Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

October 11, 2011

Another Depression, another Occupation

Filed under: Occupy Wall Street,war — louisproyect @ 7:51 pm

In 1932, three years after the stock market crashed and when the U.S. was in the throes of the worst depression in history, WWI veterans occupied a parcel of land not far from the White House to demand payment on the bonuses that were owed them. They were supposed to get paid for the difference between their military pay and their civilian wages according to legislation passed in 1924 but would have to wait until 1945. Since many were unemployed and destitute they demanded immediate payment.

Like today’s OWS, this occupation captured the country’s imagination and led to a political polarization. With Herbert Hoover still in the White House, there was little to expect in the way of justice but probably few of the veterans expected what eventually took place, a full-scale military assault led by General Douglas MacArthur that included six tanks. Under MacArthur’s command were Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton. This was obviously a major offensive.

After an initial foray with fixed bayonets and adamsite, a vomit-inducing gas, Hoover called for a halt to the assault that MacArthur ignored, stating that he was trying to put down a Communist insurgency. At this point in his career, MacArthur showed the kind of defiance of civilian authority that would lead to his firing by Harry Truman years later.

In the video clip below, pay close attention to the orator in white shirt with rolled-up sleeves and suspenders. That is none other than General Smedley Butler!

The Bonus Army movement raised some of the same themes now being heard at OWS rallies. On June tenth, just a month before the men were attacked, their leader Walter W. Waters wrote an article in the NY Times (the paper was reasonably favorable toward the movement) using language that might sound familiar to you. He wrote:

We realize that the hue and cry is being raised by our opponents that payment of the bonus would be “class” legislation. But is not Federal assistance to broken-down railroads and defunct banks “class” legislation of a sort? Of course, the point is raised that assistance to industry is assistance to the working man.

Then, as now, there were certain problems that the occupiers had with the “Marxist-Leninist” left. Today that left is generally sympathetic to the movement but has no clue how to engage with it, a function unfortunately of seeing every mass movement as something to “intervene” in rather than become integrated with organically.

Back in 1932, the left was pretty much synonymous with the Communist Party which was deep into its “left turn”. A June 18 NYT article titled “Reds Urge Mutiny in the Bonus Army” that was not far from the truth. The CP urged the men to go back home and join with the working class in a fight for unemployment insurance. While the party’s call was cloaked in ultraleft rhetoric, it was clearly missing the point of the action, which was to implicitly put the rulers in Washington and their Wall Street funders on the defensive.

A week after the Bonus Army had been driven from its encampment, the CP held a press conference where its leaders demonstrated unbelievable stupidity. The lead paragraph of a July 31 1932 NYT article states: “The Communist Party, at its headquarters here accepted responsibility yesterday for the demonstration that resulted in the Bonus Army riots in Washington.” Speaking for the party leadership, William Z. Foster said:

Under the banner of the world Communist party, fight imperialist war, defend the Soviet Union, make Aug. 1 the beginning of a gigantic struggle for the defense of the right of workers.

Rally behind the election fight of the Communist Party. Oust the Hoover-Wall Street government. Forward to the workers’ and farmers’ government.

Can you imagine that this was the largest party on the left? Using rhetoric that evoked the “social fascism” mindset of the German CP, the CP labeled Walter Waters as a “stoolpigeon” who was following Mussolini and Hitler.

In the same way that Obama’s election in 2008 brought hope that social justice would be served, so did FDR’s election in 1932 raise the country’s spirits. Surely, someone who would become famous for his New Deal achievements—at least in the hagiography of American liberalism—would see a way to meet the request of the Bonus Army. As it turns out, FDR was as opposed to granting the veterans’ demand as Hoover. The only difference between the two was in the rhetoric they used. Hoover opposed it for obvious plutocratic motives while FDR opposed it because it would divert resources from the New Deal. In other words, the two presidents were playing the same game that Bush and Obama would play 76 years later in tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum fashion.

As part of “the Hundred Days” that marks the onset of the New Deal shortly after taking office, Roosevelt pushed through the Bill to Maintain the Credit of the United States Government. Better known as the Economy Act, the bill drastically cut federal expenditures through a 400-million-dollar reduction in veteran pensions and benefits. If Obama had taken the advice of the Nation Magazine and Salon.com to create a new New Deal, this is a piece of legislation he surely would have embraced.

In an odd role reversal, the Veterans of Foreign Wars—nowadays a bastion of reaction—took FDR to task from the left. The Economy Act in their eyes demonstrated the continuing influence of “Big Business” and “Wall Street”.

With its ranks dominated by men who were suffering from the impact of the Depression, the VFW’s magazine Foreign Service did not mince words. In an April 1933 editorial titled “Blood Money”, they wrote:

It is apparent that the veteran has been forced to bear the burden of a depression that was caused by his enemies—the predatory interests that have their hands in the public till. The money that will be withheld from the disabled veteran…can only be regarded as blood money.

This is the same mood that can be seen among the veterans participating in OWS today even if in this instance the anger is directed more at Sean Hannity than the president.

By April 1933, the VFW had FDR pegged in pretty much the same terms as Paul Street had Obama pegged early on. While some pundits viewed FDR has having been duped into supporting the Economy Act, the VFW saw him siding openly with big business and nothing but a continuation of Hoover. Since the Economy Act had removed 501,777 veterans and their dependents from the pension rolls, the pain must have been excruciating. In the VFW magazine, the reference was from that point on to “the new deal” rather than the New Deal.

While the VFW has gone through an evolution obviously, the American Legion was not much different in 1933 than it is today. It supported the Economy Act and its leader Louis A. Johnson spent as much time at the White House as some labor fakers do today.

The VFW published Smedley Butler’s speech to the Bonus Army seen in the Youtube clip above under the title “You Got to Get Mad”. Butler agreed to go on a speaking tour to promote the veterans’ demands that year. A Roosevelt supporter in 1932, Butler was now angry at the administration’s cozy alliance with “Big Business”.

Under the impact of such activism, FDR was forced to back down but not without resistance. Congress, where Democrats held majorities in both houses, passed the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act in 1936 authorizing the immediate payment of the $2 billion in WWI bonuses over the President’s veto.

If there’s any lesson to be learned from the original occupiers, it is that you have to rely on your own power in the spirit of Frederick Douglass’s words: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Even if such demands are still pending!


Stephen R. Ortiz, The “New Deal” for Veterans: The Economy Act, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the origins of New Deal Dissent, The Journal of Military History, April 2006, Vol. 70, no. 2


  1. A piece I wrote that dealt with the fate of the Bonus Army: http://www.isreview.org/issues/55/veterans.shtml

    They were defeated in the short term but they won in the long term (the G.I. Bill).

    Butler is an interesting figure. He was approached by some big business figures who were interested in organizing a fascist coup to get rid of FDR. He wasn’t interested.

    Comment by Binh — October 11, 2011 @ 8:55 pm

  2. You really have to wonder that they would see that guy and say, “Yeah, that’s our man.”

    Comment by godoggo — October 12, 2011 @ 3:08 am

  3. “Butler is an interesting figure. He was approached by some big business figures who were interested in organizing a fascist coup to get rid of FDR. He wasn’t interested.”

    Such is the story. Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone really imagined that Butler would do such a thing. He had made many clear public statements which would have been seen by everyone at the time as coming from the Left. It’s not at all probable that anyone believed that he would have carried out a military coup d’etat on behalf of big business.

    Although one may be hesitant about making up hypotheses on the basis of limited facts, still if I had to make sense of the alleged attempt to recruit Butler into leading a coup then I would say that it was more likely an attempt by FDR’s backers to increase his credibility before the public. What unavoidably happened was that after being approached Butler turned around and began denouncing an attempted coup d’etat against FDR. Nothing else was accomplished by this except to make FDR appear as a hated foe of big business. Maybe that was the whole purpose from the beginning? Pure speculation. but quite plausible.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — October 12, 2011 @ 3:11 am

  4. Uncoordinated Notes on My second Visit to Occupy Wall Street – 10/11/11

    1. Compared to 8 days ago, the Occupation is slightly larger.

    2. The attitude of the cops is slightly more hostile. Parts of the Occupation space are now enclosed by steel barriers.

    3. The space retains a distinctly hippy quality; however, the space is neither dirty nor does it have decadent feel to it. People appear positive and engaged.

    4. Dope smoking is going on relatively openly on the site.

    5. People with a “spiritual message,” i.e. yoga and meditation, are very much in evidence.

    6. While many of the slogans on the numerous signs are political, the Occupation does not have a political feel to it. It remains “pre-political.”

    7. While I was there, roughly at rush hour (4:30 PM to 6:30 PM), there was no evidence of a presence of organized labor.

    8. The only presence of the organized Left was a single, rather forlorn, individual giving out a leaflet for Socialist Appeal.

    9. Hostility to the Democrats is obvious.

    10. Hostility to the banks is prevalent, to other corporations less so.

    11. Generalized hostility to capitalism is evident and open.

    12. Use of the “human mic” is common. Whenever anyone speaks, people gather around and the human mic comes into use. It is quite amazing to see.

    Comment by RED DAVE — October 12, 2011 @ 3:59 am

  5. “Today that left is generally sympathetic to the movement but has no clue how to engage with it, a function unfortunately of seeing every mass movement as something to “intervene” in rather than become part of organically.

    Indeed, it is the duty of the Left to attend the occupation as individuals and make no arguments whatsoever, rather agree with everything said so that there is consensus and no-one’s feelings are hurt..

    Comment by Chav — October 12, 2011 @ 4:40 am

  6. Chav wrote:

    “it is the duty of the Left to attend the occupation as individuals and make no arguments whatsoever, rather agree with everything said so that there is consensus and no-one’s feelings are hurt..”

    Really? Even when someone’s feelings are hurt because there were no arguments? >tsk!<

    Note this:


    Comment by Todd — October 12, 2011 @ 9:44 am

  7. Another War Against Financial Terrorists

    Consider this video report from Russian TV (RT) ‘today’ (11 Oct 2011):

    Ground Zero of Financial Terrorism (E195)


    “This week Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, talk about Marie Antoinette’s last words on a banner at the Chicago Board of Trade, Herman Cain’s views on the ‘unAmerican’ protesters and a proposal for a Seal Team 6 to protect us from terrorist bankers. In the second half of the show, Max Keiser interviews Charles Hugh Smith, author of An Unconventional Guide to Investing in Troubled Times, about #occupywallstreet, Crash JP Morgan – Buy Silver and other solutions to a dangerous banking system.”

    The description is accurate, but the show is much better than the description suggests.

    One of the interesting ideas suggested for bringing down the banking industry is “default day”, a pre-selected day (soon) on which everyone who has an underwater mortgage and/or has decided to default on a mortgage, defaults simultaneously. This would force the government to create a real bank (“commercial” bank) as was done to solve the S&L crisis in the Bush 1 administration.

    Another idea is for the public (the portion that still has some money left to invest) to buy out the physical supply of a commodity so as to shut down the commodity trading for it, and thus also the financialization (derivative speculation) built upon it; silver being a good target.

    Marxists, being experts in capitalism (certainly Karl Marx was in his day), should find this show fascinating (I did).

    In the mix here are comments from Bernie Madoff describing how the banks are robbing pension funds (e.g., money from public employees, like the cops protecting the banks against OWS), comments about and recommendations for OWS, and comments about Herman Cain’s whoppers on “jobs”.

    I’ve put this post here (after the Bonus Army story) because this show discusses:
    — the cause of our new Great Depression (the worst such crisis ever, according to the Bank of England),
    — urges legal and prosecutorial action against the F-Terrorists similar to that of the last Great Depression (“Pecora Commission”),
    — discusses how a Tobin Tax (financial transaction tax) has already been in effect for decades, but of negative polarity: the banks collect and pocket it! (Thanks, Bernie Madoff),
    — suggests financial tactics “everybody” can engage in (now) to combat the FTs,
    — describes the advantages of breaking up the big 5 banks (controlling 80%-90% of the industry) into 250 to 1000 smaller banks (a modern version of Glass-Steagall),
    — how banks failed in their prime social function, which is the allocation – spreading out – of capital so it creates jobs; they accumulated it instead and gambled in a way where they privatized gains and socialized loses,
    — the global nature of the crisis (e.g., Eurozone),
    — the cartel capitalism that actually exists today (no banking competition), which is quite different from the capitalism of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    The show did not mention repeal of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but there were comments about the “banking coup of 2008-2010”, where the banks had their paid political operatives expropriate the USG to loot the Treasury (to my mind a 21st century version of the sack of Troy).

    The show itself is an interesting example of up-to-the-minute modern Russian-sponsored anti-capitalist propaganda.

    Comment by Manuel Garcia, Jr. — October 12, 2011 @ 10:36 am

  8. FDR’s most crowning achievement was signing the Social Security act.

    Why so many Americans immortalize him and call him a hero is beyond me.

    He wasn’t. Not even close.

    I’m sensing deja vu here comrades, I think I’ve written this before lol.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — October 12, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

  9. Chav seems to think barking at people and explaining why everyone else’s politics are garbage is the way Marxists should function within movements. History says otherwise. He probably would have felt right at home in the CPUSA telling the Bonus Marchers to go home and fight for unemployment insurance.

    Comment by Binh — October 12, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

  10. I really didn’t see anything in Chav’s comment about going down to OWS and trashing other peoples politics. Political disagreements do normally happen “organically” in movements. And shouldn’t Marxists function as Marxists within movements? Something the CPUSA rarely did.

    Comment by Rick Tudor — October 12, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

  11. Finally, a some sensible arguments re OWS http://www.www.socialistworker.org/2011/10/11/autonomous-on-wall-street

    Comment by Chav — October 12, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

  12. http://www.www.socialistworker.org/2011/10/11/autonomous-on-wall-street

    Very disappointing. It shows that the ISO simply doesn’t get it. First of all, it is a big mistake to polemicize in this fashion without allowing the reader to see what the “opponent” is saying in their own words. Who knows what these “prefigurationists” are saying? If they are saying that a future society should embody the ideals of solidarity and equality that can be seen in Zuccotti Square, what is the big deal? The article also says that you “could examine any revolution and see that demands have been central to building revolutionary struggle.” I am afraid that this is just stupid. People occupying down on Wall Street must not be compared to Spain in 1936 or your historical fetish of the moment. They are young people (and some older) who are protesting injustice. The ISO should stop embarrassing itself.

    Comment by louisproyect — October 12, 2011 @ 9:51 pm

  13. Rick wrote:

    “I really didn’t see anything in Chav’s comment about going down to OWS and trashing other peoples politics.”

    Did you follow the link?

    It’s not “trashing other people’s politics;” it’s ignoring the reality of others’ lives when you really should, at the very least, acknowledge their problems exist instead of just writing them out of the story (even out of ignorance). Not only is it a decent thing to do, but it also can win you some friends.

    “shouldn’t Marxists function as Marxists within movements?”

    Leaving aside the curious notion of “Marxists functioning as Marxists” (whatever that means), do you believe that Marxists should simply leave their brains and hearts at the door and just nod at whatever gets said until their heads rattle? That is the point Chav is making, and it’s not a good one.

    Comment by Todd — October 12, 2011 @ 11:29 pm

  14. Uncoordinated notes on my third visit to Occupy Wall Street – Wednesday, October 12 – About 9:00 PM

    1) The sensory impression of the Occupation at night is completely different than from the day. People are entirely within the barriers (still a large area of a full city block) and everything feels more concentrated, more intense.

    2) The impression is of even less politics at night than during the day. I had hoped to see a General Assembly or some large-scale discussion going on but no such.

    3) People are talking, talking, talking to each other. But there are few buttons, leaflets or any common method of conveying points of view. We are still at a very pre-poltical stage.

    4) The music and dancing (it shuts down at 10:00 PM) were intense, almost frightening. My wife, a professional singer and song writer said that the music was neither angry nor fearful by a way of avoiding anger and feear: “pure trance,” she called it.

    5) Absolutely no indication of the presence of organized labor or the organized Left.

    6) People are well supplied with food and plastic tarps against the weather. It rained briefly tonight, and the temperature is about 60 F with a wind blowing.

    Comment by RED DAVE — October 13, 2011 @ 1:53 am

  15. Hit bankers where it hurts:


    Out of curiosity, how many here have been in a union?, or been a shop steward?, or a union organizing campaign?, or negotiated a contract and/or dispute and/or represented an employee in an administrative hearing?

    The situation of OWS is essentially workers negotiating a labor/consumer contract with cartel capitalism = local national ‘publics’ negotiating social contracts with the affiliates of global capital in their countries.

    The OWS masses are concerned with survival issues, not ideology. And, they’re in no mood to be suckered by tourists, “stars” and demagogues. I suspect that instead of a monolithic political movement, OWS will spawn a myriad of individual activist careers. Each person returning to the world after their personal OWS pilgrimage will be a carrier of revolution, to be enacted in their subsequent lives, and in their own unique ways.

    Comment by Manuel Garcia, Jr. — October 13, 2011 @ 3:58 am

  16. Rick, my comment to Chav was a follow-up to an exchange we had on another post about Occupy Wall Street: https://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/encounters-with-occupy-wall-street/

    Political disagreements arise in the course of movements. The problem is that Leninists take this as an invitation to “intervene” by making formally correct but sterile/besides-the-point arguments to “prove” their politics are superior to whomever is actually leading said movement by writing stuff like this: http://www.www.socialistworker.org/2011/10/11/autonomous-on-wall-street

    Articles like this totally miss the fact that OWS’s structure is of tremendous propaganda value to socialists. Here is living proof that the right-wingers are totally wrong when they claim greed, lust for power/domination, and “human nature” will make any socialist, communist, or anarchist social experiment impossible. They have not set up a state machine or developed class divisions either.

    Instead, we are treated to an abstract treatise comparing OWS to the utopian socialist communes that were created in rural areas, far away from the working classes concentrated in urban centers. This comparison is totally wrong and really ironic given that OWS in the space of a month has mobilized more workers and oppressed people than all of the American Leninist groups put together in the last three decades. If anything, they ought to be trying to figure out the secret to OWS’s success.

    None of the “prefigurationists” in OWS is stupid enough to think that they are in the midst of creating a society autonomous from capitalism and the state when they all use the nearby McDonald’s bathroom, use iPhones to organize, and depend on Wifi to send live video over the internet of the protest.

    The article misrepresents the real arguments in order to make correct but abstract points that don’t connect with or address people’s real concerns or questions on these issues.

    Comment by Binh — October 13, 2011 @ 4:46 am

  17. Here are some 1-percenters cheering OWS on:


    Marxists aren’t the only ones trying to win hearts and minds at OWS — there’s competition.

    Comment by Manuel Garcia, Jr. — October 13, 2011 @ 5:21 am

  18. The SEP/WSWS has done the best job of combining regular reporting on the Occupy events together some specific well-measured arguments for their own point of view. It should certainly be expected and welcomed that socialists will have criticisms of the way this has been handled. But it is also the job of any would-be “workers news” outlet to actually carry out some honest reporting of such an event. Something like this


    is a good style for a socialist outlet to follow. We have the critical comments:

    “The action continues to bear a deeply contradictory character. It remains without a program—and susceptible to a pro-Democratic Party influence though the unions and the media, but is swelled by a growing number of people who are hard pressed by the lack of jobs and educational debt… The SEIU has lavishly funded the representatives of Wall Street in the Democratic Party. The union was the top contributor to the Barack Obama campaign at $28 million, and its former president, Andy Stern, had met with the Obama over 50 times before his resignation from the union post in April 2010.”

    But along with that there are interviews with people on the street, the way that one should expect a news reporter to do.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — October 13, 2011 @ 12:51 pm

  19. @Binh: Thanks for the thoughtful and clear response. And I agree with most of it -except that my respect for Lenin would keep me from using “Leninists” as a pejorative for the type of “vanguard” leftist you’re describing.

    @Todd: First, thanks for the pedantic tone. When I commented “Marxists functioning as Marxists” I meant that you can be there to respect, build & support a movement, a strike, a rally etc…without hiding or obscuring your politics. Second, thanks for the tip on how “win you some friends.” I’ve done OK so far.

    @Manuel:You asked, “Out of curiosity, how many here have been in a union?, or been a shop steward?, or a union organizing campaign?, or negotiated a contract and/or dispute and/or represented an employee in an administrative hearing?”

    All of the above.

    Comment by Rick Tudor — October 13, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

  20. Rick, I don’t use Leninist as a pejorative. I use the terminology said groups use to describe themselves even though none of them have much in common with the practice of Lenin or the Bolsheviks (I outlined some of this here: https://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/a-response-to-paul-leblancs-marxism-and-organization/)

    Comment by Binh — October 13, 2011 @ 3:01 pm

  21. Manuel, you were saying that Herman Cain commented that the protesters are un-American?

    That’s quite amusing taking into considering his comments about blacks in America playing the victim card etc. etc.

    He’s a racist who blames America’s blacks for their own struggles in society.

    Isn’t racism un-American?

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — October 13, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

  22. Rick wrote:

    “First, thanks for the pedantic tone.”

    You’re welcome. Thanks for asking the question that allowed me to exercise it.

    “When I commented ‘Marxists functioning as Marxists’ I meant that you can be there to respect, build & support a movement, a strike, a rally etc…without hiding or obscuring your politics.”


    I never realized that all of that stuff was contained in the phrase “Marxists functioning as Marxists”.

    (I never realized Marxists had functions, but what do I know?)

    “Second, thanks for the tip on how ‘win you some friends.’ I’ve done OK so far.”

    If you’ve acted like the guy who had written “being one race, the human race, formerly divided by race, class…” in the official Declaration of the Occupation, you can do better.

    Comment by Todd — October 13, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

  23. Of course Marxists need to be an organic part of the movement. I’m not condoning vanguardist sects that commit ‘raids’ on campaigns, all I am saying is that they have a right, nay a duty, to caucus, establish their ideas on how to take the movement forward and argue for them in the General Assemblies. The success of their intervention will be determined by how relevant and effective those ideas seem and how they make their arguments.

    If for example, you think the preconfigurationists are wrong, then you can say that AND do your upmost to be involved and support the movement at the same time. Likewise with consensus decision making.

    Anyway, I believe OWS is under threat from Bloomberg’s goons. Best of luck to you and your struggle!

    Comment by Chav — October 13, 2011 @ 9:20 pm

  24. Can you imagine a Herman Cain presidency?

    If you think the class struggle is bad now, oh brother it would be so much worse under Cain.

    He would make sure to protect his own social class by keeping the insane tax breaks for the rich.

    And the poor who should blame ourselves as he proclaims, will find ourselves with limited if any safety nets left to survive on.

    This anti-entitlement, anti-poor Tea Party star has much disdain for lower income Americans.

    People like him are the very reason why I am outspoken for a classless society and a worker’s state.

    Very judgmental which is easy if you’re a rich person like Cain.

    From the ghetto, raised in a neighborhood filled with the openly conducted business of prostitution and drug dealing and watching the numbers of homeless go up in the city parks each day.

    I am talking about myself comrades. I’ve lived in the projects for 40 years a Jewish Italian Catawban girl from the hood.

    How easy it is for Herman Cain to put down people like me.

    Perhaps my Catawban blood makes me a warrior but my message to Mr. Cain is, you haven’t walked in my shoes so you don’t have a clue what real hardship is about.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — October 13, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

  25. Chav, the General Assemblies are a small and not necessarily decisive part of this movement: http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/10/the-state-of-the-occupation-of-wall-street/

    Comment by Binh — October 14, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

  26. Comment by Binh — October 18, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

  27. […] I have already mentioned in my article on the Bonus Army, one of FDR’s first major pieces of legislation in 1932 was a deficit-hawk Economy Act that […]

    Pingback by Preliminary notes on the New Deal « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — November 9, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: