18 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-16-19

  1. When the judiciary joins The Resistance, they need to be removed by any means necessary. Bias is not a good look on a judge.

    Talk about activist judges overstepping their authority.

    Even NTer David French sees a problem.


    “Lawless Federal Judges Are Winning Their War against the Trump Administration”

    “It’s déjà vu all over again. A federal judge has blocked a lawful Trump-administration policy, essentially enshrining the Obama administration’s policy choices in social-justice granite. The practical result is a judicial equivalent of a one-way ratchet. The pattern is clear:

    Step One: The Obama administration uses its executive power to implement a progressive policy (such as DACA or the contraceptive mandate).

    Step Two: The Trump administration uses its executive power to repeal the Obama-administration action and implement a more conservative policy.

    Step Three: Progressive plaintiffs file suit in a friendly jurisdiction using dubious legal theories to seek a broad injunction against the Trump-administration action.

    Step Four: Progressive judges join the #Resistance, write obviously flawed opinions, and seek to freeze Obama’s policies in legal amber.

    The latest example came yesterday, when Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California blocked implementation of the Trump administration’s religious and moral exemptions to the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. This time, mercifully, the order wasn’t a nationwide injunction. It applies to the 13 states (and District of Columbia) before the court, but it’s important nonetheless. The religious liberties of employers in those jurisdictions are once again placed in jeopardy.

    The opinion itself was everything we’ve come to expect from Trumplaw, defined as the crafting of new judicial standards for the sake of defeating Donald Trump. The Affordable Care Act did not, by its plain terms, contain a contraception mandate for employers. As the Supreme Court explained in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the statute required “an employer’s group health plan or group-health-insurance coverage to furnish ‘preventive care and screenings’ for women without ‘any cost sharing requirements.’” Congress, however, “did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered. Instead, Congress authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a component of HHS, to make that important and sensitive decision.”

    In plain English, that means that the contraception mandate was at heart a regulatory mandate. Congress made an express delegation of its lawmaking authority (which is problematic on its own terms, but that’s a topic for a different day). The mandate was therefore a creation of the executive branch, and its contours are thus defined by the executive branch. The Trump administration has left the Obama regulatory mandate largely intact, but it has slightly expanded the employer moral and religious exemption in a manner it believes is consistent with the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    How slight is the expansion? The regulatory impact analysis indicated that it would affect between 31,700 and 120,000 women nationwide. For perspective, there are approximately 74.6 million women in the civilian labor force. The Trump religious exemption would therefore affect between 0.0004 percent and 0.0016 percent of the female workforce. And, keep in mind, each one of the affected women has voluntarily chosen to work for her employer. There are ample alternative choices if these women choose to prioritize contraception access in their employment decision.

    But no. Even that tiny concession to religious liberty was too much for Judge Gilliam. In his order, he left the regulatory discretion in the hands of the Obama administration and bound the Trump administration to Obama’s regulatory action. In essence, he granted the Obama administration’s regulations full statutory force — even to the point of calling them (wrongly) a “statutory mandate.”

    This is the one-way ratchet in action. It’s reminiscent of the manner in which different federal courts have protected the Obama administration’s DACA program. DACA, you may recall, wasn’t an act of Congress. It wasn’t even a regulation. It was created by a three-page memorandum from homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano. Read it here.

    But what one administration creates by memo another administration can revoke by memo — correct? Well, not if you’re a federal judge who believes he’s resisting bad policy. Then you elevate the Obama-administration action to (at the very least) the level of a regulation, and you require the incoming administration to apply statutory procedures that the outgoing administration actively and intentionally scorned.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Nope. No bias here…..


    “Networks Trashed Trump With 90% Negative Spin in 2018, But Did It Matter?”

    “At the midpoint of Donald Trump’s first term, the establishment media’s obvious hostility shows no signs of relenting, but polls show this negative coverage has had no discernible impact on the public’s attitudes toward the President.

