[[link removed]]

IS THIS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?  
[[link removed]]


 

Michael Podhorzer
November 11, 2024
Weekend Reading
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The real headline of this election isn’t about Trump’s victory.
It’s about how the Federalist Society coalition of plutocrats and
theocrats has all but completed its mission to repeal and replace the
20th Century by judicial fiat.  _

,

 

Where to begin? So much to say. 

On Wednesday morning, the banner headlines trumpeted Donald Trump’s
“decisive win,” heralding a great “rightward shift.” Nearly
every story about the election since then has fallen into line with an
explanation of what happened as a remarkable personal triumph for
Trump and an ideological triumph for MAGA, as the Republicans emerge
as the party of the multiracial working class. Gone were those dark
headlines about fascism coming to America. 

I must acknowledge that my expectations for the popular vote
[[link removed]] were
absolutely wrong, as was my skepticism that we were in for as large a
swing from 2020 as happened – likely about 7 points.1
[[link removed]] However,
it is also the case that with about 95 percent of the votes counted,
the broader dynamics of how elections work in the MAGA era, which
I’ve been explaining for years, once again proved true. The outcome
was due much more to the anti-MAGA majority
[[link removed]] staying
home than either to conversions of 2020 voters, or to substantially
more people deciding to embrace Trumpism. As I warned repeatedly, the
most alarming thing leading up to Election Day was how little alarm
there was coming from the most important civil society voices
[[link removed]] about
what a second Trump administration would do.

Without that alarm, the disaffected Americans who came out in 2020 to
defeat Trump simply did not do so again in 2024. Harris lost much less
ground where turnout went down the least. Or, as the _Wall Street
Journal _astutely documented, “Collapse in Democratic Turnout
Fueled Trump’s Victory
[[link removed]].2
[[link removed]]”
If the exit polls are roughly accurate, about 19 million people who
had voted for Biden in 2020 just stayed home.3
[[link removed]] And,
again, if the exits are roughly accurate, nearly all of those who
stayed home had said they were voting against Trump when they cast
ballots in 2020.4
[[link removed]] (More
to come later this week when all the votes are counted.)5
[[link removed]] 

Subscribe [[link removed]] to Weekend Reading

I’ll be writing a lot more in the coming weeks, so today, I want to
just offer some bigger-picture observations about key themes that are
missing from this week’s takes about this election. But first, I
want to pose what I think should be the defining question for those
who sought to defeat Trump as they react to the outcome.6
[[link removed]]

In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said: 

“The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the
Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to
be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court . . ._ THE
PEOPLE WILL HAVE CEASED TO BE THEIR OWN RULERS.”_

In October 2009, John Roberts said this on C-SPAN (and it’s worth
listening to him say it – audio here
[[link removed]]):

“The most important thing for the public to understand is that
we’re not a political branch of government. They do not elect
us. _IF THEY DO NOT LIKE WHAT WE ARE DOING, IT’S MORE OR LESS JUST
TOO BAD._”

As you read this rest of this post, and as you consume the breathless
media about what this all means, keep focused on whether you are on
Team Abe or Team Roberts – whether we should focus on the fact that
we have “ceased to be [our] own rulers,” or whether “it’s just
too bad” and we should instead look for savvy things to say about
what the Democrats did wrong.

COMPLETING THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUP

The real headline of this election isn’t about Trump’s victory.
It’s about how the Federalist Society coalition of plutocrats and
theocrats has all but completed its mission to repeal and replace the
20th Century
[[link removed]] by
judicial fiat. 

While Trump was almost certainly not the first choice of the FedSoc
coalition
[[link removed]], his
election, along with the incoming Republican Senate, means that Trump
will be able to allow Thomas and Alito to strategically retire and
install a 6-3 or 7-2 FedSoc majority for decades. And with the
opportunity to place 200-plus more judges to the federal bench, we can
expect nearly half of the federal judiciary to have been appointed by
Trump by the end of his term. (Think Matthew Kacsmaryk and Aileen
Cannon.) 

