Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
Many times I have read that the Muslim Brotherhood, and then-Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi (Mursi), were behind the Benghazi attack, and funded the attack though Ansar al-Sharia. A strange confluence of events came together just before the Benghazi attacks (more below). Now there are reports that the Saudis funded the attacks, and both reports point to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), based in Algeria. Hillary Clinton’s “adviser,” Sidney Blumenthal, reportedly had his email hacked by Romanian hacker “Guccifer,” or Marcel Lazar Lehel, as he is known legally. Blumenthal allegedly corresponded with Hillary:
One purported Blumenthal email from Feb. 16, 2013, addressed to Clinton quoted sources “with direct access to the Libyan National Government, as well as the highest levels of European governments, and Western intelligence and security services.”
The email said the information comes from “extremely sensitive sources and should be handled with care.”
The email quotes an “individual with sensitive access” stating information provided by French security services indicated the funding for both the Benghazi and Algeria attacks “originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.”
Continued the purported email: “During July and August 2012, these financiers provided funds to AQIM contacts in Southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania.”
AQIM refers to Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.
“These funds were eventually provided to Ansar Al Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region” to support the attack, states the email.
Ansar Al Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
In March 2013, an adviser to Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, had his e-mail hacked by “Guccifer” — the Romanian hacker perhaps best known for revealing George W. Bush’s paintings to the world. At the time, Gawker reported that Blumenthal was communicating with an account that appeared to belong to Clinton at the “clintonemail.com” domain. The content of some of those e-mails was published by RT.com.
When the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi was elected president of Egypt for that very short time (before they unseated him), he promised to get the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, released from the U.S. prison where he is incarcerated for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Tower bombing. There have been reports (maybe nothing more than rumors, but how would we know?) that the Muslim Brotherhood had a plan to kidnap U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, and exchange him for the Blind Sheikh. Other stories made the rounds that the White House was in on the kidnapping–convenient for Obama to get Rahman back to the people he (Obama) reveres. Do you really think we would have let Chris Stevens live out the rest of his life in a jail cell in some Muslim country? But, of course, the kidnapping, if that’s what it started out to be, went wrong. In June 2013, just three months before Ambassador Stevens died, Morsi was giving press conferences about the release of the Blind Sheikh.
As for President Morsi, a video made during the consulate attack records people speaking in the Egyptian dialect: as they approach the beleaguered U.S. compound, one of them yells to the besiegers, “Don’t shoot—Dr. Morsi sent us!”
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
Yesterday I bravely reported on the James Taylor, Herman Munster John Kerry concert in France. (Somebody has to. God knows the American press won’t.) Tomorrow I will write about my undercover experience at the State Department.
Today’s post will be devoted to the tragic aftermath in Paris. The panic. The rioting. The looting. The destruction.
“Eet was like zee revolution” said one frightened Parisian.
Zee people run. They flee! We set up barricades in the streets. We shoot. We sing patriotic songs. All to stop zee Hermun Munster from hugging us.
If the sight of an aging American recording artist wasn’t enough to scare the French, Secretary of State Kerry then proceeded to hug anyone close to him.
After the first couple hugs the panic started. The Parisians, not knowing when the madness would end or if Munster Kerry planned to hug all of them, ran towards the exits.
“It was like that scene in the blob” said an American reporter.
You know, where they all run screaming out of the theater, frightened for their lives? It was the same thing. Thousands of Frenchman ran down the street, screaming, not daring to look back lest Kerry be gaining on them.
Indeed in the initial panic mothers became separated from their children, never to see them again.
“My child! My son!” sobbed one desolate mother. “I can only assume Kerry grabbed him and hugged him.”
Cars were overturned to use as barricades against the hugging menace from New England. Guns were passed around as patriotic songs were sung and the French flag was raised on makeshift flagpoles. The national anthem, with special lyrics, was sung:
Let’s go children of the fatherland, The day of glory has arrived! Against us the Hugger’s Bloody flag is raised!
Frenchmen, for us, oh! what an insult! What emotions that Hugger must excite!
Everyone is a non-hugger to fight you, If they fall, our young heros, France will make more, Ready to battle you!
Seeing the tumult that he had created, Munster Kerry stopped hugging captured Frenchman and prepared to leave Paris by a helicopter on the roof of the American embassy. As seen in this photo a man, presumably Munster Kerry, reaches out to help American embassy workers onto the helicopter.
“It was pure chaos” said one of the lucky ones to escape.
There wasn’t room for everyone. Luckily I was a high level employee and one of the last ones to get on the helicopter. But I had to kick a cook in the face who was clinging to the door trying to get in. I felt bad until I remembered he was a low-level employee. I hope he finds safety before the French tear him to pieces. God have mercy on his soul!
As the helicopter flew away Munster Kerry addressed those in the helicopter:
See. I told you the French would love James Taylor. All they needed was a good hug. Oh, and any embassy employees who didn’t fill ou their time sheets before leaving doesn’t get paid.
In a related note, it has been announced that President Obama is flying Dolly Parton to Dublin to sing “I will always love you”
It has been almost a month since I last wrote on Political Realities. This hiatus has not been because I haven’t been paying attention to what has been happening in the world. It is also not indicative of a lack of concern I feel for what I see going on. I simply have been busy taking care of other priorities, some of which have been neglected during the five plus years I have written this blog. That being said, some things can not be ignored. It is fitting that this next post is about the terror that seems to be inherent in all things Islam. That terror can not be ignored.
As I was browsing through some of the blogs I still read almost every day, I found this video from Bill Whittle at America’s Watchtower. He begins by telling the story of how he, as a 13-year-old boy, first heard of the Palestine Nation. It was at the Munich Olympic Games, where Palestinian terrorists slaughtered eleven Jewish athletes and one German police officer. It continues by showing, in stark detail, how the Palestinians have sought to demonize the Jews for many years.
If that isn’t enough evidence for you, please turn your attention to the slaughter that took place in Paris, France earlier this week. If you haven’t noticed, it was not Jews who took it upon themselves to end the lives of people who drew cartoons for a living. That distinction falls to Muslims, who seem to believe the only way to respond to something they dislike is with violence.
Bill Whittle aptly calls the Palestinians a terrorist nation. I would go a step further and wonder if the entire Muslim world doesn’t deserve that classification.
The latest “talks” aimed at Iran abandoning it’s plans for obtaining nuclear weapons are nothing more than a sham.
“Iran’s not being asked to dismantle the nuclear infrastructure,” the Israeli official said, having seen the proposal before the weekend. “Right now what they’re talking about is something very different. They’re talking about Ayatollah Khamenei allowing the P5+1 (the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany) to save face.”
It seems that the world community is only worried about not looking bad, instead of keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen.
Historic negotiations with Iran will reach an inflection point on Monday, as world powers seek to clinch a comprehensive deal that will, to their satisfaction, end concerns over the nature of its vast, decade-old nuclear program.
But sharing details of the deal under discussion with The Jerusalem Post on the eve of the deadline, Israel has issued a stark, public warning to its allies with a clear argument: Current proposals guarantee the perpetuation of a crisis, backing Israel into a corner from which military force against Iran provides the only logical exit.
The deal that is on the table for Iran is a weak one, at best.
World powers have presented Iran with an accord that would restrict its nuclear program for ten years and cap its ability to produce fissile material for a weapon during that time to a minimum nine-month period.
Should Tehran agree, the deal may rely on Russia to convert Iran’s current uranium stockpile into fuel rods for peaceful use. The proposal would also include an inspection regime that would attempt to follow the program’s entire supply chain, from the mining of raw material to the syphoning of that material to various nuclear facilities across Iran.
But Israel sees right through it.
Israel’s leaders believe the best of a worst-case scenario, should that deal be reached, is for inspections to go perfectly and for Iran to choose to abide by the deal for the entire decade-long period.
But “our intelligence agencies are not perfect,” an Israeli official said. “We did not know for years about Natanz and Qom. And inspection regimes are certainly not perfect. They weren’t in the case in North Korea, and it isn’t the case now – Iran’s been giving the IAEA the run around for years about its past activities.”
“What’s going to happen with that?” the official continued. “Are they going to sweep that under the rug if there’s a deal?”
It looks like the world community is still intent on taking Iran’s word instead of actual verification on their nuclear program’s progress.
On Saturday afternoon, reports from Vienna suggested the P5+1 – the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany – are willing to stop short of demanding full disclosure of any secret weapon work by Tehran.
Speaking to the Post, a senior US official rejected concern over limited surveillance capabilities, during or after a deal.
“If we can conclude a comprehensive agreement, we will have significantly more ability to detect covert facilities – even after its duration is over – than we do today,” the senior US official said. “After the duration of the agreement, the most intrusive inspections will continue: the Additional Protocol – which encompasses very intrusive transparency, and which Iran has already said it will implement – will continue.”
Once again, we are stopping short of demanding Iran cease and desist in all nuclear activities.
But compounding Israel’s fears, the proposal Jerusalem has seen shows that mass dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure – including the destruction, and not the mere warehousing, of its parts – is no longer on the table in Vienna.
Yet, more than any single enforcement standard or cap included in the deal, Israel believes the Achilles’ heel of the proposed agreement is its definitive end date – the sunset clause.
“You’ve not dismantled the infrastructure, you’ve basically tried to put limits that you think are going to be monitored by inspectors and intelligence,” said the official, “and then after this period of time, Iran is basically free to do whatever it wants.”
“You’ve not only created a deal that leaves Iran as a threshold nuclear power today, because they have the capability to break out quickly if they wanted to,” the Israeli official contended. “But you’ve also legitimized Iran as a military nuclear power in the future.”
From the moment this deal is clinched, Israel fears it will guarantee Iran as a military nuclear power. There will be no off ramp, because Iran’s reentry into the international community will be fixed, a fait accompli, by the very powers trying to contain it.
“The statement that says we’ve prevented them from having a nuclear weapon is not a true statement,” the Israeli official continued. “What you’ve said is, you’re going to put restrictions on Iran for a given number of years, after which there will be no restrictions and no sanctions. That’s the deal that’s on the table.”
What does all this mean? It means that once again, our best, most trusted ally in the Middle East is left to fend for themselves, yet again.
Without an exit ramp, Israel insists its hands will not be tied by an agreement reached this week, this month or next, should it contain a clause that ultimately normalizes Iran’s home-grown enrichment program.
On the surface, its leadership dismisses fears that Israel will be punished or delegitimized if it disrupts an historic, international deal on the nuclear program with unilateral military action against its infrastructure.
By framing the deal as fundamentally flawed, regardless of its enforcement, Israel is telling the world that it will not wait to see whether inspectors do their jobs as ordered.
“Ten, fifteen years in the life of a politician is a long time,” the Israeli said, in a vague swipe against the political directors now scrambling in Vienna. “In the life of a nation, it’s nothing.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened the use of force against Iran several times since 2009, even seeking authorization from his cabinet in 2011. Iran’s program has since grown in size and scope.
According to his aides, the prime minister’s preference is not war, but the continuation of a tight sanctions regime on Iran’s economy coupled with a credible threat of military force. Netanyahu believes more time under duress would have led to an acceptable deal. But that opportunity, in his mind, may now be lost.
Whether Israel still has the ability to strike Iran, without American assistance, is an open question. Quoted last month in the Atlantic magazine, US officials suggested that window for Netanyahu closed over two years ago.
But responding to claims by that same official, quoted by Jeffrey Goldberg, over Netanyahu’s courage and will, the Israeli official responded sternly: “The prime minister is a very serious man who knows the serious responsibility that rests on his shoulders. He wouldn’t say the statements that he made if he didn’t mean them.”
“People have underestimated Israel many, many times in the past,” he continued, “and they underestimate it now.”
France’s President began his term saying, “We have chased away the clouds, the sky is all ‘rose,’ referring to that favorite color of Communists, red.
At an April 2012 campaign rally after a torrential rainstorm, Francois Hollande, on the eve of being the first Socialist Party member elected President of France in 24 years, boldly proclaimed: “We have chased away the clouds, the sky is all ‘rose.” The crowd roared their approval of Hollande’s imagery communism red triumphing in France.
But as with all socialist policies, when they are tried in the real world, instead of just on paper, the outcome is predictable – they always fail.
On January 14th, 2014 Hollande solemnly acknowledged the failure of his collectivist policies by announcing his administration would cut $40.8 billion of taxes on companies and the self-employed, plus reduce social security charge paid by employers by 5.4%. More shocking to the Left, Hollande said he would pay for his supply-side policies by cutting $86 billion in public spending. Two decades later and again facing a collapsing economy, the Socialist Party of France is being forced to adopt the supply-side economics of President Ronald Reagan.
He promised a lower retirement age, higher wages, and penalizing taxation on the evil rich folks, to the tune of a 75% tax.
Hollande campaigned on an economic manifesto of reducing the retirement age from 62 to 60, a 75% income tax for high earners, constructing 500,000 units of government housing per year and the creation of 60,000 new public teaching jobs.
It’s important to point out that France went down this road in the early ’80s with Mitterand, to terrible results.
His (Hollande’s) policies were a throwback to the 1981 election of the last French Socialist Party President Francois Mitterrand and his Communist Party allies who nationalized 38 banks and 7 key industries, raised minimum wage, cut work-week hours, increased public sector wages, created 250,000 government jobs, increased social welfare payments and radically expanded the nation’s money supply. But as public debt tripled by 1983, the French inflation rate jumped to 14.5% and unemployment rate rose to over 10%.
When it looked darkest for France amid Mitterand’s policies, Reagan’s plans saved the day.
With France about to be kicked out of the European monetary system, the Socialist Party was forced to adopt the supply-side economic policies of cutting taxes and dramatically slashing public spending that President Ronald Reagan was championing in the United States. Two years later, inflation had fallen to 4% and unemployment stopped rising. Although they kept the red rose as its symbol, the Party for twenty years abandoned socialist policies in all but name and adopted free-market liberalism.
So the socialists were beat back – for a while. After the near worldwide economic crises of 2008, the French Socialist Party got it’s sea legs again and started gaining support.
What’s that saying about the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results?
They claimed their manifesto of higher taxes and economic stimulus projects would lead to full employment and eliminate the budget deficit. But the Hollande administration’s deficit spending has driven France into the same crisis as Mitterrand’s government 30 years earlier. The French government now spends 56% of the nation’s GDP, making it one the highest-spending governments in the European Union. Hollande’s vast public sector and punitively high tax rates have driven the rich to take their wealth and leave and for businesses to relocate production off-shore. Franc’s annual deficit has doubled and the nation’s unemployment rate is now at a 15-year high of 11%. Chronic youth unemployment now tops 26% and still rising.
So Hollande did something in France that Obama will never do in America. When he saw his policies weren’t working, he decided to try something different.
Yes, really. Then chaos ensued.
Before his speech, Francois Hollande was already the most unpopular president in French history according to a poll showing that only 26% of the French people have a positive opinion of his leadership. But after his press conference, members of his cabinet had to perform rhetorical acrobatics to deny that the president was adopting conservative policies. Members of former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s conservative “Union for a Popular Movement” were baffled on how to respond after the Hollande essentially co-opted their center-right agenda. It is unclear how the speech will help the Socialist Party, but it did unify the far left, which denounced the president as selling out to pressure from corporations and financial markets. The French business lobby MEDEF praised the announcements, but asked for more details.
Now before we apply sainthood to Hollande for doing the right thing, keep one thing in mind. He evidently is a good student of history because he knows that when Mitterand reversed course, France’s economy made a rebound and Mitterand was re-elected in ’88.
Francois Hollande in his speech sought to show that the Socialist Party, like the party of Francois Mitterrand in the mid-1980s, understands France’s problems and is willing to reverse policies and adopt measures known in France as the “tournant de la rigueur” (austerity turn) to fight inflation and regain competitiveness. Hollande is keenly aware that after the Socialist Party adopted supply-side economics in 1983, the French economy did recover and Mitterrand was re-elected in 1988.
Let’s remember what Ronald Reagan said about how governments view the economy.
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: ‘If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'”
The Normandy invasions were so long and tediously prepared for, so intricate in design, so impossible to envision in the whole, or to envision having a chance of succeeding, that now 70 years later, without careful, thoughtful consideration with study of this most important of freedom crusades, we cannot comprehend it. Even with careful consideration, comprehension must surely be dim unless you were there. Reading of the sacrifices of those who perished and those who survived, is overwhelming. In mid-May, 2014, Michael Beschloss, writing for the New York Times, gives us a glimpse of what a D-Day anniversary was like for President Dwight David Eisenhower, a Five-Star General and Supreme Commander of Allied Forces on June 6, 1944, who led the allied militaries to victory. President Eisenhower is the one president who would not participate in public celebrations of the Normandy invasion.
