Tag: George W. Bush

About George W. Bush

Subscribe Feeds

Op 20 maart 2003 startte Bush de bloedige illegale oorlog tegen Irak, waar de NSA een grote rol in speelde……. Ook daarom nee tegen de sleepwet!

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Gisteren
was het 15 jaar geleden dat de psychopathisch gewelddadige dombo George W. Bush
een illegale oorlog tegen Irak begon, een oorlog die in feite nog
steeds voortduurt….. Ook daarom is Irak allesbehalve veilig, zoals ons ministerie
van Buitenlandse Zaken durft te beweren………..

Deze
oorlog heeft intussen aan meer dan 1,5 miljoen Irakezen het leven gekost
en nog steeds vallen er doden als gevolg van die grootschalige
terreurdaad van de VS (met hulp van een aantal westerse landen waaronder Nederland….)…….

In
de volgende video van Brasscheck TV wordt de NSA aangeduid
als mede verantwoordelijke, die naast o.a Bush en Cheney op
de achtergrond een grote rol speelde. 

De NSA heeft in 2003 de 6 landen* die in de VN tegen de inval van de VS in Irak waren, onder druk proberen te zetten, door te zoeken naar zaken waarmee men deze landen kon chanteren. Katharina Gun, een vertaler van het Britse geheime dienst agentschap Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), heeft deze zaak in 2003 gelekt naar de media……

Een en ander heeft ook te maken met de wil van de NSA om alle digitale data te verzamelen en iedereen tot onderwerp van onderzoek te kunnen maken. Groot voorstander daarvan is de democratische senator voor Californië, ‘sneaky’ Dianne Feinstein, terwijl ze wordt betaald door een groot deel van de bedrijven die deel uitmaken van het militair-industrieel complex (zoals Boeing)….. Dit complex houdt zich ook bezig met de afbraak van de privacy middels het verzamelen van data, computer inbraak bij verdachten en het tappen van telefoons. Deze verzameling van data is dan ook tot een hele industrie verworden……..

Zie de volgende video (10 minuten), een gesprek van presentator Ed Schultz met George Zornick, een deskundige op deze gebieden. Hij stelt dan ook dat de geheime diensten niet meer bevoegdheden nodig hebben om hun werk goed te kunnen doen. Daar is dan ook weinig fantasie voor nodig, gezien het feit dat daders van aanslagen telkens weer bekend bleken te zijn bij de verschillende geheime diensten in de landen waar deze aanslagen plaats vonden, sterker nog: men volgde deze figuren zelfs….. 

Vandaar ook nogmaals: stem vandaag ajb tegen de sleepwet, waarmee niet alleen het laatste restje van ons recht op privacy wordt afgebroken, maar tevens de democratie (onze-) een grote klap wordt toegebracht!

Hier de tekst op Brasscheck TV bij de video en de video zelf:

Yesterday
was the day the US invaded Iraq 15 years ago.

Trillions
wasted, thousands of Americans killed and wounded, millions of Iraqis
killed, injured and impoverished.

Guess
who was responsible?

Cheney
and Bush for sure and one shadowy group that never got exposed
–
until now.


The
NSA Lied Us Into Iraq

THE STORY YOU NEVER
HEARD

Government
corruption, The
Iraq War, The
Surveillance State

PRODUCED
BY RINGOFFIRERADIO.COM

How
did this “little” point get lost in the NSA story?

The
NSA’s JOB is to spy on the communications of our enemies, not to
listen to and record your phone calls.

Here’s
a case where they not only got it massively wrong, it also looks like
they remained silent while their “evidence” was used to drive the
US into a ruinous war.

Did
they present false information to the Bush criminals or did they
merely sit back and do nothing when that evidence was grossly
misrepresented.

It
hardly matters, does it. Massively wrong in either case.

======================================

* Kleinere landen, dus buiten China en Rusland.

Shock & Awe: 15 jaar geleden begon de (illegale) oorlog tegen Irak, dezelfde weg wordt weer gevolgd door de VS (en de massamedia)……..

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

15 jaar
geleden begon de regering van George W. Bush de oorlog tegen Irak.
Geheel op leugens gebaseerd was dit de aanzet tot een illegale oorlog
die intussen aan meer dan 1,5 miljoen burgers het leven heeft gekost.

Deze
oorlog was niet mogelijk geweest, als de reguliere (massa-) media
niet de leugens van de Bush administratie hadden overgenomen en dat op de
voorpagina’s en prominent in nieuws en actualiteiten uitzendingen, of dat nu op de
radio of tv was. De term ‘fake news’ bestond destijds nog niet, maar
werd wel degelijk op grote schaal gemaakt door de hiervoor genoemde
media. Vergeet niet dat meerdere deskundigen en wapeninspecteurs van
de VN, zoals Blix, keer op keer stelden dat Irak niet meer in het
bezit was van massavernietigingswapens…….

Het
volgende artikel gaat Ron Paul dieper in op alle gevolgen van
deze illegale oorlog die de VS 15 jaar geleden begon. Voorts noemt
hij het huidige tromgeroffel o.l.v. De VS tegen Noord-Korea, waar
senator Graham een paar dagen geleden stelde dat een paar miljoen
doden geen probleem zijn, als met een oorlog tegen dit land ‘stabiliteit’ in de regio wordt bereikt………..

Jammer
dat Paul niet alle andere oorlogsdreigingen van VS en NAVO zijde noemt, zoals een dreigende oorlog tegen Syrië, Iran en Libanon (deze o.l.v. Israël met steun van de VS), waar
nog Oekraïne aan toegevoegd kan worden, daar de VS daar niet alleen
meer ‘militaire adviseurs’, maar ook zware wapens levert aan dit intussen zo
goed als failliete land. Dit nog buiten alle militaire oefeningen
langs de Russische grens, waar de VS in feite oefent op een oorlog
tegen Rusland……. 

Hetzelfde geldt voor China, waar de VS dit land voor een groot deel heeft omringd met militaire bases en waar de Trump administratie dit land meer en meer met militair geweld bedreigt (zoals over de eilandjes die China claimt in de Zuid-Chinese Zee…)…….

Ron
Paul: 15 Years After the US Invaded Iraq, It’s Time to Listen to
the Iraqi People

March
5, 2018 at 1:04 pm

Written
by Ron
Paul

(RPI Op-ed) — This
month marks the 15th anniversary of the US war on Iraq. The “shock
and awe” attack was launched based on “stove-piped”
intelligence fed from the CIA and Pentagon through an uncritical and
compliant US mainstream media. The US media was a willing accomplice
to this crime of aggression committed by the George W. Bush
Administration.

Despite
the lies we were constantly bombarded with, Iraq never presented a
threat to the United States. Iraq never had the weapons of mass
destruction that the neocons used to frighten Americans into
supporting the war. How many of them knew all along that there were
no WMDs? We’ll never know. Attacking Iraq and overthrowing its
leader was long a plan in the neocon playbook and they used the 9/11
attack on the US as an excuse to pull the plan off the shelf and put
it into action.

The
US “regime change” war on Iraq has directly resulted in the death
of at least a quarter of a million civilians, and indirectly perhaps
a million Iraqis have been killed. The Iraqi infrastructure was
destroyed and the country was set back many decades in development.
Far from the democratization we were promised, Iraq has been turned
into a hell on earth. Due to the US use of depleted uranium and other
chemical weapons like white phosphorus, Iraqis will continue to
suffer from birth defects and other related illnesses for
generations.

How
did we get there? War propaganda was essential in paving the way for
the Iraq war. Americans are generally skeptical about launching new
wars, so it takes a steady media bombardment about the alleged
depravities of any targeted regime before public opinion begins to
shift in favor of war.

Because
the neocons who helped launch the war have never had to face the
consequences of their actions, they continue to promote war with
impunity. Just this past week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was pushing
for a US attack on North Korea in which millions may be killed. He
said this weekend, “All the damage that would come from a war would
be worth it in terms of long-term stability and national security.”
That’s just what they said before the US attacked Iraq, and how did
that turn out? I find it disgusting that the media continues to give
airtime almost exclusively to those who promote more US disasters
like Iraq.

The
Iraqi parliament did something extraordinary last week. A majority of
elected Iraqi representatives voted to demand that their prime
minister draw up a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from the
country. President Obama had withdrawn US troops from Iraq in 2011,
after a status of forces agreement could not be reached with the
Iraqi government, but he returned the US military to Iraq under the
auspices of fighting ISIS.

We
had no business going into Iraq in the first place and we have no
business remaining in Iraq. Al-Qaeda and ISIS emerged in Iraq because
our attack and occupation of the country 15 years ago created fertile
fields for extremism. Nothing will be achieved if we remain. Let’s
listen to the Iraqis and just come home!

Op-ed
by Ron
Paul /
Republished with permission / RPI / Report
a typo

VS: oud-geheime dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen waarschuwen Trump en de wereld voor een oorlog met Iran……..

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Oud-geheime
dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen hebben een memorandum
voor president beest Trump geschreven, met de waarschuwing geen
oorlog met Iran te beginnen, dit daar ze de tekenen daartoe
zien…… Zoals ze ook president George W Bush (nog zo’n gevaarlijke
malloot, dat geldt overigens ook voor Obama de gespletene)
waarschuwden geen oorlog te beginnen met Irak in de 6 weken voordat
de VS illegaal, een op leugens gebaseerde oorlog begon tegen dat
land…….

We
weten wat van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak heeft gebracht: meer dan 1,5
miljoen vermoorde Irakezen en een land dat in chaos is gedompeld en
in puin ligt (reken maar niet, met IS in het defensief, dat de
ellende voor de bevolking daar voorbij is…..)

Een
en ander is ook ingegeven door het bezoek dat de Israëlische Palestijnenslachter Netanyahu volgende week
aan de VS zal brengen, deze psychopathische moordenaar ‘is gewond
geraakt’ door met bewijs onderbouwde zware beschuldigingen van corruptie……* En als bij
gewonde roofdieren moet je dan extra oppassen, immers een oorlog met
Iran zou Netanyahu nu wel uitermate goed uitkomen…….

Uiteraard zal de VS komen met een zogenaamd bewijs waarop het ‘niet anders kan’ dan Iran aanvallen, ofwel een ‘false flag’ operatie, zoals de VS die door haar bloedige geschiedenis heen heeft gebruikt voor het uitoefenen van ongebreidelde agressie, of beter gezegd: grootschalige terreur………..

Lees het volgende uitstekende memorandum en oordeel zelf:

Intelligence
Veterans Warn of Growing Risk for War With Iran Based on False
Pretexts

February
26, 2018 at 9:05 am

Written
by Anti-Media
News Desk

(CN) — As
President Donald Trump prepares to host Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu next week, a group of U.S. intelligence
veterans offers corrections to a number of false accusations
that have been leveled against Iran.

MEMORANDUM
FOR: 
The President

FROM: 
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT:  War
With Iran

INTRODUCTION

In
our December
21st Memorandum to you,
we cautioned that the claim that Iran is currently the world’s top
sponsor of terrorism is unsupported by hard evidence. Meanwhile,
other false accusations against Iran have intensified. Thus, we feel
obliged to alert you to the virtually inevitable consequences of war
with Iran, just as we warned President George W. Bush six weeks
before the U.S. attack on Iraq 15 years ago.

In our
first Memorandum in this genre we
told then-President Bush that we saw “no compelling reason” to
attack Iraq, and warned “the unintended consequences are likely to
be catastrophic.” The consequences will be far worse, should
the U.S. become drawn into war with Iran. We fear that you are
not getting the straight story on this from your intelligence and
national security officials.

After
choosing “War With Iran” for the subject-line of this Memo, we
were reminded that we had used it before, namely, for a
Memorandum to President Obama on August 3, 2010 in
similar circumstances. You may wish to ask your staff to give you
that one to read and ponder. It included a startling quote from
then-Chairman of President Bush Jr.’s Intelligence Advisory Board
(and former national security adviser to Bush Sr.) Gen. Brent
Scowcroft, who told the Financial
Times on
October 14, 2004 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George
W. Bush “mesmerized;” that “Sharon just has him wrapped around
his little finger.”  We wanted to remind you of that history,
as you prepare to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next
week.

*  
*   *

Rhetoric
vs. Reality

We
believe that the recent reporting regarding possible conflict with
nuclear-armed North Korea has somewhat obscured consideration of the
significantly higher probability that Israel or even Saudi Arabia
will take steps that will lead to a war with Iran that will
inevitably draw the United States in. Israel is particularly inclined
to move aggressively, with potentially serious consequences for the
U.S., in the wake of the recent incident involving an alleged Iranian
drone and the shooting down of an Israeli aircraft.

There
is also considerable anti-Iran rhetoric in U.S. media, which might
well facilitate a transition from a cold war-type situation to a hot
war involving U.S. forces. We have for some time been observing with
some concern the growing hostility towards Iran coming out of
Washington and from the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is warning that the “time
to act is now” to thwart Iran’s aggressive regional ambitions
while U.S. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley sees a “wake-up”
call in the recent shooting incident involving Syria and Israel.
Particular concern has been expressed by the White House that Iran is
exploiting Shi’a minorities in neighboring Sunni dominated states
to create unrest and is also expanding its role in neighboring Iraq
and Syria.

While
we share concerns over the Iranian government’s intentions
vis-à-vis its neighbors, we do not believe that the developments in
the region, many of which came about through American missteps, have
a major impact on vital U.S. national interests. Nor is Iran, which
often sees itself as acting defensively against surrounding Sunni
states, anything like an existential threat to the United States that
would mandate the sustained military action that would inevitably
result if Iran is attacked.

Iran’s
alleged desire to stitch together a sphere of influence consisting of
an arc of allied nations and proxy forces running from its western
borders to the Mediterranean Sea has been frequently cited as
justification for a more assertive policy against Tehran, but we
believe this concern to be greatly exaggerated. Iran, with a
population of more than 80 million, is, to be sure, a major regional
power but militarily, economically and politically it is highly
vulnerable.

Limited
Military Capability

Tehran’s
Revolutionary Guard is well armed and trained, but much of its “boots
on the ground” army consists of militiamen of variable quality. Its
Air Force is a “shadow” of what existed under the Shah and
is significantly outgunned by its rivals in the Persian Gulf, not to
mention Israel. Its navy is only “green water” capable in that it
consists largely of smaller vessels responsible for coastal defense
supplemented by the swarming of Revolutionary Guard small speedboats.

When
Napoleon had conquered much of continental Europe and was
contemplating invading Britain it was widely believed that England
was helpless before him. British Admiral Earl St Vincent was
unperturbed: “I do not say the French can’t come, I only say they
can’t come by sea.” We likewise believe that Iran’s apparent
threat is in reality decisively limited by its inability to project
power across the water or through the air against neighboring states
that have marked superiority in both respects.

The
concern over a possibly developing “Shi’ite land bridge,” also
referred to as an “arc” or “crescent,” is likewise
overstated. It ignores the reality that Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all
have strong national identities and religiously mixed populations.
They are influenced — some of them strongly — by Iran but they
are not puppet states. And there is also an ethnic division that the
neighboring states’ populations are very conscious of– they are
Arabs and Iran is Persian, which is also true of the Shi’a
populations in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

Majority
Shi’a Iraq, for example, is now very friendly to Iran but it has to
deal with considerable Kurdish and Sunni minorities in its governance
and in the direction of its foreign policy. It will not do Iran’s
bidding on a number of key issues, including Baghdad’s relationship
with Washington, and would be unwilling to become a proxy in Tehran’s
conflicts with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iraqi Vice President Osama
al-Nujaifi, the highest-ranking Sunni in the Prime Minister Haider
al-Abadi government, has, for example, recently called for the
demobilization of the Shi’ite Popular Mobilization Forces or
militias that have been fighting ISIS because they “have their own
political aspirations, their own [political] agendas. … They are
very dangerous to the future of Iraq.”

Nuclear
Weapons Thwarted

A
major concern that has undergirded much of the perception of an
Iranian threat is the possibility that Tehran will develop a nuclear
weapon somewhere down the road. We believe that the current Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, even if imperfect, provides the best
response to that Iranian proliferation problem. The U.N. inspections
regime is strict and, if the agreement stands, there is every reason
to believe that Iran will be unable to take the necessary precursor
steps leading to a nuclear weapons program. Iran will be further
limited in its options after the agreement expires in nine years.
Experts believe that, at that point, Iran its not likely to choose to
accumulate the necessary highly enriched uranium stocks to proceed.

The
recent incident involving the shoot-down of a drone alleged to be
Iranian, followed by the downing of an Israeli fighter by a Syrian
air defense missile, resulted in a sharp response from Tel Aviv,
though reportedly mitigated by a warning from Russian President
Vladimir Putin that anything more provocative might inadvertently
involve Russia in the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is said to have moderated his response but his government
is clearly contemplating a more robust intervention to counter what
he describes as a developing Iranian presence in Syria.

In
addition, Netanyahu may be indicted on corruption charges, and it is
conceivable that he might welcome a “small war” to deflect
attention from mounting political problems at home.

Getting
Snookered Into War

We
believe that the mounting Iran hysteria evident in the U.S. media and
reflected in Beltway groupthink has largely been generated by Saudi
Arabia and Israel, who nurture their own aspirations for regional
political and military supremacy. There are no actual American vital
interests at stake and it is past time to pause and take a step
backwards to consider what those interests actually are in a region
that has seen nothing but disaster since 2003. Countering an assumed
Iranian threat that is minimal and triggering a war would be
catastrophic and would exacerbate instability, likely leading to a
breakdown in the current political alignment of the entire Middle
East. It would be costly for the United States.

