How israel lobby manufactured Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis

Local Editor

As the Labor party’s scandal of suspension continues, the Telegraph reported that the party has secretly suspended 50 of its members for criticizing the apartheid “Israeli” entity.

Jeremy Corbyn Head of Labor Party

Senior sources revealed to the British daily that Labor’s compliance unit has been swamped by the influx of hard-left supporters following Jeremy Corbyn’s election.

The suspensions that have been made public so far are said to be just the tip of the iceberg.

On Monday night Corbyn appeared to acknowledge there was a problem for the first time, while insisting it was “not huge”. He told the Daily Mirror:

“What there is a very small number of people that have said things that they should not have done. We have therefore said they will be suspended and investigated.”

The suspension came after Zionist groups growing pressure on the Labor leader ahead of the local elections on Thursday, in which his party is forecast to lose more than 100 seats.

Senior figures are now so concerned about the row that they are openly discussing the possibility of an attempted coup following the EU referendum.

On Monday it emerged that the party suspended three councilors within seven hours over a series of allegedly so-called “anti-semitic” posts on Twitter and Facebook.

A senior source within the party told The Daily Telegraph that the problem went much further and the compliance unit has actually suspended 50 members in the past two months.

They include up to 20 members within the past two weeks alone, with the unit struggling to cope because it does not have necessary resources.

Only 13 Labor members have been publicly named since October after being suspended. The source said:

“There are just six people in the compliance unit with one more joining after the EU referendum and frankly, it’s nowhere near enough.

“They can’t cope with the number of new members that have joined since Jeremy became leader, they need more resources.”

According to the daily,

“Corbyn is facing one of the most dangerous periods of his leadership after he was last week forced to suspend Naz Shah, a Labour MP, and Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, over alleged anti-semitic comments.”

Ilyas Aziz, a Nottingham councilor, was suspended when it emerged that he said on Facebook that

“it would be wiser to create “Israel” in America it’s big enough. They could relocate even now [sic]”.

Salim Mulla, a former mayor of Blackburn, was suspended a few hours later when it was found that he had posted the same graphic proposing “Israel’s” relocation to the United States.

Shah Hussain, of Burnley council, tweeted to “Israeli” footballer Yossi Bennayouyn that “you and your country doing the same thing that hitler did to ur race in ww2 [sic]”.

Source: Daily Telegraph, Edited by website team

03-05-2016 | 11:41

Related Articles

The Growing Zionist Hitlist: Shah, Livingston….and Corbyn

Darko Lazar

In a complicated affair involving a variety of characters and subplots, Britain’s Labour Party is entangled in a scandal.

Livingstone talking to reporters after labour party's suspension

Two major Labour political figures were suspended from the party late last month for allegedly making anti-Semitic comments.

Ken Livingstone – a popular former mayor of London and an ideological ally of the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn – found himself in hot water over remarks suggesting Hitler supported Zionism.

Making the comments in an interview with the BBC, Mr. Livingstone was defending a colleague, Naseem Shah, who had a day earlier herself been suspended from the Labour party over Facebook posts dating back to 2014, which criticized the “Israeli” occupation of Palestine.

But the clamoring by Britain’s politicians and the mainstream media to paint Livingstone and Shah as anti-Semites reveals the grip of the Zionist lobbies over the British establishment and a plot to remove the man seen as a colossal threat to that very establishment.

The Transfer Agreement

The latest dispute occurred in the aftermath of Wednesday’s decision to suspend Shah, after it emerged that in 2014 – at the height of the latest “Israeli” attack on Gaza in which thousands of civilians were massacred – she had endorsed a Facebook post displaying a graphic that showed “Israel’s” outline superimposed on a map of the United States.

The map was under the headline, “Solution for “Israel”-Palestine conflict – relocate “Israel” into United States,” with the comment, “problem solved.”

The post went on to say that “Israel’s” hypothetical relocation would bring peace to the Middle East by ending “foreign interference”.

In the face of a seeming uproar, Corbyn succumbed to pressure from both inside and outside his party to suspend Shah over her “anti-Semitism” despite a “wholehearted apology”, in which she said that the comments were posted at a time when “emotions ran high” over the “Israeli”-Palestinian conflict.

However, as both Shah and Livingstone soon found out, “emotional” outbursts are unforgivable in British politics when it comes to sympathizing with butchered Palestinian children being dragged out of the rubble in their hundreds.

Mr. Livingstone, who is a well-known personality amongst the British public, attempted to explain away Shah’s Facebook post.

“Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to “Israel”. He was supporting Zionism,” Livingstone told BBC Radio.

[http://www.dw.com/en/fact-or-fiction-adolf-hitler-won-an-election-in-1932/a-18680673]

Unfortunately for Livingstone, the British politicians and press did not appreciate his lesson in history.

Emotions ran high again shortly after Livingstone’s interview, when an MP from his own party, John Mann, who called him a “disgusting Nazi apologist”, verbally attacked the former London mayor in full view of television cameras.

It is well worth noting that Mann himself is not facing suspension from the party over his conduct.

Meanwhile, a former Labour MP who himself has quite a bit of experience with being demonized by the British establishment for telling the truth, defended Ken Livingstone’s comments as “historical fact”.

According to George Galloway,

“Ken Livingstone said absolutely nothing wrong; everything he said was the truth; historic fact; proven. There was an agreement between the Nazi filth of Hitler and the Zionist leaders in Germany to send Germany’s Jews to Palestine… So in that sense, Nazism and Zionism were two sides of the same coin.”

For those who slept through history class, both Livingstone and Galloway were referring to the Transfer [Haavara] Agreement signed in August 1933 between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews, which was designed to facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.

Delving further into history reveals that the ideological father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, made no secret of his intention to use Jewish suffering as a means of furthering Zionist ideology.

For those like Labour MP John Mann – whose strengths might not lie in his knowledge of history – referring to ‘51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis’ may prove helpful. This book offers historic documents to demonstrate the betrayal of Jews by the Zionists – before, during, and after the Holocaust – even to the extent of offering to fight for the Nazis under the umbrella of an understanding that after Germany won the war, Zionism would be rewarded with Palestine.

Much like the term ‘anti-Semitism’, which refers to an individual’s hatred of all Semites – and not just the Jews – the memory of the Holocaust is an essential Zionist weapon used persistently against its enemies, with lobbies and individuals working to continuously remind the world of it.

Form AIPAC in the US to SAIPAC in South Africa, such organizations routinely exploit domestic or international law to discredit and criminalize individuals with the aim of forcing their respective countries to embrace the “Israeli” narrative and stifle any public debate, whenever the subject of “Israel’s” criminality is raised.

Politicians trying to put forward an alternative narrative are bound to feel the full weight of the Zionist machine.

But with Ms. Shah and Mr. Livingstone, the Zionist lobbies, which are a fundamental part of the British political establishment, are looking to kill three birds with one stone.

Crushing Corbyn

At a time when Great Britain is facing a rising tide of contempt and anger toward bankers, politicians and even the royal family, Jeremy Corbyn’s crushing victory, in which he scooped up almost 60% of the vote to secure the post of Labour Party Leader in September of last year, terrified the establishment.

Since then, Corbyn – whose approval ratings could very well make him the UK’s next prime minister – has come under sustained attack by the Conservative Party, members of his own Labour Party and the media, for opposing intervention in Syria, favoring dialogue with Russia, threatening to leave NATO, and most importantly, for not supporting “Israel”.

Shortly after Corbyn’s election victory, Britain’s Sunday Times quoted a senior member of the British armed forces, who was threatening a coup if Corbyn ever became prime minister.

The unnamed officer said that if Corbyn became Britain’s next premier, there would be “the very real prospect” of “a mutiny.” Elements within the military would be prepared to use “whatever means possible, fair or foul”.

George Galloway believes that Corbyn is “the real target” behind the accusations leveled against two of his party members – Shah and Livingston.

“They’re trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there’s a slow-motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn… They will say with all this chaos, we can’t go on like this; we need a new leader,” Galloway stressed.

According to the British newspaper, ‘The Independent’, members of the Labour party and the British Parliament are already discussing a possible leadership challenge to Jeremy Corbyn’s over the escalating “anti-Semitism” scandal.

Conveniently for the British establishment, the escalating ‘scandal’ – coming only days ahead of highly contested elections in London, Scotland and Wales – has forced Corbyn to suspend one of his party’s veteran politicians and most trusted ally.

Source: al-Ahed news 

02-05-2016 | 10:25

Related Articles

Op-Edge US presidential elections: A view from the Middle East

Sharmine NarwaniSharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She is a former senior associate at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University and has a master’s degree in International Relations from Columbia University. Sharmine has written commentary for a wide array of publications, including Al Akhbar Eng

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton © Scott Audette, Javier Galeano
Although the era of US global hegemony is coming to a close, the Middle East – more than most regions – is still reeling from the nasty last jabs of that Empire in decline.

It is little wonder, then, that the US presidential election season is scrutinized carefully in all corners of the Mideast.

Over here, the debate over the likely victor is less about economic, political and social projects than it is about which candidate is least likely to launch wars against us.

Anecdotally, there seems to be a consensus that Hillary Clinton would be the worst for the region, though of course – like in the United States – that perception changes dramatically when the conversation is with regional elites and ‘liberals.’

And just like their American counterparts, Middle Easterners get bogged down in arguments about Donald Trump’s ‘racism,’ Bernie Sanders’ ‘viability’ and Clinton’s ‘hawkishness.’ Media, after all, has never been more uniform in its pronouncements – we all, universally, receive the same talking points.

Read more

Police in riot gear arrive to break-up a demonstration outside of Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign rally in Costa Mesa, California April 28, 2016. © Mike Blake

But US Presidential Election 2016 means a lot more than US polls in decades past. From the Levant to the Persian Gulf to North Africa, borders have never been so frayed, terrorism so pervasive, security and resources so threatened.

The Middle East is a wretched mess. And at the heart of each and every one of these quagmires stands the United States, imposing itself, its military ‘expertise’ and its humanitarian ‘do-gooding’ into our suffering. Ironically, perhaps, there are few problems in the Mideast that have not been caused or exacerbated by the destructive hand of US foreign policy.

The last playground

The Middle East is the last global playground where the US can act with impunity. Part of the reason for this is that most of the two dozen states that make up the region are still headed by US-backed dictators and monarchs – American proxies that prioritize Washington’s interests over those of its citizenry. The US plays hard in this region because it wishes to maintain this remarkably favorable status quo, which it has lost virtually everywhere else.

Even as the Cold War was drawing to a close – vanquishing the old Soviet bloc proxy leaders in the Mideast and replacing them with US-friendly ones – the 1979 Iranian Revolution flipped the region once more, ushering in a new framework for independence from the ‘Anglo imperialist.’

In the aftermath of Iraq’s war with Iran, which had placed Iranian aspirations on hold for eight long, destructive years, Tehran began to forge regional relationships that formed the underpinnings of a new Axis of Resistance to US and Western hegemonic ambitions.

The US expanded its military role in the Middle East mainly to eradicate this ‘Shia’ thorn in its side – but it has not only failed to do so with each consecutive US administration, it has willfully unleashed the well-contained demons of sectarianism to achieve this goal.

Hello, Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism. Hello, Al Qaeda. Hello, ISIS.

Read more

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign event in Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, April 27, 2016 © Jim Young

Why even get into this recent history? It’s important for one main reason. Even as the US now turns its guns on the Frankenstein monster it created from its invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now its intervention in Syria… Washington also has its guns aimed at Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and other entities that are fighting this very terrorism.

When Trump debuted his foreign policy vision earlier this week, he pointed out that current US policy was “reckless, rudderless and aimless”“one that has blazed the path of destruction in its wake.”

It’s all we’ve heard in recent years – certainly since the start of the Arab ‘uprisings’ – with pundits and commentators alike scratching their heads in confusion over US goals in the region.
American policy is not confused – it is very deliberate. Get your head around this: Washington seeks to thwart the Iranian-led axis by unleashing sectarian, Wahhabi-influenced extremists into parts of the region viewed as Iran’s strategic depth, AND it seeks to counter the proliferation of these extremists by reaching out to Iran, tactically – hence the sudden P5+1 nuclear deal in the midst of all this conflict.

This is what I call America’s “strategic dissonance” – playing both sides to engineer protracted conflict in an effort to gradually drive the two sides into extinction.

Only problem is the unpredictability of it all – and the ensuing chaos, destruction and terrorism that has now poured over these borders into Europe and beyond.

Mr. America versus Ms. Beltway

It is clear that this strategic dissonance has once more led to an American “unintended consequence.” It is equally clear that it will take nothing less than a sledgehammer to alter the destructive bent of US foreign policy.

What’s interesting about this election year is that voters have put their backs behind unlikely candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, mostly, it seems, to buck the establishment.

The two long-shot candidates have delivered scathing reviews of Beltway politicos and the ‘interest groups’ that prop them up – foreign and domestic, both.

Trump calls Israel only true democracy in Middle East, critical of Obama policy. WATCH: http://bit.ly/1VCrUkf 

 By contrast, Hillary Clinton – the ‘deserving’ establishment candidate who was a shoo-in until a few short months ago – has had to fight for every vote in her contests with Democratic Party newcomer Sanders.

And the easiest blows against Clinton have been in the foreign policy arena, where the Beltway hawk has a long record of backing the wrong plan – in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria.

In the Mideast, Clinton’s militaristic leanings scuttle any goodwill one would otherwise have for a Democratic Party candidate. Egyptians lobbed tomatoes, shoes and water bottles at her motorcade when the then-secretary of state made an appearance after the ousting of longtime US ally President Hosni Mubarak.

It was under her stewardship at the Department of State when “foreign hands” began to make their marks on the Arab uprisings – none to the benefit of the Arab masses.

Her support for the ill-conceived US invasion of Iraq, which led to the establishment of Al Qaeda in that country, is a constant refrain here in the Mideast – much as it is in the United States. And her refusal to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of US military intervention in Libya remain proof that she never learned from Iraq.

Like him or not, Clinton’s maniacal laughter over Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s violent death as she sanguinelydeclared“We came, we saw, he died,” has been forever imprinted on our collective memories.

We have since learned that US President Barack Obama’s decision to militarily intervene in Libya came down to her vote. Libyan blood cannot be washed off those hands.

And now Clinton wants to escalate in Syria by carving out a “safe zone” – which is how her Libyan adventure started.

If Clinton suffers from a likeability problem in the US, she is downright reviled in the Mideast – except among the usual suspects which include dictators, monarchs and other super-wealthy elites who have either contributed to the Clinton Foundation or are desperate to maintain their cushy positions within a US-dominated region.

Then there’s Trump

The highly controversial billionaire businessman Donald Trump has been roundly bashed in this region for his prejudicial comments against Muslims, but there’s a quiet parade of thinkers in the Mideast – from Arab nationalists to progressives to intellectuals – who have been casting coy second glances his way.

This was a serious foreign policy speech by Trump. It is worth reading and thinking about. It will be ridiculed by Washington elites.

 “Trump can turn the system upside down,” says a leading Lebanon-based Arab nationalist. “He’s his own man, he will not be dragged into the trappings of the deep state,” says an influential writer.

“Who else is willing to put the brakes on NATO, disengage from lousy alliances, hook up with Putin and others to fight terrorism the right way, prioritize diplomacy over military options? Not Clinton, no way,” a college student rants.

There is that.

Unlike Clinton, there’s not much we know about Trump. He has no foreign policy record, except of course his non-stop reminder that he opposed the US invasion of Iraq and warned that it would be a “disaster.”

But if you’re going to take a chance on a candidate – if you’re going to try to read between the lines of campaign promises – I suggest taking the unconventional, risky declarations more seriously than predictable, voter-friendly platitudes like “I support the state of Israel unconditionally.”

GREATEST FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH SINCE WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS.

 And Trump has some doozies.

On key US ally Saudi Arabia, arguably ground zero for the militant extremism rampant in the region – and a country that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says was prepared to “fight the Iranians to the last American” – Trump warns that he might halt purchases of Saudi oil unless Riyadh commits ground troops to the ISIS fight. His comments mirror those of Gates – as disclosed in a 2010 Wikileaks cable – who said of the Saudis that it “is time for them to get in the game.”

“If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around,” suggests Trump, quite correctly.

On Russia, Syria and US support of rebels: “Putin does not want ISIS. The rebel groups… we have no idea who these people are. We’re training people, we don’t know who they are… we’re giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad… If you look at Libya, look what we did there, it’s a mess. If you look at Saddam Hussein, with Iraq, look at what we did there, it’s a mess…”

In what seemed like a swipe at US support of questionable militants in Syria and elsewhere, Trump says: “We need to be clear sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies. And believe me, we have groups that no matter what you do, they will be the enemy. We have to be smart enough to recognize who those groups are, who those people are, and not help them.”

Asked if the Mideast would be more secure if Saddam and Gaddafi were still around and Assad were stronger, Trump boldly declares: “It’s not even a contest…Of course it would be.”

And this: “I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn’t want ISIS coming into Russia.”

Hillary PAC spending $1m to ‘forcefully correct’ social media trollshttp://on.rt.com/7atc 

 In short…

Trump is an unknown quantity, but he is delivering some home truths to restive voters in an unconventional election year.

Clinton is the quintessential establishment candidate, the sure-thing that voters wish they could like, who is running for president at the wrong time for a beltway insider.

Trump has defied all the odds thus far, and there is no reason he can’t continue to do that all the way to the White House. Whether or not he can keep surprising once he is there is anyone’s guess. Will he become co-opted by the system? Will he strike down entrenched Washington dogmas with his trademark arrogance? Nobody knows.

If Trump runs against Clinton, his campaign mantra has to be “Clinton: tons of experience, no judgment.” It’s pretty much the only way he can compete with a seasoned politician who is sure to throw his inexperience back in his face at every opportunity.

For the Mideast, this is not the time to pick the ‘devil we know.’ We know how that story ends every single time: destabilization, chaos, terrorism.

Trump is definitely the lesser evil, whichever way one looks at it. He simply cannot be worse than her.

But there is one solitary upside to a Clinton presidency. If Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States… we will see the world shift decisively into a new multi-polar order. The battle over Syria became a red line for the Russians, Chinese and Iranians, and they placed protective arms around key states, in turn forging closer relations with each other – some of these, military dimensions – and with a number of other ‘middle powers’ that threatened to up-end US hegemonic ambitions once and for all.

Imagine then, the reactions of Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, South Africa and other states irked by US-backed destabilizing campaigns, if a hawk like Clinton is ensconced in the White House.

We’ll slip into a new world order faster than you can say ‘Goldman Sachs.’

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

lish, the New York Times, the Guardian, Asia Times Online, Salon.com, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera English, BRICS Post and others. You can follow her on Twitter at @snarwani

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton © Scott Audette, Javier Galeano
Although the era of US global hegemony is coming to a close, the Middle East – more than most regions – is still reeling from the nasty last jabs of that Empire in decline.

It is little wonder, then, that the US presidential election season is scrutinized carefully in all corners of the Mideast.

Over here, the debate over the likely victor is less about economic, political and social projects than it is about which candidate is least likely to launch wars against us.

Anecdotally, there seems to be a consensus that Hillary Clinton would be the worst for the region, though of course – like in the United States – that perception changes dramatically when the conversation is with regional elites and ‘liberals.’

And just like their American counterparts, Middle Easterners get bogged down in arguments about Donald Trump’s ‘racism,’ Bernie Sanders’ ‘viability’ and Clinton’s ‘hawkishness.’ Media, after all, has never been more uniform in its pronouncements – we all, universally, receive the same talking points.

Read more

Police in riot gear arrive to break-up a demonstration outside of Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign rally in Costa Mesa, California April 28, 2016. © Mike Blake

But US Presidential Election 2016 means a lot more than US polls in decades past. From the Levant to the Persian Gulf to North Africa, borders have never been so frayed, terrorism so pervasive, security and resources so threatened.

The Middle East is a wretched mess. And at the heart of each and every one of these quagmires stands the United States, imposing itself, its military ‘expertise’ and its humanitarian ‘do-gooding’ into our suffering. Ironically, perhaps, there are few problems in the Mideast that have not been caused or exacerbated by the destructive hand of US foreign policy.

The last playground

The Middle East is the last global playground where the US can act with impunity. Part of the reason for this is that most of the two dozen states that make up the region are still headed by US-backed dictators and monarchs – American proxies that prioritize Washington’s interests over those of its citizenry. The US plays hard in this region because it wishes to maintain this remarkably favorable status quo, which it has lost virtually everywhere else.

Even as the Cold War was drawing to a close – vanquishing the old Soviet bloc proxy leaders in the Mideast and replacing them with US-friendly ones – the 1979 Iranian Revolution flipped the region once more, ushering in a new framework for independence from the ‘Anglo imperialist.’

In the aftermath of Iraq’s war with Iran, which had placed Iranian aspirations on hold for eight long, destructive years, Tehran began to forge regional relationships that formed the underpinnings of a new Axis of Resistance to US and Western hegemonic ambitions.

The US expanded its military role in the Middle East mainly to eradicate this ‘Shia’ thorn in its side – but it has not only failed to do so with each consecutive US administration, it has willfully unleashed the well-contained demons of sectarianism to achieve this goal.

Hello, Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism. Hello, Al Qaeda. Hello, ISIS.

Read more

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign event in Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, April 27, 2016 © Jim Young

Why even get into this recent history? It’s important for one main reason. Even as the US now turns its guns on the Frankenstein monster it created from its invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now its intervention in Syria… Washington also has its guns aimed at Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and other entities that are fighting this very terrorism.

When Trump debuted his foreign policy vision earlier this week, he pointed out that current US policy was “reckless, rudderless and aimless”“one that has blazed the path of destruction in its wake.”

It’s all we’ve heard in recent years – certainly since the start of the Arab ‘uprisings’ – with pundits and commentators alike scratching their heads in confusion over US goals in the region.
American policy is not confused – it is very deliberate. Get your head around this: Washington seeks to thwart the Iranian-led axis by unleashing sectarian, Wahhabi-influenced extremists into parts of the region viewed as Iran’s strategic depth, AND it seeks to counter the proliferation of these extremists by reaching out to Iran, tactically – hence the sudden P5+1 nuclear deal in the midst of all this conflict.

This is what I call America’s “strategic dissonance” – playing both sides to engineer protracted conflict in an effort to gradually drive the two sides into extinction.

Only problem is the unpredictability of it all – and the ensuing chaos, destruction and terrorism that has now poured over these borders into Europe and beyond.

Mr. America versus Ms. Beltway

It is clear that this strategic dissonance has once more led to an American “unintended consequence.” It is equally clear that it will take nothing less than a sledgehammer to alter the destructive bent of US foreign policy.

What’s interesting about this election year is that voters have put their backs behind unlikely candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, mostly, it seems, to buck the establishment.

The two long-shot candidates have delivered scathing reviews of Beltway politicos and the ‘interest groups’ that prop them up – foreign and domestic, both.

Trump calls Israel only true democracy in Middle East, critical of Obama policy. WATCH: http://bit.ly/1VCrUkf 

 By contrast, Hillary Clinton – the ‘deserving’ establishment candidate who was a shoo-in until a few short months ago – has had to fight for every vote in her contests with Democratic Party newcomer Sanders.

And the easiest blows against Clinton have been in the foreign policy arena, where the Beltway hawk has a long record of backing the wrong plan – in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria.

In the Mideast, Clinton’s militaristic leanings scuttle any goodwill one would otherwise have for a Democratic Party candidate. Egyptians lobbed tomatoes, shoes and water bottles at her motorcade when the then-secretary of state made an appearance after the ousting of longtime US ally President Hosni Mubarak.

It was under her stewardship at the Department of State when “foreign hands” began to make their marks on the Arab uprisings – none to the benefit of the Arab masses.

Her support for the ill-conceived US invasion of Iraq, which led to the establishment of Al Qaeda in that country, is a constant refrain here in the Mideast – much as it is in the United States. And her refusal to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of US military intervention in Libya remain proof that she never learned from Iraq.

Like him or not, Clinton’s maniacal laughter over Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s violent death as she sanguinelydeclared“We came, we saw, he died,” has been forever imprinted on our collective memories.

We have since learned that US President Barack Obama’s decision to militarily intervene in Libya came down to her vote. Libyan blood cannot be washed off those hands.

And now Clinton wants to escalate in Syria by carving out a “safe zone” – which is how her Libyan adventure started.

If Clinton suffers from a likeability problem in the US, she is downright reviled in the Mideast – except among the usual suspects which include dictators, monarchs and other super-wealthy elites who have either contributed to the Clinton Foundation or are desperate to maintain their cushy positions within a US-dominated region.

Then there’s Trump

The highly controversial billionaire businessman Donald Trump has been roundly bashed in this region for his prejudicial comments against Muslims, but there’s a quiet parade of thinkers in the Mideast – from Arab nationalists to progressives to intellectuals – who have been casting coy second glances his way.

This was a serious foreign policy speech by Trump. It is worth reading and thinking about. It will be ridiculed by Washington elites.

 “Trump can turn the system upside down,” says a leading Lebanon-based Arab nationalist. “He’s his own man, he will not be dragged into the trappings of the deep state,” says an influential writer.

“Who else is willing to put the brakes on NATO, disengage from lousy alliances, hook up with Putin and others to fight terrorism the right way, prioritize diplomacy over military options? Not Clinton, no way,” a college student rants.

There is that.

Unlike Clinton, there’s not much we know about Trump. He has no foreign policy record, except of course his non-stop reminder that he opposed the US invasion of Iraq and warned that it would be a “disaster.”

But if you’re going to take a chance on a candidate – if you’re going to try to read between the lines of campaign promises – I suggest taking the unconventional, risky declarations more seriously than predictable, voter-friendly platitudes like “I support the state of Israel unconditionally.”

GREATEST FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH SINCE WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS.

 And Trump has some doozies.

On key US ally Saudi Arabia, arguably ground zero for the militant extremism rampant in the region – and a country that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says was prepared to “fight the Iranians to the last American” – Trump warns that he might halt purchases of Saudi oil unless Riyadh commits ground troops to the ISIS fight. His comments mirror those of Gates – as disclosed in a 2010 Wikileaks cable – who said of the Saudis that it “is time for them to get in the game.”

“If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around,” suggests Trump, quite correctly.

On Russia, Syria and US support of rebels: “Putin does not want ISIS. The rebel groups… we have no idea who these people are. We’re training people, we don’t know who they are… we’re giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad… If you look at Libya, look what we did there, it’s a mess. If you look at Saddam Hussein, with Iraq, look at what we did there, it’s a mess…”

In what seemed like a swipe at US support of questionable militants in Syria and elsewhere, Trump says: “We need to be clear sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies. And believe me, we have groups that no matter what you do, they will be the enemy. We have to be smart enough to recognize who those groups are, who those people are, and not help them.”

Asked if the Mideast would be more secure if Saddam and Gaddafi were still around and Assad were stronger, Trump boldly declares: “It’s not even a contest…Of course it would be.”

And this: “I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn’t want ISIS coming into Russia.”

Hillary PAC spending $1m to ‘forcefully correct’ social media trolls http://on.rt.com/7atc 

 In short…

Trump is an unknown quantity, but he is delivering some home truths to restive voters in an unconventional election year.

Clinton is the quintessential establishment candidate, the sure-thing that voters wish they could like, who is running for president at the wrong time for a beltway insider.

Trump has defied all the odds thus far, and there is no reason he can’t continue to do that all the way to the White House. Whether or not he can keep surprising once he is there is anyone’s guess. Will he become co-opted by the system? Will he strike down entrenched Washington dogmas with his trademark arrogance? Nobody knows.

If Trump runs against Clinton, his campaign mantra has to be “Clinton: tons of experience, no judgment.” It’s pretty much the only way he can compete with a seasoned politician who is sure to throw his inexperience back in his face at every opportunity.

For the Mideast, this is not the time to pick the ‘devil we know.’ We know how that story ends every single time: destabilization, chaos, terrorism.

Trump is definitely the lesser evil, whichever way one looks at it. He simply cannot be worse than her.

But there is one solitary upside to a Clinton presidency. If Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States… we will see the world shift decisively into a new multi-polar order. The battle over Syria became a red line for the Russians, Chinese and Iranians, and they placed protective arms around key states, in turn forging closer relations with each other – some of these, military dimensions – and with a number of other ‘middle powers’ that threatened to up-end US hegemonic ambitions once and for all.

Imagine then, the reactions of Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, South Africa and other states irked by US-backed destabilizing campaigns, if a hawk like Clinton is ensconced in the White House.

We’ll slip into a new world order faster than you can say ‘Goldman Sachs.’

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

New UN database of companies complicit in Israel’s occupation

April 30, 2016, 06:00 am

By Ingrid Jaradat

Last month, in a landmark decision, the United Nations Human Rights Council decided to establish a database of all companies implicated in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, including the city of East Jerusalem.

Finally, after years of toothless UN condemnations of settlements – which are a flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to justice and peace in the region – there will be an official UN list that names and exposes businesses that have for decades enabled and profited from Israel’s theft of Palestinian land and other human rights abuses.

Establishment of such a UN database is long overdue. Already in the 1970s and 1980s, the UN Security Council called on all states to not recognize or provide assistance, economic or otherwise, to Israel’s illegal annexation and settlement policy. In 1982 the General Assembly called for sanctions against Israel for the same reason.

This decision by the Human Rights Council, nearly 50 years after Israel began its settlement enterprise, is certainly too little, too late. There are currently approximately 650,000 Israeli settlers living illegally in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, confining Palestinians to less than 40% of their land. However, it is still an important victory for Palestinians and the human rights community at large, who are struggling against US and European government policies that protect Israel from censure in the Security Council and undermine efforts to hold Israeli officials accountable.

Legally speaking, all UN-listed companies are to immediately stop their dealings with Israeli settlements and member states are to ensure that they do so. Additionally, investors and contractors, whether governments, local authorities or private entities, have repeatedly been urged by UN experts to avoid engagement with such companies until they end their illegal business dealings in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Companies that will be listed in this UN database are not only those based or operating inside Israeli settlements, but basically all companies doing business with the state of Israel or private Israeli actors operating in occupied Palestinian land, including East Jerusalem. This is because, in the framework of the UN, “Israeli settlements” is shorthand for the wide range of Israeli activities that contribute to the annexation and exploitation of Palestinian land and natural resources, demographic change through population transfer, and denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, all of which contravene international law. Companies will be listed if they provide equipment, supplies, services or other support to any of these Israeli activities.

Israel’s relentlessly expanding settlement enterprise has had an enormous detrimental impact on the lives of millions of Palestinians. We have had our land stolen, our homes and crops destroyed, and our towns and villages cut off from one another and the outside world, turned into easily-controlled Bantustans divided by Israeli settlements, military bases, walls, and Israeli-only roads. In effect, Israel has created an apartheid colonial regime where Palestinians under occupation have no rights while Israeli settlers living nearby enjoy all the right and privileges of Israeli citizenship. Action against the settlements is imperative for this reason.

The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) together with the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights will be tasked with compiling the database of companies involved with the occupation, with a first list to be presented in June 2016. Having abstained from the decision, European states and the EU are unlikely to provide active support to the work on the database. Thankfully, professional databases of a large number of companies implicated in Israel’s occupation and settlement activity have already been compiled by NGOs offering ethical investing screens, such as Who Profits and the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).

The U.S. opposed the list, though it is not currently on the Human Rights Council. During his two terms in office, President Obama has repeatedly made clear his belief that settlements are a major impediment to peace and the two-state solution, while at the same time continuing America’s virtually unconditional support for Israel and its settler-beholden extreme right-wing government. Now in his final year, President Obama should finally put his words into action and take concrete steps to stop settlement expansion.

The most important step towards halting and reversing Israel’s destructive and illegal settlement enterprise that the US has done so much to enable, would be for President Obama to suspend military aid to Israel rather than negotiating an increase as he is reportedly doing, at least until Israel abides by international law and longstanding US policy by ending illegal settlement activity on occupied Palestinian land. This would be in accordance with calls from human rights organizations such as Amnesty International for an arms embargo against Israel until it begins respecting international humanitarian law.

And if he really wants to send a message to Israel regarding how seriously the U.S. takes its shortsighted and dangerous settlement policy, he should certainly support other concrete measures, such as the UN’s efforts to stop companies from facilitating and profiting from Israel’s settlement enterprise and other violations of international law.

Ingrid Jaradat is a legal analyst and one of the founders of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality

Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels

Hillary-Clinton-Syrian-Shoah-990x260

Seymour Hersh states: H. Clinton approved sending Libya’s sarin-gas to mercenary-gangs in Syria

ERIC ZUESSE | 28.04.2016

Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels

In an interview with Alternet.org, the independent investigative reporter Seymour Hersh was asked about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi Libya consulate’s operation to collect sarin from Libyan stockpiles and send it through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as it had invaded Libya.

He said:

«That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel».

This was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State Department’s Libyan operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for the US doing in Syria what they had already done in Libya.

The interviewer then asked:

«In the book [Hersh’s The Killing of Osama bin Laden, just out] you quote a former intelligence official as saying that the White House rejected 35 target sets [for the planned US invasion of Syria] provided by the Joint Chiefs as being insufficiently painful to the Assad regime. (You note that the original targets included military sites only – nothing by way of civilian infrastructure.) Later the White House proposed a target list that included civilian infrastructure. What would the toll to civilians have been if the White House’s proposed strike had been carried out?»

Hersh responded by saying that the US tradition in that regard has long been to ignore civilian casualties; i.e., collateral damage of US attacks is okay or even desired (so as to terrorize the population into surrender) – not an ‘issue’, except, perhaps, for the PR people.

The interviewer asked why Obama is so obsessed to replace Assad in Syria, since «The power vacuum that would ensue would open Syria up to all kinds of jihadi groups»; and Hersh replied that not only he, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, «nobody could figure out why». He said, «Our policy has always been against him [Assad]. Period». This has actually been the case not only since the Party that Assad leads, the Ba’ath Party, was the subject of a shelved CIA coup-plot in 1957 to overthrow and replace it; but, actually, the CIA’s first coup had been not just planned but was carried out in 1949 in Syria, overthrowing there a democratically elected leader, in order to enable a pipeline for the Sauds’ oil to become built through Syria into the largest oil market, Europe; and, construction of the pipeline started the following year.

But, there were then a succession of Syrian coups (domestic instead of by foreign powers – 195419631966, and, finally, in 1970), concluding in the accession to power of Hafez al-Assad during the 1970 coup. And, the Sauds’ long-planned Trans-Arabia Pipeline has still not been built. The Saudi royal family, who own the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, don’t want to wait any longer. Obama is the first US President to have seriously tried to carry out their long-desired «regime change» in Syria, so as to enable not only the Sauds’ Trans-Arabian Pipeline to be built, but also to build through Syria the Qatar-Turkey Gas Pipeline that the Thani royal family (friends of the Sauds) who own Qatar want also to be built there. The US is allied with the Saud family (and with their friends, the royal families of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman).

Hillary Clinton Middle East donors

Russia is allied with the leaders of Syria – as Russia had earlier been allied with Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Yanukovych in Ukraine (all of whom except Syria’s Ba’ath Party, the US has successfully overthrown).

Hersh was wrong to say that «nobody could figure out why» Obama is obsessed with overthrowing Assad and his Ba’ath Party, even if nobody that he spoke with was willing to say why. They have all been hired to do a job, which didn’t change even when the Soviet Union ended and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded; and, anyone who has been at this job for as long as those people have, can pretty well figure out what the job actually is – even if Hersh can’t.

Hersh then said that Obama wanted to fill Syria with foreign jihadists to serve as the necessary ground forces for his planned aerial bombardment there, and,

«if you wanted to go there and fight there in 2011-2013, ‘Go, go, go… overthrow Bashar!’ So, they actually pushed a lot of people [jihadists] to go. I don’t think they were paying for them but they certainly gave visas».

However, it’s not actually part of America’s deal with its allies the fundamentalist-Sunni Arabic royal families and the fundamentalist Sunni Erdogan of Turkey, for the US to supply the salaries (to be «paying for them,» as Hersh put it there) to those fundamentalist Sunni jihadists – that’s instead the function of the Sauds and of their friends, the other Arab royals, and their friends, to do. (Those are the people who finance the terrorists to perpetrate attacks in the US, Europe, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, India, Nigeria, etc. – i.e., anywhere except in their own countries.) And, Erdogan in Turkey mainly gives their jihadists just safe passage into Syria, and he takes part of the proceeds from the jihadists’ sales of stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil.

erdogan-oil-mafia-2

But, they all work together as a team (with the jihadists sometimes killing each other in the process – that’s even part of  the  plan) – though each national leader has PR problems at home in order to fool his respective public into thinking that they’re against terrorists, and that only the ‘enemy’ is to blame. (Meanwhile, the aristocrats who supply the «salaries» of the jihadists, walk off with all the money.)

This way, US oil and gas companies will refine, and pipeline into Europe, the Sauds’ oil and the Thanis’ gas, and not only will Russia’s major oil-and-gas market become squeezed away by that, but Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia, plus the yet-further isolation of Russia (as well as of China and the rest of the BRICS countries) by excluding them from Obama’s three mega-trade-deals (TTIP, TPP & TISA), will place the US aristocracy firmly in control of the world, to dominate the 21st Century, as it has dominated ever since the end of WW II.

Then, came this question from Hersh:

«Why does America do what it does? Why do we not say to the Russians, Let’s work together?»

His interviewer immediately seconded that by repeating it, «So why don’t we work closer with Russia? It seems so rational». Hersh replied simply: «I don’t know». He didn’t venture so much as a guess – not even an educated one. But, when journalists who are as knowledgeable as he, don’t present some credible explanation, to challenge the obvious lies (which make no sense that accords with the blatantly contrary evidence those journalists know of against those lies) that come from people such as Barack Obama, aren’t they thereby – though passively – participating in the fraud, instead of contradicting and challenging it? Or, is the underlying assumption, there: The general public is going to be as deeply immersed in the background information here as I am, so that they don’t need me to bring it all together for them into a coherent (and fully documented) whole, which does make sense? Is that the underlying assumption? Because: if it is, it’s false.

Hersh’s journalism is among the best (after all: he went so far as to say, of Christopher Stephens, regarding Hillary Clinton, «there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel»), but it’s certainly not good enough. However, it’s too good to be published any longer in places like the New Yorker. And the reporting by Christopher Lehmann was better, and it was issued even earlier than Hersh’s; and it is good enough, because it named names, and it explained motivations, in an honest and forthright way, which is why Lehmann’s piece was published only on a Montenegrin site, and only online, not in a Western print medium, such as the New Yorker. The sites that are owned by members of the Western aristocracy don’t issue reports like that – journalism that’s good enough. They won’t inform the public when a US Secretary of State, and her boss the US President, are the persons actually behind a sarin gas attack they’re blaming on a foreign leader the US aristocrats and their allied foreign aristocrats are determined to topple and replace.

Hillary-Clinton-Libyan-rebels-400x289

Is this really a democracy?

 

Egypt, Sinai Liberation Day: protests for the 2 islands sold to the Saudis, under Zionist permission

Syrian Free Press

Abd_El_Nasser_by_omrantheone

According to “The Times of Israel”, the Zionist regime said it appreciate the transfer of the islands to Saudi Arabia. The defense minister of the colonial entity, Moshe Yaalon, reveals emerging coordination and strategic interaction between Jerusalem, Cairo and Riyadh.

File photo of Israel's armed forces chief Moshe Yaalon walking after a visit to the Kissufim crossing in Gaza strip

Israel has received insurance pledges from Saudi Arabia to the fact that the handover by Egypt of two islands in the Red Sea would not affect the passage of its ships.

