Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Terrorist attacks on West prove you reap what you sow

The United States has a record of aiding and protecting some of the worst international terrorists since the Second World War.

Shane Quinn

Published

on

1,237 Views

The following sentence may come as a surprise to Western eyes that, “Miami and Washington have been among the major world centres of international terrorism from the Kennedy period until today, under any definition of terrorism”. The words were written by a Boston professor Noam Chomsky at the end of US President Ronald Reagan’s second term.

The Kennedy period referred to is viewed through rose-tinted glasses across the West, such is the level of indoctrination. In reality, President John F. Kennedy initiated the Vietnam War in early 1962 when he outright invaded the southern half of the country by sending the US Air Force to bomb en masse – the south Vietnamese had been threatening to overthrow the US-backed dictatorship of Ngo Dinh Diem.

Kennedy’s hegemonic demands during the Cuban Missile Crisis pushed the world to the brink of a nuclear war. Preceding this was his disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion in which Cuban exiles, led by the CIA, were thwarted by Fidel Castro’s forces – a humiliating setback for Kennedy. Almost immediately after, he implemented a crippling embargo on Cuba.

Further stung at this successful resistance to control over the Western hemisphere, the Kennedy administration orchestrated waves of terrorist attacks, known as “Operation Mongoose” – planned in Washington and directed from Miami. Kennedy asked his brother Robert to, “lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation Mongoose… to visit the ‘terrors of the earth’ on Fidel Castro, and more prosaically, to topple him”.

Kennedy authorised the terrorist operations against Cuba in late 1961 which included bombing of industrial facilities and tourist hotspots, attacks on fishing boats, poisoning of crops and livestock, contamination of sugar exports, and so on.

The vicious assaults by the US continued for decades, including chemical and biological warfare perpetrated on Cuba. During that time the US aided, abetted and protected two of the worst international terrorists of the post-Second World War period: Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. Both were Cuban exiles who directed their crimes against Cuba freely from Miami, with financial aid and support largely coming from Cuban-American organisations.

Posada Carriles himself, still alive today, had joined the CIA and became an active agent with them. Perhaps Posada Carriles’ single most heinous crime was his planning of the destruction of a Cuban passenger plane in 1976, with the “mastermind” Bosch providing crucial help – all 73 people aboard were killed.

Posada Carriles was further responsible for terrorist attacks in Central America, organised plots to assassinate Fidel Castro and other Cuban leaders, initiated numerous bombings against Cuban tourist industries, including hotels, was involved in drug trafficking, and so on. In one such attack in 1997 an Italian-Canadian was killed, leading Posada Carriles to say in an interview the following year that, “the Italian was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I sleep like a baby”.

Bosch, meanwhile, was responsible for numerous other terrorist acts according to the FBI – including an attack on a Polish freighter with a 57mm recoilless rifle, postal bombings directed at Cuban embassies and consulates in Latin America, the bombing of the Mexican embassy in Guatemala, the attempted assassination of the Cuban Ambassador to Argentina (Emilio Aragones) in 1975, etc.

Bosch was later granted a presidential pardon by the incoming George H. W. Bush administration in 1989, helped by lobbying from son Jeb Bush and Florida Cuban-American leaders.

Twelve years ago Bosch’s partner-in-crime, Posada Carriles, received political asylum in the US – leading to a naturally irked Fidel Castro saying, “In the middle of their [US] supposed ‘war against international terrorism’ they’ve given asylum to one of the biggest international terrorists! Are there two terrorisms? A good one and a bad one?”

An interesting question if one looks at the record, which leads on to the current stream of terrorist attacks by extremists in Europe. The atrocities, such as the one recently in Barcelona, are increasing in regularity. Through the media storm afterwards, the root causes behind these crimes are almost completely overlooked.

The rise in terrorist groups originating from the Middle East (later spreading) can be traced back to the Reagan administration of the 1980s. On the front cover of a book by Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad, called Terrorism: Theirs and Ours, is a photograph of the Mujahideen in Reagan’s White House.

The US not only supported the Mujahideen but actively organised them. The superpower collected the most radical and extreme individuals they could find, massed them into a trained fighting force, and sent them to battle the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This may have lengthened the war in Afghanistan with Soviet archives suggesting the Russians wanted to exit the country in the early 1980s (not 1989, when it ended).

The US aim was to create an enemy that would harm the Russians, with the Mujahideen committing terrorist attacks inside Russia itself. Later, Clinton’s bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 went a long way to creating Al Qaeda. It also resulted in Osama bin Laden becoming a rising symbol as the indiscriminate shelling drew more supporters to his cause.

The illegal wars the United States and Israel have conducted in the Middle East or north Africa – be it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon or Libya – were the driving force behind the creation and rise of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, other offshoots and, the most crazed, ISIS. The wars were waged to destroy independent nationalism and protect oil resources – in that case, some people (not the majority) will turn in desperation elsewhere. That has increasingly led them towards terrorist organisations.

In fact, the US has been the world’s strongest outside backer of Islamic fundamentalism with its decades-long support of Saudi Arabia, “the most extreme fundamentalist tyranny in the world”. During two terms in office, Barack Obama provided the Saudis with over $50 billion in arms and supplies.

Obama’s international drone warfare campaign also created countless new terrorists – as people suspected of possibly being a threat some day are wiped out, along with anyone unfortunate enough to be in the surrounding area – a major breach of international law. The consequences of all this are there for everyone to see.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Avramijevdan
Guest
Avramijevdan

I have feeling this will not go down very well with logically impaired who “know” Kennedy (Mr. Banana of his time) fought fed, MIC and few others as well. To read words that put their idol on rightful place will surely incite the very best in them and as a result Chomsky and whoever agrees with him will become Jews of the worst type. Well, it has to be so when in desperate attempt to create heroes although there is none who could even remotely fill the role one chooses to go with Mr. can’t keep me mr. johnson in… Read more »

samo war
Guest
samo war

atteists people stay for all problems in the woorld ?

spoint
Guest
spoint

But they said if we bombed them over there we would be safe here. What happened? And after I bought them all the guns they wanted. Jipped.

TravelAbout
Guest
TravelAbout

You could say that’s money “shot” to hell 🙂

BettyTDominique
Guest
BettyTDominique

Party114e

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!sq114d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash404MarketParty/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!sq114l..,.

Guillermo Calvo Mahe
Guest

An uncomfortable truth writ large and small. Miami is the destination of choice for Colombian politicians charged with corruption or human rights violations. Terrorists sponsored by previous administrations (thing Uribe) escape Colombian justice by being spirited out of the country under purported extraditions, kept safely isolated from interrogation that might prove embarrassing to the US. The same is true of repressive regimes installed and maintained by the US and its allies (think Israel) in many parts of the world. It gets harder and harder to express feigned surprise and outrage when outraged chickens come home to roost. ______ Guillermo Calvo… Read more »

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

And don’t forget the Brits = two peas in a pod. I guess the West never expected the Muslim world to have the guts to go on the attack and seek revenge. Citizens of every single country that has helped decimate the Muslim world are at risk of being attacked. Yes, you reap what you sow…

Anja Boettcher
Guest
Anja Boettcher

Attacks happening under the label of terrorism in western countries has very little to do with “guts”, but rather with foolish fanatically incited young people, who feel frustrated and want to be heroic, but are not cold-blooded and intelligent enough to check independently which masters they serve. “Terrorism” in western postwar Europe has had a very peculiar history. In the east matters were even more clear: US services and the MI 6 trained in US occupied Bavaria former eastern Europe Nazi-collaborators to commit atrocities on the ground of the western territory of the Soviet Union. Former head of the UPA… Read more »

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

US created and developed the Afghan terrorism, owning it lock, stock, and barrel , starting in 1979, with the infamous Brzezinski “doctrine”. US/CIA armed the taliban AND the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan for ten years. They reap what they’ve sown, including the terrorist attacks in America since 1990ies. When one dances with the devil, he risks being burned.

plamenpetkov
Guest
plamenpetkov

I watched two dumb broads on Sharks last nite: both ex military and both came back from Afghanistan. When asked what they were doing in Afghanistan they replayed they were there to “fight terrorism”. Wonder if those dumb broads even knew Osama Bin Alladdin was armed and trained by CIA to fight against the Soviets, Im 100% sure they would say no.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“armed and trained by CIA to fight against the Soviets” Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted in 1998, that the equipping of Bin Laden’s anti-Soviet troops happened before the Soviet Union army entered in Afghanistan, and the US arming the Islamic group was aimed at provoking its reaction: “According to the official version of the story, the CIA began to assist mujahedin in the year 1980, that is, after the invasion of the Soviet army against Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth that remained secret until today is quite different: it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed his… Read more »

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending