a referendum to “prevent a damaging Tory (Conservative) Brexit or disastrous ‘no deal'” – leaving open the possibility that it would back a different deal without a popular vote.

BRITAIN STILL DIVIDED

Some lawmakers may yet change their minds, particularly if any referendum was a confirmatory vote on whether to back May’s deal, much as Corbyn suggests, rather than a re-run of the 2016 vote. But the numbers suggest it is likely to have difficulty getting through parliament.

Opinion polls indicate Britons are still deeply divided over Brexit. While most voters would stick to their 2016 choice, some surveys have shown a swing towards remaining in the EU.

A YouGov poll last month found that, when asked to choose between accepting May’s deal and having another referendum, 51 percent favored a fresh vote and 49 percent – the deal.

Lawmakers across parties cite worries about prolonging uncertainty and increasing division as reasons for opposing a vote, while the most common argument is that it would be undemocratic to seek to overturn the result of a vote in which more than 30 million people took part.

But pro-referendum campaigners say voters did not know what kind of Brexit was available when they were offered a binary choice between “Remain” and “Leave” in the 2016 referendum.

“Now we know what Brexit looks like, now we know the cost, and now we know how badly Brexit compares to our current deal in the EU, the only way forward is to put it to the people,” said Labour lawmaker and People’s Vote campaigner David Lammy.

(Additional reporting by Elizabeth Piper and William James; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Source: OANN

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Liberty #MAGAOne Mix

Via MAGA One Mix

6:00 am 8:00 am



Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner said Tuesday that a detailed plan for a merit-based immigration system will be presented to President Trump, giving priority to skilled immigrants rather than those with family ties to the U.S.

“I do believe that the president’s position on immigration has been maybe defined by his opponents by what he’s against as opposed to what he’s for,” Kushner said at the Time 100 Summit in New York City. “What I’ve done is I’ve tried to put together a very detailed proposal for him.”

KUSHNER: RUSSIA INVESTIGATION HAD ‘HARSHER IMPACT’ ON US THAN ELECTION MEDDLING

Kushner announced that the new immigration proposal, which Trump will receive this week or next, will resemble the point-based systems in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and will unify people by ensuring strong wages and secure borders while protecting humanitarian values.

“We want to protect our country’s humanitarian values. We want to make sure we’re reunifying families, and we want to do this in a way that allows our country to be competitive long term,” he said. “And my hope is we can really do something that unifies people around what we’re for on immigration.”

“We want to protect our country’s humanitarian values. We want to make sure we’re reunifying families, and we want to do this in a way that allows our country to be competitive long term. And my hope is we can really do something that unifies people around what we’re for on immigration.”

— Jared Kushner

JARED KUSHNER RESPONDS AFTER HASAN MINHAJ CALLS OUT HIS TIES TO SAUDI PRINCE

Kushner denied in the same talk that he has clashed with White House staffer Stephen Miller, who’s seen as tougher on immigration than others, adding that the plan was concocted with the help of Miller and Kevin Hassett, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

“And I say that If that if I can get Stephen Miller and Kevin Hassett to agree on an immigration plan, then Middle East peace will be easy by comparison,” Kushner joked, referring to the Israel-Palestine peace plan he’s working on.

“And I say that If that if I can get Stephen Miller and Kevin Hassett to agree on an immigration plan, then Middle East peace will be easy by comparison.”

— Jared Kushner

After the plan gets presented to Trump, it will likely undergo some changes and then he will decide when to proceed with it, Kushner said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“It’s very, very complicated, but it’s a very interesting issue, and if we can solve it, I do think it’s a critical component for America’s long-term competitive advantage,” he added.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro on Thursday said his government must make men aware of the dangers of poor hygiene after expressing dismay over the 1,000 penis amputations that apparently occur in his country each year.

“In Brazil, we have 1,000 penis amputations a year due to a lack of water and soap,” he said while speaking to reporters in Brasilia after visiting the Education Ministry. “We have to find a way to get out of the bottom of this hole.”

The far-right leader called the figure “ridiculous and sad,” Reuters reported. A spokeswoman for the Brazilian urology society told the news agency the number is based on its official data for penis amputations.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The amputations were conducted out of necessity over untreated infections, along with complications from HIV and various cancers, she said.

Source: Fox News World

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

A top Russian diplomat says Russia is willing to negotiate a new nuclear weapons treaty with the United States and China.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told reporters on Friday Moscow is closely following reports in the United States that the U.S. would like to reach a nuclear weapons deal with both Russia and China, and is “willing” to negotiate. The story was reported by CNN earlier Friday.

Ryabkov also said that Russia “would like to convince” the U.S. to adopt a joint statement that would condemn any use of nuclear weapons.

Ryabkov’s comments come just months after the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a cornerstone of the post-Cold War security, and Russia followed suit. Each claims breaches by the other.

Source: Fox News National

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Government dysfunction and an intelligence failure that preceded the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka are traced to simmering divisions between the president and prime minister after a weekslong political crisis that crippled the country last year.

The government has admitted to a “lapse of intelligence” after officials failed to act upon near-specific information received from foreign agencies. Suicide bombers exploded themselves last Sunday in three churches and three luxury hotels, killing 253 people and wounding 400 more. Authorities said eight Muslim militants blew themselves up at their targets while the wife of one of the attackers blasted herself on being rounded up by police.

The carnage has brought forth arguments that worshippers and holidaymakers fell victim to the rivalry and a lack of communication between the country’s two leaders — President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

The Cabinet led by Wickremesinghe says neither he nor his ministers were informed of the intelligence received by the defense authorities. Sirisena is the head of state, defense minister, minister in charge of the police and head of the armed forces. He also chairs the National Security Council, which includes the heads of security agencies and departments. Traditionally the prime minister also plays an important role on the council.

According to Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne, Sirisena has not included Wickremesinghe in national security affairs since a dispute between them came into the open in October last year. This is an unusual departure from the protocol, he said.

Senaratne said that Sirisena was overseas when the attacks took place and even after that, the National Security Council refused to meet with Wickremesinghe as he tried to give them instructions.

Sirisena has also said that he was not informed of the intelligence received and vowed to overhaul the leadership of the defense forces.

The top bureaucrat at the Defense Ministry, Hemasiri Fernando, has resigned at Sirisena’s insistence.

“It is a major factor,” said Jehan Perera, the head of local activist group National Peace Council, referring to the alleged lack of coordination between the leaders contributing to the failure to prevent the attacks.

“The primary responsibility has to be taken by the president, he did not give the information and he did not act,” Perera said. “He had the Ministry of Defense, took the police from the prime minister, chaired the National Security Council meetings and did nothing,” Perera said.

Kusal Perera, a journalist and political commentator, says security and intelligence officials should have acted on the information whether or not they received orders from politicians.

“If they (Wickremesinghe and his party) were not invited to the National Security Council, why did not they say in Parliament that they were not responsible for the security of the country any longer,” said Perera, who is not related to Jehan Perera.

“Saying that now is taking political advantage, not taking responsibility,” he said.

Sirisena and Wickremesinghe belong to different political parties but came together for Sirisena’s presidential campaign in 2015. Their relationships broke down and their differences exploded last year when Sirisena suddenly sacked Wickremesinghe as prime minister and appointed in his place former strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa, whom he defeated in the presidential election. The crisis crippled the country for more than seven weeks to the point of not being able to pass this year’s national budget on time.

A court decision compelled Sirisena to reappoint Wickremesinghe, but the two leaders have been rivals within the same government.

Rajapaksa, who is the minority leader in Parliament, blames the government for weakening intelligence and dropping its guard, which he had maintained to defeat the separatist Tamil Tiger rebels 10 years ago to end the 26-year-old civil war. He also criticized the government for the detention of intelligence officers accused of extrajudicial killings and abductions during the closing days of the war, which he said crippled the security apparatus before the bombings. According to conservative U.N estimates, some 100,000 people were killed in Sri Lanka’s conflict.

Sirisena summoned an all-party conference Thursday to which Wickremesinghe was also invited. At the conference, Sirisena stressed “setting aside all the political beliefs and difference (so that) everybody should collectively commit towards building a peaceful environment within the country,” a statement from his office said.

“It is not a secret that the disagreements between me and the government aggravated over the past two years,” Sirisena told the country’s media executives Friday. “One of the reasons for that is weakening of military intelligence and arresting military officials unnecessarily and my speaking up against it within and outside the government.”

Jehan Perera said that the security threat could prove politically advantageous to Rajapaksa and his family, with a presidential election scheduled at the end of this year. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, a younger brother of Mahinda, was the powerful defense secretary during his brother’s reign and has expressed his interest to join the contest.

“People are saying we want a stronger leader and they are talking about Gotabhaya. It (the blasts) has worked to their benefit,” Perera said.

Source: Fox News World

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Cyprus police are intensifying a search for the remains of more victims at locations where an army officer, who authorities say admitted to killing five women and two girls, allegedly had dumped their bodies.

Police said Friday’s search will concentrate on a military firing range, a reservoir and a man-made lake near an abandoned mine approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) west of the capital Nicosia.

On Thursday, the 35-year-old suspect told investigators that he had killed four more people than he had previously admitted to. All the suspect’s alleged victims are foreign nationals.

Police have already found the bodies of a 38-year-old Filipino woman and two as yet unidentified women.

Search crews are now looking for the daughter of the 38-year-old, a Romanian mother and daughter and another Filipino woman.

Source: Fox News World

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
Current track

Title

Artist