    Since January 20, 2017, the Media Research Center has analyzed every moment of coverage of President Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, seen by approximately 23 million people each night. Highlights:

    ■ As it was last year, the Trump presidency was the biggest story of 2018, accounting for almost 87 hours of coverage, or 28% of all evening news airtime. But that’s down from 99 hours of coverage in 2017, perhaps a sign the networks are wearying of treating every Trump tweet as deserving of crisis-level coverage.

    ■ The tone of coverage remains incessantly hostile: 90% negative, vs. just 10% positive (excluding neutral statements), matching the historically bad press we documented in 2017. Yet despite the media’s obvious disapproval, public opinion of the President actually improved slightly during 2018, from an average 40% approval on January 1 to 42.7% approval on December 31, according to RealClearPolitics.

    ■ For the second year in a row, the Russia investigation was the single most-covered topic amid the networks’ Trump coverage, garnering 858 minutes of airtime. Since January 20, 2017, the Russia probe has received 2,092 minutes of coverage on just the three evening newscasts.


    Negative spin: To determine the spin of news coverage, our analysts tallied all explicitly evaluative statements about the President or his administration from either reporters, anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Evaluations from partisan sources, as well as neutral statements, were not included.

    As has been the case since the President took office, the tone of network coverage has been exceptionally hostile, ranging from 82% negative in April 2017 (after Trump was praised for a missile strike punishing Syria for a chemical weapons attack) to 96% negative in February 2018 (when the news agenda focused on the Russia investigation, demands for gun control, and a White House aide accused of domestic abuse).”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Watergate by any other name still smells like corruption.


    “Familiarity, it is said, breeds contempt. It also breeds indifference. For almost three years now, the intelligence services and police apparatus of the deep state have worked tirelessly to undermine Donald Trump. Beginning sometime in the late winter of 2016, when Trump’s presidential campaign was showing unexpected signs of strength, John Brennan—the Communist-voting apparatchik turned media mouthpiece whom it pleased Barack Obama to appoint as director of the CIA—began ringing alarm bells about Trump’s possible relations with the Kremlin. His concern was based on two things. One was a report, spurious as it turned out, about “contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians.” The other was that brittle sense of entitlement, fired by paranoia, that membership in the higher echelons of the deep state’s nomenklatura breeds.

    Brennan convened a “working group” at CIA headquarters that included Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI agent who was head of counter-intelligence, and James Clapper, then director of national intelligence (now, like Brennan, another mouthpiece for the left-wing media), in order to stymie Trump’s campaign. It was Brennan, too, who first alerted James Comey, the disgraced former director of the F.B.I., to the fantasy of possible “collusion” between the Trump Campaign and “the Russians.”

    Then came the infamous “Steele Dossier,” the agglomeration of malicious gossip about Trump that was surreptitiously commissioned by and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. This fantastical piece of “opposition research” was essentially the sole warrant for opening secret FISA investigations against Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign advisor, and others.

    All this provided sensational pabulum for the anti-Trump press, who spent countless hours peeling back the complex, hypertrophied onion that the CIA, the FBI, and various figures within the Obama administration had built up to destroy the candidacy of Donald Trump without quite seeming to target Trump himself.

    Mirabile ditctu, it didn’t work. Still, it was impossible that Trump could actually win the election. Nancy Pelosi told us that we could “take it to the bank” that Donald Trump was not going to be president. Many other politicians and talking heads made fools of themselves emitting similar pseudo-certainties right up to the afternoon and early evening of election day.

    But win he did, and that changed everything. Now it was not a candidate who had to be stopped but a duly elected president of the United States who had to be kept from knowing exactly what lengths the government—soon to be his government—had gone to destroy him. From November 9, 2016, to January 20, 2017, the reins of government were still in the hands of Barack Obama. The apparatus to stop Trump the candidate was already in place. Now it would be deployed against Trump the president-elect and, later, Trump the president.

    Over the last few days, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other anti-Trump outlets have revealed, and reveled in, something that many observers suspected for a long time. That the investigation into various figures associated with the Trump campaign—not only Carter Page, but also George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen—was just a pretext. The main target all along was Trump himself. As Andy McCarthy observed, “following the firing of FBI director James Comey on May 9, 2017, the bureau formally opened an investigation of President Trump.”

    The Times breathlessly frames its story as the revelation that Trump might have been “secretly working on behalf of Russia.” Right on cue, the anti-Trump fraternity went into full-swivet mode. Probably the most comical contribution to this almanack of rhetorical incontinence was written by Max Boot, who offered “18 Reasons Why Trump Could Be a Russian Asset.” Reason number one: that Trump, the head of a multi-billion dollar real-estate development company with interests all over the world, had business dealings with Russia. Excellent, Max!

    In fact, though, what the Times story revealed was simply that, pace repeated assurances by James Comey, Trump was the target of the investigation from the beginning. As McCarthy notes, “the only thing the story shows is that the FBI, after over a year of investigation, simply went overt about something that had been true from the first. The investigation commenced during the 2016 campaign by the Obama administration—the Justice Department and the FBI—was always about Donald Trump.” Moreover,

    The FBI and DOJ knew this would be controversial—the incumbent administration spying on the opposition campaign in the absence of corroborated evidence of a crime.
    Let’s pause to ponder that last bit: “spying on the opposition campaign in the absence of corroborated evidence of a crime.” “Controversial”? You think? How about nefarious and probably criminal? Richard Nixon is unavailable for comment.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. More proof.


    “The FBI ended its relationship with Trump-Russia dossier author Christopher Steele in late 2016, but the bureau kept taking information from him through DOJ official Bruce Ohr, Ohr revealed in congressional testimony.
    The FBI had renewed interest in connecting with Steele after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, according to Ohr’s testimony.
    Steele was previously paid by both the FBI and the Democratic National Committee through Fusion GPS.
    The FBI wanted to reestablish contact with Trump-Russia dossier author Christopher Steele days after President Donald Trump fired bureau Director James Comey, a top Department of Justice official revealed during a previously secret congressional testimony.

    DOJ official Bruce Ohr laid out efforts to influence the DOJ by Christopher Steele, a former British spy being paid by the Democratic National Committee via the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The FBI terminated Steele as a source in late 2016, reportedly for his contacts with the media, but he continued to funnel information to the bureau through Ohr.

    On May 9, 2017, Trump fired Comey, which concerned FBI leaders. Comey has since been sharply critical of the president.

    On May 15, Ohr and Steele discussed “re-engaging” with the FBI at the bureau’s request, which Steele agreed to, according to the testimony, which was obtained by The Epoch Times.”

    And I’d note the media outlet that investigated and worked to get these documents released to the public is a relative unknown. Where are the supposed big names in media? Did they have no interest in such a huge story?

    I wonder why that is?

    Oh that’s right, see post 2.


  5. And folks wonder why Mexico doesn’t do more to stop the drugs and human trafficking inside their borders……

    Corruption is rampant at the highest levels. If true, the US needs to cut all aid and just end this farce.



    “Sinaloa drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman paid a $100 million bribe to former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in 2012, according to testimony given in a New York federal court on Tuesday.

    The testimony was given by Colombian drug lord Alex Cifuentes Villa, who said that Peña Nieto first contacted Guzman “about the time he was elected president in late 2012, asking the drug lord for $250 million in exchange for calling off a nationwide manhunt for him,” The New York Times reported.

    “Mr. Guzman paid a bribe of $100 million to President Peña Nieto?” Guzman attorney Jeffrey Lichtman asked Cifuentes during cross-examination.

    “Yes,” Cifuentes answered.

    Cifuentes claimed that Guzman responded to Nieto’s offer by making a $100 million counteroffer.

    “The message was that Mr. Guzmán didn’t have to stay in hiding?” Lichtman asked.

    “Yes,” Cifuentes responded, adding: “that very thing is what Joaquin said to me.”

    Cifuentes admitted to multiple crimes in court, including being involved in a murder plot in Canada, buying explosives from drug traffickers, paying off a judge in Ecuador, and kidnapping an official.

    Cifuentes testified that Guzman paid off multiple Mexican officials and, on at least two occasions, “gave the Mexican military between $10 million and $12 million to launch operations to ‘either kill or capture’ associates of the Beltrán-Leyva brothers during his war with them.”

    The Times also notes that Cifuentes testified that Mexican police not only allowed the cartel to traffic narcotics but that they also participated in trafficking, selling the drugs themselves.

    Nieto’s ties to Mexican drug cartels have been known for years, as he has been previously linked to the cartels.”


  6. I’ve been wondering – I don’t know how much aid we give Mexico, but if we stopped, couldn’t we use that money to build “the wall” and say that Mexico paid for it?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. If this is true, and I doubt it is, America is dead.

    Call it.


    “Poll: Solid Majority Of Americans Support Raising Highest Income Tax Rate To 70%”

    “Confession: For the last few years, every time I’ve seen a new “Pressure building under Yellowstone” headline on Drudge, I’ve felt a little more okay about it.

    I think this finally tipped me over from the “mildly against eruption” camp to the “mildly in favor” one.

    Probably not going to reach “strongly in favor” until Trump declares himself emperor, though. I.e. four to six months from now.

    In the latest The Hill-HarrisX survey, which was conducted Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70 percent, found that a sizable majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the idea…

    Women support the idea by a 62-38 percent margin. A majority of men back it as well, 55 percent to 45 percent. The proposal is popular in all regions of the country with a majority of Southerners backing it by a 57 to 43 percent margin. Rural voters back it as well, 56 percent to 44 percent.

    Increasing the highest tax bracket to 70 percent garners a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. In the Hill-HarrisX poll, 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it.

    The poll didn’t delve into specifics, it seems, but it may be that the public is more radical on it than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose comments on “60 Minutes” inspired it. AOC wasn’t proposing a 70 percent marginal rate until the 10,000,000th dollar in income. The Hill-Harris poll, however, didn’t specify income amounts. Currently the top U.S. marginal rate (37 percent) kicks in at just $612,000 for a married couple. There may be some people in the majority of this poll, in other words, who are prepared to effectively double the marginal rate on households earning just five percent or so of the target number proposed by Ocasio-Cortez.

    Which is a long way of saying there are a lot of socialists in America 2019.”


  8. I’m sure Nancy thinks they’re “immoral.”

    That’s probably why she refused to meet with them to hear their stories of how her stand on illegals has impacted their families.



    “Pelosi reportedly refused to meet with the families, who have lost family members to illegal aliens, which comes as Democrats have refused to work with the Trump administration to provide national security funding to secure the southern border.

    The families gathered in front of the U.S. Capitol Building with Reps. Mo Brooks (R-AL), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Women for Trump, and others to “put faces to the statistics of Americans killed or injured due to illegal aliens and the drugs that flow in the U.S. at the southern border.””


  9. @7:05 People are apparently ready for a new FDR, so high tax rates on the uber-wealthy are certainly coming if Trump is unable to make the country livable again for workers. There does seem to be momentum so we may have waited too long to address the issues….


  10. She just can’t stand the idea that Trump still has his bully pulpit. Since she and Dems walked out and ended negotiations she should be ignored until she comes back to the negotiating table in good faith. Tell her to pound sand.




  11. ———————-


  12. Gillette, the best a wussy man can get.


    “Gillette Ad Waxes Nostalgic About The Fathers The Left Has Yanked From Boys’ Lives

    Boys are not lost because of toxic masculinity; they are lost because their fathers have been taken away from them and they cannot figure out how to fill that void with anything but rage and shame.”

    “Culture continuously recycles itself. The revolutionary social ideas of the past are now considered conservative and backward, and the new radical enlightenment often reflects what was once viewed as not progressive enough. One of the more profound ways this cycle has manifested has been in the role of men and masculinity in our society. Today, the left seems to be longing for the father figure they so arrogantly dismissed, mocked, and demonized decades ago.

    From an endless stream of TV dads portrayed as childish, selfish, lazy, drunk, clownish, and failures to the celebration of childhood independence and maturity, the role of fathers has been largely removed from our media-driven notion of life. We have been encouraged to view dad as a humorous, but optional, counterpart to our primary parent, mom, who manages to keep our lives running smoothly mostly on her own, if not in spite of him. The media today appears surprised at the resulting cultural consequences.

    Gillette, a men’s shaving company, released a new ad titled, “The Best a Man Can Be,” targeting their key demographic with a sobering and stern lecture on what failures men have become in our society.

    The ad features older men staring at their own reflections in the mirror looking lost as a group of young boys chase another boy before the word “freak” flashes on screen. Another young boy is being held, crying, by his concerned mother as the group of boys breaks through the scene with various chat bubbles appearing, one saying “sissy.” The next scene shows moments of TV, from a black and white cartoon of men leering at a beautiful woman to a man slapping the rear-end of his housekeeper to what looks like a classic MTV spring break montage of young men and women behaving promiscuously for the camera.”


    And why are the “bad” men all white?


  13. How dare she! 🙄

    Living out her faith…. the nerve.


    “Liberal organizations and outlets are criticizing second lady Karen Pence for accepting a teaching job at a private Christian school in Virginia that maintains biblical teachings on sexuality and gender.

    Immanuel Christian School is a K-8 Christian school in Springfield, Virginia, where the wife of Vice President Mike Pence will now teach art twice a week and be known by her students as “Mrs. Pence.” Immanuel adheres to Christian teachings and reserves the right to refuse applicants or expel students who engage in homosexual or transgendered behavior, or otherwise violate “the moral principles of the school.”

    According to the school’s Parent Agreement, families must “acknowledge the importance of a family culture based on biblical principles and embrace biblical family values such as a healthy marriage between one man and one woman.”

    “It is our experience that families who do not share a biblical worldview will be uncomfortable with the expectations we have and the philosophy we practice,” the school’s admissions policy says. “We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic background. We do, however, attempt to be discerning in the area of Christian belief and practice.”

    Some seized on these principles to accuse both the school and the second lady of bigotry.

    “The Pences never seem to miss an opportunity to show their public service only extends to some,” the Human Rights Campaign said.

    “The school considers homosexual relationships and transgender identity examples of ‘moral misconduct,’” the NOH8 Campaign said.”

    Organized perversion just can’t stand that last sentence, because it’s true.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Democrats can’t wait to screw up a good economy.

    So it’s now the stupid racist leading the 2 clueless socialists and an ignorant bigot. What could possibly go wrong? 🙄


    “Wall Street, Brace Yourself: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Joining House Financial Services Committee”

    “Wall Street had better brace itself, because the House Financial Services Committee is about to be loaded with some big names from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

    Per Bloomberg, those names include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Katie Porter (Calif.) and Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii).

    “AOC” confirmed the news of her appointment on Twitter.

    “Personally, I’m looking forward to digging into the student loan crisis, examining for-profit prisons/ICE detention, and exploring the development of public & postal banking. To start,” she tweeted.

    Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib both identify as democratic socialists. Gabbard—who intends to run for president next year—is an ally of Bernie Sanders, who is also a democratic socialist. Porter studied law under Elizabeth Warren at Harvard—both Porter and Warren identify as capitalists, but neither is any kind of friend to Wall Street.”


  15. The End Game has arrived.


    “OMB issues guidance on Reduction in Force layoffs due to partial shutdown”

    “A new statement from the Office of Management and Budget provides cold comfort for federal bureaucrats worried that furloughs during the partial shutdown could become permanent layoffs, as long as Democrats refuse to give in and fund the border barrier.

    There will be no immediate layoffs (what the federal government calls reductions in force – or RIFs) if and when the current partial shutdown passes the 30-day mark in four more days. As I explained yesterday in “Trump’s shutdown trap?,” federal law requires RIFs when federal employees are furloughed more than 30 days.

    But after the matter was raised and widely discussed, the OMB issued a statement that indicates that it would require an actual reorganization plan that would make furloughed positions permanently identified as unnecessary, in order for the furloughs to be RIFed. Nicole Ogrysko writes in the Federal News Network:

    Agencies won’t need to consider targeted layoffs, otherwise known as reductions-in-force (RIFs), if the current partial government shutdown continues for another few days.

    While federal statute typically instructs agencies to RIF targeted groups of employees who have been placed on furlough status for 30 days or more, the regulations don’t apply to emergency furlough situations, the Office of Management and Budget confirmed Tuesday. …

    There are two kinds of furloughs. “Administrative furloughs” are planned events by an agency “designed to absorb reductions necessitated by downsizing, reduced funding, lack of work or any budget situation other than a lapse in appropriations,” according to the Office of Personnel Management.

    “Shutdown furloughs,” also called “emergency furloughs,” occur during lapses in appropriations.

    OPM’s 2015 guidance on shutdown furloughs also clarifies the matter.

    “Reductions in force furlough regulations and SES competitive furlough requirements are not applicable to emergency shutdown furloughs because the ultimate duration of an emergency shutdown furlough is unknown at the outset and is dependent entirely on congressional action, rather than agency action,” OPM guidance reads. “The RIF furlough regulations and SES competitive furlough requirements, on the other hand, contemplate planned, foreseeable, money-saving furloughs that, at the outset, are planned to exceed 30 days.”

    This emphatically does not rule out the shutdown trap hypothesis that I presented. It will take some time for reorganization plans to be prepared, but once they are revealed after the 30-day deadline is reached, the “shutdown furloughs” become “administrative furloughs,” and the RIF layoffs are possible.

    As the anonymous senior Trump administration official whom I quoted yesterday noted, in the absence of bureaucrats with time on their hands and no inclination to help the Trump agenda, a lot is getting accomplished. As that process continues, after the 30-day mark is reached, it will be possible to create a downsizing plan, identifying units that could easily get by with a fraction of their current staff, or even be reorganized out of existence.”

    As the op-ed yesterday said, process is everything to govt. 🙄


  16. Give the guy credit, in this case, he’s right.


    “VIDEO: Canadian PM Trudeau reiterates BDS is simply “a new frame around anti-Semitism””

    “In response to a demand at a Brock University town hall that he retract his prior condemnation of BDS, Trudeau reiterated: “I will continue to condemn the BDS movement ….””


    “Trudeau strongly stood by his condemnation of BDS as anti-Semitic. Here are some excerpts from Trudeau’s response to a long question (Trudeau’s response starts at 1:40):

    Q. …. Will you take this opportunity today to retract your condemnation of the BDS movement?

    Trudeau: …. Anti-Semitism as it existed back then [during the 1930s and 1940s] was commonplace and simply accepted and we fortunately moved on from there, but anti-Semitism still exists, and indeed, discrimination against Jewish people is still one of the largest source of hate crimes in Canada and around the world.

    We need to understand as well, that anti-Semitism has also manifested itself not just as in targeting of individuals, but it is also targeting a new condemnation or an anti-Semitism against the very State of Israel. Which, as my friend Irwin Cotler has characterized, can be characterized by the three Ds: Demonization of Israel, a Double Standard around Israel, and a Delegitimization of the State of Israel.

    And I think we have to be very careful as a society, and as a government, and as a country, to not sanction or support this new frame around anti-Semitism and undue criticism of Israel.

    Now it doesn’t mean that you can’t criticize decisions by the State of Israel. That of course, is a democratic country that has an opposition party that every day has as its job criticisms of decisions that the government of Israel makes, and that’s perfectly natural and healthy and needed within a democracy.

    But when you have movements like BDS that singles out Israel, that seeks to delegitimize and in some cases demonize. When you have students on campus dealing with things like Israel Apartheid Weeks that makes them fearful of actually attending campus events because of their religion in Canada, we have to recognize that there are things that aren’t acceptable, not because of foreign policy concerns, but because of Canadian values. It’s not right to discriminate or to make someone feel unsafe on campus because of their religion, and unfortunately, the BDS movement is often linked to those kinds of frames.

    Yes, sir, I will continue to condemn the BDS movement ….”


    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.