America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
MICHELLE OBAMA'S CON JOB
Exclusive — Donald Trump on the Bidens: ‘It’s a Corrupt Family’
President Donald Trump told Breitbart News exclusively in the Oval Office last week that his general election opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his entire family are “corrupt.”
Trump, the incumbent Republican, will face off against Democrat Biden in November. Biden, the presumptive Democrat nominee, will formally accept the Democrat nomination for president, thereby officially becoming the party’s presidential nominee at the Democrat National Convention on Thursday night.
In his Oval Office interview with Breitbart News last Monday, the president made clear that his opponent and his whole family are “corrupt,” as evidenced by not just Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s business dealings with the Chinese Communist Party and Ukrainian oligarchs, but also other Biden family members, such as Biden’s brothers, James and Frank Biden and more.
Trump started by ripping into Hunter Biden for the $1.5 billion deal he cut with the Chinese. Hunter Biden accompanied his father, then the sitting vice president, to China on Air Force Two. Then just weeks later, he secured a $1.5 billion deal from the Bank of China, as Peter Schweizer—Breitbart News senior contributor and Government Accountability Institute president—has exposed. Hunter Biden also had a deal through Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, through which he made tens of thousands of dollars a month—even though he had never been to Ukraine before accepting the position. Joe Biden, as vice president, pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma while his son Hunter worked for the firm.
“Hunter Biden came away with $1.5 billion, of which he gets big fees on. It’s not a possible thing to do,” Trump told Breitbart News in the Oval Office. “You can’t do that. It doesn’t—nobody has done that. Nobody has done that. China doesn’t do that. But he walked away in ten minutes with one-and-a-half-billion dollars. He gets fees on it. Ukraine, the same thing.”
But Hunter Biden’s questionable international dealings were not limited to China and Ukraine. As Schweizer’s most recent book, Profiles in Corruption, released earlier this year exposed, Hunter Biden’s firms had deals that secured hundreds of millions of dollars in other deals with the Chinese and with the Russians and Kazakhs as well.
“Other countries,” Trump said, noting next that the whole Biden family has been in on the graft: “The same thing for the family.”
Trump is correct about that. Schweizer’s Profiles in Corruption exposed Biden’s two brothers, Frank and James, for various questionable deals in which they each engaged.
Despite having no experience whatsoever, Schweizer revealed this year that Frank was linked to $54 million in taxpayer loans from the Obama administration provided to help with U.S. relations in the Caribbean. Schweizer also revealed that Biden’s other brother, James, was employed at a firm to which the Obama administration funneled more than $1.5 billion in contracts over the course of Biden’s time in the nation’s second-highest office.
“It’s a corrupt family,” Trump told Breitbart News of the Bidens. “It’s a corrupt family, okay?”
In addition to Frank, James, and Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s sister, Valerie Biden Owens, is exposed in Schweizer’s Profiles in Corruption as steering millions of dollars to a consulting firm she owned during her stints in her brother’s two previous presidential bids as his campaign manager. What’s more, Biden’s son-in-law, Howard Krein, who is married to Biden’s daughter Ashley, launched a firm from the Oval Office and repeatedly briefed investors privately, as Schweizer exposed in the book.
The president’s comments came in response to Breitbart News asking him about Biden’s attempts to frame him as weak on China, something that is hard to argue given the president’s and his administration’s work on the issue. Nonetheless, Biden’s team has tried to flip the script against Trump on China, something the president laughed at during his Oval Office interview as he laid out his successes in holding the Chinese Communist Party accountable.
“Weak on China? He’s weak period,” Trump told Breitbart News. “Weak on China? China has never—they’ve paid us billions and billions of dollars. They were having the worst year ever that they’ve had in 67 years. Weak on China? Those guys were pathetic. If Biden got elected, they’d own the United States within a very short period of time. China would own the United States.”
Report: Democrat Says Barack Obama Warned That Joe Biden Could Still ‘F*ck Things Up’
Former President Barack Obama warned during the Democrat primary that his former Vice President Joe Biden could “f*ck things up,” an anonymous Democrat said according to a report in Politico.
The line was originally attributed to an anonymous Democrat source cited by Politico‘s Marc Caputo from a conversation the Democrat claims to have had with the former president about the 2020 primary. It suggests that Biden was not Obama’s first choice for the Democrat party’s presidential candidate in 2020.
“One Democrat who is neutral in the 2020 race and spoke to Obama about Biden’s gaffe-prone nature recalled the former president saying: ‘Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up,'” Caputo wrote.
That quote was first reported in January, but was revisited in a Politico story last week by Alex Thompson recalling how Obama supported his formal rival for the presidency Hillary Clinton in 2016 instead of his own vice president.
As both Obama and Clinton speak Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention, with Biden set to formally assume the party’s presidential nomination on Thursday night, these rifts between the top Democrats seem particularly relevant.
Thompson’s piece noted that Obama himself formally declined to be interviewed for the story that includes the quote about Obama warning about Biden’s capabilities as a candidate.
Instead, Obama’s spokesperson provided a generic statement that said, “President Obama has been unequivocal in his respect for Joe’s wisdom, experience, empathy, and integrity.”
But Thompson did speak to several top former Obama White House officials, such as former Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and former senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, among others. Jarrett, in particular, has been working to smooth over any hard feelings from the past and back Biden, after the former vice president won the nomination.
Thompson also reported that Biden’s allies are still displeased with how Obama and his top aides anointed Hillary Clinton as his successor in 2016.
Even Biden was a little hurt by the actions of Obama’s team.
“I knew a number of the president’s former staffers, and even a few current ones, were putting a finger on the scale for Clinton,” Biden wrote in his political memoir after leaving office.
While Biden was still pondering a run for president in 2016, Clinton was figuring out how to stop him, Thompson reported.
Clinton campaign manager John Podesta estimated that Biden would run for president and even drafted opposition research on him, while negative stories about his career made its way into the media.
Biden himself wrote in his memoir that Obama “was not encouraging” about him possibly running against Clinton in 2016.
As Biden began exploring a campaign against Trump in 2020, the New York Times also reported that Obama “cast his doubts” about it in a conversation with Biden.
“You don’t have to do this, Joe,” Obama told Biden, according to a source familiar with their conversations, cited by the Times. “You really don’t.”
The August 2019 story, by Times reporter Glenn Thrush, also detailed that Obama believed Biden should not run in 2020, but became more active in his former vice president’s campaign.
In March 2019, Obama requested a briefing on the state of the campaign from top Biden aides
“Win or lose,” Thrush reported about Obama’s message to the team, “They needed to make sure Mr. Biden did not ’embarrass himself’ or ‘damage his legacy’ during the campaign.”
REALITY:
New Federal Reserve report
US median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”
The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances released Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class living standards and a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and the super-rich.
Progressives' Empathy Hypocrisy
Michelle Obama and the cheapest form of virtue-signaling.
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
On the Democrat Convention’s first day, Michelle Obama gave a presentation taped from her Martha’s Vineyard estate. The leitmotif of her talk was “empathy,” embedded in a list of examples illustrating the Republicans’ lack of this quality. Aside from her examples being duplicitous, equally revealing was the utter lack of empathy from progressives when it comes to people who are not politically useful to them.
First consider the mendacity and distortions in Ms. Obama’s oration:
They [the “empathetic woke”] see people shouting in grocery stores, unwilling to wear a mask to keep us all safe. They see people calling the police on folks minding their own business just because of the color of their skin. They see an entitlement that says only certain people belong here, that greed is good and winning is everything because as long as you come out on top, it doesn't matter what happens to everyone else. And they see what happens when that lack of empathy is ginned up into outright disdain. They see our leaders labeling fellow citizens enemies of the state while emboldening torch-bearing white supremacists. They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages, and pepper spray and rubber bullets are used on peaceful protestors for a photo-op.
Other stale CNN talking points are simply not true. Trump did not “embolden torch-bearing white supremacists” in Charlottesville in 2017, which Obama is obviously referencing. The full transcript of Trump’s remarks shows that he unequivocally condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis, whom he explicitly excepted from the “very fine people” who were against tearing down the monuments. Putting children of illegal migrants “into cages” and separating them from their families was happening under Barack’s watch, with nary a peep or sign of “empathy” from Michelle or other progressives. Indeed, one photo of children in cages meant to illustrate Trump’s lack of “empathy” actually dated back to the Obama administration. And no, the thugs cleared from the square near the White House and the historic St. John Episcopal Church they set on fire were not “peaceful protestors.”
We expect political rhetoric to play fast and loose with the truth. But when such sophistry is so manifestly hypocritical, it becomes offensive. We could spend all day asking progressives about their alleged “empathy.” Where’s their empathy for the families of black men murdered by other black men? For the nearly 20 million aborted black babies, one of the “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” that progressive Ruth Bader Ginsberg talked about? For the black people killed during the George Floyd riots, or the black businesses looted and burned, whole lifetimes of hard work gone forever? For the black policemen who have been injured and killed in other BLM/Antifa demonstrations, and who will be losing their jobs because of the “defund the police” movement? And how aboutsome empathy for all the victims of the double-digit increases in big-city violent crime brought on by blue-state mayors ordering their police to stand down during the riots? Don’t those mostly black lives “matter” and deserve our empathy?
Casting a wider net, where was Barack’s “empathy” when he called millions of Americans “bitter clingers to guns and religion”? Or when Hillary scorned Trump supporters as the “basket of deplorables” full of racists and xenophobes? Or when she pledged to throw even more coal miners out of work? Or the empathy during the past four years of progressives vilifying, mocking, and slandering Donald Trump’s family with a ubiquity and intensity never seen used against Michelle’ family? And most despicable, where was the “empathy” for the four dead Americans left to die in Benghazi, and for their families whom Hillary lied to as they stood next to their loved-ones’ coffins. Equally lacking in empathy were the administration hacks who went on national TV to repeat those lies.
Or where’s the empathy for the millions of Americans harmed by progressive policies in states like California? For the working and middle classes who can’t afford homes because of NIMBY plutocrats juking the zoning codes, and who have to pay exorbitant prices for gasoline––second in the nation–– because of environmentalists’ “renewable energy” hobbyhorse? Or for those who have to pay the 7th highest electricity costs in the country (no charge for frequent rolling blackouts), again because of green-energy regulations and boondoggles? Where’s the empathy for the victims of the opioid crisis afflicting lower class Caucasians, virtually ignored by the same progressives who turned the cocaine crisis of the Eighties into a non-stop racialisthorror-show? Or for the working-class Americans whose manufacturing jobs were packed off to China, only to be told by the “empathetic” Joe Biden that they should just learn how to code?
Maybe if the Obama administration, including Joe Biden whom Michelle claims is the candidate of “empathy,” had more empathy in 2016, they would have learned why their party wasbeaten by a novice who, for all his bluster and crude insults, at least showed that he cared about all those forgotten people of every color dismissed by the Democrats, and has governed on their behalf.
The call for “empathy” is the cheapest form of virtue-signaling. It bespeaks the defining flaw of most progressives–– the prizing of public, high-flown protestations of concern for those suffering, even as policies Dems have put in place and are proposing now are responsible for so much of that suffering. For them, those dispossessed and disadvantaged are mere props in their political theater, their “compassion,” as Christopher Lasch once said, “the human face of contempt.” How much easier to speechify from your multimillion-dollar estate in Martha’s Vineyard into which those people you have so much “empathy” for will never set foot.
True empathy is a wonderful quality to have. But as Aristotle said long ago, virtue is not about fine phrases. It is manifested inaction. Judge Donald Trump by his deeds, and the Dems by theirs, and then see who can be justly called empathetic.
Study: Elite Zip Codes Thrived in Obama Recovery, Rural America Left Behind
Wealthy cities and elite zip codes thrived under the slow-moving economic recovery of President Obama while rural American communities were left behind, a study reveals.