Iran
is not militarily formidable, but its ability to fight on the
defensive against U.S. naval and air forces is considerable and can
cause high casualties. There appears to be a perception in the
Defense

Department
that Iran could be defeated in a matter of days, but we would warn
that such predictions tend to be based on overly optimistic
projections, witness the outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In
addition, Tehran would be able again to unleash terrorist resources
throughout the region, endangering U.S. military and diplomats based
there as well as American travelers and businesses. The terrorist
threat might easily extend beyond the Middle East into Europe and
also the United States, while the dollar costs of a major new
conflict and its aftermath could break the bank, literally.

Another
major consideration before ratcheting up hostilities should be that a
war with Iran might not be containable. As the warning from President
Vladimir Putin to Netanyahu made clear, other major powers have
interests in what goes on in the Persian Gulf, and there is a real
danger that a regional war could have global consequences.

In
sum, we see a growing risk that the U.S. will become drawn into
hostilities on pretexts fabricated by Israel and Saudi Arabia for
their actual common objective (“regime change” in Iran). A
confluence of factors and misconceptions about what is at stake and
how such a conflict is likely to develop, coming from both inside and
outside the Administration have, unfortunately, made such an outcome
increasingly likely.

We
have seen this picture before, just 15 years ago in Iraq, which
should serve as a warning. The prevailing perception of threat
that the Mullahs of Iran allegedly pose directly against the security
of the U.S. is largely contrived. Even if all the allegations were
true, they would not justify an Iraq-style “preventive war”
violating national as well as international law. An ill-considered
U.S. intervention in Iran is surely not worth the horrific
humanitarian, military, economic, and political cost to be paid if
Washington allows itself to become part of an armed attack.

FOR
THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY

William
Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical &
Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence
Automation Research Center (ret.)

Kathleen
Christison, CIA, Senior Analyst on Middle East (ret.)

Graham
E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Philip
Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew
Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
(associate VIPS)

Larry
C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer

Michael
S. Kearns, Captain, USAF; ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
(ret.)

John
Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer; resigned Feb. 27, 2003 as
Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Athens, in protest against the
U.S. attack on Iraq (ret.)

John
Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior
investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Edward
Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals
Processing (ret.)

David
MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, National Intelligence
Estimates Officer (ret.)

Ray
McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA
analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)

Elizabeth
Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East (ret.)

Todd
E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Coleen
Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal
Counsel (ret.)

Greg
Thielmann, former Director of the Strategic, Proliferation, and
Military Affairs Office, State

Department
Bureau of Intelligence & Research (INR), and former senior
staffer on Senate Intelligence Committee (ret.)

Kirk
Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
ret.)

Lawrence
Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), former Chief of Staff for Secretary
of State; Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and
Mary (associate VIPS)

Sarah
G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)

Robert
Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)

Ann
Wright, Colonel, US Army (ret.); also Foreign Service Officer who,
like Political Counselor John Brady Kiesling, resigned in opposition
to the war on Iraq

Republished
with permission / Consortium
News / Report
a typo

===========================

* En misdadiger Netanyahu wordt nog serieus genomen ook door de reguliere westerse journalistiek en het grootste deel van de westerse politici…..

Zie ook: ‘Oost-Ghouta >> ‘gematigde rebellen’ schieten op vluchtende burgers, aldus VN……. Aandacht in Nederlandse media nul komma nada….‘ (waar me het nog meeviel dat deze media niet hebben gemeld dat Syrische troepen op de vluchtelingen schoten, zoals in Oost-Aleppo gebeurde, waarover je rustig kan zeggen dat dit een false flag operatie was)

       en: ‘VS agressie in Syrië voorzien van een vooropgezet plan…….‘

       en: ‘Oost-Ghouta: MSM leugens ofwel het zoveelste geval van ‘fake news’ lekt weg uit uit de massamedia‘

       en: ‘VS bezig met voorbereiding van een ‘door Syrië’ gepleegde gifgasaanval, ofwel de volgende VS false flag operatie‘

VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog……..

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Alsof we terug zijn in de tijd, de tijd voor de illegale aanval van de VS tegen Irak in 2003. Destijds werd er door Collin Powell (toenmalig VS minister van buitenlandse zaken) keihard gelogen in de VN, om een enorme oorlogsmisdaad van te voren recht te kunnen praten……. (een oorlog tegen een ander land voeren is een gigantische oorlogsmisdaad)

Ook nu wordt er door de VS ambassadeur voor de VN, hare kwaadaardigheid en superoplichter Haley, zonder blikken of blozen gelogen over ‘het gevaar Iran…….’

Lawrence Wilkerson was de stafchef van Colin Powell. Hij was dan ook één van de medeverantwoordelijken voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003…….

Dezelfde Wilkerson beschuldigt nu de Trump administratie van het manipuleren van ‘bewijsmateriaal’ en het angstzaaien voor Iran (waar Wilkerson vergeet haatzaaien te noemen, dit is immers een vast onderdeel in de leugencampagnes die de VS voert, haatzaaien tegen een tegenstander, neem de leugens over het vermoorden van couveuse baby’s in Koeweit door Iraakse militairen, voorafgaand aan de eerste illegale oorlog van de VS in 1991 tegen Irak….. In 2003 waren het de massavernietigingswapens die Irak zou hebben, terwijl de VN wapeninspecteur Blix meermaals stelde dat dit niet het geval was en dat was het dan ‘ook niet…..’

Of wat dacht je van de beschuldigingen aan het adres van Syrië voor het gebruiken van gifgas tegen de eigen bevolking, dit is nooit bewezen, sterker nog: wel werd bewezen dat elke gifgasaanval die werd onderzocht in Syrië, op de ‘doodsrekening’ staat van de ‘gematigde rebellen’, geteisem dat door het westen wordt gesteund…… Maakt allemaal niet uit: alsnog blijven de westerse reguliere (massa-) media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici deze leugens herhalen…… Dit zijn ‘false flag’ operaties, dus met opzet, zoals in dit geval, mensen gruwelijk vermoorden (of de poging daartoe) met gifgas en dit in de schoenen van een ander schuiven…..

De Trump administratie had zelfs het gore lef te stellen dat Iran samenwerkt met Al Qaida, terwijl Al Qaida elke sjiiet die het tegenkomt vermoord. Hetzelfde werd voor de oorlog tegen Irak gesteld, terwijl Al Qaida onder Saddam Hoessein geen poot aan de grond kreeg in Irak……. Intussen heeft de VS samengewerkt met Al Qaida Syrië en de tak van deze terreurgroep in Syrië zelfs van de zwarte terreurlijst heeft gehaald……

Ik snap werkelijk niet waarom de reguliere media hier geen aandacht aan hebben besteed en elke (zelfs bewezen) claim dat de VS samenwerkt met IS of Al Qaida afdoen als complotdenken…… Daar kan maar één reden voor zijn, de welgestelde bazen of investeringsgroepen die deze media in handen hebben en de regeringen (die middels subsidies voor de publieke omroepen hun zeggenschap kunnen afdwingen) tevreden houden, kortom: kwade opzet! (al zullen die media dit ook afdoen als een complottheorie…..)

Nog een ‘klein detail’ in deze: met het meegaan van de reguliere massamedia in het keihard liegen, brachten (in het geval van de twee VS oorlogen tegen Irak) en brengen de reguliere (massa-) media een ongelofelijke berg ‘fake news’ (‘nepnieuws…)…… Dezelfde media die nu om het hardst schreeuwen dat de sociale media vol staan met ‘fake news’ ofwel ‘nepnieuws’

Lees het prima artikel van Carey:

Man
Who Sold America the Iraq War Just Warned Iran Is Next, but Is Anyone
Listening?

February
6, 2018 at 12:45 pm

Written
by Carey
Wedler

(ANTIMEDIA) —
Fifteen
years after the calamitous U.S. invasion of Iraq, an architect of the
propaganda used to drum up support for the war is warning that it’s
happening again — this time with Iran.

Lawrence
Wilkerson, who was chief
of staff to
former Secretary of State Colin Powell, helped the then-secretary
“paint
a clear picture that war was the only choice”
in
his infamous 2003 speech to
the U.N. This week, writing for the New
York Times — an
outlet that, at the time, parroted misleading narratives in
support of the war — Wilkerson accused the Trump administration of
manipulating evidence and fear-mongering in the same way the Bush
administration did to cultivate public support for ousting Saddam
Hussein.

In
his Monday op-ed,
titled “ I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s
Happening Again,” he wrote:

“As
his chief of staff, I helped Secretary Powell paint a clear picture
that war
was the only choice,
that when ‘we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional
domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and
active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we
are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an
even more frightening future.’”