Trump is frequently compared to the other strongmen coming to power
around the world. While Trump is certainly in that mold, it is
dangerous to imagine that what’s happening in this country is the
same. Instead of thinking of Trump as the animating “strongman”
who warrants our exclusive concern, we need to realize that it is the
fiscal sponsors of the Federalist Society project and the Republican
Party who are the most dangerous threats. Consider this recent
description
[[link removed]] of
the autocratic playbook: 

What we have seen in the 21st century are _LEADERS IN MOVEMENTS THAT
COME TO POWER THROUGH DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS AND THEN, ONCE IN POWER,
LIKE TROJAN HORSES, DISMANTLE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS FROM WITHIN SO THAT
THEY ARE ABLE TO ENTRENCH THEIR POWERS AND ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY
OF BEING REMOVED THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS._

Now, if you think of Trump as the “leader” in that sentence, then
the danger seems to be in the future – in which case the question
is, “Can we hold him back?” But if, instead, we think of the
billionaires and theocrats behind the capture of the courts and the
Republican Party, then we have to recognize that _THEY ACTUALLY
“CAME TO POWER” ABOUT 16 YEARS AGO “THROUGH DEMOCRATIC
ELECTIONS,”_ and that _“ONCE IN POWER, LIKE TROJAN HORSES,
DISMANTLE[D] DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS FROM WITHIN SO THAT THEY [WERE] ABLE
TO ENTRENCH THEIR POWERS AND ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING
REMOVED THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.”_  The Roberts Court has
been a dictator from day one
[[link removed]].

In Tipping the Scales: The MAGA Justices Have Already Interfered with
the 2024 Elections
[[link removed]],
I went through the cases in which the billionaire-sponsored justices
“dismantled democratic systems from within.”

As I wrote before the election in “The John Roberts Election
[[link removed]],” the
2024 election would be unrecognizable to a visitor from 2008. Before
the FedSoc capture of the Supreme Court and _Citizens United_, the
billionaires were constrained by contribution limits. And while there
was already “dark money” and some outside spending, it was nothing
like what we saw in 2024, when: 

*
Outside spenders, like Elon Musk, spent more to elect Trump than Trump
could raise for his own campaign.

*
In every toss-up Senate race, and in nearly every toss-up House race,
outside groups, funded almost entirely by the wealthy, spent more than
the candidates themselves.

LEGAL BUT NOT LEGITIMATE

To be very clear, I am not arguing that we should deny the results of
the elections, or show up on January 6th, 2025 to disrupt the counting
of the electoral votes, or some such thing. I am arguing for us to
understand that this election was legal, but not democratically
legitimate
[[link removed]] –
in just the same way that for nearly a century, elections in the South
were “legal” under Jim Crow constitutions, but did not
legitimately represent the consent of the governed. 

From talking to many, many of you over the last week, I understand how
difficult this point is to accept. Donald Trump received more votes
than Kamala Harris did, and isn’t that the definition of a
democratic result? There was no after-the-voting Supreme Court steal a
la _Bush v. Gore_. Trump received more votes under the rules on
Election Day; end of story. 

It’s not so simple. 

_IF WHAT JUST HAPPENED HERE HAD HAPPENED IN SAY, HUNGARY, WE
WOULDN’T BE PORING OVER THE EXIT POLLS IN BUDAPEST; WE WOULD EASILY
RECOGNIZE THAT THE RESULT WAS LEGAL BUT NOT LEGITIMATE._ (The real
meaning of American exceptionalism is our exceptional ability not to
see in ourselves what we easily see in others.) 

While Trump “won” playing by the rules as they were on Election
Day, those weren’t what everyone thought the rules were when he
announced his candidacy. Remember that in the last two years
[[link removed]]: 

*
Every time Trump’s actions have come before a grand jury, he has
been indicted; 

*
Every time he has faced a trial jury, he has been convicted; 

*
Every time he has had an important case heard by judges he did not
appoint, including those appointed by other Republican presidents, he
has lost; 

*
Each time surveys have asked whether he had committed crimes, a
majority say he has; 

BUT: 

*
_EVERY TIME HE HAS COME BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OR FEDERAL
JUDGES HE APPOINTED, HE HAS HAD HIS WAY._7
[[link removed]]

Every obstacle to Donald Trump’s candidacy was removed by a Supreme
Court majority consisting of three justices he appointed and two who,
under applicable federal law, were required to recuse themselves but
did not. Those actions even drew a remarkable rebuke in Justices
Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson’s concurring opinion in _Trump
v._ _Anderson_, saying that the Court was settling _"NOVEL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS TO INSULATE THIS COURT AND PETITIONER [TRUMP]
FROM FUTURE CONTROVERSY._"

GROUNDHOG DAY PUNDITS

Many are quick to say that Tuesday represents something historic and
possibly – likely? – enduring. For example, Doug Sosnik, who
should know way better, called this the “the biggest shift to the
right in our country since Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980.”

But let’s look at changes in presidential parties going back to 1912
(Woodrow Wilson). Before 2016, the swings associated with changes in
parties were much larger, and_ THIS IS THE ONLY TIME IN THIS
CENTURY-PLUS TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE PARTY IN THE WHITE HOUSE
SWITCHED THREE TIMES IN A ROW._ Indeed, Carter’s Watergate fluke
victory is the only time that control flipped in two consecutive
elections.8
[[link removed]]  

[[link removed]]

As you can see from the graph above, in terms of vote share from
Democrat to Republican, it wasn’t the biggest shift to the right
since Reagan; it was only the biggest since the shift from George W
Bush. And unlike 1980, when Reagan brought with him 34 new
representatives and 12 new senators(!), Trump is bringing with him
likely no change in the House of Representatives, and 4 or 5 new
senators. 

Moving past the notion of “swing” to the actual size of the
majorities (which, after all, is the only measure by which a victory
could be called decisive), Trump will likely win the popular vote by
2.5 points or so. That’s the narrowest popular victory margin since
either 1976 or 1968, and among the lowest of the last century.9
[[link removed]] This
being the case, we have to ask, _WHY_ _ARE DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANTS
AND LIBERAL COMMENTATORS COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER TO FIND THE MOST
GRANDIOSE (AND UNSUBSTANTIATED) CLAIMS FOR THE GREATNESS OF THIS
HISTORICALLY SLIM VICTORY?_

In fact, this is the second time that Donald Trump came close to
losing an election that any other credible Republican candidate would
have won by a much larger margin. 

Another look at historical trends shows that _FOR THE LAST TWO
DECADES, ALL BUT ONE ELECTION HAS BEEN A “CHANGE
ELECTION,”_ because Americans are simply fed up with the system not
working for them.10
[[link removed]] In
nine of the last ten elections, voters have fired the occupant of the
White House or the party controlling at least one congressional
chamber. Polling has shown over this period, especially since the 2008
crash: 

*
Confidence in every institution has plummeted
[[link removed]] to
the point they are all underwater; 

*
By 2:1 and 3:1 margins Americans think the country is going in
the wrong direction
[[link removed]];

*
Even as voting has become more ossified, fewer and fewer
[[link removed]] identify
themselves as Democrats or Republicans.

[[link removed]]

How many of you have Ruy Teixiera and John Judis’s _Emerging
Democratic Majority_, Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten’s _One Party
Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century, _or
Stan Greenberg’s _GOP RIP: How the New America is Dooming the
Republican_ on your bookshelves? All of these are majestic takes from
the last two decades on how American politics has transformed in a
permanent or enduring way. But, as the chart above clearly shows, _IN
21ST CENTURY AMERICA, THE BEST STRATEGY FOR WINNING THE NEXT ELECTION
IS LOSING THE LAST ONE._

Moreover, you might have seen this Financial Times chart
[[link removed]],
showing the fact that “different politicians, different parties,
different policies and different rhetoric deployed in different
countries have all met similar fortunes suggests that a large part of
Tuesday’s American result was locked in regardless of the messenger
or the message. The wide variety of places and people who swung
towards Trump also suggests an outcome that was more inevitable than
contingent.”

[[link removed]]

This Bloomberg chart
[[link removed]] breaks
it down by country for the last two years (which is why you see some
not losing vote share)11
[[link removed]]:

[[link removed]]

Note that most of the parties losing the most ground were right or
center-right.

Yet, after this election, as after pretty much every election, we
ignore all of that to proclaim the not-loser as heralding some great
realignment in American politics with profound but never specified
implications, and to declare the not-loser as possessing some profound
connection with the American people and some special sauce for
campaigning in the new age. 

Thus, we have two stories about “what happened.” In one, there is
a worldwide swing _AGAINST INCUMBENTS_. In the other, a set of
demographic groups swing _TOWARDS TRUMP_. The first is a worldwide
story with failed governance; the other is the presumption that what
Trump and MAGA offers has created a new coalition, a historic
political realignment. _MATHEMATICALLY, YOU CANNOT HAVE A 7 POINT
SWING FROM ONE PARTY TO THE OTHER AND NOT ALSO SEE PARTISAN SWINGS IN
PARTICULAR DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS._ In other words, anyone determined to
believe the demographic story can find support for that story in the
data, even if what’s going on is the “worldwide swing” story.
But once again, the demographic essentialists remain committed to
insisting that the swing was the sum of the movements within each
demographic group, rather than stopping to pause and wonder whether a
swing in the disaffected electorate necessarily includes members in
each demographic group. 

I’d also caution that once again, the demographic essentialists
[[link removed]] are
pedaling their ecological fallacies
[[link removed]].
(An ecological fallacy occurs when it is presumed what is true of a
group is true of the individuals in the group.) Thus, remember that
when all you hear is “group X swung 10 points towards Trump,” you
are not being told whether 1 in 20 of the same group X individuals who
voted in 2020 and 2024 switched from Biden to Trump, or whether 1 in
10 group X members who voted in 2020 didn’t vote in 2024. 

Although I’m going to do more to feed your data-lust soon, there are
some important data points already that challenge the notion that
Trump is a “winner.” _HE IS JUST THE LATEST NOT-LOSER IN A TWO
PARTY SYSTEM WHERE SOMEONE ALWAYS GETS TO BE THE NOT-LOSER. _

*
House Republicans are running about 2 points ahead of Trump, doing so
in 28 of the 46 states that have finished counting; 

*
Trump will likely end up with the same 31 to 32 percent share of the
eligible population he had four years ago (Harris is running a few
points behind Biden’s share; that is the difference in outcomes); 

*
In the Electoral College battlegrounds, where the campaign was most
engaged, the swing from 2020 is much less than in the rest of the
country, likely going from 0.8 percent for Biden to about 2.5 points
for Trump (a 3.3 point swing) – compared to the rest of the country,
which swung from 5.5 points for Biden to about 2.5 points for Trump
(an 8 point swing).

*
Oh, and by the way, turnout barely dropped in the Electoral College
battleground states where Harris slipped the least (a “high turnout
election”) but fell back almost to 2016 levels in the rest of the
country where the swing was much greater (a “low turnout
election”). 

*
Again, per the Financial Times chart above, Democrats did relatively
less badly than the incumbent parties.

To be clear, as I’ll develop later this week, those bullet points
should in no way be taken as evidence that “Democrats did the best
they could under the conditions.” Indeed, we’ll see that in 2020
Biden was as much the not-loser as Trump was in 2016 and is again in
2024.

ANOTHER “VICTORY FOR DEMOCRACY?”

Two years ago, I was sickened by self-styled democracy advocates who
were so quick to celebrate the 2022 midterms as a victory for
democracy. I wrote
[[link removed]]:

We urgently need to understand how it’s come to be that in January
control of the House of Representatives will pass to a fascist,
election-denying party, whose congressional members were complicit in
a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election, and then did their
best to obstruct justice and prevent accountability – and why,
rather than asking how this came to be, the media and self-styled
defenders of democracy are celebrating it as a victory for democracy.

By 2020, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem [[link removed]])
concluded that in terms of its commitment to democracy, the Republican
Party was now “more similar to autocratic ruling parties such as the
Turkish AKP and Fidesz in Hungary than to typical center-right
governing parties.” 

And that was before the attempted insurrection, which, in a brief
flash of clarity, Mitch McConnell clearly understood: 

January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own
government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of
democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and
bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to
hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted
about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had
been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth – because
he was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's actions
preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty…There is
no question that President Trump is practically and morally
responsible for provoking the events of that day.

As the nation “elects” its first convicted felon, its first
president to attempt an insurrection when he lost, a Senate majority
that will represent no more than 45 percent of the country, and likely
a House majority  led by his enablers, we find even now that many who
styled themselves “democracy defenders” are once again proving to
be nothing more than _PROFESSIONAL DEMOCRACY VIRTUE-SIGNALERS,
PROVIDING THEIR OWN GOOD-NATURED SURRENDER AS EVIDENCE THAT DEMOCRACY
STILL WORKS_. For an example of that, there’s no better place to
start than with our incumbent democracy defender in chief
[[link removed]] (emphasis
added): 

For over 200 years, America has carried on the greatest experiment in
self-government in the history of the world — and that’s not
hyperbole; that’s a fact — where the people — _THE PEOPLE VOTE
AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERS_ and they do it peacefully and
where, _IN A DEMOCRACY, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ALWAYS PREVAILS._ 

Yesterday, _I SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON
HIS VICTORY._  And I assured him that I would direct my entire
administration to work with his team to ensure a peaceful and orderly
transition.  That’s what the American people deserve. …

_CAMPAIGNS ARE CONTESTS OF COMPETING VISIONS. THE COUNTRY CHOOSES ONE
OR THE OTHER. WE ACCEPT THE CHOICE THE COUNTRY MADE._ I've said many
times you can't love your country only when you win. You can't love
your neighbor only when you agree. Something I hope we can do no
matter who you voted for is see each other not as adversaries but as
fellow Americans, _BRING DOWN THE TEMPERATURE._ 

To all of us who reluctantly voted for him in 2020 because they
understood the alternative, Biden is, in effect, saying, “Remember
how I told you had to vote for me because the threat was existential
and the ‘soul of the nation’ was at stake? Turns out, not so
much.” 

AMERICA ON TRIAL

In August 2023, when Trump was seemingly facing trials for four
separate sets of felonies, I wrote America on Trial: If Trump walks,
we’re all guilty
[[link removed]]. I concluded by
saying: 

I’m most struck by the contrast between the moral ambitions and
certitude of the Trump years and the defeatism of the last two. In the
Trump years, there was a palpable resurgence of moral clarity which
reached a crescendo in the George Floyd protests and the national
resistance to MAGA. But over the last two and a half years, too many
sat on the sidelines reverting to a learned helplessness, more
interested in hectoring and second guessing those who remained
committed. If the Trump years were characterized by the nation’s
greatest readiness to acknowledge its faults, the last two and a half
were characterized by backlash – not just by those still determined
to “make America great again,” but by a peanut gallery of
opinionators who insist we discard our most basic moral commitments as
political liabilities. 

In reality, the universe has no moral arc – only a thick rope for an
eternal tug of war between human freedom and dignity on one side, and
fascism, unfettered greed, and inherited caste on the other. If Trump
– or another MAGA nominee – wins in November of next year, what we
say and do now can and will be used as evidence against us by future
generations.

Too many in privileged positions who once stood as allies have now
sidelined themselves, opting to accept John Roberts’s cold “it’s
just too bad” as if it were an inevitable truth. They dust
themselves off and tell us, “We’ll get ’em next time.” What
they still fail to see is that Trump’s “someone” on Fifth Avenue
was never an anonymous bystander; it was always us — the America
Langston Hughes envisioned
[[link removed]].

_O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free._

And now, a captured Supreme Court majority accepts that if he pulls
the trigger, it will be well within his “core constitutional
authority.”

Thanks for reading Weekend Reading ! Subscribe
[[link removed]] for free to receive new posts
and support my work.

_Weekend Reading is edited by Emily Crockett, with research assistance
by Andrea Evans and Thomas Mande._

_Michael Podhorzer @michaelpodhorzer
[[link removed]]
is former political director of the AFL-CIO. Senior fellow at the
Center for American Progress. Founder: Analyst Institute, Research
Collaborative (RC), Co-founder: Working America, Catalist. He
publishes Weekend Reading. (weekendreading.net)_

1
[[link removed]] That’s
assuming when all the votes are counted, Trump’s margin will be 2.3
points. Right now the running total has it at about 2.4 points, but
with the remaining 5 or so million votes to be added coming from West
Coast states. 

2
[[link removed]] I
am resisting the temptation to distract in the main text with this
observation about the soggy thinking of pundits who keep telling us
that Democrats depend on “low turnout” elections by telling us
they did well in low turnout elections like the 2022 midterms (despite
the fact they got wiped out in the states with the lowest turnout and
did well in the states with the highest turnout) and did poorly in the
presidential election, despite the fact that they did much worse in
the states (and as this Journal article makes clear, the counties)
with the lowest turnout and the best in those with the highest! 

3
[[link removed]] According
to VoteCast
[[link removed]], 40
percent of the electorate had voted for Biden in 2020. Michael
McDonald, the recognized expert, estimates that 154.8 million voted
(149 million votes have been counted). That would mean there were 62
million Biden voters who cast ballots and 19 million who didn’t (he
received 81 million in 2020). 

4
[[link removed]] Again,
according to the exits
[[link removed]],
69 percent of those voting for Harris, or about 50 million people,
said they were voting for her (as opposed to against Trump). In 2020,
again according to the exits, only half of those voting for Biden said
it had been for him (as opposed to against Trump). That’s about 40
million people. So Harris actually got more votes than Biden had from
people who said they were voting for them. On the other hand, BIden
received about 40 million votes from people they who said they were
voting against Trump while Harris received only about 25 million such
votes. 

5
[[link removed]] Notwithstanding
my longstanding reluctance to join the mad rush to judgment, there
will soon be enough there to make some essential rebuttals or
recontextualization of the conversation about the vote as
interpretations consolidate. 

6
[[link removed]] These
two quotes are the epigraph to David Daley’s
excellent _Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right's 50-Year Plot to
Control American Elections._

7
[[link removed]] If
you’re wondering why I didn’t count the 2020 election cases that
went against Trump, see Politicians in Robes III 
[[link removed]]for
more on these and other “exceptions” that prove the rule.

8
[[link removed]] Yes,
it’s weird because Trump I was not a popular vote victory.

9
[[link removed]] Putting
aside Bush who lost the popular vote in 2000 and Trump who lost the
popular vote in 2016, since 1888, the only presidents to win with a
smaller percentage margin than Trump were John F. Kennedy (0.2
percent), Richard M. Nixon (0.8 percent) and Jimmy Carter (2.1
percent).

10
[[link removed]] It
would be 10 for 10 except that extreme gerrymandering protected the
House Republican majority in 2012 when more Americans voted for
Democrats than Republicans, likely the only time a party winning a
majority of the votes has not controlled the House. 

11
[[link removed]] The
Mexican elections were held in 2024, but not included in the Financial
Times set of ten” countries, Spain and Greece elections were held in
2023, and, TBH, I don’t know what’s up with Finland which held its
election early this year. 

* democracy
[[link removed]]
* theocracy
[[link removed]]
* plutocracy
[[link removed]]
* John Roberts
[[link removed]]
* SCOTUS
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* Christian nationalism
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]