The New Cold War with Russia?

Quote

Is the West backing a Gangster State in Ukraine? asked what the hell is going on in the Ukraine.  Now the temperature has been hugely ramped up by the downing of the Malaysian passenger plane.   Professor Steven Cohen speaking to Democracy Now says that we may never know who was responsible… whether it was vested interests or a horrible mistake.  However, he says: I don’t want to prioritize death—I mean, whose death is worse or not so worse. But the reality is… if you’re going to ask an historian…. that the conflict in the Middle East, including Iraq, is going to affect regional politics, but the conflict in Ukraine is going to affect global politics, because we are now in a new Cold War with Russia. Furthermore, Professor Cohen discounts the role of Russia because ‘the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.’

Nevertheless, our corporate press leans towards, or is even overtly blaming Russia, whilst the US are pushing for greater and greater sanctions to be applied. This is a profoundly dangerous situation and it seems that we are again being badly served by our media.  Intelligence author William Engdahl was reported as saying that there is a ‘… tiny power cabal that have so much power in Washington, they want not only a new cold war, they want a new hot war.’

The dread is that such a tiny power cabal are intent on replicating the conditions from a  handbook for ‘world domination':  Nineteen Eighty Four revisited – Is there a ‘world domination’ study course?

Transcript of the Democracy Now interview with Professor Steven Cohen is reposted below:

 

Stephen Cohen: Downed Malaysian Plane Raises Risk of War Between Russia and the West - transcript of video interview which was posted on democracynow.org 18.07.14

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 298 people has exploded and crashed in eastern Ukraine, killing everyone on board. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile, but it’s unclear who fired the missile. The plane was traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with passengers from at least 10 countries on board, including 173 Dutch nationals, 44 Malaysians and 27 Australians. As many as 100 of the world’s leading AIDS researchers and advocates were reportedly on the plane en route to a conference in Australia, including the pioneering researcher and former president of the International AIDS Society, Joep Lange. Both sides in Ukraine’s conflict are blaming each other for downing the plane. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak vowed to launch a full investigation into what happened.

PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK: We must, and we will, find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone will be left unturned. If it transpires that the plane was indeed shot down, we insist that the perpetrators must swiftly be brought to justice.

AMY GOODMAN: After the plane crashed, Russian media quoted witnesses saying they saw the plane being hit by what looked like a rocket. There have been several other recent disputes over planes being attacked over eastern Ukraine. On Thursday, Ukrainian officials blamed the Russian air force for shooting down one of its ground attack jets and a transport plane earlier in the week. Over the past few days, Western governments have expressed growing concern that Russia is ramping up its military support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. The United States strengthened its economic sanctions against Russia this week, but the European Union has so far declined to follow suit.

For more, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent piece for The Nation is headlined, “The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities.” His book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback.

Professor Cohen, welcome to Democracy Now! What do you think we should understand about what has taken place?

STEPHEN COHEN: The horror of it all, to quote Conrad, watching your reports on Gaza, knowing what I know but what’s not being reported in the mainstream media about what’s been going on in eastern Ukraine cities—these cities have been pounded by Kiev—and now this. “Emeritus,” as you call me, means old. I’ve seen this before. One function of cold war is innocent victims. The people who died, nearly 300, from many countries, are the first victims, nonresidential victims, of the new Cold War. This crash, this shootdown, will make everything worse, no matter who did it.

There are several theoretical possibilities. I am not a conspiracy buff, but we know in the history of the Cold War, there are provocations, people who want to make things worse. So, in Moscow, and not only in Moscow, there are theories that somebody wanted this to happen. I just can’t believe anybody would do it, but you can’t rule anything out.

The other possibility is, because the Ukrainian government itself has a capability to shoot down planes. By the way, the Ukrainian government shot down a Russian passenger jet, I think in 2001. It was flying from Tel Aviv to Siberia. It was an accident. Competence is always a factor when you have these weapons.

Another possibility is that the rebels—we call them separatists, but they weren’t separatists in the beginning, they just wanted home rule in Ukraine—that they had the capability. But there’s a debate, because this plane was flying at commercial levels, normally beyond the reach of what they can carry on their shoulders.

There’s the possibility that the Russians aided and abetted them, possibly from Russian territory, but I rule that out because, in the end, when you don’t know who has committed a crime, the first question a professional investigator asks is, “Did anybody have a motive?” and the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.

That’s what we know so far. Maybe we’ll know more. We may never know who did this.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the Obama administration has expanded U.S. sanctions on Russia in the latest round of a standoff over Ukraine. Speaking at the White House, President Obama said Russia has failed to drop military support for pro-Russian separatists.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Given its continued provocations in Ukraine, today I have approved a new set of sanctions on some of Russia’s largest companies and financial institutions. Along with our allies, with whom I have been coordinating closely the last several days and weeks, I have repeatedly made it clear that Russia must halt the flow of weapons and fighters across the border into Ukraine, that Russia must urge separatists to release their hostages and support a ceasefire, that Russia needs to pursue internationally mediated talks and agree to meaningful monitors on the border.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Your response?

STEPHEN COHEN: Sanctions are beside the point. Obviously they’ll cause economic pain, possibly equally to Europe, which doesn’t want them, didn’t want them. Major American corporations took out ads in major American newspapers before Obama did this, asking Obama not to do it. When you resort to sanctions, it means you have no policy. You have an attitude. And the anti-Putin attitude in Washington is driving American policy.

Let me mention, because I think it’s relevant to what you’re covering here, your very, very powerful segments before I came on today about what’s going on in Gaza, the pounding of these cities, the defenselessness of ordinary people. The same thing has been happening in East Ukrainian cities—bombing, shelling, mortaring by the Kiev government—whatever we think of that government. But that government is backed 150 percent by the White House. Every day, the White House and the State Department approve of what Kiev’s been doing. We don’t know how many innocent civilians, women and children, have died. We know there’s probably several hundred thousand refugees that have run from these cities. The cities are Donetsk, Luhansk, Kramatorsk, Slovyansk—a whole series of cities whose names are not familiar to Americans. The fact is, Americans know nothing about this. We know something about what’s happening in Gaza, and there’s a division of opinion in the United States: The Israelis should do this, the Israelis should not do this. But we know there are victims: We see them. Sometimes the mainstream media yanks a reporter, as you just showed, who shows it too vividly, because it offends the perception of what’s right or wrong. But we are not shown anything about what’s happened in these Ukrainian cities, these eastern Ukrainian cities.

Why is that important? Because this airliner, this shootdown, took place in that context. The American media says it must have been the bad guys—that is, the rebels—because they’ve shot down other airplanes. This is true, but the airplanes they’ve been shooting down are Ukraine’s military warplanes that have come to bomb the women and children of these cities. We don’t know that.

AMY GOODMAN: There have been several discussions—in the corporate media, it was said that this plane might have had a sort of unusual path, had gone further south, and that they thought it was a Ukrainian military plane.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Also, in terms of the black boxes, that Ukrainian officials and NTSB cannot get there because it’s rebel-held territory, and that the rebels might have taken the black boxes.

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, the rebels have said they’re going to turn them over to Moscow, and Moscow will not conceal them. I mean, Moscow is going to play openness, so far as we know. But what’s preposterous, of course, is the prime minister of Malaysia coming out and telling us that Malaysia will uncover this mystery, when it still can’t find its missing airliner. This is just absolutely preposterous. But you’re right, the investigation is going to be politicized. Will we ever know?

Let me make the point again, though, because you hearkened back to it: This is a war zone. It’s a war zone. It’s been a war zone, an air war zone, for at least a month. Americans don’t know that. I hear you’ve shown it. But that’s—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, that’s one of the reasons that—well, what I wanted to ask you is, because of what’s been going on in Syria, in Iraq, and now with the Israeli attacks on Gaza, it’s almost as if what’s going on in Ukraine has receded in the consciousness of the media here in this country, even though it’s conceivably much more dangerous and has more long-term impact on the United States.

STEPHEN COHEN: I don’t want to prioritize death—I mean, whose death is worse or not so worse. But the reality is, if you’re going to ask an historian, that the conflict in the Middle East, including Iraq, is going to affect regional politics, but the conflict in Ukraine is going to affect global politics, because we are now in a new Cold War with Russia. We have been for several months. One aspect of cold war is civilian deaths. We’ve had these shootdowns. We had them in the old Cold War. This is going to get worse. It also brings us closer to war between Russia and the West, NATO and the United States. So, if you’re going to ask which is more important—Russians have a saying that, which is worse? And the answer is, both are worse. They’re all worse. But if you’re going to ask which is going to have impact for our grandchildren, it’s what’s going on in Ukraine now.

AMY GOODMAN: We only have 30 seconds, but Obama announcing stricter sanctions against Russia, how significant is this? It was a day before the downing of the plane.

STEPHEN COHEN: I’ll repeat what I said before: By resorting to sanctions, Obama reminds us he has no policy toward Ukraine or Russia other than to blame Putin. That’s not a policy; that’s an attitude.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics, New York University and Princeton University. We’ll link to his piece in The Nation. His latest book, just out in paperback, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to“democracynow.org”.

Support the Striking teachers 10th July 2014

Quote

We are told that Michael Gove’s reforms to education are a real success story.

In spite of lacking a formal mandate from the electorate, Gove has launched headlong into massive funding of ‘free schools’ and attempting to turn all schools into academies, outside council control.  Many recognise this to be preparing for the next step of profit-making and privatisation of education.

However, this ‘success’ can hardly be said to be reflected in the polls.  According to a Guardian/ICM poll last April, there is strong public opposition to major planks of Michael Gove’s education reforms.  For example, 68% of Labour supporters, 58% of Lib Dems and 58% of Ukip supporters voted for councils retaining their responsibilities towards schools.  Overall, a majority of 57% agreed that councils should have an important role in over-seeing education.

Furthermore, in 2012:

Gove gave all academies the right to hire teachers who had not undergone formal training, arguing that this mimicked the freedom enjoyed by private schools to bring linguists, engineers and other specialists into the classroom, and there is evidence that the new free schools have made especially extensive use of this facility.’

This policy was even less popular.  63% of voters said that “teaching is a profession which requires dedicated training”.

The last few days (doubtless in response to the strike) there have been a spate of articles/quotes from Michael Gove referring to the ‘vested interests’ of ‘the Blob’ – by which he means the teachers, academic experts and the teaching unions.  However, YouGov found in February 2014 that:

When it comes to educational reforms, Britons tend to give the benefit of the doubt to ‘the Blob’: by 46%-19%, people hold the view that teaching unions and the educational establishment are “right in most of their concerns about education policy and school reforms” rather than believing these groups pose “an obstacle to necessary reforms”. 

When it comes to teachers themselves, over 92% oppose Gove’s reforms (the wonder is not the overwhelming opposition, but that there are 8% of teachers to support them).

But in addition to the reforms in the classroom, schools, the total lack of consultation and the centralised control from Whitehall – not to mention the scandals (financial and organisational) – teachers have also had their pay and pensions cut drastically.  Not only are they suffering from a pay freeze less than inflation but they are also having to find increased pension contributions, and are expected to work to 68y.

Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers’ union, said:

“The Government is still failing to make progress on our trade dispute over teachers’ pay, pensions and workload. The talks are still only about the implementation of Government policies, not about the fundamental issues we believe to be detrimental to education and the profession.

“For teachers, performance related pay, working until 68 for a full pension and heavy workload for 60 hours a week, is unsustainable. 

“This action is the responsibility of a Government and Education Secretary who are refusing point blank to accept the damage their reforms are doing to the teaching profession. The consequences of turning teaching into a totally unattractive career choice will most certainly lead to teacher shortages. 

“Strike action is a last resort for teachers and we deeply regret the disruption it causes parents and pupils. This date has been chosen to cause minimum disruption to examinations.

“Teaching is one of the best jobs in the world but is being made one of the worst under Michael Gove and the Coalition. It is time they listened. Michael Gove can still avoid the strike by engaging in serious negotiations on substantive issues.”

Finally, in solidarity (and by popular demand) to cheer striking teachers on their way … What does OFSTED stand for…

FASCINATING AIDA : very funny OFSTED song for teachers

What is the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership?

Quote

Published on Jul 2, 2014

The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership is a trade deal between the EU and the US – and is anything but harmless. The deal boosts corporate power and endangers people and the planet.

This video, made by international campaigning organisation Attac, sets out the problems with the deal in a really clear, informative way. More Informations:
http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2014/05/… ,
http://www.attac.org/en/node/16244 .

Objections to the Investor State Dispute Settlement can still be registered with the EU Commission – closing date 6th July 2014.  The US will not sign up to TTIP without ISDS so an objection to the Corporate Tribunal is effectively registering your rejection of the EU-US Trade deal.

Information here – Only 3 days left to stop hidden rules within the EU-US trade deal allowing corporates to sue the state

See also – Are we already in the post-democratic era?

 

 

For just a few moments, phone hacking and Leveson drew the curtain aside on Corporate contempt for ordinary people.

Quote

Peter Oborne doesn’t hold back from nailing the arrogance of the political/media class – a picture of which only came to light because of Guardian journalist Nick Davies’ relentless pursuit of the phone hacking story.

The phone hacking affair has displayed the Prime Minister at his worst – a shallow, amoral, conniving careerist, determined to secure high office at any cost. Nevertheless, in Westminster yesterday, the general opinion seemed to be that David Cameron had got away with it, in the wake of Tuesday’s court verdicts.

…Three years have now passed since the revelation that the News of the World had hacked into the phone of the murdered Milly Dowler. It is essential to ask whether British politics has got any cleaner in the meantime.

Tragically, the answer must be no. The phone hacking scandal exposed a louche, selfish, privileged metropolitan elite at the heart of British public life. That elite still exists. Incredibly, the Chipping Norton set, of which the British Prime Minister was such a leading ornament, still flourishes.

…. The scandal has been a shameful episode that has revealed the presence of an arrogant political/media class who have been habitually contemptuous of ordinary people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/10925485/Prime-Minister-and-his-gang-havent-learnt-their-lesson.html

 

However, Peter Oborne doesn’t go the whole hog and also finger the collusion of the police, which should be the next big question. Why didn’t the police push the investigation further?

Was News International another ‘too big to fail’ organisation? No wonder, press bosses considered themselves to be untouchable if both police and politicians felt the advantages of keeping them onside.

However, an even bigger and more over-arching picture emerged during the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking.

It addresses the conundrum…

How has a shallow, amoral, conniving careerist with an equally unimpressive cabinet (see Martin Rowson’s assessment of Osborne below) been so successful in dismantling the NHS, state education and what remains of the post-war consensus for the profitable benefit of the transnational corporations and the financial sector?

Martin Rowson’s assessment of Osborne in 2010:

‘… we need to understand various things about George Osborne, this Government’s economic vandal-in-chief. First, he’s almost a victim of his own ambition…. Second, he’s actually a bit of wimp… If you combine these two aspects of his character, Osborne suddenly becomes both more and less terrifying. He’s less terrifying because it’s just an act, the calculated malevolence purely there to cow the rest of us into compliance with his programme of Thatcherite orthodoxy. However, where he becomes more terrifying is when you realise that … he really and truly doesn’t know what he’s doing ….’ 

http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/10/martin-rowson-3/

 

How can it be that these shambolic, careless, arrogant individuals were able to supervise, let alone devise the immense sophistication of the Health and Social Care bill, the Welfare Reform bill and the Education bill?

Sophisticated?

Not only were these bills profoundly (deliberately) complicated but they were also deviously tailored to facilitate the ongoing privatization of public services… intentionally wrecking the state provision to justify the intrusion of the private sector.  In addition, there has been accompanying legislation such as the not much discussed ‘Henry VIII’ powers to abolish the quangos and the Legal Aid bill which together largely prevent challenge through the courts.

There was also an impressively synchronized timetable orchestrating the passage of these major bits of legislation, getting them swiftly in place, before the first cuts in the benefits system began to be implemented. Unarguably, the intention was to get them onto statute well before the public or MPs had a chance to fully digest their implications.

Additionally, ‘distractions’ were often choreographed to coincide with contentious legislation.  For example the proposal to sell off the forests, which was bound to cause an outcry, coincided with the first reading of Lansley’s Health and Social Care bill. Notably, the floated proposal was totally unnecessary because the Public Bodies bill, which allows the selling off of the forests without recourse to Parliament, was simultaneously going through the House of Lords.

The government’s reputation for incompetence belies the ruthless efficiency with which the policies were implemented and dovetailed seamlessly.

However, every instinct questions whether it is plausible that Lansley, Gove or IDS were the primary movers in devising their respective bills?

Can we really believe that Oliver Letwin, the dumper of official mail in a public park waste-bin, was the brains coordinating the strategy?  The last 4 years of continual ministerial ‘cock-ups’ screams that it is impossible.

Furthermore, civil servants were not the architects and can have had very limited input, because the bills were up and running so quickly after the general election.

The obvious truth is that global management consultants, such as KPMG and McKinsey, and the transnational corporations, were simply allowed free-rein to write the legislation to suit their needs … with no apparent safeguards to secure and protect the best interests of UK citizens from vested interests.

In this scenario, government ministers become simply the front men, the PR…  which would fit with why the Coalition ministers peculiarly focus on the inadequacy of the way that a criticized policy is presented. As Douglas Alexander said:

George Osborne is apologising for spin of the budget, when he should be apologising for the substance.

In fact, the incestuous relationships and carousel of jobs for politicians, civil servants, think tanks, lobbyists, donors and corporate advisors has been widely documented outside of the mainstream media (including Think Left articles such as Welfare Reform and the US Insurance Giant Unum ; Lobbyists are destroying the democratic process. ; Transnational Corporations have not let a good crisis go to waste. )

It was this incestuous web of relationships that was inadvertently revealed in the course of the Leveson Inquiry.  Gary Young summarises:

‘Britain’s political class in particular and ruling class in general collude, connive and corrupt both systemically and systematically…. The evidence has laid bare the intimate, extensive and insidious web of social, familial and personal ties between the political, corporate and legal forces that govern a country: a patchwork of individual and institutional associations so tightly interwoven that to pick at one part is to watch the whole thing unravel.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/06/leveson-murdoch-cameron-brooks-privilege

Furthermore:

… these interactions mock the very notion of democracy on which the nation’s illusions are based…. With the culture secretary described by Murdoch’s lobbyist as a “cheerleader” for News International, it seems as if the takeover was to all intents and purposes a done deal, prevented only by the fallout from the hacking scandal. All the kinks ironed out on horseback and settled in time for the main course. Parliament would have been a mere rubber stamp. Oversight reduced to an afterthought in a House of Commons…. 

Similarly, commenting on the Leveson evidence, Anthony Barnett concluded:

The scandal has now clarified a far more breathtaking question: is Britain governed by a big lie?

Of course there was not a “deal” in the narrow sense of a written contract…. It was a partnership … between people who decided to get into bed with each other and help each other obtain their interests at the expense of public life in Britain.

… no person of sound judgment could conclude anything other than that there was indeed a grand collaboration worked out before the election by the Murdochs and Cameron and Osborne and then implemented after it….

Any government whose duty is to secure and protect its citizens would necessarily seek to ensure that NewsCorp’s power is limited, checked by regulation and competition.

Today, how can Leveson pass judgment on the nature of the understandings reached by Rupert’s Rebecca when she went horse riding with David Cameron beyond the reach of judicial standards of proof? Without the clear evidence of the metaphorical ‘smoking gun’ to make a verdict of a conspiracy against the public interest simply unavoidable, it becomes his judgment-call to force the Prime Minister and Chancellor from office, for selling out the country with their utterly inappropriate relationships with team Murdoch. It is a power he’ll naturally resile from using….

But the bigger issue remains… It is one thing to kow-tow, to cultivate, to grant some concessions to (to seek not to make an enemy of) a man who controls 40 per cent of the press. This may be revolting but it is – or was – political reality in Britain. It is quite another to agree to reshape the all-important media environment of our democracy for the advantage of a player whose coverage is not only notorious for bias and the dishonourable destruction of people’s lives but who is also known to bribe the police and break the law.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/murdoch-and-big-lie

So extrapolating from the Murdoch empire to all transnational corporations, Barnett’s words could be re-written:

But the bigger issue remains… It is one thing to kow-tow, to cultivate, to grant some concessions to (to seek not to make an enemy of) the transnational corporations and the financial sector. This may be revolting but it is – or was – political reality in Britain. It is quite another to agree to reshape the all-important public services of our democracy for the advantage of players whose primary concern is a ready, stream of profits which will doubtless end up untaxed in some offshore secrecy jurisdiction.

Without the clear evidence of the metaphorical ‘smoking gun’ to make a verdict of a conspiracy against the public interest simply unavoidable, it becomes a judgment-call to force the Prime Minister and Chancellor from office, for selling out the country with their utterly inappropriate relationships with private health providers, private employment insurers, global management consultants, private education providers and so on.

This raises fundamental questions about the nature and power of government (such as those raised by julijuxtaposed in Can we sue the Government?)

Shouldn’t there be a responsibility on political parties to spell out their intentions before they are elected?

Shouldn’t there be transparency about the authors and genesis of legislation?

Shouldn’t there be a capacity to challenge governments who have misled the electorate prior to election?  For example ‘No top down re-organisation of the NHS’ and ‘No Tuition fees’.

Shouldn’t there be a legal duty on governments to secure and protect the best interests of their citizens?

Doubtless this list is not exhaustive but the point is, that without this sort of transparency and accountability, in what way can any UK government be said to be democratically elected?  What protection is there for the electorate from a sanctioned coup d’état?

And funnily enough, just such a coup d’état is being perpetrated.

Tories plan to wipe out state services

A leading Cabinet minister has admitted that the Conservatives aim to eradicate the state provision of public services in this country. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister and a former banker, in an extraordinary gung-ho speech to Policy Exchange to mark 10 years of the centre-right think tank, said the Government wants to end state provision – even if it means they end up being run by private equity companies from tax havens…. The speech comes as David Cameron’s Government is embarking on a controversial programme to extend privatisation way beyond Margaret Thatcher’s wildest dreams – to Britain’s road network and even the police.

http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2012/03/tories-plan-to-wipe-out-state-services/

 

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS, said: “Far from being done by mutual consent, the Government’s plans rest on imposing unpopular ideas on an unwilling workforce.”  At the same time, Professor Prem Sikka reports that Britain’s rate of wealth transference from employees and the state to corporations is unmatched in any developed country.

And the cherry on top of the cake, is that the Tory/LD coalition is desperate to push through the EU-US trade agreement (TTIP or TAFTA) before May 2015 – an agreement which is intended to lock in future governments so that they cannot reverse any of those privatisations… a charter for the corporations which places their rights above sovereign nations and the democratic process.

Are we already in the Post-democratic era?

Nick Davies’ investigative zeal did not just uncover the perfidy of the phone hackers. It led right to the top and even went global – the neoliberal aim of replacing democracy with corporatism – the merging of state and corporate power. Or as most people call it fascism.

Related posts:

Recipe for Ruin: TTIP the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

EU-US FTA, TAFTA, TTIP – whatever its name, it means bad news for 99%

The Top Secret Deal You Need to Know About

 

Updated and amended from original post in 2012