Nearly $1 Billion Already Spent on US Military Campaign Against ISIS

NOVANEWS
By RT
Global Research
estimate-cost-isis-war.si

A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in Syria, in this U.S. Air Force handout photo taken early in the morning of September 23, 2014. (Reuters/U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Matthew)

The US-led military operation against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) militants has likely so far cost between $780 and $930 million, according to an estimate by Washington-based think tank specializing in defense issues.

The estimate is part of a report attempting to forecast how much the operation might cost in the future. It was published on Monday by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), that’s influential with the US Department of Defense.

The think tank’s defense experts, many of whom are military veterans, have used a figure given by the Pentagon itself, which said that the military operations against the Islamic State cost $530 million through August 26.

The group’s own estimate covers the period from August 27 through September 24 and is based on “what is publicly known about the number of targets struck, the types of aircraft and munitions used, the basing options available to US forces in the region, and the number US ground forces in the region.”

The various costs associated with the military actions against the IS have been reflected in a graphic, issued by the CSBA.

The total cost to date from mid-June through September 24 is likely between $780 and $930 million,” the report says.

It further comes up with possible estimates of three scenarios of the way the military operation will develop in the region.

Assuming a moderate level of air operations and 2,000 deployed ground forces, the costs would likely run between $200 and $320 million per month,” the study says.

If the airstrikes moderately intensify and 5,000 ground forces are deployed, the cost would be driven to $350 and $570 million per month.

Finally, if the military campaign “expands significantly” and 25,000 US troops are deployed, the monthly cost of the operation might grow to $1.1 to $1.8 billion.

Annually the first scenario would cost the American budget $2.4 to $3.8 billion per year, while the third, highest-intensity, one would require the US to spend $22 billion.

The US started the military operation against the Islamic State in June 2014 by increasing support to Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting the extremist group.

The US airstrikes against the Islamic State targets in Iraq were launched August 8 and in Syria September 23. President Obama made a decision on the airstrikes without the authorization of the US Congress. Lawmakers might not vote on the move until next year, congressional aides told Reuters on Monday.

Members of Congress left Washington in mid-September to campaign for upcoming elections. They will return in mid-November and will likely be reluctant to vote on authorization for the use of military force in Iraq and Syria in the last weeks of the current Congress.

President Obama announced crackdown on the Islamic State group in a landmark September 10 speech. He specified that American ground troops would not be involved in the fight against the militants.

Senior US military officials have, however, not excluded the ‘boots on the ground’ option. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said in mid-September that should Obama’s current strategy not yield the desired results, he would recommend deploying American troops on the ground.

Estimates on the possible cost of the military campaign have varied. Last week, a defense spending expert, Gordon Adams, a professor of US foreign policy at American University, told Huffington Post he estimated the United States’ war on the militant group could be costing taxpayers up to $1.5 billion a month.

Posted in Iraq, USA0 Comments

Profit-Driven US and British Oil Companies Set to Violate International Law in Western Sahara

NOVANEWS
Global Research
oil

Several global energy companies are interested in oil resources in Western Sahara (AA)

Kosmos Energy, a US oil and gas exploration firm, along with UK oil exploration company, Cairn Energy, are planning to begin searching for oil reserves off the shores of a territory known as Western Sahara.

However, according to Sahrawi representatives, the companies have no authorisation from the people of Western Sahara, a United Nations designated non-self-governing territory larger than the UK that has been subject to occupation by neighbouring Morocco since it invaded in 1975. The Moroccan government maintains that its civilians peacefully reclaimed Western Sahara by marching into the territory, but scholarly work has long since falsified this account.

The UN has been planning to organise a referendum on self-determination in Western Sahara since 1991 but for now Morocco has successfully blocked the plans and retains control of the territory which it claims as its “southern provinces” and calls Moroccan Sahara.

Kosmos has held rights to explore Western Saharan waters since 2006, when it signed an agreement with Morocco’s state oil company, the Office National des Hydrocarbures et des Mines (ONHYM).

The agreement was renewed in 2011 and, at Kosmos’s direction, a drill ship named Atwood Achiever is currently on its way from South Korea to Western Saharan waters in order to commence oil exploration in a block known as Cap Boujdor in November.

In a letter dated 19 September and addressed to Kosmos’s Senior Vice President, William Hayes, which has been seen by Middle East Eye, the Sahrawi Centre for Media and Communication – a campaigning group made up of indigenous Sahrawi and based in the territory’s capital Laayoune – condemned international energy companies planning to drill for “joining hands with Morocco” and “consolidating its sovereignty over Western Sahara.”

“Formally, it is illegal for international companies to operate in the land and coastal waters of Western Sahara without the consent of its people and without them being consulted and benefiting from these business operations,” the letter stated.

“Such illegal business is also a direct threat to the whole peace settlement as it puts at stake the right of self-determination by ignoring international law and legality,” the Sahrawi group claimed.

However, the Sahrawi are not alone in believing that oil exploration in Western Sahara without authorisation from the Sahrawi would be illegal under international law. In 2002, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Hans Corell gave a legal opinion which agreed with the Sahrawi.

“If further exploration and exploitation activities were to proceed in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara, they would be in violation of the international law principles applicable to mineral resource activities in non-self-governing territories,” Corell wrote.

A number of previous attempts by oil companies to drill in Western Saharan waters have been abandoned, due to the legal status of the territory and subsequent divestment by shareholders. Kosmos, however, appears resolute and French oil major Total also has plans to drill next year.

Kosmos has defended its decision by arguing that while it does not have the authorisation of the Sahrawi, its activities will be beneficial to them.

“We believe that, if exploration is successful, responsible resource development in Western Sahara has the potential to create significant long-term social and economic benefits for the people of the territory,” Kosmos wrote in a statement on the issue in February.

But the UN’s Corell has made clear on multiple occasions that this is not sufficient to make the drilling lawful. In 2008, he issued a clarification of his original legal opinion that described it as “formulated in such a manner that it would be crystal clear that Morocco had no authority to engage in exploration or exploitation of mineral resources in Western Sahara if this was done in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara.”

Speaking to the Financial Times on 17 September, Corell said that “the more resources are found in Western Sahara and its maritime zone, the less will be the incentive for Morocco to fulfil the UN resolutions and international law.”

Neither Morocco’s ONHYM nor the Moroccan government responded to requests for comment.

The Sahrawi population is divided into those still living in the occupied territory, and the thousands who fled from the Moroccan army in 1975 and became refugees living in camps in South-West Algeria.

Sahrawi living in the refugee camps are also highly critical of the drilling.

“Kosmos and Cairn plan to participate in the looting of our country,” said Kamal Fadel a representative of the Sahrawi government in the camps, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR).

“This is a shameful act by Kosmos and Cairn that puts their greed before the respect of legality and human rights, and it helps perpetuate the illegal occupation of our homeland, encouraging Morocco to continue to obstruct UN efforts to resolve the conflict,” Fadel told MEE.

International firms in other sectors besides energy have also engaged in potentially illegal resource exploitation in occupied Western Sahara.

Last October, the Canadian agricultural firm Agrium Inc. organised a deal with the Moroccan state phosphate company Office Chérifien des Phosphates (OCP) for Western Saharan phosphate.

Despite international pressure, more than $10 mn of phosphate rock mined by Morocco’s OCP in Western Sahara were loaded onto a freighter and shipped to Vancouver for use by Agrium as a result of the deal.

In December, the European Union also approved a four-year accord with Morocco, allowing EU boats – the majority of them Spanish – to fish in Western Saharan waters. Demonstrations were held in Laayoune by some Sahrawi but were met with a harsh response from Moroccan security forces.

“A significant oil or gas find in Western Saharan waters will only increase Morocco’s unwillingness to recognise the territory’s international right to self-determination,” said Jacob Mundy, assistant professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Colgate University, in New York.

“The danger in all of this is the Security Council’s lack of interest in the Western Sahara situation generally,” Mundy told MEE.

“Having watched Morocco plunder the territory’s fisheries and minerals for years, it is difficult to imagine the Western Saharan independence movement remaining passive in the face of these new offshore developments.”

Posted in UK, USA0 Comments

Academics and Diplomats Contest the Washington Post’s Propaganda on Venezuela

NOVANEWS

Venezuela is a leader in today’s Latin America and it does deserve a seat the United Nations Security Council

Global Research
maduro

By Larry Birns COHA Director; Frederick B. Mills, COHA Senior Fellow and Professor at Bowie State University; and Ronn Pineo, COHA Senior Fellow and Professor at Towson University

I) The Washington Post gets it Wrong About Venezuela

The Washington Post editorial, “Venezuela doesn’t deserve a seat on the UN Security Council,” combines ad hominem attack with misinformed smears. ThePost’s views appear to have been formed by uncritically accepting all of the propaganda offered up by the right-wing opposition press in Venezuela.

It should be beneath the Post to denigrate the recently elected Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, as an “economically illiterate former bus driver.” Despite his lack of training in economics, Maduro is right that Venezuela is facing what amounts to internal economic warfare, with business hoarding, currency fraud, and contraband trading. The economic policies of Maduro, and those of former President Hugo Chávez, have certainly been experimental, even trial and error, but these policies have also reduced poverty by half and expanded access to the social goods long denied to millions of ordinary Venezuelans. These are real gains in terms of human development that are all too easily dismissed by the Post.

The Post might have mentioned that some of the “economic pragmatists” it champions are precisely those whose ideologically driven bad advice sent the global economy in its recent free fall. Deregulation of the financial sector was an epical disaster, in the United States, in Latin America, and around the world, yet orthodox economic advisors continue to call for free market solutions to any and all economic problems. This is really bad advice, and people around Latin America realize it: three-quarters of the region is governed by left-wing governments, which appropriately see a larger role for the state in guiding their economic fortunes.

The Maduro administration faces serious economic challenges, and it is moving to address them. The present tiered currency exchange system is still conducive to a black market in U.S. dollars and the Venezuelan government is keenly aware that this system is in need of further reform. Venezuelan authorities are presently waging a stepped up battle against the flow of contraband. There also appears to be a consensus, on the left and on the right, that there is a need to diversify the productive base of the country and continue to step up agricultural production. The Post editorial has not taken into account Venezuela’s great debate over the scope and form of such reforms that has been recently taking place within the Bolivarian project; this debate includes the question of whether to introduce a number of market oriented measures, to stay the course towards more social control over the economy, or to implement a combination of these approaches.

The Post describes the “exit now” strategy of the ultra-right as having called for “peaceful street demonstrations under the slogan ‘the way out.’” This view is inaccurate. The hard-line right’s strategy has involved repeated violent attacks on state institutions, public transportation, and the symbols of Bolivarian social investment. So while there were peaceful opposition demonstrations, the ultra-right wing elements were not peaceful, not at the barricades they built, not when they shot at police and passersby, and not when they fired home-made mortars and tossed incendiary bombs. These actions are not mentioned by the Posteditorial, perhaps because they do not play into the opposition’s preferred narrative. The Post refers to the 40 persons killed as though they were all victims of government security forces. The best available evidence, however, indicates that as many as five of the deaths were due to the actions of government forces; the Post fails to mention those killed and injured by the extremist elements of the opposition. Meanwhile, Maduro’s government has brought criminal charges against law enforcement officials who have been implicated in homicides.

Venezuela, the Post argues, does not deserve a seat at the United Nations Security Council. But, it actually does deserve a seat. Venezuela is a leader in today’s Latin America. Venezuela has wide backing in the region, due to the generous extension of its subsidized oil export program, benefitting many small, oil importing states in the Caribbean and beyond. Venezuela has been likewise generous in providing aid packages for health and education reforms in fellow Latin American states, including especially Bolivia and Ecuador. Better still, the aid does not come with nettlesome mandates, such as launching a war on coca production, or a forced march implementation of widespread economic deregulation. And this is why all the Latin American nations support putting Venezuela on the Security Council. The opposition of the Post to something that most Latin Americans see as a good idea, says rather too much about the blinkered outlook of the Post. The Post’s remaining readers will once again have to look elsewhere if they want to understand Venezuela and Latin America. We suggest they turn to www.Coha.org.

II) Misrepresenting Venezuela, A Country Committed to Peace

Maximilien Sánchez Arveláiz - Chargé d’affaires at Venezuela’s U.S. Embassy in Washington. Letter published in the Washington Post, 24 September 2014.

The Sept. 21 editorial “Persecuted in Venezuela,” opposing Venezuela’s bid for a non­permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, distorted reality by accusing authorities of persecuting political prisoners and jailing Leopoldo López for his role in instigating “peaceful” protests this year. The protests demanding the extra­constitutional removal of the government led to more than 40 deaths, including individuals killed trying to remove protesters’ barricades. The “irresistible pressure for change” expected by the editorial never came because the majority of Venezuelans resolve political differences through elections and direct democratic participation, not violence.

The Post’s scare-mongering around Venezuela’s candidacy harkened to the Cold War mind-set that animated a similar campaign in 2006. Venezuela is not an advocate for other countries at the United Nations: It is a determined advocate for peace, as demonstrated by its commitment to regional stability and strong support for the Colombian peace process.

The Post stated that Venezuela may be on the verge of suffering “a catastrophic economic collapse” and supported such a claim by offensively referring to our head of state as an “economically illiterate former bus driver.” Venezuelans are proud to belong to a democracy that allows former blue-collar workers to rise to the top.

Posted in Venezuela0 Comments

Banned by Press TV: Will Hannity Kill a Child in Gaza?

NOVANEWS

Tea Party Spokesman Cheering on IDF Death Brigades

Tea Party Spokesman Cheering on IDF Death Brigades

Will Hannity Kill a Child in Gaza?

By Gordon Duff without Press TV (they say “too controversial”)

Popular Tea Party radio host, Sean Hannity, is touring Gaza with the Israeli Army this week.  If his visit is not unlike that of other “high value” VIPs representing Israel’s control of the media, he will be given very special privileges none will know about.  Hannity may be allowed to pilot a drone, perhaps to send a Hellfire missile down on a school building or even sit in a tower with an American Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle.

He could shoot a child, perhaps a woman going to market or someone rescuing injured from a bomb damaged building.  Other guests of Israel, like Veterans Today’s Colonel James Hanke, have toured Dimona nuclear facilities or sat in a Merkava tank on the Golan Heights, looking through a weapons sight at a Syrian village.

Hannity is highly qualified to report on Israeli military operations in Gaza.  His 12 years working for Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Network, continually supporting neocon and Zionist policies and smearing independent public officials is legendary.

Hannity was born in 1961, and worked at a college radio station.  He was never in the military, has an “honorary” college degree given him from an evangelical college.  Hannity has little or no formal education.

On the week where state after state is enacting sanctions against Israel for the purposeful slaughter of children, America’s Tea Party just sent Israel $270 million dollars for new weapons.  This funding bill was tied to a measure to provide medical care to disabled veterans.  No new missile and bombs for Israel and tens of thousands of American veterans go without care. In Washington, this is called “deal making.”

Hannity is a curious creature, a product of the merging of what used to be broadcast “news bureaus” with political special interest groups and Zionist controlled Hollywood script writers.  The result is pure theatre, where “infotainment” is a mixture of “fear porn,” bigotry and wild conspiracy theory.

In turn, candidates from one political party, the GOP and its Tea Party wing are supported while wild rumors about opponents are scripted and acted out in a “Kabuki theatre” punctuated with wild hand gestures, sneers and mockery.

In return, media conglomerates owned by Murdoch and Mitt Romney are allowed to buy radio and television networks and newspapers, squeezing out competition, are placed above federal regulations and anti-trust laws.

The result has been clear to the world, suppressed news and controlled “spin,” allowing false flag terror, wars of aggression, economic crimes on a massive scale and, in the process, terrorizing political enemies they can easily target and destroy using their control of vast interlocking media empires that now stretch across the world.

Hannity, above all, depicts his genre more than anyone else, even Rush Limbaugh.  Though proven consistently wrong in his predictions, though proven to lie consistently, almost never right, even when giving the time or discussion football scores, Hannity’s special breed of base cruelty and malevolent sarcasm appeals to the angry and disenfranchised.

This is where Hannity has his own roots.

A divisive figure, Hannity is increasingly looked on as a joke by a larger and larger constituency, now even many who consider themselves “right wing,” reactionary and conservative.  Hardly a day goes by when his special blend of “kissing Israel’s behind” and wild conspiratorial attacks on President Obama, his family members and pets, doesn’t take on wilder and wilder proportions.

Hannity, the voice of AIPAC, Israel’s powerful lobby in Washington, has teamed up with “shock jock” Alex Jones spreading stories of armies of United Nations peacekeeping troops sailing up the Mississippi River or divisions of Russian paratroopers descending on America from Canada.

When George “W” Bush was in office, tapping phones, kidnapping and torture weren’t necessary evils, they were a “Christian priority.”  Hannity has demanded US military action in Syria, in the Ukraine and has voice, on literally hundreds of occasions; his believe that only traitors at the top of America’s government have prevented a full scale nuclear obliteration of Iran.

This week, Hannity is broadcasting from Gaza, the smell of burning flesh in his nostrils.  Unlike many from the BBC and Guardian, Hannity has Israel’s trust.  He isn’t given “talking points,” he writes them.  Lying takes little education, only moral flexibility, and a special connection to his audience, the angry, the ignorant and the fearful.

His audience is, so very much, made up of the friends of Israel.  What may well be problematic is that this audience is not as large as it was a few short weeks ago.  Israel’s message, parroted even by President Obama, long on Zionist assassination lists, Obama and Cameron, Harper of Canada and so many others, is no longer something simply “taken in stride.”

People are listening.  When the term “right to defend” is used, they no longer think of gas chambers and laughing Nazis.  They see Israeli tourists cheering when schools in Gaza are flattened, they see the photos that Google tries to suppress, children blown apart.

The old Israeli/Hannity lines, “Muslims don’t care about their dead, their children, they breed like rats.”

Yes, this is how they talk on American “right thinking” television and radio, killing Muslims is the only way the world can protect itself.

Thus, we return to our original question, will his IDF hosts allow Sean Hannity to kill a child?  Those of us who have followed him, as much as our sensitive digestive tracts allow, readily believe this would be a crowning achievement to his journalistic career.

For a man who never spent a moment in uniform, certainly not for America, for a propagandist, a “hammer” if you will, tasked with pounding down any truth teller, any sign of honesty and decency as though it were a proverbial “nail,” his visit to Gaza is telling.

It is a sign of desperation.  They are “spending” Hannity as though he were a currency facing collapse, his “star” waning as is Israel’s as well.  Hannity broadcasts around the world, seen in his baseball cap, the sneer wiped from his face, a serious demeanor while mouthing outrageous tales we have heard so often these last few weeks, less often as days go on.

Hannity may well put a nail in Israel’s coffin.  Much is ending, in particular, the power of victimization enthroned in the holocaust mythology sold to the children of the world as religion.  Scenes from Gaza by far outweigh anything from the concentration camps of the last century.  Gaza is the real Auschwitz.  To millions, hundreds of millions or more, Israel is everything Nazi Germany is purported to have been.

There were no photos of German citizens cheering the death camps.  It took 21st century Israel to push Hitler into obscurity.

When they think of a child blown apart, they can think of Sean Hannity.  When a child is found, blown apart, burned or shot on a lonely beach, we can all ask; “Did Sean Hannity kill this child?”

Posted in USA0 Comments

What the hell is an I$raHell-American?

NOVANEWS
Image result for ISRAEL-AMERICAN FLAG PHOTO

Shame on you all.You represent nothing but the interests of the corrupt United States whose actions are controlled by Zionism and it shows, every day.

by Rex Williams

Mr. Raimondo in a recent article at antiwar.com, in mentioning the Times of Israel article, conveniently now removed from public view, added this comment from the writer of the article when referring to Hamas…..

“Anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian.” This was written by an “Israeli-American”.

One is tempted to ask, what the hell is an Israeli-American, where is his allegiance, his loyalty, his respect? Surely such shared allegiances are half of the US problems. Like so many other countries, the US  has allowed this anomaly to still be in force today, all based on the well-orchestrated ‘holocaust marketing campaign, under banners like Foxman’s ADL, a pathetic anachronism. Is there such a creature as this for any other nationality other than the cunning Jews, the only beneficiaries of such a scheme? No.

Whereas what was said above may be seen on the surface as a reasonable comment in the Times of Israel, compare the situation in reverse, in or around the vicinity of a Palestinian’s home……………

Palestinian life under Israeli Occupying power for 66 years

Palestinian life under Israeli Occupying power for 66 years

….sixty six years of an occupying power posing as an inclusive democracy, military checkpoints and towers, stink spraying of villages, indiscriminate assassinations, never-ending harassment, crop destruction, home demolishment, illegal land stealing, murderous settlers, often ‘the scum of Europe’, blockades and on. Then there are the periodic bombings, massacres, all against the toothless baying of the United Nations, well past its use-by-date with armaments supplied by the same US of A, plus billions of taxpayer dollars donated into Israeli coffers in the form of military and financial aid, a fact most American citizens are oblivious to. All the time, the tap dancing circus known as the State Department with the likes of feckless Kerry, the evil neocon Nuland, and the President’s private Army, the CIA doing their thing in conjunction with the great deceivers, Mossad, orchestrated by the services of traitors like Tony Blair. What a scenario for continuous international criminality, now the accepted norm.

CNI-Billboards

How do American people accept all that? Where are the keepers of the UN Resolutions? Why do we only hear from Ban-ki Moon when the Israeli thugs, latter day Gestapo, present day “Judeo-Nazis” (to borrow an apt phrase from Justin Raimondo), bomb a UN school as they have done on more than one occasion? What about a Palestinian school? Does that require an objection to be raised as well?. Come on, Secretary-General, this has been going on for 66 years and all this time you have shirked your responsibility for every one of those years. You passed UN Resolutions, but didn’t enforce one of them. You and your predecessors bowed to the discriminatory US veto seventy times, without a murmur, not a squeak.

Shame on you all. You represent nothing but the interests of the corrupt United States whose actions are controlled by Zionism and it shows, every day.

Fifth columnists

It does show psychotic Israel and its writers to be total hypocrites and so it has always been and will continue to be until the US of A gets a conscience, loses its Security Council veto and starts to implement policies that enable the country to be seen as it once was, that is managed under a once worthy document before emasculation, The Constitution. Then we would need to see unpatriotic, criminal acts receive deserved punishment through courts that are not stacked with Zionists judges, the removal of the PAC’s in any form,public servants and elected members as single passport holders, the elimination of such phrases as Israeli-Ameircan or American-Israeli supported by a Congress that has real Americans as members and a Senate that represents the states, not the corrupt few and finally, criminal proceedings against those who have used their positions of power to usurp the values of old America for corrupt purposes…..McCain, Graham, Ros Lehtinen, Schumer, Lieberman and about 400 others.

They sold out their patriotism for dollars, years ago.

There lies the core of all the world’s problems. Where once it was Hitler and his Third Reich, today it is Zionism, Netanyahu and his Judeo-Nazis, a far worse enemy, a global cancer.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

America at the End of its Tether

NOVANEWS

As the Empire of Evil collapses, the Mad Emperor and his psychopathic minions seem determined to set the world on fire.

An edited abridgement based on this outstanding article by James Petras, presented with pictures, captions, and extensive commentary by Lasha Darkmoon

THE MAD EMPEROR  AND HIS PSYCHOPATHIC MINIONS (Click to expand)

THE MAD EMPEROR
AND HIS PSYCHOPATHIC MINIONS
(Click to expand)

“At the center of chaos, the wild-eyed President Obama strikes blindly, oblivious of the consequences. He is on the verge of a mental breakdown, suffering from political paranoia, war hysteria and megalomania. He’s gone amok . . .” — James Petras, here

Chaos reigns and spreads as enraged leaders in the US, Europe and their clients and allies pursue genocidal wars. Witness mercenary wars in Syria. Witness Israel’s terror bombing of Gaza. Witness the proxy wars in the Ukraine, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia.

Tens of millions of refugees flee scenes of total destruction. Nothing is sacred any more. There are no sanctuaries. Homes, schools, hospitals and entire families are targeted for destruction.

At the center of chaos, the wild-eyed President Obama strikes blindly, oblivious of the consequences.

He is willing to risk a financial debacle or a nuclear war. He enforces sanctions against Iran. And sanctions on Russia. He sets up missile bases five launch minutes away from Moscow. He sends killer drones against Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. He arms mercenaries in Syria. He equips and trains Kurds in Iraq. He finances Israel’s savage war crimes in Gaza.

Nothing works any more.

The Chaos President is blind to the fact that starving one’s adversaries does not secure submission: it unites them in resistance. Regime change, imposing proxies by force and subterfuge, can destroy the social fabric of complex societies. Millions of peasants and workers become uprooted refugees. Popular social movements are replaced by organized criminal gangs and bandit armies.

Central America, the product of decades of US interventions, has become a chaotic, unlivable inferno for millions. Tens of thousands of children flee from their ‘free market’ — from induced mass poverty, gangster violence, and state terrorism.

Child refugees at the US border are arrested in masses and imprisoned in makeshift detention camps, subject to psychological, physical and sexual abuse by officials and guards on the inside. On the outside, these pitiful children are exposed to the racist hatred of a frightened US public who are totally unaware of the horrors these children are escaping from and of the US government’s role in creating those horrific conditions.

The Cold War has returned with a vengeance — and taken an ugly turn. Confrontation among nuclear powers is imminent. The maniacal Baltic States and Poland bray the loudest for war with Russia, forgetting that their positions on the front lines expose them to the dangers of mass incineration.

Each day Israel’s war machine chews up more bodies of Gaza’s children while spitting out more lies. Cheering Israeli Jews perch on their fortified hills to celebrate each missile strike on the apartments and schools in the densely populated Shejaiya neighborhood of besieged Gaza.

A group of orthodox and secular entrepreneurs in Brooklyn have organized group tours to visit the holy sites by day and enjoy the Gaza pyrotechnics by night. Night-screen goggles enable the atrocity tourists to view the fleeing mothers and burning children. These voyeur specs are available at a small extra charge.

LASHA DARKMOON [LD] COMMENTS:  One Israeli woman, a sexually perverted atrocity tourist, has recently confessed that the sight of Palestinian children being killed is enough to give her an orgasm.(See below).

Again the US Senate votes unanimously in support of Israel’s latest campaign of mass murder – no crime is depraved enough to ruffle the scruples of America’s leaders. They hew close to a script from the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations. Together they embrace a Beast from the Apocalypse gnawing on the flesh and bones of Palestine.

Palestinian-child-pleads-for-helpPALESTINIAN CHILD,
HER HEAD HALF BLOWN OFF BY AN JEWISH NAZI SNIPER

LD:  95 percent of Israelis are now enthusiastic “atrocity tourists” who rejoice to see pictures like this. Some even openly boast of being brought to the point of orgasm at the pitiful sight of Palestinian children being brutally murdered. Like this Israeli woman, for example:

927391_333900180103357_1293136292_n

US senators, who voted unanimously to kill this little child and cheer on the Israeli perverts who experience orgasms at the sight, are clearly complicit in the carnage and sexual depravity — all of them clinical psychopaths who in a sane world would face immediate execution for war crimes.

Make no mistake: all these unspeakable horrors are the handiwork of the world’s foremost chaos creators: international Jewry and their non-Jewish lickspittle lackeys. In the words of Gilad Atzmon, “Israelis do not like to be caught with blood on their hands. As much as they like to kill, they hate to be the killers.”

He might as well have added, “While Israeli soldiers may like to entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport, the last thing they want is to be exposed to the world as objects of contempt and loathing.”

THE  WAR  CRIMINALS—
TAKE  A  GOOD  LOOK,
THIS  IS  WHAT  PSYCHOPATHS  LOOK  LIKE:

unanimous-2-587x1024

With psychopaths like this in charge,
what hope for America?

LD:  Let us retrain our justifiable anger at these heinous war crimes condoned and rubber-stamped by the American government; and let us face the facts with stoical resignation. American politicians ceased to be representatives of the American people long ago. They have become extensions of the Israeli Knesset. The United States of America is now the United States of Jewdom.

For further confirmation of this chilling truth, see my two essays: America Vanquished: America as an Israeli Colony andUnder Jewish Rule“.

“When the world looks at America,” Paul Craig Roberts once remarked ruefully, “all it sees is an Israeli colony.”

In actual fact, America is more than an Israeli colony; it is a Jewish colony. It is controlled not only by the state of Israel but by elite American Jewry who have the entire nation dancing to its tune. Without even knowing it, Americans have become slaves in their own country to a malignant and mentally deranged  foreign race.

—  Lasha Darkmoon 

There are ominous signs away from the killing fields. The stock market is rising while the economy stagnates. Wild speculators have returned in their splendor, widening the gap between the real economy and the fictitious one. Soon the ‘deluge’ will come . . .  the chaos of another inevitable crash.

In industrial America’s once great Detroit, clean water is shut-off to tens of thousands of poor citizens unable to pay for basic services. In the midst of summer, urban families are left to defecate in hallways, alleyways and empty lots. Without water the toilets are clogged and children remain unwashed.

“The economy’s doing fine!” the Wall Street gangsters chant. “It’s only the people who are suffering!”

Public hospitals everywhere are being closed. In the Bronx and Brooklyn, emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Chaos reigns. Interns work 36-hour shifts and the sick and injured have to take their chances with sleep-starved doctors on the verge of collapse. Meanwhile, in Manhattan, posh private clinics are proliferating for the pampered rich.

Scandinavians have embraced the putschist power grab in Kiev. The Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt bellows for a new Cold War with Russia. The Danish emissary and NATO leader, Anders Fogh-Rasmussen, salivates obscenely at the prospect of bombing and destroying Syria in a replay of NATO’s ‘victory’ over Libya.

Meanwhile German leaders endorse the ongoing Israeli genocide against Gaza.  They are comfortably protected from any moral conscience by their nostalgic blanket of ‘guilt’ over Nazi crimes 70 years ago.

Where the bombs fall no one knows, but people flee. Millions are fleeing the chaos. But there is no place to go! The French invade half a dozen African countries but the refugees are denied refuge in France. Thousands die in the desert or drown crossing the Med. Those who do make it are branded criminals or relegated to ghettos and camps.

Chaos reigns in Africa, the Middle East, Central America. The entire US frontier with Mexico has become a militarized detention center. A vast concentration camp.

The border? It doesn’t exist! The Hispanic hordes pour into America from the south, like a river of ravening piranha fish.

Chaos reigns in the markets. Chaos masquerades as trade sanctions: Iran yesterday, Russia today, China tomorrow. Washington, watch out! Your adversaries are finding common ground: trading, forging alliances, building defenses. They are uniting. They are growing stronger.

Chaos reigns in Israel. The war-crazed Israelis have recently discovered that even the Chosen People can bleed to death. They too can have their arms and legs blown off. And they can lose their eyesight in the narrow alleyways of Gaza where little children stand facing them with nothing but stones.

When the cheers of the Jewish victors turn to jeers, will they re-elect Bibi, their current kosher butcher? How long will they sing, “If genocide is good for Israel and the Jews, it’s got to be right!”

LD:  According to a recent op-ed in The Times of Israel written by a certain unsatisfactory member of the human race known as Yochanan Gordon  (pictured here),  “Genocide is permissible.”

Mass murder is permissible—you guessed it—only when the IDF, “the most moral army in the world”, are engaged in carrying out their fish-in-a-barrel blitzkreig in Gaza’s open-air prison in a responsible fashion, according to the time-honored principles of the Marquis de Sade. (See When Genocide is Permissible)

Polls report that most Israelis say the IDF isn’t using enough force in Gaza. The “noble warriors”, it seems, are being too soft on the Palestinians, though a huge percentage of those killed and maimed by Israeli strikes are children. There have been at least seven attacks on UN schools, according to the Guardian. UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has described these attacks as “criminal” and points out that the Israelis “have been repeatedly informed of the location of these sites.”

“There is a kind of murderous glee in the Israeli leadership’s inversion of all moral and international legal standards,” Justin Raimondo notes angrily. “They take a special delight in upending centuries of just war doctrine regarding proportionality and the killing of innocents, and are eager to replace it with their own ruthless nihilism.” (See here).

Here is another advocate of genocide, son of the sadistic war criminal Ariel Sharon, openly recommending genocide. He would like to see the Palestinians given  the Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki treatment:

Gilad-Sharon

†  “Those who condemn Hitler day and night have surpassed Hitler in barbarism.”  —  Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan

†  ”They are, all of them, born with a raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” — Voltaire

Chaos reigns in New York. Judicial rulings favor the vulture capitalists. The printing presses are working day and night, overtime.

There are only a few life boats left . . . just enough for the bankers and Wall Street swindlers. The other ninety-nine percent of the population will have to swim or feed the sharks.

The US President is on the verge of a mental breakdown: He’s a liar of Munchausen proportions with a bad case of political paranoia, war hysteria and megalomania. He’s gone amok, braying, “I lead the world: it’s either US leadership or it’s chaos.”

Increasingly, the world has another message: “The US is the Chaos Creator — it is the ultimate source of all chaos!”

Wall Street is abandoning Obama. The Russians have double-crossed him. The Chinese merchants are now doing business elsewhere.

Listen to the Emperor of Chaos ask his closest advisors the craziest questions: “Why can’t we bomb Russia, just like Israel bombs Gaza? Why don’t we build an ‘Iron Dome’ over Europe? Why can’t we shoot down Russian nuclear missiles as they come towards us? Why can’t we fire upon Moscow from our new bases in Ukraine? So what if Europe becomes a nuclear wasteland? That’ll be a small price to pay for our success!”

Maybe Obama and his mad minions are thinking of reducing the population of Asia by a billion or two? How many Hiroshimas and Nagasakis are they planning in order to teach the Chinese a lesson for being so staggeringly successful? How many other nations are they going to wipe out for doing so well and making them look like a bunch of losers?

Maybe this is final scenario. Most of Asia will inhale nuclear dust. Millions of Indians and Indonesians will perish as collateral damage. Their survivors will feast on toxic fish in a glowing sea of radioactive poisons.

The real boss

WHO  RULES  AMERICA?

Because our ‘Iron Dome’ will have failed us, we will have to re-emerge out of a mountain of rubble, dreaming of a New America free from wars and poverty. The Reign of Chaos will have ended. The ‘peace and order’ of the graveyard will then reign supreme. The Mad Emperors and their minions will be forgotten. They will be dust and ashes in the trash can of history. Good riddance to them all!

None of this will matter in the post-nuclear age . . .  after the Chaos is over . . . and the New Troglodytes emerge from Plato’s cave of darkness.

LD:  I don’t know how the third World War will be fought,” Einstein once quipped, “but I know that the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows.”

Posted in USA0 Comments

Dick Cheney: A Clear and Present Danger

NOVANEWS

Dick Cheney: A Clear and Present Danger

by Don Fox

“If the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us”–George H.W. Bush.

“I think there will be another attack,” Cheney said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. “And next time, I think it’s likely to be far deadlier than the last one. You can just imagine what would happen if somebody could smuggle a nuclear device, put it in a shipping container, and drive it down the Beltway outside of Washington, D.C.”
YouTube – Veterans Today -

After Cheney made this pronouncement of a more deadly 9/11 by the end of the decade, Gordon Duff’s behind the scenes sources stated that it is already in the works. There is talk of 100,000 to 200,000 victims in the next false flag. And there won’t be any pretense that this attack was anything but nuclear. There has been reluctance on the part of the power structure to admit that 9/11 was a nuclear event. They have used kerosene, nanothermite and DEWs for fig leaves but there won’t be any of that nonsense next time around. When Dick Cheney and his PNAC cronies predicted a “new Pearl Harbor” in September of 2000, it came to fruition 12 months later. Love him or hate him Dick Cheney is a serious man and not someone you can afford to take lightly. His track record of serving the Zionist Oligarchs is well established.
YouTube – Veterans Today -

The Council on Foreign Relations

Between 1987 and 1989, during his last term in Congress, Cheney was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization. What exactly is the CFR, what do they do and what are their goals?
YouTube – Veterans Today -

The Council on Foreign Relations was founded by Elihu Root, who was the personal attorney for JP Morgan. Morgan was well known to be a Rothschild frontman. The publicly stated goal of the CFR was to “increase America’s understanding of the world.” In the early 1960s Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley was allowed to see the archives at the CFR. Quigley was writing a book favorable to the oligarchs who founded and ran the CFR. Quigley revealed that the true goal of the CFR was “to create a world system of financial control, in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country, and the economy of the world as a whole controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” The Bank of the United States (1816-36), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation.

He wrote: “The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had wantonly produced…are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.” Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Does that not describe the situation in America today?

The U.S. managed to do without a central bank until early in this century, when, according to Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., “The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic, and thereby forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission.” Headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Commission recommended creation of a central bank. Though unconstitutional, as only “The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…” (Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution) the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Lindberg warned Congress: “This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth…the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized.”

The Great Depression and numerous recessions later, it is obvious the Federal Reserve produces inflation and federal debt whenever it desires, but not stability. Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists…acting together to enslave the world…Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is–the Fed has usurped the government.” Although called “Federal,” the Federal Reserve System is privately owned by member banks, makes its own policies, and is not subject to oversight by Congress or the President. As the overseer and supplier of reserves, the Fed gave banks access to public funds, which enhanced their lending capacity.

Peter Kershaw, in “Economic Solutions” lists the ten major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank System as: Rothschild: London and Berlin; Lazard Bros: Paris; Israel Seiff: Italy; Kuhn- Loeb Company: Germany; Warburg: Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Bros: New York; Goldman and Sachs: New York; Rockefeller: New York. (That most, if not all of these families just happen to be Jewish, you may judge the significance of yourself). The balance of stock is owned by major commercial member banks. Dick Cheney has served the interests of the Zionist Oligarchs for decades. He had earned their trust enough to be a founding member of PNAC and Vice President in the Bush administration.

YouTube – Veterans Today -

The Project for a New American Century

The Project for the New American Century, or PNACis a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC’s ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:  

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;  

* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;  

* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;  

* Control the “International Commons” of cyberspace;  

* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.  

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four “Core Missions” for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” and to “perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.”

Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see. Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th.

When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy. Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC Calls for a New Pearl Harbor

Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew’s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York’s Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby. Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11′s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch. We can only guess where that cash went. (Hint: Israel would be a good guess.)
YouTube – Veterans Today -

Five Deferment Dick: The Epitome of a Chickenhawk

Of course the next false flag will be used to once again goad the American public into supporting wars against Israel’s enemies. Mr. Cheney has no qualms about sending your sons and daughters off to die for Israel but he did everything he could to avoid serving in Vietnam. Dick Cheney is a prime example of a chickenhawk.

The Urban dictionary defines a chickenhawk as “Any person who, in an official capacity, sends other people out routinely for dangerous activities while himself having never been exposed to the same risky behavior. This usually occurs in an authoritarian, militarized system and comes with constant propaganda in which the leader fashions himself as an ultimately benevolent crusader.”

During the 2004 Presidential Campaign Cheney’s five Vietnam Era draft deferments became an issue. Even the New York Times could see the hypocrisy in a war monger like Cheney doing everything he could to avoid serving in Vietnam: While Mr. Cheney’s deferment history was briefly an issue when George W. Bush picked him as his running mate in 2000, the Democrats did not focus on it after Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, who had served in Vietnam, picked as his running mate Senator Joseph Lieberman, who also had not served. The issue also received little attention during Mr. Cheney’s Senate confirmation hearings as defense secretary in 1989 under the first President Bush, largely because the Armed Services Committee had just completed a bitter and protracted battle over the president’s original choice, John G. Tower.

Mr. Tower had faced questions about philandering, drinking and conflicts over defense contracts before he was rejected. Senators of both parties were so eager to confirm Mr. Cheney quickly that they were relatively undemanding, not pressing him on the draft but merely asking him if he had anything to say about it. He said he “never served” because of deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, which he attributed to subpar academic performance and the fact that he had to work to pay for his education. He added that he “would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called.”

Away from the hearing room, he told the Washington Post that he had sought his deferments because “I had other priorities in the 60′s than military service.” “I don’t regret the decisions I made,” he added. “I complied fully with all the requirements of the statutes, registered with the draft when I turned 18. Had I been drafted, I would have been happy to serve.” But others contend that Mr. Cheney appeared to go to some length to avoid the draft. “Five deferments seems incredible to me,” said David Curry, a professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis who has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, “Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender.” “That’s a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K.,” Mr. Curry said.

In the Bunker with Norman Mineta

YouTube – Veterans Today -

There can be no doubt Dick Cheney was a central figure in the events of 9/11. Norm Mineta’s testimony portraits Cheney as having been the man who issuing the orders on 9/11, not President Bush: Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report. Mineta says Vice President Cheney was “absolutely” already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11.

Mineta seemed shocked to learn the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58– after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted. Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff. Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted from their final report. He told Lee Hamilton: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out…and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

While Cheney was barking out orders in the bunker, Bush was zig-zagging across the country: Shortly after takeoff, Cheney apparently informed Bush of “a credible threat” to Air Force One. US Representative Adam Putnam “had barely settled into his seat on Air Force One … when he got the news that terrorists apparently had set their sights on the plane.” The Secret Service had received an anonymous call: “Air Force One is next.” The caller allegedly knew the agency’s code words relating to Air Force One procedures. Pilot Colonel Mark Tillman was told of the threat and he asked that an armed guard be stationed at the cockpit door. The Associated Press reported that the threat came “within the same hour” as the Pentagon crash (i.e., before 10:00 a.m., roughly when the plane took off). Details suggest this threat was not the same as the earlier one, but it’s hard to know for sure.

In his comments at Booker, Bush said he was immediately flying back to Washington, but soon after takeoff, he, Cheney and the Secret Service began arguing whether it was safe to fly back to the capital. Andrew Card told Bush, “We’ve got to let the dust settle before we go back.” The plane apparently stayed over Sarasota until the argument was settled. Accounts differ, but until about 10:35 a.m. Air Force One “appeared to be going nowhere. The journalists on board – all of whom were barred from communicating with their offices – sensed that the plane was flying in big, slow circles.

Cheney apparently called Bush again at 10:32 a.m., and told him of another threat to Air Force One. Within minutes, the argument was over, and the plane turned away from Washington and flew to Louisiana instead. Bush recalled: “I wanted to come back to Washington, but the circumstances were such that it was just impossible for the Secret Service or the national security team to clear the way for Air Force One to come back.” Given that the rocket-like takeoff was due to a threat, this must have been another threat, possibly even a third threat.

The threat or threats to Air Force One were announced on September 12, after mounting criticism that Bush was out of sight in Louisiana and Nebraska during most of the day and did not return to Washington until 10 hours after the attacks. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said there was “real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets.” The perps sent Bush to an elementary school in Florida so that he would be out of the way when the events of 9/11 commenced. When he tried to go back to Washington to play president he was thwarted by Cheney who appeared to be in charge down in the bunker. Clearly the perps saw Bush as a hindrance. Cheney appears to be much higher in the real power structure than does the hapless W. This is why Cheney must be taken much seriously than Bush.

Cheney Determined to Strike in US

 

When one of the key players in 9/11 predicts a far more deadly 9/11, you better pay attention. In his recent speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition Cheney stated that “the United States’ position in [the Middle East] is worse than at any time in my lifetime.” He added, “It’s reached the point where Israel and Egypt, [the United Arab] Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan are closer to one another—imagine that!—than any of them is to us…Nobody who’s been our friend in the past any longer has any sense of trust in we’ll keep our commitments, that we’ll be there in a crisis when they need us. On the other hand, none of our adversaries need fear us.” Noting that the chief responsibility of a president is to protect the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Cheney claimed that today that charge “is not being pursued in any kind of coherent manner.”

Cheney has dismissed diplomacy and appears to endorse an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program: he recalled a dinner meeting he had in 2007 with Israeli General Amos Yadlin. Yadlin had flown in the Israeli Defense Force’s mission in 1981 that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, and he was the country’s military intelligence chief in 2007 when the Israel Defense Forces obliterated Syria’s nuclear reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region. Recalling his conversation with Yadlin, Cheney said, “He looked across the table over dinner, and he said, ‘Two down, one to go.’ I knew exactly what he meant.” “One to go” was an obvious reference to bombing Iran’s nuclear program.

Given the evidence laid out in this article and previous articles, it’s not difficult to envision a scenario where the Zionists and Neocons once again nuke an American city, blame it on Iran and use the false flag attack as a pretext to yet again get US troops involved in the Middle East fighting yet another war for Israel. This time the stakes will be raised considerably. Most observers believe that an attack on Iran would result in conflicts with Russia and China and perhaps even Korea. It goes without saying how disastrous a thermonuclear exchange with Russia would be. Most if not all US ships in the Gulf would probably be sunk and Iran would most likely close the Strait of Hormuz. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be a disaster for the public as the price of oil would start to soar and could rise 50 percent or more within days.

However, some (Jewish) Traders on Wall Street WANT a WAR and BLOCKADE of Strait of Hormuz, as “only means to save U.S. dollar – from the American public realizing that they have been DEFRAUDED by Ben Bernanke’s “JUDENFETZEN” DEBASING of the U.S. dollar, at Bernanke’s wholly, privately owned (so-called) ‘Federal’ Reserve bank. If oil is cut off, the price of crude oil might go to $200, $300, $500, no one really knows… that would be THE ONLY way to SAVE THE DOLLAR, in extremis. By creating a huge artificial demand for dollars, to soak up the dollar overhang, to PREVENT the FLIGHT FROM THE DOLLAR. The threat from the BRICS countries must be dealt with by the Zionists. Sky high oil prices may be their way of propping up their Federal Reserve debt note knows as the US dollar.
YouTube – Veterans Today -

As we can see the motivations for a “new deadlier 9/11” are there amongst the psychotic Zionist Oligarchs. Does this mean we are destined to lose thousands of more lives in a domestic false flag nuclear attack and plunge into more disastrous wars for Israel? Clearly the elites have no qualms about sacrificing the lives of thousands of Americans if it can help get their agenda through. Moral considerations have no bearing for these people.

The only thing that slows them down is the fear they won’t get away with it. In a just world Cheney and his Neocon/Zionist co-conspirators would all stand trial for war crimes. They got away with 9/11. None of the perps were ever prosecuted for that false flag. Has the public gotten any wiser to the ways of the elites in the last 13 years? If we haven’t the price for our national ignorance, this time is going to be far higher than it was in 2001.

 

Posted in USA0 Comments

OBAMA’S UN AMBASSADOR ADMITS FIGHT AGAINST ISIS DESIGNED TO TAKE OUT ASSAD IN SYRIA

NOVANEWS

The CIA’s hydra: ISIS, al-Nusra and FSA

by KURT NIMMO

Obama’s United Nations ambassador Samantha Power told Chuck Todd of NBC on Sunday the real purpose of the fight against ISIS is to overthrow al-Assad and the Syrian government.

Power said the “moderate” Free Syrian Army (FSA) will receive an “infusion of support” in its battle against both ISIS and the Syrian government which is, according to Power and the United States, “backed by Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, etc.”

CIA’s Hydra: FSA, al-Nusra and ISIS

Omitted from the discussion is the fact ISIS, al-Nusra and the FSA have merged forces.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun,” Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade, told the Lebanese Daily Star earlier this month.

The FSA has lost troops to al-Nusra and other hardcore Islamist groups for more than a year.

In June al-Nusra and ISIS joined forces at Albu Kamal in Syria and al-Qaim in Iraq.

“Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra because that means power and influence,” Abu Ahmed, the commander of an FSA brigade near Aleppo, told The Guardian in May of 2013.

In September, 2013, one of the largest FSA brigades, the 11th Division, joined al-Nusra.

“This means that the FSA has suddenly lost serious amounts of loyal fighters… it’s basically being swallowed up by Nusra,” an Al Jazeera correspondent in Antakya, Turkey, reported on September 21, 2013.

Reuters, citing sources inside Syria, reported other members of the FSA have joined ISIS.

The Ahl al-Athar, Ibin al-Qa’im, and Aisha factions within the FSA pledged allegiance to ISIS in July, according to Zaman Alwasl, a newspaper based in Homs.

“Al Nusra Front and the state [ISIS] will fully control FSA brigades, fusing them within their extreme and Jihadi ideologies,” the newspaper reported.

Supporting ISIS to Fight ISIS

Obama and Power are attempting to keep the illusion alive that there is a distinction between al-Nusra, ISIS and the FSA when in fact all are creations of U.S., British and Israeli intelligence.

On Sunday The New York Times carried a report saying Iraqis – from people on the street to officials in the highest level of government – believe the CIA is behind ISIS. They fear the manufactured ISIS threat will be used to reintroduce troops in Iraq.

Last August the leader of al-Nusra, Abu-Mohammad al-Jolani, met with two CIA officers and the Saudi deputy minister of defense Prince Salman bin Sultan in Amman, according to former Austrian general, Matthias Ghalem, who quoted Colonel Ahmed al-Naameh, head of the rebel Revolutionary Military Council in southern Syria.

Al-Naameh said two deputies of Robert Stephen Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria, also attended the meeting. It was decided al-Nusra and the FSA would cooperate in the proxy war to depose al-Assad and turn Syria into a failed state like Iraq and Libya.

Ford played a key role in orchestrating the Syrian “resistance” and was and underling to Iraq ambassador John Negroponte, who during his tenure organized death squads in Iraq in a coordinated effort to destabilize the country.

“Since the opening of a new US base in the desert in southwest of Jordan in November 2012… CIA operatives and US special operations troops have covertly trained the militants in groups of 20 to 45 at a time in two-week courses,” al-Alam reported.

In June Aaron Klein reported the U.S. military had trained ISIS terrorists in Jordan.

Previously the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported Americans training “Syrian rebels,” although it was not clear if the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army.

Posted in Syria, USA0 Comments

Wake Up America ”3”: To Fight the Unpredictable Effects of Climate Change, We Need an Unpredictable Movement

NOVANEWS
Report on Flood Wall Street Direct Action
by ARUN GUPTA

New York City.

In April 1990 I helped organize the Earth Day Wall Street Action. More than 1,500 activists from the United States and Canada traveled to New York on the twentieth anniversary of Earth Day with the goal of halting the New York Stock Exchange for a day. We got close, with hundreds of protesters and cops clashing in front of the exchange doors. We wanted to expose corporations wrapping themselves in the façade of environmentalism and identify them as criminals responsible for scorched-earth business practices.

I’ve been eagerly awaiting a return, and on  Monday, September 22, I ventured down to the financial district for the Flood Wall Street Direct Action. The following are impressions of what happened today, not the back story to the organizing. And they are more tactical than strategic observations.

Foremost, the turnout exceeded everyone’s expectation. Many thought a thousand people or less would show up. By the time the march left Battery Park in Southern Manhattan the count was 2,500. There seemed to be a lack of coordination on the part of direct action organizers, while the NYPD took a surprisingly hands-off approach. It still lined the streets with interlocking metal barricades, so the protest only made it as far as Broadway, around the iconic bull sculpture, before settling in for the day. Activists trickled in all day and the consensus was 3,000 people took over the streets at the peak.

However, there was no organized system like a spokescouncil or general assembly to encourage them to stay put and decide the next steps. Nor were there resources like food, blankets, and water to enable a large enough number of people to hunker down, which would make the cops hesitant to arrest them all.

There was a large media presence, including many mainstream media outlets. Flood Wall Street drew in more participants thanks to the Sunday march that drew an estimated three hundred thousand. The march was timed to influence the U.N. Climate Summit on Sept. 23. The international nature of the summit and the media pack helped limit the NYPD’s notorious aggression.

There was a world of creative art, but not much affinity group organizing. Some artists were hired to coordinate the art. Paying them to produce quality art was part of the media and image strategy for the Sunday march. That’s perfectly fine. Movements should pay people for their labor, although there has to be limits to avoid professionalizing. This was the most money-rich protest I have ever seen. There were three Jumbotrons on the Sunday route, and one organizer said they usually cost $10,000 a pop. Art making was also central to Flood Wall Street. I would speculate focus on visual symbols led the art to be overdeveloped and may have compounded the underdevelopment of strategic organizing for the direct action. The Monday protest was fun. There were huge banners, parachutes, giant balls of carbon, bands, costumes, and performers. But the strategy was little more than a mass sit down in the streets.

The NYPD strategy was to outlast the protesters, and it worked. Cops were blasé about activists disassembling metal barriers. They would not rush to fight them, like they always used to. Often they didn’t notice because there were so few cops on the lines. They would come over after ten minutes or so, retrieve the metal sections and reassemble them. All day long there were scattered gaps in the barricade line, enabling a free flow of people in and out of the area. Thus, there was no kettling, which is highly unusual for a mass direct action.

The cops had red lines, but otherwise were willing to cede more physical and tactical ground than normal. They let the crowd have Broadway around the bull for nearly four hours. Around 3:45 p.m., before the Stock Exchange closing bell, everyone marched up to Wall St. They tried to push east to the Stock Exchange and Federal Hall, where the George Washington Statue is located. There were only a few police at the first line of barricades. A little organization and the protesters could have easily pushed through. Getting through the second line and into Wall Street would have been much tougher, but not impossible.

I watched as protesters momentarily breached the barricade, cops grabbed one guy, and pulled him through. Normally that’s the moment when cops pile on and injure the protester. Instead, they just tossed him into the crowd on the sidewalk. No arrest and no beat down.

As the shoving matched intensified, the NYPD white shirts deployed their fists and a few blasts of a chemical irritant, probably pepper spray. It’s easy to tell how much of a threat the NYPD considers a protest by how many commanders, who wear the white shirts, it deploys. At the Wall Street barricade I counted nearly twenty white shirts at one point. They are notorious for pounding on people with their bare fists; they don’t need any surplus military gear to punish and intimidate. For a few seconds, during the height of shoving, two white shirts slammed their fists on the hands of protesters to loosen their grip on the metal barricades. Seconds later chemical spray wafted through the air, instantly forcing the protesters back. It had an unusual floral smell.

The combination of police waiting out activists and the lack of organization and support meant by 6:30 p.m. about 75 percent of people in the streets had drifted away. I did so as well at this time. Less than an hour later at a close-by bar, where many Flood Wall Street organizers had decamped, I got word arrests were happening. There was apparently a decision to engage in orchestrated civil disobedience. I told numerous people at the bar the arrests were happening, but most everyone already seemed to know and they did not seem overly concerned about returning right away. One well-respected organizer was not pleased that many of the main Flood Wall Street organizers left the streets to go to the bar.

During the whole day multiple squadrons of fifty to a hundred burly cops, whose mission is to squelch protesters quickly, were stationed at different points a block or so away from the action. There was not the overwhelming force of past protests with thousands of cops. One activist told me he heard two cops talking in the bathroom at a restaurant. They said 90 percent of cops were at the U.N. I talked to one community affairs cop who claimed they were taking a “calmer” approach. He said it was more effective compared to aggressive policing that is the norm, but it seemed like he was parroting the official line. He acknowledged this strategy was determined from on high.

Why was the NYPD so hands off? I haven’t seen anything like it in 25 years of protest in New York. There are the factors like the U.N. Climate Summit, the heavy media presence, the legacy of Occupy Wall Street, and space created by the large parade on Sunday. (Calling that event a protest is inaccurate.) Post-Ferguson many police departments probably realize over-reaction can backfire. The NYPD learned that with the Union Square pepper spray incident in September 2011that catalyzed city-wide support for the Zuccotti Park occupation, and then the Brooklyn Bridge arrests a week later that turned the movement into a nationwide phenomenon.

Additionally, there are New York City specific factors like the cops who killed Eric Garner in July on Staten Island and Mayor Bill de Blasio rehiring Bill Bratton as police commissioner. Bratton, of course, instituted the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policing in the nineties in New York that de Blasio opposed in his surprise election victory last year. Bratton favors “Broken Windows” policing. It’s a smaller net than stop and frisk, but it’s still racially biased in practice without being based on any evidence that arresting pan handlers, graffiti artists, and turnstile jumpers reduces violent crime. Taking a light hand against Flood Wall Street enables de Blasio to score points with the public and media, while insulating his administration from criticism that it’s making only cosmetic changes to biased policing policies. To be fair, de Blasio may even be serious about curbing the NYPD’s penchant for violence.

Since the burden is on the NYPD to prove it has reformed its heavy-handed ways, the light police response should be seen as what it is: a one-off event. Additionally, while there was a more enthusiastic spirit at the end of the direct action today among veteran activists, there is a consistently lower level of organization over the last fifteen years of direct actions since Seattle.

One activist, Laurie Arbiter, summed up the feeling of many activists why actions like Flood Wall Street are on the frontlines of the climate justice fight. “It was unpredictable,” she said, unlike the Sunday march that felt scripted to many. “Climate change is unpredictable as well.” In other words, while marches are important and necessary, mass organized political chaos in the streets is more likely to destabilize the status quo, bringing forth a new social equilibrium.

Twenty-five years is a long time to wait. It’s almost the same exact amount of time since James Hanson warned Congress in 1988 that there was near certain proof that carbon dioxide emissions were the prime culprit in global warming. The Monday action was only the first phase of what will have to be an ever-more powerful movement to flood Wall Street once and for all.

Posted in USA0 Comments

Wake Up America “2”: The Racial Crisis in American Society

NOVANEWS
Ferguson: A Taste of Things to Come
by NAFEEZ AHMED

The shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, a district of St. Louis County in Missouri, and the spate of civil unrest that followed, could set a precedent for the future of American society according to a senior Iraq war veteran and Pentagon defence analyst. Terron Sims, an African American active in local Democratic politics who had previously served five years in the United States Army, told me during an interview last month that without a fundamental cultural and institutional change in American policing across the country, the US could see more Ferguson-type events in the near future.

In an interview in Washington DC where Sims is president of the North Virginia Black Democrats and on the Board of Principals at the Truman National Security Project, I asked him whether the Ferguson crisis offered a taste of things to come.

“This is a taste of the present, my friend. We’re already here. This is America, today,” said Sims. “And if we don’t deal with the root cause in terms of widespread racial discrimination against black people, this will be our tomorrow.”

The Ferguson crisis has sparked a national debate on the culture of policing in the US toward black communities, as well as the increasing militarization of the police due to a federal Pentagon programme providing military-grade equipment to local police forces at little or no cost.

Last Tuesday, Lt. Col. Jon Belmar, the top police officer in St. Louis County, justified the extensive deployment of military-grade equipment to respond to Ferguson unrest. “Had we not had the ability to protect officers with those vehicles, I am afraid that we would have to engage people with our own gun fire,” Belmar told USA Today. “I really think having the armor gave us the ability not to have pulled one trigger… I think the military uses armor to be able to provide an offensive force, and police departments use trucks like that so they don’t have to.”

The recent provision of three grenade launchers, 61 rifles and a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle to the Los Angeles School police department prompted civil rights and education groups to write to the US Defense Department demanding an end to the federal supply programme to the LA school system. One unidentified police official reportedly said that the weapons were needed “for the safety of staff, students, and personnel” and that the grenade launchers and armored vehicle would only be used in “very specific circumstances,” but did not elaborate on the nature of those circumstances.

In contrast, Terron Sims, a West Point Military Academy graduate and company commander during the 2003 Iraq war, said, “Police conduct in Ferguson is a travesty and wake-up call. There are simply no circumstances in the US where the use of military-grade equipment could ever be justified to police civilian communities.” During his Iraq service, Sims was principal civil military officer responsible for liaising with civilians and civilian authorities in Baghdad. He went on to become deputy chief of the US Army’s Joint Training Readiness Center at Fort Polk, finally serving as a senior Pentagon analyst before retiring into civilian life. “Our squadron had an exemplary record”, Sims said. “We had to deal with far worse than what the cops on the streets of Ferguson were facing. I’m talking about US troops faced with swarms of angry civilians who look at you as invaders. Riots? Protests? You name it. But we had to be disciplined. My squadron didn’t use force against a single civilian. In fact, part of my job was making sure that our squad worked with and alongside the civilians in Tisa Nissan district, in Baghdad, to ease the transition from a military-run institution to civilian-led government.”

During our interview, Terron Sims could barely conceal his disgust at the behaviour of police officers in Ferguson toward civilian protestors. “I can’t speak for the whole US army in Iraq, but if our squadron could do it, I don’t understand why American cops can’t.” The problem, he said, is that racism continues to be a major problem in American police forces: “This is about an entrenched culture of policing that doesn’t work with and alongside communities. Instead, we have police officers roaming around seeing the local community as outsiders, or even worse, as a homogenous enemy. The cops that are capable of shooting peaceful, black Americans don’t have relationships with the black community. They don’t have any outreach.”

I asked him how the police should have handled the situation. “The first thing I would’ve done if I was the police chief was reach out to black community leaders,” he said. “Get their take on things and work with them to restore justifiable confidence in the police’s ability to actually behave lawfully and accountably. But obviously in this case, the police clearly don’t have the first idea who the community leaders are. But to be honest, if I was the police chief, I’d be asking myself hard questions about how I’d allowed it get to this point in the first place.”

Sims is hardly an ‘anti-establishment’ activist. A believer in the political process, he is currently outreach director for the Arlington County Democratic Committee and chairman of the Veterans and Military Families Caucusfor the Democratic Party of Virginia. In that context, his verdict on what Ferguson means for the state of America today is damning. “The shooting of Michael Brown did not come out of the blue,” he told me. “Let’s not beat about the bush here. It came about through a deepening culture of unaccountable racism. And it’s not just about police racism. Obviously in Ferguson we’re looking at years of police repression targeted largely at black people, but it goes deeper than that.”

Police repression, Sims explained, must be understood as part of a wider racial crisis in American society. “You look at a place like Ferguson and you see rampant unemployment, poverty and illiteracy in the black community. These trends have persisted and worsened for years. And there’s no money to improve things,” said Sims. “Local government is not investing in education. It’s not investing in jobs, in infrastructure. But Ferguson is not an isolated case. Shootings of innocent black people in the US by cops is at epidemic levels. That follows on the back of massive inequalities between white and black people across America.”

It is now widely recognized that the racial divide in the United States has worsened in recent decades along economic lines. In 1970, 33.6 percent of blacks and 10 percent of whites were impoverished. In 2012, 35 percent of blacks lived in poverty, compared to 13 percent of whites. While 5% of white Americans are unemployed, more than double — 11% — are black. Nearly three quarters of whites own their own home, compared to just 43% of blacks. And in the last 25 years, the wealth gap between whites and blacks has nearly tripled. Median household wealth for whites is about $91,400, but a measly $6,400 for black people.

Economic inequalities are compounded by the acceleration in police repression of black and ethnic minority communities over the last two years. Official police records demonstrate that, notwithstanding deficiencies in the way information is catalogued, the victims of police shootings are overwhelmingly male, heavily young, and disproportionately black.

A startling independent report into “extrajudicial killings” of black people in the US by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM) — an activist organization with chapters in Atlanta, Detroit, Fort Worth-Dallas, Jackson, New Orleans, New York City, Oakland, and Washington, DC — raises deeper questions. The report released in May 2013 — months before the outbreak of violence in Ferguson — found that an African American male is killed every 28 hours by US police or vigilantes, with little or no accountability. In 2012, a total of 313 black people were unlawfully killed in this way.

The report contextualizes this systematic violence against black communities by US police forces as part of a wider system of racist repression in which local police departments are entwined with a network of domestic security structures encompassing “the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, Secret Service, prisons, and private security companies, along with mass surveillance and mass incarceration.” Together, this domestic national security apparatus “wages a grand strategy of ‘domestic pacification’” through endless “containment campaigns” against groups designated as problematic or dangerous to the system.

The MXGM analysis coheres disturbingly well with mounting evidence of Pentagon contingency planning for “domestic insurgencies” triggered by social, economic, or food shocks, or natural disasters. US federal government planning documents suggest that the Pentagon’s role in militarizing local police forces is linked to growing concerns about domestic civil unrest due to the state coming under increasing strain from elevated climate, energy and economic risks.

My in-depth investigation last month into the Pentagon’s controversial Minerva research initiative has, for instance, exposed how the US Defense Department is funding universities to develop complex new data-mining tools capable of automatically ranking the threat level from groups and individuals defined as politically “radical.” Such tools, which according to NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake could feed directly into the algorithms used to fine-tune the CIA’s drone kill lists abroad, are increasingly being used to assess threats from activist and civil society groups in the US homeland.

In a society where racial tensions are intensifying, this dynamic inevitably affects marginalised black and ethnic minority communities disproportionately. Police forces end up being brought into black communities “with the marching orders, equipment and the mentality of an occupying army that inevitably results in systematic extrajudicial killings of citizens without respect for their human rights,” the MXGM report found. “The adoption of military tactics, equipment, training, and weapons leads to law enforcement adopting a war-like mentality,” concurred journalist Adam Hudson on the MXGM report’s conclusions. “They come to view themselves as soldiers fighting against a foreign enemy rather than police protecting a community.”

Given the extent of America’s racial divide, does this suggest that the civil rights movement has failed? I put the question to Terron Sims. “It’s not that the movement has failed — it’s that it’s not over,” he told me. “In Ferguson, the conditions have been brewing for a while. Black people are being shot all across America, but the reason it hasn’t kicked off everywhere is because the demographics aren’t the same. Ferguson has a fairly sizeable and concentrated black population, unlike with the shooting of Trayvon Martin for instance in a district in Florida, where the black community is more dispersed and certainly more affluent than in St. Louis.”

Indeed, Ferguson represents a microcosm of these problems, with wealth inequalities markedly worse than the national average. For example, census figures for 2012 in St. Louis County show that nearly half of all African American men are unemployed, compared to just 16 percent for white men.

“At those levels of poverty and inequality, with no jobs available and nothing to do all day, that’s a serious level of despair and hopelessness,” said Sims. “You prod and proke a situation like that, and it’s going to start simmering. You shoot a kid in the street in a situation like that for no good reason, well then it’s going to explode.”

For Sims, the only solution is for black communities to mobilise socially and politically: “Part of the reason there’s no money going into these communities is because there are no black political representatives on the scene advocating for those communities. That needs to change. We need to compel change by engaging with these institutions.”

If nothing is done to address these bigger, deeper issues of racial discrimination and inequality, does Ferguson represent the future of the United States?

“Of course it could”, said Sims. “I’m not saying Fergusons could happen everywhere, but for sure, if things continue as they are, there’ll come a point where the combination of unaccountable, rampant and racist police repression will inflame community tensions in circumstances of growing levels of deprivation and hopelessness. And that’s where race riots could become far more of a norm than we might expect. So unless something changes, yes, Ferguson is our future.”

 

Posted in USA0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field