It’s great to see Democrats talking about freedom again. This is something that Liberals and Progressives should be talking about anyway. Since we created freedom in America. With the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, the national infrastructure system, regulatory state and safety net. Liberals and Progressives, just tend to differ on what freedom is and means. Liberals, tend to be more interested in individual rights and opportunity. Tools that can be used to be able to live in freedom and build a good life for yourself and your family.
Progressives and Social Democrats, tend to be more interested in social welfare rights. The ability to not have to go without. That the basic necessities in life will always be guaranteed. To always be guaranteed education, housing, health care, income, food, health insurance and perhaps some others. That these rights would be guaranteed by the Federal Government, of course. All part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, especially Freedom From Want and his Economic Bill of Rights.
And freedom to me as a Liberal, is the ability for one to live their own life and be completely responsible for their own life. To make their own decisions and live with the consequences for good and bad. To not have government interfere with their economic, or personal affairs. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent people. To have the knowledge and resources to be able to provide for themselves and have the freedom to make their own decisions. Freedom to me, is about tools and power. Where government comes in, is not to make sure everyone is taken care of. And not as FDR put to have the Freedom From Want, but the freedom to control their own destiny in life. Freedom of Self-Determination.
Hillary Clinton on Saturday, will give a huge presidential campaign speech at the FDR Four Freedoms Park in New York. And it will be about her vision for America and why she wants to be President of the United States. At least that is how its being built. And she’ll have the opportunity to start to bring me over to her side, if her speech covers the themes that I just talked about when it comes to what freedom means. And if she talks about she wants an America where all Americans can succeed and have the freedom to take care of themselves and their families and have both economic and personal security and not the freedom to not have to take responsibility for yourself and be taken care of by government, she’ll be able to impress me and bring her to her side.
Then Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Iraq War vote, is just one example of why the Democratic frontrunner for president is not a lock, or slam dunk to win the Democratic nomination. That vote of hers back then when Congress was debating whether or not to give President Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq, is just one example of why she didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2008. And seven years later that vote looks even worst. We’re still there, Iraq is still not able to defend and take care of themselves. ISIS, which was always there, but under different names, now occupies parts of Iraq.
Commander-in-Chief, is the number one responsibility and job of the President of the United States. The President, never gets a break from that and their judgement when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues is always tested. And when you’re on the record as being wrong about perhaps the biggest foreign policy blunder, perhaps since Vietnam, that is going to hurt you. Because it goes to your judgement and goes to your judgement and knowledge about the biggest role that a President, or presidential candidate will ever have. Your judgement and knowledge when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief as President of the United States.
Lincoln Chaffee, has his own issues running for President as a Democrat himself. Being a former Republican, is just one example of that. But he can say when Congress debated and voted on the 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq, he voted the right way. Which was no, as a Senator and he can also say that he was the only Senate Republican to vote no on the Iraq War. Instead of being in a position where he was for the Iraq War when he was a Republican. And now that he’s a Democrat, he’s against it.
We’ll never know the answer to this obviously, but had then Senator Clinton showed some real leadership back in 2002 and said, “we’re simply not ready to go to war in Iraq and we need further study. And Congress needs further information before it makes this decision.” And decided to vote no and had taken Barack Obama seriously in 2007 and bothered to of campaign in Iowa, instead of assuming she would automatically win it, she probably not only wins the Democratic nomination for president, but gets elected president in 2008 as well. But what you do with the ball when it is in your court is the test of leadership in politics and government. How you make the calls and what you decide to do. And when of her Iraq War vote, she didn’t make a very good decision. And it could come back to hurt her again.
I saw this movie when it came out last weekend and not to pat myself on the back or anything, but this movie lays out what I and others have already written about the life of Marilyn Monroe. That she wasn’t a blonde bimbo who only had these goddess features and personality going for her. That there was real substance and talent and even intelligence there. But that she was immature, irresponsible and I would add overly adorable. That even by the time she died at the age of thirty-six, still only looked and acted half her age.
Kelli Garner, who not only played Marilyn and was the official star of the movie, but she was the star of this movie in actuality as well. She had Marilyn down cold and looked and played the part so well, that only Marilyn could’ve played herself better. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, does a very good Joe DiMaggio and they do a very good job of showing the hot and cold on and off relationship and short-lived marriage between Marilyn and Joe D. And they do a very good job showing how Marilyn was raised. Never knowing her father and her father never being part of her life. Her mother, never being mentally capable of taking care of Marilyn. And spends her life in and out of institutions.
Marilyn, certainly had an interesting childhood. But she had family and people around her who cared about her and were always there for her. So I don’t think other than her biological mother not really being there for her for a lot of her childhood and her father being out of the picture the whole time, that you can blame how Marilyn was raised for how she turned out. As far as an immature young women, who mentally was a teenage girl, not in knowledge, or intelligence, but in maturity and responsibility. Because she did have an adopted mother who loved her and raised her pretty well.
If you like bio pics and are interested in Hollywood, especially from the past that you might not be as familiar with as you are with modern Hollywood and the entertainers from the past and you’re interested in and even a fan of Marilyn Monroe, as I am, this is a very good movie and worth seeing. Worth the three-hours without the commercials to spend watching this movie. Kelli Garner, has Marilyn down and they cover most if not Marilyn’s whole career and do a very good job of that. This is a very good movie.
I agree with Eric Schnurer that the private sector should be involved in fighting poverty in America. Things like grants and subsidies to train low-income low-skilled adults who either work for them, or are currently not working. Things like community job training centers, that would be privately run and owned and business training seminars, that would also be privately run and owned. But we need to get liberally pro-active in how we assist people in poverty in America. Whether they are currently working, or not.
Instead of just giving people in poverty whether they are working or not public assistance, to help them get by while they are still in poverty and then declaring victory, because these low-income low-skilled adults have these funds to help them pay their bills, we shouldn’t declare victory until they no longer need the public assistance all together. And are working with a good job and able to pay their own bills and paying into the programs that they once collected from.
The 1996 Welfare to Work Law has been a success and that is the approach we should take from, but go even further with it. That if you’re working and on public assistance, that finishing you’re education becomes a requirement to receive the public assistance that you’re getting. So you’re working and going to school and getting assistance in order to go to school. Financial assistance for your education and whatever childcare the person may need as well.
That if you’re on Welfare and not working and are low-skilled, but you at least have your high school diploma, or GED, you’re going to work even at a low-income job as soon as possible. And finishing your education as well with the financial assistance and childcare you would need to do those things. And leave Welfare, will you would still be eligible for the other public assistance benefit as a low-income worker. So we’re training and empowering people on Welfare to be able to get themselves off of Welfare and move to the middle class instead.
We need to move pass social insurance and the concept of the safety net and instead be looking at an empowerment or opportunity society, for people who need it for whatever reasons. So people on Welfare and on public assistance in general in America won’t have this to look forward to as their way of life. Because they’ll be able to get themselves the skills that they need to leave Welfare and public assistance all together. And live in economic freedom with the skills and resources to take care of themselves.
Ron Chusid and I disagree here. Shouldn’t be any surprised for anyone familiar with both blogs. But Martin O’Malley is the first Liberal Democrat to declare a run for president in 2016.
Hillary Clinton, is what she believes she feels she needs to be successful politically. Whether it was voting for the Patriot Act and 2003 Iraq War. So she wouldn’t have to worry about looking soft on terrorism. To 2008, when she essentially ran on change and moving away from President Bush. To now, where no one knows what her campaign theme and vision is going to be. But she better find one if she hopes on becoming President, or even winning the Democratic nomination.
To the Democratic Socialist of Democratic Socialists, in Senator Bernie Sanders. Who is not just a Democratic Socialist, but is proud of that and doesn’t run from it. Unlike Salon, the new The New Republic and many other leftist publications, that aren’t center-left and perhaps even Ron Chusid himself. As well as a lot of Senator Sanders colleague in Congress. Don’t call Bernie Sanders a Liberal, because he’ll correct you.
But Martin O’Malley, is truly a Liberal, in the real sense. The Jack Kennedy sense, where you’re not pro-government even when it is inefficient, but you’re in favor of good responsible limited government. That is used in a progressive way to help people improve their own lives. Not take care of them from cradle to grave like a Democratic Socialist. That you don’t want a big government to take care of everybody. And try to manage their economic and personal affairs for them. But you want to use government so everyone can have the freedom to take care of themselves.
Martin O’Malley, is a New Democrat. The real Liberals in the Democratic Party. The middle-ground between anti-government Conservative Libertarians on the Right. To pro-big government can do everything for everybody Democratic Socialists on the Far-Left. And that makes him a Moderate compared with those two factions. But liberalism looks fairly centrist. Especially compared with conservative libertarianism, or neoconservatism, on the Right. And socialism, on the Far-Left in America.
Martin O’Malley, will be the Liberal Democrat, or New Democrat with results. Someone who’ll be able to run on a strong liberal new democratic record. Of making government work for the people. Not using government to try to take care of everyone. But to make it effective at improving the lives of everyone. And he’ll be able to say that the lives of people Baltimore improved under his watch as Mayor of Baltimore. That economic development, business’s and jobs came back to Baltimore. As crime and poverty went down. Baltimore, looked very similar to Detroit, or Cleveland fifteen years ago. And now it is on the rebound. And that started under Mayor Martin O’Malley.
As Governor of Maryland, Governor O’Malley can say, Maryland has the best public schools in the country. Public education, being a key Democratic value. Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Centrist, it doesn’t matter. Governor O’Malley, can say that he raised the minimum wage in Maryland to 10.10 an hour. Again, key Democratic value regardless of political faction. Governor O’Malley, can say that same-sex marriage is legal in Maryland. Again, key Democratic value, regardless of political faction. Governor O’Malley, can say that he decriminalized marijuana in Maryland.
Marijuana decriminalization and legalization, not a key Democratic value, but certainly a Liberal Democratic value, that has somewhat divided the party. With Liberals being in favor of it, but would actually go further with full legalization with regulation and taxation. With paternalistic Progressives not in favor of doing either. And the marijuana issue, along with criminal justice reform, is something that the Governor will be able to use to bring young Liberals to his side. The Governor will also be able to say that he limited government and cut big government in two other ways.
The Governor can say he made government work more effective, by using performance based results and holding his administration accountable for their service. Another key liberal new democratic value. But he also legalized and expanded gaming and casinos in Maryland. To keep and expand jobs in Maryland, along with the tax revenue that comes with those jobs and economic activity. And, another issue that sort of divided the Democratic Party, but we’ve moved left on this issue as a party, but Governor O’Malley can say that he outlawed the death penalty in Maryland.
While Martin O’Malley’s opponents in the Democratic Party can say they’ve fought the good fight on a lot of issues that Democrats care about, the Governor will be able to say he actually won those battles and produced progressive results on them. He improved the lives of the people he served by winning those battles. On the issues that I just laid out. It’s just the difference between an executive and a member of Congress.
Martin O’Malley was a Mayor of a big city and a major state. Where he had to produce results to serve his people well and get reelected. Senator Sanders, has been in Congress since 1991. Congress, can essentially debate issues indefinitely and even get away with it, especially if their constituents like what they have to say. Most of Hillary Clinton’s public service career has been in Congress as well. Eight years as a U.S. Senator from New York.
I would love to see Martin O’Malley as the next President of the United States. Or even just Democratic nominee for president. Even though I wouldn’t bet my last potato chip or French fry on it. But that’s probably not going to happen. But I’m guessing what a lot of supporters of Bernie Sanders and perhaps someone like Progressive Senator Sherrod Brown, if he decides to run for president, are hoping is, that their candidate will at the very least push Hillary out of her mushy middle shell that she’s in. And force her to take strong stances on the War on Drugs, criminal justice reform, living wage, economic opportunity and development. And even use new democratic liberal principles to achieve those goals. And represent a strong contrast against the Republican nominee in 2016.
But what Martin O’Malley has going for him, is that he really could be the Bill Clinton of his generation. Depending on how you define Baby Boomers. But O’Malley could be that guy that could strongly appeal to young voters, especially Liberals who are looking for that strong liberal voice for the future. To build that America where everyone can succeed. Again, based on the issues and accomplishments that I’ve already laid out. And use those things to start a strong online political operation. Perhaps similar to that of Howard Dean, in late 2003 and 2004. Barack Obama, in late 2007 and 2008. I mean, who was Bill Clinton in late 1991 and who fought he had a blizzards chance in hell of becoming the next President then. And who fought Barack Obama would be the next President in 2007. And if Hillary stays in her political centrist shell, something like that could happen again.
I’m thinking that Eric Schnurer wrote his US News column here with at least a touch of sarcasm. “Let the Republicans get their way and pass laws saying that the rich don’t have to pay anything and give them all the power that they want. And then the rest of the country will wake up and figure out how dangerous this and demand to have their country back and be put in charge. That democracy will prevail and rule again and take down the Corporate State.” At least that is the point that I get from him and what I believe he is saying here.
Look, for anyone who labels them self a Progressive and perhaps because they don’t want to admit to their more socialist leanings and believe that allowing people to have a lot of money is a dangerous thing, even if they earned all of that money and just don’t want to tax them more for public investments, but somehow see wealth as a bad thing in America, I have a good suggestion for you. Tax everybody, except people who truly can’t afford to be taxed at all, people who work in poverty. But tax people based on what they take from society and not what they earn.
What Senator Ben Cardin who serves on the Senate Finance Committee and just happens to be one of my U.S. Senator’s calls a Progressive Consumption Tax and I call it that myself, would solve a lot of our tax problems in America. The poor, would still get their Earned Income Tax Credit and would only have to report their income to get it. Everyone else that is out of poverty earning an income would be taxed based on what they spend. And it would be progressive, because taxes on the basic necessities of life would be taxed fairly low. Luxury items including ball games and other forms of entertainment, would be taxed higher. The more expensive the purchase, the higher it would be taxed. And the rich would end up being taxed more, because they spend more.
Source:The New Democrat– The real Communists: people who make Senator Bernie Sanders look like a moderate. Which is at least a borderline mission impossible accomplished.
“Communism is the most well-known competitor to classical liberalism. As a result, it is no surprise that communism is demonized in classical liberal societies; people don’t want other people trying to drastically change their way of life. We like our lives the way they are. Therefore, like Fascism, there is much hoopla and rabble rousing when Communism gets mentioned at the dinner table. But the rejection is more visceral and raw because Communism is seen as an actual threat, whereas Fascism is seen as a ‘joke’ ideology that no one will legitimately follow.”
Before anyone throws Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam and all the former so-called Communist Republics at me, forget about all of those countries. The actual definition of communism and Communists are people who are anti-private property. They want most if not all private property replaced short of people’s homes and personal property. They want control of the economy to be in the hands of the central state.
Communists are even to the left of the Social Democrat, or Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy. Because Democratic Socialists believe in property rights and private enterprise, to go along with a superstate to meet the basic needs of the people.
You could be a Communist and believe in democratic multi-party elections. And perhaps even individual rights, short of people acting against the state and threatening the stability of the Communist State.
You could be a Communist and even believe in private small business’s short of big business’s. With the state being in control of the big business’s to be used for all the people.
Communism is a statist authoritarian ideology, because of the nature of the size of the state in a true communist society. But it’s not necessarily anti-democratic or anti-free. There could be freedom in a true communist society. I doubt we’ll ever see that, especially with both Cuba and China moving to private enterprise economies.
But it’s not so much communism that is the real threat to freedom and individualism and the major competitor and arch-rival of liberalism. Liberalism, liberal democracy, being true philosophies that are truly about freedom, individualism and individual rights.
But statism, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or the Far-Right, that are the arch-rivals of liberalism, as well as conservative libertarianism. Statism, being all about the state and that the state is superior. And that freedom can’t be trusted and is too risky. Because a Statist believes that freedom gives people the right to make mistakes that the state has to pay for.
But if the state is completely in charge and people aren’t free to go out on their own, the state will be able to protect them and take care of them. And no one will have too much, or too little and immorality won’t become a problem.
There are Statists right and left in democratic societies and even in a liberal democratic society like America. (There’s that word liberal again) Statists on the Far-Left, who not only believe that people can’t be trusted with their money, because they’ll make bad decisions with it. Or will end up being really successful and productive and make a lot more money than most people. So you need taxes and regulations high enough to make sure that government controls most of those resources to see that everyone is taken care. And not free to make mistakes with their own money, or make a lot of money.
But on the social side, you have leftist Statists who believe people can’t be trusted as far as how they talk to each other. That hate speech shouldn’t be free and that their form of political correctness should be the law of the land. That minority groups should get special protection from government. That women should be treated superior to men. That people can’t be trusted to even get their own news and that right-wing media shouldn’t be allowed to exist. And that people can’t be trusted as far as what they should eat and drink. And that government should decide what people can eat and drink.
The ultimate nanny state. A Statist on the Far-Left in America, makes Democratic Socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders look like a Moderate.
And you see Statists on the Far-Right in America, who tend to look at society through their own cultural and religious views. So-called Religious-Conservatives, but Christian-Nationalists who tend to share the cultural views Religious-Conservatives, but also come from a national morality and security bent as well. That security and morality should always come before liberty. That liberty should only be tolerated when it doesn’t threaten security and when people are acting moral in their view.
And that government should enforce the Christian-Nationalist view of national morality and security.
And the Neo-Right has dominated the Republican Party for what twenty-five years now. With the GOP only moving back to their conservative-libertarian roots since some guy named Barack Obama became President of the United States. And they decided that they no longer debt and deficits and the Patriot Act and host of other policies started by the Bush Administration.
So look, I’m not a Communist, or any other type of Socialist. Which shouldn’t be a newsflash to anyone familiar with this blog, or my blogging. But I don’t see socialism, or even communism as the main threat to liberty. And I don’t even see it as a real threat or competitor to liberalism. Because the Liberal, will always have better views and arguments than a Communist and even Socialist. Because the Liberals will explain what people can do for themselves if they just have the tools.
While the Socialist, or Communist will always try to tell the audience what government can do for the people so they don’t have to act on their own. Which doesn’t tend to fly in America. But the real threat to freedom in America and in general, is statism. Whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right.
A lot can be said about Charles Manson most of it bad. I mean he was the leader of one of the most evil crime families that America has ever seen. And this wasn’t a crime family that was built around enriching themselves financially off the backs of people who’ve made it in life. But a crime family that was built around destroying the establishment essentially. That if you were successful in life, especially if you were a successful Caucasian-American in society in the Los Angeles area and Charlie Manson knew about you and could get to you, you were a potential target of the Manson Family.
If you were on the Manson Crime Family’s hit list, they were not going to take what you earned in life. They weren’t after the wealth, but the person themselves. That the establishment was the problem in America. And Charlie Manson had this fantasy that if all of these wealthy people were murdered, that these murders would get blamed on African-Americans in Los Angeles. And that Caucasians would be so mad by this, that it would unite some type of race war between Caucasians and Africans in Southern California. This sounds crazy, but that’s the fantasy that Manson had. But what he didn’t realize apparently as well as several other things, that he was in California not Alabama. And race wars just didn’t happen there. People in LA learned to live with each other.
Charlie Manson’s life was tragic enough and to a certain extent society was partially to blame for this. With the way Manson was raised. But the bigger tragedy was, its one thing to destroy your own life, but it’s another to destroy others. And his family members are responsible for their actions in the Manson Family. But without Charlie Manson the Manson Crime Family never gets created and he targeted young adults in the late 1960s to join his family and show them another way of living.
Manson gave his members what they were missing in life, in exchange for doing Charlie’s evil business. Do the deeds that Manson didn’t have the guts to do on his own, which is murder people. And thank God most people don’t have the guts to murder people, or this would be a much different country. Thats how the Manson Family operated and how they were able to be in business. Charlie Manson was sentenced to prison for the last time in his life in 1970 after being convicted of conspiracy to commit murder of the people his family murdered.
Charlie been in prison ever since and will never leave prison for what he did. Nor should he, because he’s clearly not rehabilitated. And even the California corrections system recognizes this. But he’s lucky in once sense to even be a live for the murders he’s responsible for. Had the death penalty not have been outlawed in 1973, Charlie and his followers would be dead right now. Probably executed by the late 1970s and early 1980s. And how his members, most of the women anyway have turned out and conducted themselves while in prison and are now rehabilitated, that may have been a tragedy. But Charlie is still the same person he’s always been as an adult. BIO: Journey Into Evil- The Charles Manson Story
I remember this game fairly well as a nine-year old who was already sports junky and loved football and football was probably already my favorite sport to watch. I remember looking forward to this game and then watching it. The two best teams in the NFL the Dolphins and 49ers, with the two best quarterbacks in Dan Marino and Joe Montana. And arguably the two best head coaches as well in Don Shula and Bill Walsh. Similar to 1983 with the Redskins and Oakland Raiders, this looked like a real Super Bowl matchup between two great teams. And if you’re familiar with football and this game, you also know that games aren’t played on paper and the game didn’t live up to the billing.
The difference in this Super Bowl, is that the 49ers were truly a great team. On both sides of the ball. They had the best defense in the league in the NFL in 1984. They had a great quarterback, with a lot of good receivers. Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon, Earl Cooper and others. And a great running game as well. Their running game might have been better than their passing game. If you look at the fact that they had two Pro Bowl running backs in their backfield. In Wendell Tyler and Roger Craig. And that Roger Craig, who should be in the Hall of Fame was also a great receiver and perhaps the 49ers best receiver and a great blocker as well. The 84 49ers, you could make a case that they are the best team of all-time in the NFL.
The 1984 Dolphins, I believe were actually somewhat underrated. They weren’t a one man team with Dan Marino with a great coach in Don Shula. With no running game and no defense. They had a very good offensive line, which allowed Marino to throw the ball as much as he did and gave him the time to throw the ball as well as he did. They did have a running game at least in 84. With Woody Bennet and Tony Nathan. But losing Andra Franklin, who would’ve given them that one lead running back and a power running game was a big lost for them. And without Franklin, they didn’t have that one great running back that could put the team on his shoulders and lead them. And defensively, they gave up a lot of yards on the ground. But teams ran the ball a lot against the Dolphins in 84 to keep the Dolphins offense off the field. And the Dolphins were solid against the pass.
What I think the difference in this game is that the 49ers again were great on both sides of the ball. They ran and threw the ball very well. They had a very good strong and athletic offensive line. That pass and run blocked very well. They had a great QB obviously and also had a great defense. The best defense that the Dolphins saw during the 84 season, was against the 49ers. Who practically shut them down after the first quarter in this game. And then add that the Dolphins didn’t have a lot of speed on defense to matchup with all the 49ers receivers and had a hard time getting to Montana most of the game and the 49ers ran the ball so well in this game, meant the 49ers could move the ball up and down the field in this game. And as a result this game turned into a blowout.
If you look at the 1979 Redskins, not a deeply talented team with great players at every position. Their leading receiver Danny Buggs, caught 46 passes the whole season. They were primarily a power run ball control football team on offense, led by the great fullback/tailback John Riggins. With a short passing game where they threw a lot to their running backs. And a team on defense, that was solid against the pass and somewhat weak against the run, that caused many turnovers. They along with the Tampa Buccaneers were the surprised teams in the NFC in 79. Two teams expected to not do much of anything going into the season and they both won 10 games.
The Dallas Cowboys in 79, were defending NFC champions as well as NFC East champions. And were looking to get back to the Super Bowl and perhaps were the favorites going in. They were once again very good on both sides of the ball. QB Roger Staubach, at 37 and in his last season, was perhaps still the best quarterback in the NFL at this point. And he still had the great Tony Dorsett and Robert Newhouse at running back. And Tony Hill and Drew Pearson and Bill Joe Dupree as his receivers. And they still had the Doomsday Defense. With Randy White, Ed Jones, Harvey Martin and Larry Cole upfront. They were still a very good football team.
But one of the things that made the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry great in the 1970s and 80s and I believe the best rivalry in the NFL at this point, was that both teams didn’t need to be great on paper and deep in talent for the games to be great. Both teams didn’t even have to be good for these games to be great. The 3-13 Cowboys, beat the defending Super Bowl champion Redskins in 1988. And that is just one example. And this is an example of that, where the Redskins had a good record in 1979, but didn’t have great personal. But had enough good players and a few great ones and great coaching to make this team play better than their talent perhaps says they would. Which is why the Redskins played so well against the Cowboys in 79.
“President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday that Ukraine has to confront the possibility of losing its dignity or risking the loss of a key partner as it figures out how to respond to a U.S. peace proposal to end Russia-Ukraine conflict. (Produced by Elaine Carroll).” Source:Associated Press with a look at President Volodmyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. […]
TheActionBlogUSA
FRS FreeState 