Thursday, October 13, 2016

Hillary's Wars

HILLARY’S WARS (Pt. 2): Wikileaks Proves Syria about Iran & Israel

The following article by David Haggith was first published on The Great Recession Blog and is republished here under FAIR USE terms in the public interest, and with full acknowledgements to Mr. Haggith:

Hillary’s War in Syria is another expensive American adventure in nation building as the US inserts itself into the Syrian Civil War ostensibly to restrain the United States’ sworn enemy ISIS (or “ISIL” as the Obama Admin. prefers). Obama’s manner of fighting this war consistently shows a different objective — regime change. While that’s clear to everyone, Wikileaks’ exposure of Hillary Clinton’s emails makes it clear that US intrusion in the Syrian Civil War is really all about Iran and Israel.
Both the US and Russia want to defeat ISIS, but only the US wants to make sure Syria’s President Bashar Assad is overthrown. The United State’s ulterior motive of regime change is the reason it is ineffective against ISIS — because it wants ISIS to do its dirty work — and is the reason for the stalemate last week between Russia and the United States that resulted in a significant move back to cold-war status. I think everyone has generally observed that the US-Russian disagreement is not about how to fight ISIS but about regime change in Syria. What many might not know yet is how last week’s eruption with Russia goes back to Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State.

Wikileaks archive of Clinton emails shows this is Hillary’s War with Syria


The Syrian Civil War began in 2011 — the middle of Hillary Clinton’s term as US Secretary of State. Unmarked NATO war planes began arriving in Turkey that same year, delivering weapons absconded from Libya where America participated in another war for regime change. The planes also transported volunteer Libyan soldiers. (In my view, a mission clearly outside of NATO’s charter, which was to form an alliance under which all members would fight to protect any individual member if it was attacked, not to transform the world. No one in Syria was attacking any NATO member.) By December of 2011, the CIA and US special ops also began providing communication support to Syrian forces seeking to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Having advised President Obama to enter the Libyan Civil War, Hillary Clinton assured the press at the start of the Syrian Civil War that the United States would not similarly involve itself in that conflict. However, some documents exposed recently by Wikileaks show that Hillary’s advice to the president to enter the US into Libya’s Civil War came with a clear and intentional connection to topple the Assad regime:
In one document labeled “CONFIDENTIAL,” Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and long-time confidante to Hillary Clinton, wrote the following to Hillary:

Assad’ s gestures at reform are delusional attempts to recreate the pattern of his own recent past when he gained a modicum of respect from the West. Likely the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Qaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion. (Wikileaks)

Prior to the fall of Qaddafi in Libya, Clinton was being advised to overthrow Qaddafi in order to effect change in Syria. Blumenthal then quotes an article by David W. Lesch, whom he says is “the U.S. expert with the closest relationship with Bashar al- Assad”:

One game-changer [in Syria] could be the fall of Col. Moammar Gadhafi in Libya…. If Gadhafi falls within the next few months, there will be another model for regime change: that of limited but targeted military support from the West combined with an identifiable rebellion. Not that this can be easily applied in Syria. It hasn’t even been easily applied in Libya, and Syria would be a much harder nut to crack.Furthermore, the Syrian opposition is far from united or being able to establish a Benghazi-like refuge from which to launch a rebellion and to which aid can be sent. But if there is regime change in Libya … it would give the Syrian regime something to really think about…. The Syrian regime does not want, nor can it probably survive, long-term international pressure or isolation, but it is used to sanctions…. Success for the rebels in Libya might change that.

US involvement in Libya began at Hillary’s urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with “an identifiable rebellion” in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested.
Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary’s State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed.
The next document obtained by Wikileaks in its acquisition of Clinton’s emails is not advice to Hillary but subsequent advice from Hillary’s state department to the White House:

Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program…. Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are….. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security … through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests…. Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran….” Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria…. Only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind….  (Wikileaks)

(Note if you look it up that the Wikileaks document shows dates that refer to when the document was unclassified, not when written. The date of the State Department’s creation of this document can be determined by its content: “the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May.” The switch from past tense to future tense dates the document sometime between April, 2012, which is when the talks began in Istanbul, and May, 2012, when they continued in Baghdad.)
That same document provides evidence the connection between Hillary’s War in Libya and the next war in Syria clearly became a part the Department of State’s strategy under Hillary: (Note how it states that Libya was an easier case, following the wording in the advice Hillary had been given by Blumenthal about overthrowing Qaddafi as a way to make regime change in Syria more accomplishable.)



The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya. Libya was an easier case…. Other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East…. using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time…. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation.Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.

According to this massively revealing document pillaged from Hillary Clinton’s email archives, Obama needed to bring down Assad’s regime in order to calm Israel into accepting the eventual nuclear agreement he was working out with Iran. So, US involvement in the Syrian Civil War is even less about Assad than it is about Iran and Israel — at least in the State Department’s strategizing.
Connect the dots: First, Hillary counseled the president to establish regime change in Libya, the easiest target for such change. Then, with that success weighing on Assad’s fears, the State Department advised seeking regime change in Syria, emphasizing to the president that overthrowing the Assad regime would be essential to his establishment of a nuclear agreement with Iran. The theory was that Assad’s newfound fears from the regime change in Libya coupled with US empowered opposition in his own country, would get him to step down. Underlying the whole plan for regime change in Syria is the motive of weakening Iran, calming Israel and transforming the entire Middle East.
So, Libya was the first hit in a planned one-two punch to Assad that would, in the scheming and collective mind of Hillary’s state department, transform the Middle East. Gaining the presidency right now would put Hillary in office just in time to be the one to see through and reap the benefit of being the president who transformed the Middle East. When it becomes a big success she can tell all about how it was her plan from the beginning and how she saw it through to the end during her presidency.

Where does ISIS/ISIL fit into Hillary’s Wars in Libya and Syria?


If you read the full document, you may be struck as I was by how there is no mention at allof concerns about ISIS/ISIL as a reason to engage in regime change in Syria. That leads me to believe concerns about ISIS were secondary at best in the State Departments advice for US engagement in Syria. Perhaps they were not much more than the necessary cover story for such engagement because many US citizens were already sick and tired of hearing about “regime change.” Regime change was supposed to be the stuff of George Bush, not the center ambition of Hillary’s reset.
The Wikileaks copy of the document from Hillary Clinton’s email archives closes with the clearly ambitious and optimistic goal of resetting all of the Middle East:

Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel…. America can and should help them.

Wow! How much does the State Departments advice sound like the optimistic statements of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld that the US would be greeted as liberators in Iraq once the war was over (other than the the more realistic allowance that success in Syria will take a good deal of time and not be accomplished in a hundred days)?
Whether or not Hillary’s War in Libya is scaring Bashar Assad or inspiring his opponents, it did also nicely provide arms for the follow-on war in Syria. The tidy thing about that arrangement is that it might not be seen as US armaments that were attacking Assad directly, especially if the area arrived with Libyan fighters.
Unfortunately, there were unintended negative consequences as so often happens with US-backed regime changes. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2013 assessed that Turkey had effectively transformed the secret US arms program that was shipping through Turkey from supporting “moderate rebels” (whatever a “moderate rebel” is) into supporting all elements of the Syrian opposition, including al-Nusra and ISIS.
As a result (?), The United States began direct involvement in the Syrian Civil War in September, 2014, by sending jets and Tomahawk missiles under its own command (as opposed to NATO’s) to destroy ISIS targets. The need to actually take US planes in to fight ISIS in the Syrian Civil War became a great concern as soon as it appeared US support of Assad’s opposition actually empowered ISIS. Since the Obama administration had claimed that Bush’s War turned Iraq into an incubator for ISIS, it could hardly let Obama’s covert attempt at regime change in Syria wind up empowering ISIS with US arms via Turkey.
The State Department document recommended an air operation in Syria to overthrow Assad, but it turned out that the US also needed to terminate what was happening with ISIS. Fighting ISIS (without mentioning that we had supplied them with weapons) was a much easier sell than air strikes to create regime change.
Have no fear, though, Hillary already has it all figured out, as the State Department document assures, that a regime friendly toward the US will fill the vacuum in Syria, not one constructed from ISIS. We can only hope that prediction turns out better than Clinton’s prediction that Russia would never get directly involved in the Syrian conflict just because the US was supplying Assad’s opponents.

