RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
When I Spoke Out About Systematic Oppression, the Republican Response Was Vicious Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55127"><span class="small">Ilhan Omar, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Saturday, 18 July 2020 13:02

Omar writes: "This past week, I met with community members and state lawmakers to push for more change in the wake of George Floyd's killing in Minneapolis."

Rep. Ilhan Omar. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)
Rep. Ilhan Omar. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)


When I Spoke Out About Systematic Oppression, the Republican Response Was Vicious

By Ilhan Omar, The Washington Post

18 July 20

 

his past week, I met with community members and state lawmakers to push for more change in the wake of George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis. Floyd was killed in my Minnesota district — and his death was the catalyst for conversations around police brutality and structural racism that have begun to transform the nation.

Afterward, I told reporters, “We are not merely fighting to tear down systems of oppression in the criminal justice system — we are fighting to tear down systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment and in the very air we breathe. . . . As long as our economic and political systems prioritize profit, without considering who is profiting and who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality. So we cannot stop at the criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”

But minutes after my news conference, the Republican National Committee clipped 27 seconds of my speech and added a false caption that said I had just called for getting rid of the entire U.S. economy and government. Instantly, Donald Trump Jr. and right-wing “media outlets” were amplifying the false claim. That evening, Tucker Carlson dedicated a segment of his Fox News program to attacking me and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), another prominent woman of color, under the banner, “We Have to Fight to Preserve Our Nation & Heritage.” My congressional office and social media feeds were instantly flooded with hate speech, calls for deportation and, as is so often the case, death threats.

It was something I’ve become accustomed to as a black Muslim woman in public life. Donald Trump explicitly called all Somali immigrants a “disaster” for Minnesota at a 2016 campaign rally in my state. As soon as I was elected, the Republican Party announced it would make racial division an explicit strategy. It has followed through on that promise. Early in my term, the president tweeted another deceptively edited video of me, implying that I celebrated the 9/11 attacks (itself an Islamophobic dog whistle). As recently as last week, the Trump campaign produced a video calling former vice president Joe Biden a “Trojan horse” for me and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Such continued distortions are a sign of the president’s weakness among voters. We know his team wouldn’t be relying so heavily on racist distortions if it were confident in its policies’ popularity.

But it’s also something female leaders and leaders of color have dealt with for years. Hillary Clinton’s every move was scrutinized from her earliest days as first lady of Arkansas; President Barack Obama was hounded by claims that he was Muslim and not born in the United States. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress and my predecessor, was subject to an anti-Muslim smear campaign when he ran for Democratic Party chair.

Fear of the “other” — whether it is someone of a different country of origin, a different race or a different religion — stems, I believe, from the myth of scarcity. This mentality pits minority groups against one another in a fight for scraps, and those who benefit from the status quo are happy to see us distracted and bickering. Particularly during a pandemic, we all can worry too much about what we lack — instead of seeing our futures as linked and interdependent.

For years, women of color were told not to talk about the hate and the attacks. Addressing sexism or racism will only alienate voters, we are told. As Toni Morrison put it, “The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction.” And I would much rather talk about my work tackling climate change, or the law I passed to provide kids with school meals during the pandemic.

But, as the unrest sweeping the country illustrates, we cannot simply bottle up our pain. We cannot ignore the double standards women and people of color face as elected officials, and the way our media institutions act as an accelerant. We have a responsibility to speak our truths, to call out double standards where we see them, so that others can see our pain.

We need to jettison the zero-sum idea that one person’s gain is another’s loss. I want your gain to be my gain; your loss to be mine, too. When a refugee is able to flee oppression and come to America — that benefits all of us. And when we lose a member of our community to the virus or to health-care costs that are out of reach, we all fail.

The more we listen to those with backgrounds and circumstances other than our own, the more we can find parallels to our own experience. That’s why we cannot afford to be silent about systems of oppression. We can’t eradicate our problems unless we put ourselves in the shoes of others and craft solutions that work for all.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: John Lewis Is What Patriotism and Courage Look Like Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55125"><span class="small">Jesse Jackson, Twitter</span></a>   
Saturday, 18 July 2020 12:38

Jackson writes: "We met as fellow protesters in 1960. Two weeks ago, John agreed to co-chair this year's voter registration drive. He was the gift that kept on giving."

