Escalating Michigan crisis overwhelms Obama’s visit to Detroit
By
Andre Damon
21 January 2016
President Barack Obama arrived in Detroit, Michigan Wednesday amid
an intensifying political crisis and escalating working class protests.
Governor Rick Snyder desperately sought to fend off demands for his
resignation amid a growing body of evidence that a generation of youth
in the city of Flint were irrevocably poisoned by lead and will suffer
lifelong consequences.
At least ten people have died and thousands more have suffered
permanent damage to their health in connection with the deliberate and
criminal policies carried out by the state, federal and local
governments in Flint.
Snyder’s State of the State address on Tuesday, which was met with
protests by hundreds of workers and young people, only fueled popular
anger against his administration. The next day, highly redacted emails
released by the state government showed that the Snyder administration
had sought to downplay and trivialize complaints from Flint residents
that people were being sickened by tainted water in the city.
Snyder’s hand-picked emergency manager for Flint had, in 2014,
ordered that the city’s water supply be switched from the Detroit system
and drawn instead from the notoriously polluted Flint River, in order
to cut costs.
Obama landed in Detroit in the midst of the widening Flint protests
as well as ongoing protests by Detroit teachers against intolerable
conditions in that city’s public schools. Sick-outs and demonstrations
organized by rank-and-file teachers in defiance of both the city
administration and the Detroit Federation of Teachers union, which had
begun last week, shut down the majority of public schools on Wednesday.
Protesting teachers described freezing cold schools covered in mold,
with gaping holes in the floors that posed a hazard to the children.
In the face of this growing crisis, which some have compared to
Hurricane Katrina, the president delivered a bizarre speech in which,
appearing to have lost touch with reality, he boasted that “all kinds of
good things are happening.”
Obama’s audience at a joint United Auto Workers-General Motors
facility in downtown Detroit, consisting of toadies and functionaries
from among the local Democratic Party and trade union officialdom,
including the president’s “good friend” UAW head Dennis Williams,
cheered at every banality he uttered.
Obama had planned his trip to Detroit, timed to coincide with the
Detroit auto show, as a victory lap after last week’s State of the Union
address, in which he hailed the resurgence (i.e., profit surge) of the
US auto industry and the “success” of the economic turnaround supposedly
engineered by his administration. He managed to surpass the phony
optimism of that speech in his remarks in Detroit, which were even more
banal and delusional.
Even as most TV news networks preempted his speech to report that the
Dow Jones Industrial Average had dropped 566 points in intraday
trading, Obama declared, “The United States of America right now has the
strongest, most durable economy in the world.”
“You can feel something special happening in Detroit," Obama
continued. “Today you've got buses that are running again. Streets that
are well lit again. New homes and businesses getting built.”
Just a few miles from where Obama was speaking, over a hundred
Detroit teachers protested the destruction of public education in the
city, with some calling for “class struggle” and “revolution.” State
officials filed a request for a court injunction Wednesday seeking to
compel the teachers to return to work.
While Obama did not mention the continuing sick-out protests, he did
make a perfunctory comment on the Flint crisis, saying, “I am very proud
of what I've done in Michigan... but I know that if I were a parent I
would be beside myself.”
Obama, whose Environmental Protection Agency knew about the water
disaster for months without doing anything to inform city residents,
bears as much responsibility as the Snyder administration for the
disastrous conditions that exist in Detroit and Flint.
Immediately upon taking office, Obama moved to continue and extend
the Bush administration’s bank bailouts, which provided trillions of
dollars in free cash to banks and major corporations, even as he made
clear that there would be no federal bailouts for states and
municipalities facing funding crises. That was tantamount to an
injunction to state and local governments to carry out sweeping cuts in
social services and infrastructure spending. What followed were hundreds
of school closures and hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs across
the country, along with brutal cuts in the wages, pensions and health
benefits of public employees.
BLOG: THE REALITY OF OBAMANOMICS!
In 2009, Obama made a 50 percent wage cut for all newly hired
autoworkers as well as benefit cuts for retirees a prerequisite for
providing federal aid to GM and Chrysler, contributing to a dramatic
reduction in workers' living standards in states such as Michigan, Ohio
and Indiana.
Obama supported the 2013 declaration of bankruptcy for Detroit and
the plan enacted by Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr in 2014 to exit
bankruptcy by slashing the pensions and health benefits of city workers
and retirees, selling off city assets to speculators at a fraction of
their real value, privatizing the city lighting system, and moving to
hive off the city’s water and sewerage department and set up a new
regional water authority. The latter measure was the direct precursor to
the decision by Flint’s emergency manager—presently the emergency
manager of the Detroit public school system—to begin using water from
the toxic Flint River.
The only truth in Obama’s Detroit speech, although unwitting, was his
statement, “What’s true of Detroit is true of the country.” It is a
fact that the “blessings” his administration has bestowed on the people
of the United States are best exemplified by the conditions in
southeastern Michigan.
Detroit and Flint are testaments to the failure of American capitalism and the criminality of its ruling elite.
If
reports of an imminent indictment for Hillary Clinton are true
– that is, if we’re not being played by the
administration – then Democrats must be immersed in intense,
behind-the-scenes maneuvering to avert a disaster or mitigate...
"In this
regard, D’Souza explores the connection between mafia-friendly con-man,
Saul Alinsky, who died living the Goodfellas dream life in
Carmel, California, and his two most famous pupils, Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton. The author also investigates the emotional tie between
the President and his father -- a consummate con-artist and
polygamist. Instead of focusing on “anti-colonialism,” as in prior
paternal analyses, D’Souza now emphasizes outright criminality and
skillful lying, traits that connect the failed elder Obama to his wildly
successful offspring who, in true Chicago style, perpetrates his cons
inside the system. (E.g. If you like your insurance plan, you can keep
it.)"
January 20, 2016
Will Obama pardon Hillary?
If
reports of an imminent indictment for Hillary Clinton are true – that
is, if we’re not being played by the administration – then Democrats
must be immersed in intense, behind-the-scenes maneuvering to avert a
disaster or mitigate the fallout. That surely involves the White House,
which may well have the final say on Hillary’s future. Depending on
the extent of the evidence, the administration might be unable to quash
an indictment outright without threatening another Saturday Night
Massacre, but it might be able to navigate a lesser charge. With an
assist from the president, that could conceivably make an indictment
politically survivable.
Obama is already on record in a 60 Minutes interview
in October stating that he didn’t believe Clinton’s use of a private
email server, though a “mistake,” endangered national security. “I
don’t think it posed a national security problem,” he told Steve Kroft.
“I do think that the way it’s been ginned up is in part because of – in
part – because of politics.”
If
he feels that way after an indictment, and the indictment is only for
email offenses, Obama could pardon Clinton from further prosecution,
much as President Clinton pardoned the indicted financier Marc Rich 20
years ago. He could claim that a pardon was crucial to preserve the
election process and therefore necessary for the good of the country.
The
political backlash would be tremendous, but that has never bothered the
Obama administration. Its political backlashes never incite media
interest for long, and Democrats in general – and Obama and Clinton in
particular – write off all criticism as partisan and groundless. The
base might even become energized in support of its beleaguered
candidate. Soon we’d be hearing that it’s time to move on, that the
matter had been dealt with and was “in the past.” Given the Republican
reluctance to press the attack against Democrats in national elections –
witness McCain and Romney – that might be the end of the scandal.
However,
if the indictment were for corruption and not just for email misuse, a
pardon becomes problematic and Clinton’s continued political viability
much less likely. Withdrawal still wouldn’t be automatic, not for a
Clinton, but the party bosses might mobilize against her, believing her
vulnerability too much of a risk. That could depend on how late in the
election cycle an indictment comes.
We were told last week, through an interview with former U.S. attorney Joseph DiGenova and a report
on Fox News, that the FBI was widening its investigation to include
corruption and possibly other charges. We are also being assured that
the FBI and its director James Comey, an Obama appointee, are impartial
and independent.
But
could these leaks be setting the stage for a complete exoneration of
Clinton? She could claim, as she already has, that she only made a
mistake with the email handling, one that she regrets, and that now the
FBI has cleared her of other charges after an exhaustive investigation.
At that point, a pardon cleanses her résumé.
What
effect the outcome of this investigation, let alone a pardon, will have
on the public’s trust and faith in America’s justice system is another
matter. For that reason alone, this probe – the latest of many in the
careers of the Clintons – will be one of the most politically
significant investigations in the history of the republic. How
politicized has our government become? Is justice still blind? We’re
about to find out.
January 13, 2016
Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me About Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party
Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me About Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party, by Dinesh D’Souza, Broadside Books, HarperCollins Publishers, November, 2015 (336 pages, $29.99, Hardback)
A
liberal who’s been mugged, it’s said, becomes a conservative. But what
does a conservative become when he’s mugged by a corrupt, politically
driven justice system? Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me About Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party
answers that question. D’Souza now views the Progressive movement as a
criminal enterprise designed to pull off the biggest heist in world
history -- effective control of the enormous wealth created by America’s
entrepreneurs. This bounty, the author argues, was made possible by
the country’s embrace of a capitalist system that rewards industry and
customer-centered innovation and discourages the hitherto ubiquitous
ethic of theft. Democrats, however, through a reversal of traditional
American values, seek to acquire power by vilifying wealth-creators and
rewarding “victims” with trickle-down shares of the national loot -- all
while portraying themselves as righteous advocates of social justice.
D’Souza’s
book begins by discussing aspects of his prosecution for illegally
contributing $20,000 to a friend running for a Senate seat in New York
State. Of his case Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz commented, “What
you did is very commonly done in politics, and on a much bigger scale.
Have no doubt about it, they are targeting you for your views.”
Dershowitz’s opinion coincided with D’Souza’s own -- namely, that his
politics and especially the negative portrait of Obama in his 2016
documentary had ticked off the protagonist-in-chief himself.
Clinton-appointed judge Richard Berman, however, denied D’Souza access
to papers that could prove selective prosecution, arguing in Alice in Wonderland fashion that only evidence of selective prosecution could justify access to papers that would provide such evidence.
Thanks
in part to his lawyer, liberal Democrat Ben Brafman, D’Souza was able
to avoid the prosecution’s desired prison stint of ten to sixteen months
-- an outrageous punishment since, in the defendant’s words, “no person
who had done what I did had even been prosecuted, let alone
sentenced.” Instead, D’Souza’s sentence consisted of 8 months of
overnight confinement in a halfway house, community service,
psychological counseling, a $30,000 fine, and five years probation. By
contrast, consider Democrat fundraiser Sant Singh Chatwal, who clearly
tried to buy influence, instructed a government witness to lie under
oath, and made “more than $180,000 in straw donations to several
Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.” For these far more
egregious offenses “Chatwal received a fine, community service, and
three years probation. No prison time, no confinement.”
During
his eight months of overnight confinement with “more than a hundred
rapists, armed robbers, drug smugglers, and murderers,” D’Souza began to
see prisoners and a flawed justice system in a different light. He
also began to understand “the psychology of crookedness” -- a “system of
larceny, corruption, and terror” that’s “been adopted and perfected by
modern progressivism and the Democratic Party.”
Instead
of accusing Progressives of ignorance or naiveté, as most conservatives
do, D’Souza focuses on corrupt motives that can be boiled down, a la
Nietzsche, to envy and the will to power. The con-man pitch in this
case is the cultivation of envy, justifying theft by accusing
wealth-creators of unfairly exploiting workers or consumers and making
themselves (i.e. Democrats) the arbiters of redistribution. In this
regard, D’Souza explores the connection between mafia-friendly con-man,
Saul Alinsky, who died living the Goodfellas dream life in
Carmel, California, and his two most famous pupils, Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton. The author also investigates the emotional tie between
the President and his father -- a consummate con-artist and
polygamist. Instead of focusing on “anti-colonialism,” as in prior
paternal analyses, D’Souza now emphasizes outright criminality and
skillful lying, traits that connect the failed elder Obama to his wildly
successful offspring who, in true Chicago style, perpetrates his cons
inside the system. (E.g. If you like your insurance plan, you can keep
it.)
To
carry out their grand political heist, Democrats must marshal the
emotions and votes of an army of envious underlings -- stoking
resentment among minorities, women, the poor, immigrants, gays, and
other potential victim groups. In addition, this gigantic con requires
intellectual support supplied in spades by academics like John Rawls who
employ their philosophical sleight-of-hand to plausibly transfer money
and goods from their creators to others -- all for the greater good and,
of course, via the state. Cultural indoctrination in the
unfair-society pitch of progressive politicians is accomplished by
inundating Americans with television programs, news stories, and
Hollywood films that feature crooked businessmen, victimized minorities,
oppressed workers, heartless millionaires, and hypocritical ministers.
These professional propagandists promulgate their ideas out of envy,
seeing themselves as members of the rightful ruling class based on their
superior intellects and abilities. This same exalted self-image
applies to educators who chafe over not being recognized and rewarded by
their society any better than the average plumber.
D’Souza
ends his book with suggestions for exposing and defeating the
progressive con -- a task that requires courage, confrontation, and
inroads into the near monopoly progressives enjoy in academics,
journalism, and the entertainment industry. Stealing America
is also filled with raw conversations between D’Souza and fellow inmates
-- exchanges that provide significant insight into the world these
criminals and their hapless government overseers inhabit.
At
the very least D’Souza’s experience with the legal system provides one
excellent example of the overlap between the “psychology of crookedness”
and the motives and methods of progressive politics. His poignant
analyses of the Clintons, the two Obamas, and Saul Alinsky, however,
provide considerably more fodder for an audacious thesis.
Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California. Opinion columnist for the North County Times (1996-2012); online reviews; blog
January 14, 2016
Hillary’s long goodbye
I
must be an awful human being, because I am reveling in the déjà vu
Hillary Clinton must be experiencing, as her presidential campaign
appears to be heading toward collapse. And this time, the humiliation –
and peril – is far greater than anything 2008 dealt her. To state the
obvious, her longstanding preference for pantsuits is one thing, but the
orange jumpsuits of a federal penitentiary are quite something else.
I
realize I am getting way ahead of myself here, that predictions are
always risky – especially about the future, as Yogi Berra reminded us.
We don’t yet know if there will be a criminal referral from the FBI,
though the D.C. rumor mill is operating at full steam, averring that 50 more
FBI special agents have been added to the case, making the total team
well into triple digits. That the FBI would devote that level of
resources to the case suggests that they are tying up any possible loose
ends, to have an airtight cases presented to Loretta Lynch. (More on
this later.)
Potential
legal peril aside for the moment, the humiliations she faces are
daunting for a woman of her arrogance. Her husband’s penchant for
illicit sex with women far younger and more attractive is once again
being thrown in her face, and this time the trusty old injured
wife gambit not only doesn’t work, but is being used against her,
painting her as an enabler of a sexual abuser.
Back
in the impeachment days, she could count on the mainstream media to
keep a lid on negative information and portray her husband’s accusers
and investigators as a bunch of sex-obsessed prudes. Not only have the
internet and cable news forever destroyed the cofferdam around
embarrassing news these days, but substantial chunks of the mainstream
media no longer see themselves as guardians of the Clinton empire. For
one thing, a Democrat president is not being threatened with removal
from office. For another, she is not the only game in town. Just as in
2008 they could abandon her for a younger member of a minority, one who
was a far more skillful campaigner, now they have the elderly Bernie
Sanders carrying the actual torch of socialism, and drawing enthusiastic
crowds.
And
then there is the small matter of all the knives in the hands of
members of her own party that have been sheathed all these decades since
she and Bill first entered the White House as tenants. She has made a
lot of enemies over the years, snubbing some, ignoring others, and
behaving with the arrogance and self-centeredness that has been a
visible part of her character ever since she entered pubic life. There
is a struggle underway for the future of the Democratic Party between
the Obama faction and the Clinton faction. When she appeared
inevitable, an uneasy truce prevailed. But if she may be tied up with a
criminal defense case, that would solve a lot of problems for the
Obama-ites.
That is something to ponder as we await a possible criminal referral to the Department of Justice and A.G. Lynch’s response.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden very publicly “regrets every day” his decision not to run for president.
If,
as speculated, Elizabeth Warren were to align herself with a Biden
candidacy, perhaps as the veep nominee, it would palliate the socialist
Sanders supporters.
The
old certitudes about the Clintons have crumbled. Bill no longer is a
vibrant, likable, vigorous exponent of hope; he is instead a hollow
shell, a creepy degenerate who reminds us of our own mortality after
heart bypass operations and drastic weight loss.
I
am convinced that the greatest prize of all for Hillary was not Air
Force One or the other perks; it was going to be the ability to put Bill
in his place. After Hillarycare crashed and burned, she was removed
from the co-presidency she believed she had won, fair and square. And
it had to rankle. There must have been a moment when he reminded her
that his name, and his name alone, appeared on the ballot, and that his
decision was final.
Oh, how she must have looked forward to pulling rank on the first gentleman!
That dream is slowly crashing and burning. Even without a criminal referral or indictment, Hillary’s chances are fading fast.
Sanders looks as though he may sweep Iowa and New Hampshire. Once that
happens, it is 2008 all over again. The Democrat establishment may not
want Sanders on the ticket, but they are fully capable of drafting
Biden, Warren, Booker, or another Dem, and then changing the convention
rules to nominate whomever they want. But I doubt that will be
necessary. The gears of the FBI are turning faster and faster. Policy
requires that if a politician be accused of wrongdoing, it be done as
long before an election as possible.
Time is not on Hillary’s side.
Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/hillarys_long_goodbye.html#ixzz3xFVCi5oA
Wave of selling hits US markets
Wave of selling hits US markets
By Nick Beams
14 January 2016
US
stocks markets tumbled Wednesday as oil prices continued to fall and
voices in the finance industry, together with economic commentators,
warned of the potential for a major crisis.
The
sell-off was across the board, the Dow falling by 365 points, 2.21
percent, the S&P 500 by 2.50 percent and the Nasdaq down by 3.4
percent. The day opened with an uptick but large-volume selling soon set
in, the prevailing sentiment being that it was necessary to get out
without waiting to see what would happen during the rest of the day.
Commentators
said the sell-off was not just about oil, which has been touching
levels as low as $30 per barrel, but the fall in prices for all
industrial raw materials induced by the slowdown in China.
The
sharp downturn has come in the wake of a series of assessments by
banking officials that the conditions for a new financial crisis are
fast developing.
On Tuesday economists at the Royal
Bank of Scotland issued an assessment that said investors faced a
“cataclysmic year” in which stocks could fall by 20 percent and oil
could go as low as $16 per barrel.
In a note to
clients, the RBS said: “Sell everything except high quality bonds. This
is about return of capital, not return on capital. In a crowded hall,
exit doors are small.” It warned that the present situation recalled
2008 when the collapse of Lehman Brothers set off a global crisis. This
time the trigger could be China.
The bank’s credit
chief Andrew Roberts said China had set off a “major correction and it
is going to snowball” with equities and credit becoming “very
dangerous.” He warned that the London market was particularly vulnerable
to a negative shock because of the large number of commodity companies
in the UK. The prices of all industrial raw materials, not just oil, are
moving sharply down, reaching lows not seen since the immediate
aftermath of the financial crisis.
“All those people
who are long [buyers of] oil and mining companies thinking that the
dividends are safe are going to discover than they’re not at all safe,”
Roberts said.
RBS’s prediction of a sharply lower oil
price was matched by Morgan Stanley which said it could go to $20 per
barrel. Standard Charter forecast an even bigger fall, to $10. “Given
that no fundamental relationship is driving the oil market toward any
equilibrium, prices are being moved almost entirely by financial flows
caused by fluctuations in other asset prices, including the US dollar
and equity markets. We think prices could fall as low as $10 per
barrel.”
The Standard Chartered analysis points to the
development of a vicious circle: a falling oil price sends down equity
markets and then financial flow-on effects from the decline in stock
prices lead to a further drop in the price of oil.
Following the RBS call to “sell everything,” the
Guardian
sought responses from a series of economists. While none went as far as
the RBS, there was a distinct lack of confidence in their replies.
Erik
Britton, director of Fathom Consulting, did not dispute that China
would have a “hard landing.” He said it was headed for just 2 percent
growth in gross domestic product, markedly less than the official
government prediction of 6.5 percent for this year.
Jonathan
Porter, the director of the National Institute for Economic and Social
Research, said he was “worried” by current events “but not yet
panicked.”
“But if the current concerns turn into a systematic meltdown on financial markets, then all bets are off,” he added.
Chris
Williamson, the chief economist at the financial data provider Markit,
said the worry was that the RBS warning could become a self-fulfilling
prophecy and if a financial market rout led to a new recession,
“policymakers are seriously lacking in tools to fight the new downturn.”
The
RBS assessment was echoed by comments on Wednesday from Albert Edwards,
strategist at the Societe Generale bank, who has long held the belief
that equity markets are considerably over-valued. He said the West was
about to be hit by a wave of deflation from emerging market economies
and central banks were not aware of what was about to hit them.
He
told an investment conference in London that developments in the global
economy would “push the US back into recession. The financial crisis
will reawaken. It will be every bit as bad as in 2008–09 and it will
turn very ugly indeed.”
The US economy was in much
worse shape than the Fed realised, with the US corporate sector being
“crushed” by the appreciation in the value of the dollar. “We have seen
massive credit expansion in the US. This is not for real economic
activity; it is borrowing to finance share buybacks,” he said.
In
an assessment of the significance of the fall in the markets, which in
the US have experienced their worst new year opening in history, an
article in the
Financial Times on Monday pointed to longer-term
trends. In the wake of the financial crisis, “aggressive easing” by the
Fed and other central banks, coupled with a “mammoth spending binge” by
China, had suppressed market volatility for an extended period and
created a tide that lifted global assets prices.
“Now
that liquidity is draining away and the bill for China’s spending—in the
shape of overcapacity in some industries and high levels of
indebtedness—is coming due,” the article noted.
“The
worrying signal from the current turmoil is that the investor herd truly
has become fearful and thinks the financial system is broken. Namely,
that quantitative easing has merely papered over the cracks of global
economic imbalances, borrowed hefty investment gains from the future and
left taxpayers and company bondholders with a massive rise in
outstanding debt.”
International Monetary Fund managing
director Christine Lagarde also pointed to longer-term trends in a
speech delivered in Paris on Tuesday. She said emerging market economies
were facing a “new reality” in which their growth rates would be
significantly slowed.
“Growth rates are down, and cyclical and structural forces have undermined the traditional growth paradigm,” she said.
That
paradigm was based on boosting exports and attracting capital inflows.
On current forecasts, she said emerging economies would move towards
advanced economy incomes at less than two-thirds the pace predicted by
the IMF a decade ago. “This is cause for concern,” she said.
The
World Bank last week warned that these economies faced difficulties in
2016 after growing last year at their slowest pace since the financial
crisis of 2008.
Lagarde said the shift by the Fed
towards ending its easy monetary policies, together with the
continuation of these policies by other central banks, had the potential
to trigger exchange rate ructions.
“This volatility
could be induced not only by the divergence in monetary policies in
major advanced economies, but also by uncertainty about their overall
prospects and policy action.”
In an indication of the deepening
recessionary trends in the global economy, she noted that oil and metal
prices were down by two-thirds from their peak and were likely “to stay
low for a sustained period,” placing several developing economies “under
severe stress.”
That stress is already in evidence with major
economic contractions in Brazil and Russia, but it is not confined
there. The economic outlook for two developed commodity-exporting
countries, Australia and Canada, is also worsening.
Former US
treasury secretary Lawrence Summers added his voice to those warning
about the state of the global economy in a comment published in the
Financial Times
on Monday. He said that while markets do sometimes send out false
alarms, economic and financial authorities should take notice because
“the conventional wisdom never recognises gathering storms.”
“Because
of China’s scale, its potential volatility and the limited room for
conventional monetary manoeuvres, the global risk to domestic economic
performance in the US, Europe and many emerging markets is as great as
at any time I can remember,” he wrote.
It is impossible to predict exactly how the present turmoil will play out. But two certainties have been established.
Firstly,
that the 2008 financial crisis was only the beginning of a breakdown of
the global capitalist economy, for which the ruling elites have no
economic solution. In fact, their actions have only created further
wealth for the ultra-rich, increasing social inequality, while setting
up the conditions for another financial meltdown.
And finally,
that the renewed turbulence is going to produce even deeper attacks on
the working class which, on top on those already being implemented, will
bring an upsurge in social and political struggles.
No comments:
Post a Comment