In conclusion


The State Department document above reveals that regime change in Syria was the primary objective in a masterplan that goes as far back as the Libyan Civil War … just as much as regime-change was the overt objective in Iraq.
The fact that things were not turning out so well in the Iraqi-ISIS incubator meant that the US had to make its efforts in Syria look more about ISIS than about regime change. Even George Bush needed support for his regime-change goal in Iraq, which he found in the notion that he war in Iraq was largely about fighting al Qaeda in Iraq and getting rid of enriched uranium and weapons of mass destruction, not just about liberating the people from a dictator. He could never have sold regime-change as his primary goal, though it was.
This explains why US efforts against ISIS have appeared ineffective. The US has an ulterior motive that is at odds with destroying ISIS. ISIS is useful to the US for the time being because ISIS wants to destroy Bashar Assad as badly as the US does, though with a completely different intended outcome, which is that ISIS rules the Middle East.
The US appears to be running a strategy that is willing to use ISIS where it can to be successful in deposing Assad, but clearly the US does not want to strengthen ISIS to where it becomes the eventual new regime. That final result would completely counter Hillary’s rosy goals of a transformed Middle East that becomes a region that is friendly to the US and safer for Israel.
It’s hard to justify a war directly against Assad, but if ISIS does it, it is completely easy later on to justify a war against ISIS. The US just has to make sure ISIS doesn’t get the upper hand against all of the rest of Assad’s opponents so that they wind up being the ones to fill the power vacuum when Assad is deposed.
That conflict of interests explains why Russia has repeatedly ridiculed the US for being unable to separate the “moderate rebels” it seeks to back (in their attack against Assad) from terrorist groups (like ISIS and al Qaeda) that are also attacking Assad. Operating with mixed motives makes Obama appear inept compared to Putin, whose two motives of protecting Assad and killing ISIS are not in conflict with each other.
While Hillary’s goals might seem (to some) to be worth the means she is taking to get there, these regime changes never turn out that rosy. As shown in the first article of this series, this strategy has already cost the US its nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia and has put the US on the edge of a hot war with Russia. Allowing ISIS to have as much victory against Assad as the US feels is safe in order to try to keep the United States’ hands clean of directly overthrowing Assad is a dangerous strategy. Empowering the enemy of our enemy to fight a war has usually backfired on the US. I find it hard to think of a situation where that strategy hasn’t gone bad for the US and everyone else or where nation-building has worked out well in the last fifty years.
The US would be a safer place and the world a better place if the US stopped trying to reform the world in its image — a grand globalist goal it scarcely can afford any longer.

 

 

EU Panic Grows As Quitaly Fears Spread



Quitaly? Will Italy follow Britain out of the EU?


With a referendum in Italy, ostensibly on constitutional reforms but perceived as a referendum on the leadership of the ruling elite, looming in November and the anti - globalisation,  pro sovereignty Five Star Party growing in popularity all the time, their latest boost coming earlier this week when Mayor of Rome Virginia Raggi binned the previous city authority's proposed bid to host the 2024 Olympics, saying that solving everyday problems such as garbage disposal and homelessness must take priority over vanity projects. 

Should the constitutional changes be voted down, and the against campaign is showing a comfortable lead in opinion polls at the moment, it will put a Quitaly in-out referendum, similar to the so called Brexit vote that kick off the process of Britain leaving the European Union, at the top of the agenda. 

This blog, along with many other commentators, including mainstream media publications have predicted since the creation of the single currency system which in 2001 saw seventeen member of the 28 member Union adopt the Euro as their common currency EU. Until the last five years however, all the talk in the EU's Brussels headquarters and the European Parliament in Strasbourg was of closer economic and political integration. So what's changed you might well ask. What is it that has turned things around and made the unthinkable into the inevitable?
 
The European Union has evolved, or devolved to be accurate, from a simple a free trade pact among a few countries to a giant, dysfunctional, overreaching bureaucracy. I say 'devolved' because as a free trade club, the European Economic Community seemed a benign and positive thing. The truth is from the start, from its inception as the Common Market, the EU was intended to eventually become a single, federal superstate based on the ideas of Adolf Hitler's Nazis and a few other deeply unpleasant global view thinkers.

Free trade is an excellent idea of course. However, you don't need to legislate or regulate free trade, that’s almost a contradiction in terms. A free trade pact between different governments is unnecessary for free trade. An individual country interested in prosperity and freedom only needs to eliminate all import and export duties, all import and export quotas, and all subsidies be they for boosting exports or protecting domestic industry. When a country has duties or quotas or uses subsidies as a form of protectionism, it is not interested in free trade, only in boosting its own economy at the expense of others. Businesses should trade with whoever they want for their own advantage.

The Eurocrats, unelected bureaucrats who first inflitrated the management structure of the EU (we will refer to 'the EU' rather than using the various designations that have been used over the life of the organisation. , instead, created a trade treaty the size of the Tokyo  telephone book, regulating everything to the most minute detail. The problem with the European Union is the ruling bureaucrats claim it is about free trade, but really it’s about somebody’s arbitrary idea of “fair trade,” which amounts to regulating everything. In addition and constraining member states to trade only with those nations that comply with the labyrinthine rules and regulations dictated by Brussels bureaucrats. Brussels has become another highly stratified bureaucracy on top of all the national layers local layers for of bureaucracy the average European business to deal with.
The European Union in Brussels is composed of a class of bureaucrats that are extremely well paid, have tremendous benefits, and have their own self-referencing little culture. They’re exactly the same kind of people that live within the Washington, D.C. beltway, London's Westminster Village and in the United Nations Plaza in New York. They believe in the infallibility of 'experts', the omnicience of managerialism and the supremacy of statistics.

The EU was built upon a foundation of sand, a belief that statistics and psychology could manipulate people into cultural conformity and social regimentation. Global view thinkers, such as eugenics advocate Richard Coudenhove - Kalergi believe the lower strata of society, the masses, were not capable of thinking for themselves. Thus the 'European Project doomed to failure from the very start, the idea that all would become subservient to collectivist ideology was idiotic because the Swedes and the Sicilians are as different from each other as the Poles and the Irish. There are linguistic, religious, and cultural differences, and big differences in the standard of living and shared aspirations. 

Artificial political constructs can never last because they must marginalise the masses. The EU is great for the “elites” in Brussels, but has restricted the freedoms of average citizens, most visibly in recent years, in the cause of accommodating huge numbers of unskilled, uneducated and culturally inflexible third world immigrants who demand their host nation changes to assimilate their cultural and social mores.

Meanwhile internal pressures are acting to drive member states apart politically. Tying the currency used by the weakest economies of the Union to the German industrial powerhouse was a folly as great as pitting a donkey against a thoroughbred racehorse in a race. In Spain, the Basques and the Catalans, angry at the way their regional and ethnic cultures have been eroded by E U rules want to split off, in the UK, the Scots want to make the United Kingdom quite a bit less united, and in Quitaly there has been talk of the indistrialised northern states separating from the agrarian south. It is necessary remember that before Garibaldi created the modern nation, Italy a geographical area comprising scores of city states, dukedoms and principalities, all speakin local dialect variations of the Italian language. The same was true of Germany only united by Bismarck in 187O.

Citizens of Venice voted by a large majority to separate from Italy a couple of years ago. In the South Tyrol region, where 70% of the people speak German, a strong independence movement as sprung up. There are separatist movements in Corsica and a half dozen other departments in France. Even in Belgium, the home of the EU, the chances are that French speaking Wallonia and Flemish Flanders will separate sooner rather than later.

The chances are better in the future that the remaining countries in Europe are going to fall apart as opposed to being compressed together artificially by the often touted policy of 'ever closer integration' proposed by its accredited founder Jean monnet, and the aforementioned Coudenhove - Kalergi.

And as globalists like to describe themselves as liberal and progressive, from a philosophical point of view, the target should not be a single world government which only benefits the “elite” but many small individual governments of culturally, economically and socially coherent mini - states. That would be much more in line with the classical liberal principles of individual freedom personal development that an all powerful, hierarchic bureaucracy forcing conformity and social engineering on people.

Brexit will be the pebble that starts the avalanche, other countries will begin to move towards leaving the EU. Italy looks like being the next at the moment. All of the Italian banks are truly and totally bankrupt at this point and while Italian banks were never the most stable, the current situation is due entirely to the national enconomy being tied to the Euro. The only possible way to save Italy is to get rid of the euro and leave the EU.




RELATED POSTS:

If You Look At How Fast Global Trade Is Unravelling, You'll Get Dizzy

Governments constantly make positive noises about the health of their economies although most people who are in work have felt no improvement on the position they were in after the crash of 2008. Wages are stangnant, employment has reduced somewhat (see below) and while the banks are printing money and the super rich are widening the gap between themselves and ordinary people faster than ever, the real situation is frightening.



Democracy Murdered In France


I'm hearing very disturbing news from the French regional elections, predicting that the Front National, comfortable winners in last week's first round of regional elections, hasve been routed in all regions. For that to happen, and to happen through a massive increase in turnout, suggests electoral fraud on a hughe scale. Or has France joined Britain in adopting the Islamic version of democracy, which is one man one vote, one Imam one thousand votes.


Who Runs America, The White House Or The Shadow Government?

Reports of President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit over the weekend do not look right in the context of yet another blitz of provocative rhetoric from The Pentagon and the Department of Defence towards Moscow. In view of the USA's constant push towards all out war with Russia, one has to ask who is in control: Obama or the generals?


Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral

Donald Trump is portrayed as a clown by mainstream media and his combover is the silliest I have ever seen. Still, he's a billionaie so I don't suppose he gives a flying fuck what The Daily Stirrer thinks of him. Not that we think he is all bad, anyone who attacks Obama's global naziism trade deals, TTIP and TPP mush have some good points.


How Mainstream Media And The Major Political Parties Are Making Sure Voters Do not Hear The Voices Of Politics' Most Powerful Critics

As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and loss of national sovereignty.


US Presidents Of The Past warned Against Secret, Shadow Government.
By now it should be obvious that peacemake, joybringer and putative aquatic pedestrian Barack Hussein Obama was never really in charge of the US Government. Whatever Obama said would happen, all the American government's policies ensured the opposit would happen. The embedded article thows some light on how the US government really works


The American Political System Is "Not A Democracy Or Constitutional Republic" - Thiel
The state of democracy in the USA has become a hot topic of conversation in American business circles in recent years. While President Barack Hussein Obama, not so much a man as an ego on long skinny legs, has increasingly been inclined to rule by executive order in the manner of a despot or tyrant, even Obama's fiercest critics have to admit the American electoral system seems increasingly capable of delivering only political paralysis ...



Multi-Cultural England: Are You Feeling The Progressive Diversity.

As racial and sectarian tension increase on the streets of britain while politicians gear up for the election campaign, we take a look at the state of Britain today, Imigrant child abuse gangs, Clerics of alient faiths dictating moral strictures, and everywhere we look, foreigners being given provieged status. Is it any wonder the voters are angry?


Even The BIS Is Shocked At How Broken Markets Have Become.

If the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) the bank where banks and governments do business is worried about the state of the markets, we are in bigger trouble than anyone is letting on.


What Would George Orwell Think Of The Screeching Left's Horror At Plans To Shrink The State.
In part one of his classic social commentary, The Road To Wigan Pier, George Orwell wrote of the grinding poverty and appalling living conditions endured by people in industrial areas. The second part, which is more revevant to the 21st Century is a rant against the superiority of the upper class 'Fabian' socialists who have hijacked the Labour movement and whose Paternal Liberalism is in almost all ways more repugnant that the uncaring attitude of the old elite.



France’s President Hollande Says 'Non' To Obama’s Demand for Corporate Global Oligarchy

The embattled French President has become the first national leader to state categorically his country will not sign the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership being pushed by the USA's Obama Administration. Hollande's government is already the most unporular France has ever had and the President know to give away French sovereignty to US Corporate businesses would be political suicide.




Brexit: Britain and Europe
Labour MP Kate Hoey makes case for Brexit
Brexit: Killing of pro - EU MP a hoax?
Brexit: Why does Sturgeon think Scotland can dictate to the rest of Britain
Brexit: Case for remain was based on snobbery
Bexit vote: harninger of death for the era of experts
Brexit: Soros bets on REMAIN, against Deutsche Bank

New World Order

Living With The Conspiracy


Well We Have Been Warning You: European SUPERSTATE plan unveiled: EU nations 'to be merged into one' post-Brexit
Whining Brexit 'REMAIN' Supporters Too Dumb To Know They Were Duped Into Supporting Megarich Capitalists
BREXIT vs. GREXIT – The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members
EU Membership Vote in UK to Paralyze Decision Making
Greece's route out of Europe
Greece Drowns In Debt: ECB Plans For Grexit - Its SHTF Time
NEIN! Germany's Bild Comdemns Latest Greek Can Kicking Exercise
People Are Waking Up To The Fact That The European Union Is On The Fast Track To Fascism
Top Derivatives Analyst Warns The Controllers Are Ready to SHUT DOWN The Financial System
China and Russia Challenge US Dominated IMF
False Economy
Debt: The Developed World Has Lost Touch With Economic Reality
Believe The Phoney Narrative Or Be Branded a Conspiracy Theorist
The True Debt Disaster America Faces - Only A Fraction Of Government Debt Is Known To The Public


Eurozone To Fail? George Soros Bets €100m AGAINST Deutsche Bank
BREXIT vs. GREXIT รข€“ The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members

Well We Have Been Warning You: European SUPERSTATE plan unveiled: EU nations 'to be merged into one' post-Brexit



Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]