The Economic Innovation Group research, highlighted by Axios, details the massive economic inequality between the country’s coastal city elites and middle America’s working class between the Great Recession in 2007 and Obama’s economic recovery in 2016.
Between 2007 and 2016, the number of residents living in elite zip codes grew by more than ten million, with an overwhelming faction of that population growth being driven by mass immigration where the U.S. imports more than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants annually.
The booming 44.5 million immigrant populations are concentrated mostly in the country’s major cities like Los Angeles, California, Miami Florida, and New York City, New York. The rapidly growing U.S. population — driven by immigration — is set to hit 404 millionby 2060, a boon for real estate developers, wealthy investors, and corporations, all of which benefit greatly from dense populations and a flooded labor market.
The economic study found that while the population grew in wealthy cities, America’s rural population fell by nearly 3.5 million residents.
Likewise, by 2016, elite zip codes had a surplus of 3.6 million jobs, which is more than the combined bottom 80 percent of American zip codes. While it only took about five years for wealthy cities to replace the jobs lost by the recession, it took “at risk” regions of the country a decade to recover, and “distressed” U.S. communities are “unlikely ever to recover on current trendlines,” the report predicts.
A map included in the research shows how rich, coastal metropolises have boomed economically while entire portions of middle America have been left behind as job and business gains remain concentrated at the top of the income ladder.
Economic growth among the country’s middle-class counties and middle-class zip codes has considerably trailed national economic growth, the study found.
For example, between 2012 and 2016, there were 4.4 percent more business establishments in the country as a whole. That growth was less than two percent in the median zip code and there was close to no growth in the median county.
The same can be said of employment growth, where U.S. employment grew by about 9.3 percent from 2012 to 2016. In the median zip code, though, employment grew by only 5.5 percent and in the median county, employment grew by less than four percent.
“Nearly three in every five large counties added businesses on net over the period, compared to only one in every five small one,” the report concluded.
Elite zip codes added more business establishments during Obama’s economic recovery, between 2012 and 2016, than the entire bottom 80 percent of zip codes combined. For instance, while more than 180,000 businesses have been added to rich zip codes, the country’s bottom tier has lost more than 13,000 businesses even after the economic recovery.
The gutting of the American manufacturing base, through free trade, has been a driving catalyst for the collapse of the white working class and black Americans. Simultaneously, the outsourcing of the economy has brought major wealth to corporations, tech conglomerates, and Wall Street.
The dramatic decline of U.S. manufacturing at the hands of free trade—where more than 3.4 million American jobs have been lost solely due to free trade with China, not including the American jobs lost due to agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS)—has coincided with growing wage inequality for white and black Americans, a growing number of single mother households, a drop in U.S. marriage rates, a general stagnation of working and middle class wages, and specifically, increased black American unemployment.
“So, the loss of manufacturing work since 1960 represents a steady decline in relatively high-paying jobs for less-educated workers,” recent research from economist Eric D. Gould has noted.
Fast-forward to the modern economy and the wage trend has been the opposite of what it was during the peak of manufacturing in the U.S. An Economic Policy Institute studyfound this year that been 2009 and 2015, the top one percent of American families earned about 26 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent of Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
OBAMANOMICS:
The report
observes that while the wealth of the world’s 80 richest people doubled between
2009 and 2014, the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population (3.5
billion people) was lower in 2014 than it was in 2009.
In 2010, it
took 388 billionaires to match the wealth of the bottom half of the earth’s
population; by 2013, the figure had fallen to just 92 billionaires. It fell to
80 in 2014.
THE OBAMA
ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS
“The goal of
the Obama administration, working with the Republicans and local governments, is
to roll back the living conditions of the vast majority of the population to
levels not seen since the 19th century, prior to the advent of the eight-hour
day, child labor laws, comprehensive public education, pensions, health
benefits, workplace health and safety regulations, etc.”
“In response
to the ruthless assault of the financial oligarchy, spearheaded by Obama, the
working class must advance, no less ruthlessly, its own policy.”
Michelle Obama:
Coronavirus an Opportunity to Change ‘How Wealth Is Distributed’
Wednesday on her new podcast, former first lady Michelle
Obama called coronavirus an opportunity to think about “how wealth is
distributed” to lower-income essential workers.
Obama noted the “power” that would enable what “we” could do to
allow such actions.
Journalist Michele Norris said, “There’s kind of a new COVID
vocabulary, isn’t it. There are also words that have always had some meaning,
but that take on different meaning now, the word hero, the word essential.”
She continued, “I think we will forever think about the word
‘essential’ in a different way. And, when we were told to stay home, they got
up, got dressed, and went out into the world, risking their lives, to drive
garbage trucks, to work in warehouses, to work in grocery stores, to work in
hospitals. Often doing invisible, but yes, essential work, and I struggle with
it because I’m not sure that we treat them like they’re essential.”
Obama replied, “And that’s something that we need to, that’s a
part of that reflection, that we need to do, you know. With ourselves, and, and
as a community. And we have to think about that, in terms of how wealth is
distributed. You know, how, how these essential people are supported. And what
does that mean? A lot of these people are broke. They don’t have health
insurance. That it, if they were to get sick, as essential as they are, we have
not, as a society, deemed it essential to make sure that they can go to the
doctor and get the care that they need. And even if they can get COVID care,
even if they can get tested, to keep working and doing our stuff, after the
effects of the virus have worn off, and they are dealing with some lung issue,
or some breathing issue, or asthma, that they don’t have to wait, in a, an
emergency room, for hours on end, and then worry, that they can even, afford
the prescription medication that they need to survive, I mean we have to think
about this. We have to think about the people who are not from this country,
who are essential workers. A lot of those folks are still out in the fields
picking our corn, and making sure that that food is in our grocery stores, and
working in these meatpacking plants, to ensure that the, that the cow that was
slaughtered, gets into our bellies.”
