Top 10 Basic Network Troubleshooting Tools Every IT Pro Should Know

Network troubleshooting tools are a necessity for every network administrator. When getting started in the networking field, it is important to amass a number of tools that can be used to troubleshoot a variety of different network conditions.

While it is true that the the use of specific tools can be subjective and at the discretion of the engineer, the selection of tools in this article has been made based on their generality and common use. This article reviews the top 10 basic tools that can help you troubleshoot most networking issues.

10. Ping

The most commonly used network tool is the ping utility. This utility is used to provide a basic connectivity test between the requesting host and a destination host. This is done by using the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) which has the ability to send an echo packet to a destination host and a mechanism to listen for a response from this host. Simply stated, if the requesting host receives a response from the destination host, this host is reachable. This utility is commonly used to provide a basic picture of where a specific networking problem may exist. For example, if an Internet connection is down at an office, the ping utility can be used to figure out whether the problem exists within the office or within the network of the Internet provider. Figure 1 below shows an example of the ping utility being used to obtain the reachability status of the locally connected router.

Figure 1: Ping utility

9. Tracert/traceroute

Typically, once the ping utility has been used to determine basic connectivity, the tracert/traceroute utility can used to determine more specific information about the path to the destination host including the route the packet takes and the response time of these intermediate hosts. Figure 2 below shows an example of the tracert utility being used to find the path from a host inside an office to www.google.com. The tracert utility and traceroute utilities perform the same function but operate on different operating systems, Tracert for Windows machines and traceroute for Linux/*nix based machines.

Figure 2: Tracert/traceroute utility

8. Ipconfig/ifconfig

One of the most important things that must be completed when troubleshooting a networking issue is to find out the specific IP configuration of the variously affected hosts. Sometimes this information is already known when addressing is configured statically, but when a dynamic addressing method is used, the IP address of each host can potentially change often. The utilities that can be used to find out this IP configuration information include the ipconfig utility on Windows machines and the ifconfig utility on Linux/*nix based machines. Figure 3 below shows an example of the ifconfig utility showing the IP configuration information of a queries host.

Figure 3: Ifconfig utility

7. Nslookup

Some of the most common networking issues revolve around issues with Dynamic Name System (DNS) address resolution issues. DNS is used by everyone using the Internet to resolve commonly known domain names (i.e. google.com) to commonly unknown IP addresses (i.e. 74.125.115.147). When this system does not work, most of the functionality that people are used to goes away, as there is no way to resolve this information. The nslookup utility can be used to lookup the specific IP address(es) associated with a domain name. If this utility is unable to resolve this information, there is a DNS issue. Along with simple lookup, the nslookup utility is able to query specific DNS servers to determine an issue with the default DNS servers configured on a host. Figure 4 below shows an example of how the nslookup utility can be used to query the associated IP address information.

Figure 4: Nslookup utility

6. Netstat

Often, one of the things that are required to be figured out is the current state of the active network connections on a host. This is very important information to find for a variety of reasons. For example, when verifying the status of a listening port on a host or to check and see what remote hosts are connected to a local host on a specific port. It is also possible to use the netstat utility to determine which services on a host that is associated with specific active ports. Figure 5 below shows an example of the netstat utility being used to display the currently active ports on a Linux machine.

Figure 5: Netstat utility

5. PuTTY/Tera Term

When connecting to a variety of different types of equipment, a telnet, SSH or serial client is required; when this is required both the puTTY and Tera Term programs are able to provide these functionalities. The selection of one over the other is strictly a personal preference. Figures 6 and 7 below show both puTTY and Tera Term being used to connect to a host via SSH.

Full article > https://www.pluralsight.com/blog/it-ops/network-troubleshooting-tools

Trump administration grudgingly faces reality on the Iran nuclear deal

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sent a letter, April 19, to House Speaker Paul Ryan announcing that Iran appears to be in compliance with a multi-nation agreement aimed at limiting Tehran's access to nuclear material. (Reuters)

As a candidate for the presidency, Donald Trump agreed with all his Republican colleagues that the Iran nuclear deal that the United States negotiated along with China, Russia, Great Britain, France and Germany was a disaster, a catastrophe, a calamity. But now, the Trump administration is taking the position that it might actually be working out fine:

The Trump administration has notified Congress that Iran is complying with the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama, and says the U.S. has extended the sanctions relief given to the Islamic republic in exchange for curbs on its atomic program.

However, in a letter sent late Tuesday to House Speaker Paul Ryan, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the administration has undertaken a full review of the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

While that review might be a preview to some future action to undermine the agreement, what we’re seeing here is yet another iteration of a now-familiar pattern, in which candidate Trump made absurd claims and promises, but then President Trump is forced to confront reality and backtracks from the dangerous or simply ridiculous positions he took before. That has happened on a wide variety of domestic and foreign issues; just this week we learnedthat the administration may not pull out of the Paris climate accord after all, despite Trump’s prior belief that climate change is a hoax concocted by the Chinese to harm American manufacturers.

On the campaign trail, Trump called the Iran agreement, in which it curtailed its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, “the dumbest deal perhaps I’ve ever seen in the history of deal-making.” At various times he threatened to tear it up: “My number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” But he never said much about what specifically he objected to in the agreement, other than the fact that it was negotiated by the Obama administration and so therefore it must be bad.

Interactive > http://tinyurl.com/ycxtgsqg

In this he was no different from most Republicans. He did complain about the fact that the deal included the release of Iranian funds that had been frozen in western and Asian banks, though he described it in false terms, as though he believed that American taxpayers were simply handing over cash to the Iranian regime. “We give them $150 billion, we get nothing,” he’d say, which was false in multiple ways. First, we weren’t “giving” them anything — the funds in question belong to Iran. Second, it wasn’t anywhere near $150 billion; estimates of what they would actually get were more in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion. But again, it’s their money. And as to whether we “get nothing,” what we got were restrictions on their ability to pursue nuclear weapons, which was the whole point.

But as with most complex policy issues, there was no indication Trump had any idea what he was talking about. When speaking to AIPAC in March 2016, he said, “I’ve studied this issue in great detail — I would say actually greater by far than anybody else.” The audience, which was largely friendly to him, burst into laughter.

So where are we now, and where do we go from here? While it’s within the Trump administration’s authority to abandon the deal, doing so would accomplish less than nothing. First, the agreement includes those five other world powers, which haven’t shown any interest in canceling it. So Iran and those countries could uphold the agreement without the United States. The administration could impose more sanctions on Iran, but the reason the old sanctions regime was effective in crippling Iran’s economy was that so much of the world upheld it; if only the United States imposed new sanctions, Iran could still get much of what it needs elsewhere.

Alternatively, Iran could decide to walk away from the deal if the United States does, which would mean kicking out the inspectors and and lifting restraints on their uranium-enrichment program. How that would be to anyone’s benefit is difficult to fathom.

What almost certainly won’t happen, however, is a complete renegotiation to get a “better” deal as Trump envisions it. The negotiations to arrive at the existing deal were extremely complex and delicate, required extensive technical and diplomatic expertise, and took years to complete. Even if the other countries were interested in a renegotiation, which they aren’t, the Trump administration frankly just isn’t up to it. I’m reminded of how President Barack Obama made Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz part of the negotiating team, because as a renowned nuclear physicist, Moniz’s insights were critical to getting the details right. Trump’s energy secretary is Rick Perry, who, when he was offered the job, was surprised to learn that it didn’t actually consist entirely of promoting American oil and gas.

I don’t doubt that the Iran deal still sticks in Trump’s craw, not only because it was negotiated by the Obama administration, but also because his conception of a “good deal” is one in which we get everything we want and the person on the other side gets nothing. For instance, if you negotiate a deal in which a music store owner sells you a bunch of pianos, then you take the pianos and refuse to pay for them, you’ve made a good deal. Deals have a winner and a loser, and if you’re not the winner, you’re the loser. Trump seems to find the notion of a deal that benefits everyone to be unsettling.

So far, that does seem to be how the Iran deal has worked out: they’ve gotten something they wanted (relief from sanctions), and we’ve gotten something we wanted (curbs on their nuclear program). That doesn’t mean the deal is perfect in every way, or that Iran doesn’t present problems in other areas, or that we might not have future conflicts with them. But as Jim Mattis said during his confirmation hearings for defense secretary, “I think it is an imperfect arms control agreement — it’s not a friendship treaty.” And, “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”

REFLECTIONS ON ETHICAL ASPECTS OF NANOMEDICINE Rafael Capurro

Great article yet very long winded.

These reflections on ethical aspects of nanomedicine are followed by excerpts from  R.A. Freitas' opus magnum with short comments.