Cairo announced last week its decision to reassign to Saudi Arabia the two small uninhabited islands of Tiran and Sanafir, located in the strategic Aqaba Gulf, which control the access to the Israeli port of Eilat through the Strait of Tiran.

nasser-sinai

The Israelis had occupied the two islands in the ’67 war. They later returned them with the Camp David agreements, but with one condition: that the Egyptians whould not give the islands to other parts, without previous permission by Tel Aviv.

Egypt-Saudi-tiran-sanafir-island-77

The two Red Sea islands are included in an important part of the agreement signed in 1979, that promises safe passage to commercial and military Israeli ships through the Strait of Tiran, ensuring freedom of navigation for Israel in these crucial areas for the access to the Indian Ocean.

As part of the agreement between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the islands go under Saudi control over 25 years, giving Ryad an active part to ensure that the conditions of the peace treaty with Israel are met.


Sinai Liberation Day

(Excerpts from Ahram) ~ Protests against the recently declared Egyptian-Saudi island agreement took place on Monday before being promptly dispersed by police in Cairo amid heavy security presence, with rallies supporting the deal and celebrating Sinai Liberation Day allowed to take place.

Security forces had tightened their presence in central Cairo ahead of the planned protests, which were set to take place at three separate locations in the capital; the Journalists Syndicate and the Doctors Syndicate in downtown and at Behouth metro station in Giza, all under the slogan “Egypt Not For Sale.”

Egypt-Saudi-tiran-sanafir-island-1

According to press reports, some of the protesters dispersed by police at the Dokki march have sought refuge at the nearby headquarters of the Nasserist Karama Party, with security forces besieging the building. More than 150 protesters were arrested.

Local media outlets have reported that security forces in Cairo have been randomly stopping people in the streets and checking their mobile phone’s online applications to see whether they were participating in any protests.

Egypt-Saudi-tiran-sanafir-island-2

The protests came 10 days after several thousand people gathered in Cairo for the ‘Land Friday’ demonstration to protest the maritime border agreement, which places the Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir within Saudi territorial waters.

Egypt-Saudi-tiran-sanafir-island-3

Army forces were deployed on Monday for Sinai Liberation Day celebrations.

Sinai Liberation Day marks the final withdrawal of Israeli forces from Sinai Peninsula as well as the two disputed islands.


Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi and Saudi King Salman

RELATED

Le président égyptien sous le feu des critiques
pour avoir cédé deux îles à l’Arabie saoudite

(RT Francais) ~ Le maréchal Abdel Fattah al-Sissi a signé hier un accord avec ses homologues saoudiens, leur cédant les îles de Tiran et de Sanafir, situées dans une région stratégique à l’extrémité du golfe d’Aqaba, contrôlée depuis 1950 par le Caire.

Ce renoncement de l’Egypte à des îles importantes situées dans une région stratégique à l’extrémité du golfe d’Aqaba, qui donne sur la mer Rouge, a soulevé une vague de critiques dans le pays.

Remises à l’Arabie saoudite en vertu d’un accord de délimitation des frontières maritimes, ces îles représentaient la pomme de discorde entre ces deux pays depuis plusieurs décennies. Les négociations sur la délimitation de la frontière ont duré six ans et onze réunions de la commission ad hoc ont été organisées durant cette période.

Selon les hommes politiques égyptiens, la délimitation précise des frontières permettra aux deux pays de mieux utiliser leurs eaux territoriales. Mais dans la rue, la décision ne passe pas auprès de la population. Le journal égyptien Al-Ahram décrit ainsi une «vague colossale de controverse et de confusion», après que cinq personnes, qui protestaient contre l’accord, ont été arrêtées ce weekend et détenues jusqu’à lundi.

Inhabitées, ces îles sont stratégiquement importantes en raison de leur position sur la route maritime des ports d’Aqaba en Jordanie et d’Eilat en Israël.

Il y a quelques jours, le roi saoudien Salmane ben Abdelaziz Al Saoud avait également annoncé qu’un pont serait construit sur la mer Rouge afin de relier son pays à l’Egypte.

gamal-abdel-nasser-285179


SOURCES:
Edited and Submitted by SyrianPatriots 
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/tiran-and-sanafir/
~

Mashaal of Mossad, Nato Mufti Qaradawi (Muslim Brotherhood) at “Thanks Turkey” puppet’s show

Mashaal (Hamas), Qaradawi (Muslim Brotherhood) and Tumah (phony ‘Syrian prime minister’) at “Thanks Turkey” puppet’s show

Syrian Free Press

turkiye_ummetin_tek_guvenli_limani_1461401942_5488
(from left to right)
-1*Chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi
-2*Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan
-3*Hamas’ political leader Khaled Meshaal
-4*phony “interim prime minister of Syria“ Ahmad Tumah

… at the “Thank you Turkey“ festival organized by Arab non-governmental organizations to its hosting of 3 million asylum seekers(Sinan Erdem Sports Complex, Istanbul, 23 April 2016). 210 leaders from over 10 Arab countries and Turkey took part in this festival.

halid_mesaldan_erdogan_ve_davutoglu_mesaji
The shameful traitor of the Palestinian and Syrian people, Hamas’ political leader Khaled Meshaal, thanks Turkey for the crimes committed (by terrorist gangs supported by the Erdogan regime) in recent years against the same people Meshaal claims to represent, and against the only real Arab friend of Palestine, that always has been sincere ally of the Palestinian people: Syria.
mashal-erdogan-1


RELATED :

Khaled Meshaal

Traitor Meshaal: Gaza Defeated ISRAEL with Turkish Rockets

Yusuf al-Qaradawi (NATO MUFTI)

Thanks Turkey For Destroying Syria


SOURCES: Info from various Turkish agencies Photos-Videos Suggested & Submitted by Cem Ertür Text-Editing by SyrianPatriot War Press Info Network at : https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/turkey-puppets-show/ ~

Related Articles

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,992 other followers

%d bloggers like this: