The Congress of the United States is largely made up of traitors like the Republicans who are owned by the Zionist money, according to Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic, researcher and political analyst.
Dr. Barrett made these remarks in an interview with Press TV on Friday while commenting on a report which says a group of senior Republican lawmakers in US Congress have asked the administration of President Donald Trump to add Iran back on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)’s blacklist and reverse one of the key agreements that paved the way for the 2015 nuclear deal between the Islamic Republic and major world powers.
Senator Rob Portman and Representative Ed Royce wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Thursday, asking him to raise the issue during the Paris-based anti-money laundry and terror financing organization’s upcoming session next week in the French capital.
In making their case, Portman and Royce — chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, respectively — referred to a recent congressional report that claimed then-President Barack Obama tried “to give Iran access to the US financial system” to facilitate the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
‘GOP is the most corrupt organization on Earth’
“Well, the Republican Party in the United States is the most corrupt organization on Earth I think unless we talk about the actual groups that admit that they are organized crime families,” Dr. Barrett said.
“Republicans are at this point completely owned by the Zionist money which is ironic because in the past it was actually the Democrats who would get 60 percent campaign financing, which really is a bribe, from the Zionists while Republicans would only get 35-40 percent. That’s all changed now,” he added.
“And we can see the results that Republican lawmakers are signing a letter demanding that Trump put Iran on this financial action blacklist. So they are even more rabidly anti-Iran than Trump it sounds like which is really saying something. And the reason for this again is they are all taking massive bribes from Israel. They are controlled by a hostile foreign power – the Zionist entity headquartered in Tel Aviv, pretending to be headquartered in Jerusalem (al-Quds) of course, that has actually attacked America repeatedly,” the analyst said.
“So the Congress of the United States now is largely made up of traitors, and the Republicans are even more so. Republicans are notoriously corrupt. One imagines that a great many of them have been compromised by Israel in the operations led by Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious billionaire pedophile pimp, who filmed Congress people with children and then used that to blackmail them,” he stated.
“The man has absolute immunity. He was so-called charged with some of these pedophile pimp crimes and never really served a day of hard times, because he owns so many of the politicians here especially the Republicans,” he said.
“So it’s a disgusting situation. The United States is outrageously corrupted at the highest level, and its current Iran policy which is dominated by the Zionist organized crime is really going to undermine America’s place in the world,” the commentator noted.
“the House Administration Committee allocated $25,000 to each member in 2017 and again in 2018 to beef up their personal and office security…”
Threats against politicians have been skyrocketing lately. Many in Congress are now living in fear, purchasing body armor and hiring armed guards to protect themselves against the people they should be serving rather than controlling.
Mexican citizens have been executing politicians in the country south of the United States’ border. So far, 113 political elites (or those attempting to become a political master by way of election) have been killed.
The majority of politicians experiencing the threats appear to be republican. Which just goes to show that liberals intend to use violence and theft to get people to conform to their ideas rather than use peace and voluntary interaction.
In 2016, there were 902 threatening incidents and communications against members of Congress. By 2017, the reports had more than doubled to about 2,000, according to the House Sergeant at Arms office.
According to The New York Post, in response, the House Administration Committee allocated $25,000 to each member in 2017 and again in 2018 to beef up their personal and office security, prompting members to hire bodyguards for events and equip offices with panic buttons and shatter-resistant glass.
Meaning they are using the funds of those who are making the treats to protect the ruling class.
The House Sergeant at Arms got an additional $5 million to improve office security for district offices. Congress also increased funding for Capitol Police by $29.2 million in 2017, and another $29.9 million in 2018.
In recognition of the danger level to the political elites, the Federal Election Commission also ruled in July that lawmakers can also use campaign funds, which are typically spent on TV ads and mailers, to install security systems at their homes instead.
The chairman of the House Administration Committee, representative Gregg Harper that authorized security spending, said the shooting made clear that Congress needed to do more.
“What we would never want to have happen is for an incident to occur and anybody – a member, a visitor or staffer – to say you didn’t give us what we needed to protect ourselves,” Harper, who has hired personal armed bodyguards said.
While violence is not the answer, neither is the elite ruling class shoving their laws down the throats of the public on a whim with no consequences.
As soon as enough people wake up and realize whom the real enemy of liberty is, there won’t be a need for violence or threats. There will eventually hopefully be enough people who no longer wish to be slaves to politicians that [deep state] government itself will become obsolete; peacefully.
Quantum computing has made it to the United States Congress. If this field of quantum information is the new space race, the US doesn’t want to fall behind.
After all, China has funded a National Laboratory for Quantum Information Sciences, set to open in 2020, and has launched a satellite meant to test long-distance quantum secure information.
Two new bills, one of which is still a draft, are meant to establish the US as a leader in the field.
“Quantum computing is the next technological frontier that will change the world, and we cannot afford to fall behind,” said Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) in a statement passed to Gizmodo. “We must act now to address the challenges we face in the development of this technology â€” our future depends on it.”
The bill introduced by Harris in the Senate focuses on defence, calling for the creation of a consortium of researchers selected by the Chief of Naval Research and the Director of the Army Research Laboratory. The consortium would award grants, assist with research, and facilitate partnerships between the members.
Another, yet-to-be-introduced bill, seen in draft form by Gizmodo, calls for a 10-year National Quantum Initiative Program to set goals and priorities for quantum computing in the US; invest in the technology; and partner with academia and industry.
For health-minded consumers, knowing that the “organic” label is something they can trust is of utmost importance. But now, it seems lawmakers are seeking to make changes to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). And as you might suspect, these are the kinds of changes that could spell disaster for organic food as we know it.
The NOSB was created back in 1990 as a supervising body for the National Organic Program. The organization is made up of 15 volunteer members. Current members include organic producers, environmentalists and conservationists, consumer and public interest advocates, and a scientist, among others. The board member requirements were designed to ensure representation is balanced, and to inspire trust in the NOSB overall. The panel must be comprised of a certain number of individuals from each area, and by design, this is supposed to help protect organics against special interest groups like the agriculture industry.
But all that could change, under a new scheme designed to give politicians (and perhaps indirectly, Big Ag) more power than the board.
Is Congress going to destroy organic food as we know it?
Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has proposed two major changes to the NOSB — changes that would ultimately weaken the power of the NOSB, if not render the board obsolete entirely. What are these harebrained ideas from our elected officials?
As Civil Eats reports, Congress would, for one, like the NOSB to allow employees of organic farmers or producers to be permitted to have board positions. And secondly, Congress has proposed that they begin “allowing politicians to sidestep the NOSB’s authority to approve substances such as the fertilizers and pesticides used in organic production.”
Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.
OrganicConsumers.org reports that the 2018 Farm Bill would also require the NOSB to consult with the EPA and FDA “when considering whether to allow a pesticide or any other non-organic substance approved by those agencies in organic.” Further, the bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture the power to put pressure on the NOSB to “expedite” their review of industry petitions to allow the use of a “non-organic post-harvest handling substance” in organic foods, provided the product is “related to food safety.”
For consumers and members of the organic industry alike, this latest move by Congress is seriously disturbing. Not only are they trying to take power away from the NOSB, but they are trying to corrupt the organization and are literally paving the way for special interests groups to have their way with organic food.
The 2018 Farm Bill, titled Agriculture and Nutrition Act (HR2) has already been given an “F” from the National Organic Coalition. The coalition declared that the new measures proposed by Congress are “unnecessary and weaken the authority of the NOSB” — a sentiment many people share, no doubt.
Proponents of the Farm Bill claim that the NOSB is a dinosaur, holding organic farmers back from the latest “innovations.” Others have been critical of the fact that the NOSB primarily consists of small farmers and business owners, claiming that this leaves larger operations (like Del Monte or Driscoll’s) “unrepresented.” But whether or not these concerns are fair is debatable; large-scale farms that are new to the organic industry may be less concerned with upholding the integrity of organic food.
Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, commented, “There are so many large companies getting involved with organic that do not have the history with organic, and that makes them less than optimal members of the NOSB.
“They don’t have the insight into organic practices,” he contended.
“If a Del Monte employee replaces a small-scale family farmer, for example, you’re undercutting the integrity of the organic seal,” Feldman added. Feldman was an NOSB member from 2010 to 2015. He added that many people who are critical of organics are “really steeped” in the pesticide industry.
We’ll find out Tuesday whether this Democratic nightmare comes true.
In CA-49, two Republicans — state Board of Equalization representative Diane Harkey and state Assemblyman Rocky Chavez — have regularly finished at or near the top of the polls. Retired Marine Col. Doug Applegate was the early Democratic favorite, having surprised everyone by finishing with a mere 1,621 votes, or 0.6 percentage points, behind Issa in 2016. But Applegate has been fading amid chatter about a contentious divorce, and environmental lawyer Mike Levin has emerged as perhaps the party’s leading contender, with several key endorsements and a first-place finish in the most recent public survey.
The problem is that two other well-resourced Democrats are running as well: 29-year-old Sara Jacobs, who has benefited from $1 million in super-PAC donations from her grandfather, Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Jacobs, and Navy veteran and businessman Paul Kerr, who has so far spent more than $5 million of his personal fortune — in part on controversial ads attacking Levin and Jacobs. All these candidates, including Applegate, are still viable, as are both leading GOPers. Unless Democrats turn out in unprecedented numbers — and/or throw the lion’s share of their votes to one of their party’s four candidates (most likely Levin) — they could end up sending two Republicans to the November runoff.
CA-48 is a similar story. At first glance, Rohrabacher didn’t seem like one of the most vulnerable House Republicans. In 2016, he defeated his Democratic opponent by more than 16 percentage points, and registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by more than 10 points in his district, which stretches from Seal Beach to Laguna Beach and includes some of California’s whitest, wealthiest and most traditionally Republican towns. In fact, Orange County has long been known as the birthplace of the conservative movement.
But this time around, changing demographics, local antipathy toward Trump and Rohrabacher’s own strange relationship to Russia lured seven Democratic challengers into the race. Since then, many have fizzled or dropped out, leaving two strong candidates — stem-cell pioneer Hans Keirstead and real-estate entrepreneur Harley Rouda — as the last men standing. Keirstead was initially considered one of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s top recruits nationwide, and he earned the state Democratic Party’s endorsement earlier this year. But Rouda seems to have gained late momentum — and the committee’s official support — amid questions surrounding Keirstead’s exit from a UC Irvine lab. Despite his vulnerability, Rohrabacher is still likely to finish first. The question is whether Rouda and Keirstead’s increasingly vicious infighting will help boost one of them past Baugh for second place — or whether it will keep both of them out of the runoff.
Whatever the Democratic Party’s worries in CA-49 and CA-48, however, they’re nothing compared with the situation in CA-39. With four viable Democrats and three viable Republicans (frontrunner Young Kim, a former state assemblywoman; former state Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff; and Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson), the top-two math in Rep. Ed Royce’s district, which stretches northeast from Fullerton, is more daunting for Dems than anywhere else.
By all accounts, Kim is a lock for first place. But no one has any clue who will join her in the general election. Both Huff and Nelson are well known and well liked in the district. The Democratic frontrunners, meanwhile, are a pair of largely self-funding, and less familiar, millionaires: Gil Cisneros, a former shipping and distribution manager at Frito-Lay who won a lottery jackpot of $266 million with his wife in 2010, and Andy Thorburn, a Villa Park health insurance executive and former teachers’ union leader who loaned his campaign $2 million right out of the gate. Cisneros has the Congressional Campaign Committee’s backing; Thorburn was endorsed by Our Revolution, the Bernie Sanders super-PAC.
Further dividing the Democratic vote field are a pair of political neophytes: pediatrician Mai-Khanh Tran, a Vietnamese-American immigrant who worked her way through college at Harvard as a janitor and later survived two bouts of breast cancer, and former Obama administration Commerce Department staffer Sam Jammal. Unlike several other lower-tier Dems, both Tran and Jammal refused to bow out when pressed by national party leaders.
And then there’s turnout to consider. As David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report noted Monday, “A big reason why Democrats are nervous [is that] 22 percent of 39th CD Republicans have returned ballots versus 17 percent of Democratic voters (unlike in the 48th and 49th CDs, where Democrats have [turned] out at higher rates).”
The result could be a Democratic shutout in one of the most flippable districts of 2018.
The question is whether he’ll be running against a Republican or a Democrat in the fall.
At first, former state Assembly speaker and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seemed like the other favorite to advance. The thinking was that Villaraigosa’s potent base — more Latino and Southern Californian than Newsom’s — would propel him past whichever candidate California’s shrinking Republican Party eventually put forward.
Unfortunately for Villaraigosa, that’s not how things have been playing out. Two single-digit Democratic hopefuls (state Treasurer John Chiang, who boasts more money than Villaraigosa, and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin) have been splitting the party’s non-Newsom vote and, as a result, the leading Republican candidate, millionaire businessman John Cox, has been inching ahead of Villaraigosa in the latest polls.
The final days of the primary campaign have been dizzying. Newsom has been running ads that tout Cox’s conservative credentials — a backhanded way of trying to boost him into second place and ensure an easier path to victory come November. Supporters of Villaraigosa have been promoting the candidacy of Cox’s more conservative rival, state Assemblyman Travis Allen, in hopes of depressing Cox’s share of the primary vote and helping the former mayor advance. And charter-school advocates — including Netflix chief Reed Hastings, billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — spent $13.7 million on Villaraigosa’s behalf in less than a month, all but wiping out Newsom’s fundraising lead with the largest infusion of outside cash in California political history. Hastings alone donated a whopping $7 million.
Still, the outcome isn’t settled. After flirting with Allen, Republicans seem to be coalescing around Cox — Trump included. (Never mind that Cox refused to vote for the Manhattan mogul in 2016.) “California finally deserves a great Governor, one who understands borders, crime and lowering taxes,” the president tweeted Friday afternoon. “John Cox is the man — he’ll be the best Governor you’ve ever had.” But strong Latino turnout could help Villaraigosa squeak through.
If he does, the November election — a fight between two Democrats to lead the world’s fifth largest economy — would be one of the most fascinating and revealing in the country.
With an activist base that’s veering leftward in reaction to Trump and a Legislature that’s largely sympathetic and no longer requires Republican votes to pass laws, a like-minded governor could quickly transform the country’s most populous state into the negative image of Trump’s Washington: that is, a place where policy responses to America’s most pressing problems, from income inequality to education to health care, could be implemented.
As we’ve noted before, Newsom is the most progressive of the leading Democrats and the most detailed in his policy prescriptions. His platform includes a number of proposals that national progressives are pushing the party to adopt: a statewide “Medicare for All” single-payer health care system; universal preschool; full-service community schools, open every day; a vast expansion of affordable housing; and a state bank dedicated to financing infrastructure projects, small businesses and the growing marijuana industry. He frequently cites his early decision as San Francisco mayor to grant the nation’s first official same-sex marriage licenses as evidence that as governor he would have the “courage” to push for trailblazing reforms.
Long considered a moderate figure, Villaraigosa is running as Newsom’s more pragmatic, centrist foil. “Pie in the sky doesn’t put food on the table,” he likes to say of the frontrunner’s single-payer plan, which would require an unlikely waiver from the Trump administration. “It’s snake oil.” On education, Villaraigosa is advocating for more charter schools (hence, the independent expenditures) and stricter rules for teacher tenure; as mayor of Los Angeles, he tried to seize control of the city’s public schools, arguing a dramatic overhaul was needed.
The choice facing Californians, then, would be stark: How far to the left do they want the state to go? As far as it has gone in the past? Or further? As it happens, this is the same choice confronting national Democrats as they struggle to respond to Trump. In that sense, California’s gubernatorial contest could foreshadow the risks ahead for the party, and the possible rewards.
A GOP shutout could have down-ballot consequences as well. State Republicans fear that if Cox fails to advance — if there’s no Republican at the top of the ticket for the first time in California history — rank-and-file GOP voters won’t show up to vote for the party’s imperiled congressional candidates. According to the Sacramento Bee, an internal poll conducted by the Cox campaign showed that “barely more [than] half of likely GOP voters in California would turn out” in that scenario.
If Cox, on the other hand, makes the runoff, Newsom would be all but guaranteed to succeed Jerry Brown in the governor’s mansion. The Republican has gained some traction by railing against California’s recent gas-tax increase, which raised prices by 12 cents per gallon, and its so-called sanctuary state movement, which has seen various jurisdictions push back on Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda by directing state or local police not to assist federal enforcement efforts. But the president lost here in 2016 by 3 million votes, and a new poll shows that two-thirds of Golden Staters disapprove of his job performance; meanwhile, “decline to state,” or independent, voters just surpassed Republicans as the state’s second-largest bloc by registration.
Scramble for the Senate
There’s zero doubt that incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein will finish first in Tuesday’s primary, bringing her one step closer to a sixth term in the U.S. Senate.
The real question is by how much.
Initially, Kevin de León, the former president pro tempore of the state Senate, was seen as a serious challenger — a pugnacious progressive who could capitalize on long-standing left-wing frustrations with Feinstein’s bipartisan instincts and relatively hawkish foreign-policy views and rally Democrats who had become especially eager to unseat her since last August, when she refused to call for Trump’s impeachment, arguing instead that he “can be a good president” if “he can learn and change.”
In the state Senate, de León had worked overtime since Trump’s election to transform California into ground zero for the resistance — and to cast de León, by extension, as one of the movement’s leaders. On Nov. 9, 2016, de León and his counterpart in the state Assembly, Anthony Rendon, released a letter proclaiming that California would “lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution”; in January 2017, they hired former Attorney General Eric Holder to shape their legal strategy. And de León in particular went on to push bill after bill designed to thwart Trump’s agenda.
On the trail, de León hasn’t pulled his punches. He frequently mentions “congressional seniority,” a thinly veiled reference to the fact that Feinstein, 84, is the oldest sitting U.S. senator and would be 91 when her next term concludes.
For a time, de León’s flanking maneuver seemed to be working. He won the endorsements of many of the state’s top unions, and California Democrats voted in February not to endorse Feinstein, making her the first incumbent senator in decades to compete in a Golden State primary without the official backing of her party.
In part Feinstein’s lead is because Feinstein has massively outspent de León, raising $10 million and chipping in an extra $5 million of her own money. (De León has rustled up a mere $1.3 million so far.) In part it is because she has tacked to the left on marijuana and the death penalty, seemingly in response to de León’s attacks and the larger leftward shift among Democrats they reflect. In part it is because Feinstein’s name recognition is sky-high — she won reelection in 2012 with more votes (7.75 million) than any other senator in U.S. history — which tends to help in an enormous state with several exorbitant media markets.
But mainly it is because the vast majority of Californians aren’t as unhappy with Feinstein as de León assumed. At a #MeToo moment, she is the first and only woman to have chaired the Senate Rules Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Before joining the Senate, she was the first female mayor of San Francisco; before that, she was the first female president of the city’s Board of Supervisors. In 1994, Feinstein authored the federal assault weapons ban, and she has continued to fight for gun control amid the recent spate of school shootings; during President Barack Obama’s first term, she led a groundbreaking investigation into the CIA’s controversial post-9/11 interrogation program.
De León’s supporters insist that the dynamic will different in the fall, should he advance. But unless he makes a surprisingly strong showing Tuesday, it’s unlikely that he will be able to gain much momentum. Ultimately, then, de León’s candidacy may prove to be a case study in the limitations of resistance politics, rather than its power. Feinstein may not be popular among self-styled resistance fighters, but how many resistance fighters are there, really — even in California? And how many are just as upset about moderate Democrats as they are about Trump Republicans?
Perhaps not enough to unseat a trailblazing woman who has been serving the state for decades.
Parts of this story were adapted from the author’s earlier coverage of California’s 2018 elections.
Charlottesville, Virginia – A 37-year-old accountant named Nathan Larson was recently exposed as a rapist and pedophile, but instead of being arrested, he has been able to continue his campaign for a seat in Congress.
Earlier this week, Larson admitted to hosting the websites suiped.org and incelocalypse.today, which acted as a meeting place for pedophiles, white supremacists, and anti-women groups.
“Incelocalypse” is reportedly described as “the day we make the jailbaits our rape-slaves,” on Larson’s site.
In an interview with HuffPost on Thursday, Larson plainly admitted to being a pedophile and said that there was “some truth” to online posts he made where he bragged about raping his ex-wife and fantasized about daughter-father incest.
“Why doesn’t every pedo just focus on making money so they can get a pedo-wife and then either impregnate her with some fucktoys or adopt some fucktoys? That would accommodate both those who are and aren’t into incest. And of course, the adoption process lets you pick a boy or a girl,” Larson wrote in one post last October.
Larson is the parent of a 3-year-old girl, but his parental rights were relinquished following a custody battle with the ex-wife who he bragged about sexually assaulting. She was also able to obtain a restraining order against him following the divorce. Sadly, her side of the story will never be told, because she killed herself in 2015, likely from the trauma inflicted on her during the marriage.
Larson has since remarried, likely to a woman that he views as his property.
In Larson’s campaign platform, he says, “We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands.”
Larson actually believes that he has a chance of winning his campaign, despite the recent revelations about his private life.
“A lot of people are tired of political correctness and being constrained by it. People prefer when there’s an outsider who doesn’t have anything to lose and is willing to say what’s on a lot of people’s minds,” Larson said.
Larson is even more inspired now that a vilified candidate like Trump won a presidential election. “A lot of people who disagreed with someone like Trump … might vote for them anyway just because the establishment doesn’t like them,” he said.
Larson has admitted to being the author of numerous posts inciting rape and violence, including essays with titles such as the following:
“A Man Should Be Allowed to Choke His Wife to Death as Punishment for Cutting Her Hair Short Without Permission, or Other Acts of Gross Insubordination”
“Advantages of Father-Daughter Incest”
“The Justifiability of an Incel’s Kidnapping a Girl and Keeping Her as His Rape-Slave for Sex and Babymaking”
“Here’s How to Psyche Yourself Up to Feel Entitled to Rape”
In one rant, titled, “Let’s Define What Rape Is,” Larson wrote: “Women are objects, to be taken care of by men like any other property, and for powerful men to insert themselves into as it pleases them, and as they believe will be in women’s own interests. In most cases, their interests are aligned, as long as the man is strong. Female sex-slaves actually get a much better deal than animals, because in most cases, they are allowed to reproduce, unlike animals raised for meat or companionship.”
Larson is a self-described libertarian, and despite being in favor of gun rights and drug legalization, he does not seem to understand the actual philosophy behind the platforms that he espouses.
After news of Larson’s activities was made public, the Libertarian party acted swiftly to prevent him from running on their platform.
LPVA Chair, Bo Brown said in a statement that, “Nathan Larson does not have and will never receive the Libertarian Party nomination. He espouses many archaic and dark ideas that fly in the face of libertarian philosophy. The Libertarian Party believes in equal rights for all people. No matter how he attempts to rationalize his opinions, they are far outside the realm of the Libertarian Party Platform. If he persists in his campaign for office, he will find that his ideas and previous writings are considered repugnant to the people of Virginia and rightfully so.”
DASH cryptocurrency and The Free Thought Project have formed a partnership that will continue to spread the ideas of peace and freedom while simultaneously teaching people how to operate outside of the establishment systems of control like using cryptocurrency instead of dollars. Winning this battle is as simple as choosing to abstain from the violent corrupt old system and participating in the new and peaceful system that hands the power back to the people. DASH is this system.
DASH digital cash takes the control the banking elite has over money and gives it back to the people. It is the ultimate weapon in the battle against the money changers and information controllers.
If you’d like to start your own DASH wallet and be a part of this change and battle for peace and freedom, you can start right here. DASH is already accepted by vendors all across the world so you can begin using it immediately.