The Ochelli Effect 2-26-2026 Larry Hancock

You. Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners liking Yeah, I know, the most aggervated noise. It's all media.

Oddly, we're live February twenty sixth of twenty twenty six allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar. Now, it's been quite a whirlwind of a couple of weeks, really, and I didn't speak to Larry Hancock last week because rather suddenly, right before we were supposed to air, I was not well enough to do. So it's my fault.

I'm doing fine, Chuck, looking forward to an early spring. It's been warm here this week. It's very nice the.

Past couple of days. I got warmer here, but it was freezing for Georgia for a while while, I mean really really cold. I know people in the Northeast are probably saying to themselves shut up because they were buried under you know, three and a half feet of snow. But believe me, it was cold for us in Georgia. For being in Georgia, it would have been like, you know, a typical week in I don't know, March in Jersey. But hey, it is what it is anyway, Larry. But

Well?

One thing that talking about who's saying? What about? Just an immediate comment is one One high ranking admiral pointed out to the President about three weeks ago that that we have been deploying forces at a rate that is quite unusual for US without having an active you know, being at war or having a you know, a congressionally approved military action play. And the admiral was essentially saying, you know, I've got a carrier group that's been deployed

You need to look for work immediately.

And so I think that is and the Secretary of Defense is strictly in that court. If you have advice, they don't really want advice. What they want is compliance. And so I think that's why the level of communication has really dropped down. Okay, similar to what we might have explained over the last few decades.

Right, So let me just ask you about a couple of specific things. Then, because you have the the Gerald Ford, there's reports that those guys kind you know, gave that sentiment that you just mentioned about Hey, listen, we've been out here long enough and maybe it's time to rotate us or you know, give us some shot leave or something.

I always think it's all disconnected because it's quite frankly, all situational.

That's a comment I would make.

Traditionally, you would have a stated foreign policy, okay, and then you can looking for things that would be consistent with that foreign policy. We're in a very situational mode at the moment. Whatever strikes the president at any point in time, any given a week becomes the foreign policy priority.

And whatever it was last week.

You know, it may recycle, but it's not part of a coherent, consistent, orderly process.

It's like rotation. You know. Well, we talk about Venezuela.

Yeah, if somebody asked a question about it, and if they ask the right question, that makes us think about it, we may do something different.

Same way with the hospital ships.

You know, you hear that the hospital ships are on their way in a social media post, but we know that's not true, and we know that can't even happen. One of them is under maintenance. They would require icebreakers that we don't have. The port's not big enough to die. It's just they're inconsistencies all over the place. So at this point in time, we don't really have a foreign policy being supported by an integrated series of actions.

We have at best, it's tactical.

You know, what are you going to do this week to support what the priority was this week? And next week you'll turn around and go, well, wait a minute, but I already deployed everybody for that.

Now you want me to pull them back.

It's like the carrier that you talked about, rather than being rotated as it should have been in the first place, was deployed to support the Venezuela operation tentatively, and then it was no, it's not going to have to go there. Is it going to go home? No, No, it's turns out it's going to go. So what you are seeing is a lot of disconnections. I think it would be hard for anybody to objectively not think that was going on. It's very difficult for commanders, It's very difficult granders. It's

All well, wow, well this leads us to a logistically.

Our forces will be tired, out of ammunition and not involved in this kind of situational activity.

Right, So it leaves you with logistical questions. But are we certain that we're just simply not being shown? Like, is this a new kind of stealth behavior?

Right?

Where there is two tracks let's say of behavior here. It's not all singular. Let's just say there's the surface level stuff and the stuff that's being shared, and then there's maybe a quiet contingent that is simply you know, actually enacting more long term strategies. Is that a possibility? I mean, are we really looking at a four D kind of chest.

Now, No, I don't think no, I think that's true.

I think what you did say is obviously there are two levels of things going on. The military stuff is quite transparent, and these days it can't not be. You can't really sneak forces around that if you can turn this, turnoff transponders, you know. But you know when we're assembly enforcing. Quite frankly, the president never fails to announceward forced. So that that part is pretty straightforward. What we don't see,

It disappeared, and then it had to do with oil.

And what it turned out was that he had clearly been the ghost shading with the vice present the country to actually gain access to its oil supplies, not to do a revolution, for do a new democratic government, not to control drugs, but literally essentially to do a deal to gaintain access to its oil. So wise, so there is a there's a deal making going on. Certainly, there's deal making going on in regard to Palestine, in regard.

To Iran, and REGARDSS.

So what's in the background that you're not seeing is what particular deal he's trying to cut at any point in time, because that deal may be different than the one that he's talking about. So, yeah, certainly, is that for fortys I'm not sure.

Maybe that's what.

It is, but it's there's a level of complexity situationally.

And what deal he thinks can be cut.

And the fascinating thing to me was in Venezuela, the deal that's been cut and the outcome that's been that we're arriving at is totally different than what the deal being discussed in the beginning was. So that kind of leaves you at odds about you know, I wonder where we may end up.

Well, let's see if we can make a pattern out of this, because it seems to me like that is a consistent pattern, you know, when it comes to intervention regarding Israel and that circumstance, right, it was to be in support of them because they had been under attack, and that was a couple of years ago, now I know, And you know, before we go any further, I got to mention there's still shooting going on in Ukraine. Everybody forgets,

Well?

I think one can say that we have always we've always had two stated foreign policy seeze right, the overt foreign policy the State Department would be communicating, we be communicating diplomatically, and then whatever an individual president chose to make his priority. So the fact that we would have two priorities in play and some conflict there and some you know, dysfunction is not odd.

It's not odd at all.

I mean, we go back to, you know, the invasion of Cuba, and you have the guy who's at the.

UN going, oh, we would never do something like that.

At the bottom line is we just didn't tell him we were about to do that, you know. So I think it would be unfair to say that we haven't been in these situations before.

We seem to be in more.

Of them at any one time than before, and I think I think that makes it. It makes it a lot more challenging and probably a lot more risking. But because you can, you know, you can get away with one mistake if you make it.

Can you get away with life in the same timeframe? Not sure. But the real answer to your.

Question, I think is what is totally escaping us at the moment is committing to these actions without an understanding.

Of the long term impact.

Because, as you just said, in all of these cases, we come out with a statement in the beginning of why we're doing it, and then we change it in midstream, and then the question is going to be, well, we changed in midstream.

How does you know?

First of all, did we accomplish what we said we were going to do? You know, let's look at Venezuela. Have I seen anyse Yeah, we've suck some boats. Have I seen any Have I seen any statistics in the State of the Union message about drug usage in the United States being down, drug availability in the United States being down?

Is there any metric to show me that that worked? Okay, now what about the metrics on the on the oil? We know we've we've taken a lot of oil. We haven't. We're not. We're taking it easy way, We're taking it out of tankers, right, you know, and we're selling that, And and where's the metrics on that?

Where's the oversight committee that says, has it made their life better already?

Maybe it has, don't know, haven't seen it.

What we have definitely not seen was the claim that was made in the beginning is that we're actually going to take Matiro because we want to put a democratic government in place, and democratic governments are good for the hemisphere. We'll all be better if we get rid of all

Right? So, I mean, the essential message here is that when you see a public message from the United States about the motivation and operation. If I were just random any foreign entity, I would not take it seriously as the ultimate, you know, root of the operation. I would think, Okay, they say they're coming to do this, it doesn't mean

Think, I don't see how anybody who's looking at what's going on could feel differently, honestly, And I, you know, I don't see what.

I'm well, someone can tend this is a perfectly good strategy anyway, you know, just to just to enact the confusion before the infusion of the actual agenda.

Right anyway, Uh, I think the fighting is still in Gaza. Fighting is still going on in Gaza, right, is not anything? The Israeli army has not agreed anything. The Israeli settlers, are you thinking? The Israeli government, their democratic government hasn't

We're quickly declaring victories.

So we can go on to something else and not looking behind us at all. We're not we're not learning every experience. We're not we're almost not interested in the experience.

So not that we have not been there before in Guatemala, you.

Know, I talked about regime change and Guatemaldel for ages where we did literally manage.

To kick out a government.

You know, we didn't do a deal with it that right, but the net result over there, we left it in a contentious state. Over the following ten years there was something like twenty thousand deaths and murders inside the country, just you know, because we didn't. We declared victory and we're done. You know what we got what we wanted. Whatever happens to the people is wherever, you know, it's their problem.

Uh, it's we're satisfied with and one left and right.

It's kind of a very a very hit and run thing. I'm having trouble.

Again with Iran a run.

There was a period of time where we might have jumped in and taken some strong military action when there was a revolution in the streets.

We didn't.

And you can't delay those things. And we've learned that over time. That's a historical lesson. There's there's it's a very small if you if you want the military action, you do it now.

And then Cuba to us and.

Well we went and so we did not yet we had bombed their atomic facilities before and now we're about ready.

To bomb them again.

And it just there doesn't see any seem to be any continuity. Everything is what what are we going to do today?

Well, right, and with the hospital ships today, is it?

Yeah? With Iran, I'm confused because I could have swore we were told that they absolutely obliterated all of the nuclear program when they took out this one particular area before with the Israeli assist Right, and now we're going to reobliterate their nuclear program. I am confused.

Yeah, And I think even the President said we'll just bomb the desert again.

Well, I just doesn't seem productive to me.

But and one of the reasons, quite frankly, while most of the nations in the Gulf region are trying to discourage this, is that they and know what follows regime change in Iran will be totally unpredictable and probably much more violent and much more vicious. And this is kind of generally the state of regime change when you don't when there's no you know, when you force regime change, no parties obviously in control. I guess that's not the

Yeah, or Russia.

That's because I don't think it is.

Why did we suddenly.

See there's the key. I don't think it is. I think it's more of a danger to Israel than it is to us, you know. But there you go, right, And now now this turns into the foreign policy question. Nobody likes to really discuss unless you're angry and hateful

No, no, you're not, and it is confusing. I just got my mut's issue of my Air and Space magazine.

I subscribe to you since I former Air Force heading.

So the theater commanders or you can sell, they're having to be political, but they're being nonplussed about what they're being what they're being asked to do with their resources. You know, they're talking about, well, there was a policy, a foreign policy shift under Obama towards China.

Okay, well we got that and we started reorienting.

Taining all our resourcesologies are we're fighting whatever towards China.

But this Venezuela, whether it's Iran.

And they're the ones to have the real problem. They've got a small number of assets relatively speaking, and they've been told that there was this shift towards China, but that's not where they're being.

Asked to send differences.

That's not where they're asked to be spend their assets in terms of maintenance and personnel and weaponry.

And they're what they're doing is they're very you know, these are graduate of war colleges.

They're very politely saying, we are perplexed. Also, we're trying to do the best we can.

Don't pick on us, right, So you know, it's it's a very weird state. It's like to me, that would be the sleeping dog. I'd be worrying about getting up to bite us. You know. All these other concerns. Yeah, they're situational. They may have you know, different and flashpoints, et cetera. But I would think that in general, the long term issue has got to be to deal with the Chinese and what it is that they plan to do in the region, because you know, there you go,

But it is the other thing that goes along then.

And you know, it seems like we're spending all of our time talking military, but quite frankly, these days, most of it does seem to be foreign military. You know, what are we doing overseas with the military. And one of one of our advantage at the moment is that we have smallphens and you can go to Venezuela and do very precise, highly targeted, cleanly targeted aggression, you know, so lots of people don't get killed. And that's about

Do the Chinese have it?

Sure they have it, they're just not fighting anybody. And actually they're not consuming any of their resources. We keep asking why they can afford this. You know, see, I'm going to keep spending and growing the way they employ those assets again, highly expensive. You can't replenish those types of ammunitions, can't. You can't replenish the ballistic missile interceptors that we spent on Israel right and in mass more

But in these.

Years using your stockpiles that are that Yeah, that's our American advantage and and that's great, and it helped protect our people. But if you start spending it, and spending it heavily for these types of actions, then you you're talking about a year or two years to reset, which is why there's so much spending in this year's military budget for replenishment and resupply and growing the munition space.

Note seene it right now, there's this thing nobody planned on it. That's why we're suddenly.

Well and there's the entriest thing.

Sorry we have money or to buy forget that, forget giving right.

Sorry you broke up a bit there. But the important point in my mind is that while we are spending these assets and resources, uh, the Chinese are quietly not doing that. So what type of build up are we looking at, you know, for something potentially in the near future. That is what would be concerning me if I was involved in this business directly exactly, is that, Look, they're not spending all these resources, They're just building things and

I see it in Yeah, I use all of it, you know. I think Congress actually began to see it a little bit this year because the budget which is passed.

Hun.

But the second thing is we've become so relied on that advanced technology, and it's the offensive that we have in versual numbers. I mean, the size of our force is nothing loss even much less twenty or fifty.

It's men stool compared to that.

And for all aspects of our forces that you know, use really advanced, really expensive assets.

Uh.

I was just reading today and while this has happening, you talked about China. Twenty years ago, China had perhaps ten low worth orbit surveillance satellites monitoring our assets and resources around the globe. Now they have one hundred, they'll probably have five hundred within two years. They can deal

Okay, that's all well and good, but.

You know, I sort of missed people actually, you know, dealing with the reality of the situation, and sometimes you sometimes it's not all good. Sometimes you have to admit things aren't the way you want them to be.

Well, and there you go, Space for which should be frankly becoming much much more significant in our strategic planning. I haven't heard anything about it. It's almost like, yeah, we established it, but we really haven't done anything with it yet. It seems like now that could be because we're you know, keeping our cards close to our best so to speak. That could be, or it's not a priority at the moment, I don't know, you know, it's

Well, I had they're planning on it, and they were planning on if they got funded. But one of the problems is in these days, the way we've been recycling the budget, and not just the budget, but the spending. You know, that's that's a problem we have that the Chinese don't have, or the Russians say, you know, somebody, you know, they just spend, you know, they don't They don't stop and.

Start where we do.

Our contracting stops and starts, payments turn on and off, and they don't have that problem. But no, the Space Force has those plans. But I think I think really what we're talking about, if we admitted it, have admitted it, is for whatever reason, we have moved into just bragging about how good we are and how effective we are, and we're really talking about how good we are, which is was fine.

I mean, for example, our performance.

In Venezuela or in Iran from a military standpoint was awesome and it was fantantastic.

But it's constrained.

So if all you'd ever do is brag about it, then you don't get to discuss. You know, we can't do that every week. You know, we don't have the people, the assets or resources.

But we've.

We've just everything is, it's gone. We've gotten into a bragging mode, which can be dangerous. I need a little a little hubris needs to be entered into the dialogue.

Right, Yeah, that's the difficulty is now we have a lot of you know, hyperbolic statements about everything's great, it's in a golden age. But we're ignoring some things here I think, or it does seem as though action is not being taken where it should be, and smarter planning is not being done. And I mean again, maybe that's just the perspective we're being presented so that, you know, surprise, we actually have all this other stuff. I don't know.

I think there are two levels of results. The first is the results of what we've done. I mean, the results in Latin America of what we've done. I mean we we've You and I talked about this another show. We have instituted, reinstituted dunboat diplomacy in Latin America.

Call it what you will.

We've made it very clear to everybody that either you play with us or we'll take you out right. You know, So is that going to produce what we wanted? Is that going to produce revenues for us? Revenues for them we want?

Up?

We know we just started that. We won't know what's going to happen. Same thing in some of these other venues. Uh, same thing about you know, Gaza or Palestine. What is it really going to produce? We won't know for some time because we've already done all that, right, we haven't done the other stuff that you and I are talking about, you know, are we prepared for the other stuff?

Is the real question?

Are at the time, at the time we're doing these have we really prepared for the big questions we have we made the investments that we need to compete with the Chinese economically? Have we made the investments that we need to compete in the Arctic?

Have we made them? You know?

That's that is the problem. Those are two different things. One is, you know, what are the repercussions of what we've done within the last eight months to a year, and then what are the longer term effects of what we're not doing now? And I would say here the strange thing, in my mind is the most obvious one is the Chinese very well, very greatly wanted influence in the Middle East and in Latin America in terms of resources and very much on their way to getting them,

Maybe, and if so, that will be a good call.

But I will have to tell you, speaking speaking locally for a change, what we're seeing the agriculture folks are seen in terms of lost markets for virtually all of our products in Latin America and other places around the world because of the tariffs. You know, that seems to be speaking against the fact that we've made advances. You know, maybe we got the Chinese out of some business deals, did we really?

Uh?

Maybe people people like us less without a doubt than the Chinese because Chinese didn't do anything to them. And the third point is we're not gaining new markets, we're losing them.

Right. And then simultaneously, the unanswered question, which I find remarkable nobody's asked so far, is look, they're talking about Okay, the Supreme Court ruled that that the initial tariffs were not legal whatever, And well, how about this. Now we're going to have to refund it. Who you going to refund it to? Right, You're going to refund it to the people that paid it, which is the importers, Okay. And the fact that that cost was passed along to consumers,

No?

Now, I think that if we rapped all of this back up to the higher level of just talking about foreign policy. Okay, forget to see one judgment calling foreign policy has always been has any national been predictable.

And trustworthy?

Can I do business with them without expecting them to stab me in the back or attack me?

You know?

That's really kind of the core of foreign policy. Foreign policy is to have a policy that people can understand, that it's consistent, they can trust, and it allows for business to go on.

A long term basements.

In some terms, I'd say, but that's one of the reasons why empires work pretty well for a time because they were very consistent over a long period of time, and what their policies were, you knew it, you could deal with it, you might not even like it, but it didn't change. And predictability has been very key in diplomacy and foreign policy forever, and we've taken that away.

Trade.

We've already seen in Europe that lots of military deals that we're going to the US are now going to European man manufacturers because they're more trustworthy. We're we're not going to turn things on when you start using your assets as bargaining tools. You know, other people are not stupid. It's sort of like, well, you did that to me once, you did that to me twice, maybe I think you

And so that's great. We had a reputation for that.

And that's what I'm concerned about at the moment, is is more what's happening to our reputation?

Mmm? No, I mean one time a guy in Germany explained it to me like this that as so long as you let the Americans think they're you know, basically ripping you off a little bit, Uh, you can keep everything happy.

Yeah, exactly.

It doesn't mean that you are, and it doesn't mean that Americans in general will do that. But that was the way to maintain the balance. Is as long as an American thought they were getting over in some way in doing business with a foreign country, they were. They were thrilled. So there's change in attitude in general where nope,

That was always the definition, always the definition of is a good business deal was most both parties thought they did a little bit better than the other guy.

Oh that was a good bid.

If one of them gets beat to death and both sides know it, that's not a good business deal, and that's pretty much the where we've moved. I think somebody's going to feel that they really got had, and it's going to be and I don't just feel like it will be announced that you got had.

You know, it's we're first, and we made sure we were first, and you know, there's no doubt about it. So there.

It sounds much like the warnings in childhood of don't gloat even if you did win by a lot, because it doesn't help, you know. It's just anyway. I don't know what kind of bow you want to tie on this, but I think we kind of already did, quite frankly, and I think it's look an examination in real time of what's going on with the foreign policy, which again was not the main focus of the State of the Union.

I think it's it's I think it's going to record it as the point in time where we gave up the advantages that we garnered during the Second World War, basically in terms of foreign policy and in terms of building a reputation, trading partnerships, million military partnerships. That the news is that over several decades they begin to take taken for granted.

You know, sometimes that's not a bad thing.

You know, our markets were in place, they stayed in place.

Nobody questioned it.

Oh, we've been buying from these people, We've been doing deals with these people. As you said, you know, you might be take at times, they get advantage of you, but it's a comfortable place to be, right and we were that way with Europe, we were that we of Latin America, maybe not as much in Southeast Asia, but even in the Gulf States we were that way.

It was a it was.

A comfortable position that we took advantage of by remaining consistent and leaving things alone. And I think anybody's who's been in marketing, there's a famous saying is you spend a whole lot of money to gain market share, and you can lose it over by making a mistake.

And so it's a lot you know.

Once you get it, do not give it up because it's going to be really expensive to get it back. And I think that would be my overview at this point in time, in the long term, and that's that's why I'm sorry that foreign policy is not being talked about in those terms. It's not being talked about. Certainly, we gave up any talk of talking about it in terms of morality or democracy or you know.

Good intentions. Forget that. We tried that for a while.

That's gone, but we've given We've given up talking about follow foreign policies as a long term investment. Foreign policy is a long term investment in relations of all kinds, and I think we're in the process of sacrificing that it is. There going to be a reset, but we're going to have to earn it back.

We earned it during World War Two with a lot of blood. We earned it during the.

Cold War with a lot of blood and a lot of expense. And the nation should be proud of that. It sacrificed itself, spent lots of money on the Cold War and won the Cold War. We may just have lost it.

Well, you know what, It reminds me of Larry And you might disagree, but this is the way I see it. You know, Coca Cola is the act example. I don't know if people remember this, and some of you might not have even been alive, but there was a point at which, you know, Coca Cola had a good, solid piece of the market and they didn't need to mess with it at all. They could add products whatever, and some genius decided to change the formula of Coca Cola and they came up with this crap called new Coke.

I can take it painfully, Chuck.

Because a I was living in Atlanta then they was a stockholder. I'm still a Coke stockholder. So it wasn't just a boy. You guys made a mistake. You guys made a mistake with my money. Okay, But yeah, I think that's a good and you can come back. And I think it actually took them about no more than a months to realize that they've made a terrible mistake. Yeah, but coming back from that mistake took them a lot longer.

The way we should have.

We've not taken it as a major national investment over decades and decades, and we should have taken it seriously and we didn't.

Well, I definitely didn't mean to hit you personally, but you're well aware of the fact that for a long time they had to sell both products on the shelf. As they slowly walked it back. You had New Coke and Classic Coke both on the shelves. And believe me, the people did speak within about a month of like, hey, what did you do to a staple name brand? You know that the world knows what happened. Yeah, and it is inexplicable that it was such a se It's like

Larry, you know what concerns me is with the speed of events. I'm not sure that we even have the time tort before. Let's just talk about tariffs and investments and chip monks, and you and I talked about.

This on an earlier show.

If I can't figure out how much I'm actually paying in regard to tariffs, and if I can't figure out my economic picture, I can't invest money correctly right, and that's going to scare me off.

And what we've seen over.

The last eight months is I don't see how I can and and I've got to respond, I'm not as not as American, but as a foreigner doing business with US. I can't keep waiting to see if this is going to stabilize. I you know, we're we're making shipping orders and purchasing orders and manufacturing orders in real time.

The good news is we've gotten really.

Faster at this, But the bad news is you're going to make your decisions a lot faster too. You just can't wait to say, Oh, is this going to get back to normal? Is this going to stabilize? You're going to have to be making some unfortunately short term decisions. So it could it could change fit quicker than it might have twenty thirty years ago.

Oh absolutely, especially with the you know, the hyper realization of supply chains on local level as well as on the you know, mass warehouse level and everything else. I mean, we are in a different world than we would have been prior to the turn of the century, for sure, So you know, you got to consider that across the board. Anyway, Larry Hancock, like I said, there will be links to some of Larry's books, which I highly recommend all of them. I don't know what book I would put on this

This is James Corbin at coorporreport dot com and you're listening to the Ocelly affected o'celly.

Dot com of every denied matic statum at the real horsebottle re of.

One Nason beneath the anti gods and anything they would team worthy of grant.

The completely define it as play those.

Adam Mi with the liberty just bet freely in justice the only the only that can ford the when but not on justice for the seat of the trans units, Jack brow Space Axe rockets, the.

Opportunity every start by the systems of three's the rest of us.

All that's a light country which is my witches.

So will be the funnishment for ten red o'clock.

The use expressed my caller schools there anyone else who happens again on the air of Jelly dot com do not necessarily replied the views of the Jelly dot com or And we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue.

Thank you.

In Denial, Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations center, still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before.

It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not earn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.

Pick up your copy of.

In Denial at Amazon dot com.

In digital or physical.

Revelation through conversation, conversation, you are the effect revelation.

The show game revelations, conversation, ideation, a devastation revelation through conversation effect, you are the effect.

Conversation all rasmon stranger, I'm selling the fact revelation conversation through tiion, through conversation oh, shall leave effect revelation.

Of conversation gone and forgotten? What sill the effect? Beyond this place of has and fears are of the shade.

The mercy of.

Years finds it shall find me un a braid, and that is not a thread decay charge with the scroll.

I am the master of my face.

I am the chant of my soul.

Sho funny effect.

Revelation through conversation to propaganda horse continued cashing in and.

Teach us about religion, keeping score at home?

Are people you'd like to see even by wolves disrupted dying soon the cackles like Taco Tis in his continued glof stormy tour and winning a streak, says.

God sparred him and decided a firefighter dies.

Being revelation conversation. She affect you are the effect.

You are the.

Effect revelation through conversation.

But all praise, no stray.

Revelation through conversation through conversation, all brass effect revelation through conversation.

Through conversation, all restraints tell you effected revelation through conversation. As a bit from Polo, whatever gone for my indokable soul in the couse of circumstance.

I am not wis no cry aloud, needs a chance? My head bloody about.

You are the effect, the Nally effect, revelation through conversation.

Revelation, conversation, she effect. You are the effect. You are the effect.

Revelation through conversation, ball praise, no streets of shell me effect.

Revelation through conversation, revel through conversation, loves restraints. I tell you affected, revelation to cons conversation, street.

Fact revelation, Wall Street, Street dot dot com, wall Street, Windows dot com dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of The War State, gives you the benefit of his knowledge Wall Street dot dot.

Go there, now go there, Now go there Sochili dot Com.

The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the Times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.