Rep. John Lewis. (photo: WUSA9)
Rep. John Lewis. (photo: WUSA9)


John Lewis Is What Patriotism and Courage Look Like

By Jesse Jackson, Twitter

18 July 20

 

e met as fellow protesters in 1960. Two weeks ago, John agreed to co-chair this year's voter registration drive. He was the gift that kept on giving.

This has been a difficult season. First, Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, Dr. King's Chairman of SCLC's Board for 27 years, an now we have lost Rev. C.T. Vivian and John Lewis, on the same day.

In the 1960s, we broke out of the bubble of segregation. John became the valedictorian of our class.

John Lewis is what patriotism and courage look like. He sacrificed and personifies a New Testament prophet.

Andrew Young and I prayed for John Lewis and C.T. Vivian on Thursday as we convened those who I went to jail with in 1960.

Good Night, I will see you in the morning.

#GoodTrouble

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: My Statement on the Passing of Rep. John Lewis Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54572"><span class="small">Barack Obama, Medium</span></a>   
Saturday, 18 July 2020 11:47

Obama writes: "America is a constant work in progress. What gives each new generation purpose is to take up the unfinished work of the last and carry it further - to speak out for what's right, to challenge an unjust status quo, and to imagine a better world."

Former U.S. president Barack Obama walks alongside Rep. John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 2015 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches in Selma, Alabama. (photo: AFP)
Former U.S. president Barack Obama walks alongside Rep. John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 2015 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches in Selma, Alabama. (photo: AFP)


My Statement on the Passing of Rep. John Lewis

By Barack Obama, Medium

18 July 20

 

merica is a constant work in progress. What gives each new generation purpose is to take up the unfinished work of the last and carry it further — to speak out for what’s right, to challenge an unjust status quo, and to imagine a better world.

John Lewis — one of the original Freedom Riders, chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the youngest speaker at the March on Washington, leader of the march from Selma to Montgomery, Member of Congress representing the people of Georgia for 33 years — not only assumed that responsibility, he made it his life’s work. He loved this country so much that he risked his life and his blood so that it might live up to its promise. And through the decades, he not only gave all of himself to the cause of freedom and justice, but inspired generations that followed to try to live up to his example.

Considering his enormous impact on the history of this country, what always struck those who met John was his gentleness and humility. Born into modest means in the heart of the Jim Crow South, he understood that he was just one of a long line of heroes in the struggle for racial justice. Early on, he embraced the principles of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience as the means to bring about real change in this country, understanding that such tactics had the power not only to change laws, but to change hearts and minds as well.

In so many ways, John’s life was exceptional. But he never believed that what he did was more than any citizen of this country might do. He believed that in all of us, there exists the capacity for great courage, a longing to do what’s right, a willingness to love all people, and to extend to them their God-given rights to dignity and respect. And it’s because he saw the best in all of us that he will continue, even in his passing, to serve as a beacon in that long journey towards a more perfect union.

I first met John when I was in law school, and I told him then that he was one of my heroes. Years later, when I was elected a U.S. Senator, I told him that I stood on his shoulders. When I was elected President of the United States, I hugged him on the inauguration stand before I was sworn in and told him I was only there because of the sacrifices he made. And through all those years, he never stopped providing wisdom and encouragement to me and Michelle and our family. We will miss him dearly.

It’s fitting that the last time John and I shared a public forum was at a virtual town hall with a gathering of young activists who were helping to lead this summer’s demonstrations in the wake of George Floyd’s death. Afterwards, I spoke to him privately, and he could not have been prouder of their efforts — of a new generation standing up for freedom and equality, a new generation intent on voting and protecting the right to vote, a new generation running for political office. I told him that all those young people — of every race, from every background and gender and sexual orientation — they were his children. They had learned from his example, even if they didn’t know it. They had understood through him what American citizenship requires, even if they had heard of his courage only through history books.

Not many of us get to live to see our own legacy play out in such a meaningful, remarkable way. John Lewis did. And thanks to him, we now all have our marching orders — to keep believing in the possibility of remaking this country we love until it lives up to its full promise.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Rush to Reopen America Is Causing a Covid Resurgence Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51635"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog</span></a>   
Saturday, 18 July 2020 08:20

Reich writes: "Donald Trump said that June's jobs report, which showed an uptick, proves the economy is 'roaring back.'"

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Trump Rush to Reopen America Is Causing a Covid Resurgence

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

18 July 20

 

onald Trump said that June’s jobs report, which showed an uptick, proves the economy is “roaring back.”

Rubbish. The Labor Department gathered the data during the week of June 12, when America was reporting 25,000 new cases of Covid-19 per day. By the time the report was issued, that figure was 55,000.

The economy isn’t roaring back. Just over half of working-age Americans have jobs now, the lowest ratio in over 70 years. What’s roaring back is Covid-19. 

Until it’s tamed, the economy doesn’t stand a chance.

The surge in cases isn’t because America is doing more tests for the virus, as Trump contends. Cases are rising even where testing is declining. Deaths have resumed their gruesome ascent.

The surge is occurring because America reopened before Covid-19 was contained.

Trump was so intent on having a good economy by Election Day that he resisted doing what was necessary to contain the virus. He left everything to governors and local officials, then warned that the “cure” of closing the economy was “worse than the disease.” Trump even called on citizens to “liberate” their states from public health restrictions.

Yet he still has no national plan for testing, contact tracing and isolating people with infections. 

It would be one thing if every other rich nation in the world botched it as badly as has America. But even Italy – not always known for the effectiveness of its leaders or the pliability of its citizens – has contained the virus and is reopening without a resurgence.

There was never a conflict between containing Covid-19 and getting the economy back on track. The first was always a prerequisite to the second. By doing nothing to contain the virus, Trump has not only caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths but put the economy into a stall.

The uptick in jobs in June was due almost entirely to the hasty reopening, which is now being reversed. Across America, a vast re-closing is underway, as haphazard as was the reopening. 

In the biggest public health emergency in US history, in which nearly 136,000 have already lost their lives, still no one is in charge.

Brace yourself. Not only will the virus take many more lives in the months ahead, but millions of Americans are in danger of becoming destitute. Extra unemployment benefits enacted by Congress in March are set to end July 31. About one in five people in renter households are at risk of eviction by September 30. Delinquency rates on mortgages have more than doubled since March.

An estimated 25 million Americans have lost or will lose employer-provided health insurance. America’s fragile childcare system is in danger of collapse, with the result that hundreds of thousands of working parents will not be able to return to work even if jobs are available.

What is Trump and the GOP’s response to this looming catastrophe? Nothing. Senate Republicans are trying to ram through a $740 billion defense bill while ignoring legislation to provide housing and food relief.

They are refusing to extend extra unemployment benefits beyond July, saying the benefits are keeping Americans from returning to work. In reality, it’s the lack of jobs.

Trump has done one thing, though. He’s asked the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act. If the court agrees, it will end health insurance for 23 million more Americans and give the richest 0.1% a tax cut of about $198,000 a year.

This is sheer lunacy. The priority must be to get control over this pandemic and help Americans survive it, physically and financially. Anything less is morally indefensible.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Poland's Far Right Is Distorting the Debate on Welfare - and Winning Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55120"><span class="small">Maciej Gdula and David Broder, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 18 July 2020 08:19

Excerpt: "Ahead of his reelection on Sunday, Polish president Andrzej Duda claimed that 'LGBT ideology' was a threat 'worse than Soviet communism.'"

Polish president Andrzej Duda, backed by the right-wing Law and Justice party, celebrates with supporters following initial election results during Poland's runoff on July 12, 2020, in Pultusk, Poland. (photo: AP)
Polish president Andrzej Duda, backed by the right-wing Law and Justice party, celebrates with supporters following initial election results during Poland's runoff on July 12, 2020, in Pultusk, Poland. (photo: AP)


Poland's Far Right Is Distorting the Debate on Welfare - and Winning

By Maciej Gdula and David Broder, Jacobin

18 July 20


Ahead of his reelection on Sunday, Polish president Andrzej Duda claimed that “LGBT ideology” was a threat “worse than Soviet communism.” Together with his homophobic offensive, Duda successfully played on Poles’ fears over the economy — fusing a reactionary culture war with the promise to defend families’ benefits.

he Polish presidential election reached its decisive second round on July 12, as incumbent Andrzej Duda faced off against Warsaw mayor Rafa? Trzaskowski. While Duda’s hard-right Law and Justice Party has dominated Polish politics in recent years, he ultimately edged out the more moderate-conservative Trzaskowksi by a narrow 51 to 49 percent margin.

The result sparked dismay in most international media. In addition to Polish authorities’ clashes with the European Union over the independence of the judiciary, the campaign was marred by Duda’s harsh attacks on LGBT Poles and the use of the state broadcaster as a mouthpiece for the ruling party. Some even fear an irreversible drift away from liberal democracy.

Aside from its culture-war offensive against minorities, Law and Justice’s support has also been widely attributed to its record of providing benefits payments and its apparent welfarist agenda. Yet as sociologist Maciej Gdula notes, its cash transfers to families themselves obey a privatizing logic, where direct payments replace the provision of guaranteed services.

Gdula is also an MP for the Wiosna (Spring) party, part of the Lewica (Left) coalition that took forty-nine of 460 seats in October’s parliamentary election. Following Duda’s victory on Sunday, Jacobin’s David Broder spoke to Gdula about the weaknesses of the centrist opposition, the rival social hierarchies that structure Polish politics, and how the Left is resisting Law and Justice’s attacks on LGBT people and other minorities.

DB

First, let’s look at the sociology of the vote. In a recent interview, you mentioned two established but competing visions of social hierarchy. First, there is a cosmopolitan tradition that looks down on those Poles who are considered less cultured. Then there is the Right’s view of the social hierarchy, based on ethnicity and the exclusion of minorities. How far did this divide correspond to the voter blocs in Sunday’s runoff?

MG

When we look at the results, we see how class relations divided the vote. It is obvious that Law and Justice (PiS) collected the votes of the countryside, where most people voted for Duda. This is a less educated electorate, who mainly have an elementary education or went to vocational college. It should be added, however, that PiS is generally strong among the elderly, who tend to have lower qualification levels just because of their age. PiS also won decisively among workers, taking around 60 percent. So, looking at this map, it is clear that the popular classes granted PiS their support.

How did it build such a mobilization? First, the government-controlled media hammered home the message that PiS was a guarantee for social spending and social programs. All day long, the state broadcaster repeated the message that Trzaskowski comes from the same Civic Platform (PO) party that criticized the government’s “500+” family income-support program and increased the compulsory retirement age, whereas PiS reduced the retirement age and substantially increased the minimum wage.

Yet while PiS claimed to uphold the economic interests of the popular classes, they attacked not only the elites who threatened these economic gains but also people belonging to minority groups seen as inferior or alien. In the 2015 presidential election, it was refugees who were presented as a threat to national security, stability, and culture; this time around, LGBT people played this role. Duda signed a “charter for the family” banning the promotion of LGBT issues in public institutions and — claiming to protect children from “sexualization” — proposed a constitutional ban on adoption by same-sex couples.

Looking at Poland from the outside, you might imagine that the ultraconservative PiS is confronted by a liberal opposition. But PO are moderate conservatives themselves, and Trzaskowski did not strongly resist this demonization of LGBT people. He sought to present himself as moderate and said that we should reject all forms of hatred — but he did not use the term LGBT.

It was the same in 2015, when PO left the ground open to PiS’s arguments against immigration, seeking to avoid the issue, and only radical-left party Razem’s Adrian Zandberg actually defended the need to accept refugees. Then, liberals sought to avoid any direct defense of refugees, and similarly today, only the Left supports the LGBT community. We proposed, at the heart of our campaign, a bill to accept same sex-marriage and adoption by same-sex married couples.

DB

After October’s parliamentary elections, Law and Justice was widely portrayed in international media as a “welfarist” party, given its child benefits and the like. Yet taken as a whole, its measures not only seem limited by their family-values ideological framing, but also more aimed at helping out the individual small business owners rather than workers as such. Was there any debate on the welfare state that went beyond PiS’s own existing measures?

MG

The system of social benefits is based on direct cash transfers to families. That’s both how it works and how it’s presented: PiS says, “We’re giving you money for you to use as you want.” First there were payments for the second child, then for any child. Then there was the “13th pension payment,” an extra month on top of the twelve payments retired people would receive already. Again, the money goes directly from the state to their wallets. But these cash transfers to family budgets are also money that’s not being invested in the health care system or the education system or care policies.

This has been a cause of social protests. In 2019, there was a huge strike by teachers, whose wages were almost frozen even though the economy as a whole was growing. Characteristically of PiS, they crushed the protests: when teachers threatened not to organize end-of-year exams, the government changed the law to allow firefighters and other civil servants to run them instead. Teachers’ wages were increased in the end, but only slightly.

So, PiS’s approach is not about strengthening public services but creating a bond between voters and the party that’s sending them money. In fact, this itself drives privatization. The average hospital waiting time rose from two months in 2015 to three and a half months in 2019, because money isn’t going into health care: but if people need faster treatment, they can go and buy it from private providers, with their own money.

For many years, PO represented a commonsense liberalism of cutting both spending and taxation. Their problem is now that the PiS is in government, it is spending, and the economy is growing. In the election campaign, Trzaskowski promised not to take away the PiS programs.

There is this idea of a “silver bullet” promise to some group that will win you the election; in 2015, this was 500+ for PiS, and this time, for PO, it was the idea of an extra €50 monthly retirement payment for women who have children. This is quite conservative, since it excludes those without families. Here, PO is trying to imitate PiS. Yet this also raises a question of honesty: Can they be trusted, when they say they won’t cut existing programs? PiS played this card — and when Trzaskowski was asked whether he had voted to lower the retirement age, he said he didn’t remember if he’d been an MP when the vote took place back in 2016. It was immediately discovered that he had, indeed, been in parliament and voted against the reduction.

DB

During the campaign, Duda said “LGBT ideology” was “worse than communism”; we may also remember the 2018 effort to remove twenty-seven supreme court judges on the basis that they were holdovers from the communist era. How far is the idea of an incomplete decommunization (“lustration”) and continued “communist threat” an important tool in PiS’s bid to demonize its opponents?

MG

This is quite widely used by the governing Right, which attacks its political rivals by making reference to communist ideology or communist ties. This is also happening despite the fact that some of PiS’s representatives are themselves of communist background — for instance, a judge in the Constitutional Court who was also a judge under martial law in the 1980s.

At the same time as accepting such figures, PiS attacks liberals, the Left, and the LGBT community as either communist-connected or representing ideologies it deems similar to Bolshevism. And this does have some effect. Here, “communism” is taken to mean something foreign, alien: it is not a reference only to Poland’s recent past, but also to whatever is international, cosmopolitan, and presented as non-Polish.

DB

Duda has referred to the European Union as an “imaginary community,” and there are tensions over PiS’s interference with the judiciary. Yet it seems the Polish government is ignoring European rules rather than seeking some kind of split, and Hungary will surely veto any kind of sanctions against it. So, in what ways do you expect conflict between Duda and the EU might harshen — and is it all just rhetoric?

MG

I think it depends, first of all, on the stability of the government and its own internal development — in particular, whether Mateusz Morawiecki will remain as prime minister or if justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro has ambitions to take on this role. I think if Ziobro becomes head of government, the conflict over the judiciary will be more dramatic, while Morawiecki will be more likely to appease the European Union on this issue. He may make some changes in the Supreme Court and withdraw others, all the while underlining that he is defending the autonomy of Poland’s internal politics from Europe.

Another area of conflict may be Poland’s “LGBT-free zones.” The European Union has begun to ask whether these zones are violating European core values and laws recognizing minority rights. This could have an impact in terms of European development funds, which may be blocked if they are seen to be used in a discriminatory way.

And then there’s the problem of energy policy. Poland is paying a lot of money in fines to the EU because of our failure to meet environmental targets. There are some people in the government who have begun to criticize these fines and want it to be raised as an important point of Polish relations with the EU, insisting these fines should be withdrawn and claiming that conditions they impose threaten Poland’s national energy security.

DB

Robert Biedrón stood for Lewica (“Left”) in the first round, but it scored 2.2 percent, finding it much harder to make an impact than in last October’s parliamentary election, where Lewica took 11.2 percent and forty-nine of 460 seats in the Sejm (lower house). What explains this?

MG

The electoral result was below our expectations — we had expected to keep our vote from last autumn’s contest. But for the last fifteen years at least, the presidential election has been particularly difficult, because it is framed as a clash between the incumbent defending the presidency and then the strongest contender.

It was the same this time, with the clash between Duda and his challenger Trzaskowski. But — like with Pawe? Kukiz in 2015 — there was also a dark horse in Szymon Ho?ownia, an independent who presented himself as a “novel” outsider force and did surprisingly well. Ho?ownia [who took 14 percent in the first round] provides a curious mix of liberal progressivism and conservatism, and he was able to bring people together precisely because he has no clear political agenda: he appears just as a well-known guy [he is a talent show host] who promises he will do good things and empower citizens.

The Left also benefited from this sense of being an anti-establishment force in October 2019’s parliamentary elections. But if we got only 2 percent in the presidential elections, does this mean we have lost 10 points since October? In fact, the same thing happened in the disastrous 2015 elections, when the left-wing candidate got 2.5 percent in the presidential contest, but then in autumn’s parliamentary election, the United Left got 7.6 percent and Razem 3.5 percent. In the polls, Lewica is still at 7, 8, 10 percent, one even put us at 14 percent, even with Biedrón on only 2 percent.

DB

If this election was a direct contest between more or less harsh forms of social conservatism and neoliberalism, how do you plan to change the political agenda?

MG

Despite PiS’s welfarist claims, we are criticizing its underinvestment in public services and demanding more spending on teaching staff and the health care system. But we also emphasize that the strengthening of social services must be related to a change of philosophy in the functioning of the state. We seek not just redistribution but building solidarity and cooperation between social partners — between trade unions and the state, between teachers and parents, between patients and health care officials. We are promoting an anti-authoritarian vision of society, not just criticizing PiS for interfering in the judicial system and violating the rule of law, but also seeking to rebuild more participatory, autonomous institutions.

I should say that in Poland, the strongest trade unions are among civil servants — teachers and nurses and, right now, the workers in the judiciary. There are also working-class unions in the mining companies, and we have strong connections with the industrial unions through the OPZZ (All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions). While it is not part of our coalition, this organization can be considered our social partner; we cooperate with it and have good mutual respect.  This is combined with a green agenda much stronger than what the handful of PO-aligned Green MPs are proposing. We need a transformation of the energy system, protection of the environment, and water policies to face up to the continual droughts.

We also need to take a stand on LGBT recognition and women’s rights. A majority of Poles accept the need to allow abortion on demand up till twelve weeks, but we are the only party that is openly standing for that; PO accepts the existing “compromise” where it is allowed only in extreme cases like rape and health problems for the mother. We advocate a separation of church and state, also in order to combat the constant problem of pedophile priests. PiS promises action, but nothing happens; the Church is allowed to self-police and makes only a pretense of doing something about pedophilia. So, we have to fight to push these issues onto the public agenda, too.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 Next > End >>

Page 419 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN