BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label project 2025. Show all posts
Showing posts with label project 2025. Show all posts
16 July 2025
11 July 2025
A judge just blocked Trump's birthright order nationwide & Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order after Supreme Court ruling 10JUL25
NOT MY pres drumpf's / trump's attempt to manipulate the US Constitution and so control who is allowed to become an American citizen is just hitler's attempted racial purification of the German people anglicized. For all you "christian" nationalist in America supporting fascist fotze drumpf / trump and his magat cultist now you know there is nothing Christian about drumpf's / trump's citizenship plan, but it is doubtful that will bother you because there is nothing Christian about "christian" nationalism either. Birds of a feather you know...This good news is the ACLU and Reuters.....
A judge just blocked Trump's birthright order nationwide
 |
Huge win: a judge just blocked President Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and certified a nationwide class, protecting the citizenship rights of all children born on U.S. soil. This is a massive victory for our fight to protect birthright citizenship. And we couldn't have done it without ACLU supporters like you. We filed the first challenge to the birthright order just hours after it was issued. Our ACLU community joined us by sending over 98,000 messages to their representatives calling to protect birthright citizenship. Then, thanks to your support, when the Supreme Court issued an order two weeks ago restricting nationwide injunctions and raising the possibility that the unconstitutional executive order could partially go into effect on July 27, the ACLU was able to immediately file another lawsuit – this time pursuing a class-action lawsuit to ensure that the order would never go into effect, for anyone, ever. And today, a federal court granted our request for a nationwide, class-action block on this order while litigation continues. This is a major win. Depriving any U.S.-born child of their citizenship would be a devastating violation of our Constitution – and today's ruling will protect children nationwide from that irreparable harm. We will continue to pursue our challenges to Trump's executive order until we get a final ruling protecting birthright citizenship. You were a critical part of this victory, and we're so grateful to you for all you do. Thanks for staying in the fight, The ACLU Team |
| ||||
We respect your right to privacy – view our policy. This email was sent by: ACLU 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 |
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order after Supreme Court ruling
July 10, 20251:47 PM EDT
CONCORD, New Hampshire, July 10 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday again barred President Donald Trump's administration from denying citizenship to some babies born in the U.S., making use of an exception to overcome the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that restricted the ability of judges to block that and other policies nationwide.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ruled at a hearing in Concord, New Hampshire, after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any children whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship.
The ruling is far from the last word in the legal battle over Trump's order, which he signed in January on his first day back in office. The judge paused his ruling for seven days to give the Trump administration time to appeal, which a Justice Department lawyer at the hearing indicated would certainly happen.
Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, agreed the plaintiffs could provisionally proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally.
Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union had urged him to do so after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling narrowing three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump's directive.
The Supreme Court's decision meant babies born in some parts of the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents risked being denied citizenship and becoming subject to deportation. But the ruling contained an exception for class action lawsuits that seek relief on behalf of a group of similarly situated people nationwide.
Laplante, who had already in a related case concluded Trump's order was unconstitutional, said the question of whether to issue an injunction was "not a close call," as children could be deprived of citizenship by Trump's order, which was set to take effect on July 27 following the Supreme Court's ruling.
"That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone," he said during the hearing. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy hailed the decision, telling reporters that the Supreme Court's ruling had sparked "concern, confusion and fear" among migrant families whose babies would be affected by Trump's order.
"This is going to protect every single child throughout the country from this lawless, unconstitutional, cruel executive order," he said.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields in a statement called the ruling "an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief."
"This judge’s decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures," he said. "The Trump administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.”
CLASS ACTIONS
Trump's order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs in various cases challenging it.
At the urging of 22 Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates, four judges including Laplante earlier in the year issued injunctions blocking its enforcement after finding it likely violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The judges have pointed to the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in which it interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby's parents.
Three judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington issued injunctions halting Trump's order nationwide. Laplante in February issued an injunction too, but unlike his counterparts limited it to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him.
The Supreme Court's decision concerned only the three nationwide judicial orders, whose scope the justices ordered lower courts to reconsider after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called "universal injunctions" that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge.
Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump's agenda found to be unlawful.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions.
Seizing on that language, immigrant rights advocates within hours of the decision launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who on Thursday noted his prior discomfort with issuing a nationwide injunction.
"It's a better process to narrow these decisions and not have judges create national policy," he said.
Laplante described class action litigation as "fairly routine," though he noted that conservative Justice Samuel Alito in the birthright ruling reminded judges to be "rigorous" when analyzing whether class action status could be granted.
"That said, the Supreme Court suggested a class action is a better option," he said.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Will Dunham and Deepa Babington
09 July 2025
08 July 2025
One of the Supreme Court’s sharpest critics sits on it 5JUL25
JUSTICE Jackson is quite a lady, not what NOT MY pres drump / trump and project 2025 wants on SCOTUS and in the public eye at all! I have admiration and respect for her leadership on the court and know that she and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan will fight with everything they have to defend and maintain our Constitution and democratic Republic! This from the Washington Post.....
One of the Supreme Court’s sharpest critics sits on it
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emerges as a strong voice on an unusually fractious U.S. Supreme Court.
Dissenting — again — on the last day of the Supreme Court’s term, in its most high-profile case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not mince words.
She had for months plainly criticized the opinions of her conservative colleagues, trading the staid legalese typical of justices’ decisions for impassioned arguments against what she has described as their acquiescence to President Donald Trump. She returned to that theme again in the final case, ripping the court for limiting nationwide injunctions.
“The majority’s ruling … is … profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate,” Jackson wrote.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett leveled an unusually personal retort in her majority opinion. “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
The extraordinary clash reflected deepening divisions on the court and the place Jackson has increasingly staked out as a leading voice of dissent, challenging the 6-3 conservative supermajority.
She wrote more dissents this term than any other justice. Overall, she penned 24 opinions, second only to the prolific Clarence Thomas. Jackson also far exceeded her colleagues in the number of words she spoke during oral arguments. She uttered more than 79,000; Sonia Sotomayor, her liberal colleague, came in a distant second, at 53,000.
In her third term, one legal expert said, she has carved out a space on the left similar to what Thomas has held on the right. Writing frequently, often dissenting, and sometimes willing to depart from her liberal colleagues.
Tempers and disagreements often flared in the Trump-related cases that have filled the docket, with the majority repeatedly green-lighting some of his most controversial policies. The ruling on nationwide injunctions, which stemmed from a challenge of Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship, drew seven separate opinions. Clashes erupted during culture-war cases in which the court allowed states to ban gender transition care for trans minors and gave parents permission to opt their children out of classroom lessons that clash with their religious beliefs.
"Children, pets and magicians might find pleasure in the clever use of such shiny-object tactics. But a court of law should not be so easily distracted. Yet, here we are." Jackson's dissent, Department of Education v. California
Even a technical case on disability rights yielded five separate opinions — surprising given it was not the type of hot-button issue that would normally draw reams of writing from the justices.
“We are seeing longer separate opinions, but also more diverse views than we have in the past,” said Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUS, who has compiled data showing the number of opinions the justices are filing is rising even when they agree.
Words spoken by justices during oral arguments
Jackson frequently disagreed with the substance of the conservative majority’s rulings this term but most strikingly offering a sustained, blunt and unsparing critique of how the court went about its work.
Again and again, Jackson accused the conservative bloc of weighing cases in a rushed, reckless and partisan fashion that undermined the high court’s mission to be an arbiter of fair and impartial justice — delivering results for Trump.
She summed up the sentiment baldly in a dissent in a case clearing the way for Trump to strip temporary protections from migrants: “The Court has plainly botched this assessment today.”
Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor, said Jackson is not so much embracing a new role as she is growing more comfortable being the justice who showed up on day one, jumping into oral arguments during her first case and grilling attorneys. Her first opinion was a dissent.
“I think this term, we have seen her take a more forthright approach in the way her colleagues are facilitating the administration,” Murray said. “I don’t know that she goes so far as to say they are in the bag for the administration, but she does come close.”
Her role is particularly notable because she is the court’s most junior justice. Jackson, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, is the first Black woman to serve on the high court.
“She’s found her footing maybe faster than other justices historically,” said Morgan Ratner, a lawyer who worked as a law clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh during his tenure on the D.C. Circuit.
She also is responding to the limits of power that come with being on the court’s minority, said Michele Goodwin, a Georgetown University law professor. As a result, Goodwin said, Jackson is writing on two tracks, one legal and the other rhetorical.
“She realizes the balls and strikes on the court, and what she’s doing is writing … forward for a different day,” Goodwin said.
Some of Jackson’s fiercest dissents came in the record number of emergency cases — 19 in all — that the president brought to the Supreme Court this term, mostly seeking to lift lower-court blocks on his blitz of executive orders.
By and large, the Trump administration found great success in those cases, convincing the justices to allow it to go forward with removing independent agency heads, firing thousands of federal workers and barring transgender people from the military.
Cases on the emergency docket don’t receive full briefings or arguments, the decisions come quickly, and the justices often don’t explain the reasoning for their rulings. Critics call it the “shadow docket” for its lack of transparency.
Jackson repeatedly used dissents in those cases to call out her colleagues for hurrying to rule before fuller deliberations in the lower courts, keeping the public in the dark about the majority’s thinking and supposedly bending the process to benefit the president.
"This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous." Jackson's dissent, Trump v. JGG
She panned the court’s work in such cases as “fly-by-night” as part of an emergency ruling that cleared the Trump administration to use a wartime authority known as the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants. The court also found they must be given due process.
“With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace,” Jackson wrote. “But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”
Decorum frayed in other cases as well. Conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Jackson, who have sometimes aligned on cases, traded accusations that each was twisting legal arguments to reach the outcome they desired in the case involving whether a retired firefighter could sue her former employer under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
In a 7-2 ruling allowing fuel companies to challenge California’s strict vehicle emissions standards, Jackson said the court was more willing to hear the cases of “moneyed interests.”
“This Court’s simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of the rights of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others — will further fortify that impression,” she wrote.
Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, said a review of the court’s work “disproves that suggestion.”
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at William and Mary who has studied the issue, also said that contention was inaccurate. He pointed out no other liberals joined Jackson in that statement and in some other cases as well. He said the liberals seemed less unified this term.
“She’s staked out positions and made claims that appear to be beyond what her colleagues are willing to sign on to,” Adler said. “In some cases, it may be she’s making claims her colleagues don’t agree with or think are prudent to put forward.”
Jackson’s outspokenness has drawn fire from conservative media, sometimes in racial terms. In recent days, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk called her a “diversity hire” and said the only reason she was on the court was because she is a Black woman.
Jackson declined an interview request. But in the midst of a term sparring with her conservative colleagues, she has found a way to deal with the challenges of being in the minority on the high court, she told the Associated Press: boxing.
“I think that helps you to really get out any frustrations,” she said.
Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
07 July 2025
Senate vote could save public broadcasting 6JUL25
THERE is still a chance to save PBS and NPR but people need to contact their senators today, tell them to vote no on this bill to claw back the funding for the CPB, PBS and NPR. This from Demand Progress.....
Senate vote could save public broadcasting
 |
Donald Trump is on the verge of getting Congress to slash $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds local public radio and TV stations across the country.
That's a complete federal defunding of every public radio and TV station in America. Local stations are calling it a "crisis" and a "death sentence.1
The House of Representatives already approved these cuts — but it's going down to the wire in the Senate and looking like it could be decided by a single vote.2
Rural and small-town stations — some of which rely on the federal government for more than half of their funding — will be hit the hardest.3
At a recent hearing, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said that most of the stations in her state would be forced to simply shut down.
"Almost to a number, they're saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them," she said.4
This fight is about more than just defending public media. It's about defending democracy and the free press. Donald Trump and his MAGA allies in Congress are targeting public broadcasting because they can't control it. And the message to other news outlets is that if they don't please him, he'll come after them next.
For us here at Demand Progress Action, public radio and television are key news outlets to get basic coverage of issues that the corporate media simply ignores, from breaking up Big Tech monopolies to campaign finance reform to internet freedom.
With the final Senate vote on these cuts going down to the wire, Demand Progress Action is working to flood Capitol Hill with petition signatures, e mails and phone calls.
With gratitude,
The team at Demand Progress Action
Sources:
1. WHYY, "Pennsylvania public media affiliates weigh impact of possible cuts after U.S. House votes to defund them," June 13, 2025.
2. NPR, "House narrowly passes bill to claw back $1.1 billion from public media," June 12, 2025.
3. Columbia Journalism Review, "Rural and Tribal Public Radio Stations Brace for Funding Cuts," May 8, 2025.
4. NPR, "Senators question Trump plan to kill federal funds for PBS, NPR and some foreign aid," June 25, 2025. 
Contributions to ActBlue Civics and Demand Progress Action are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Join our online community on Instagram or Twitter.
06 July 2025
US soldiers demand protection from following 'Trump’s far-right authoritarian government' & Soldiers Are Taking a Stand Against Trump’s Abuses 4JUL25
IT is good to know there are some in the U.S. military who recognize the threat the NOT MY pres drumpf / trump and NOT MY vp vance administration is to our democratic Republic. It is reassuring and also sad because when was the last time this issue came up? We know Sec of Defense fascist fotze petie lola hegpeth would eat drumpf's / trump's shit if he was told to so we can not count on him. We have to hope and pray the combatant commanders have the morals and the courage to refuse orders from c-i-c draft dodger bone spurs to turn on Americans. This from AlterNet and The New Republic.....
US soldiers demand protection from following 'Trump’s far-right authoritarian government'
The New Republic reports members of the U.S. military are spending July 4 demanding answers about the consequences of following the orders of “Trump’s far-right authoritarian government.”
Air Force mechanic “Kim”, speaking anonymously to TNR, said she enlisted in the military “to get a stable paycheck, a roof over my head, food in my stomach at the end of the day.” But now she worries about the increasing prospect of being issued unlawful orders, fearing President Donald Trump is willing to use the military against American civilians
“And now we have military in our streets, and that’s not where you’re supposed to see them,” said Kim.
George Washington University law professor Laura Dickinson says more and more military members are worried about being caught in the middle of either being court-martialed for refusing to follow illegal orders or getting prosecuted for executing them.
“The United States federal government has been very cautious about using the federal military domestically for law enforcement purposes,” said Dickinson or Trump’s decision to send federal troops to the streets of LA. “It’s norm busting and very concerning to people in the military.”
Another fear is that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to quash protests, despite the Act being designed to deploy the military against insurrection, not protestors shielded by the Constitution.
“The Marines aren’t trained in policing,” said Brittany Ramos DeBarros, an Afghanistan veteran and organizing director of About Face, which opposes military weapons and tactics being deployed against U.S. civilians. “People in the military understand that there’s probably no less equipped branch of the federal government to do de-escalation work than the Marines,” who DeBarros describes as trained for warfare, with rules of engagement that are very different from those of law enforcement.
Even worse, people who served in Trump’s last administration admit the president has deliberated shooting civilians before at the height of Black Lives Matter protests.
“Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?” asked Trump, who received exemptions to avoid serving in Vietnam thanks to his wealthy father, according to the New York Times.
The About Face veterans’ group is spending the July 4th holiday launching it’s “Right to Refuse” campaign arguing that American service members deserve the power to refuse unlawful or immoral orders, particularly those issued against other Americans. The group also seeks to pressure Congress to pass a law providing protection to service members who refuse unlawful commands.
“I may not have joined the military out of the most patriotic of reasons, but I still raised my right hand and swore an oath to the Constitution to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic,” said Kim. “But the American people are not the Constitution’s domestic enemies.”
READ MORE: 'Dangerous and outrageous': Veterans erupt at Trump after he sends 200 Marines to Florida
Soldiers Are Taking a Stand Against Trump’s Abuses
On the Fourth of July, members of the military are calling on Congress to protect service members who disobey the president’s immoral or unlawful orders.
Getty Images
Brittany Ramos DeBarros speaks outside the Supreme Court during a June 13 protest ahead of Trump’s Army parade
Kim, an aircraft mechanic, joined the military in 2019, at age 18. She and her mother had struggled to survive, even living in their car at times. She didn’t think she could afford college, so she didn’t apply. Like so many young Americans in that situation, she enlisted “to get a stable paycheck, a roof over my head, food in my stomach at the end of the day.” Deployed only once, Kim spent most of her time on base, but she enjoyed the routine: waking up early for 15-hour workdays, staying up late to earn an associate’s degree, making lifelong friends and “amazing mentors.” But in 2024, she began to worry about what a new administration might ask the military to do.
As Kim read Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s far-right authoritarian government, she became increasingly troubled about the prospect of unlawful orders, fearing especially that the president would use the military against American civilians. Though she’d been planning on staying 20 years in the Air Force, she decided to get out; now, she’s no longer active duty, but because she didn’t serve a full eight years, she could be redeployed. Kim is not her real name; she spoke anonymously to TNR anonymously so as not to jeopardize her future; a dishonorable discharge could harm her employment prospects and imperil her hard-earned military benefits. “I’ve done quite well for myself,” she told me.
She was right to worry about how Trump might misuse the armed forces. Last month, the Marines were deployed against peaceful protesters in Los Angeles. “And now we have military in our streets,” Kim said, “and that’s not where you’re supposed to see them.” She still fears she could be asked to be party to it.
She’s speaking out as part of a campaign launched by About Face, a veterans’ group which today—July Fourth—is launching a “Right to Refuse” campaign arguing that service members deserve the right to refuse unlawful or immoral orders, in the hope that Congress will pass a law offering stronger protections to service members who do so. Founded by Iraq War veterans concerned about the immorality of that conflict, About Face has in recent years heard from service members with objections to sending weapons to Israel, dismantling DEI within the military, and especially, recently, the prospect of being pawns in Trump’s authoritarian fantasy, whether in the crackdown in Los Angeles or the military parade in Washington, D.C.
Brittany Ramos DeBarros, organizing director of About Face, is an Afghanistan veteran who once faced court-martial for speaking out against that war while still in uniform. She acknowledges that Congress isn’t going to pass this law quickly enough to deal with the current constitutional crises—if at all—but she sees it as a rallying point for military communities. Families and service members need support in trying to navigate this moment, she says, and many are finding each other and organizing. From her own experience, she knows that the military can make you feel crazy if you disagree with it.
“So I think it’s profound,” she said, “that people are organically breaking out of that enough to start talking to each other about, ‘I’m really concerned about this. What are you thinking you’re gonna do?’” DeBarros says many are wondering what is in their own best interests—but also what is the most moral choice: Is it better to resign publicly or “better to have more people within the military when that moment comes who are willing to stand up and do something and do the right thing? Which is a complicated question for people to sit with.” On the one hand, service members risk losing their benefits and going to prison if they refuse orders; but if they don’t refuse unlawful orders, she said, many will “live with the moral injury and consequences of carrying out something that they knew was wrong.”
Laura Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University with extensive knowledge of the military, national security, and the law of armed conflict, said “the deployment of the federalized National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles is quite unprecedented and has broken norms in our constitutional tradition. In our tradition, the United States federal government has been very cautious about using the federal military domestically for law enforcement purposes. It’s norm busting and very concerning to people in the military.” Deploying the military against Americans could fracture that trust terribly, Dickinson suggested: “We are seeing concerns about this from within the military now.”
Dickinson points out that the deployment of the Marines and federalized National Guard in Los Angeles—they’re still there—isn’t “manifestly unlawful”; the state of California has been litigating it. DeBarros also noted that “there’s not a clear consensus amongst lawyers around what right now constitutes technically legal orders and what constitutes illegal orders.” But even if a service member faces an obviously unconstitutional order, it’s not clear what she should do. Defying the U.S. military is one of the most intimidating prospects someone can face. Disobedient soldiers can be court-martialed and face prison. Yet if they do carry out unlawful orders, the fact that they were “just following orders” is no defense in a criminal trial. All this puts military personnel in an untenable situation.
Another fear is that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act—which allows the president to deploy the military if there is unrest “against the authority of the United States”—simply to quash protests. The Marines aren’t trained in policing, DeBarros points out: “Especially people in the military understand that there’s probably no less equipped branch of the federal government to do de-escalation work than the Marines,” who are trained for warfare, where the rules of engagement are very different. Trump fantasized during his first term about shooting protesters in the leg—a prime example, Dickinson notes, of what police are not allowed to do.
“I may not have joined the military out of the most patriotic of reasons,” said Kim, the Air Force member, “but I still raised my right hand and swore an oath to the Constitution to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. But the American people are not the Constitution’s domestic enemies.”
Liza Featherstone
Liza Featherstone is a contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of Divining Desire: Focus Groups and the Culture of Consultation (2018).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)