This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Here he goes again, cap in hand, begging for the alms of war. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been touring the United States, continuing his lengthy salesmanship for Ukraine’s ongoing military efforts against Russia. The theme is familiar and constantly reiterated: the United States must continue to back Kyiv in its rearguard action for civilisation in the face of Russian barbarism. By attempting, not always convincingly, to universalise his country’s plight, Zelenskyy hopes to keep some lustre on an increasingly fading project.
The Ukrainian president has succeeded most brazenly in getting himself, and the war effort, into the innards of the US presidential election. In doing so, he has become an unabashed campaigner for the Democrats and the Kamala Harris ticket while offering uncharitable views about the Republicans. (Electoral interference, anyone?) The Republican contender, Donald Trump, had good reason to make the following observation about Zelenskyy: “Every time he comes into the country he walks away with $60 billion … he wants them [the Democrats] to win this election so badly.”
Even as a lame duck president, Joe Biden could still be wooed to advance another aid package. This seemed to be done, as the White House records, on threadbare details about Zelenskyy’s “plan to achieve victory over Russia.” According to the readout, diplomatic, economic and military aspects of the plan were discussed. “President Biden is determined to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to win.”
Detail was also scarce in a briefing given by White House national security spokesperson John Kirby. Zelenskyy’s plan to end the war “contains a series of initiatives and steps and objectives that [he] believes will be important”.
In a statement, Biden announced that he had directed the Department of Defense to allocate the rest of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds by the end of the year along with US$5.5 billion in Presidential Drawdown Authority. The US$2.4 billion from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative is intended to supply Ukraine “with additional air defense, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and air-to-ground ammunitions, as well as strengthen Ukraine’s defense industrial base and support its maintenance and sustainment requirements.”
In terms of materiel, an additional Patriot air defence battery is to be furnished to Ukraine’s air defences, along with additional Patriot missiles. Training for Ukrainian F-16 pilots is to be expanded. The air-to-ground Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), colloquially known as glide bombs, will also be supplied.
Ukraine’s fate is being annexed to the US election campaign, with the Ukrainian president keen to make his own boisterous intervention in the election. On September 22, Zelenskyy paid a visit to a military facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania. It was calculated for maximum effect. The facility is not only responsible for manufacturing some of the equipment being used in the war against Russia, notably 155-millimeter howitzer rounds, but is a crucial state for the presidential contenders. On hand to join him was a full coterie of Democrats: Gov. Josh Shapiro, Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Representative Matt Cartwright (D-8th District)
Harris is clear that any administration she leads will see no deviation from current policy. Peace proposals were to be scoffed at, while prospects for a Ukrainian victory had to be seriously entertained. Stopping shy of playing the treason card in remarks made on September 26, Harris claimed that there were those “in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations.” And such types had endorsed “proposals” identical to “those of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”
That message of sanctimonious chest beating was also embraced by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who could only see Zelenskyy as a fighter “for freedom and the rule of law on behalf of democracies around the world” while “Trump and his craven MAGA followers side time and again with Vladimir Putin,” one responsible for a “filthy imperialist and irredentist invasion.” Clearly, the Zelenskyy promotions tour has exercised some wizardry.
The full soldering of Ukrainian matters to US electoral politics has received a frosty response from various Republicans. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) demanded nothing less than Zelenskyy’s dismissal of the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova. “Ambassador Markarova organised an event in which you toured an American manufacturing site.” The tour took place “in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris, and failed to include a single Republican because – on purpose – no Republicans were invited.”
Those on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, seething at Zelenskyy’s electoral caper, have launched an investigation into the possibility that taxpayer funds had been misused to the benefit of the Harris presidential campaign. Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), in a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, noted that, as the Department of Justice was “highly focused on combatting electoral interference, the Committee requests DOJ review the Biden-Harris Administration’s coordination with the Ukrainian government regarding President Zelensky’s itinerary while in America.”
Comer could not resist a pertinent reminder that the Democrats had made much the same charge against Trump while in office in 2019. That occasion also featured Zelenskyy, only that time, the accusation was that Trump had used him “to benefit his 2020 presidential campaign, despite a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump.”
GOP dissatisfaction is far from unreasonable. Zelenskyy’s sojourn is nothing less than a sustained effort at electoral meddling, the sort of thing that normally turns US exceptionalists into rabid hyenas complaining of virtue despoiled. Only this time, there are politicians and officials in freedom’s land happy to tolerate and even endorse it. At stake is a war to prolong.
The post Zelenskyy Joins the US Election first appeared on Dissident Voice.
This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Amnesty International and was authored by Amnesty International.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Nathan Ryder raises livestock and grows vegetables on 10 acres of pasture in Golconda, Illinois with his wife and three kids. They also live in a food desert; the local grocery store closed a few months ago, and the closest farmers market is at least 45 miles away, leaving their community struggling to access nutritious food.
Opening another supermarket isn’t the answer. The U.S. government has spent the last decade investing millions to establish them in similar areas, with mixed results. Ryder thinks it would be better to expand federal assistance programs to make them more available to those in need, allowing more people to use those benefits at local farms like his own.
Expanding the reach of the nation’s small growers and producers could be a way to address growing food insecurity, he said, a problem augmented by inflation and supply chains strained by climate change. “It’s a great opportunity, not only to help the bottom-line of local farmers, instead of some of these giant commodity food corporations … but to [help people] buy healthy, wholesome foods,” said Ryder.
That is just one of the solutions that could be codified into the 2024 farm bill, but it isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. The deadline to finalize the omnibus bill arrives Monday, and with lawmakers deadlocked along partisan lines, it appears likely that they will simply extend the current law for at least another year.
Congress has been here before. Although the farm bill is supposed to be renewed every five years, legislators passed a one-year extension of the 2018 policy last November after struggling to agree on key nutrition and conservation facets of the $1.5 trillion-dollar spending package.
Extensions and delays have grave implications, because the farm bill governs many aspects of America’s food and agricultural systems. It covers everything from food assistance programs and crop subsidies to international food aid and even conservation measures. Some of them, like crop insurance, are permanently funded, meaning any hiccups in the reauthorization timeline do not impact them. But others, such as beginning farmer and rancher development grants and local food promotion programs, are entirely dependent upon the appropriations within the law. Without a new appropriation or an extension of the existing one, some would shut down until the bill is reauthorized. If Congress fails to act before Jan. 1, several programs would even revert to 1940s-era policies with considerable impacts on consumer prices for commodities like milk.
After nearly a century of bipartisanship, negotiations over recent farm bills have been punctuated by partisan stalemates. The main difference this time around is that a new piece is dominating the Hill’s political chessboard: The election. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen before the election, which puts a lot of teeth-gnashing and hair-wringing into hand,” said Ryder. He is worried that a new administration and a new Congress could result in a farm bill that further disadvantages small farmers and producers. “It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure novel right now. Which way is this farm bill going to go?”
The new president will bring their own agricultural policy agenda to the job, which could influence aspects of the bill. And, of course, whoever sits in the Oval Office can veto whatever emerges from Congress. (President Obama threatened to nix the bill House Republicans put forward in 2013 because it proposed up to $39 billion in cuts to food benefits.) Of even greater consequence is the potential for a dramatically different Congress. Of the 535 seats in the House and Senate, 468 are up for election. That will likely lead to renewed negotiations among a new slate of lawmakers, a process further complicated by the pending retirement of Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the Democratic chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Although representatives are ramping up pressure on Congressional leadership to enact a new farm bill before this Congress reaches the end of its term, there is a high chance all of this will result in added delays, if not require an entirely new bill to be written.
That has profound implications for consumers already struggling with rising prices and farmers facing the compounding pressures of consolidation, not to mention efforts to remake U.S. food systems to mitigate, and adapt to, a warming world, said Rebecca Wolf, a senior food policy analyst with Food & Water Watch. (The nonprofit advocates for policies that ensure access to safe food, clean water, and a livable climate.) “The farm bill has a really big impact on changing the kind of food and farm system that we’re building,” said Wolf.
Still, Monday’s looming deadline is somewhat arbitrary — lawmakers have until the end of the calendar year to pass a bill, because most key programs have already been extended through the appropriations cycle. But DeShawn Blanding, who analyzes food and environment policy for the science nonprofit the Union of Concerned Scientists, finds the likelihood of that happening low. He expects to see negotiations stretch into next year, and perhaps into 2026. “Congress is much more divided now,” he said.
The House Agriculture committee passed a draft bill in May, but the proposal has not reached the floor for a vote because of negotiating hang-ups. Meanwhile, the Senate Agriculture committee has yet to introduce a bill, although the chamber’s Democrats and Republicans have introduced frameworks that reflect their agendas. Given the forthcoming election and higher legislative priorities, like funding the government before December 20, the last legislative day on the congressional calendar, “it’s a likelihood that this could be one of the longest farm bills that we’ve had,” Blanding said.
As is often the case, food assistance funding is among the biggest points of contention. SNAP and the Thrifty Food Plan, which determines how much a household receives through SNAP, have remained two of the biggest sticking points, with Democrats and Republicans largely divided over how the program is structured and funded. The Republican-controlled House Agriculture committee’s draft bill proposed the equivalent of nearly $30 billion in cuts to SNAP by limiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ability to adjust the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, used to set SNAP benefits. The provision, supported by Republicans, met staunch opposition from Democrats who have criticized the plan for limiting benefits during an escalating food insecurity crisis.
The farm bill “was supposed to be designed to help address food insecurity and the food system at large and should boost and expand programs like SNAP that help do that,” said Blanding, which becomes all the more vital as climate change continues to dwindle food access for many Americans. Without a new farm bill, “we’re stuck with what [food insecurity] looked like in 2018, which is not what it looks like today in 2024.”
Nutrition programs governed by the current law were designed to address pre-pandemic levels of hunger in a world that had not yet crossed key climate thresholds. As the crisis of planetary warming deepens, fueling crises that tend to deepen existing barriers to food access in areas affected, food programs authorized in the farm bill are “an extraordinarily important part of disaster response,” said Vince Hall, chief government relations officer at the nonprofit Feeding America. “The number of disasters that Feeding America food banks are asked to respond to each year is only increasing with extreme weather fueled by climate change.”
That strain is making it more critical than ever that Congress increase funding for programs like the Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP. Its Farm to Food Bank Project Grants, established under the 2018 law, underwrites projects that enable the nation’s food banks to have a supply of fresh food produced by local farmers and growers. It must be written into the new bill or risk being phased out.
David Toledo, an urban farmer in Chicago, used to work with a local food pantry and community garden that supplies fresh produce to neighborhoods that need it. To Toledo, the farm bill is a gateway to solutions to the impacts of climate change on the accessibility of food in the U.S. He wants to see lawmakers put aside politics and pass a bill for the good of the people they serve.
“With the farm bill, what is at stake is a healthy nation, healthy communities, engagements from farmers and rising farmers. And I mean, God forbid, but the potential of seeing a lot more hunger,” Toledo said. “It needs to pass. It needs to pass with bipartisan support. There’s so much at the table right now.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The election could shape the future of America’s food system on Sep 27, 2024.
This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Ayurella Horn-Muller.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by The Intercept.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
The 2014 Umbrella Movement was a 79-day pro-democracy civil disobedience campaign in Hong Kong. The protesters, many of whom were teenagers and university students, used umbrellas as protection from police pepper spray and tear gas, giving the movement its nickname.
Key figures in the movement continued to advocate for democracy in Hong Kong long after the initial protests ended. Here’s what they’re doing now.
NATHAN LAW
Then: Student leader during Umbrella Movement
Now: London-based activist
After 2014
ALEX CHOW
Then: A main organizer of the Occupy Central campaign. Leader of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. Organizer and speaker during Umbrella Movement
Now: U.S.-based activist
After 2014
JOSHUA WONG
Then: Convenor and founder of the Hong Kong student activist group Scholarism
Now: In prison
After 2014
AGNES CHOW
Then: Founding member of Demosisto and former spokesperson of Scholarism.
Now: In exile in Canada
After 2014
BENNY TAI
Then: Occupy Central movement co-founder. University of Hong Kong law professor
Now: In prison
After 2014
REV. CHU YIU-MING
Then: Occupy Central co-founder
Now: In exile in Taiwan
After 2014
CHAN KIN-MAN
Then: Occupy Central co-founder. Sociology professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong
Now: Researcher at Academia Sinica focusing on the Umbrella Movement
After 2014
LESTER SHUM
Then: Deputy leader of Hong Kong Federation of Students
Now: In prison
After 2014
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Written by Paul Nelson, Graphics by Amanda Weisbrod.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Ten years ago, as the streets of Hong Kong pulsed with pro-democracy demonstrations, riot police repeatedly fired pepper spray and tear gas at the crowds that sometimes swelled to more than 100,000.
To protect themselves, protesters held up umbrellas – which became an iconic image of the protests that went viral in local and international media. Yellow became the protest umbrella color for its contrast against the dark clothing of many demonstrators, and the protests became known as the “Umbrella Movement.”
It was the largest show of civil disobedience since control of the former British colony was handed over to China in 1997. Tens of thousands of people, many of them students, camped in the streets and for 11 weeks occupied much of the business district of the city of 7 million people.
What sparked the protests?
The protesters’ main demand was the right to elect the chief executive of Hong Kong, which was promised in the Basic Law, the constitution for post-handover Hong Kong as a “special autonomous region” of China under the “one country, two systems” formula that gave the city some autonomy and the right to retain its system for 50 years.
Small protests over the lack of movement on candidate selection had been increasing when, on Aug. 31, 2014, China’s parliament decreed that elections in Hong Kong in 2017 would be permitted — from a list of candidates pre-approved by Beijing and nominated by a body of business elites and pro-Beijing groups.
The ruling sent people out into the streets banging pots and pans and chanting, and prompted waves of university campus strikes and protests.
Pro-democracy leaders formed plans for a civil disobedience campaign against the decision, releasing a manifesto called “Occupy Central with Love and Peace” and calling for the takeover of streets outside the city’s financial district on Oct. 1, China’s national day.
A fast-moving series of campus protests and actions by student groups to take over city streets led “Occupy Central” to be moved up several days.
People built a protest city of tents and stages that rang out with protest songs while students did homework in camps. Activists and ordinary citizens demonstrated outside government headquarters and occupied city intersections and thoroughfares.
How did umbrellas get involved?
Hong Kong authorities declared the protests illegal and a “violation of the rule of law,” and tensions began to mount.
On the night of Sept. 26 and into the next day, riot police clashed with protesters on the streets, firing pepper spray at them and arresting some. Over subsequent days, protesters began using umbrellas to protect themselves.
“The image is a poignant one, and emphasizes the asymmetry of force: an innocuous household object held up against helmeted police officers wielding poisonous substances for crowd control,” the U.S. publication Quartz wrote.
The first known appearance of the term “umbrella revolution” was in the hashtag #UmbrellaRevolution generated by a news aggregator and circulated with a Sept. 28, 2014, report on the protests in the online edition of the British daily, The Independent.
Use of the hashtag along with eye-catching umbrella photographs spread among Hong Kong journalists and activists. The outpouring of umbrella memes included clever Cantonese puns and word play – and even a meme featuring Chinese paramount leader Xi Jinping holding a yellow umbrella.
Was the Umbrella Movement an example of a “revolution?”
Despite the worldwide sympathy for Hong Kong protesters, campaign leaders were quick to disavow the term “revolution.”
They flatly rejected comparisons to the color revolutions that had seen authoritarian governments in former Soviet republics and elsewhere overthrown, stressing their focus on practical reforms.
“We are not seeking revolution. We just want democracy!” Joshua Wong, a leading figure of the student movement, was quoted by The Washington Post.
“This is not a color revolution,” Lester Shum, the deputy leader of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, told the Post.
Protest leaders warned that talk of revolution would alienate the broader Hong Kong public and give ammunition to Chinese Communist Party leaders who viewed the protests as rebellion and wanted to crush them.
The mainstream Occupy Central campaign agreed on “Umbrella Movement,” but some groups that advocated more aggressive tactics continued to use “Umbrella Revolution.”
The occupation and protests that began on Sept. 26 lasted in pockets of Hong Kong for 79 days, until Dec. 15.
They did not achieve their goal of universal suffrage and Wong, Shum and many protest leaders are in jail, while others have gone into exile to avoid arrest under draconian security and sedition laws.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Paul Eckert for RFA.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Read RFA’s coverage of this in Chinese.
In 2013, former politics lecturer Chan Kin-man, law professor Benny Tai and Rev. Chu Yiu-ming called a news conference to urge people to occupy Hong Kong’s Central business district in a peaceful civil disobedience campaign for fully democratic elections.
Many feared Beijing would not allow it despite promises made during the negotiations for the 1997 handover from Britain.
The following year, the ruling Chinese Communist Party issued a plan on Aug. 31 setting out Beijing’s plan for reforms of the electoral system that would give everyone a vote – but would also ensure that only candidates approved by the government would be allowed to run in elections.
The public backlash amid growing calls for genuine democratic reform took the form of a student strike, camps on major roads, sit-ins, mass rallies of hundreds of thousands of people and an unofficial referendum that came out overwhelmingly in favor of open nominations for electoral candidates.
While the authorities refused to back down, saying there was ‘no room’ for discussion on the electoral rules, police fired tear gas and beat protesters in clashes that began this week 10 years ago.
To protect themselves, demonstrators used umbrellas, and the “Umbrella Movement” was born.
‘Watershed’ moment
Ten years on, Chan, now 65 and living in Taiwan, told RFA Mandarin that the movement — and the authorities’ response — served as a wake-up call to many in Hong Kong who may not previously have considered themselves political at all.
Describing the 2014 movement as a “watershed” for Hong Kong, Chan said it turned his home city from a money-oriented former colony to a society that was willing to take radical action to protect its promised rights and freedoms.
“The Umbrella Movement of 2014 was a watershed,” he said. “It was the first time we had used a so-called illegal method — that of occupation.”
“It was a citizens’ resistance movement, fighting for democracy on a huge scale,” Chan said, adding that an estimated 1.2 million people were involved at some point during the movement.
“People who took part were willing to pay the price of legal action,” he told Radio Free Asia.
“The biggest impact of the pro-democracy movement was on people’s political awakening – people who hadn’t paid much attention to the issue in the past ended up joining in and caring what was happening,” he said.
“The fact that many more people just watched from the sidelines doesn’t mean it didn’t have an impact on them.”
Deeply etched memories
Ten years on, the scenes he witnessed on Hong Kong’s streets remained deeply etched into Chan’s memory.
“I remember seeing one lady at the Occupy site who was very conventionally dressed,” he said. “She didn’t look at all like the protesters.”
“She ran a business near Admiralty, and I started to apologize to her, saying our occupation was likely affecting her business, but she told me never to apologize, and that she wanted to thank me,” Chan recalled.
The woman told Chan that she hadn’t been remotely interested in politics before this happened, but since then she’d started reading more news reports, and she had come to understand why the occupation was happening.
“She started to feel that she had been in the wrong all these years, for not paying much attention to Hong Kong’s political development, and just being focused on making money,” he said. “She felt she was letting the next generation down.”
While the Umbrella Movement did have its critics among those who blamed it for accelerating China’s meddling in the city’s political affairs, Chan said Beijing had left young Hong Kongers with little option but to take to the streets.
“It’s simplistic to look at whether the movement succeeded in changing the system overnight – it managed to mobilize 1.2 million people and continue an occupation for 79 days,” Chan said.
“Not many movements in the history of the world have managed that.”
More militant
And when the movement failed to pressure the authorities into allowing properly democratic elections, it was inevitable that the next round of protests in 2019 would become much more militant, he said.
“When even civil disobedience fails, and there is no way to fight for democracy [under Chinese rule] using peaceful means, there is going to be a move towards localism and militancy,” Chan said. “We warned people about this at the time.”
“Young people were very dissatisfied and impatient, and they were already starting to agitate [for a more radical approach],” he said. “This was a critical movement, but the root cause of it all was the authoritarian approach of the Chinese Communist Party.”
“It was they who forced the people of Hong Kong, bit by bit, down the road to civil disobedience,” Chan said. “The whole thing stems from the fact that the Chinese Communist Party rejects and resists democracy at every turn.”
When protests against plans to allow extradition to mainland China erupted in 2019, Chan was still in prison. By the time he got out in 2020, the National Security Law had already been imposed on the city, ushering in a crackdown on public dissent and peaceful political opposition.
Fleeing to Taiwan
When Benny Tai was arrested alongside dozens of former pro-democracy lawmakers in 2021, Chan fled the city for Taiwan.
He still keeps a close eye on developments there, but is unclear whether resistance of the kind he proposed in 2013 is even an option these days, now that the authorities have two national security laws to use against dissenting voices.
“Overt resistance hasn’t been possible since the National Security Law came out [in 2020], but it’s too early to say whether Hong Kong is dead or not,” he said, citing plummeting turnout figures in recent elections under Beijing’s new, highly restrictive rules.
“A lot of people may still be holding onto their beliefs — the authorities say that this is a form of soft confrontation,” he said of the recent lack of interest in voting.
“But that would mean people haven’t died inside,” Chan said. “And that means there’s still hope.”
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.
The post The Israeli army chief says the military is preparing for a possible ground operation in Lebanon – September 25, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.
This content originally appeared on KPFA – The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.