Later in the podcast, Obama said, “It’s not enough to just
acknowledge that the pain exists, to acknowledge the struggle, we actually have
power we can, we can change so much of what we do, we can sacrifice a little
more, we can, we can shift priorities, uh, and not just in our own lives, cause
it’s not enough, to just do it in your own life if you’re not willing to do it
in our broader policy. You know, if that, if that, if those conversations
aren’t going to happen, then we’re just giving lip service to it. You know.
She added, “We’ve seen these times in our history before, not
just like this, but, but, but when things are good, it’s easy to forget about
that. To take it for granted. To start thinking, yeah, how much, do I really
want my taxes going to that, and school lunches? Eh. You know, that’s a lot of
money. What does it matter — let’s cut this, let’s chop that. But, all of that
came, all the things that we look to cut were put in place in response to some
crisis. That revealed to us that hey there are a lot of hungry kids, at home,
because their parents are poor, so what’s the best way to feed them, we’re
going to provide them with nutrition, at school. So, we, we have it, in our
country’s DNA to step up.”
She concluded, “Always with great opposition, because you’re
asking people to sacrifice, to give up, things that, that they think they
deserve, that they’re entitled to for the sake of the greater good.”
US
median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”
The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a
massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is
just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer
Finances released Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class
living standards and a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich
and the super-rich.
New Federal Reserve report
US median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama
“recovery”
The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a
massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is
just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer
Finances released Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class
living standards and a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich
and the super-rich.
The report makes clear that the drop in a typical
household’s income was not merely the result of what is referred to as the 2008
recession, which officially lasted only 18 months, through June 2009. Much of
the decline in workers’ incomes occurred during the so-called “economic
recovery” presided over by the Obama administration.
In the three years between 2010 and 2013, the annual income
of a typical household actually fell by 5 percent.
The Fed report exposes as a fraud the efforts of the Obama
administration to present itself as a defender of the “middle class”. It has
systematically pursued policies to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the
very top of the income ladder. These include the multi-trillion-dollar bailout
of the banks, near-zero interest rates to drive up the stock market, and
austerity measures and wage cutting to lift corporate profits and CEO pay to
record highs.
The Federal Reserve data, based on in-person interviews,
show a far larger decline in the median income of American households than
indicated by earlier figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population
Survey.
In line with the figures on household income, the report
shows an ever-growing concentration of wealth among the richest households. The
Fed’s summary of its data notes that “the wealth share of the top 3 percent
climbed from 44.8 percent in 1989 to 51.8 percent in 2007 and 54.4 percent in
2013,” while the wealth of the “next 7 highest percent of families changed very
little.”
The report states that “the rising wealth share of the top
3 percent of families is mirrored by the declining share of wealth held by the
bottom 90 percent,” which fell from 33.2 percent in 1989 to 24.7 percent in
2013.
The ongoing impoverishment of the population is an
indictment of capitalism. There has been no genuine recovery from the Wall
Street crash of 2008, only a further plundering of the economy by the financial
aristocracy. The crisis precipitated by the rapacious, criminal practices of
the bankers and hedge fund speculators has been used to restructure the economy
to the benefit of the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Decent-paying jobs have been wiped out and replaced by
low-wage, part-time and temporary jobs, with little or no benefits. Pensions
and health benefits have come under savage attack, as seen in the bankruptcy of
Detroit.
Not surprisingly, the Fed report has been buried by the
American media, confined to the inside pages of the major newspapers.
Measured in 2013 dollars, a typical household received an
income of $53,100 in 2007. By 2010, this had fallen to $49,000. It hit $46,700
by 2013. At the same time, the average income for the wealthiest tenth of
families grew by ten percent.
While median income fell between 2010 and 2013, mean
(average) income grew, from $84,100 to $87,200. The report noted that, “the
decline in median income coupled with the rise in mean income is consistent
with a widening income distribution during this period.”
For the poorest households, the drop in income has been
even more dramatic. Among the bottom quarter of households, mean income fell a
full 10 percent between 2010 and 2013.
The report reveals other aspects of the social crisis. The
share of young families burdened by education debt nearly doubled, from 22.4
percent to 38.8 percent, between 2001 and 2013. The share of young families
with more than $100,000 in debt has grown nearly tenfold, from 0.6 percent to
5.6 percent.
These statistics reflect both a historic and insoluble
crisis of the profit system and the brutal policies of the American ruling
class, which is carrying out a relentless assault on working people and
preparing to go even further by dismantling bedrock social programs such as
Medicare and Social Security. The data undercuts the endless talk of “partisan
gridlock” in Washington and the media presentation of a political system
paralyzed by irreconcilable differences between the Democratic and Republican
parties.
There has, in fact, been a seamless continuity between the
Bush and Obama administrations in the pursuit of reactionary policies of war
abroad and class war at home. The two parties have worked hand in glove to make
the working class pay for the crisis of the capitalist system.
The Federal Reserve has itself played a critical role in
the growth of social inequality in the US. The bailout of the banks, estimated
at $7 trillion, has been followed by six years of virtually free money for the
banks.
Every facet of American life is dominated by the immense
concentration of wealth at the very top of society. The grotesque levels of
wealth amassed by the parasites and criminals who dominate American business,
and the flaunting of their fortunes before tens of millions struggling to pay
their bills and keep from falling into destitution, are fueling the growth of
social anger. This anger will increasingly be directed against the entire
economic and political system.
The figures released by the Fed reflect a society riven by
class divisions that must inevitably trigger social upheavals. The explosive
state of social relations is itself a major factor in the endless recourse by
the Obama administration to military aggression and war, which serve to deflect
internal tensions outward.
The growth of inequality likewise underlies the relentless
attack on democratic rights in the US, including the massive domestic spying
exposed by Edward Snowden and the use of militarized police to crack down on
social opposition, as seen most recently in Ferguson, Missouri.
The Obamas tackle climate change and wealth inequality
In
a remarkable commitment to their tireless fight against climate change and
wealth inequality, Barack and Michelle Obama reportedly are purchasing a magnificent $15-million oceanfront
mansion in
Martha’s Vineyard, presumably as a much-needed retreat to supplement the
$9-million mansion they already own in one of the most exclusive areas of the
nation’s capitol.
A
fierce opponent of fossil fuels and wealth inequality, the former president has
harshly criticized rich people for the oversized, carbon-gluttonous houses they
buy. On April 25, 2010, the president who would become fabulously wealthy
in retirement scolded Wall Street CEOs with this
admonition:
I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough
money.
His
views about the sin of making too much money haven’t changed. During a
speech last year in South Africa, this shining example of environmental
stewardship and unparalleled concern for the poor spoke passionately about the
unfairness of some people having more money than others in blasting rich people for their
excessively lavish lifestyles:
There’s only so much you can eat; there’s only so
big a house you can have; there’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean,
it’s enough.
That
direct quote came from the lips of a man who, along with his wife, is sitting
atop a nest egg estimated at a meager $135 million. But don’t feel
sorry for them, because there’s much more to come: with money barreling their
way like a runaway train, the concerned couple is rapidly becoming a billion-dollar brand.
Sharing with the less fortunate: During the five years from
2000-2004, a period when they earned $1.2 million, Barack and Michelle
Obama donated less than one percent of their income to
charity, ten times less than the tithing guidelines of their professed
Christian faith. Only when Obama decided to run for president did the
couple’s charitable instincts improve.
Protecting the planet: During his first full
day in the White House, President Obama was photographed without his suit
jacket. Senior advisor David Axelrod explained: “He’s from Hawaii, okay?
He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.” While
campaigning, Obama vowed to exhibit environmental leadership if elected: “We
can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our thermostats set
at 72 degrees. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen
[with me].”
In
decreeing that rich people make too much money and that global warming is an
imminent threat to our very survival, this ultra-wealthy man and his
ultra-wealthy wife decided to indulge themselves in another opulent mansion,
this one sitting on 29 oceanfront acres on one of the most exclusive islands in
the world. While homeless people are sleeping on the streets and our
planet is being destroyed by CO2, the Obamas are living large, a pitifully
small reward for two remarkable people who bend over backwards to show
leadership in the fight against climate change and wealth inequality.
An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now
retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta. American Thinker recently
published related article of his titled "Harrison Ford, Climate Hypocrite" and "A $600 fill-up?"
Nolte: Michelle Obama Condemns ‘White Flight’ After Purchasing
Home in Martha’s Vineyard
Former first lady Michelle Obama condemned
white people for fleeing minority neighborhoods just weeks after she and her
husband purchased
a $15 million estate in
Martha’s Vineyard.
Martha’s Vineyard
is 95 percent white and just
two percent black.
Martha’s Vineyard is
almost as white as an Elizabeth Warren rally.
Martha’s Vineyard is
whiter than my subdivision here in rural North Carolina.
Martha’s Vineyard is
whiter than MSNBC.
During a Tuesday
appearance at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago, she said, “But
unbeknownst to us, we grew up in the period — as I write — called ‘white
flight.’ That as families like ours, upstanding families like ours … As we
moved in, white folks moved out because they were afraid of what our families
represented.”
“And I always stop
there when I talk about this out in the world because, you know, I want to
remind white folks that y’all were running from us.” She went on, “This family
with all the values that you’ve read about. You were running from us. And
you’re still running, because we’re no different than the immigrant families
that are moving in … the families that are coming from other places to try to
do better.”
Did I mention that Michelle and Barry just purchased a $15
million estate in Martha’s Vineyard, which is 95 percent white?
Oh, and did I mention the Obamas own a second home, an $8
million mansion, in the exclusive DC neighborhood of
Kalorama, which is 80 percent white and
just four
percent black.
Oh, and did I mention the Obamas have a third home, a $5.3
million mansion, in Rancho Mirage, California, which is 89 percent white and
just 2.6
percent black.
Oh, sure, the Obamas still own their Chicago home in Hyde Park,
which is at least 26 percent black. But you would think they could do better
than 26 percent!
I like Michelle Obama.
I have always liked Michelle Obama. I’ve never said an unkind word about her,
quite the opposite, and while I find her politics ignorant, she was a terrific
first lady.
But this is nuts…
Not only is she
attacking white people for seeking a better standard of living, which I can assure
you (as I will explain below) has little to do with racism, she is also
attacking whites after she herself “fled” to 95 percent white Martha’s Vineyard
(I will never stop repeating this point) and two other homes in areas where the
black population is less than 5 percent.
Worse still, she is
putting white people in a position where they can never win, where they are
damned if they do or don’t, where they are always and forever racist.
If white people move
out of a black neighborhood, they’re racists engaging in white flight.
But…
And this is important…
If white people move
into a minority neighborhood, they are also racists for either engaging in
gentrification — which is just another form of cultural genocide, donchaknow —
or cultural appropriation.
Now I’m going to tell
you a little something about white flight, from my own experience…
Because I was poor,
back in the mid-eighties, I lived in the inner-city of Milwaukee for two years.
My wife and I did not flee (my wife is not white, by the way) because of “icky
minorities” (did I mention my wife is not white?), we fled because it was not
safe to live there. It was never safe. Over those two years, we had been
mugged, robbed, and had our car stolen. That’s why we left.
And when we fled, it
was to a community that was still not as white as *ahem* Martha’s Vineyard.
In 2002, my wife and I
moved to California for nine years and lived in an East Los Angeles
neighborhood that was just four percent white. For nearly
a decade, I was outnumbered 96-4 and never gave it a thought because I was not
outnumbered. A darker skin tone, an accent, and different religious traditions
did not make my neighbors any less American than me, and when I am among
Americans I am among my own. We left because predominantly white leftists are
destroying California.
Then there’s my poor
dad…
He moved to the
Northside of Milwaukee in 1980, and spent decades, a lot of money, and a ton of
sweat, remodeling his home, building a garage, and paying that home off. He
intended to retire there. And yes, there were black people in his neighborhood
when he moved in, and for most of his adult life he worked in predominantly
black institutions. He never intended to move, and held on for as long as he
could… He didn’t flee because of black people. He was not forced to start all
over at age 67 because he suddenly decided he didn’t like blacks. He left
because he was robbed, because gangs started tagging his house and garage,
because it was no longer safe to live there.
You know…
If we’re going to shame
people for such things, what does it say to black people when other black
people, especially the first black president and his family, reject them? What
the hell kind of message is this to send to black Americans, especially when
the Obamas can afford the security to live safely in any neighborhood they
choose?
And if the Obamas
wanted to live in Southern California, why choose Rancho Mirage over Ladera
Heights, the Black Beverly Hills, a predominantly black neighborhood as swank
as any in America?
Shame on Michelle and
Barack Obama. They have the money and profile to make an important statement on
this issue, but they obviously prefer to live in overwhelmingly white
neighborhoods.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
Diamond
Life: Michelle Obama rents out $23-million Hollywood Hills mansion for a night
Apparently,
a hotel, even a luxury hotel, was not good enough.
Former
first lady Michelle Obama had to go big, renting out a $23-million Hollywood
Hills mansion for...a night. The New York Post has the pictures of
it here. Several news
accounts explained it as possibly a rental to try and buy, something most
home-buyers don't get to do. Whether she actually paid is also a big
question mark, and if so, whether she paid market value (which would have
cost more than a fancy hotel) or received her night there a
"gift," which presents its own ethics problems.
The Shark House, which is located in the 9200
block of Swallow Drive, is thus named due to its open air shark aquarium. It
also has a full spa, a humidor room, movie theater and walk-in wine room.
It's on the market, currently listed for a cool
$22.9 million.
A source told TMZ the Obamas may be looking at
real estate in the Hollywood Hills area, but that was not confirmed.
If
they're in the market to buy that, they've got a lot more money than the press
is reporting. We know they're loaded. But not that
loaded. Not Louis XIV loaded, which is about the range for this
sort of place. Or is it a sweetheart deal in the works we're talking
about? Maybe they'll end up buying it for "a
dollar." Don't know yet, but neither possibility makes them
look good.
It's
all part and parcel of the Obamas' long, luxurious post-presidency,
a nonstop vacay that costs taxpayers millions. It's as though
we're financing kings now, not retired presidents. For a while
there, the Obamas were jetting around with billionaires and
staying on private islands. Then they bought that expensive Kalorama
mansion in Washington, D.C., all supposedly for the benefit of their daughter
Sasha, who was finishing high school. Surprise, surprise, it
actually seems to primarily serve as a political watch post for longtime Obama
loyalist and consigliere Valerie Jarrett. They did some audience
tours and hung out with more billionaires. There were those
lucrative Goldman Sachs speeches by the celebrity
president (which certainly weren't based on economics anyone would want to
trade on).
And
all of this has been financed by taxpayers, who pay his $207,000 pension, along with bennies
such as unlimited air travel, transition expenses, office expenses,
presidential library funds, and lifetime Secret Service detail.
Apparently,
to the Obamas, there's no reaching that "certain point" at which
"you've made enough money."
For
Michelle, just call her "Mooch." Is this really what an
ex-presidency is supposed to be like? Hitting the money
jackpot? What he makes on his own is his own business (subject to
bribery laws), but taxpayers shouldn't be financing this level
of movie-star billionaire luxe life. Maybe it's time for some
pension reform from Congress. Would be quite a thing to see that
idea presented to the House's ruling Democrats.
OBAMAnomics:
Billionaire Class Enjoys 15X the Wage Growth of American Working
Class
The billionaire class — the country’s top
0.01 percent of earners — have enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth
as America’s working and middle class since 1979, new wage data reveals.
Between 1979 and 2017, the wages of the bottom 90 percent — the
country’s working and lower middle class — have grown by only about 22 percent,
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) researchers find.
Compare that small wage increase over nearly four decades to the
booming wage growth of America’s top one percent, who have seen their wages
grow more than 155 percent during the same period.
The top 0.01 percent — the country’s billionaire class — saw
their wages grow by more than 343 percent in the last four decades, more
than 15 times the wage growth of the bottom 90 percent of Americans.
In 1979, America’s working class was earning on average about
$29,600 a year. Fast forward to 2017, and the same bottom 90 percent of
Americans are earning only about $6,600 more annually.
The almost four decades of wage stagnation among the country’s
working and middle class comes as the national immigration policy has allowed
for the admission of more than 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants every
year.
(Public Citizen)
In the last decade, alone, the U.S. admitted ten million
legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing
population of low-wage workers. Meanwhile, employers are able to reduce wages
and drive up their profit margins thanks to the annual low-skilled immigration
scheme.
The Washington, DC-imposed mass immigration policy
is a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big business, and multinational
conglomerates as every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an
occupation’s labor force reduces Americans’ hourly wages
by 0.4 percent. Every one percent increase in the immigrant workforce reduces
Americans’ overall wages by 0.8 percent.
Mass immigration has come at the expense of America’s working
and middle class, which has suffered from poor job growth, stagnant wages, and
increased public costs to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled
foreign nationals.
Four million young Americans enter the workforce every year, but
their job opportunities are further diminished as the U.S. imports roughly two
new foreign workers for every four American workers who enter the workforce.
Even though researchers say 30 percent of the workforce could lose their jobs due to
automation by 2030, the U.S. has not stopped importing more than a million
foreign nationals every year.
For blue-collar American workers, mass immigration has not only
kept wages down but in many cases decreased wages, as Breitbart News reported. Meanwhile, the
U.S. continues importing more foreign nationals with whom working-class
Americans are forced to compete. In 2016, the U.S. brought in about 1.8 million
mostly low-skilled immigrants.
John Binder is a
reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Record high income in 2017 for top one percent of wage earners in US
In 2017, the top one percent of US wage earners received
their highest paychecks ever, according to a report by the Economic Policy
Institute (EPI).
Based on newly released data from the Social Security
Administration, the EPI shows that the top one percent of the population saw
their paychecks increase by 3.7 percent in 2017—a rate nearly quadruple the
bottom 90 percent of the population. The growth was driven by the top 0.1
percent, which includes many CEOs and corporate executives, whose pay increased
eight percent and averaged $2,757,000 last year.
The EPI report is only the latest exposure of the gaping
inequality between the vast majority of the population and the modern-day
aristocracy that rules over them.
The EPI shows that the bottom 90 percent of wage earners
have increased their pay by 22.2 percent between 1979 and 2017. Today, this
bottom 90 percent makes an average of just $36,182 a year, which is eaten up by
the cost of housing and the growing burden of education, health care, and
retirement.
Meanwhile, the top one percent has increased its wages by
157 percent during this same period, a rate seven times faster than the other
group. This top segment makes an average of $718,766 a year. Those in-between,
the 90th to 99th percentile, have increased their wages by 57.4 percent. They
now make an average of $152,476 a year—more than four times the bottom 90 percent.
Graph
from the Economic Policy Institute
Decades of decaying capitalism have led to this
accelerating divide. While the rich accumulate wealth with no restriction,
workers’ wages and benefits have been under increasing attack. In 1979, 90
percent of the population took in 70 percent of the nation’s income. But, by
2017, that fell to only 61 percent.
Even more, while the bottom 90 percent of the population
may take in 61 percent of the wages, large sections of the workforce today
barely pull in any income at all. For example, Social Security
Administration data found that the bottom 54 percent of wage earners in the
United States, 89.5 million people, make an average of just $15,100 a year.
This 54 percent of the population earns only 17 percent of all wages paid in
America.
However unequal, these wage inequalities
still do not fully present the divide between rich and poor. The ultra-wealthy
derive their wealth not primarily from wages, but from assets and
equities—principally from the stock market. While the bottom 90 percent of the
population made 61 percent of the wages in 2017, they owned even less, just 27
percent of the wealth (according to the World Inequality Report 2018 by
Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman).
The massive increase in the value of the stock market,
which only a small segment of the population participates in, means that the
top 10 percent of the population controls 73 percent of all wealth in the
United States. Just three men—Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates—had more
wealth than the bottom half of America combined last year.
Wages are so low in the United States
that roughly half of the population falls deeper into debt every year. A
Reuters report from July found that the pretax net income (that is, income
minus expense) of the bottom 40 percent of the population was an average
of negative $11,660. Even the middle quintile of the
population, the 40th to 60th percentile, breaks even with an average of only
$2,836 a year.
As the Social Security Administration numbers show, 67.4
percent of the population made less than the average wage, $48,250 a year in
2017, a sum that is inadequate to support a family in many cities—especially,
with high housing costs, health care, education, and retirement factored in.
For the ruling class, though, workers’ wages are already
too much. The volatility of the stock market and the deep fear that the current
bull market will collapse has made politicians and businessmen anxious of any
sign of wage increases.
In August, wages in the US rose just 0.2
percent above the inflation rate, the highest in nine years. Though the
increase was tiny, it was enough to encourage the Federal Reserve to increase
the interest rate past two percent for the first time since 2008. Raising
interest rates helps to depress workers’ wages by lowering borrowing and
spending. As the Financial Times noted, stopping wage growth
was “central” to the Federal Reserve’s move.
Further analysis of the Social Security Administration data
shows that in 2017, 147,754 people reported wages of 1 million dollars or
more—roughly, the top 0.05 percent. Their combined total income of $372 billion
could pay for the US federal education budget five times over.
These wages, however large, still pale in comparison to the
money the ultra-rich acquire from the stock market. For example, share buybacks
and dividend payments, a way of funneling money to shareholders, will eclipse
$1 trillion this year.
Whatever the immediate source, the wealth of the rich
derives from the great mass of people who do the actual work. Across the United
States and around the world, workers, young people, and students have entered
into struggle this year over pay, education, health care, immigration, war and
democratic rights. This growing movement of the working class must set as its
aim confiscating the wealth and power of this tiny parasitic oligarchy.
Society’s wealth must be democratically controlled by those who produce it.
OBAMA: SERVANT
OF THE 1%
Richest one
percent controls nearly half of global wealth
The richest one percent of the world’s population now controls
48.2 percent of global wealth, up from 46 percent last year.
The
report found that the growth of global inequality has accelerated sharply since
the 2008 financial crisis, as the values of financial assets have soared while
wages have stagnated and declined.
Millionaires projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019
Households with more than a million (US) dollars in private
wealth are projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth in 2019
according to a new report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
This large percentage, however, only includes cash, savings,
money market funds and listed securities held through managed
investments—collectively known as “private wealth.” It leaves out businesses,
residences and luxury goods, which comprise a substantial portion of the rich’s
net worth.
At the end of 2014, millionaire households
owned about 41 percent of global private wealth, according to BCG. This means
that collectively these 17 million households owned roughly $67.24 trillion in
liquid assets, or about $4 million per household.
In total, the world added $17.5 trillion of new private
wealth between 2013 and 2014. The report notes that nearly three quarters of
all these gains came from previously existing wealth. In other words, the vast
majority of money gained has been due to pre-existing assets increasing in
value—not the creation of new material things.
This trend is the result of the massive infusions of cheap
credit into the financial markets by central banks. The policy of “quantitative
easing” has led to a dramatic expansion of the stock market even while global
economic growth has slumped.
While the wealth of the rich is growing at a
breakneck pace, there is a stratification of growth within the super wealthy,
skewed towards the very top.
In 2014, those with over $100 million in private wealth saw
their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone. Collectively, these
households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the world’s private wealth.
According to the report, “This top segment is expected to be the fastest
growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.” They are expected
to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next five years.
Those families with wealth between $20 and $100 million also
rose substantially in 2014—seeing a 34 percent increase in their wealth in
twelve short months. They now own $9 trillion. In five years they will surpass
$14 trillion according to the report.
Coming in last in the “high net worth” population are those
with between $1 million and $20 million in private wealth. These households are
expected to see their wealth grow by 7.2 percent each year, going from $49
trillion to $70.1 trillion dollars, several percentage points below the highest
bracket’s 12 percent growth rate.
The gains in private wealth of the ultra-rich stand in sharp
contrast to the experience of billions of people around the globe. While wealth
accumulation has sharply sped up for the ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of
people have not even begun to recover from the past recession.
An Oxfam report from January, for example,
shows that the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population went from having
about 56 percent of the world’s wealth in 2010 to having 52 percent of it in
2014. Meanwhile the top 1 percent saw its wealth rise from 44 to 48 percent of
the world’s wealth.
In 2014 the Russell Sage Foundation found that between 2003
and 2013, the median household net worth of those in the United States fell
from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of 36 percent. While the rich also saw their
wealth drop during the recession, they are more than making that money back.
Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of all the income gains in the US went to the
top 1 percent. This is the most distorted post-recession income gain on record.
As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) has noted, in the United States “between 2007 and 2013, net wealth fell
on average 2.3 percent, but it fell ten-times more (26 percent) for those at
the bottom 20 percent of the distribution.” The 2015 report concludes that
“low-income households have not benefited at all from income growth.”
Another report by Knight Frank, looks at those
with wealth exceeding $30 million. The report notes that in 2014 these 172,850
ultra-high-net-worth individuals increased their collective wealth by $700
billion. Their total wealth now rests at $20.8 trillion.
The report also draws attention to the disconnection between
the rich and the actual economy. It states that the growth of this
ultra-wealthy population “came despite weaker-than-anticipated global economic
growth. During 2014 the IMF was forced to downgrade its forecast increase for
world output from 3.7 percent to 3.3 percent.”
OBAMA’S
CRONY CAPITALISM – A NATION RULED BY CRIMINAL WALL STREET BANKSTERS AND OBAMA
DONORS
Culture of
Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies
by Michelle Malkin
In her shocking new
book, Malkin digs deep into the records of President Obama's staff,
revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and abuses of power throughout
his administration.
PATRICK
BUCHANAN
After Obama
has completely destroyed the American economy, handed millions of jobs to
illegals and billions of dollars in welfare to illegals…. BUT WHAT COMES NEXT?
Millionaires
projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019
By
Gabriel Black
18 June 2015
Households with more than a million (US)
dollars in private wealth are projected to own 46 percent of global private
wealth in 2019 according to a new report by the Boston Consulting
Group (BCG).
This large percentage, however, only
includes cash, savings, money market funds and listed securities held through
managed investments—collectively known as “private wealth.” It leaves out
businesses, residences and luxury goods, which comprise a substantial portion
of the rich’s net worth.
At the end of 2014, millionaire households
owned about 41 percent of global private wealth, according to BCG. This means
that collectively these 17 million households owned roughly $67.24 trillion in
liquid assets, or about $4 million per household.
In total, the world added $17.5 trillion
of new private wealth between 2013 and 2014. The report notes that nearly three
quarters of all these gains came from previously existing wealth. In other
words, the vast majority of money gained has been due to pre-existing assets
increasing in value—not the creation of new material things.
This trend is the result of the massive
infusions of cheap credit into the financial markets by central banks. The
policy of “quantitative easing” has led to a dramatic expansion of the stock
market even while global economic growth has slumped.
While the wealth of the rich is growing at
a breakneck pace, there is a stratification of growth within the super wealthy,
skewed towards the very top.
In 2014, those with over $100 million in
private wealth saw their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone.
Collectively, these households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the
world’s private wealth. According to the report, “This top segment is expected
to be the fastest growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.”
They are expected to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next
five years.
Those families with wealth between $20 and
$100 million also rose substantially in 2014—seeing a 34 percent increase in
their wealth in twelve short months. They now own $9 trillion. In five years
they will surpass $14 trillion according to the report.
Coming in last in the “high net worth”
population are those with between $1 million and $20 million in private wealth.
These households are expected to see their wealth grow by 7.2 percent each
year, going from $49 trillion to $70.1 trillion dollars, several percentage
points below the highest bracket’s 12 percent growth rate.
The gains in private wealth of the
ultra-rich stand in sharp contrast to the experience of billions of people
around the globe. While wealth accumulation has sharply sped up for the
ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of people have not even begun to recover from
the past recession.
An Oxfam report from January, for example, shows that the bottom 99 percent
of the world’s population went from having about 56 percent of the world’s
wealth in 2010 to having 52 percent of it in 2014. Meanwhile the top 1 percent
saw its wealth rise from 44 to 48 percent of the world’s wealth.
In 2014 the Russell Sage Foundation found
that between 2003 and 2013, the median household net worth of those in the
United States fell from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of 36 percent. While the rich
also saw their wealth drop during the recession, they are more than making that
money back. Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of all the income gains in the US
went to the top 1 percent. This is the most distorted post-recession income
gain on record.
As the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) has noted, in the United States “between
2007 and 2013, net wealth fell on average 2.3 percent, but it fell ten-times
more (26 percent) for those at the bottom 20 percent of the distribution.” The
2015 report concludes that “low-income households have not benefited at all
from income growth.”
Another report by Knight Frank,
looks at those with wealth exceeding $30 million. The report notes that in 2014
these 172,850 ultra-high-net-worth individuals increased their collective
wealth by $700 billion. Their total wealth now rests at $20.8 trillion.
The report also draws attention to the
disconnection between the rich and the actual economy. It states that the
growth of this ultra-wealthy population “came despite weaker-than-anticipated
global economic growth. During 2014 the IMF was forced to downgrade its
forecast increase for world output from 3.7 percent to 3.3 percent.”
No comments:
Post a Comment