Friday, 9 September 2016

The Green Party Manifesto - Jill Stein

Jill Stein - The Green Party Manifesto

By Dark Politricks
Read the full manifesto

If you are a pissed off Bernie Sanders supporter, or an independent who looks at the choice between Trump and Clinton and just want to blow your brains out,then have you considered the Green Party?

They are on most ballots in the country and despite Jill being disallowed from entering the Presidential debates due to not having the 15% poll numbers needed (because she isn't even on most polls!), then you may want to know a bit about her policies.

She is not a crazy, left wing, socialist, commie as you may have heard. She is just someone that actually wants to help US citizens.

She doesn't want your jobs off shored by the "NAFTA on steroids" that she calls the secretive TTIP trade deal that was only broken by WikiLeaks and allows for international corporations to sue national governments if laws introduced affect their bottom line.
She has a plan for getting off oil, making the US energy independent as well as creating tons of new green based jobs for all the millions of people out of work due to Obama and Bush.

She wants free health care for people - it costs less than the convaluted system the US uses at the moment and it would help people in the long run by removing the fear of going to see a doctor or enter hospital if they have no money. A fit person is one that can work and pay taxes.

Read her manifesto and let me know what you think.

She calls it the Power To The People Plan.
“My Power to the People Plan creates deep system change, moving from the greed and exploitation of corporate capitalism to a human-centered economy that puts people, planet and peace over profit.
It offers direct answers to the economic, social, and ecological crises brought on by both corporate political parties. And it empowers the American people to fix our broken political system and make real the promise of democracy.
This plan will end unemployment and poverty; avert climate catastrophe; build a sustainable, just economy; and recognize the dignity and human rights of everyone in our society and our world. The power to create this new world is not in our hopes, it’s not in our dreams - it’s in our hands.”

signature_jill_8.png

Key points of the Power to the People Plan:

A Green New Deal:
Create millions of jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, and conservation.

Jobs as a Right:
Create living-wage jobs for every American who needs work, replacing unemployment offices with employment offices. Advance workers rights to form unions, achieve workplace democracy, and keep a fair share of the wealth they create.

End Poverty:
Guarantee economic human rights, including access to food, water, housing, and utilities, with effective anti-poverty programs to ensure every American a life of dignity.

Health Care as a Right:
Establish an improved “Medicare For All” single-payer public health insurance program to provide everyone with quality health care, at huge savings.

Education as a Right:
Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude. Guarantee tuition-free, world-class public education from pre-school through university. End high stakes testing and public school privatization.

A Just Economy:
Set a $15/hour federal minimum wageBreak up “too-big-to-fail” banks and democratize the Federal Reserve. Reject gentrification as a model of economic development. Support development of worker and community cooperatives and small businesses. Make Wall Street, big corporations, and the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Create democratically run public banks and utilities. Replace corporate trade agreements with fair trade agreements.

Protect Mother Earth:
Lead on a global treaty to halt climate change. End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines. Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators. Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. Protect the rights of future generations.

Racial Justice Now:
End police brutality and mass incarcerationCreate a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to understand and eliminate the legacy of slavery that lives on as pervasive racism in the economy, education, housing and health. Ensure that communities control their police rather than police controlling our communities, by establishing police review boards and full time investigators to look in to all cases of death in police custody. Demilitarize the police.

Freedom and Equality:
Expand women’s rights, protect LGBTQIA+ people from discrimination, defend indigenous rights and lands, and create a welcoming path to citizenship for immigrants. Protect the free Internet, legalize marijuana/hemp, and treat substance abuse as a public health problem, not a criminal problem.

Justice for All:
Restore our Constitutional rights, terminate unconstitutional surveillance and unwarranted spying, end persecution of government and media whistleblowers, close Guantanamo, abolish secret kill lists, and repeal indefinite detention without charge or trial.

Peace and Human Rights:
Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights. End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire. Stop U.S. support and arms sales to human rights abusers, and lead on global nuclear disarmament.

Empower the People:
Abolish corporate personhood. Protect voters’ rights by establishing a constitutional right to vote. Enact electoral reforms that break the big money stranglehold and create truly representative democracy: public campaign financing, ranked-choice voting, proportional representation, and open debates.

Personally I don't see anything nutty or mad in that at all. It's the MSM that keeps cutting her elegant speeches into nonsensical sound bites that make her seem crazy and that's something that should set big red flags in your brain flying. If the MSM don't want any alternative to the duopoly then they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Considering half of the news anchors are on the pay books of the CIA and other agencies to give you the news the masters want you to hear it would spoil their party if they actually had someone on that could really debate the issues and call them out on their hypocrisy.

So if you are thinking of an alternative to the lesser of two evils then why not think outside the box, poll for Jill Stein, get her numbers above 15% and see her debate the two headed monster on TV!

Just by trimming back the biggest military in the world a tad would save so much money you could give everyone a free degree and bump up the minimum wage. The problem is that means the big military industrial complex companies don't make their billions from the death the US war machine causes. 

Instead normal people have a chance to be educated and get a decent job to feed their family. What's wrong with that?

Read the full manifesto here By Jill Stein.

By Dark Politricks

© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

The Chilcot Report is out will Tony Blair face any real punishment?

The Chilcot Report is out will Tony Blair face any real punishment?


By Dark Politricks
www.darkpolitricks.com

Now the Chilcot report is out, does this mean that the Tory Government have the balls to go and arrest Tony Blair for pushing the illegal Iraq war?

Here was someone who knew that the evidence was false yet still promised George W Bush to be with him whatever, despite the UN and his own legal advisers, saying that the war was illegal.

Just like the many EU referendums before BREXIT, it was "no that's the wrong answer, go and find the right one", until a dodgy legal basis was provided to give Blair cover for his actions by Lord Goldsmith. I wonder how and why he got given his title....

I doubt any Tories will do anything to put their establishment buddy Blair's head in the block as it would mean putting their own heads in as well. Many of them eagerly went along with the falsehood that many in the world knew was a blatant lie.

It does however make sense why the Blairite push for power against their Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was planned just before this week's revelations.

They were hoping to take the sting out of the massive news story it will surely become, their own names off the front pages, and provide a different headline for the newspapers. However we must ensure that #Chilcot stays in the news and social media despite other political manoeuvrings.

If we have to wait for the Blairites to return to the Labour fold and for Corbyn to get elected before seeing Blair in the Hague then we could be waiting a long time. However hopefully a massive class action case by the families of dead UK soldiers, and maybe millions of Iraqi's hurt by the war, could be formed to take him to civil court instead.

Hopefully they could win and sting Blair with a massive monetary punishment as OJ Simpson was, to take away all the millions he has made since leading the country into Iraq by selling speeches, and pretending to be a "Peace Envoy". All whilst making money for himself in the Middle East advising dictators and lobbying the UN to vote against Palestinian statehood in 2011 - on the payroll of the Israelis no doubt.

The Palestinians had this to say about Tony Blair:

There is no one within the Palestinian leadership that supports or likes or trusts Tony Blair, particularly because of the very damaging role he played during our UN bid.

He is considered persona non grata in Palestine. Although we can't prevent him from coming here, we can hopefully minimise the role he can play because he is not a mediator, he is totally biased on one side.
So what were the main findings of the Chilcot report which we have had to wait 7 years for?

  • There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
  • The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
  • On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him "whatever". But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
  • Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
  • Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
  • Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
  • The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".
  • The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10's response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
  • The UK's actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN's Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community "to uphold the authority of the Security Council". But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
  • In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded
  • Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".
  • The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
  • The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK's relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.

So will anyone apart from Jeremy Corbyn whose whole party seems to have deserted him despite having overwhelming support from the Labour membership and Trade Unions do anything about the lies of Tony Blair that led us to war and the creation of ISIS which haunts us all now?

Despite the massacres, huge car bombs killing hundreds almost on a daily basis during the Iraq civil war, journalists getting their heads cut off by ISIS and al-Qaeda and the strengthening of Iran, Tony Blair still thinks he made the right decision. He said this in the report:
Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country
So no remorse then for the many people killed and injured from 2003 to this very day, all coming from his decision to back George W Bush who had some narcissistic desire to achieve what his father didn't in the earlier Gulf War, remove Saddam from power. This was despite any links to 9.11 or any evidence that he posed a threat to the region.

Saddam and Rumsfeld

This was a dictator that was supported by the USA during the 80's in it's war with Iran, and many in George W Bushes cabinet were players from that era such as Donald Rumsfeld who is seen here having a good time with his favoured dictator of the region.

I have no doubt that the USA believed Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction because they used to sell him so many of them, including the nerve gas which he used against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi rebels.

No complaint was made about it at the time of the event but when it came to the standard demonisation of the enemy before a war all this was put into the heads of the public to paint a horrible picture of their ex friend and enabled dictator.

Despite warnings by the CIA that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily Donald Rumsfeld who was at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, continued to make it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

This included biological weapons and viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Also during the time the US was selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons the UK under Maggie Thatcher was selling up to 78 different types of military equipment including Land Rovers, tank recovery vehicles, terrain-following radar and spare tank parts according to released government reports.

Apparently this pleased Maggie very much. She said she was "very pleased" with the "Contracts worth over £150m [that] have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months including one for £34m (for armoured recovery vehicles through Jordan)," which was written by a junior minister, Thomas Trenchard, in 1981.

This letter also stated that meetings with Saddam Hussein "represent a significant step forward in establishing a working relationship with Iraq which should produce both political and major commercial benefits”.

So not only did the UK and USA help stock up Saddam Hussein with all the WMD they then accused him of having, a very hypocritical move but to be expected by the two major powers in the axis of continual war, but we actually helped him use those weapons on Iranians.

Iran was finally brought to the negotiating table by providing Iraq the location of Iranian troops, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defences once they had learned that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage in the 8 year long war.

They were fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin and mustard gas prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence.

These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favour and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

So not only were we totally hypocritical when dealing with Saddam helping him use WMD that we sold him in the first place, but we started a war of aggression against his country that was not thought out, had no plans for after the invasion, spilled over into sectarian violence and civil war and the formation of terrorist groups where there were none before.

So how many dead people does Blair and Bush have on their hands from their decision to go to war "on faulty intelligence" or as normal people say "illegally"?

How many dead and injured victims have their been over the last 12+ years and the years prior...

-The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible were responsible for over half a million deaths, mainly children.
-The Illegal war which Blair promised Bush to support even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it is thought to have killed at least half a million people.
-The depleted uranium weapons used in Fallujah that are still causing babies to be born without legs and arms and horrible birth defects.
-The long civil war came after the fall of Saddam between the Sunnis, Shia's and Kurds.
-The forming of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 when no al-Qaeda terrorists had existed before.
-The forming of ISIS which is now fighting Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian and Russian soldiers and inspiring terrorist attacks in the west. All whilst we do very little to stop them (and even support them) whilst allowing our ally Turkey to bomb the Kurds instead.
-And that's not even counting all the dead US/UK soldiers.
-And those who came home with missing limbs from IEDS and PTSD now living in poverty on the streets or in jail.

I wonder what the total death count is, or will ever be......

I also wonder if the world has the strength to punish a war criminal that wasn't on the losing side for once?

By Dark Politricks

View the original article on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.



© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Monday, 16 May 2016

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay


You have heard from the politicians, the Euro MPs, reporters and even had propaganda leaflets through your door from both the BREXIT and Better In Together sides of the EU Referendum debate.

Now I am bringing you some alternative views on the question.

So enough of the politicians lets listen to some alternative points of view. If you do like your #altnews, and don't rely purely on state news like the BBC or papers owned by people with their own reasons for wanting you to vote a certain way, then you should know this person.

David Shayler is an ex MI5 spy who was jailed after breaking the official secrets act and passing information about how we funded al-Qaeda liked LIFG terrorists to kill Col. Gaddafi but screwed it up and killed innocent civilians instead.

He was also passing info to the Daily Mail about how the security forces were scared of Labour MPS and spied on Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman. Once they had got into power under Blair it became apparent that this was true and that many Labour MP's were under the spotlight of the establishment.

This is why I suppose Blair was brought into the fold to make Labour an "establishment" party. Removing all traces of nationalisation, war mongering and following the USA's lead, and allow privatisation started under Thatcher to continue whilst creating the biggest police state in the western world.

We have the most CCTV cameras, lost our right to be silent under caution without judgement being made in court, lost the right to protest near Parliament as well as many other draconian laws which were brought in by the supposedly left leaning, people's party, Labour (or New Labour - Tory Lite).

Therefore he may have been attacked at the time for what he claimed, but when the British embassy was overrun in the aftermath of the attack on Tripoli by rebel forces, many documents were found that backed up his claims of MI6 collusion with al-Qaeda and even how we allowed certain rebel leaders to be tortured as we stood by and asked questions.

One of the main leaders of the rebels, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, even won the right to sue Jack Straw and the head of the MI6 over his kidnap and rendition due to this evidence coming to light.

Therefore don't knock what you don't know.

Sit back and listen.

You may not agree with some of the things he says but remember he was jailed for telling the truth before. Plus it is always good to get points of view from all sides whether you believe them or not.



View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com

David Cameron is a "Con Man" over the BREXIT Debate

David Cameron is a "Con Man" over the BREXIT Debate

In a blistering attack on the PM the UKIP leader stuck the boot in as he urged voters to make a stand against Brussels. 

He may have had a few too many beers though!

Days after Mr Cameron continued his Project Fear by suggesting BREXIT could spark World War Three, Mr Farage ramped up the Leave campaign by mocking the PM.

He said: “My message is Dave you’re a conman, you’re a conman."



“You told us two months ago you might consider voting for BREXIT, now you tell us it could cause World War Three.

“If it’s that serious why would you ever take the risk in the first place.

“He is a cheap second-hand car salesman not to be believed and will finish up at the end of this utterly discredited and rightly so.”

The UKIP leader also took aim at Brussels bureaucrats and tore into EU regulations.

He said: “Do you think we should govern our own country, make our own laws, control our own borders and have our own Supreme Court or do you think it better we sub-contract out the running of our nation to a bunch of old men in Brussels we can’t vote for and we can’t remove?

"I know my answer. I want my country back, I want my borders back, I want my passport back, I want my pride and self-respect back.

“Don’t forget there are 5.2 million men and women in this country who run their own companies, act as sole traders, unpaid tax collectors for the Government.

What do you think is our PM a conman over his referendum over BREXIT. His magic agreement with the EU was supposed to stop us voting to leave but it is so watered down and not worth the paper it is written on no-one believes him anymore.

And here is Nigel Farage on why Big Business love BREXIT....



So how are you going to vote?

Have you voted on the BREXIT To Stay Or Leave blog yet?

Let us know your thoughts.

View the original article at brexit-to-leave-or-stay.blogspot.co.uk

Friday, 29 April 2016

Was Ken Livingstone MAD for defending Labour MP Naz Shah?

Was Ken Livingstone MAD for defending Labour MP Naz Shah?

By Dark Politricks

Most Zionists, Israel apologists and Christians who support Israel but know little about history don't want to admit that Ken Livingstone was unfairly kicked out of the Labour party for his defence of Labour MP Naz Shah, who had made comments before becoming an MP about Israel. Her crimes:

1. Stating that Israel should be relocated to the United States. This was actually debated about during the time before Israel's creation when a plan for Jews to settle the Sitka area in Alaska, the Slattery Report, was proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes in 1939. There have also been other plans throughout the years including:

The Uganda plan where it was actually debated about giving a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland.

In 1938, the USSR wanted to introduce a policy of areas within its state reflecting the culture of the people and they were going ahead with the formation of the Khabarovsk Territory or (JAR - Jewish Autonomous Region), for the Jewish people within this policy.

During the 1930's in Imperial Japan, there was a proposal to settle Jewish refugees escaping Nazi-occupied Europe in Japanese territories.

The Madagascar plan was a suggested policy of the Third Reich government of Nazi Germany, and previously discussed by the UK, France and Polish, to forcibly relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar.

In March 1940, the issue of an alternative Jewish Homeland was raised and British Guiana (now Guyana) was discussed in this context. But the British Government decided that "the problem is at present too problematical to admit of the adoption of a definite policy and must be left for the decision of some future Government in years to come."

This is just one among many other plans for a Jewish homeland that have been previously discussed.

2. In July of 2014, she also wrote about a newspaper poll on alleged Israeli war crimes in the Gaza conflict, saying “the Jews are rallying to the poll”. She has also landed herself in hot water for comparing Israeli policies to those of Adolph Hitler on Facebook last September.

This is not exactly something only a few people have said. The treatment of the trapped people in their open prison of Gaza is just like the Jewish Ghetto's of old in which regular incursions would take place and people murdered.

The two recent wars in Gaza killed more women, kids and animals than they did Hamas fighters. It was admitted the IDF have a policy of killing innocents to try to turn them against their leaders. These are war crimes yet whenever a security resolution comes up in the UN it is vetoed by the USA however ethical it would be to punish Israel. They are like a tortured child who then goes on to torture other children.

Let's not forget the whole concept of the UN and International Law came about after WWII, the Nuremberg trials in which the UK, USA, France and USSR sat as judges and tried their victors justice against the Germans.

No trials were carried out for the Dresden or Tokyo fire-bombings or the nuclear bombings of Japan by the USA which killed millions.

However this new International law was supposed to be followed by all nations yet despite this, Israel has flagrantly broken it many time. The highest crime was starting wars of aggression on another country. How many times has Israel done this, how many times have the US with UK and French backing done this in recent years? International Law only applies to those we attack and defeat it seems.

Naz apologised for he comments in the House of Commons but was suspended for her actions.


Later though, ex London Mayor and Labour member, Ken Livingstone went onto TV to defend her giving a historical analysis which covers some of the points I have already mentioned but also talked about Hitler and how he had made a deal with the Zionists to get rid of the Jews to Palestine. If you don't know your history and believe it or not Ken DOES, then you should read up a bit more.

The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933.

The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods. The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky) and outside it.

For German Jews, the Agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support; and for the Nazis it was seen as a way of breaking the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state as a potential threat to a fragile German economy.

Here are some paper titles from the time of the Jewish anti Nazi boycott.

Jews declare war on Germany
Judea declare a BDS war on Germany

So when the Israelis attack the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) attacks on them they should remember that they did the same thing to Germany in the 30's.

This led to Hitler wanting to get rid of the Jews, preferably through immigration though many European countries and America refused to have them in big numbers. Therefore despite their being no "smoking gun" evidence of Hitler giving a command for the "final solution" many historians believe it was because he wanted the Jews out of Europe and not killed and that it was Himmler the head of the NAZI SS who took it on himself to run the extermination camps on the eastern borders where Jews were basically robbed and then killed.

Even David Irving the revisionist English historian who was jailed for his "anti-semitic" beliefs under draconian European laws which prevent any discussion of the holocaust. Now believes that although Auschwitz was plainly not an extermination camp as it was destroyed after the war and what you see now is the rebuilt version Stalin put up. He does admit that on the Eastern border a process of robbing and pillaging of Jewish goods was going on with the people exterminated at the end. Most likely in ditches by machine gun. Auschwitz may have killed some Jews, but the photos you see of piles of emaciated bodies are those who died at the end of the war in the typhoid breakouts.


Auschwitz have constantly altered the number of people who died at the camp downwards until it lies around a million.

However despite this downwards trend the 6 million number of Jews killed remains.

How and why I don't know. Even the Israeli's tried to create a log of all 6 million Jews killed in the war and couldn't manage to get anywhere near that figure. It seems the 6 million number is sacred and it even appeared in pre-WWII papers such as this claim from 1921.

6 million number was around before WWII

You can do a Google search and view the images of all the other mentions of the other papers mentioning this figure and the 6 million deaths that were coming to various Jewish communities.

We must also remember the word Holocaust means a "Burnt Offering". These are quite strange words to use for such a slaughter of such scale. Who was being burnt - Jews, so what was the offering for? Maybe it was for the land of Israel. As the famous Zionist Yitzhak Gruenbaum said during the war.
One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe.
and
I think it is necessary to state here – Zionism is above everything. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act
Not exactly helpful to the Jews suffering in Europe at the time.

However when Ken Livingstone is getting called "Mad", a "loon" and a "liar", we must remember that there was some measure of collusion between the Nazi's and Jews in the German 1930's to get them out the country and to migrate to Palestine. This cannot be refuted by anyone with a semblance of knowledge of history I'm afraid.

 

You can watch Ken get attacked for being right here


So just remember, that just because you don't like to believe something it doesn't make it untrue.

One thing you should also know is that Israel is the ONLY country to have threatened the rest of the world with nuclear annihilation under their Samson Operation, named after the tale of Samson who pushed the temple down onto himself and all his enemies. It is basically a "well if we are going down, so is the rest of the world" policy which you can read about in full here.

I quote...
Some have written about the "Samson Option" as a retaliation strategy. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter which the American Jewish author Ron Rosenbaum writes "goes so far as to justify" a Samson Option approach:[26]

Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?[27]

Ron Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that, in his opinion, in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option[dubious – discuss].

In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
Not exactly a nice option to know about for all the Zionist supporters of Israel.

How would you feel if your family and your grand-kids families were OR could be wiped out due to our supposed ally and friend, Israel, and their own nuclear bombs?

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com

By Dark Politricks

© 2016 Dark Politricks

Monday, 28 March 2016

Will you vote to stay in the EU or leave it?

Will you vote to stay in the EU or leave it?

By Dark Politricks

As the debate rages around the UK on whether we should leave or stay in the EU. The question is are people really thinking for themselves or are they just believing all the crap that the daily rags tell them to?

We have owners of multiple papers who live offshore most of the year just to get out of paying their fair share of UK tax, telling us tax payers what to do. Is this really fair? It's just the rich elite who are always going to go from strength to strength as long as no-one stands up to them enforcing their will on the people as they always do.

Will people who vote actually make a real decision or will they be swayed like the US electorate always is to vote for the person with the biggest smile, angriest most bullish comments and plans to "restore America to greatness" as if it had suddenly become a third world country without the biggest economy and military in the world?

So the BREXIT referendum all rests on whether people believe the "deal" Cameron brought back was worth the paper it was written on or not.

To me Cameron's "Deal", is just a tinkering around the edges that prevents migrants from claiming benefits for years, and allows Britain to cap the number of people entering the country. It really doesn't make much of a difference at all.

We will still will be bound by the European Court of Human Rights, pay our monthly millions to be part of the EU, and whilst the Euro zone members make important financial decisions we will now be left out of them and probably still be asked to pay towards any bailouts such as those for Greece and Ireland etc.

I never got to vote to join the EC in the 70's.

That was the Economic Community, a joining together of countries for free trade without tariffs between members and a supposed opening up of the many countries nationalised utilities and businesses.

It was not a vote on whether we should join a European Super State, with its own Defence Force, a 3 tier decision-making system where the most democratic body, the European Parliament, has the least power.

People complain about the number of EU migrants that enter Southern Europe and are then just waved through multiple  counties until they reach Germany or Calais hoping to get to England. However we must remember that about 1.8m Britons live in Europe, with Spain boasting an expat population of just over 1m UK citizens.

Of the Britons living in Europe, 400,000 are claiming a state pension from the UK.

The question is, if free movement is good for us, what will happen when it is shut down. We may be able to control the number of migrants from the EU entering the country but what will happen to the retired wrinkled leather tanned grannies of the Costa Del Sol?

leather tanned grannies
An ex Pat, enjoying the Sun and beach

Will these ex pats all have to go through some sort of immigration test as if they were trying to get green cards in the US?

I cannot even imagine many Brits passing any part of a test that expected them to know the hosts language and culture.

It could be that we manage to make arrangements that doesn't affect Brits with jobs OR money from going out to live in the EU however I am guessing a lot of EU members are really pissed off with us at the moment for getting a "special membership deal".

Whilst Germany and France wanted to keep us in the EU for the risk that it might fall apart, I can well imagine many newer members are thinking, why does the UK always try to get it's own way?

From my perspective it would have been good if Cameron had reached a consensus with other members that would have reformed the EU properly.

You know basic things like make it truly democratic, removed any moves to keep pushing for a super state, restored it back to a trading block that was good for business without all the imported laws and of course stopped all the massive fraud which has prevented a real audit for many years now.

There are lots of things wrong with the EU and the constant push towards a superstate is one of them. One of the original ideas was to try and make a block of states that was an equal balance to the power of the US but instead we have just turned into the USA's cross pond bitch.

So I believe Cameron's almost Chamberlain like "Peace in our time", excitement at having got his deal, is going to bite him in the butt just as Chamberlain found out when the NAZI's ignored his magic bit of paper and rolled across Europe.

This is small fry being pumped with steroids to make it seem like a massive change in our relationship with the EU. In reality it is some small changes around the edges.

If ever someone had made a worthless deal and wanted to sell it to the public as if it was a magic exemption from all the EU's meddling in our lives, like the EU Human Rights Law that protects us from this Police State country over reaching in its step, then this is it.

When I was younger I liked being able to hop on a plane and just go to Spain to live. I had no job but that didn't matter, free movement of people and workers meant we could all go where we wanted when we wanted without border checks, citizenship tests and green cards.

For those who have never lived abroad and have only gone to Ibiza on your holiday or maybe a trip to Paris on Valentines day then you won't really think about the difference between a holiday and actually being able to pick up your bags and literally run off to any part of Europe with no questions asked.

However whilst Spain has always been the old stereotyped destination for our UK retirees it seems over recent year the US, Australia and the rest of the world have overtaken Europe for the primary destination for those with one foot in the grave.

The top 10 destinations for Britons to retire to are now:
  • Channel Islands: 73,030
  • Germany: 96,938
  • France: 172,806
  • Ireland: 253,605
  • South Africa: 305,660
  • New Zealand: 313,850
  • Spain: 381,025
  • Canada: 674,371
  • United States of America: 758,919
  • Australia: 1,277,474
So maybe the modern "cultured" Brit is changing their retirement plans and thinking a bit more further than the Costa Del Crime nowadays.

Spain has always been our number one destination for holidays and retirees. A place where you can enjoy the 40° heat and drink British beer in pubs frequented by famous English gangsters on the run.

So many famous British gangsters have been out to the Costa Del Sol no wonder we call it the Costa Del Crime.

However it seems we are looking wider than Med for our retirement plans - that's if we get any pension money. I doubt I will ever see any from the thousands I have put into the system over my working career. It seems the Tories want us to work until our 80's and the age is constantly being pushed upwards.

There have been rumblings from Tory think tanks for years now from people already on hundreds of thousands of pounds a month pensions who believe we should do voluntary work in our retirement to collect our hard earned pension.

Leaving the EU won't stop any evil Tory plans from coming to fruition and if we want a REAL CHANGE in our democracy and the way we act in the world we should be thinking about NATO. 

What would we do if Turkey start a war with Russia over Syria, we would be forced to fight on their side whether they started the war by deception or not. I am more worried about World War III happening due to duplicitous NATO allies at the moment than the amount of money we pay in and get back in rebates from the EU.

We should also be thinking about how the Tories have tripled our national debt in the years they were supposedly "fixing the roof whilst the sun was shining", and supposedly cutting the ever so important deficit. The deficit may have dropped but the total amount of debt has increased hugely due to the Tories thinking that the poorer we all are, the more money we will spend.

They have failed us. In Europe, on the world stage and most importantly at home.

Austerity hasn't worked at all and the national debt has ballooned because of the Tories core voters (the grey brigade), will vote against anyone who dares to cut their pensions.

These take up a vast proportion of the social security budget and will undoubtedly be ignored whist the disabled and poor are forced to suffer through the bedroom tax, universal credit, and the severe lack of social housing we have in this country.

Europe has no control over these areas of our lives and if we want to sort out our country we really need to get rid of the failed Tories and try their method of printing money, not at 0% interest rates so the Banksters can lend it to us through companies like WONGA at 5,853% APR, but to invest in infrastructure, building new homes and putting people through education. If we can do it for the banks why can't we do it for the people?

Remember we were in a much worse off state in the years after WWII. We only just finished off paying our debt to the US a few years ago under Gordon Brown.

Despite that we still created the NHS, cleared the slums of London and built thousands of new houses and multiple new towns for the people moved out of London. Plus we ushered in an age of economic prosperity that latest decades.

It is only short-sighted Tory thinking that keeps us in the current trap we are in. One where bankers must be bailed out even though they should be in jail, and the poor are paying off the national debt, despite having no money.

If only we would just wipe any national debt on citizens like Iceland did to many mortgage holders that were linked to inflation. It sounds crazy but would put money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it, plus create a huge demand for goods and a rise in GDP.

Having a "National Bank" that can print money as long as it's for investment in houses and jobs could give us full employment, cheaper rent and accommodation costs and more money in the pocket to spend to increase GDP.

At the moment our whole economy, just like it was during Labours time in office, is built on the house of cards made from debt. People remortgaging houses or taking out loans to spend on goods. An unsustainable recovery. Screw the bankers who say it cannot be done. We did it for you, why can't we do it to actually help rebuild our country?

So the question is, are people going to think with their heads or their hearts about this exit from the EU.

A lot has changed with the European project to stop a further European war after WWII, with France and Germany the two main actors in this union coming together to ensure that the rest of Europe sticks together and shows "solidarity".

From stopping a war to free trade agreements and a central bank. Then a EU flag, courts and parliament. Then laws enforced on us which we don't want. All whilst we pay billions to be part of a club that's money could be better spent on hospitals and schools. That is one argument for leaving.

The problem is that war fades in people's minds, especially those who never fought in WWII or who had family who did.

"What does the EU have to do with WWII" many people will ask.

Now that the EU project is more about creating a super state, it spies on us and hands over all bank transactions to the US as well as traces of our Internet history and anything else the NSA overlords demand. However even if we leave the EU I guess due to our "special relationship", with the US, we would still carry on letting our GCHQ be the NSA's bitch, so nothing would change on the police state front.

Also whilst we may collaborate as a big trading block to face China, the BRICS and North American trading blocks, can the BREXIT crew really convince us that on an economic scale we would really be better outside this trading block.

Selling tea to India, ornaments to Russia and other small manufactured products across the world is the BREXIT plan. We don't build big things anymore. Our ship building industry is almost gone and we have offshored so many jobs that actually make things, you know jobs good for all those skilled manual workers we are trying to find jobs for, that we are just a service economy. Selling ideas, concepts and of course bank trickery.

If we leave the EU will we survive without the cheap gas and electricity we import from the EU, or will we get extra tariffs put on them putting us even further into debt. The French/Chinese nuclear power stations that were supposed to be on their way have only just been signed off.

It will take another 20 years at least until we see these new power stations so we will be relying on our dwindling North Sea Oil stocks and imports seeing that we never really bothered investing in green energy.

This is despite being an island surrounded by multiple ways of making energy from natural sources such as the sea, wind and sun. We have loads of places to put under sea turbines that use wave power and windmills off shore to take in their blustery winds. We really never tried as we suffered from a  "not in my back garden" mentality, whenever a wind farm was proposed to be build anyway near a house.

So will people even consider the financial terms of leaving or will they think what the Sun, Daily Mail and other trash papers tell them to think?

The EU is a debt ridden collection of states that turned the thumb screws on Greece, Italy and Spain all so that they could enforce austerity, increase taxes and pay back Goldman Sachs and that other evil trio, the European Bank, IMF and World Bank.

Do we want to live in a place that see's solidarity between nations as one that involves throwing the poor to the dogs so that their rich Banksters who caused the mess can be fully compensated. Plus solidarity is not where Germany gets to bend the rules but smaller states can't lest they risk German austerity plans as the cost of remaining in the Euro.

This financial crisis that has still not been solved since 2008 is just waiting for another explosion. When it comes it will make 2008 look like a picnic.

Will the UK, the hub of banksters from the terrorist supporting, Mexican drug dealing, al-Qaeda funding HSBC to the corrupt Barclay's brothers, really be better inside or out when the next economic explosion occurs.

As the City of London is basically it's own country within a country, where the leaders of the companies and banks get to sit on their special council and can "command" the Chancellor to appear before them, they will probably see no difference in their money making schemes whether we leave or stay.

To me it all depends on who is in charge.

The Tories seem to want to put the strain of any recovery on the backs of the working class whilst rewarding their rich friends.

Their recent budget removed £30 from the disabled people of our country that gave them support to get dressed and move about and instead they have given the richest more tax breaks. It is clear where their priorities lie. Voting Tory is like voting for a gang rape on yourself. Why people do it I have no idea.

On the other hand Labour, SNP, the Greens and Lib Dems feel that a more even policy that involves banksters going to jail and splitting up the banks between Casinos and Savings is called for.

On top of that more measures that don't punish the poor but instead help them climb up the ladder whilst the rich who have become more wealthy in the last 5+ years are made to contribute their fair share.

Whether they will actually stick to their words is a totally different matter. We just have to look at the Lib Dems when they got their taste of power to see how power corrupts and good promises become faded memories.

So what will make you vote yes or no when the time comes?

EU Democracy or the lack of it?

The prospect of war?

Finance and austerity?

Migration?

Not being held to account to the European Convention of Human Rights (an act the Tories wrote after WWII to show how civilised we are)

Or something else?

Let me know.

View the original article at www.darkolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks

 

 

© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Monday, 8 February 2016

How the CIA is deeply involved in drug dealing

How the CIA is deeply involved in drug dealing

www.darkpolitricks.com By Dark Politricks

Apparently this video is an attempt to warn kids off drugs. It's a Romanian anti-drugs campaign that makes out that when you're high, everyone, and everything, is a fit babe wanting to get it on with you.

Only if you are not stoned do you get the brush off. In that case I reckon a lot of kids will be toking after watching this video.



Now whenever your government tries to warn you from taking drugs you have to realise how totally hypocritical this is.

Historical fact, real reporting, basic statistics and admissions from people involved in the drug game has shown that Western Governments from the US to UK and many others, have been deeply involved in drug dealing for many years.

From the Opium wars between the British Empire and China, when China wanted to put an end to the epidemic of addicts related to Britain's importation of the drug hundreds of years ago, something Chinese students are still taught about, to the history of the CIA and their drug dealing activities to fund covert operations. It still goes on to this day.

If you want to read a detailed 4 part report on how the CIA (Cocaine Importation Agency) have been dealing in coke, and Heroin for years now, this is part 1 of the article. It even has an interview with a Burmese man who used to be the biggest heroin dealer in the world. A reporter managed to get an interview with him and he apparently claimed that the CIA were his best customers!

The series covers everything from World War II and the creation of the agency to Air America, Barry Seal, Mena Airport, The Contra's, Pablo Escobar and the CIA dumping LA into the midst of a crack epidemic.

The Los Angeles black community attempted to sue the US government once a journalist (now dead of course), broke the story about the CIA protecting Freeway Rick Ross from the LA cops so that he could sell their crack, only for it to be thrown out of court on the grounds of National Security. Yes CIA drug dealing is National Security it seems. You can watch an interview with him below.



The journalist who broke the story, Gary Webb, was found shot dead with 2 gun shots to his head. Guess what it was ruled a suicide. It seems a lot of people involved in uncovering devious exploits by the powers that be are found to commit suicide this way.

They have to get their money for their black ops from somewhere and we don't want Congress or anyone sticking their nose into their dodgy dealings do we?

Therefore the CIA have found the perfect way to fund their "off book activities" with drug dealing it seems. Also they seem very keen to protect their sources and bump them off when they become no longer any use to them.

If you think Barry Seal was shot for ratting out the head of the Medellin Cartel, Pablo Escobar, then think again. This is a video about the famous CIA pilot who used to bring guns down to the Nicaraguan rebels for Ronald Reagan and Col. Oliver North, and drugs back up to the states for the CIA to sell.

Not only was he shot on the same night as Pablo's second in command but other cartel members were also killed on the same night. It doesn't exactly seem like a revenge killing by the cartel when members are being killed all over the place.

It seems more like some CIA "house cleaning". I'll let MadCowProd's Daniel Hopsicker explain it to you along with the new cover up "Mena" movie, starring Tom Cruise, all about Barry Seal's life.



The four part series on CIA drug smuggling should probably be updated to include the recent explosion of Mexican cartels.

Mexico used to be just a transit point from South America but is now a top level narco state where the Government, Police and Army are indistinguishable from the head chopping cartel members.

When the top bosses of certain cartels manage to escape from maximum security prisons like El Chapo, head of the Sinaloa Cartel, who has managed to break out of two maximum security prisons twice now. You have to ask how come he wasn't extradited to the USA like so many drug importers of the past?



It does seem odd how some Mexican and Columbian cartel heads get extradited to the US to spend the rest of their lives in shackles in maximum security prisons whereas others get a chance to spend their time in their homeland where even maximum security jails can be broken out of easily.

I am reminded of the Netflix series Narcos where even Pablo Escobar got to design and build his own prison until he got tired of the parties and prostitutes and went on the run.

So either El Chapo is protected by the CIA/DEA for informing on other cartels or he has far too much information to spill that would embarrass the USA and Mexican authorities. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up in a Sicario film ending sometime soon.

We all know after the Fast and Furious debacle that the DEA allow certain cartels to keep control of areas in Mexico as long as they don't start a bloodbath with other gangs.

A top Mexican newspaper, El Universal, concluded that the DEA entered into agreements going back to 2000 and continuing through to 2012 with Mexico’s largest drug trafficking gang, the Sinaloa Cartel. Yes the one that expert prison breaker El Chapo is head of. I wonder if the DEA helped him escape or just intervened to prevent his extradition to the US where escape would have been impossible?

According to Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, a highly placed member of the Sinaloa cartel and the son of top Sinaloa leader Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, the deal involved the cartel providing information about rival Mexican drug gangs to the DEA in exchange for the U.S. government agreeing not to interfere with Sinaloa shipments into the United States and the dismissal of criminal charges against cartel participants.

This seems to fit with the hypothesis about letting El Chapo remain in Mexico where he could escape from any prison he wanted to. It seems very likely therefore that he is indeed involved with the DEA and other US agencies in some way or another.

So when your government tells you to "Just Say No", just remember that they "Just Say Yes", to all the money they can make from bringing in Heroin from Afghanistan on NATO planes and Cocaine from South America.

When "ex" CIA planes are found in the jungle with tons of of coke on board then you have to wonder whether they were really decommissioned and sold to drug dealers or just kept on as black op planes all along.

CIA plane found crashed with 3.7 tons of Cocaine in Mexican jungle
A CIA plane found crashed with millions of dollars of Cocaine on board within the Mexican jungle

This plane was a Florida based Gulfstream II jet aircraft that crash landed on September 24, 2007 after it ran out of fuel over Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.

It had 3.7 tons of Cocaine on board and documents have revealed links between this Cocaine Smuggling Gulfstream II jet aircraft # N987SA and the CIA, who used it on at least 3 rendition flights from Europe and the USA, to bring inmates to Guantanamo's torture chambers in the early 2000's.

Strangely the planes drug cargo shrunk from a first reported 6 Tons of Cocaine as well as one ton of pure Heroin to a later reduced figure of only 3.3 tons of Cocaine. I wonder where all this missing Coke and Smack went?

Here is a video that goes into some detail about the plane crash and it's links to the DEA and CIA.



Then there is the more recent narco state and war in Afghanistan. Don't be fooled by claims from our ex PM, Tony Blair, that we went to war in Afghanistan to stop the opium production spiralling out of control.

If anything we went to war to keep it going as the Taliban had managed to reduce it to almost zero. Then we went into the country and BOOM, the harvest size increased year by year.

Not only do 92% of the countries population not even know what 9.11 was - surprising seeing it was the event that caused the devastation of their country - but since the CIA took the Taliban out of power the Opium crop has just grown and grown.

Opium production from 1994 to 2014

As you can see from the graph in 2001 when the Taliban ruled the country they actually banned the production of Opium as un-Islamic and its harvest dropped to hardly anything. Also after 9.11 and the invasion of the country the opium production spiked once again and has increased year after year thereon.

Remember this was the drug that the CIA had increased production of, during the 80's, when Russian had invaded the country. The aim was to both demoralise the Soviet troops as well as pay for the training and arming of what was to become al-Qaeda, the then called Mujahideen.
Because the US wanted to supply the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan with stinger missiles and other military hardware it needed the full cooperation of Pakistan. By the mid-1980s, the CIA operation in Islamabad was one of the largest US intelligence stations in the World. `If BCCI is such an embarrassment to the US that forthright investigations are not being pursued it has a lot to do with the blind eye the US turned to the heroin trafficking in Pakistan’, said a US intelligence officer. (“The Dirtiest Bank of All,” Time, July 29, 1991, p. 22.)

The Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979 to 1.2 million by 1985, a much steeper rise than in any other nation.

CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests.

Source - The Spoils of War
Another side effect of the CIA's support of the Islamic Mujahideen to fight the USSR was that they created al-Qaeda. Here is ex UK foreign minister Robin Cook admitting that the USA and the CIA created al-Qaeda (or "the Database") of jihadists that the Americans used to fight the Russians during that war, and then afterwards as many claim, were used to de-stabilise areas that the US wanted to control (e.g Gladio 2).

Also if anyone has forgotten, the most gagged woman in US history, FBI agent, Sibel Edmonds, claimed after 9-11 that bin-Laden had maintained very close links with the CIA right up until the attacks in the US.

So not only does Afghanistan now produce over 92% of all opium in the world, but they no longer just export it to be turned into heroin in other countries, they now make the heroin inside their borders. It is then transported north to Russia, south to Pakistan and west to Iran, where it makes its way to Turkey and then Europe. That is if it isn't fast tracked on a NATO plane for special delivery.

So kids when your government tells you to "Just Say No" to drugs, just be aware that they are in fact controlling multiple countries production of the very drugs you consume.

On top of that they are pulling the strings of the major cartels and king pins who bring these drugs into your country.

Hypocritical - yes, surprising not at all.

By Dark Politricks

 
View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com.

© 2015 By Dark Politricks