Had anyone dared to offer Ike such gratuitous advice, however, he would have had them expelled from the Oval Office. Pointedly he did not visit Normandy or stage a White House ceremony to extol his own leadership. Self-celebration was mostly alien to the men and women of World War II’s “greatest generation,” starting with the supreme commander.
Eisenhower’s painful memories of soldiers dying as a direct result of his command decisions had caused him to break down in public at least once before. As this photograph demonstrates, in a little-remembered incident during the 1952 presidential campaign, when Eisenhower — who usually kept his emotions under lock and key — spoke to a World War II veterans’ audience about those soldiers, he was so overwhelmed by grief that he covered his face with a handkerchief. Read more here.
Portsmouth Harbor, England was the point of departure for many of the vessels involved in the invasions. On the day of June 6, 1944, General Eisenhower was in allied headquarters in Portsmouth.
This operation involved landing the troops on the beaches, and all other associated supporting operations required to establish a beachhead in France. Operation Neptune began on D-Day (6 June 1944) and ended on 30 June 1944. By this time, the Allies had established a firm foothold in Normandy. Operation Overlord also began on D-Day, and continued until Allied forces crossed the River Seine on 19 August 1944. The Battle of Normandy is the name given to the fighting in Normandy between D-Day and the end of August 1944.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties, and 127 were lost.
In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2,395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.
Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6,939 vessels: 1,213 naval combat ships, 4,126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4,988 from other Allied countries.
By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches…
“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no “official” casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.
In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
The Allied casualties figures for D-Day have generally been estimated at 10,000, including 2,500 dead. Broken down by nationality, the usual D-Day casualty figures are approximately 2,,700 British, 946 Canadians, and 6,603 Americans. However recent painstaking research by the US National D-Day Memorial Foundation has achieved a more accurate – and much higher – figure for the Allied personnel who were killed on D-Day. They have recorded the names of individual Allied personnel killed on 6 June 1944 in Operation Overlord, and so far they have verified 2,499 American D-Day fatalities and 1,914 from the other Allied nations, a total of 4,413 dead (much higher than the traditional figure of 2,500 dead)…
The breakdown of US casualties was 1,465 dead, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2,499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2,000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4,000 and 9,000 men.
Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged…
Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9,386 American, 17,769 British, 5,002 Canadian and 650 Poles.
Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting. Read more – Source: D-Day Museum
Note that services were held at Christ Church on the the first day of the invasion (#3 below).
1. Southwick House: Here the Allied commanders, led by US General Dwight Eisenhower – the Supreme Allied Commander – decided that D-Day would be on 6 June 1944.
2. Fort Southwick: Tunnels underneath this Victorian fort housed the Combined Operations Headquarters, which co-ordinated and monitored the progress of the D-Day invasion fleet.
3. Christ Church, Portsdown: On 4 June 1944, the headquarters staff of British 2nd Army (which controlled the British and Canadian troops who landed on D-Day) held a service here.
4. Queen Alexandra Hospital: “QA” played an important part in the treatment of the wounded troops who had been brought back from Normandy.
5. Hilsea Barracks: The Barracks and the nearby Hilsea College (now City of Portsmouth Boys’ School) were used by American troops.
6. c: The factory and headquarters of the Airspeed company, which designed the Horsa glider. The Horsa was used by both American and British airborne forces on D-Day.
7. c: Six days after D-Day, the Germans launched the first of many V-1 flying bombs against Britain. Two of these weapons fell on Portsmouth. The second landed in Newcomen Road, killing 15 people and injuring 82 others.
8. HMS Excellent, Whale Island: This naval base played an important role in the Allied naval preparations for D-Day, particularly in preparing for the naval gunfire bombardment that preceded the landings.
9. Portsmouth Dockyard: Many of the specialist ships and landing craft used on D-Day had been modified at the Dockyard. Parts of the Mulberry Harbours (the artificial harbours that were used by the Allies for landing troops and supplies in Normandy) were built there. It was also an embarkation point for troops.
