Blog Moving

From now on, I will be posting on another one of my blogs with I like much more than Blogger. You can read my commentary at this address:

http://tetracide.wordpress.com/

Iran: The Facts & the Future

This is designed to illustrate the truth behind the Iranian nuclear crisis. Looking over the evidence that the IAEA, the United States government, and the Iranian government itself has provided, it is the undeniable truth that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. There are many factors that lead us to believe this.

Allow us to compare nuclear weapons to a teenager’s car. Teenagers typically receive their first car from their parents based on certain criteria. The teen must be responsible, punctual, and trustworthy. Without such characteristics, a parent would have a difficult time handing over the keys to a machine that, if used improperly, could kill someone. There are currently five nuclear weapon states officially recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They include: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and The People’s Republic of China. Each of these countries, while not without their own flaws, has demonstrated to be peaceful members of the international community. They have shown responsibility by participating in world-wide decision making under the United Nations, and have contributed to a global economy by participating in free trade and honest entrepreneurship. Iran has failed to demonstrate such characteristics.

On September 16, 2002, the Islamic Republic of Iran declared their desire to begin the construction of a nuclear reactor. Under the NPT, of which Iran was a part of, they were well within their rights to construct such a reactor. Subsequently, the IAEA began the process of ensuring Iran’s nuclear program remained transparent and within acceptable parameters. However, as time went by, Iran’s promises of cooperation began to fade. In the words of IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei on September 8, 2003, “information and access [to Iranian nuclear facilities] were in some instances slow in coming, piecemeal and reactive.” Now it is one thing to be slow in submitting information, but quite another to submit disinformation. Dr. ElBaradei continues: “information provided has been inconsistent with that given previously.”

Growing impatient with the IAEA’s vigorous oversight, Iran began to take action. Iran proceeded with its nuclear testing and rejected the IAEA’s demands to not introduce “nuclear material into its pilot centrifuge enrichment cascade at Natanz.” Expressing its concerns with Iran’s behavior of not only proceeding with nuclear testing without oversight, but also failing to declare nuclear material as required, the IAEA adopted a resolution demanding “Iran remedy all failures identified by the Agency and cooperate fully with the Agency to ensure verification of compliance.”

Iran rejected the resolution, proclaiming that by abiding to its “heavy-handed approach” it would present a “threat of hostile acts by the United States or its client Zionist regime.” Iran itself clearly makes the case that if they were to publicly release information regarding their nuclear program, or comply with a resolution calling for “Iran to provide accelerated cooperation and full transparency” towards its nuclear program would place them at a militaristic disadvantage over their enemies, the United States and Israel. If Iran’s objective is to develop peaceful nuclear energy for its people, why would it be to any disadvantage, militaristic or otherwise, to disclose all information about their program?

Iran’s irresponsible behavior and disregard for the IAEA’s demands, as well as their inability to timely present full and comprehensive data on their nuclear program, in addition to proceeding with unauthorized nuclear tests have demonstrated to the world that Iran falls short of the characteristics required to become a nuclear power.

While Iran plays cat-and-mouse with international patience, Iranian nuclear scientists have proceeded in researching nuclear power in the forum of weaponry. According to the CIA, Iran has sought “nuclear-related equipment, material, and technical expertise from a variety of sources.” Iran, in the past, has secretly enriched uranium far past the required level to be used for strictly nuclear energy. It is clear; Iran does not intent to peacefully develop nuclear energy.

Proponents for a nuclear Iran reiterate the argument posed by President Gerald R. Ford. In a strategy paper he said the “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.” Let’s look at this pragmatically. If Iran’s whole reasoning for developing nuclear weapons is to relive the stress on its oil production infrastructure so that it can produce and sell more oil, wouldn’t it be less politically hectic and less expensive if Iran simply increased its number of oil refineries? Doing so would have the exact opposite effect than attempting to develop nuclear energy. The international community would welcome Iran’s effort to put more oil into the world market, thus lowering the price of gas everywhere (having the least effect on the United States considering the U.S. is one of the only nations that does not purchase oil from Iran).

Allowing the Iranian regime to continue its development of weapons of mass destruction is dangerous. The international community has handed over the keys to the car, and an irresponsible, unpunctual, and untrustworthy driver is about to get behind the wheel.

Are America's best days behind her?

It is argued frequently and with broad strokes that the United States is on a downward spiral. To those who have the ability to step away from the political arena and analyze it with a level head, most can come to the conclusion that these conclusions that damn America are strictly political doom-and-gloom attitudes.

Standing outside that arena also allows informed members of society to view all the facts that are often kicked aside in debate. With a historical and empirical perspective, a much different conclusion can be made.

How does one gauge a country’s overall success? Could it be the quality of life of its citizens? The economic power it projects? Could it possibly be its technological achievements and advancements? Maybe it is based on how many diplomatic solutions it brokers. Because there is no set way of determining how prosperous a nation is, a mixture of all accomplishments and its overall positive effects on society as a worldly whole can come close to the true measure.

The Historical Perspective

Even broader strokes have been made on both sides of the ideological debate regarding the United States’ history. It is often stated that toady, we live in a wretched, violent, unstable time period. However, the educated man would ask himself, “how much more difficult is international terrorism than communism or fascism, or slavery?

Abraham Lincoln once said, “[a] house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free.” 1 His words were powerful, and his meaning was true. Hundreds of thousands of lives were in a constant state of ruin due to slavery. It was a challenge of their day, and it took men of Lincoln’s scope to solve it.

Nationalism and hubris engulfed Europe and triggered one of the largest world conflicts seen. The containment of a conquering Germany and the suppression of the militarily ambitiousness of Austria-Hungry were the day’s headlines, and the strong leaders of the United States and its allies took on that challenge.

The rise of Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia were surly a scary thought. Watching a fascist government slaughter millions of innocent people, and a communist one doing the same was a somber and painful thing to watch. Real people were dying, and real war came. Millions more died in the fight for equality and freedom, and in the end, true leaders like Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill seized opportunities and dealt with the daunting problems.

And to some, not too long ago, the United States stood on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The most deadly of weapons were being mounted and ready to be launched. With the flick of a switch, millions, if not billions of people could have died if it weren’t for the leadership of the free and democratic world.

Today, international terrorism threatens the stability and tranquility of not only the American people, but again, the free and dem-ocratic world. The question is, are we in a more dangerous, vio-lent, and racist world today, than our previous chapters? Slavery affected everyone. Fascism threatened everyone. Communism endangered everyone. Terrorism jeopardizes everyone.

The Empirical Perspective

Fact-based numbers are helpful when it comes to measuring a nation’s success, and it will also conclude the exact opposite of a so-called “American decadence.” It would be illogical to walk through every economic, social, and governmental improvement (yes, there are that many), however the strongest and most far reaching fields are appropriate to look at.

Allow us to first look at our technology: one hundred years ago, in the United States, transportation via gas-powered vehicles was still under way. Only one hundred and forty-four miles of paved roads were available and a measly eight thousand cars were on what roads there were. The average pay was twenty-two cents an hour and the average worker made from two-hundred to four-hundred dollars a year. The five leading causes of death in America were pneumonia, tuberculosis, diarrhea, heart disease and strokes. Only six percent of Americans had graduated from high school, and only two out of every ten adults could read or write.2

Today, needless to say, is much different. In 2005, the United States ranked second in having the most internet users, third in active telephone lines, and third in active cellular mobile telephone use. We have more airports, more kilometers in roadways, and more railways than any other country in the world. We exported 927.5 billion dollars in goods in 2005 alone.3

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1997 to 2002 alone, the U.S. saw an increase in the number of paid employees in the following fields: mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information distribution, finance and insurance, real estate, rental and leasing, professional, scientific and technical services, managements of companies and enterprises, administrative, support, waste management, and remediation services, education services, health care and social assistance, arts, entertainment and recreation fields, and accommodation and food services.4

All of these jobs equal economic growth, and that has most definitely been true. In the past 12 months, nearly 1.9 million jobs were created. The unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent – lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. According to an American Research Group poll, 50% of people that disapprove of George W. Bush said the economy is in a recession.5

Unfortunately, the President’s opponents could not be more wrong. Contrary to their belief, the economy is in an astounding state, one that has spurred a real GDP of 5.3%. Because of the President’s tax relief initiatives set in 2003, business investment and job growth has steadily grown.

{Figure 2} (Source: United States Department of the Treasury) 6

More Americans than ever are investing in the market shown by the Dow surpassing 11,000 on January 9th, 2006. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, the deficit is now where it was during the 1990s and has continued to shrink. Our economy is strong, Americans are going to work, and the markets are benefiting from tax cuts. It could not be more crystal clear.

Another talking point of those who believe America’s golden days are behind her, is that our aspiring children are more disrespectful, and also believe that a variety of things including teen pregnancy, crime, and cancer are all on the rise. That could not be more incorrect. Between 1990 and 2000, the teen pregnancy rate declined by 28%. Teenage girls performing abortions have also decreased.7 Rising crime is also a common misconception. Crime is actually decreasing. The FBI reports that from 1993 to 2002, the crime rate has declined by 23.5%. Another FBI report concluded in 2004 projected the continuing trend: the rate of murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson have all fallen.8

Citizen’s health could also be a key factor in determining the success of a nation. The 2002 estimated national vaccination coverage of hepatitis was 90%, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids: 82%, Haemophilus influenza: 93%, measles-mumps-rubella: 92%, polio: 90%, varicella: 81%.9 Every national coverage percentile has increased from the 2000-01 statistics. The United States’ life expectancy is higher than one hundred sixty-two other countries.10 The number of Health Savings Accounts tripled from March 2005, to January 200611. Americans are living longer, and are becoming more responsible with their future health.

So is America in a state of decadence? With our technological prowess, economic growth, an increasingly more responsible youth, less crime and healthier citizens, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that America is on a downward slope. Quite the contrary, the trends that have been identified in this document all point to a positive direction, whether that is an upward slope of real GDP growth, or a downward slope of crime rates. To the educated American, the United States is a safer, more reliable, and a more prosperous place to live.

[1] http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/22.htm
[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa122102a.htm
[3] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/rankorderguide.html
[4] http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/advance/TABLE2.HTM
[5] http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
[6] http://www.ustreas.gov/economic-plan/
[7] http://www.slate.com/id/2140985/
[8] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/index.html
[9] http://www.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/NIS/figures/02/02-map-menu.htm
[10] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
[11] http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthcare/

Reaganomics

The United States is a country full of debate, and with an ever growing politically stimulated atmosphere, the informed members of society find themselves boxing each other in the ideological ring of disagreements. So many events capture our attention in the world of today, but every so often events in the world of yesterday capture that same attention and once again, the gloves are back on.

Ronald Reagan, President from 1981 to 1989, casts a shadow of epic proportion on many fronts. Most specifically, his economic policy was one of the most far-reaching attempts to change how America and American’s viewed the federal economic system as well as their own money. I’m proud to share those ambitious reaches and answer the ever lingering question, “Did Reaganomics really work?”

So what was Reaganomics? Reaganomics was a policy implemented by Ronald Reagan that mimicked what is known as supply-side economics which is based on the idea that supply creates its own demand. Thus, Reagan believed that by giving American businesses tax cuts allowed them to increase supply. Complemented with tax cuts for the American families, Reaganomics drove up business revenue, by increasing the personal income revenue percentile and thusly, spurred economic growth.

Surging inflation, plummeting consumer confidence, and interest rates above 20 percent all made up the final years of the Democratic Carter Administration, and laid new and daring challenges for the upcoming Republican Regan Administration. Twenty-nine days into his presidency, Ronald Regan announced his budget plans which included large tax cuts for Americans. According to ABC News, Ronald Reagan held an approval rating of 73% just one month after his tax cuts took effect. Immediately, inflation plummeted, consumer confidence soared, nearly 20 million new jobs created, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 240 percent, and personal income tax revenues climbed dramatically.

But Reagan wasn’t done yet. When Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed, it immediate affected American business and households. Business Week’s Michael Mandel mentioned in his 2004 column that “[t]he new law helped support "idea-based" industries such as software and financial services.” Mandel also states that Reagan “helped lay the groundwork for the Information Revolution of the 1990s.”

Sean Hannity, in his book entitled Let Freedom Ring, said it as simple as it could be, “Together, the two Reagan reforms brought the nation’s top marginal tax rate (on the richest Americans) down from an outrageous 70 percent to just 28 percent,” and because of it, “the economy flourished and more wealth was created”.

Despite the many highly-politicized events that shook the 1980’s, the economy remained strong, and maintained a steady climb. The CATO Institute informs us that under the Reagan Administration, America enjoyed a 3.2 percent economic growth average compared to 2.8 percent in the Ford-Carter years – a clear sign that economic activity undertaken in the 1980’s was one of success.

The experts agree: Reagan knew what he was doing, and it worked. “There is no doubt in my mind that that action of Reagan, plus his emphasis on lowering tax rates, plus his emphasis on deregulating … unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market and from 1983 on, it's been almost entirely up,” said Milton Friedman, former policy advisor to the Reagan Administration in an interview with PBS. “By 1988 we were in early stages of what has now been almost 20 years of economic growth,” mentioned Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999, in another PBS interview.

So, in conclusion, based on the evidence that I have found and presented, I have strong reason to believe that the economic outreach of the Reagan Administration was one that took a country out of a recession, and into a decade of economic growth. Yes, Reaganomics worked. It works in the world of today, and it certainly worked in the world of yesterday.

Sources:
Dalia Sussman, ABC News, “Improving With Age: Reagan Approval Grows Better in Retrospect”

Hannity, Sean. Let Freedom Ring. New York: Regan Books, 2002.

Michael Mandel, Business Week, “Reagan’s Economic Legacy”

Wikipedia. Supply-side economics. 17 May 2006.

William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore, CATO Institute, “Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record,”

The Public Broadcasting System. Commanding Heights: Reaganomics. 2006.

The Public Broadcasting System. Commanding Heights: Reaganomics. 2006.

National Video Resources. Ronald Reagan 1981-1989. May 2004.

The Iranian 1953 Coup d'état and the CIA’s Involvement

The relationship between the United States and Iran has been one roller coaster ride after another. In the past, our economic ties enriched a strong yet unique friendship between the U.S. and Iran, but today, the U.S. has branded Iran as part of an axis of evil and a country which has snubbed its nose to the international demands to stop the research and development of nuclear technology. 1953 Iran was no exception.

One of those roller coasters did an entire 360 degrees around the once Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Mosaddeq in mid August, 1953. It is a fact that a coup d'état occurred, and that coup d'état was assisted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Anyone might conclude that this is basic knowledge of the 1953 incident. So how did the sentiment leak into the minds of the Left that we “trained his [the Shah’s] own personal secret police” or that the government which followed after the coup “was installed by the west”?

While I could dive into a diatribe of the low standards some Americans have for their own country, a historical perspective and a rekindled enlightenment of the situation that was the 1953 Iranian coup d'état are required and would be more suitable.

Events surrounding the Iranian coup are important and like many other historical issues and concepts, any discussion should start with the context of the situation. While it is odd that anyone would defend a self-proclaimed communist, it nevertheless should be established that Mosaddeq was no innocent bystander that just so happened to be trampled by the immoral CIA machine. Some like to claim Mosaddeq was democratically elected, yet this is certainly not the case. To replace the Prime Minister Ali Razmara, who was assassinated thirty-nine days before his term was over, Mosaddeq was appointed on April 27th, 1952 by Iran’s legislative assembly, the Majlis. At the end of those thirty-nine days, against the consent of the Shah, and certainly undemocratically, Mosaddeq was appointed. With a clear horizon in front of him, his quest for power was ready to begin.

Almost immediately after his second appointment, Mosaddeq demanded ultimate power over all economic, financial, and personnel aspects of the government. The Majlis refused, and Mosaddeq childishly resigned on July 16th. General Zahedi was to be the new Prime Minister but after much political unrest and even riots, Mosaddeq came back to power on the 22nd, and his bill to give him dictatorial powers over Iran for a time period of six months was passed. The Mosaddeq regime was now in place.

In complete control of his future, things only went downhill for the Iranian people. Twenty days later, not only were economic, financial, and personnel powers in the hands of Mosaddeq, but so was every aspect of Iranian life. In a failed attempt to stop Mosaddeq’s consolidation of power, fifteen Iranian generals were dismissed from service or were forced to retire. Dissent would not to be tolerated by the new regime. As the socialist he was, the dictator enacted communistic economic reform which burdened small villages and farmers to surrender 20% of their land of which would then be divided up into equal parts for the better good. Along came tax increases and the specific targeting of wealthy Iranians. If they refused to pay, they were imprisoned and their property confiscated. It was the decree of the regime that all funds gained were to be redistributed equally to the masses.

Mosaddeq’s stern nationalistic approach to his governing not only ran counter to the Shah’s wishes, but to the United Kingdom’s interests in the region. Mosaddeq’s illegal seizure of western assets spurred even more unrest. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) fiasco led Iran down an extremely difficult path of trying to stimulate its own economy. The UK oil trade was calculated in to Mosaddeq’s economic development plan, but due to Mosaddeq’s personal ego, and his lack of ability to do what was right for his country and his people, UK-Iranian relations, for the first time since 1859, were severed.

Mosaddeq quickly lost support from the military to the religious figures in Iran. The United States also saw this situation as a problem. The early stages of the Cold War were in full swing at this time, and to the U.S.-led Western bloc and the Soviet-led Eastern bloc, any political moves made around the world were considered “wins” or “losses.” With Iran’s failed economy, and severed ties with their leading foreign trade dealer the UK, Iran was left with only once choice – do business with the Soviets and thus, be engulfed into the Soviet sphere of influence.

Because the U.S. did not want to “lose” Iran, Kermit Roosevelt, a senior agent for the CIA, developed a plan to assist the Shah and opposition parties of the Mosaddeq regime in a coup. The operation was dubbed Operation Ajax and a total of $1 million was set aside for the project.

And we’re off to the races!

Operation Ajax had international support. British MI6 agents and CIA operatives made up the operating group. The Qashqai tribal leaders arranged for the two governments, the UK and the U.S., to operate in secrecy in their part of southern Iran. With a footing in place, and the objective clear, it was time to act.

Unexpectedly and only a mere hours before the coup was to take place, Mosaddeq was tipped off. Iranian troops loyal to Mosaddeq spread across Tehran intercepting pro-Shah soldiers in their tracks. Despite what seemed to be a huge setback, CIA agents on the ground as well as General Zahedi himself thought otherwise. Kermit Roosevelt and Zahedi agreed that if the Shah sent a decree detailing the removal of Mosaddeq and the appointment of the lawful Prime Minister, General Zahedi.

The CIA made the arrangements, but before there was any implementation, another decisive blow to the operation came about when the Shah was reported to have fled to Baghdad. Kermit and CIA operatives on the ground now had no communication with the Shah to inquire him for the two decrees needed. In a last ditch effort to instigate the coup, and taking advantage of Mosaddeq’s premature removal of Iranian troops in Tehran, the CIA contacted the Associated Press in New York as well as some Tehran newspapers and told them the coup leaders were armed with the two decrees hoping the Shah would get the message and follow through.

On August 17th, the Shah got the message, and made an announcement that he had signed the decrees however some feared that it was too late. Pro-Mosaddeq newspapers declared the end of the Pahlevi dynasty and the Communist Party’s central committee attributed the coup had failed. Just as the CIA were packing their things to go home, heads hung low, word on the street changed and pro-Shah rallies raged through the avenues of Tehran. Iranian CIA agents, without specific orders, led the crowds to vandalize and overrun pro-Mosaddeq newspaper publishing buildings. Things were moving far more quickly than even the CIA had anticipated. An Iranian general that helped with the original coup days before showed up in front of the Parliament with a tank. Truckloads of military personnel were at every large intersection. In light of the situation, Mr. Roosevelt personally brought General Zahedi to one of the radio stations which were already broadcasting the success of the coup and the decrees from the Shah. Zahedi addressed the nation for the first time as Prime Minister.

Well, let’s hold on a second here. What did the CIA do again? Did they amass the crowds, arm them with AK-47s and point them in the right direction? Actually no, they didn’t. The will of the people and Mosaddeq’s totalitarian and communistic views and policies is what triggered the movement. While the CIA was packing their things due to their failure, the Iranian people stepped up. The full $1 million wasn’t even spent. A measly $75,000 was spent on only mobilizing personnel.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and in light of the aftermath of the 1953 coup, blatant blaming and condemnation of the CIA expectedly follow, but the question still remains; how did the sentiment leak into the minds of the Left that we “trained his [the Shah’s] own personal secret police” or that the government which followed after the coup “was installed by the west”? The CIA surly did not set up any training camps, nor was their any installation of a leader. The Iranian people followed the will of their legal leader, the Shah. Simply and honestly put, the CIA set an already strong movement in motion, and made room for General Zahedi to take his rightful position.

It is in the wish of history, that accurate perspective and informed conclusions remain potent. In 1953, Mosaddeq’s regime was one of brutality, social, and economic unrest brought about by communism. The United States, being the beacon of freedom and prosperity that it is, assisted little in the removal a dictatorship, and that is simply all.

The Ultimate Question

The left are entertaining in the fact that they put all their energy into one matter, whichever is prominent at that moment, and consistently fail to succeed or at least leave the situation with a victorious light of which they crave.

Not too long ago we had the John Bolton nomination, where the Democrats were caught off guard while gussying up for the celebrating press conference, when the President appointed Mr. Bolton directly to the UN. To the left, John Bolton was a fascist, unethical, dirty old man, and not worthy of such a position. Putting their heart and soul into every speech, they painted that man as unfit for the job, and criticized the President for sending such an obvious moron to the likes of them. However, now, he isn’t talked about at all. We haven’t heard much about him, his business at the UN, and the policies he supports or denounces.

This brings up an interesting question. If Bolton was a spawn of Satan, like the left portrayed him and many others to be, why was he suddenly ignored once the opportunity to obstruct such an evil human being was much more difficult?

The left have amazing and admirable fidelity, whether it be tarnishing the wife and kids of a Supreme Court nominee, or the giddy publicizing of the 2,000 fallen American men and women in the armed service. If history respected the opposing parties of the time more, the modern left would certainly take the cake. Horrific comments made by their idols like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, or Howard Dean were widely accepted or quietly ignored, highlighting the fact that they refuse to protect America on the political battlefield when it is so clearly under attack from within.

A shrug or a sigh is surly in order, but one cannot help but to think where the party of hate and obstruction is headed. The presidency?

In 2004, the harsh reminder that such anger and antagonism is not strong enough to win the hearts and minds of the American public was all too apparent. However, the left, in their attempt to analyze why the right won (not why they lost), they decided to not re-illustrate their base with their solid positions and values in the arena of ideas, but to rather deceive (Hillary Clinton) and continue to increase the size of their “hate base” (Harry Reed, and many others).

The ultimate question of life is “why?” and while three letters seems easy to say, type, and write, many if not all Americans are still confused in regards to the answer the left may provide to that question. They can run and hide from answering the question for as long as they want, but until they finally answer the silent majority; the voters; the people, they will never taste the sweet taste of power they so eagerly strive for.

Blog Moving

Iran: The Facts & the Future

Are America's best days behind her?

Reaganomics

The Iranian 1953 Coup d'état and the CIA’s Involvement

The Ultimate Question

Don't Click

Tetracide

Previous Posts

Archives