Though
the U.N. and much of the world didn’t buy it, Wilkerson says
Americans did, and it amounted to the culmination of a two-year
effort by the Bush administration to initiate the war, which he now
condemns

“That
effort led to a war of choice with Iraq — one that resulted in
catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led
coalition, and that destabilized the entire Middle East,”
he wrote, going on to call out the Trump administration for pushing
the United States down the same path in Iran.

“This
should not be forgotten,”
he urged, “since
the Trump administration is using much the same playbook to create a
false impression that war is the only way to address the threats
posed by Iran.”

Wilkerson
singled out Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,
for her recent saber-rattling against Iran. He accused her of
presenting questionable evidence that “Iran
was not complying with Security Council resolutions regarding its
ballistic missile program and Yemen,”
comparing her directly to Powell. “Just
like Mr. Powell, Ms. Haley showed satellite images and other physical
evidence available only to the United States intelligence community
to prove her case. But the evidence fell
significantly short.”

Wilkerson
accused Haley’s claims about Iran of essentially mirroring Powell’s
claims about Iraq, also warning that war with Iran will be very
different. It is “a country of almost 80 million people whose
vast strategic depth and difficult terrain make it a far greater
challenge than Iraq, would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq war
in terms of casualties and costs,” he cautioned, still
asserting that countries like China, Russia, and North Korea pose far
more “formidable challenges to America” than Iran does.

The
former chief of staff to Powell further criticized the Trump
administration, citing its National
Security Strategy,
which claims:

“The
longer we ignore threats from countries determined to proliferate and
develop weapons of mass destruction, the worse such threats become,
and the fewer defensive options we have.”

“The
Bush-Cheney team could not have said it better as it contemplated
invading Iraq,”
Wilkerson wrote, going on to call out not just Haley and the Trump
administration but also the executive branch in general, Congress,
and the media.

“Though
Ms. Haley’s presentation missed the mark, and no one other than the
national security elite will even read the strategy, it won’t
matter,”
he lamented. “We’ve
seen this before: a campaign built on the politicization
of intelligence and
shortsighted policy decisions to make the case for war. And the
American people have apparently become so accustomed to executive
branch warmongering — approved almost unanimously by the Congress —
that such actions are not significantly contested.”

He
implicated the news media, as well, noting that outlets recently
“failed to refute false narratives” from the Trump administration
that Iran worked with Al-Qaeda to undermine the U.S. (never forget
the CIA’s overseas meddling helped
lay the foundation for
Al-Qaeda in the first place, and its policy of arming extremists in
Syria also ended up empowering the
terror group). He compared this false conflation with Dick Cheney’s
attempts to link Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda during the Bush years.

Nevertheless,
Wilkerson wrote, “[t]oday, the
analysts claiming
close ties between Al Qaeda and Iran come from the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies,
which vehemently
opposes the
Iran nuclear deal and unabashedly calls for regime
change in
Iran.”

He
went on to list the variety of ways the Trump administration is
drumming up unfounded support for war against Iran:

“We
should include the president’s decertification ultimatum in January
that Congress must ‘fix’ the Iran nuclear deal, despite the
reality of Iran’s compliance;
the White House’s pressure
on the intelligence community to cook up evidence of
Iran’s noncompliance; and the administration’s choosing
to view the
recent protests in Iran as the beginning of regime change. Like the
Bush administration before, these seemingly disconnected events serve
to create a narrative in which war with Iran is the only viable
policy.”

Considering
Iran has long been
a crown
jewel in
the U.S. hegemonic efforts, it should be no surprise the Trump
administration isn’t budging on its plans to intervene. Wilkerson,
however, knows far better than most the dangers of pushing
unsubstantiated claims to advocate war.

He
warned:

“As
I look back at our lock-step march toward war with Iraq, I realize
that it didn’t seem to matter to us that we used shoddy or
cherry-picked intelligence; that it was unrealistic to argue that the
war would ‘pay for itself,’ rather than cost trillions of
dollars; that we might be hopelessly naïve in thinking that the war
would lead to democracy instead of pushing the region into a downward
spiral.”

Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

========================================

Zie ook: ‘Rex Tillerson (VS BuZA) geeft toe dat de VS een staatsgreep wil uitvoeren in Iran…….. Het is nog ‘iets te rustig’ in dat gebied……..‘

       en: ‘Lt. General McInerney says Obama helped build ISIS with Weapons from Benghazi‘

       en: ‘VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran……..‘

      en: ‘Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen…)….‘

       en: ‘Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël‘

       en: ‘Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen………‘

       en: ‘De VS gaf meer dan 1 miljoen dollar uit om protesten tegen Iraans bewind uit te buiten (en te organiseren)‘

       en: ‘Het verborgen motief achter de Israëlische agressie tegen Iran en Syrië‘

       en: ‘Netanyahu vergelijkt Iran met nazi-Duitsland en stelt dat Iran een bedreiging is voor de wereldvrede….. ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Washington uit op oorlog met Iran……‘

       en: ‘Oliemaatschappijen weigeren n.a.v. VS sancties de jet van Iraanse minister af te tanken‘

       en: ‘Israël bezig met voorbereiding op meerdere fronten oorlog…….. (met hulp van de VS‘

       en: ‘John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven…….‘

        en: ‘Saoedi-Arabië dreigt Iran aan te vallen voor vanuit Jemen afgevuurde ‘raketten’ op Saoedische ‘doelen……….’‘

       en: ‘VS rechter gelast Iran miljarden te betalen aan de families van 911 slachtoffers…..‘

       en: ‘Iran moet hangen en Iran-deal moet van tafel……. Israël speelt wolf in schaapskleren‘

       en: ‘Iran houdt zich aan de nucleaire deal dit in tegenstelling tot de VS……..‘

        en: ‘Israël laat er geen twijfel over bestaan: met het uit de Iran-deal stappen van de VS is definitief de oorlog verklaard aan Iran………‘

       en: ‘Netanyahu en Bolton stoken het vuur in het Midden-Oosten verder op: Iran moet en zal vallen…..‘

      en: ‘Trump beloofde geen extra oorlog in het Midden-Oosten >> toch heeft hij het pad vrijgemaakt voor oorlog tegen Iran……‘

      en: ‘VS ‘laat zien op vrede uit te zijn’ door dreiging Iran te vermorzelen……‘

      en: ‘Iran het volgende slachtoffer van ongebreidelde VS terreur‘

Trumps beleid t.a.v. kernwapens brengt de VS staatsveiligheid in gevaar (en die van de rest van de wereld)

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

In een bericht dat gisteren werd gepubliceerd op CounterPunch (gevonden via het blog van Stan van Houcke) heeft de schrijver John LaForge zware kritiek op de de houding van de Trump administratie t.a.v. kernwapens….. Dit n.a.v. een artikel op de Huffington Post, waarin werd geciteerd uit gelekte concept documenten over het beleid dat de Trump administratie voert ten aanzien van kernwapens en uiteen wordt gezet in de Nuclear Posture Review >> NPR (VS).

Deze NPR wordt vooral gebruikt om journalisten en studenten middels eufemistische termen het gevaar van nucleaire vernietiging te bagatelliseren………..

Vergeet niet dat de VS niet schroomt een (illegale) oorlog te beginnen, zo heeft de (recente) geschiedenis ons wel geleerd, de kans dat zo’n oorlog in de nabije toekomst zal beginnen met één of meerdere kernwapens van de VS is dan ook levensgroot, zeker als je de uitlating van Trump over kernwapens hoort, zoals de uitlating die hij zelfs drie keer herhaalde: “If we have them, why can’t we use them……?”

De VS is druk bezig met de ontwikkeling van kernwapens die op het slagveld en tegen steden ‘gebruikt kunnen worden’ en dat door een land dat als enige het atoomwapen twee keer heeft ingezet tegen burgers………

Lees het prima artikel van LaForge over deze zaak en huiver:

Trump’s
Draft Nuclear Posture Review Degrades National Security

by JOHN
LAFORGEJANUARY
25, 2018

On
Jan. 11, the Huffington Post posted a leaked draft of the Trump
Administration’s Nuclear
Posture Review,
the government’s most detailed unclassified nuclear weapons and war
planning and preparation document, the first since April 2010.

The
NPR is used to provide smart-sounding euphemism and theoretical
distraction to reporters and scholars who sometimes write about
nuclear weapons.  Since such weapons can only produce firestorms
and massacres that neither medics nor hospitals can begin to respond
to, the government uses cool, technical terminology to sell the
“need” and “usefulness” of the devices to tax payers.

Nuclear
Watch New Mexico* in Santa Fe keeps a critical eye on programs and
problems at the state’s two nuclear weapons design and production
laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia. In the following, Nuclear Watch
NM provides expert analysis of the latest official gibberish.

The
new Review begins with “[m]any hoped conditions had been set for
deep reductions in global nuclear arsenals, and, perhaps, for their
elimination. These aspirations have not been realized. America’s
strategic competitors have not followed our example. The world is
more dangerous, not less.” The Review then points to Russia and
China’s ongoing nuclear weapons modernization programs and North
Korea’s “nuclear provocations.” It concludes, “We must look
reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it be.”

If
the US government were to really “look reality in the eye and see
the world as it is,” it would recognize that it is failing
miserably to lead the world toward the abolition of the only class of
weapons that is a true existential threat to our country. As an
obvious historic matter, the US is the first and only country to use
nuclear weapons. Since WWII the US has threatened to use nuclear
weapons in the Korean and Viet Nam wars, and on many other occasions.

Further,
it is hypocritical to point to Russia and China’s “modernization”
programs as if they are taking place in a vacuum. The US has been
upgrading its nuclear arsenal all along. In the last few years our
country has embarked on a $1.7 trillion modernization program to
completely rebuild its nuclear weapons production complex and all
weapons based on land, in the air and at sea.

Moreover,
Russia and China’s modernization programs are driven in large part
by their perceived need to preserve strategic stability and
deterrence by having the ability to overwhelm the US’s growing
ballistic missile defenses. Ronald Reagan’s pursuit of “Star
Wars” (fed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s false
promises of success) blocked a nuclear weapons abolition agreement in
1988 with the former Soviet Union. In 2002, George W. Bush
unilaterally withdrew the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty),
which has been a source of constant friction with the Russian
government ever since.

More
recently, at Israel’s request, the US blocked the 2015
Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the UN from agreeing to
a conference on a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East (Israel
has never signed the treaty). As an overarching matter, the US and
other nuclear-armed treaty signatories have never honored the
Treaty’s Article VI mandate “to pursue negotiations in good faith
on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race
at an early date and to nuclear disarmament…,” in effect since
1970. As a consequence, last year more than 120 countries at the UN
passed a nuclear weapons ban treaty which the US vehemently
denounced, despite the fact that there have long been ban treaties on
chemical and biological weapons which the US has not only supported
but also sought to enforce.

With
respect to North Korea’s nuclear provocations, that regime is
clearly seeking deterrence against the US. North Korea’s
infrastructure was completely destroyed during the Korean War, and
its people later witnessed the destruction of the Iraqi and Libyan
regimes neither of which had nuclear weapons.

Finally,
the NPR purports to be about “deterrence” against hostile
threats. However, the US’s true nuclear posture has never been just
deterrence, but rather the ability to conduct nuclear attacks,
including pre-emptive first strikes. This is why the US (and Russia)
keep thousands of nuclear weapons instead of the few hundred the
other nuclear powers keep for just deterrence. Keeping and improving
the ability to use nuclear weapons is the underlying reason for the
$1.7 trillion “modernization” program (another euphemism) that is
actually developing new nuclear weapons, instead of maintaining a few
hundred, known to be “useful” for 50 years, while pursuing
nuclear disarmament.

Beyond
preserving and upgrading the enormous land, sea and air-based nuclear
arsenal, the new NPR calls for:

1)
Near-term development of a low-yield nuclear warhead for existing
Trident missiles launched from new submarines.

2)
New sub-launched nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

3)
Keeping the 1.2 megaton B83-1 nuclear gravity bomb “until a
suitable replacement is identified.” [Hiroshima times 80]

4)
“Provide the enduring capability and capacity to produce plutonium
‘pits’ [warhead cores] at a rate of no fewer than 80 pits per
year by 2030.”

5)
“Advancing the W78 warhead replacement to FY19… and investigating
the feasibility of fielding the nuclear explosives package in a Navy
flight vehicle.”

Obvious
problems with these five programs are:

1)
An adversary won’t know whether a Trident sub-launched nuclear
warhead is a new low-yield or an existing high-yield warhead. In any
event, any belief in a “limited’ nuclear war is a fallacy that
shouldn’t be tested. Once the nuclear threshold is crossed at any
level, it is crossed, and lower-yield nuclear weapons are all the
more dangerous for being potentially more usable.

2)
Sub-launched nuclear-armed cruise missiles are inherently
destabilizing as the proverbial “bolt out of the blue,” and can
be the perfect weapon for a nuclear first-strike. Moreover, this is
redundant to nuclear-armed cruise missiles that are already being
developed for heavy bombers.

3)
The National Nuclear Security Administration largely justified the
ongoing program to create the B61-12 (the world’s first “smart”
nuclear gravity bomb) by being a replacement for the 1.2 megaton
B83-1 bomb. Does this indicate doubts in the $13 billion B61-12
program? And will it lead to a bump up in the number of nuclear
weapons in the US’s arsenal?

4)
To date, the talk has been up to 80 pits per year, not “no fewer
than.” Also, the 2015 Defense Authorization Act required that the
capability to produce up to 80 pits per year be demonstrated by 2027.
The NPR’s later date of 2030 could be indicative of longstanding
plutonium pit production problems at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. That delay and hints of higher than 80 pits per year
could also point to the pit production mission being relocated at the
Savannah River Site, which is under active consideration. In any
event, future plutonium pit production pit production is not needed
for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile, but is instead for future
new-design nuclear weapons.

5)
“W78 warhead replacement… in a Navy flight vehicle” is code for
so-called Interoperable Warheads, whose planned three versions
together could cost around $50 billion. These are arguably huge make
work projects for the nuclear weapons labs (particularly Livermore),
which ironically the Navy doesn’t even want (Navy
memo,
Sept. 27, 2012). It is also the driving reason for unnecessary
future production of more than 80 pits per year.

Jay
Coghlan, Nuclear Watch’s Executive Director, concludes with a grim
prognosis:

“The
new NPR does not even begin to meet our long-term need to eliminate
the one class of weapons of mass destruction that can truly destroy
our country. It will instead set back arms control efforts and
further hollow out our country by diverting yet more huge sums of
money to the usual giant weapons contractors at the expense of public
health and education, environmental protection, natural disaster
recovery, etc. Under the Trump Administration and this NPR, expect
Medicare and social security to be attacked to help pay for a false
sense of military superiority.”

(*Nuclear
Watch New Mexico, 903 W Alameda St #325, Santa Fe, NM 87501)

========================

Zie ook: ‘Top VS generaal stelt dat er een grote oorlog met Rusland op komst is, ofwel: WOIII……‘

        en: ‘Trumps atoomknop is groter dan die van Kim Yung-un, bovendien werkt de VS knop wel……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘VN chef Guterrez geeft alarmcode rood af voor de wereld in 2018 en niet alleen vanwege het milieu of klimaat……‘

        en: ‘Trumps uitlating over de atoomknop en de onverschilligheid bij zijn achterban, een dictatuur waardig………‘

        en: ‘VS op weg naar daadwerkelijk gebruik van het kernwapen…………..‘ (plus twee andere Engelstalige artikelen)

        en: ‘VS sluit een nucleaire aanval niet uit als een mogelijke reactie op een ‘cyberaanval…….’‘

        en: ‘NAVO oefent op een nucleaire aanval tegen ‘een denkbeeldige vijand’, ofwel Rusland……….‘

       en: ‘Pompeo (CIA opperhoofd met koperen fluit): heeft alle aanwijzingen dat Rusland de midterm verkiezingen zal manipuleren……‘

Dan nog over het bedreigen van Noord-Korea door Trump met ‘Fire and Fury): ‘Noord-Korea verkeerd begrepen: het land wordt bedreigd door de VS, dat alleen deze eeuw al minstens 4 illegale oorlogen begon……..‘

En om nog even te herinneren aan de enorme agressie van de VS, die niet op een illegale oorlog meer of minder kijkt:  ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en:  ‘List of wars involving the United States‘    

Over de zogenaamde Russische dreiging: ‘NAVO uitbreiding in Oost-Europa is bewezen tegen gesloten overeenkomst met Rusland…….‘

VS: de enorme schande van de extreem lage minimumlonen……. Dit in een ‘land’ dat miljarden uitgeeft aan ‘defensie’ (illegale oorlogsvoering) en daarbij nog eens miljarden ‘kwijt’ raakt……

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Het
volgende artikel vond ik via Anti-Media, die me ‘linkte’ naar TheHill, echter het artikel van The Hill was niet over te
nemen, vandaar dit alternatief van de Huffington Post…….

Vanaf
1 januari jl. is het minimumloon in de VS verhoogt naar het schandalig lage federale
niveau van houd je vast: $ 7.25 per uur…….

Het
‘hoogste’ minimumloon verdient men sinds afgelopen maandag in de staat
Washington, met een bedrag van $ 11.50 per uur……….. Let wel, gezien de koers van de dollar het laatste jaar moet je daar voor omrekening naar euro’s nog eens rond de 20% van aftrekken, ofwel meer dan € 2,–…….

De VS,
het land van de ‘ongekende mogelijkheden’, althans voor de welgestelden en
ondernemers……..

Moet je
nagaan, het grootste deel van de republikeinen is zelfs tegen deze
armzalige loonsverhoging……. Wat een ploert moet je dan zijn, maar
op zondag zit dat inhumane geteisem uiteraard jubelend voor in de kerk….. 

Het is zelfs zo zot dat een aantal staten die republikeins worden bestuurd, wetten hebben aangenomen, waarin een verbod is opgenomen om op lokaal niveau de minimumlonen te verhogen, dit daar de bonden en arbeiders ‘iets teveel succes hadden’, met hun strijd voor een verhoging van het minimumloon….. Zo werd in St. Louis het minimumloon verlaagd van $ 10.– naar het federale minimumloon van $ 7.25 per uur (in het onderstaande artikel wordt daar gesproken over $ 7.70 per uur, echter dat moet zoals u eerder kon en zo kan lezen $ 7.25 zijn)…….

De VS? Wat een
land mensen, walgelijk!!

Minimum
Wage Raises Coming To 18 States On New Year’s Day

By
Dave
Jamieson

Some
hikes (loonsverhogingen, Ap)
are less than a quarter an hour. But when you’re making minimum
wage, every penny counts.

Minimum
wage workers in 18 states will get a pay hike next week when higher
wage floors go into effect around the country for 2018.

With
the federal minimum wage remaining just $7.25 per hour, more and more
states have opted to implement
their own, higher rates that
local employers must observe. Many of the bumps slated for New Year’s
Day come courtesy of recent ballot initiatives approved by voters or
bills passed by statehouses, in red and blue states alike.

Some
of those states have laws requiring that the minimum wage is adjusted
each year according to an inflation index, to rise with the cost of
living. So several of the raises amount to less than a quarter an
hour.

But
other states that recently enacted new laws will have more
significant increases. Maine’s will move a full dollar, to $10.
Hawaii’s will rise 85 cents, to $10.10. And Colorado’s will
increase 90 cents, to $10.20.

Here
are the states with new minimum wages, according to the Economic
Policy Institute, a think tank that tracks minimum wage legislation:

  • Alaska:
    $9.84, $.04 increase

  • Arizona:
    $10.50, $.50 increase

  • California:
    $11.00, $.50 increase

  • Colorado:
    $10.20, $.90 increase

  • Florida:
    $8.25, $.15 increase

  • Hawaii:
    $10.10, $.85 increase

  • Maine:
    $10.00, $1.00 increase

  • Michigan:
    $9.25, $.35 increase

  • Minnesota:
    $9.65, $.15 increase

  • Missouri:
    $7.85, $.15 increase

  • Montana:
    $8.30, $.15 increase

  • New
    Jersey: $8.60, $.16 increase

  • New
    York: $10.40, $.70 increase

  • Ohio:
    $8.30, $.15 increase

  • Rhode
    Island: $10.10, $.50 increase

  • South
    Dakota: $8.85, $.20 increase

  • Vermont:
    $10.50, $.50 increase

  • Washington:
    $11.50, $.50 increase

The
institute estimates that the raises will impact 4.5
million workers.
(For a map of the increases, go here.)

The
federal minimum wage hasn’t budged in more
than eight years and
prevails in any state that doesn’t mandate a higher one. The last
hike, in 2009, was the result of a series of increases signed into
law by President George W. Bush. President Barack
Obama stumped
for a minimum wage hike throughout his second term, but Republicans
in Congress blocked Democratic proposals from coming up for a vote.

Minimum
wage bumps tend to be popular with the general public, with support
often crossing partisan lines. A HuffPost
YouGov poll last
year found that more than half of all Americans thought a minimum
wage raise would be good for workers, while only a third thought it
would be a bad idea. The backing was greatest ― and most bipartisan
― for a modest hike to $10.10, as opposed to a bolder raise to $15.

Buoyed
by that support, labor unions and low-wage workers have succeeded in
getting raises passed on the state and local levels as the federal
rate has stayed stagnant. Voters have approved minimum wage
referendums even in more conservative states like Nebraska and South
Dakota. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now require a
higher minimum wage than the federal one.

Dozens
of cities and counties have also raised their minimum wages beyond
the state and federal levels. In some cases, the hikes have gone as
high as $15 per hour ― the stated goal of the Fight for $15
campaign, the union-backed movement that began with striking
fast-food workers in 2012 but soon spread to other low-wage
industries.

All
that success by activists has prompted a backlash from Republican
state lawmakers seeking to rein in minimum wage hikes. More than two
dozen states
now have “preemption”
laws on
their books that block localities from implementing their own raises.
Many of these laws were passed in just the last few years to thwart
campaigns by workers and unions.

Just
this year, Republicans in Missouri passed a preemption law to
retroactively kill a minimum wage hike enacted by city leaders in St.
Louis. Under the new law, no locality could have a wage floor higher
than the one mandated by the state. As HuffPost reported in July, the
new law had the effect of reversing St.
Louis’ minimum wage, taking it from $10 to the current state level
of $7.70.

====================================================

Als u wel eens eet bij McDonalds of een andere pestfood-keten eet, steunt u deze schandalige lage minimumlonen, al deze ketens betalen hun personeel in de VS schunnig weinig (trouwens de medewerkers hier verdienen ook alles behalve voldoende…..)….. Boycotten die hap waardeloos voedsel!

Trump >> BBC Jim Naughty: “Populariteit VS president was nog nooit zo laag…” AUW!!

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Hoorde vanmorgen op BBC World Service radio in ‘BBC Correspondents Look Ahead’, de ‘speciaal correspondent’ Jim Naughty.

Deze stelde met grote zekerheid dat er nooit eerder een president zo laag in de peiling stond als Trump wat betreft zijn populariteit, namelijk 35%…….

Ik weet niet wat jij ervan vindt, maar 35% van de stemmen, voor een psychopathische imbeciel, lijkt me ‘wel wat teveel’ van het ‘goede….’ Een plork die de onderlaag (vooral ook aanwezig in zijn achterban) nog verder uitknijpt dan ooit voor mogelijk gehouden. Dezelfde ploert die de welgestelden en de bedrijven een kerstgeschenk van miljarden dollars gaf (o.a. aan Shell…)….

Het militair-industrieel complex heeft nooit eerder zulke winsten gemaakt als het afgelopen jaar onder Trump en dat zal de komende jaren nog verder groeien, althans als hij de meerderheid bij de komende Senaatsverkiezingen weet te behouden en zijn partij niet te ver van zich vervreemd, maar dat ‘zit wel goed’ geloof ik…… Deze Trump die intussen bezig is de illegale oorlogen te verhevigen in Irak, Syrië en Afghanistan, die bezig is met oefeningen op het binnenvallen van China, Rusland, Iran en nog ‘wat’ Afrikaanse landen……. Geen twijfel mogelijk, die 35% is 30% te hoog!

Bovendien zou ik me wel sterk moeten vergissen, als George W. Bush voor de aanslagen van 9/11 (911, wat je wilt) op een percentage van rond de 25 zat……. Niet alleen daarom werden de aanslagen op het juiste moment gepleegd……

Een ‘deskundig’ correspondent…… Ongelofelijk……

Pearl Harbor (7 december 1941) en de aanslagen van 9/11 hebben veel overeenkomsten………

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Gisteren was het 76 jaar geleden dat de Japanse ‘verrassingsaanval’ op Pearl Harbor plaatsvond. Intussen is het al lang bekend dat deze aanval geen verrassing was voor de VS, sterker nog: dat deze werd uitgelokt door de VS…….

Terwijl het Pentagon en president Roosevelt op de hoogte waren van de naderende Japanse aanval, ondernamen ze zelfs niets om de eigen manschappen te sparen……..

De opzet was toestemming te krijgen van het Congres om Japan en Duitsland de oorlog te verklaren, iets waarvoor het toenmalige militair-industriële complex uiteraard al een fikse lobby op poten had gezet…… Uiteindelijk heeft dat voor West-Europa goede gevolgen gehad, immers de landingen in Frankrijk (D-Day Operatie Overlord) waren niet mogelijk geweest zonder de deelname van de VS in de jaren daaraan voorafgaand.

Al was oorlog met Duitsland niet te voorkomen geweest, daar de VS Groot-Brittannië steunde middels enorme transporten met o.a. oorlogstuig, munitie, voedsel en brandstof. Duitse onderzeeërs (U-Boten) torpedeerden deze veelal VS schepen al voor de aanval op Pearl Harbor en het wachten was dan ook op de oorlogsverklaring van de VS aan nazi-Duitsland.

Ook bij de aanslagen van 911 waren er economische voordelen te behalen voor het militair-industrieel complex, immers de Koude Oorlog was voorbij en de winsten voor deze industrie lieten al lang niet meer de enorme groei zien, zoals die tijdens de laatste 15 jaar van de Koude Oorlog. Bovendien ging het niet goed op de beurs en had de Bush administratie er belang bij dat een aantal financiële bestanden werden vernietigd, bestanden die zich in de Twin Towers bevonden……. Neem de leugens achteraf, dat de beurs onderuit ging door de aanslagen van 911, terwijl die neergang al een paar maanden aan de gang was…..

Ook president Bush* kon deze aanslagen overigens goed gebruiken, hij was in een aantal maanden qua populariteit ongelofelijk gekelderd in de peilingen…….

Het is intussen meer dan duidelijk dat minstens de CIA en de NSA een hand hadden in de aanslagen van 911, hoogstwaarschijnlijk met hulp van de Israëlische Mossad……. Deze aanslagen, waarbij 3.000 mensen omkwamen, heeft tot de moord op meer dan 2 miljoen mensen geleid, dit door de VS of o.l.v. de VS in illegale oorlogen……

Hier het bericht en de video die ik gisteren van Brasscheck TV over deze zaak ontving:

Remember
when the neocon warmongers of the Project for the New American
Century decided America needed another Peal Harbor in order to
regiment us better? 

On
this anniversary of Pearl Harbor you might be surprised to learn the official Peal Harbor story, like the 9/11 story, is full of
official fraud.

Behind
the Pearl Harbor Attack

THERE’S
MORE TO THE STORY…

War
Crimes

A
SURPRISE ATTACK? NOT QUITE

In
the mass media, this issue is barely raised and if it is, it’s
raised to dismiss it as a half-baked “conspiracy theory.”

But
in serious academic military history circles, the consensus of real
historians is that the US not only deliberately provoked the Japanese
into the attack on Pear Harbor, they also knew it was coming and let
it happen.

The
comment by the Project for the New American Century, headed by people
like Dick Cheney, that the US needed a “new Pearl Harbor’ takes
on new significance in the light of these facts.

Just
how cold blooded at the people at the top? Very cold blooded indeed.

===============================

* Destijds dacht ik dat Bush wel de laatste ongelofelijk domme hufter was, die ooit nog tot president zou worden verkozen, daar heeft het beest Trump mijn ongelijk bewezen……

Zie ook:

‘9/11 forum geblokkeerd, de waarheid mag niet gezegd worden……..‘

‘9/11: de leugens over smeltend staal van de Twin Towers‘

‘9/11 getuigen totaal genegeerd door media (en overheid)‘

‘9/11 Israël nogmaals aangewezen als hulp- bij het neerhalen van de Twin Towers en gebouw 7 van het WTC‘

‘9/11: Al Qaida tjokvol agenten van Saoedi-Arabië, VS, Israël en Egypte‘

‘9/11 voorafgegaan door CIA visa fraude…..‘

‘9/11 eerst de explosie waarna de ‘vliegtuigen’ de Twin Towers raken‘

‘9/11: professor stelt dat WTC-gebouwen gecontroleerd zijn gesloopt, de bewijzen daarvoor zijn overweldigend‘

‘9/11 de verklaring van de VS overheid aangaande het instorten van WTC gebouw 7 is vals……….‘

‘911 samenzweringstheorie wint nog meer aan geloofwaardigheid……‘

‘911, de beurs en geschiedvervalsing…….‘

‘9/11, WikiLeaks, Prism en ‘complottheorieën’‘

‘911, een ‘leuk’ feit‘

Donald Trumps IQ………. OEI!!

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Vorige week braakte Trump de woorden uit waarmee hij zichzelf een groot IQ toeschreef, zo zou zijn IQ hoger zijn dan dit van o.a. de valse slang Obama en marionet oorlogsmisdadiger Bush. (Obama is overigens ook een grote oorlogsmisdadiger, vanwege o.a. het voeren van minstens 2 illegale oorlogen)

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor donald trump IQ

Het is overduidelijk dat Trump gewelddadig optreden verward met IQ en om aan te geven dat zijn IQ allesbehalve groot is, vergeet hij even dat hij nog heel wat geweld moet gebruiken, voor hij Obama en Bush op dat gebied evenaart. Al zal hij het, wat betreft geweld, uiteindelijk wel winnen van Obama en Bush, iets dat hem wat betreft z’n IQ niet zal lukken (hoewel ook Bush hoge ogen gooit als het om imbeciliteit gaat)

 Afbeeldingsresultaat voor donald trump IQ

Wat een psychopatenkop, gadver!!

Zie ook: ‘Trump: “Ik ben een stabiele genius….” ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Trump gaat journalisten aanpakken die laster en smaad verkondigen, dezelfde handelswijze die dictator Erdogan van de islamitische staat Turkije hanteert…..‘

       en: ‘G.E.N.I.U.S. Trump en de werkelijke reden voor het afzeggen van zijn bezoek aan Groot-Brittannië…….‘

9/11 de verklaring van de VS overheid aangaande het instorten van WTC gebouw 7 is vals……….

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Het zal u niet ontgaan zijn gisteren, de herdenking van de dag 16 jaar na de terreuraanvallen op de Twin Towers (WTC) en andere doelen in de VS. Brasscheck TV bracht een aantal video’s waarin de gang van zaken onder de loep worden genomen en zoals u waarschijnlijk wel weet, de zaak stinkt van voor naar achter. De video’s vindt u onder een uitstekend artikel van Derrick Broze, die schrijft over het instorten van WTC gebouw 7 een andere onderdeel van het WTC complex waarvan de Twin Towers deel uitmaakten.

Velen zien in het instorten van WTC 7 volkomen terecht, dat de VS regering een grote leugenactie op touw zette, waarmee het volk van de VS en de rest van de wereld werd besodemieterd…….

Leugens die hebben geleid tot de moord door de VS op meer dan 1,5 miljoen mensen in Afghanistan en Irak…….. Leugens die de VS en daarmee het militair-industrieel complex daar in de kaart hebben gespeeld, immers men had een nieuwe vijand nodig en middels die nieuwe vijand ‘Al Qaida’ kon de VS meerdere landen aanvallen en wist men van meet af aan, dat uiteindelijk de VS en Rusland weer als aartsvijanden tegenover elkaar zouden komen te staan…….

Lees het volgende artikel en zie de video’s:

Why
Did World Trade Center Building 7 Fall? New Study Claims Gov’t
Story Is False


W

September
11, 2017 at 6:41 am

Written
by Derrick
Broze

A
two-year study has determined the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on
September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by office fires. This
undermines a critical component of the “official story,” but in
the age of President Trump will the painstaking investigation make a
difference?

(MPN) —
Last Wednesday, Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of
Alaska Fairbanks presented the findings and conclusion of his team’s
two-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the
collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001.

Many
“9/11 Truth” researchers focus on the mysterious collapse of
World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) as the smoking gun evidence that
Americans were lied to about the attacks. WTC7 was not hit by a
plane, yet it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. According to
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the collapse was
caused by office fires leading to thermal expansion of the building’s
supportive columns and girders.

Dr.
Hulsey’s presentation, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse
of World Trade Center 7, September 2017 Progress Report”, detailed
how his team eliminated fire as the cause of the collapse of the
47-story building. Hulsey explained that NIST’s report on the
collapse found fires on floors 7 through 9, 11 through 14, 19, 22,
29, and 30. However, there is no evidence of fire below floor 7,
Hulsey said.

Watch
Hulsey’s presentation below:

“You
have to ask yourself lots of questions … Where is the
combustibility in this building? … Did WTC7 collapse because of
fires?” Hulsey asked during his presentation. “Our study shows
that it did not collapse because of fires.” This revelation matches
what Hulsey told MintPress News in September 2016, when his team’s
preliminary finding was “that fire did not produce the failure at
this particular building,” adding “additional calculations are
further substantiating the finding.”

Dr.
Hulsey and his team developed an AutoCAD drawing that they then used
to create a virtual geography of the building. The research team
first partnered with the non-profit Architects
and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in
May of 2015 to study of the collapse of WTC7. They did not release
their final report in April 2017 as originally planned, but Hulsey
said a draft report of the study will be released in October or
November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week
period. “I am still examining the progressive collapse. We thought
we would be complete by the time announced but it is taking longer
than I expected,” Hulsey told MintPress. “I simply am not going
to release it until I am sure we are totally correct.”

A
final report will be published in early 2018 and submitted to
peer-reviewed journals. “It is my plan to provide the opportunity
for public and technical input, a form of review and peer review,”
Dr. Hulsey stated. “I will have it reviewed during this time frame.
Once we have gone through that preliminary review; I will submit the
findings to peer-reviewed journals for publication.”

The
Bobby McIlvaine Act

Today,
on the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Architects
& Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
the organization funding Hulsey’s study, held a press conference
discussing the conclusions of the study and the introduction of the
“Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act.” The Bobby
McIlvaine Act is draft legislation that would impanel a select
committee in either chamber of Congress to reinvestigate the
destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11,
2001. The act is named after Bobby
McIlvaine,
who was tragically killed at the age of 26 while entering the North
Tower of the World Trade Center.

Richard
Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, spoke
today about the Bobby McIlvaine Act at the National Press Club in
Washington. “The Bobby McIlvaine Act will, for the first time, put
in Congress’ hands the resolution which will cause an investigation
of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers’ destruction,” Gage
told Mint Press. “We are putting Congress on notice and hopefully
this act will be successfully legislated into law.”

Following
the press conference, Mr. Gage and Bob McIlvaine, Bobby McIlvaine’s
father, began the process of distributing informational packets
related to the Bobby McIlvaine Act to every member of Congress. The
next stage in their campaign will involve attempting to organize a
bipartisan group of sponsors to introduce the resolution by September
11, 2018. Mr. McIlvaine has been independently investigating the 9/11
attacks since his son’s death and calling attention to what he says
are discrepancies in the government’s narrative of the events of
that day. McIlvaine has been an outspoken leader in the so-called
“9/11 Truth” movement, advocating for a new investigation since
the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.

The
9/11 Truth movement includes victims, their families, and experts in
a range of fields who are skeptical of the government’s official
line on 9/11. Some of the groups include Architects
& Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters
for 9/11 Truth & Unity, Pilots
for 9/11 Truth, 9/11
Families United for Justice Against Terrorism, Scholars
for 9/11 Truth & Justice,
and other local activist groups and individuals from around the
globe. It’s a loose-knit movement without an official position, and
the opinions, theories and ideas held among its members sometimes
conflict with one another. However, those working within the broader
movement are bound by the belief that the official narrative promoted
by the U.S. government is full of holes.

9/11
Truth in the Donald Trump era

The
election of Donald Trump brought fear and paranoia to some of the
American population, and hope and elation to another segment of the
nation. Elements of the 9/11 Truth movement believed Trump might
support their cause for a new investigation.  Although Trump
never officially discussed his interest in a new investigation into
the events of September 11, 2001, he did make vague references to the
“secret papers” and to the Saudi government’s possible role in
funding the 9/11 attacks. During a campaign event Trump called
out former president George W. Bush for
the Iraq war and referenced “very secret” papers involving the
Saudi government and 9/11, elaborating:

“It
wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center; we went
after Iraq, we decimated the country. Iran’s taking over, okay. But
it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the
World Trade Center, ‘cause they have papers in there that are very
secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”

The
“secret papers” Trump referred to are the now-declassified
28-pages of the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community
Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11,
2001.”  Although the
final report amounts
to over 800 pages, the 28 pages were classified by former President
George W. Bush shortly after the report was released in 2002. The
papers detail the story of Saudi nationals suspected of being Saudi
intelligence agents involved in the terror attacks. In July 2016,
after nearly 15 years of secrecy and resistance from the Bush and
Obama administrations, the report was released to the public and the
family members of the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

While
campaigning for the presidency, Trump also gave an interview on Fox
News’ “Fox
& Friends,”
stating that the release of the pages would be “very profound”
and relate to Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks.

“That’s
very serious stuff,” Trump said. “It’s sort of nice to know who
your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are. You’re going to
see some very revealing things released in those papers.”

Trump
also flirted with the 9/11 Truth movement when he criticized former
President Obama for his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act, or JASTA, which unanimously passed the House and the
Senate in 2016 after a hard-fought battle by the families of the
victims of 9/11. The law, passed over Obama’s veto, has now opened
the door for lawsuits from the victims of 9/11 and their families
against Saudi Arabia to inspect the Kingdom’s possible role in
9/11. Trump called Obama’s veto “shameful” and  “one of
the low points of his presidency.”

It
is these comments that caused some “9/11 truthers” — including
some family members of 9/11 victims — to believe a Donald Trump
presidency might lead to a new investigation into the terror attacks.
The 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism
— the organization largely responsible for pushing JASTA — sent
a letter to President Trump asking
him to clarify his position on Saudi Arabia and its role in the
terror attacks of September 11, 2001. “This letter is inspired by
news reports that today you met with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman al Saud,” reads the letter from Terry Strada, a
widow and the national chair for the 9/11 Families & Survivors.
Strada’s letter continues:

“As
you know, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a defendant in our lawsuit
because of the involvement of its agents in supporting the 9/11
hijackers, and for support that flowed to al-Qaeda through
institutions the Kingdom established and funded to spread a radical
form of Islam that lies at the root of both al-Qaeda and, more
recently, ISIS. Despite mounting evidence, the Saudis have refused to
accept accountability for their actions and the injury they have
caused across the globe.”

Since
becoming president, Donald Trump has shown little interest in
carrying his “you may find it’s the Saudis” campaign rhetoric
any further. Instead, he has signed an arms deals worth more than
$100 billion with the Saudi Kingdom and has continued to offer
support for their bombing campaign in Yemen. Trump has not taken any
steps towards calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks or
Saudi Arabia’s possible role. He has remained silent on the
controversial topic. The upcoming release of Dr. Hulsey’s study on
the collapse of World Trade Center 7 may force Trump to publicly
address the situation.

Terry
Strada, whose husband Tom Strada died in the twin towers, is
skeptical of the importance of Dr. Hulsey’s study. “It doesn’t
matter to me what happened to Building 7. I know what happened to the
Twin Towers and I know how my husband was murdered. I know who worked
with al-Qaeda. That’s all I care about,” Mrs. Strada explained to
MintPress News via phone. “It’s a very separate incident. I don’t
see how anything that happened to Building 7 has to do with the Twin
Towers.”

Despite
her skepticism towards the study, Strada is still calling on
President Trump to address the concerns of the 9/11 families:

“We
would like to see some action. We would like to sit down and meet
with him, have him hear our side. We know he hears it from the
Saudi’s all the time. We want our chance.”

By Derrick
Broze / Creative
Commons / MintPressNews.com / Report
a typo


Hier nogmaals de link naar het originele bericht, waar u nog een video kan vinden, die ik niet over kan nemen.

Zie ook het uitstekende artikel van prof Michel Chossudovsky, eerder geplaatst op Global Research en later door Stan van Houcke overgenomen: ‘Who Is Osama Bin Laden?‘ (o.a. hoe is het mogelijk dat de VS een paar uur na de aanslagen van 911 wist dat Osama Bin Laden en ‘zijn Al Qaida’ verantwoordelijk waren voor de aanslagen???)

==========================

Hierna de Brasscheck video’s.

Zie ook: 9/11 Wiring the buildings COULD IT BE DONE IN A WEEKEND? (zie naast de onderstaande video, ook de tekst onder deze video, op Brasscheck TV


en: 9/11 First the explosion and then the “planes” VIDEO SPECIAL EFFECTS AFTER THE FACT:

Mind Control, The 9/11 Files

en: The
biggest maritime evacuation in history took place on September 11,
2001 in Manhattan.

It
was handled by a spontaneous fleet of hundreds of boat owners, large
and small, who rushed to help people in need without any concern for
their own safety.

I
bet you NEVER heard about these unpaid first responders before –
because it doesn’t fit the “government is god” narrative.

Unreported, unrecorded history IF IT’S NOT WEARING A GOVERNMENT UNIFORM, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN:

Censorship, Hidden History, The 9/11 Files

en: People
who design, engineer, build and demolish buildings for a living
agree…

The
Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down as the result of controlled
demolition.

Architects
and engineers lay out the case – and their expert analysis has been
completely censored by the US news media.

Architects and engineers: “It was a controlled demolition” THE FRAUD THAT LED TO WAR:

Zie ook:

‘9/11 forum geblokkeerd, de waarheid mag niet gezegd worden……..‘

‘9/11: de leugens over smeltend staal van de Twin Towers‘

‘9/11 getuigen totaal genegeerd door media (en overheid)‘

‘9/11 Israël nogmaals aangewezen als hulp- bij het neerhalen van de Twin Towers en gebouw 7 van het WTC‘

‘9/11: Al Qaida tjokvol agenten van Saoedi-Arabië, VS, Israël en Egypte‘

‘9/11 voorafgegaan door CIA visa fraude…..‘

‘9/11: Palestijnen hebben niet gejuicht voor de aanslagen op de Twin Towers‘

‘9/11 eerst de explosie waarna de ‘vliegtuigen’ de Twin Towers raken‘

‘9/11: professor stelt dat WTC-gebouwen gecontroleerd zijn gesloopt, de bewijzen daarvoor zijn overweldigend‘

‘Pearl Harbor (7 december 1941) en de aanslagen van 9/11 hebben veel overeenkomsten………‘

‘911 samenzweringstheorie wint nog meer aan geloofwaardigheid……‘

‘911, de beurs en geschiedvervalsing…….‘

‘9/11, WikiLeaks, Prism en ‘complottheorieën’‘

‘911, een ‘leuk’ feit‘