10. Portsmouth Harbour Station landing stage: Another site at which Allied troops boarded ships to take them to France.
11. HMS Vernon, Gunwharf: This was the base for part of Force S – the naval force that landed 3rd British Division on Sword Beach – and for Motor Torpedo Boats, which on D-Day protected the flanks of the landings against enemy naval attack. This site is now Gunwharf Quays shopping centre.
12. Quay House, Broad Street: This was the Embarkation Area Headquarters for the Portsmouth sector. Its role was to co-ordinate the loading of troops onto the ships at the four Portsmouth embarkation sites (which included nearby Camber Quay). Until recently, this building was known as Wightlink House.
13. Commercial Buildings: This building, on what is now Lord Montgomery Way, was the headquarters of Force S, which carried 3rd British Division to Normandy. The building now has the Cafe Parisien on the ground floor.
14. Fratton Station: Wounded troops from Normandy were transferred onto hospital trains here, to be moved to hospitals outside the city.
15. St Mary’s Hospital: This hospital had an important role in the treatment of casualties from Normandy.
16. St James’ Hospital: This hospital was used for the treatment of more lightly wounded troops and burns cases from the fighting in France.
17. c: The Inter-Services Training and Development Centre was established here in 1938 to conduct experiments in Combined Operations techniques (landing troops on enemy shores).
18. Langstone Harbour entrance: The shores of Hayling Island were used as a site for the construction of components of the Mulberry Harbours. Many landing barges were moored in Langstone Harbour in the lead-up to D-Day.
19. South Parade Pier: Temporary piers were built from scaffolding alongside South Parade Pier for use by troops embarking onto the vessels that would take them to France.
20. HMS Dolphin, Fort Blockhouse: The “X-Craft” mini-submarines that were based here were used for directing the Allied fleet in its final approach to the British and Canadian beaches.
21. Haslar Royal Naval Hospital: Another important hospital for the treatment of wounded troops from Normandy.
22. Beach Street, Gosport: Near today’s Gosport ferry pier, this was one of the sites in Gosport for the embarkation of troops, particularly tanks and other vehicles.
23. Camper & Nicholson, Gosport: This yacht-building company building a variety of naval craft, including Motor Torpedo Boats, parts of landing craft and components for the Mulberry Harbours (artificial harbours).
24. Stokes Bay: This site was used both for the construction of the Mulberry Harbours (artificial harbours) and for the embarkation of troops.
25. HMS Daedalus: A variety of Allied aircraft were based here, at Lee on Solent airfield. They supported the naval and ground forces on D-Day and afterwards.
26. Royal Naval Armament Depot at Priddy’s Hard, and other Royal Navy supply bases in Gosport – the Royal Clarence Victualling Yard, and the RN Armament Depots at Frater and Bedenham – were all vital for supplying the Allied invasion fleet.
27. Hardway, Gosport: Many of the huge numbers of vehicles required by the Allied troops in Normandy boarded ships from Gosport. The concrete “hard” can still be seen today, now in use by the local sailing club.
28. Vospers, Portchester: This local firm built naval craft, such as Motor Torpedo Boats (MTBs), that were involved in the naval operations for D-Day. They went ahead of the main Allied fleet as it crossed the English Channel, and protected its flanks.
29. Movement Control Headquarters, Fareham: This headquarters controlled all movement of troops in the area around Portsmouth and Gosport, as they prepared to board ships for Normandy.
30. Marshalling camps for troops: The area to the north of Portsmouth was covered with many temporary camps for the thousands of troops assembled locally for D-Day.
31. RAF Thorney Island: This airfield was used by RAF Typhoon fighter-bomber aircraft, which took part in the Normandy fighting. Slightly further away, airfields around Chichester such as RAF Tangmere played vital roles.
32. HMS Northney: Several Royal Navy bases on Hayling Island bore this name. They were used for the training of landing craft crews in the years leading up to 1944.
33. Hayling Island seafront: In May 1944, the seafront was used for amphibious landing.Read more.
Damage from the NSA spying scandal continues to plague the Obama administration, threatening free trade negotiations with the European Union. Said President Francoise Hollande of France (pictured here),
I am shocked that spying is going on in this establishment!
“We cannot accept this kind of behavior between partners and allies.”
I expect this type of behavior from a cowboy like Bush but not from an enlightened man like Obama. When he won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Vietnam war I thought that a new age had dawned. I never expected this. Spying on allies is just wrong. None of the security reports I got on my desk every day about activity in the United States hinted at the existence of Prism. And yes I know my last name is Hollande but don’t mistake me for a Hollander or whatever the hell you call them. I spit on them. I spit on the Hollanders. Our security reports indicate they are defenseless! It is time to invade!
From the Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte (pictured here)
President Obama is acting like Captain Hook!
expressed shock and outrage.
The United States has unlimited resources. Unlimited resources to spy on us. I expected more from President Obama. When America elected a president who had won a Nobel Peace Prize for ending the east coast-west coast rap feud I rejoiced. Finally America would get a president who loves peace as much as Europe does. Instead he is acting like Captain Hook. I don’t like Captain Hook. He is mean to me. Just like the French. I thank god I get detailed briefings every day on what the French are planning.
President Obama remains unfazed by the criticism from his European Allies.
We live in a dangerous world. Right wing teabaggers threaten the existence of the socialist worker’s paradise I am trying to build. It is necessary to gather intelligence even about our allies. Distasteful but necessary. Just remember I am watching you. Always watching. Always.
Breaking news: France has declared war on the Netherlands, which in turned declared war on France.
Back in September when Bernard Jean Étienne Arnault the richest man in France applied for Belgian citizenship. Left-wing French newspaperLibération ran a picture of the head of LVMH with the headline, Casse-toi riche con! which (according to Google Translate) means “F**K Off Rich Idiot!”
Today he took their advice and moved all his financial assets to Belgium for ‘family inheritance reasons.” (He has transferred his 31 per cent stake in Groupe Arnault, the family holding that controls LVMH, to Pilinvest, a Belgian firm that he specifically set up for the purpose).
The consensus opinion is he wants to avoid a 75 per cent top rate on income being introduced by President Francois Hollande so he will have something left over for his family to inherit.
..others are convinced that the 63-year-old has joined other tycoons and celebrities in wanting to avoid taxes – including a 75 per cent top rate on income – introduced by Socialist President Francois Hollande.
Mr Arnault applied for a Belgian passport soon after the Socialists won elections last year.
Mr Arnault, who owns numerous homes around the world including one in London, applied for a Belgian passport soon after Mr Hollande’s Socialists won presidential and parliamentary elections last year.
Critics immediately attacked him for leaving the country that is associated with all the brands which made his fortune – including Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Guerlain, Moet & Chandon champagne and Hennessy cognac.
Once again, when stupid raises it’s ugly head, the reasonable leave for greener pastures. And, rather than look at their own high tax policies, the liberals will blame the people escaping those same destructive policies. Then, in the case of high taxes, when revenues fall short of estimates (as they almost always do), there will be a scapegoat. As we all know, when liberal policies fail, it is ALWAYS someone else’s fault.
Bonus Irony Alert: The lefty newspaper, ironically named Libération (obviously, no translation needed), was very upset that Arnault liberated himself.
What if there were another French Revolution. And this time, it was led by creators refusing to be robbed by the nanny state? Well, one is beginning. Earlier this year, the French foolishly elected socialists, and their PM decided that a really great way to raise revenue for do-goodery was to tax the evil rich at very high levels. And, creators, like famous actor Gerard Depardieu have decided to vote with their feet, and leave France. The Socialist PM fired off that the refusal to be robbed was “pathetic.”
Depardieu shot back and, in an open letter to Monsieur Ayrault, wrote, “I’m leaving because you think success, creation, talent and anything different should be punished. I am sending you back my passport and social security, which I have never used.” The French actor claims to have “paid 85 percent taxes on his revenues this year  and estimated that he had paid €145m ($189m) in total since he started work as a printer at the age of 14.”
The lessons from Monsieur Hollande’s debacle should be obvious. The rich are a mobile lot and there are plenty of countries that will welcome them with open arms. The British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, has promised to “roll out a red carpet” for the French tax refuges. Moreover, as my colleague Alan Reynolds reminds us, high tax rates on income may discourage many wealthy people from remaining in the labor force, since, to use economic jargon, their elasticity of taxable income is much higher than that of low and middle income earners. Translated into English, people like me have to work even if our tax rates go up, because we have to come up with money to pay our mortgages, student loans, etc. The rich people don’t.
Keep it up socialists! Because, as we know, 75% of nothing is nothing, and guys like Depardieu, and all the jobs they create, and all the taxes they formerly paid, are all gone now. Great job!
But, Marian L. Tupy, writing at CATO, nails it perfectly (emphasis added)
The French government was warned of the negative consequences of tax increases. It chose to ignore those warnings. Instead, the French socialists assumed that they could go on plucking the golden goose indefinitely. (Then again, the socialist grasp on reality has never been very good.) Of course, when idiotic policies backfire, politicians feign surprise and then shift the blame onto others. Thus, French Labor Minister Michel Sapin asked in a radio interview “What is more normal than those who earn enormous amounts of money paying lots of tax?” The French Culture and Communication Minister Aurelie Filippetti bemoaned Depardieu’s action by stating that “We shouldn’t be receiving moral lessons from people who abandon the battlefield when we need everyone to be mobilized.”
This is so incredibly true. This has happened before, and because high taxes make rich people go away (and take their money with them), you would think they would learn. But, they don’t, because they are too busy blaming everything else under the sun except for the actual cause, which is their own policies.
Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi is a bad guy-and probably insane as well. He’s butchered his own people. His regime was implicated in the Lockerbie bombing (for which he eventually accepted responsibility). He makes rambling and incoherent speeches. He is accompanied by a bevy of hot Ukrainian nurses. In terms of playing the role of “insane dictator,” Gaddafi has done it all, and probably deserves some sort of lifetime achievement award for being a deranged leader.
Then, enter the Obama administration. With socialists and radical Islamists engaging in the Tyrant Exchange Program, the “Arab Spring” soon found Gaddafi. True to form, he began brutally oppressing those insurgents, and nearly wiped them out. After dithering for weeks, the Obama administration finally acted, authorizing air strikes in coordination with NATO.
But, all is not well in Libyan Arab Spring. There are questions, many of them, concerning our military actions there. While this is a small scale action, the administration has decided that they don’t need Congressional permission under the War Powers Act to continue it. Can you imagine if Bush had claimed that? Also, France gets a large percentage of it’s oil from Libya. Where are the “blood for oil” signs at all of the anti-war protests? Come to think of it, where are the anti-war protests?
Aside from the leftist hypocrisy in this debacle, there is the fact that there has been a great deal of bungling going on in the execution of this campaign. The insurgents are complaining that air support doesn’t come when it is needed, and when it does, it often drops bombs on the insurgents instead of the Gaddafi forces. And, after months of bombings, Gaddafi is still in power.
Also, there is the question of why the administration acted in Libya, but not in Syria or Iran? People are being butchered in Syria as this is being written. The 2009 revolt in Iran had a chance at toppling perhaps the most oppressive and dangerous regime in the region. In both cases, the administration did nothing. However, it should be considered that Libya had a weaker military with older, Soviet era weaponry. Syria and Iran are much more capable, and would inflict significant casualties on NATO forces. And, should I mention France’s oil supply? Is this a case of the administration bombing a weaker country for someone else’s oil supply? One wonders.
But the bottom line is,whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.
Is Hillary channeling Karl Rove? Something must have changed for Hillary, because in 2003, she had a significantly different tone.
It’s not only a plurality of Americans who are “on Gaddafi’s side,” but also the head of the Arab League, a short time ago held out as the Beacon of all that’s Right (when they favored a no-fly zone). And also Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey. And our NATO ally Italy. Who knew Gadaffi had so many friends, allies and fans? There’s almost as many of those as there were Saddam lovers (also known as “Iraq war critics”).
As usual, this administration, and the larger part of the political left, are doing exactly what the Bush administration did, if not worse, and there are no outcries from the usual sources. Consider this yet another example of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the political left.
On this date in 1944, Allied forced mad their landings in Normandy. It is still, and probably always will be, the largest amphibious invasion ever mounted. While the Third Reich had less than a year left, there was much bloody and brutal fighting left to go. To properly commemorate the sacrifice and efforts of the rapidly departing, “greatest generation,” here is some comments from Ronald Reagan.
If any veterans are reading this, thank you for your service.