On ethical aspects of nanotechnology see:
- The Nanoethics Group
- European Group on Ethics and New Technologies to the European Commission
- Bibliography and Links
- Springer Journal on NanoEthics 

Introduction

According to Freitas nanomedicine is


“ […] (1) the comprehensive monitoring, control, construction, repair, defense, and improvement of all human biological systems, working from the molecular level, using engineered nanodevices and nanostructures; (2) the science and technology of diagnosing, treating, and preventing disease and traumatic injury, of relieving pain, and of preserving and improving human health, using molecular tools and molecular knowledge of the human body; (3) the employment of molecular machine systems to address medical problems, using molecular knowledge to maintain and improve human health at the molecular scale.” (R. A. Freitas:  Nanomedicine, Vol. I: Basic Capabilities, Georgetown (Texas) 1999, p. 418)



Following this vision, nanomedicine will change in a short, middle, and long term perspective the life of individuals and societies in many regards. These changes are of major ethical relevance as far as they concern human self awareness, as well as the respect, responsibility, and care we owe to each other and to the environment. Similar challenges that have been predicted of information technology, genetics and brain research have to be grasped in their convergence. Nanomedicine should be ethically located, as Freitas does, within a healing vision without excluding the question of enhancement. 



Ethical Aspects of Nanomedicine on a short, middle, and long term perspective


The ethics of nanomedicine can be conceived as prospective responsibility on a short, middle, and long term perspective (5, 10, 20 years). But obviously this kind of predictions are subject to unexpected breakthroughs.


On a short term perspective nanomedicine faces ethical questions that arise mainly from the knowledge gaps concerning the risks of interventions using:

Nanomedical products
Nanocosmetic products
Nanodelivery vehicles / systems / implants
Nanodiagnostic tests
In general, due to the present lack of knowledge the precautionary principle, i.e., the responsibility to take preventive action to avoid harm to human health or the environment in a situation where knowledge gaps prevail, should be applied particularly in case of the invasive use of nanotechnology in the human body. There are knowledge gaps with regard to the toxicity of nanoparticles and nanomaterials not only for the human body but also for the environment. 

The dangers of affecting the human brain with nanotechnology are among the most controversial ethical aspects particularly if such interventions are beyond a healing perspective. The preservation of human identity should be respected in all such interventions as well as in research projects dealing with them.

On a middle term perspective nanodevices and nanomedical products will be used in all medical fields. This rises ethical questions of responsibility at a local and global level. Particularly questions of data protection and privacy arise as in the case of genetic testing. Nanodiagnostic tests will rise the question of healing expectations that in many cases will not be fulfilled. The gap between diagnostic and healing possibilities will affect the relation between the physician and the patient concerning informed consent as well as the right of the patient not to know. Nanomedical implants, drugs and treatments will rise the question of justice and fairness in the health care system as well as between rich and poor societies (nano divide) in case such drugs and treatments do not happen to be better and cheaper as the ones used today which is one of the promises of nanomedicine so far. 


There is  also the question of patents in this field, i.e., the question whether artificial configurations of chemical elements can be considered as inventions.



On a long term perspective nanotechnology envisages not only the creation of autonomous nanomachines to be used inside the human body but the enhancement and even transformation of the human body and human identity particularly in case they were used to modify the human brain.


The use of nanomachines in the human body implies the risk that due to a damage in the onboard computer this could not be appropriately steered. The threat of nanomachines  (fighting nanorobots) will become real not only in war situations but also in case they were produced and used by terrorists in everyday life. This could also lead to new forms of ubiquitous surveillance and monitoring becoming a new threat to privacy and autonomy.


From an ethical viewpoint it is not desirable to create autonomous nanomachines as far as they could become not only out of control but even able of acting in an own initiative (automated decision-making) eventually against their human designers. This so called black goo scenario is at present purely science fiction but it shows ad limine not only undesirable but also unacceptable effects of what sometimes is being called a transhumanist vision. This vision becomes a nightmare in case the human race is conceived as something capable of being superseded on the basis of nanotechnological self annihilation. The reverse is a healing vision in which nanomedicine is viewed at the heart of a human- and  life-centered scenario. This vision is affirmative towards technology in general and nanotechnology in particular as far as any technology means a transcendence of what is naturally given by creating something artificial. In other words, technology belongs to human self understanding. The ethical limits of self-manipulation arise at the moment when such changes become a threat to human self awareness based on a radical transformation of the human body. But this limit leaves a broad field of possible applications that will concern the enhancement of human capabilities which are not per se a threat to human dignity but might lead to a better life through an improvement of healing methods, new materials improving the quality of life etc. It is difficult to foresee now such positive and negative effects including the gray goo scenario, i.e., the impact of self-replicating nanomachines in the ecosphere. 





Conclusion

The view of the human body from a nano perspective is basically reductionist  similar for instance to the view of the human brain as a computer, now a nano-computer. This reductionist view can give rise to the naturalistic fallacy, i.e., to the idea that human phenomena can be changed or influenced at the nano level without telling the manipulator what changes are more or less desirable. It enforces the misleading belief that all human diseases could eventually be treated and eliminated by advanced nanotechnology. The potential benefits of nanomedicine are wrongly extrapolated into a view of the human being as a mere composition of atoms and molecules. It is hard to believe that on the basis of manipulations at the nano level the condition humaine between birth and death can be changed. 

The utopian idea of a longer life of, say, two or three hundred years on the basis of nano-manipulation looks at least from the perspective of today’s political and economic situation more like a nightmare than a utopia. It can be considered also a cynical perspective in view of what should and could be done with the help of nanomedicine in order to alleviate real human pain. Such utopian visions are misleading not only with regard to the expectations of patients but also of the public opinion and of politicians responsible for public funds for research projects envisaging such perspectives. 



ANNEX

Freitas' on Ethics of Nanomedicine with Short Comments


Freitas' outstanding book on Nanomedicine is quoted from: http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI.htm



1) 21st Century Medicine 
http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/1.2.1.13.htm
"The very earliest nanotechnology-based biomedical systems may be used to help resolve many difficult scientific questions that remain. They may also be employed to assist in the brute-force analysis of the most difficult three-dimensional structures among the 100,000-odd proteins of which the human body is comprised, or to help ascertain the precise function of each such protein. But much of this effort should be complete within the next 20-30 years because the reference human body has a finite parts list, and these parts are already being sequenced, geometered and archived at an ever-increasing pace. Once these parts are known, then the reference human being as a biological system is at least physically specified to completeness at the molecular level. Thereafter, nanotechnology-based discovery will consist principally of examining a particular sick or injured patient to determine how he or she deviates from molecular reference structures, with the physician then interpreting these deviations in light of their possible contribution to, or detraction from, the general health and the explicit preferences of the patient. In brief, nanomedicine will employ molecular machine systems to address medical problems, and will use molecular knowledge to maintain human health at the molecular scale.".

Full article > http://www.capurro.de/nanoethics.html

How to unlock cellphones

https://www.systemsnicaragua.com/hot-new-tech

The 10 Most Overlooked Tax Deductions / Turbotax

https://www.systemsnicaragua.com/hot-new-tech

29 Smart Ways to Make Money on the Side in 2017

https://www.systemsnicaragua.com/hot-new-tech

The Bush Family Made It's Fortune From Nazi Germany

*People call Edward Snowden a traitor and Why Did George Bush Buy Nearly 300,000 acres in Paraguay?

Here we go >

“A  famous American family” made its fortune from the Nazis, according to John Loftus’ documented historical analysis.    

The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush: 

From 1945 until 1949 in Nuremberg, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.

 Multibillionaire steel magnate Fritz Thyssen-the man whose steel combine was the cold heart of the Nazi war machine-talked and talked and talked to a joint US-UK interrogation team.

… What the Allied investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks.

He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents – stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts–from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker [father in law of Prescott Bush]. Thyssen’s partners in crime were the father and [grandfather] of a future President of the United States [George Herbert Walker Bush]. (John Loftus, How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis: The Dutch Connection, Global Research, February 2002, edit by GR)

The American public is not aware of the links of the Bush family to Nazi Germany because the historical record has been carefully withheld by the mainstream media.

In September 2004, however, The Guardian revealed that:

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. ( Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, How the Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitlers Rise to Power,   Guardian, September 25, 2004)

The more fundamental question is not whether Prescott Bush helped Adolph Hitler (image below). From a historical perspective, what is important is how the rise to power of Adolph Hitler was supportive of  US business interests in Germany.

US  Presidential Elections

The Guardian article was published on September 25, 2004 at the height of the US election campaign which led to the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on Tuesday November 2nd 2004.

Deafening silence. The US media provided no coverage of GWB’s family history. Had the American people known that the Bush family had links to Nazi Germany, John Kerry would have won the presidency in 2004 in a landslide.

Similarly, Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency in 1989 against George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, had this been revealed to the American people in the wake of the Nuremberg trials (1945-1949), Bush Senior would never have entered politics and his father Prescott Bush would never have become Senator.

Is there a pattern?  Do you have to be a wealthy war criminal to accede to high office?

Prescott Bush had links to Nazi Germany, Bush Senior and George W. Bush had links to the Bin Laden Family…

What must be ensured  to protect American democracy is that none of these “awkward truths” which reveal the crimes committed by prominent politicians be the object of media coverage. Needless to say, propaganda is essential to uphold the legitimacy of presidential candidates in the eyes of public opinion.

War Crimes. Crimes against Humanity

Nazi war crimes with the complicity of Wall Street and the Bush family?

US war crimes committed by Bush Junior in Iraq (2003), Bush Senior (the Gulf War, 1991), Is there a relationship?

What was the role of the late senator Prescott Bush in his dealings with Nazi Germany:

While the president’s [George W. Bush]  father had dealings with the bin Ladens, his grandfather [Prescott Bush] made a considerable share of the family fortune through his dealings with Nazi Germany. Some have suggested that the Bushes’ assets have their ultimate source, in part, in the exploitation of slave labor at Auschwitz itself.

…

Loftus argues that this money—a substantial sum at that time—included direct profit from the slave labor of those who died at Auschwitz.

In an interview with journalist Toby Rogers, the former prosecutor said:

“It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied solders. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen’s coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family’s complicity.” (emphasis added)

Prescott Bush was by no means unique, though his financial connections with the Third Reich were perhaps more intimate than most. Henry Ford was an avowed admirer of Hitler, and together GM and Ford played the predominant role in producing the military trucks that carried German troops across Europe. After the war, both auto companies demanded and received reparations for damage to their German plants caused by allied bombing. (Bill Venn, A presidential visit to Auschwitz, The Holocaust and the Bush family fortune, WSWS.org,  5 June 2003)

Evidence of the Bush family’s  links to Nazism was available well before George Herbert Walker Bush (Senior)  and George W. Bush entered politics. According to John Buchanan (New Hampshire Gazette, 10 October 2003):

After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law. Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.

While Prescott Bush’s “company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, George W. Bush’s grandfather was never prosecuted for his business dealings with  Nazi Germany.

Full article > http://tinyurl.com/goprpf9

Is the Amero Real?

*This is very old news yet you may not have heard of it.

*And did we send 800 billion to China to further demonetize the US dollar?

Financial Chaos and the Dollar’s Demise

Posted on December 19, 2008 | 6 comments

Here are two very important items that have come my way recently. They help to fill in the picture of what is happening and what is about to happen that will profoundly effect the lives of everyone on the planet. This is no time to be complacent or distracted by trivia. — t.h.g.

Hal Turner Displays the Amero Note

A short time back I reported that Hal Turner had displayed a purported official Amero coin on YouTube. Now I’ve received an email containing material from his website in which he is displaying a purported official Amero note.

You can read all about it and see a picture of the note here.

Turner  reports that, “Two days ago, YouTube/Google notified me that my video had been deleted and my account permanently closed at the request of the United States Treasury Department. The Treasury department told YouTube/Google that my video was ‘destabilizing the U.S. Dollar and was thus a threat to national security’.”

He further claims that “In October, 2008, I received word that the U.S. government shipped 800 Billion AMEROS to the China development bank,” and that he is aware of plans to soon demonetize the dollar and devaluate it by 90%. Alarmist fantasy? Perhaps, but the past few years have shown the powers that bebecoming ever more brazen in their looting of the American economy and forcing the lower and middle classes to pay the cost. I’ve seen no independent confirmation of Turner’s allegations but in light of what I know about monetary and banking history, together with the most recent political and financial malfeasance, nothing would surprise me. This is a plausible scenario. The American economy, its financial system, and the US dollar could not have been more badly managed if the people in charge had tried. Well, is it unreasonable to conclude that they have indeed been trying? You and I and the great majority have been forced for a very long time to play Santa Clause to those who have been the naughtiest. When will we put a stop to it?

Dennis Kucinich’s amazing story

Everyone should read the amazing story of Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s battle with the banks during his tenure as Mayor of Cleveland. I received it in an email just a couple days ago from the Kucinich Committee. The article, Rep. Dennis Kucinich on His Battle With the Banks, it says was originally posted by Congressman Kucinich on December 15 at truthdig.com. You can still find it there. The story has all the elements of a fictional drama, including conspiracy, harassment, and assassination attempts. It’s a story that, on a localized scale, is reminiscent of Andrew Jackson’s “Bank War” against Nicholas Biddle and the Second Bank of the United States.

Kucinich is clearly a courageous champion of the public interest.

This will require further study.

100 Life Hacks That Make Life Easier

Want to learn some quick and easy life hacks that are easy to do, low cost and saves you time? You’re in luck. We have collected 100 of these practical life hacks into this one big list that is easy to digest because they’re all images! By tweaking little things, it can make your life much easier. Enjoy!

https://www.systemsnicaragua.com/hot-new-tech