OMNI NORTH
KOREA NEWSLETTER #1, July 19, 2012. Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of
Peace and Justice.
My blog: The War Department and Peace Heroes
http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/
Newsletters on
Peace, Justice, and Ecology:
http://www.omnicenter.org/newsletter-archive/
Index:
http://www.omnicenter.org/omni-newsletter-general-index/
See:
Imperialism, Militarism, Pentagon,
Recruiting, Suicides, Whistleblowing, and more.
Contact Your
Congressional Representatives
- Congressman John
Boozman: Lowell office: (479)
725-0400; Ft. Smith office: (479) 782-7787; Harrison
office: (870) 741-6900
- Senator Mark
Pryor:
Little Rock office: (501) 324-6336
Contents #1
US MEDIA HOSTILITY
Introduction: Dick Bennett
Newspaper
Painting with One Brush: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
THREE VIEWS
OF NORTH KOREA
Sunoo
Beal
Cumings
Here is the link to all OMNI
newsletters: http://www.omnicenter.org/newsletter-archive/ For a knowledge-based peace, justice, and
ecology movement and an informed citizenry as the foundation for change.
US MEDIA HOSTILITY
NUCLEAR WEAPONS and the KOREAN WAR
Dick Bennett
What are the causes, consequences, and cures of the US
empire? Here we ask: What is the cause and what the cure for the
hostility between NK and US?
The Jan. 3, 2012 NAT printed a cartoon on the editorial page showing the new ruler
of North Korea,
Kim Jong Un, standing in front of an H-Bomb with a pacifier in his mouth. Are we to understand the cartoonist to mean
that NK is a danger because a baby controls such enormous power?
Why not interpret the cartoon as
suggesting the new ruler’s potential for learning from his father, Kim Jong Il,
that NK is safe from attack by the US because it has also acquired the
bomb. After all, the US had bombed Japan with nuclear weapons, and
since 1945 it had threatened to use the weapon against alleged enemies over a
dozen times, despite world knowledge of the bomb’s extraordinary
destructiveness, a terror weapon indiscriminate in its killing. The US was no infant in experience with the nuclear
bomb, yet during the Korean War in 1950 President Truman threatened publicly to
use the atomic bomb against North
Korea, and in April 1950 he sent a squadron
of planes carrying the bombs to the Western Pacific. And not only Truman, but General MacArthur,
the Pentagon chiefs, the field commanders, and later President Eisenhower
requested or approved their use. And we all know that President Bush poisoned
the well of diplomacy by naming Iraq,
Iran, and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil,” and then
invaded and occupied Iraq, which
had no nuclear weapons, and the US
continues to threaten Iran,
which also has no nuclear weapons.
So let’s ask our newspapers to stop
repeating the warrior dogmas about so-called enemies, to quit reinforcing US
permanent war, to cease accepting the official jingoistic history of US wars,
and instead to ask questions about that history, to help citizens examine
rather than march lockstep.
THREE ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF NORTH KOREA
See: Korean War
Harold Sunoo 2012
Tim Beal 2011
Bruce Cumings 2011
Dr. Harold W. Sunoo: “Let us end the war and bring
peace in Korea!”
Post
Categories: Asia
Harold W. Sunoo,
Ph.D. | Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 8:59 Beijing
39 views
Comments(0)
Share on googleShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on redditShare on
stumbleuponMore Sharing Services0Print
President Truman said at the
Peace Conference with Japan
in San Francisco
in Sept. 1951 that “It is a treaty that will work. It does not contain the
seeds of another war. It is a treaty of reconciliation, which looks to the
future, not the past…. Let us be free of malice and hate to the end that from
here on there shall be neither victors nor vanquished among us, but only equals
in the partnership of peace.”
The winner of the bitter war was
willing to let by gones be by gones, it was a great gesture indeed.
Why, then, has America not made peace with North Korea for
over 60 years? The Korea War, 1950-53, was a humiliation for U. S. which
viewed itself after World War II as the Supreme Power in the Pacific. For the
first time in U. S.
history all they got was a stalemate. So they have stayed in South Korea
ever since, refusing to sign a peace treaty and trying in every way to inflict
damage and pain on the North Korean regime.
North Korea has
survived more than sixty years of unrelenting American hostility. The people of
North Korea
continue to build the Juche (self-determination) socialism while
defending their hard-won sovereignty.
How do we in America to reconcile with North Korea?
Have you ever heard anything positive about North Korea on American television,
radio, or in the newspapers? Everything is negative, degrading and poisonous.
Any North Korean who is elevated to leadership is belittled and abused. The
language is personally insulting to the highest degree and is totally
subjective.
Where does this hostility come
from? This is the hostility of the pure discrimination of the early
slave-masters relationship.
It is particularly galling to
Americans that the authority of North
Korea continues to choose descendants of Kim
Il-Sung to represent the state in the highest capacity. Selecting these leaders
is how the Korean authority tells the world that the DPRK will continue its
tradition. It remains true to the ideals that many generations of Koreans have
fought for.
When Kim Jong-il died on Dec. 17,
2011, there was speculation in the West and America
that there would be a power struggle in North Korea. Kim Jong-un, son of
Kim Jong-il, was selected collectively by to Supreme Authority of the Regime.
There are many seasoned
revolutionary leaders in North
Korea who have learned how to deal with U.
S. Military, diplomatically and politically. They supported Kim Jong-il’s many
difficult decisions to put defense of the country at the top of their national
agenda.
The Bush administration referred
to North Korea as part of
the “Axis of Evil”- which was a list of countries the U. S. intended to invade, and Bush administration
did invade Iraq.
Now the leaders and entire
country are united behind Kim Jong-un who will continue the path set by Kim
Il-Sung. He will do his best to defend the sovereignty of North Korea and
its right to the social system of its own choosing.
Do the political leaders in the U.
S. follow the will of its people? The half
of American population has now been officially classified as the poor or near
poor . U. S.
corporations make billions of dollars but they don’t help the people only the
richest 1% of the population.
A majority of Americans don’t
want foreign wars, but America
is at war. People don’t want tax breaks for the rich, but the rich get them
anyway, e.g. General Electric Co. made $14 billion in 2010, but did not pay
tax. The people want good schools, but thousands of teachers are dismissed. The
people don’t get what they need.
American people don’t trust the
politicians and know that they work for the rich. 80% of the U. S. Senators
and 40% of the members of the House are the millionaires. What can the
people expect from them? That’s the way the American politics work, but not in North Korea. In
North Korea, the wealth of
society is publicly owned and is not in to hands of 1% like in America.
North
Korea was completely destroyed by the U. S. in the
1950-’53 War, but they rebuilt the country. Their economy thrived in the 1960’s
and 1970’s, but it has had to spend much of its resources on national defense.
It has a food problem because of prolonged drought, poor climate and
80% of its territory is high mountains and narrow valleys.
Today the U. S. has pushed tough sanctions on North Korea
through the UN Security Council, creating extreme hardship.
What can the American people do
to help the North Korean people and help end the war in Korea? How can
we help to bring reconciliation with North Korea? Long ago President
Truman made an eloquent speech at the peace conference to reconcile with Japan. Why
can’t the political leaders in America
do the same today?
We must tell it to the American
leaders again and again until they understand the problem, and what is right
thing to do for America and Korea.
Today American media still
believe that North Korea
is a Stalinist Communist Country. That is totally wrong. North Korea is uniquely Juche
Socialistic Country. The Juche Idea is based on human spirit, not Marxist
materialism.
Let’s advocate that the U. S. leaders bring a peace treaty with North Korea as soon as possible, which will help
to maintain a peace in the Northeast Asia, and
peace in the world.
Harold W.
Sunoo, Ph.D.
Distinguish
Professor Emeritus of the
Central Methodist University, MO
Founder
of
Harold W.
and Sonia S. Sunoo
NK NOT THE VILLAIN
IN RECENT NK/SK CLASH
Tim Beal, North
Korea:
The Struggle Against American Power. Editor
of the online newsletter, the Pyongyang Report. “Korea,
America,
and the Road to War.” Z Magazine (February 2011). Argues that the recent clash between N. and
S. Korea, contrary to claims by S. Korea backed up by the US and US mainstream
media, was provoked by S. Korea. “South Korea
and the United States have
rejected calls by China,
echoed by North Korea,
for negotiations, but have, instead, launched further war exercises….”
DEMOCRACY NOW, AMY GOODMAN, JUAN GONZALEZ
Bruce Cumings: Latest North
Korea Provocations Stem from Missed US Opportunities for
Demilitarization
Tension
is rising on the Korean Peninsula following North Korea’s underground nuclear
test on Monday and a series of subsequent missile tests. The United States and South
Korea have raised their military alert level after North Korea
said it would abandon the 1953 truce that ended the Korean War. We speak to University of Chicago
professor Bruce Cumings, author of several books on Korea.
Email to a friend
Help
Printer-friendly
version
Purchase DVD/CD
Guest:
Bruce Cumings, professor at the University of Chicago.
He is the author of several books on Korea, including Korea’s Place
in the Sun: A Modern History and North Korea: Another Country.
This transcript is available free of
charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and
hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate -
$25,
$50,
$100,
More...
JUAN GONZALEZ: Tension is rising on the Korean peninsula following North Korea’s
underground nuclear test on Monday and a series of subsequent missile tests.
The
United States and South Korea raised their military alert level
Thursday after North Korea
said it would abandon the 1953 truce that ended the Korean War. The US-South
Korea Combined Forces Command alert level is now at three, the highest it has
been since North Korea’s
only other nuclear test in 2006.
Earlier
in the week, South Korea
announced it would join a US-led initiative to intercept ships suspected of
carrying nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, components or missiles to
deliver them. Pyongyang has warned it would
consider South Korea’s
membership in the Proliferation Security Initiative to be an act of war.
AMY GOODMAN: At the United Nations, the US and Japan have circulated a
draft UN Security Council resolution condemning Pyongyang’s nuclear test and
calling for strict enforcement of UN sanctions imposed on North Korea after its
first atomic test in October of 2006. The US-backed draft also demands that North Korea not conduct any more nuclear tests,
cease any advances in the ballistic missile program and allow the return of
international nuclear inspectors to monitor North Korea’s nuclear activities.
On
Thursday, President Obama’s National Security Adviser James Jones addressed the
North Korea
situation during an interview on National Public Radio.
JAMES JONES: Nothing that the North Koreans did
surprised us. We knew that they were going to do this; they said so, so no
reason not to believe it. But the imminent threat is the proliferation of that
kind of technology to other countries and potentially to terrorist
organizations, non-state actors. And that is, in my view, the most imminent
danger.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accused North Korea of
acting in a “provocative and belligerent manner.”
HILLARY CLINTON: North Korea has made a choice.
It has chosen to violate the specific language of the UN Security Council
Resolution 1718. It has ignored the international community. It has abrogated
the obligations it entered into through the six-party talks. And it continues
to act in a provocative and belligerent manner toward its neighbors.
There are consequences to such actions. I want to
underscore the commitments that the United States
has and intends always to honor for the defense of South
Korea and Japan.
That is part of our alliance obligation, which we take very seriously.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Bruce
Cumings. He’s a professor at the University
of Chicago, author of several books on
Korea,
including Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History and North Korea:
Another Country.
Professor
Cumings, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of this
underground test that’s believed to be bigger than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, thank you, Amy.
What
we have here is another train wreck that, if you’re paying attention to
US-North Korean relations, you can see coming from a mile away. And we already
had this train wreck in 2006. As you just said, the US and South Korean forces
moved up to a level-three defense alert after the North Korean bomb, the first
bomb, was detonated in October 2006.
But
if you backtrack to our Independence Day, July 2006, North
Korea tested a long-range missile, several—six or
seven—medium-range missiles that could hit Japan, and they purposely chose
July 4th to get the attention of the Bush administration. This time, they
tested the missiles first and then chose our Memorial Day to test their second
bomb on May 25th. They do these things with great calculation. This was—this
latest bomb test was an obvious attempt to get Obama’s attention.
And
they’re acting out of the same playbook that worked for them in 2006. In other
words, George W. Bush, who didn’t talk to evil and didn’t reward bad behavior,
turned around within weeks of the first North Korean test in October of ’06 and
started direct bilateral talks with the North Koreans in Berlin. This led to
the February 2007 agreement to freeze and dismantle the North’s plutonium
facility. That was the second time the North had agreed to freeze and dismantle
its entire complex. The first was with Bill Clinton in 1994. So, unlike Iran, we have two pieces of evidence that North Korea was
willing to give up its plutonium program for eight years. It was frozen for
eight years. And then they agreed again in 2007 to do this.
So,
the media—I should say the mainstream media, not Democracy Now!—they pay
no attention. Along comes North
Korea trying to get our attention. They do a
bunch of provocative things. And there’s no question that what they’re doing is
provocative, but it’s nothing new for them. And then people pay attention, but
without the context that’s so essential to understand this.
The
Obama administration, and especially Secretary of State Clinton, are running on
the same tracks as George Bush did in ’07 and ’08. They’re even talking about
the Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI, which is something that was
handcrafted by John Bolton to put pressure on North Korea. So President Obama
needs to pay attention to a situation that he actually might be able to solve
if he paid attention, get back to talks with North Korea. And if he can solve
this problem, as his predecessors did, at least temporarily, he would put
tremendous pressure on Iran
also to give up its enriched uranium program. So I think that’s what’s going
on.
But
you really—I mean, you have to read the fine print of even our paper of record
to find any of this out. For example, this morning we learn, of course, they’ve
raised the alert to high levels, but our commanders say there’s no unusual
military activity in North
Korea. North Korea doesn’t want a war. But
this train wreck could have been seen coming from a mile away, or two years
away, at least, and the Obama administration is just not paying attention.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Cumings, if we can take sort of a longer
historical view, one of the things that apparently North Korea has done is that it’s
tearing up the truce agreement that ended the Korean War. But the Korean War
was sixty—almost sixty years ago now. And most Americans don’t even know that
there was really no final peace agreement to that war. Why has a final
agreement between Korea and
the United States
eluded our government and their government for so many years?
BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, it’s a very good question. It actually goes back
before the Korean War, because in 1945 the US
divided Korea
unilaterally. The Soviets eventually supported that. We put 25,000 combat
troops into Korea,
deeply shaped post-war Korean history through a three-year military government.
And here we are sixty-four years later, having stumbled into a civilizational
thicket that we didn’t understand then and don’t understand now, and we have no
exit strategy and the possibility of a new war. So this is a failed policy.
The
Korean War ended with an armistice that the South did not sign, refused to sign
it. And the North Koreans have used that against the South ever since. But in
the last fifteen years, they’ve been calling for a peace treaty or a peace
agreement to finally end the war. And there was a great deal of negotiation in
the mid-’90s under the so-called four-party talks that Bill Clinton and Kim
Young-sam, South Korean president, and Kim Jong-il involved themselves in,
along with the Chinese. They got very close to an end to the Korean War, some
sort of an agreement that would end it.
But
after that, and really for the last decade, the North has threatened many times
to break the armistice. They’ve said many times they’re not bound by it. This
is another—you know, it’s .8 on their ratchet-up-the-tension scale. But it
doesn’t really mean much. It’s a lot of rhetoric. What it means fundamentally
is they’d like to end the Korean War. And that’s another thing President Obama
could get done, if he’d pay attention and get rid of a lot of Bush holdovers
and Clinton
holdovers in his administration.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean by that? Who is being held over? And who
do you think is not constructive in solving the problem with North Korea?
BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, we’ve already—we’ve already discussed the Bolton
PSI initiative. President Obama has brought people into his administration,
some of them confirmed, some not, like Kurt Campbell, people in the 1990s who
weren’t concerned with our specific problems with North Korea that go back
sixty-four years, but were overwhelmingly concerned with nonproliferation and
saw North Korea entirely through the lenses of nonproliferation. And we’re
hearing that again. We heard it at the top of the hour from General Jones.
Now,
just to make a comment on this proliferation threat, the US has North
Korean plutonium samples from their Yongbyon reactor. They’ve had them since
about 1993. If North Korea
were to transfer plutonium to some country or terrorist group and they used it,
eventually the US would get
that signature, and they would do what Colin Powell said we would do in 1995,
which is to turn North Korea
into “a charcoal briquette.” I mean, that’s the way we talk to North Korea,
even though the mainstream media doesn’t pay attention to that kind of talk. “A
charcoal briquette.” Well, we did that already during the Korean War with
conventional bombing. So, this situation is one where neither side really gives
quarter, when it comes down to it. Nonproliferation is a worthy goal, but if we
don’t solve the North Korean problem, the Non-Proliferation Treaty really is
just a piece of paper. It’s already in shreds.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the role of China,
Japan
and the other major powers in the area? How are they reacting to this—once
again, this rise in tensions?
BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, Russia
doesn’t really count. Neither does Japan, although Japan makes things very difficult
by focusing on eight or nine people that the North Koreans allegedly abducted
and can’t produce for the Japanese. The Japanese seem to think eight people are
more important than finding a solution to North Korea’s atomic bomb.
South Korea has become
a huge obstacle to dealing with the North. And the North absolutely hates the
current president, which is a new situation and again a very unfortunate one.
This
is really now, and has been really since 2006, a situation where the major
players are the United States,
North Korea and China. China wants to
preserve a friendly regime on its border. It’s not going to take actions that
will lead to severe stress on North
Korea. On the other hand, it certainly
doesn’t want North Korea
testing nuclear weapons, when its great fear is that Japan will go nuclear. And Japan could go
nuclear overnight. They have huge stockpiles of plutonium. It would just take a
decision to do so. I think Japan
is quite far from going in that direction, but that’s China’s great
fear. And it could then cascade through South
Korea and Taiwan
getting nuclear weapons. So this is a very dangerous proliferation threat.
But
the context, going back to the Korean War, for North
Korea is that we have targeted North Korea with nuclear weapons
since 1950. We are the only power to put nuclear weapons into the Korean Peninsula
from 1958 to ’91. And when you look back at Don Rumsfeld’s antics in 2003, when
he thought he had won the Iraq
war around May or June of 2003, he was asking Congress for new bunker-busting
nuclear weapons to go after Kim Jong-il and the North Korean leadership.
There’s an article in the New York Times where someone in the Pentagon—I
think it was Rumsfeld, but it was anonymous—was quoted saying, “If I’m Kim
Jong-il, I’m running around wondering, you know, what’s likely to hit me next.”
Is this any way to run a foreign policy, to threaten to decapitate the
leadership of a country that we’re technically at war with? So—with nuclear
weapons? So this is the real situation. And if I or you were in North Korea,
uppermost in our mind would be American nuclear weapons.
I
think the ultimate way to solve this is to actually implement the
Non-Proliferation Treaty by the major nuclear powers drawing down their nuclear
weapons eventually and hopefully to zero. In the meantime, it’s just an unequal
treaty, where we get to have nuclear weapons, but other countries don’t.
AMY GOODMAN: Bruce Cumings, the two American journalists who are now
being held in North Korea
for nearly two months, supposedly the North Korean government says they’ll put
them on trial in June, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who work for Al Gore’s network,
Current, why are they being held? Do you know their story?
BRUCE CUMINGS: As far as I can tell, they stumbled across the North
Korean border inadvertently, giving the North Koreans a nice catch, like Iran. There’s
been much less attention to these two than there was to the woman reporter who
was recently released by Tehran.
But there will be a lot of attention next week when they come to trial in Pyongyang on June 4th. I
think—one never knows, but I would guess that the North Koreans will declare
them guilty and then kick them out of the country.
But
it could be—there’s been a lot of talk that Al Gore might actually go to North Korea.
Within the Clinton—excuse me, Freudian
slip—within the Obama administration, as I understand it, there has been talk
of an even higher-level emissary than Stephen Bosworth, who is the emissary
they appointed to deal with North
Korea. So it could be that next week you’ll
see a breakthrough, on at least the journalists.
I
think, though, it’s important to remember that from the North Korean
standpoint, after they blew off their missiles and busted off their first bomb,
Bush turned around and talked to them and made an agreement with them, and they
may well think this is the way to get Washington’s
attention and get another agreement.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you very much, Bruce Cumings, for being
with us, professor at the University
of Chicago—
BRUCE CUMINGS: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: —author of a number of books on Korea: Korea’s Place in the Sun:
A Modern History and North Korea: Another Country.
Printer-friendly
version Email to a friend
UN
WIRE, MARCH 7, 2016, UN FOUNDATION
Security Council votes for stiffer sanctions on N. Korea 3/7/2016
The
United Nations Security Council, in a 15-0 vote, passed a resolution to impose
stronger sanctions against North Korea. Separately, North Korea said it won't
attend UN Human Rights Council sessions that examine its human rights record.
Full Story:
The New York Times (free-article
access for SmartBrief readers), Reuters,Reuters
More Summaries:
United Nations Security Council, North
Korea, human
rights
Related Summaries
Security Council resolution drafted to curb peacekeeper sexual
abuse
3/7/2016
A
proposed Security Council resolution calls for repatriating United Nations
troops or police involved in sexual abuse during a mission. The resolution also
calls for the UN secretary-general to take action to replace such troops if the
home country fails to act on allegations.
Full Story:
The Associated Press, Reuters
More Summaries:
Security
Council, UN, Secretary-General
N. Korea faces toughest UN sanctions in two decades
3/3/2016
The UN
Security Council has passed down the toughest sanctions on North Korea in 20
years in response to a nuclear test and rocket launch earlier this year. In
addition, the US has sanctioned 12 individuals and at least four organizations
with ties to North Korea.
Full Story:
The New Zealand Herald
More Summaries:
UN Security Council, UN
Security Council votes for stiffer sanctions on N. Korea
3/2/2016
The
United Nations Security Council, in a 15-0 vote, passed a resolution to impose
stronger sanctions against North Korea. Separately, North Korea said it won't
attend UN Human Rights Council sessions that examine its human rights record.
Full Story:
The New York Times (free-article
access for SmartBrief readers), Reuters, Reuters
More Summaries:
United Nations Security Council, North
Korea, human
rights
Security
Council condemns N. Korea rocket launch
2/8/2016
The
United Nations Security Council held an emergency session following North
Korea's launch of a long-range rocket. The Security Council condemned the
launch, saying it contravenes existing UN sanctions. It also pledged to issue
fresh sanctions.
Full Story:
BBC
More Summaries:
United Nations Security Council, N.
Korea, UN
|
BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC
SCIENTISTS (6-25-19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’d like to call
your attention to an important article we’ve just published from the
July/August issue of the subscription magazine: “What do Americans really think about
conflict with nuclear North Korea? The answer is both reassuring and disturbing.” The article is free-access for two
months.
Written by Stanford University
experts Alida Haworth, Scott Sagan, and Benjamin Valentino, this piece
reviews the results of a public opinion survey conducted this year that
examines American attitudes toward a proposed preemptive war against
North Korea.
Some of the findings:
· Most Americans do not want the United States to launch
a preventive war against North Korea.
· But a large, hawkish minority—about a third of
respondents—approves of a US preventive strike across scenarios—even when
US use of nuclear weapons could be expected to kill 1 million North
Korean civilians.
· Americans are deeply misinformed about US offensive
and defensive military capabilities, including the ability to find and
destroy North Korean nuclear weapons without a ground invasion and
whether missile defense would be certain to protect against North Korean
nuclear missiles.
· Trump supporters are particularly likely to hold
dangerous misperceptions about war with North Korea.
Although it is good news that
most Americans do not support preemptive war against North Korea, far too
many don’t hesitate to approve, even if nuclear weapons are used in the
attack. And far too many Americans are mistakenly convinced that such an
attack would not result in harm to US citizens.
Please read this important
article and share it widely. As always, we welcome your thoughts; you can
reach us at admin@thebulletin.org.
The link to the article,
published at Taylor & Francis Online, is here.
To subscribe to the bi-monthly
magazine, click here.
John Mecklin
Editor-in-Chief
|
|
Your gift helps generate a more robust global
conversation
about issues that matter.
Copyright © 2019
All Rights Reserved I Email: newsletter@thebulletin.org
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment