WW3 Fears Spike After Trump Sends Anti-Tank Missiles To Ukraine

Fears of a third world war continue to ratchet higher.  This time, the fear has spiked after president Donald Trump sent anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in a show of defiance against Russian president, Vladimir Putin.

The war games are all for show for now: that is until someone takes it just slightly too far…

President Trump’s administration supplied the weapons after shrugging off Putin’s warning whisking them off to Kiev could escalate a four-year smoldering war in the region. Ukraine’s defense minister General Stepan Poltorak was united with Trump and quipped he would waste no time in training his troops to use the highly sophisticated Javelin anti-tank weapons.

Poltorak showered praise on president Trump for a “positive decision which helps to significantly increase Ukraine’s defense capability and provide Ukrainian servicemen with modern weapons,” according to The Express UK.

Ukraine’s pro-western president Petro Poroshenko confirmed the arrival of the “long-awaited weaponry,” yet stopped short of saying just how many missiles were actually delivered.  The ammo is part of a whopping $47 million  Congregational military aid package that should consist of 210 Javelins and 37 launchers.

Russia is yet to respond on the gift but last year said Donald Trump has “crossed the line” by arming Ukraine and helping them repel attacks from Moscow.

US and Ukrainian officials have blasted Russia for reportedly shepherding in hundreds of tanks and rockets into the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Since the war there erupted, the US has provided more than $1billion of non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine in the form of night goggles, body armor, and Humvee vehicles. This was under the Obama administration, which refused to supply lethal equipment fearing retaliation from Russia. -Express UK

Before Trump stepped in, Poroshenko pleaded with western backers to send Kiev arms in the early days of the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 10,000 civilians making it Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the Balkan wars.

Military Industrial Complex Stocks Sent Crashing as North and South Korea Achieve Peace

By Rachel Blevins

North and South Korea reached a historic peace deal this week, and as the leaders from the two nations met in person for the first time and agreed to pursue an end to the Korean War, it signaled an incredible breakthrough in diplomacy and sent the stocks of defense contractors in the United States crashing.

When North Korea’s Kim Jong-un shook hands with South Korea’s Moon Jae-in for the first time on Friday, they put thousands of people both at home and around the world at ease, as they agreed to a peace deal that has the power to break the tension that has been between the two countries for decades.

All smiles, hugs & holding hands as North & South Korean leaders meet (PHOTOS, VIDEO) https://t.co/r5zeArvpMh pic.twitter.com/wpnp2ZZrHS

— RT (@RT_com) April 27, 2018

However, while peace may seem like the best possible outcome to the average person who is aware of how the ongoing war has hurt both North and South Korea over the years, it is a resolution that hurts the United States military-industrial complex, as can be seen by the results from stocks following the meeting.

On Friday alone, the five largest defense contractors in the U.S. lost more than $10 billion in value.

Lockheed Martin (LMT) started the week at $352.79 per share and ended it at $321.95 per share, falling 2.5 percent to a valuation of about $92 billion.

Northrop Grumman (NOC) started the week at $356.67 per share and ended it at $321.86 per share, falling 3.4 percent to a valuation of $56 billion.

General Dynamics (GD) started the week at $222.92 per share and ended it at $203.70 per share, falling 3.8 percent to a valuation of $60 billion.

Raytheon (RTN) started the week at $227.67 per share and ended it at $204.09 per share, falling $3.6 percent to a valuation of $50 billion.

Boeing (BA) lost less than 1 percent of its stock, ending the week with an evaluation of $200 billion.

When the United States invades sovereign nations, overthrows foreign governments and launches countless drone strikes that kill innocent civilians, the military-industrial complex profits by the billions. But the industry is so volatile that while a peaceful meeting between two leaders can send its stocks crashing, threats and angry Tweets from another leader can cause its stocks to soar.

President Trump vowed to meet North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen” in August 2017, and as The Free Thought Project reported, the stocks of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors increased significantly in response:

Fear has infected the planet—so the fraught business of national defense is booming.‘

The level of dialogue around missile defense is now at the prime minister and minister of defense level,’ vice president of Lockheed’s Air and Missile Defense business, Tom Cahill, noted in an interview with Reuters, which added, ‘Some countries are putting missile defense at the top of their list of desired capabilities, Cahill said. Interest has increased over the last 12 to 18 months, as have threats, he said. Shares of Lockheed are up nearly 8 percent, to $300.10, since North Korea’s first long-range missile test on July 4. The stock is up 20 percent year-to-date.’

Of course, that was yesterday. Today, Lockheed Martin stocks continue to rise—just prior to publication, stocks hovered around $305 per share—and show no indications of falling to levels typical of a less charged global atmosphere.

The United State government accounted for around 70 percent of Lockheed Martin’s revenue in 2016, and when the Trump Administration began threatening to launch a full-scale war against North Korea, the company’s shares skyrocketed by 8 percent, marking a 20 percent increase in Lockheed Martin’s stock in the first 8 months of the year.

Now that lasting peace could be on the horizon between North and Korea and stocks are dropping, it raises questions about how defense contractors in the U.S. will recover. If there is no bear to poke and no war to threaten in North Korea, will the U.S. increase tensions in Syria, at the risk of provoking Russia? Or will it resume its propaganda campaign against Iran in an attempt to convince Americans that the country is in desperate need of “freedom and democracy,” when in reality the military-industrial complex is in dire need of high stocks and successful profits?

Rachel Blevins is an independent journalist from Texas, who aspires to break the false left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Steemit and Patreon. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

Senate Rejects Ending US Support for Saudi Aggression in Yemen

[image: U.S. President Donald Trump holds a chart of military hardware sales as he welcomes Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S. March 20, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst]

Bush/Cheney began terror-bombing Yemen post-9/11, waging drone warfare – on the phony pretext of combating al-Qaeda Washington created and supports.

In cahoots with Riyadh, Obama escalated what they begin, further escalated by Trump allied with Saudi aggression.

Already the region’s poorest country, years of war caused the world’s severest humanitarian crisis, over 80% of Yemenis dependent on way inadequate amounts of aid to survive.

US-backed Saudi air, sea and land blockades prevent enough essentials to life from entering the country.

Countless numbers of Yemenis perished from war, related violence, untreated diseases, malnutrition and starvation.

Official UN figures way understate the toll from years of war, blockade and deprivation – perhaps hundreds of thousands of Yemenis perishing needlessly post-9/11, notably since March 2015.

According to separate UNICEF figures, at least one Yemeni child under age five dies every 10 minutes from starvation alone.

Famine stalks the country, along with endless aggression – genocide against its people neither the Trump administration or Congress is willing to address.

On Tuesday, Senate members rejected a resolution to end US military support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen – voting 55 – 44 against it.

The vote came while Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) was in Washington meeting with Trump.

During a White House photo-op, Trump boasted about billions of dollars in US weapons sales to the kingdom – ignoring their use for aggression, supporting terrorism and domestic repression.

Crown prince/defense minister MBS orchestrated Saudi aggression on Yemen, supported by Washington, Britain and other nations.

Ahead of Tuesday’s Senate vote, Defense Secretary Mattis wrote GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, turning truth on its head saying:

“(R)estrictions (on) US military support (to Riyadh) could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism and reduce our influence with the Saudis – all of which would further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.”

MBS is a despotic future Saudi king, a rogue actor, a war criminal – disgracefully invited to Washington, other Western capitals, Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Big Oil in Houston, other US corporate headquarters, along with events at Harvard and MIT.

It’s part of his three-week US charm offensive, aiming to improve the image of the Arab world’s most ruthless regime, along with seeking US investments to diversify Riyadh’s economy.

It’s MBS’ so-called Vision 2030, seeking economic modernization, including industrial development and tourism.

The kingdom enlisted Western PR firms and other image-makers to present him as a new breed of future Saudi leader – a similar strategy used during a three-day visit to Britain, meetings arranged with political, military and business officials.

MBS’ March 18 appearance on CBS News’ 60 Minutes preceded the start of his US tour, beginning in Washington with Trump and other administration officials.

He’s no reformer. He’s like his father King Salman and others earlier throughout the kingdom’s sordid history.

Trump strongly supports its regime, ignoring its despotic agenda, Riyadh his first foreign trip destination after taking office, lucrative trade agreements signed during his visit, especially US weapons sales.

Arms and security project director at the Center for International Policy William Hartung said MBS’ policy agenda is polar opposite the “public relations version of who he is and what he’s trying to do,” adding:

During his US visit, “the question is how critical will the media be? Will Yemen be an afterthought, or will it be front and center in the conversation?”

So far, it’s very much the former, not the latter.

The post Senate Rejects Ending US Support for Saudi Aggression in Yemen appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Donald Trump’s Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran

By Derrick Broze, Activist Post | 

The latest neo-conservative warmonger to join the Trump Administration does not bode well for the people of Iran.

On Thursday Donald Trump announced that John Bolton, a former official in George W. Bush’s administration and former ambassador to the UN, would be his new National Security Advisor. Bolton is a warhawk who called for the invasion of Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and has for years called for the invasion of Iran.

Middle East Eye collected a number of quotes from Bolton over the years that indicate his plans for Iran and other nations viewed as a threat to national security of the U.S. government. And by that I mean the people who secretly wield control of corporate and state power. In 2009, Bolton said that regime change is “ultimately, the only thing that will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.” As recent as 2015 Bolton call for a U.S./Israel joint bombing campaign.“Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul questioned the appointment. “It concerns me that Trump would put someone in charge who is unhinged as far as believing in absolute and total intervention,” Paul stated. Bolton’s appointment was also criticized by Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American Council.

Further, it seems that Bolton and former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani have already promised the regime change would be happening within the next year. “Just eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People’s Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a ‘viable’ alternative,” The Intercept reports.

“The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself,” newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton told the crowd. The Intercept also noted that Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi reported that Bolton ended his talk by promising, “And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”

At a recent celebration of the Persian New Year, Rudy Giuliani promised the audience that “if anything, John Bolton has become more determined that there needs to be regime change in Iran, that the nuclear agreement needs to be burned, and that you need to be in charge of that country.” Disturbingly, Giuliani reportedly led the crowd in a chant of “regime change!”.

It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, “Project for the New American Century,” which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force,” the think tank wrote the following controversial line:

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Less than a year later, 10 of the 18 men who signed the paper became members of the Bush administration. The attacks of 9/11 would come soon after and the neocons had their “catastrophic and catalyzing event” and an excuse to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and soon possibly, Iran. The men included Bush’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition; William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

In addition to the well-known Pearl Harbor quote, the paper goes on to describe the eventual outcome of the initial regime change. “Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.” If the last 15 years of war, violence, and death in the Middle East have been the “transition” phase, John Bolton and Trump may be preparing to shift gears and move into the “transformation” phase – beginning with the invasion of Iran. However, based on PNAC’s track record, they might be looking for a new catastrophic event to generate support for intervention in Iran.

So much for draining the swamp…

The post Donald Trump’s Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

THE MILITARY CAN SECURE THE BORDER AND BUILD THE WALL

Why President Trump is right to call out the troops.

Daniel Greenfield  4-04-2018

The United States has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, 39,000 in Japan, 34,805 in Germany, 23,000 in South Korea, and around 5,200 in Iraq. Our military protects the borders of countless nations.

Except our own.

In 1919, we had 18,500 soldiers on the border. “Twice a day every foot of the border line is patrolled by cavalrymen and infantrymen,” the New York Times noted.

A hundred years later, President Trump’s proposal to use the military to secure the border is controversial even though Marines fighting drug cartels have come under fire from drug smugglers.

El Salvadoran migration has inflicted 207 murderers on this country. The migrant caravan threatening to invade this country includes migrants from El Salvador. Some of them may be MS-13 members. The Pueblo Sin Fronteras caravan of 1,000 migrants is the product of an alliance between international leftists and migrant invaders. Their goal is the invasion, colonization and occupation of America.

And the only ones defending us against them are the members of an outnumbered border patrol, threatened by both drug cartels on the other side of the border and sanctuary states in this country.

That’s why President Trump is mobilizing the troops to do the job that the Democrats won’t do.

“Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” President Trump said.

Some of the same politicians who oppose withdrawing our forces from Syria also oppose sending troops to secure the border. But which should be a higher priority?

If an enemy army were invading South Korea, our soldiers would swing into action. But the United States has already been invaded. The invaders have occupied and seized control of state governments, including California, while declaring that their rebel cities will defy Federal immigration law.

They mean to do the same thing to the entire country. Their DREAM is the end of America.

From fighting Indian raids to the banditry of Pancho Villa, the military has always secured the border against invasions out of Mexico. The military was our defense against the “Plan of San Diego” terror waged by Mexican racists who vowed to seize control of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado, liberate the “proletariat” and execute all “North American over sixteen years of age.”

And yes, the military can even “build the wall”.

Joint Task Force North’s military engineers have already built 62 miles of road, and border fence construction. There’s no reason why its anti-terrorist and drug smuggling prevention mission can’t be expanded to include securing the border with a wall and other impassable physical barriers.

Presidents have taken action against urgent illegal migrant threats before.

“Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. ‘I like Ike,’ right?” Donald Trump said during a primary debate. “Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back.”

Operation Wetback was fantastically effective in clearing illegal aliens out of California and Texas.

Under General Joseph Swing, who had done everything from hunting Pancho Villa in Mexico to going up against the Japanese in the Philippines, the INS caught, detained and deported over a million illegals. Wetback had been based on the Operation Cloud Burst plan, which would have used a presidential proclamation to authorize the use of military force if the Army had not been tied down in Korea.

Some commentators have claimed that the Posse Comitatus Act would prevent the use of any military forces other than the National Guard on the border. But securing the border against foreign invaders (as opposed to domestic law enforcement directed against citizens) has always been a military matter.

Furthermore the military is already authorized to operate in areas where drug smuggling occurs.

Stopping illegal migrants does not subject “citizens to the exercise of military power”. If the military does not supplement ICE, but directly secures the border, there would be no Posse Comitatus issue.

But the law also permits the use of military force to “prevent disruption of Federal functions”.

Sanctuary states like California have disrupted the functioning of immigration law and have even passed laws prohibiting citizens from cooperating with Federal authorities. 10 U.S.C. 332, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces to enforce Federal law when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States renders ordinary enforcement means unworkable.”

The unlawful obstruction of immigration law by sanctuary cities and states has made ordinary enforcement unworkable. The rebellion against the authority of the United States must end.

10 U.S.C. 333 further, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces when domestic violence or conspiracy hinders execution of State or Federal law, and a State cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens.” That’s the current state of affairs in California and elsewhere.

Californians are being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens because their government not only refuses to protect their constitutional rights, but criminalizes cooperation with immigration authorities.

 

Read more at FRONTPAGEMAG

 

 

The post THE MILITARY CAN SECURE THE BORDER AND BUILD THE WALL appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Donald Trump Proposes Guarding Border with the Military

by Charlie Spiering   3 Apr 2018

President Donald Trump said he is currently having discussions in his administration to deploy military resources on the southern border.

Making his remarks during a lunch meeting at the White House with the presidents of Baltic nations, as Gen. James Mattis sat beside him at the table, Trump said, “I’ve been speaking with Gen. Mattis. We’re going to be doing things militarily,” adding, “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military.”

The president did not detail specific plans for policing the border but appeared eager to make it happen after Democrats stalled progress on his long-promised border wall.

“That’s a big step,” Trump said. “We really haven’t done that before, certainly not very much before.”

Trump confirmed in an afternoon press conference on Tuesday that he does intend to use military force to secure the border.

“We are preparing to have the military to secure our border between Mexico and the United States,” Trump said when reporters questioned him for more details. He said he would be meeting with Mattis and other security officials to discuss the issue soon.

The omnibus spending deal included less than $1.6 billion for border structures but an impressive $700 billion for the Pentagon in FY2018.

Read more at Breitbart

 

 

The post Donald Trump Proposes Guarding Border with the Military appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Saudi Crown Prince’s Militarized Entourage Invades Harvard and MIT

Last weekend, both schools were stops on his US tour – attempting to burnish his rogue image, make Saudi despotism look benign, along with courting investors from Wall Street to Big Oil to Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

Nary a mention of aggression in Yemen was made during his visit, a taboo topic, Washington and Britain up to their ears in raping and destroying the country, conspiratorially responsible with Riyadh for the world’s severest humanitarian crisis – out of sight and mind during his tour.

Billions of dollars in US and UK weapons sales to the kingdom matter more, along with wanting access to its oil reserves and Saudi investments in America and Britain.

According to the Harvard Crimson student newspaper, heavily armed security personnel, an armored vehicle, 30 security vehicles and 10 motorcycles accompanied Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) during his visit.

He participated in discussions with university professors and presidents of Boston area college presidents.

According to Harvard’s vice provost of international affairs Mark Elliot, he expressed interest “in the connection between research, entrepreneurship and innovation, and how they fit together to fuel the economy.”

On arrival, Harvard provost Alan Garber greeted MBS, not university president Drew Faust – because of a prior commitment, according to university spokesperson Tania deLuzuriaga.

Or did pangs of conscience keep her away? Was she reluctant to be part of a photo-op with MBS, tarnishing her image more than already?

According to the Crimson, university officials didn’t publicize MBS’ visit, despite shamefully inviting him on campus.

No public events were scheduled – nor at MIT, both Cambridge campuses about a mile from each other.

MIT’s student newspaper The Tech commented on his visit, saying it was “in conjunction with the second annual Innovation to Impact forum” on campus.

According to director of media relations and deputy director of MIT News Kimberly Allen, “Saudi Arabia and MIT have a longstanding collaborative relationship focused on subjects of mutual interest,” adding:

“Saudi Aramco is a founding member of the MIT Energy Initiative.”

A Saudi prince earlier donated $40 million dollars to Harvard and Georgetown universities, the amount divided equally between them.

Saudi entrepreneurial billionaire Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel earlier donated $43 million to MIT. Saudis have contributed large sums to other US universities, including Johns Hopkins, UC Berkeley and Stanford.

AT MIT, MBS met with university president L. Rafael Reif among others. Heavy security during his visit to both schools disrupted things for students, faculty and city residents.

According to The Tech, “numerous security details patroll(ed) the area over the course of the afternoon.”

“This included a combination of MIT police, (heavily armed) Cambridge police, secret service agents…several black-clothed persons,” and Saudi security.

Ahead of his arrival at Harvard and MIT, dozens of Massachusetts Peace Action members protested his visit – a March 23 commentary saying:

“Should the architect of a devastating humanitarian crisis in a poor country be given a welcome at two of America’s most prestigious universities? Most certainly not.”

University relationships with the kingdom “should end…MIT and Harvard should cancel any invitation they have extended to Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and for MIT to cease its cooperation in the Saudi defense and tech sectors until Saudi Arabia has withdrawn from Yemen, helped to reconstruct the country, and reformed its own institutions and policies.”

Northeastern University Professor of Sociology Valentine Moghadam wrote the above remarks.

She’s a member of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, as well as a Massachusetts Peace Action board member.

Harvard Graduate School of Education student Shireen al-Adeimi said the following:

“The crown prince has committed countless war crimes that have been documented by human rights groups, and so I think it’s an embarrassment for (Harvard and) MIT to be associated with him, and to welcome him here this weekend – on the third anniversary…of the (Yemen) war.”

A Yemeni national, Adeimi added: “We have people back home, friends and family, who can’t find adequate food, who can’t find clean water.”

“It’s getting harder and harder for people to survive every day. Already people are dying in the tens of thousands.”

Shamefully, both universities invited him on campus – a thuggish future leader of the Arab world’s most ruthless state.

The post Saudi Crown Prince’s Militarized Entourage Invades Harvard and MIT appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Teacher who called military ‘lowest of the low’ is fired

By Benjamin Brown | Fox News

A Southern California teacher who was recorded bashing the U.S. military in a profane classroom rant was fired Tuesday evening.

Board of Education President Aurora Villon said the El Rancho Unified School District reached a unanimous decision to fire Gregory Salcido, a history teacher at El Rancho High School and elected Pico Rivera city councilman, the Los Angeles Times reported.

 

A Southern California teacher who was recorded bashing the U.S. military in a profane classroom rant was fired Tuesday evening.

Board of Education President Aurora Villon said the El Rancho Unified School District reached a unanimous decision to fire Gregory Salcido, a history teacher at El Rancho High School and elected Pico Rivera city councilman, the Los Angeles Times reported.

“His comments do not reflect what we stand for, who we are,” Villon said, adding that “the classroom should never be a place where students feel that they are picked at, bullied, intimidated.”

Salcido faced a severe backlash after a student secretly recorded him asking his government class why they would want to serve in the military, calling those who serve “dumbs‑‑‑s.”

“Think about the people who you know who are over there. Your freaking stupid Uncle Louie or whatever. They’re dumbs‑‑‑s,” Salcido can be heard saying in the Jan. 25 tirade.

“They’re not like high-level thinkers, they’re not academic people, they’re not intellectual people. They’re the lowest of our low.”

Villon said thousands of emails flooded the school board, as veterans and relatives of military personnel from all over the world voiced their disgust with Salcido’s comments.

Read more at FOX News

The post Teacher who called military ‘lowest of the low’ is fired appeared first on Oath Keepers.

“Buy American”: Trump to Boost Exports of Lethal US Drones to “Create Jobs”

By Jason Ditz

With drone warfare a hot business in recent years, the US has kept a careful handle on who they allow to buy US-made lethal drones. Reports suggest that’s about to change, with President Trump set to ease the rules substantially, opening up sales to dozens of new customers.

This isn’t just a scramble for growing arms sales abroad, which is a top administration priority. It also reflects manufacturers’ concern about overseas competitors, with fear that if the US makers don’t get the business, someone else will.

China and Israel are major competition for the US in drone sales, and both are often willing to do business with nations that wouldn’t be America’s first choice. The US export market has previously focused primarily on surveillance drones, not armed ones.

But it’s clear there are a lot of customers for these weapons of war, and US officials are worried about getting “outplayed” on the international arms market by competitors. While it’s not clear exactly when the move will be made, it will mean more deadly drones on the market, and ultimately, in the skies.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

America: World’s Leading Merchant of Death

image credit: REUTERS/Bob Strong

The Center for International Policy’s (CIP) Security Assistance Monitor (SAM) follows US foreign security aid and arms sales.

CIP “promotes cooperation, transparency, and accountability in US global relations.”

In a report titled “Trump Administration Makes Over $80 Billion in Major Arms Deals in First Year: Major Changes in Types of Weapons and Recipient Countries Compared to Obama Puts US Manufacturing Jobs and Human Rights at Risk,” it documented the following:

Trump administration 2017 arms sales totaled $82.2 billion – compared to $76.5 billion in 2016, less than record $102 billion total in 2010.

Top recipient countries last year include Saudi Arabia, Poland, Japan, Canada, Romania, Bahrain, Australia, Britain, UAE, Greece and Singapore.

Other significant foreign buyers included Iraq, New Zealand, Taiwan, Kuwait, Qatar, Israel, India and Kenya.

When Trump urges NATO countries to increase defense spending, he’s promoting arms sales for US producers – unrelated to protecting against threats. No foreign ones exist.

Missiles and bombs comprised the administration’s leading arms exports – compared to warplanes and helicopters under Obama.

About $659 million in weapons sales went to Saudi Arabia and UAE, largely for aggression in Yemen.

Around 25 countries made major arms purchases from America. The Trump administration proposed 16 major arms deals, involving their manufacture abroad – not a way to create “jobs, jobs, jobs” in America, as he claimed.

Sales are made without concern for human rights, America the world’s leading violator. Its key allies are notorious rogue states.

In January, the Trump administration approved a new arms transfer policy directive, streamlining approval of sales, eliminating what the National Security Council calls “unreasonable constraints on the ability of our companies to compete.”

According to an unnamed administration official, the Trump administration wants its “commercial and military attaches, unfettered to be salesmen for this stuff, to be promoters.”

The Commerce Department will be more involved in arms sales, reducing congressional ability to stop problematic deals.

The Trump administration wants unrestrained ability to sell arms to nations it wishes for any purposes, including for aggression against nations like Yemen and Syria, as well as repressing their own people.

Geopolitical considerations and profits matter more than human rights and adherence to rule of law principles.

US interests matter more than harm from US weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other rogue states.

The post America: World’s Leading Merchant of Death appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Military Enlists First Transgender Recruit While White House Ponders Policy

(The New American) Last year, the White House announced it would reinstate the ban against transgender individuals serving in the military, but on Monday, the Pentagon confirmed that the first transgender recruit, who wished to remain anonymous, has signed up for military service. Those who support the ban against transgender individuals serving in the military contend that they will only hurt military readiness and unit cohesion, while others point to the financial burden of allowing such individuals to serve in the military.

The recruit’s enlistment may have been premature, as the White House is expected to release its official policy on transgender troops on March 23, a deadline set by President Trump. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary James Mattis’ (shown) recommendations on whether transgender troops should be allowed to serve continue to be under review at the White House.

Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter had announced in 2016 that transgender troops could serve openly in the military and that enlistment could begin in July of that year, but Mattis pushed that deadline to January of 2018 as he reviewed the Obama-era policy.

On Friday, Secretary Mattis’ recommendations were sent to the White House. Defense Department spokesman Army Colonel Rob Manning states Mattis’ recommendations are based on the findings of a department-led review late last year, which found that transgender troops could remain in the military under certain conditions. As of January 1, transgender recruits were allowed to be enlisted.

“This is a complex issue, and the secretary is taking his time to consider the information he’s been given. It’s an important issue, and again, he sees all of his decisions through the lens of lethality,” Pentagon press secretary Dana White told reporters.

In August of 2017, when President Trump directed the Pentagon to reverse President Obama’s policy of accepting transgender recruits in the military and reinstate the ban, he explained that the military “cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

The Trump administration had also previously said in legal papers that the armed forces were not prepared to train thousands of personnel on the medical standards needed to process transgender applicants and might have to accept “some individuals who are not medically fit for service” if transgenders were allowed in.

Continue reading at TheNewAmerican.

The post Military Enlists First Transgender Recruit While White House Ponders Policy appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

The Pentagon’s “Ides of March”: Best Month to Go to War

By Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research | 

First published on March 13, 2013, updated March 1, 2018.

Is it a coincidence?

In recent history, from the Vietnam war to the present, the month of March has been chosen by Pentagon and NATO military planners as the “best month” to go to war.

With the exception of the War on Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO and allied led military operations over a period of more than half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Ides of March (Idus Martiae) is a day in the Roman calendar which broadly corresponds to March 15.  The Ides of March is also known as the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.

Lest we forget, the month of March (in the Roman Calendar) is dedicated to Mars (Martius), the Roman God of War.

For the Romans, the month of March (Martius) marked  “the time to start new military campaigns.”

As in the heyday of the Roman Empire, the US Department of Defense has a mandate to plan and implement a precise “timeline” of military operations.

Does the month of March –identified by the Romans as a “good time” to initiate new military undertakings–, have a bearing on contemporary military doctrine?

Throughout history, seasons including the transition from Winter to Spring have played a strategic role in the timing of military operations.

Do Pentagon military planners favor the month of March?

Do they also –in some mysterious fashion– “idolize” Mars, the Roman God of War?

March 23 (which coincides with the beginning of Spring) was the day “Romans celebrated the start of the military campaign and war fighting season.”

“Homage was paid to Mars the god of war with festivals and feasting. … For the Romans March 23 was a huge celebration known as Tubilustrium”.

Under these festivities which celebrated the Roman god of war,  a large part of the month of March “was dedicated to military celebration and preparedness.”

Timeline of March Military Interventions (1965- 2017)

Recent history confirms that with the exception of Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO led military operations over a period of almost half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Vietnam War

The US Congress adopted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized President Lyndon Johnson to dispatch ground forces to Vietnam on March 8, 1965.

On 8 March 1965, 3,500 U.S. Marines were dispatched to South Vietnam marking the beginning of “America’s ground war”.

NATO’s War on Yugoslavia

NATO’s war on Yugoslavia was launched on March 24, 1999. 

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia code-named by the US Operation “Noble Anvil”. started on March 24, 1999 and lasted until June 10, 1999.

The Iraq War

The War on Iraq was launched on March 20, 2003. (Baghdad time)

The US-NATO led invasion of Iraq started on 20 March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

(The 1991 Gulf War on Iraq began on 17th January. However, after the 28th February ceasefire was agreed and signed – following the Basra Road massacre of withdrawing soldiers and fleeing civilians on 26th/27th February – the US 24th Mechanised Infantry Division slaughtered thousands on 2nd March.“)

The Covert War on Syria

The US-NATO Covert War on Syria was initiated on March 15, 2011 with the incursion of Islamist mercenaries and death squads in the southern city of Daraa on the border with Jordan. The terrorists were involved in acts of arson as well as the killings of civilians. This incursion of terrorists was from the very outset supported covertly by the US, NATO and its Persian Gulf allies: Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

NATO’s “Humanitarian” R2P War on Libya

NATO commenced its bombing of Libya on March 19, 2011.  The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on 26 February 2011 (UNSC Resolution 1970), (adopted unanimously).

A subsequent United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted on 17 March 2011. It authorized the establishment of “a no-fly zone” over Libya, and the use “all necessary measures” “to protect the lives of civilians”.

Libya was bombed relentlessly by NATO warplanes starting on March 19, 2011 for a period of approximately seven months.

Yemen 

On 25 March 2015, an international coalition led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the US launched air strikes against the Huthi armed group in Yemen.

**

March 2018

The US and its NATO allies, not to mention Israel, are on a war footing.

Several military scenarios in March 2018 are on the drawing board of the Pentagon includingLebanon, Syria (military escalation scenario), North Korea and Iran.

Russia is threatened and so is China. 

We cannot speculate, however, regarding US-NATO war plans pertaining to the Ides of March 2018.

A vast media propaganda campaign has been launched to provide legitimacy to the US-led military adventure, upholding acts of war as humanitarian peace-making initiatives.  In the course of the month of March, fake news has reached a new threshold: US mini nukes are heralded as peacemaking bombs.

Here is the latest New York Times (Feb 27) “authoritative” analysis of how North Korea is helping the Syrian government to wage a chemical war against the Syrian people. Nice and not fake, timely (Ides of March) and of course “carefully documented”  by the Newspaper of Record.

[image: Screenshot, NYT, Feb 27, 2018]

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2018

---

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.  He has taught as visiting professor in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. He has served as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has acted as a consultant for several international organizations. He is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at crgeditor@yahoo.com

The post The Pentagon’s “Ides of March”: Best Month to Go to War appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

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

By Ron Paul | 

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!

The post Ron Paul: 15 Years After the US Invaded Iraq, It’s Time to Listen to the Iraqi People appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Weapons in Space Race Warfare

“The eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding…. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.” John F. Kennedy, speech at Rice University, 1962

Noble ideals from an era wide-eyed with optimism and aspirations. President Kennedy’s assassination ended the age of naivety. Space exploration was always about domination through military strength and maintaining the high ground. The United States over the last decades achieves what it does best; spend more money. The black budgets that are buried deep within the bowls of the Pentagon do not fund a utopia. The threat of warfare on some level never vanishes. The expanse into the universe just allows infinite space to move around the instruments for a clash of rivals. While Space Wars Will Look Nothing Like Star Wars, the prospects of attaining celestial peace are nothing but a pipe dream.

“There’s this idea connected with space that it should be used for peaceful purposes,” says P.J. Blount, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Luxembourg and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Space Law. “And that idea extends a heightened status to space for states not to engage in these types of activities.”

That peaceful designation for outer space is based on the 1967 “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” better known as the pithier “Outer Space Treaty.” It’s administered by the United Nations, and it states, among other things, that space is for peaceful uses only, and forbids placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit. It also forbids weapons of any sort on the moon. So far, the treaty has been upheld, in large part.”

REALLY ?

The record since the New Frontier details the same old adage since human nature does not change. No Treaty Will Stop Space Weapons, is inevitable.

“Space war concerns are turning toward the tactical. In a conventional shooting war, disabling U.S. sats blunts the precision weapons and navigation systems that enable the U.S. military to operate. You can see, then, why the Chinese and Russians are very interested in banning conventional weapons in space, but not so interested in banning weapons that could blind, kill, or disable satellites from Earth.”

This kind of thinking moves the debate into degrees and types of weapons that are now accepted as a given, especially since the ending of the cold war was just a temporary cooling of tensions. With the emergence of Red China into the supremacy race, the three way space weapons deployment chase heats up.

The U.S. military never misses an opportunity to pump up the fear factor to support the case for higher defense spending. CNBC gladly provides a forum to sell the Space arms race as Russia, China emerge as ‘rapidly growing threats’ to US.

“Navy Vice Admiral Charles Richard, deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command, warned in a speech at a CSIS space security conference about offensive space capabilities and weapons being developed by China and Russia.

“While we’re not at war in space, I don’t think we can say we are exactly at peace either,” the admiral said. “With rapidly growing threats to our space systems, as well as the threat of a degraded space environment, we must prepare for a conflict that extends into space.”

The military-industrial-establishment eagerly pushes their agenda for spending The Air Force’s space budget is up by 8 percent, even though the service is cutting procurement of space systems by more than a billion dollars. In order to defend this increase the following argument attempts to rationalize Space Warfare: Why The U.S. Is So Vulnerable, Despite SpaceX’s Wins.

“Russia and China are ramping up their offensive potential. And while the effects of space warfare on worldwide commerce would hurt the U.S. and its adversaries alike, the U.S. military’s unmatched global footprint and forward-deployed posture mean it is especially dependent on space-based assets.

So what happens if China and Russia use their space assets on a commercial satellite? Is that an act of war?

“That is a policy issue that is being actively discussed,” said Stephen Flanagan, a senior political analyst at Rand Corp.”

Ramping up the implied danger, the Scientific American account of War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever points to the rapid development of operational systems for satellite warfare.

“The US declassified details of its secret Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP), a planned set of four satellites capable of monitoring the Earth’s high orbits and even rendezvousing with other satellites to inspect them up-close. The first two GSSAP spacecraft launched into orbit in July 2014.

“This used to be a black program—something that didn’t even officially exist,” Weeden says. “It was declassified to basically send a message saying, ‘Hey, if you’re doing something funky in and around the geosynchronous belt, we’re going to see.’” An interloper into geosynchronous orbit need not be an explosives-tipped missile to be a security risk—even sidling up to an adversary’s strategic satellites is considered a threat. Which is one reason that potential U.S. adversaries might be alarmed by the rendezvous capabilities of GSSAP and of the U.S. Air Force’s highly maneuverable X-37B robotic space planes.”

Never let an arms race get into the way of lowering the volume and taking a second look at the cosmic advantages of cooperating in the vast voids of outer space. Oh no, that unprotected risk that President Kennedy spoke about has been pursued in the quest for continuous weapon development. According to the account, Space Weapons in Development there are at least three laser systems being developed for either space-based or ground-based weapons; hydrogen fluoride laser, deuterium fluoride laser and chemical oxygen iodine laser.

“The former U.S. Space Command, which is now part of the U.S. Strategic Command as of June 2002, doesn’t hide the fact that it wants to establish U.S. supremacy in space. In its Vision for 2020 report, the Space Command points out that military forces have always evolved to protect national interests, both military and economic. The report suggests that space weapons must be developed to protect U.S. satellites, and other space vehicles, as other countries develop the ability to launch spacecraft into space. In 1997, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space, Keith R. Hall, said, “With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it and we’re going to keep it.”

Chronicles of modern warfare has shown that efforts to ban the weaponization of advanced levels of technological systems has been a failure since warmongering conflict just does not abide by the best of intentions. The long history of militarization of space is demonstrated by Space.com with their list of The Most Dangerous Space Weapons Ever.

Whatever category of cyber, kinetic or jamming weapons are on the horizon, the fact remains that the escalated space race is focused upon winning a warfare option. Well, none of us should be surprised. The planet is consumed with permanent war. The United States foreign policy establishment is scared about losing their empire. China wants to become the replacement imperium. And Russia is attempting to survive from the failures of their former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Instead of trust and verify, the battle cry is to destroy and eliminate your advocacies. Each have different priorities and tactics on just how to reach their goal of preeminence. What can be derived with certainty is that any conflict in space would never be confined to the exosphere. The fallout, nuke or non-nuclear need not be pulled into the global atmosphere because there are ample earth bound weapons to destroy the entire planet.

Space may be the refugee for communication satellites and world commerce, but The Next Frontier: Trump and Space Weapons, cites an option for a space based offensive weapon.

“One idea that has kicked around for decades is a system that would consist of a tungsten projectile and a navigation system. Upon command, these ‘rods from God’ as they are poetically called would re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and would strike a target, even one in a super hardened underground banker, at 36,000 feet per second, obliterating it.”

Somehow this just does not seem to be in keeping under a “banner of freedom and peace” or doing God’s work.

The post Weapons in Space Race Warfare appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

The Cost of Trump’s Military Parade Could Eliminate Hunger Among Homeless Veterans—For Weeks

By Matt Agorist

President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to plan a grand parade of the U.S. armed forces in Washington this year to celebrate military strength and flex the US empire. This display of militarism will proceed in spite of the very people Trump claims to be honoring being vehemently opposed to it. In fact, an unofficial poll conducted by the military times found the 90% of people do not want a parade. Nevertheless, it will happen.

While many of Trump’s supporters favor the parade, for those who’ve actually served in the military, the idea of being forced to practice day in and day out for a march through Washington D.C. so civilians can pump out their chests with nationalist pride is terrible. There are far better ways to “support the troops” than forcing them to parade around in front of you.

Here’s an idea, end all the wars. If you really want to support the troops, stop using them as pawns in the spread of empire and the expansion of the military-industrial complex. If you really want to support the troops and veterans, how about we address the fact that tens of thousands of them sleep on the streets every single night in the country they offered up their lives for.

To show how much of an insult this parade is to troops and veterans, according to a recent report, the cost of this parade could directly benefit the 40,000 homeless veterans—by feeding them. Instead, it will go to fuel, logistics, drills, and flyovers.

Conservative estimates of the cost of the parade are around $10 million with the higher end budget coming in at $30 million. Even if we divide the lower end number by the total number of homeless veterans, that would be around $250 each.

As Newsweek reports, Feeding America, a non-profit organization and the nation’s largest hunger-relief and food rescue group, found the average cost-per-meal in the U.S. was $2.94 in 2015, the latest data available. The organization culled data from several organizations and agencies, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and found the cost-per-meal ranged from a low of  $2.04 in Maverick County, Texas to a high of $5.61 in Crook County, Oregon.

What this means is that the cost of the parade could eliminate hunger among homeless veterans by providing all of them with three meals a day, for at least 14 days and that is using the highest estimate of $5.61.

If we use the average cost of a meal, homeless veterans could get three squares a day for nearly an entire month. While we didn’t ask all 40,000 homeless veterans if they prefer a parade or eating for a month, we are betting the prefer the latter.

Last month, Trump said that if the cost of the parade was exorbitant, he would choose not to have it.

“We’ll see if we can do it at a reasonable cost, and if we can’t, we won’t do it, but the generals would love to do it, I can tell you, and so would I,” he said.

However, this week, the Pentagon released a memo noting that the parade will go on as scheduled.

Although the president assured Americans that there won’t be tanks rolling down the streets, the display of military might will be a logistical nightmare for whatever poor units get stuck with doing it. And, all of it will be for Trump—not the troops.

Instead of chest pumping and back patting, if Trump wants to support the troops and veterans, he should start by addressing the problems plaguing them right now. Sadly, none of this has happened.

When 307,000 veterans die waiting for care they were promised by this country while the president gloats over military equipment, something is seriously wrong.

When the entire country looks the other way while there over 40,000 veterans living on the streets with no home as the president forces active duty military members to put on a show for him, something is seriously wrong.

When Americans remain silent as a veteran kills himself or herself every 65 minutes, every single day, every single month, of every single year as troops and Humvees parade down Pennsylvania Avenue celebrating the war that caused these deaths, it’s time to seriously consider a national conversation about what “support the troops” really means. And no parade will ever do that.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Facebook.

The Cost of Trump’s Military Parade Could Eliminate Hunger Among Homeless Veterans—For Weeks

The cost of the president"s military parade is estimated to be enough money to eliminate hunger among homeless veterans by providing them three meals a day—for weeks.

The post The Cost of Trump’s Military Parade Could Eliminate Hunger Among Homeless Veterans—For Weeks appeared first on The Free Thought Project.