Unity March/Occupy 217 Photo Gallery

The annual Unity March took place on Saturday, Oct. 8, a march that this year was organized by Jobs With Justice, CU Citizens for Peace and Justice, and a newly-formed organization Occupy 217. The march began in front of the WEFT radio station in downtown Champaign and ended at Chase Bank. A photo gallery of the march appears below.

After receiving $98 million in bailout money, Chase cut 14,000 jobs.

A group of demonstrators walked into the Chase bank for a temporary occupation.

An advertisement invited visitors, "Get Your Cash Back."

Elizabeth Simpson, Carol Ammons, and Brad Donalds (left to right) fill out withdraw forms to get back their portion of the bailout funds handed out to Chase Bank.

One of the principal organizers of the march was David Johnson, host of the Illinois Labor Hour on WEFT, 90.1. He holds up his withdrawal form.

Members of the GEO joined in the march, among them organizer Aaron Johnson-Ortiz. Here he leads a chant, referencing the Chase bank advertisement, "Get Your Cash Back. We Want Our Cash Back."

Demonstraters left the bank just in time before Champaign police finally showed up.

Man holds sign denouncing modern day robber barons.

(No subject)

Excellent photo collection, and grand occupation!

Thanks for the memories. Nationalize!


I'm tracking madia coverage of the OCCUPY actions. Right now, I'm halfway convinced that MSNBC, our national progressive outlet, is up to tricks. Right after the big assembly in NYC they held coverage to a minimum and emphasized a tailgate party they held in Atlanta for a football game. Subsequently, they continue the southern theme with guests out of southern culture. Furthermore, 10/10, they report govenment data on national loss of income in terms of component losses and never get around to stating that people's income has declined by one hair short of 10% since 2007. If these are tactics they are tactics of distraction and obfuscation. Stay tuned...

Take real action...

It seems to me that if half the energy people are putting into the "Occupy" movement were put into educating individuals about personal responsibility and money management, we may actually see some change.  Yes, Chase got a bailout, but it's not Chase Bank's fault that people buy houses they cannot afford.  Last year there was a story on NPR in which a New York Times reporter was complaining because he was given a loan for a $500,000 house.  He made about $100,000K/year and paid $1000/month in child support.  It's pretty well published anywhere one looks for information about buying a house that one typically cannot afford a house more than 2.5times his salary, and that's assuming there are few other debts and expenses.  Yes, the mortgage broker should not have given him the loan, but why is no one blaming this individual for borrowing more than he can afford??  Why is everything someone else's fault?  There are many people suffering and legitimately so, but until individuals take some responsibility for their own actions and decisions, we are never going to move forward as a country. 

I especially like the "Tax the Rich" sign- the the richest 1% pay 90% of the taxes in this country.  They pay more total as well as a higher percentage.  I am comfortably middle class, living within my means.  Sure, I wish I could travel more, but I can't afford to.  So, when my neighbor gets forclosed on after running up credit card after credit card on expensive vacations, it's difficult to blame corporations. 






Knocking Over...

your own strawman is not "real action."

Perhaps you've been hypnotized by Faux News? Then you need to do more research about the lives of real folks, struggling to survive the vicious vicissitudes imposed on working people in the US by corporations and their DC lackeys:



If you're truely in the

If you're truely in the middle class, i believe this is called hegemony.

The Guys in the 1% Brought This On

by Barbara Ehrenreich

At the risk of being pedantic, let me point out that “99% versus 1%” is not a class analysis, not in any respectable sociological sense. Shave off the top 1% and you’re still left with some awfully steep divides of wealth, income and opportunity. The 99% includes the ordinary rich, for example, who may lack private jets but do have swimming pools and second homes. It also includes the immigrant workers who mow their lawns and clean their houses for them. This is not a class. It’s just the default category left after you subtract the billionaires.

_MG_9733photo: Runs With Scissors

Some of the diversity of the 99% is clearly on display at the variations occupations around the country. I’ve seen occupiers who look like they picked up their camping skills on vacations in the national parks, as well as those who normally make their homes on the streets, even when they’re not protesting. Occupy Wall Street has attracted contingents of airplane pilots, electricians and construction workers -– the latter often from the new World Trade Center being built a block away. You’ll also find schoolteachers, professors, therapists, office workers and, of course, the usual crusty punks of indistinct provenance and profession. In Washington, I met one occupier wearing a crisp blue dress shirt and a tie emblazoned with tiny elephants. He said he was a Republican, a lawyer, and he’d had enough.

Then there are the poorest of the poor – the unemployed, the foreclosed upon, the chronically homeless. In Los Angeles, traditional residents of Skid Row have begun to join the occupation encampment. When about 150 people met to plan their local occupation in a union hall in Fort Wayne earlier this week, they solicited advice from already-homeless people in the crowd, who had first-hand experience of where the police are most heavy-handed and where you’re most likely to find a nutritious dumpster or a public toilet. For the homeless, joining an occupation brings instant upward mobility: free food -- not entirely vegan, I have been relieved to discover -- and, in some cases, Port-a-potties and the rudiments of medical care.

The evident poverty of so many of the occupiers has left the right sputtering for apt denunciations. In the ’60s, neoconservative intellectuals looked at student protesters and saw the political avant-garde of a “new class” or “liberal elite,” bent on taking power and imposing their own twisted combination of sexual libertarianism and Soviet-style Communism. The neocons accused the protestors of being the privileged, “spoiled” children of a “permissive” upper middle class, and utterly alien to salt-of-the-earth working class Americans. There was just enough truth to this accusation to make a few of us young radicals flinch.

I saw one community organizing effort crash on the class divide between earnest Marxist professors, who thought meetings were a good site for “political education,” and blue collar recruits who thought meetings should be social occasions adequately lubricated with alcohol. In the ’70s, Minneapolis was the site of the “twinkie wars,” in which a food co-op was torn apart between the conflicting demands of working class omnivores and middle class organic purists. At the absolute nadir of New Left-working class relations, in 1970, 200 union construction workers attacked a student anti-war protest near Wall Street—not far from where construction workers now take lunch breaks with the protesters in Zuccotti Park.

For decades, as Tom Frank and others have documented, the right exulted in its clever diagnosis: Anyone who raises his or her voice on behalf the downtrodden is in fact an “elitist.” “Real” Americans loyally align themselves with the wealthy and their corporations. And, at least for a couple of years, the Tea Party seemed to make the fantasy come true. Although heavily funded by billionaires and thickly populated by prosperous suburban business owners, the Tea Party did manage to attract some representatives of the unemployed and uninsured, like the financially shaky California man I interviewed in 2009 who told me he would happily forgo health insurance if that’s what he had to do to “stop socialism.”

But today, even the college-educated among the occupiers no longer fit the sloppiest notion of an “elite.” This is the student debt generation, which graduated with five- to six-figure dollar debts and no jobs in sight –- people like thirty-three-year-old Cryn Johannsen, who has MA’s from both Brown and the University of Chicago and now works as an unpaid full-time “warrior for the indentured educated class.” Forty years ago, someone with Cryn’s credentials would be settling into a tenure track academic job, complete with health insurance and maybe even a housing subsidy. When I first met her about two years ago, she was working as a sales clerk in a department store. Now she lives with her in-laws and hustles for bits of money to keep her on the road, organizing occupations.

The class contours of American society (and no doubt Greek and Irish and many others as well) have been redrawn since the last great outbreak of mass protest in the ’60s. True, a college education still offers a lifetime earnings advantage; the unemployed lawyer faces a brighter future than the laid-off sanitation and call center workers she confers with at an occupation encampment’s general assembly. But the parts of the middle class once lumped together by the right as a “liberal elite” have been severely eroded, its core occupations go underfunded and exploited. Promising young academics end up as adjuncts earning near the minimum wage; social workers face starting pay in the neighborhood of $12 an hour; lawyers from non-Ivy League law schools may find themselves toiling in basement “legal sweatshops.”

So the “99% versus the 1%” theme is beginning to look like an acute class analysis after all, and it’s the guys in the 1% who made it so. Over the years, they have systematically hollowed out the space around them: destroying the industrial working class with the outsourcings and plant closures of the ’80s, turning on white collar managers in the downsizing wave of the ’90s, clearing large swathes of the middle class with the credit schemes of the ’00’s—the trick mortgages and till-death-do-we-part student loans.

In the ’60s we dreamed of uniting people of all races and collar colors into “one big working class.” But it took the billionaires to make it happen.

Barbara Ehrenreich

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of This Land Is Their Land: Reports from a Divided Nation.  She won the 2004 Puffin/Nation Prize. Her seventeenth book, Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America (Metropolitan Books), has just been published. Her bestselling book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, 10th Anniversary Edition, has just been released by Picador Books.


In Praise of Hippies

In Praise of Hippies

by Abby Zimet

A cogent rant in response to the right-wing meme that the Occupy movement is just hippies, which is nonsense, but still...

Let me tell you something about hippies. Hippies didn't export anyone's jobs, hippies didn't lie us into an immoral war, hippies didn't conspire to steal anyone's pension funds, hippies didn't order anyone tortured, hippies didn't steal so much that it crashed the economy of the entire world, and hippies don't go on national tv and spew propaganda for a very nice living.

So go ahead and blame hippies for everything...as if they had ruled us for decades. We should be so lucky. But we weren't that lucky - not by a long shot. Instead, we got you.

So if the hippies have some advice for you Wall Street assholes, maybe you should listen. You could do worse. You did do worse. You did a lot worse.

No. You and your minions in Congress and elsewhere turned your backs on responsibility. You abandoned the people and sold your souls to the highest bidders. Consequences be damned.

We just may save the planet from assholes like you.

Pay With Cash

I'd like to see these groups urging people to PAY WITH CASH. Financial institutions are imposing an unlegislated tax of 3-6% on retail sales now that virtually everyone pays with debit or credit cards. When we pay with cash, we deprive the megabanks of their 3-6% cut, we help the merchants we patronize, and we are more likely to act in a financially responsible manner.

PAY WITH CASH should be the mantra of these groups.

You can't in Louisiana

I just read yesterday that Louisiana passed a law banning the use of cash to purchase second hand goods. Some gobble-de-gook about trying to make a paper trail in order to recover stolen property. It seemed like a total load of shit to me.

Tax the rich?

That was the same slogan used to usher in the IRS which is really a collection agency for the PRIVATE Federal Reserve System system.

Back in 1913 it was all about "taxing the rich" and guess where we are at now? Most of the middle class gives up nearly HALF their pay in taxes. The super rich like the Rockefeller family (who owns Chase bank btw) STILL pay no taxes. Don't you get it, the super rich OWN this country, THEY MAKE THE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR, and you are going to call higher taxes on them for the money they print? LOL. No my friends, they will take the tax the rich slogans and twist them around to crush the middle class even more. That's what they are good at doing, and do it they will.

If you don't understand how the federal reserve system works, and how fractional reserve banking works, and what a massive scam it is, you have no business calling for higher taxes on anybody. Period.

The IRS is not there to collect taxes to pay for government services, most of the money that pays for those services are BORROWED from these same scam banks like Chase, or they sell bonds to pay for them. Your taxes goes to pay the interest on borrowed money (borrowed from banks like Chase). Get EDUCATED about these things, I recommend watching Bill Still's excellent documentary, The Secret of Oz, you can watch it on youtube.

The Corporatocracy is the 1%

by Carl Gibson

In October of 2003 Steve Jobs first learned that he had pancreatic cancer. His doctors and family members urged, even pleaded with him to have surgery, but he opted instead to try alternative and natural remedies. It was a decision he would later regret. America is faced with a similar dilemma.

Recently, an article by Llewellyn Rockwell, a former Ron Paul chief of staff, antagonized the federal government elite as the “1 percent” that’s wronged the other 99% of Americans. Rockwell eschews the “impoverishing…taxes, regimentation” of the state while encouraging the Occupy movement to leave the other 1 percent alone—CEOs and bankers— as they are “Some of the smartest, most innovative people in the country.”

Rockwell’s writing has some truth to it. The federal government is certainly complicit in the oppression of the 99%. And the people are rightly upset. Congressional approval is now in the single digits, which is the lowest in recorded history for CBS/New York Times pollsters. The Federal Reserve’s first audit showed trillions in secret bailouts to the same Wall Street banks foreclosing on our homes and laying off thousands, as well as trillions in bailouts to banks outside of the United States. And if that wasn’t enough, it appears that the Fed is letting Bank of America dump $74 trillion in derivatives into taxpayer-insured FDIC accounts. President Obama’s support for Occupy Wall Street seems hollow when such rampant greed and corruption is allowed to continue under the nose of our supposed regulators.

But antagonizing the state as the sole culprit for our grievances is disingenuous. The state enables the unrestrained greed of corporate and financial titans to push millions into poverty worldwide. Toothless agencies, staffed with former executives of the companies they’re supposed to be regulating, were complicit in the BP oil disaster by letting the companies write their own rules. Corporations are now breaking apart pieces of the Earth’s mantle to draw natural gas, free to pollute water supplies without fear of government regulation. President Obama’s re-election team just hired a senior adviser who formerly lobbied for TransCanada—the same company pushing the White House to approve their Keystone XL oil pipeline that would pillage the land for oil destined for other countries. Even Sen. Dick Durbin admits that banks "frankly own the place." Our government has become a subsidiary of industry.

The truth in Rockwell’s piece lies in his description of the corporate 1 percent that he praises as “smart and innovative.” Indeed, these men are smart, but their intelligence should be seen as cold and calculating, not praised. Corporations don’t care about helping America succeed. Corporations as they exist now exist solely for profit, not public good. If the government stands in the way of their profit potential, they can legally purchase new politicians through unlimited, undisclosed campaign donations. If the salaries of their employees or even the planet stand in the way, they’ll eliminate them to appease an economic system that values unsustainable growth over all else. This system of collusion and oppression is why Americans of all colors and backgrounds are occupying.

In a recent segment on Democracy Now!, Glenn Greenwald noted that mere legislative demands from Occupiers would be insufficient to address the grievances of the 99 percent taking the world by storm. If Congress is so rife with corruption that they’ll even vote down creating 300,000 jobs for teachers and first responders to protect millionaires from even a .05% tax increase, then the system is beyond saving through conventional means. The real battle must be waged nonviolently in the streets, even in the face of excessive oppression by an emerging police state.

The cancer eating America alive right now is a corporatocracy where cozy relationships between the power elite dictate policy for the 99%. Americans must surgically remove the corporate cancer from government through direct action and the voting booth, and cultivate new leaders from within the movement. When the people lead, our leaders will have no choice but to follow.

Carl Gibson is the co-founder of US Uncut, a grassroots movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share. He lives in Jackson, Mississippi where, among other things he works as a bouncer at the Club Bottoms Up.

End of the Reagan Narrative?

Exclusive: Election 2012 may turn on whether Ronald Reagan’s narrative of evil government and beneficent tax cuts for the rich has finally run its course – and has been replaced by a new narrative demanding government intervention to save the American middle-class, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

As yet another statue of Ronald Reagan is unveiled – a $1 million one at Washington’s National Airport which was renamed in his honor in the mid-1990s – the key question about the 40th president is whether his long and destructive era is finally coming to an end.

More than any other political figure, it was Ronald Reagan who put America on its present course toward stunning income inequality and into a brave new world of deregulated industries, which were then able to exploit lax government controls to devastate the economy.

Ronald Reagan statue at National Airport

It was Reagan who experimented with “supply side economics” which held that slashing the top marginal tax rates for the rich by half or more would eliminate the federal deficit and supposedly help everyone by letting the extra money at the top trickle down.

It was Reagan who declared that “government is the problem” and convinced many middle-class Americans – especially white men – that they should despise “big government” as a threat to their liberty and trust their financial security to the kindness, wisdom and generosity of corporate chieftains.

It was Reagan who demanded a massive reinvestment in the U.S. military, even as America’s principal adversary, the Soviet Union, was in rapid decline. Reagan also allied the United States with some of the world’s most brutal regimes and insurgent movements, as long as they identified themselves as “anti-communist.”

It also was Reagan who transformed the Republican Party into a political organization disdainful of science and empiricism – and devoted to retaining its power at almost any price. For Reagan and his P.R. team, the goal was always “perception management,” controlling how average Americans saw the world, not how it actually was. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History.]

Though it may be true that the current crop of Republicans is even more extreme than Reagan, that is mostly because today’s GOPers have dropped the few nuances that Reagan retained because of the political constraints that he faced. Three decades into Reagan’s transformation of America, the Right’s accumulated power has allowed the embrace of even more radical positions.

As an implicit acknowledgement of Reagan’s continued spell over the U.S. population, Democrats often try to find some common ground with the beloved Gipper, often using the phrase “even Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have gone that far.” But the truth is that Reagan composed the political music that today’s Republican Party plays.

The personable Reagan was the Pied Piper who led middle-class Americans dancing happily toward their own oblivion. Without him, it is hard to envision why so many downwardly mobile Americans would rally to the Tea Party and its demands for lower taxes on the already rich and fewer regulations on today’s corporate masters of the universe.

When the only realistic way to restrain the immense power of the rich and the corporations is through a democratized and energized federal government, Reagan’s memory instead inspires the Tea Party and many typical Americans to demand that government get out of the way.

Beginning of the End?

Yet, the question today is whether the days of Reagan’s enduring narrative are finally coming to a close. Has the Occupy Wall Street movement, which protests the gross economic inequality that Reaganism wrought, eclipsed the Reaganesque Tea Party?

The OWS narrative is that Reagan’s (and George W. Bush’s) tax cuts for the rich – and the deregulation of Wall Street (that had bipartisan support) – greased the skids for the nation sliding into the current swamp of concentrated wealth at the top and a shrinking middle-class.

Though the “Occupy” activists have so far shunned laying out specific policy recommendations, they have hoisted signs that demand that the coddling of corporations end, that the rich pay their fair share, and that the United States commit itself to becoming a more equitable society.

That goal can only be achieved by redistributing some of that concentrated wealth, by rebuilding the middle-class and by restoring jobs that disappeared over the past few decades as U.S. corporations either sought cheaper labor abroad or boosted productivity by replacing manpower with machines.

Reagan – and the “free-marketers” who followed him – encouraged these trends by incentivizing greed via sharply lower income taxes for the rich and by negotiating “free trade” agreements with low-wage countries.

Suddenly, the wealthy – who had seen about 70 percent of their top tranche of income recycled back into America society through income taxes – were getting to keep more than twice as much under Reagan-era reductions in the progressive tax rates. That prompted corporate chieftains to push for much higher pay for themselves, since they could keep much more of it, even as they took steps to hold down the pay of their employees.

To jack-up profits even more, U.S.-based companies shipped millions of factory jobs overseas. And, as capital gains taxes were slashed, too, investors kept even more money than those who earned their pay from work, explaining why multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffett could pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The consequences on the United States from these three decades under various forms of Reaganomics (including the neo-liberalism of Bill Clinton and the full Reagan restoration under George W. Bush) are now apparent: massive federal debt for the public sector and major concentrations of wealth in the private sector.

These twin factors have fed two competing political movements: one, identified with the Tea Party, demands sharp cuts in government spending on domestic programs and even fewer regulations on business, and the other, associated with Occupy Wall Street, implicitly favors higher taxes on the rich to fund jobs – and tighter government controls on reckless gambling by the banks.

The danger for the Republicans is that they have gone pretty much all in with the Tea Party. Some top Republicans are even advocating raising income taxes on the poor and middle-class in order to fund more tax cuts for the rich.

So, if the momentum shifts from the Tea Party side to the Occupy Wall Street side, Republicans could find themselves caught in a dangerous crosscurrent. They must hope that the Reagan narrative – hostile to government and favorable to the rich – isn’t swept away before the November 2012 elections.

On the other hand, it is less clear that the Democrats will benefit substantially from a more anti-corporate tide, since they have done their best over the past several decades to muddy the waters regarding their differences with Reaganism, not wanting to be labeled “tax-and-spenders” or “anti-business.”

Still, as careful as many Democrats have been to stay in the middle of the mainstream, President Barack Obama and others have at least offered some limited proposals for raising taxes on the rich to pay for infrastructure investments and other jobs programs. That could put them in position to be pulled along by a favorable public current.

As imperfect a test as Election 2012 is sure to be, it seems likely to offer some measure of whether the Reagan narrative has finally run its course.

[For more on related topics, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Reagan’s Greed Is Good Folly” and “How Greed Destroys America” or Robert Parry’s Lost History, Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep, now available in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29. For details, click here.]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.


Tax the rich again

I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how Rockefeller and other bankers like him, WHO CAN MAKE THEIR OWN MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR - LOL - are going to be taxed. Of course his friends like Warren Buffet, Gates et al, are not going to be impacted by these "tax the rich" strategies,

Buffet, Rockefeller and Gates own absolutely nothing in the US. Everything they "own" is in charitable foundations. As rich as they are, they are penniless under the tax laws. And everything else offshored in highly hidden accounts in Luxemburg and other places. Of course they support "taxing the rich" because under the tax laws they are penniless, and all that tax money is going to them anyway to pay interest on local, state, and national debt which THEY mostly own.

Back to taxing Rockefeller (Chase bank owner)... well he can print up his own money to pay the tax, or more realistically fudge interest rates and make asset prices fall, then buy those assets, fudge the interest rates again causing the asset prices to rise again, then use the difference to pay the tax? (Of course his capital gains tax free because his charitable foundations will be doing the buying and selling how do you think these fat cat bankers managed to become trillionaires, they control the whole market and have all the inside info and deals because they control the rates and know where they are going).

Is anyone aware that the IRS was created the same year the PRIVATE Federal Reserve system was? Why was that? Simple, they are the collection agency for the private bankers who own the Federal Reserve System. Everyone was mad at the banks like they are today, because of bank panics like the panic of 1907. The slogan on signs in 1913? "Tax the Rich" and who pays the taxes today? The middle class. Now, mind you, people were much more intelligent in 1913 than they are today. There was no TV to make people stupid, no fluoride in the water. People were much better read, more street smart. If they could be suckered then by these bankers with their "tax the rich" bait and scam, what makes you think people are going to avoid that trap today?

Who's Scamming Who?

So, the fact that people have been dumb enough to tolerate letting the rich set tax policy for much of the last century has nothing to do with the fact that taxing the rich has been less than effective at times?

That's what the rich really fear -- that someone other than them will be calling the shots.

BTW, when tax rates were highest on the wealthy, i.e. during and after the New Deal until the Kennedy era, the American economy produced both its highest rates of growth and its most equitable income distribution. Unrelated? I don't think so.

But I'm sure you have some ridiculous conspiracy theory to explain that, if one only squints hard enough to see it. But really, who needs that when the rich can now legally buy whatever government tax policy they want?

That's why the system needs to change. And it will, so keep working those hands like Mr. Burns...it's helps with the nervous energy that comes with trying to come up with alternative explanations for the manifestly obvious -- when you let the rich make the rules, they'll make them in their own interest.

Conspiracy theory?

The rich, and I mean the REAL rich, people like Rockefeller, Warburgs, Rothschilds - don't have to "buy" anything. They MAKE the money out of thin air, and control monetary policy.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. Research it yourself.

You are planning on taxing people who can make their own money, yet charge you interest to use it? LOL good luck with that. If you are going to do that, at least be fair and allow EVERYONE to make counterfeit money to pay their taxes with lol.

Go ahead and change the system. And when you hand reins of power over to the new people don't be surprised when you get beat over the head just as hard if not more savagely than those who had it before. Think Obama here. Hope and Change? LOL well you got your change all right. More of the same with more wars to boot.

You can't ever fix anything with the same level of consciousness that allowed the problems to occur in the first place. Stop thinking everything that goes against the grain of right-left paradigm limits of debate as a conspiracy theory and increase your awareness of things like fractional reserve banking. Stop the crushing taxes on everyone, stop using these banks, stop trusting people like Obama, start learning about natural law, learn about occult (btw most of these super rich elites are dark occultists - learn how these people think). You'd be amaze at the scope of knowledge you'd gain.

Post new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer